Interpreting Visuality in the Middle Ages: The Iconographic Paradigm of the Refectory of the Monastery of San Salvador de Oña

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article looks at the interaction between religion, politics and art by examining the use of different iconographic and calligraphic motifs in various medieval Castilian religious sites. The main case study is the refectory of the Monastery of San Salvador de Oña (Burgos), following both the decorative evolution of the vestiges and their significance. It is this adaptation and change of the iconography over time that drives the analysis, showing how political messages and religious legitimization can be fostered and later changed and manipulated. The article finds evidence of details regarding patronage, for example the connections between Alfonso VII and the monastery.

 

The article includes rich and relevant quotes from primary sources, such as that by Fry Iñigo de Barreda, with descriptions of the monastery space and decoration. The quotes are a strength of the article. However the architecture is prented in less of an organized fashion. The article focuses on symbols of authority and religious dogmas in the refectory of the monastery. For example, the description of the refectory comes only at line 177, it would be useful to have a plan / photo and description earlier in the article, and certainly before the description of the later phases. The presentation of the architectural space remains unclear throughout. 

 

Specific comments:

This opening paragraph should reference some scholarship for which this statement is true: 

“The confluence between religion, politics, and art has been an area of great interest and has focused a large number of studies throughout history. The representation of different iconographic and calligraphic motifs in monastic and religious locations has been used as a very efficient dissemination tool, not only of the doctrines associated with Christian principles, but also of the various political positions existing in the Spanish Middle Ages”. 

 

I don’t know the term ‘will try to analyze polyhedrally’ perhaps other readers are not familiar with it either and it should either be explained or re-phrased? 

 

The term ‘monastic enclave’ (as oppose the just monastery) could also be explained perhaps. 

 

Here it would be useful for the reader to have a physical description of the monastery or at least of the art work, otherwise he/she does not know what the artistic display is greater than: “And it is during this century, the 15th and early 16th century, when we can see a greater artistic display in the monastery in the form of decorative and architectural reforms located around the cloister, the church, the chapter house, and the refectory”. 

 

The description of construction phases begins with Phase 4, this is extremely confusing. The author would help the reader by explaining what was extant before phase 4 even if going into detail only from this phase onwards. If the reader has yet to read a description of the space there is not enough information to understand such sentences as: “modifications are made to the main chapel where the walls of the main chapel are widened, enlarging the space and eliminating the Romanesque apse of three apses”. The three apses have not yet been presented. Thus also the following sentence: We assume that during this period the configuration of the cycle of animalistic capitals of the eastern toral closures of 117 the transept and the mural of Santa María Egipciaca would also be carried out.

In this sentence it is unclear why the lavatory is relevant and why the author refers to the monastery as a temple: “although it is not possible to recover the source of the lavatory located in the temple at the southwest end of the cloister, it is possible to give meaning to the cloister-refectory axis by recovering the ancient entrance, originally located at the western end”. The architectural details and the state of research could be better explained for readers who have never been to the site. 

 

In this sentence it would help to know remains of what? Art? Furnishings? Architectural debris? Please also indicate how this is relevant to the questions at hand. “Many of the remains were thrown without hesitation into the river dump, where in subsequent centuries they were found by locals, although most of them are now missing”. 

 

Some terms are unclear, for example ‘This reliquary ensemble’, line 274, what makes it a reliquary? in what sense? 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is a good contribution to the interpretation of the refectory of the Monastery of San Salvador de Oña. Therefore, I recommend its publication. As strong points, I highlight the interdisciplinary nature of the study, as well as the methodology used. The article stands out, above all, for the study of the historical context as well as the question of artistic techniques and materials. The text is clear and well-structured. The introduction makes clear the objectives that are fulfilled in the development of the article. It ends with good conclusions that synthesize the lines deepened during the article.

However, I would like to point out some aspects that, from my point of view, I found lacking and other recommendations:

-In my opinion, in chapter 4, being a chapter entitled "The Iconographic Transformation of the Refectory....", there is more historical context in point 4.1 and comparatively little iconographic analysis in 4.2. I think it would have been interesting to develop this section further.  Linking it with this, I consider that there is an analysis that falls short on the Last Supper. I am aware that the objective is to analyze the signs of power, but for a global study, it would be useful to make a more iconographic approach to the subject that is represented.

-Regarding the iconography, the figure of arch 3 (Figure 3 c), from what can be intuited from the photo, seems to me more like St. Peter (by the physical characterization of the character, his placement on the right side of Christ, following some prototypes and the iconographic tradition). I would also contemplate more the hypothesis that Judas could be not just below the arches but on the other side of the table.

-Why has been chosen Fra Angelico’s Last Supper (Figure 12)? Just because Judas appears with the black nimbus? Another image could be added, a closer example or a work of art with a similar composition, and/or mention these in the article. Looking for some iconographic influences could help for the analysis, as well as other locations of this subject in the refectory of other monasteries.

-When the construction phases of the building are mentioned, phases 4, 5, and 6 are commented on directly, without mentioning the first ones. Certainly, it would not be necessary to explain them if it is not the aim of the article, but a footnote would be good to indicate at least which periods they are from. Also, for the reader who is not familiar with the monastery, a brief description of the building would be appreciated.

-In general, the images and diagrams are appropriate to follow the article. Figures 3, however, I would recommend them larger, to be able to see the details better, as well as Figure 7. The latter, if possible, would be better with more resolution, already that when it is enlarged it is a little blurry. Table 3 is in Spanish and it would be good if, like the others, it were in English.

- There is a correct mention of relevant bibliographical titles. The article does not include an excessive number of self-citations, on the contrary.  I would recommend citing some more recent