معماری گوتیک و فلسفه مدرسی

by Erwin Panofsky, هادی ربیعی (مترجم)

اروین پانوفسکی یکی از متفکران بزرگ قرن بیستم بود. وی در آلمان متولد شد و به تحصیل پرداخت. در دانشگاه هامبورگ به تدریس تاریخ هنر پرداخت و سپس به همراه خانواده اش مجبور به فرار از رژیم نازی شد. وی عضو مؤسسه ی مطالعات پیشرفته ی پرینستون شد و در سال 1948 دومین درس‌گفتار سالانه ی ویمر در کالج سن وینسنت را ایراد کرد. پانوفسکی متواضعانه درس گفتار خود را «تلاش همراه با تردید دیگری برای برقرار کردن ارتباط میان معماری گوتیک و فلسفه ی مدرسی» توصیف کرد، اما این اثر بیش از نیم قرن به زبان های متعددی منتشر شد. این متفکر دقیق و عمیق از موهبت تحصیلات کلاسیک به همراه عشقی وافر به تفکر قرون وسطایی برخوردار بود. درس گفتارهای ویمر او به هیئت گواهی بر تکریم انسانی ممتاز نسبت به میراث انسان گرایی مسیحی برجای مانده است.

Genres: Art, Architecture, History, Art History, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Medieval

172 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1951

About the author

Erwin Panofsky was a German art historian, whose academic career was pursued almost entirely in the U.S. after the rise of the Nazi regime. In 1935, while teaching concurrently at New York University and Princeton University (something he continued to do his entire career), he was invited to join the faculty of the newly formed Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. From 1947 to 1948 Panofsky was the Charles Eliot Norton professor at Harvard University.

Panofsky's work remains highly influential in the modern academic study of iconography. Many of his works remain in print, including Studies in Iconology: Humanist Themes in the Art of the Renaissance (1939), and his eponymous 1943 study of Albrecht Dürer. His work has greatly influenced the theory of taste developed by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, in books such as The Rules of Art or Distinction. In particular, Bourdieu first adapted his notion of habitus from Panofsky's Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism.

Reviews

[Octavio]

Cada vez tengo más claro que los buenos libros de historia son aquellos que carecen de toda cientificidad. Absueltos de ésta, quedan dos géneros posibles: la historia como discurso estético y la historia como discurso político. El segundo suele ser execrable por su fogosidad y su utilitarismo, y porque normalmente se sirve de la tergiversación cuando no de la pura mentira. El primero, en cambio, siempre deleitará a los espíritus delicados, y es el único por el que merece la pena seguir apreciando ese viejo cajón de sastre (y de desastre) que es la historia de los hombres, y que Heródoto comenzó a poner en negro sobre blanco allá cuando los dioses no habían abandonado a los hombres.

[Oleksii Dolhuliov]

Навіщо мені знати, як англійською буде "організація стіни під трифорієм і зміцнення колон нефа"

[Andrew]

Author attempts to show connection between High Gothic architecture and High Scholasticism. Most Gothic architects trained in the same area within one hundred miles of Paris and therefore were trained in similar ways and had run-ins with the scholastic thinkers who also thrived in this area. Looking at architecture from Early, High (roughly 1200-1250 AD), and Late Gothic periods, the author finds several points where the architecture parallels Scholastic thought, especially during the High period. This is mainly illustrated by explaining floor plans and colonnade styles. Cathedrals became progressively more vertical and simplified. The "final" style is of a cross with two towers at near the entrance at the nave. Scholastic writers emphasized organization in their books and "clarification for clarification's sake," which Panofsky also sees in the parallel architectural forms, the unconcealedness of buttresses, and glorious light pouring in from the windows. Panofsky also stresses the Scholastic desire to work from authorities (citationality) and to utilize disputando to resolve contradictions - this is Scholastic dialectics. However, Panofsky's explicit historical evidence for architects using Scholastic reasoning and methods isn't very strong, as it is illustrated by only one document and the dubious correlations of proximity. Perhaps there is more to buttress (sorry for the pun) this claim, but it is not provided for in this lecture or in its notes. Lastly, many seem to be attributing this book as the "source" of Bourdieu's habitus, however, the term is not used one time in the text. The argument for parallelism of philosophy and art, as he himself explains, did not begin with him. In fact, he simply finds this period serves as a very good and consistent example of such a crossover. My point is that habitus is found in Aristotle and a number of Scholastic thinkers, and while Panofsky provides an example of a relationship between place or culture and how architects and artisans might behave, he was not the first to originate the term or the concept.

[Alessandra De Marchi]

A perfect illustration of Panofsky’s analogy system is embodied in this relatively short essay, whose clear structure justifies describing it as written in a pure Scholastic fashion.

The analogy drawn by Panofsky is substantiated through careful historical research on the works of the great High Medieval masters responsible for the most renowned French cathedrals of the 1200s: Chartres, Reims, and Amiens being the most frequently cited examples.

From the parallel between Scholastic logic and Gothic architecture, we learn that the design of High Medieval churches underwent a profound shift toward systematic structural planning, distinguishing them from their Early Medieval predecessors such as the celebrated Notre-Dame of Paris.
What makes this essay particularly engaging is the series of architectural case studies that Panofsky presents to clarify his central claim: that Medieval architects conceived their projects in much the same way as Scholastic philosophers organized their texts, according to a sequential and logical system of introduction, division into chapters, and conclusions.

To simplify his complex analysis: in Notre-Dame, the tripartite division of the façade is not mirrored in the cathedral’s internal composition, neither in the naves nor in the rose window. This contrasts with the School of Reims’s Saint-Nicaise, which, according to Panofsky, achieved a decisive solution:

“The rose was inscribed within the pointed arch of a huge window, thereby becoming elastic, as it were. It could be lowered so as not to conflict with the vaults; the space beneath it could be filled with mullions and glass. The whole arrangement mirrored the cross section of the nave, and yet the window remained a window and the rose a rose.”

This culminating passage serves as the essay’s climax, a striking parallel between Scholastic reasoning and the architectural innovations of the School of Reims. Both systems, architectural and intellectual, strive for a reconciliation of parts within a unified whole. By the time Panofsky reaches this point, the reader is left with the sense that Gothic cathedrals and Scholastic treatises were not merely products of the same age, but two expressions of the same system of thought: a medieval pursuit of order through complexity and of harmony through structure.

[jonnu]

sina (skolastika🫤) ja mina(gootika🥵)oleme üks? oleme lahutamatud? nooo maaa ei tea

[Damla]

Zorunlu DNF.

Acaba hoca bana bu kitabı önerirken ne düşünüyordu? Mimarlık ile alakası olmayan bir sosyal bilimcinin bunu anlamasını beklemesi çok ilginç. Kendisinin okuduğu konusunda şüpheliyim. Notre Dame'ın Kamburu'nu okumadan önce okumak istemiştim.

[Trientalis]

hope avoir la moyenne

[Solomon Chrysostom Selah]

Fascinating! This book is short but the content is outstanding.

The first thing that needs to be pointed out is that the essay begins with a brief analysis of history of Scholastic philosophy with deep understanding. After reading, it helps me to clarify my confusion on labyrinthic development of Scholasticism.

Secondly, it is the author's main point that needs to be evaluated. In the author's view, Scholastic thinking, narrative styles and writing structures, can be highly coupled with the component styles and spatial representations of Gothic architecture. Here he is talking about heterogeneous isomorphism. Moreover, he goes further by pointing out that this phenomenon of isomorphism is causal, not accidental. Of course, we must not forget that this theory of analogy is very dangerous, but Panofsky seems to indicate "analogy" in a broader sense. "Analogy”, for him, is a general(universal) portrait of era with the same undergoing logic. Similarly, in his view, when historians want to divide the history in different periods, they need to draw on such an analysis of analogy, because only after they find the same structure which is undergoing the society, then, they could recognize the right “period”.

Moreover, outside the main argument, Panofsky deals with the relation of commission between bishops or abbots and architects, medieval education and trades, the formal analysis of Gothic churches, structural forces and structural rationality, and so on. These topics are not completely separated, and the transitions between the various topics are very fluid. So the reading experience is not so bad.

[Kaitlynn Engel]

Stunning connections drawn between thought and structure.

[Craig W.]

In any age ideas consciously or more often unconsciously give shape to the tangible products of society. Edwin Panofsky discusses how characteristic ideas of Scholastic theology and philosophy of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries manifest themselves in Gothic architecture. He asserts that the relationship between theology and architecture is not merely a parallel development nor the specific influence of key individuals but a general and diffuse influence

High Scholasticism sought to demonstrate the unity of truth, faith and reason as mutually supportive. The influence was not so much the application of doctrine as the provision of a modus operandi. Three principles are described, the clarity of truth, the organization of truth and the integrity of the parts. For each principle, Panofsky cites examples of the application of these principles in early and high Gothic churches. The examples chosen show a progress development toward what he calls the “final solution” (an unfortunate choice of terms), viz. the ideal and complete Gothic structure.

It may appear to someone unfamiliar with various theories of the origin of Gothic architecture that Panofsky is guilty of reading a lot into the minds of the builders. Unfortunately there is little contemporary literature to tell us what they really thought. Therefore, the contribution of Panofsky is not so much to overthrow other theories, but to show that ideas that drove one branch of knowledge, could filter into other disciplines. We see this in our own day, just to pick one example, in the Zen influence on product designs from Steve Jobs and Apple.

This brief book (90 pages) was a lecture delivered in 1951. As such it is brief and tantalizing rather than satisfying to anyone inclined to be skeptical. That this is still in print after 60 years means it deserves a read. There are 60 figures and photos to illustrate the architectural examples.

[Alessio]

It's always a treat to read Panofsky and this time was no different. Panofsky’s lucid and enumerative prose seeks to imitate the clear, methodical structure of his primary objects: the Summa and Gothic cathedral. I appreciate how he weaves in Scholastic Latin terms into his discussions of architecture, which further affirms their interpenetration for the reader. There’s also a great deal of historical imagination here, where Panofsky almost inserts himself in the mind’s eye of the medieval builders to understand what they’ve seen and what their structural limitations were:

“Ultimately, the flying buttress learned to talk, the rib learned to work, and both learned to proclaim what they were doing in language more circumstantial, explicit, and ornate than was necessary for mere efficiency”

Finally, there’s a lovely impish humor in his use of modern-day examples that makes this essay more compelling, but more importantly, reinforces what he’s trying to demonstrate about medieval philosophy or art and instantiates his latent argument that we are “unsuspecting heirs to Scholasticism.”

[Caomhghain]

A fascinating thesis proposing that Gothic cathedrals developed on a similar intellectual plan as Scholasticism. He presents rose windows, triforiums and columns in development showing how, as the style developed, problems (questios) were answered only to provide further questions much in the spirit of the Scholastic debate or the operation of a Summa. Up to a point it definitely works though I feel he presses perhaps a little too hard and also wonder why there is no discussion of music, after all the School of Notre Dame arose at the same time and could be seen as having this ever developing and clarifying structure. He very lightly touches on art in pointing out how clarity and regularity in artworks developed - to some extent not dissimilar to the Summa.
Since this is the age which created, thought up, such distinctions as chapter, section and subsection in texts this all seems very likely and I wonder if it has been further studied. I know it has been often attacked.

[Parsa]

عنوان بزرگتر از محتوا
نویسنده، که البته تقریر کننده عنوان بهتری ست، تلاش میکند ارتباط فکری بین معماران گوتیک و فلسفه مدرسی و آموزه های آن را در معماری گوتیک در چند صفحه پیدا کند. هرچند که خودش هم در این کار تردید دارد. ولی به نظر دروازه بزرگی به بحث فلسفه در معماری گشوده است. کتاب خیلی زودتر از آنچه که باید تمام می شود، و تقریبا در بحث ارتباط فلسفه و معماری، تعادل را رعایت نمیکند و بیشتر به جانب معماری پرداخته است. گویی چندان به فلسفه مدرسی تسلط نداشته است.
مترجم تلاش کرده که متن را دقیق پیاده کند ولی متاسفانه حاصل کار روان و خوانا نیست.

[Стефан Петков]

Поредното чудесно издание на "Агата-А". Само не знам защо на задната корица Панофски е представен основно като едва ли не като изучавал основно юриспруденция, при положение че е следвал доста дисциплини, включително история на изкуството - все пак да не забравяме превъзходната му дисертация върху Дюрер. Инак родното издание е достолепно (с изключение на меките корици) с целия научен апарат. Препоръчвам.

[Benn Uzayy]

Gotik mimarlık konusunda teknik konulara bolca değinmiş, alanla ilgili terminolojiye hakim değilseniz, belli seviyede değilseniz paragrafların dışında kalacağınız çok açık. Gotik mimarlık ve Skolastik Felsefe arasındaki ilişkisellik pek doyurucu gelmediği gibi yeterli de bulmadım. Dönemin, çağın Gotik mimariliğinde estetik konusunun beklentilerini, çalışmalarını, arayışlarını da açıklamasını beklemiştim.

[Rafa González]

interesante sin duda, tal vez demasiado fantasioso pero conscientemente fantasioso desde luego. me ha hecho aprender ciertas cosas, aunque había páginas de enumeraciones de evoluciones técnicas en decenas de catedrales francesas y alemanas y ugffgfffff,,,, a veces, solo a veces, odio a los historiadores del arte,,,,,otras tantas los tolero de buena gana,claro,,,,,,,y a mí me perdono porque soy yo y no tengo más remedio que aceptarme, vaya por delante

[Craig Owens]

Erwin Panofsky's book is most effective for readers with a working knowledge of architecture and scholasticism. Additionally, knowing Latin is also helpful. Even if the reader is unfamiliar with the subject, they can still gain valuable insights. Pleasant, quick, and extremely well-written.

[Marilia D. Oliveira]

Um livro sobre arquitetura gótica para quem já sabe sobre arquitetura gótica.

[Registro Luego Existo]

Breve pero intensa lectura sobre la construcción de las catedrales góticas y el pensamiento escolástico.

[Sophia]

Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism download

https://www.fadedpage.com/showbook.ph...

[Ángel Hernández]

que maquina el tío como le sabe

[J]

This book introduced me to a lot of interesting terms and concepts. I confess that there’s a lot of architecture’s jargon – which slows the pace of the reading, since readers not familiar with the theme will probably have to search the meaning of several words – but it doesn’t affects the quality of the book, in my opinion. From a perspective of someone who did not had a lot of knowledge about both scholastic and gothic architecture, I found this book a very interesting and enjoyable read.

[Johann Eriksson]

Rich language not so easy for newcomers, but it produces an amazing analysis on the relationship between the architect and the scholar in the middle aged

[Moncho Veras]

Libro breve, moi interesante para ver a conexión do gótico coa filosofía escolástica, amais de ver as comparacións de algúns dos elementos arquitectónicos (pilar, triforio...) de varias catedrais

[Aaron]

This book has an interesting argument about connections between different arts. However, it's impossible to follow the details of this argument unless you're already familiar with Gothic architecture.

[Ria]

Trebuie să recunosc că am parcurs cartea de la jumătate strict pentru un examen (aflându-se în bibliografia obligatorie). Personal, nu am fost prea clarificată la finalizarea ei, iar lectură a fost destul de greoaie (neavând nicio cunoșțință în acest domeniu m-am tot izbit de termeni specifici, câteodată pierzându-se șirul povestirii în atâtea enumerări și a fost imposibil să țin pasul), dar pentru cineva care deține cunoștințe minime legate de arhitectura gotică (sau cel puțin de arhitectură generală), cred că vine minunat ca o completare.

[Bernard Convert]

De retour de Laon et intrigué par les quatre piliers à colonnettes que l'on trouve près de la croisée du transept, j'ai relu pour la xième fois ce livre que Bourdieu, qui l'a traduit et postfacé, considérait comme "un des plus beaux du monde". Un petit extrait où il est question des portraits à l'époque du gothique tardif où s'impose en philosophie le nominalisme de Guillaume d'Occam : "ces innovations qui reflètent l'esprit empiriste et "particulariste" du nominalisme, le paysage et l'intérieur (...) et le portrait autonome et complètement individualisé qui représente le modèle, pour parler le langage de Pierre Auréole, comme "quelque chose de singulier par soi seul et par rien d'autre", tandis que les portraits un peu plus anciens se contentaient de surimposer une haecceitas scotiste sur une image encore stéréotypée." (p 80)...

[Kerem Demirtas]

After having read this a second time, I cannot help but make a tiny comment. I never really could understand why Panofsky at the last page felt the need to introduce that " ... one scrap of evidence" tht the cathedral builder engaged in a "disputatio" regarding the ideal chevet plan. One feels like he is being unfair to the monumental imagination that goes into the connection he makes between the "quaestione", "videtur quod""sed contra" and respondeo dicendum structure in the scholastic philosophy and the architectural formation of the high gothic cathedrals. It is such a delightful parallel to contemplate I dont know why he felt compelled to introduce the one single scrap of evidence. I for myself did not ask for one :)

[Jessica]

So I decided that it would be culturally irresponsible of me not to take advantage of a course offered this semester in which we will spend the bulk of the semester reading The Divine Comedy. And thus the Gothic.

I have to give props to Panofsky for being slightly funny... he called some scholars "ignoramuses," I laughed. I also have to say that he was clear enough so that a Gothic ignoramus such as myself was actually able to decipher the meaning of Scholasticism and Gothic.

I wish I had known some of this background when I went to the Notre Dame... I would have sounded hella smart!

[Don]

An exploration of similar themes in two contemporaneous disciplines. Found it in the Ireland Library on the campus of St. Thomas University in Saint Paul, MN. Read it for a project in a Medieval Art class.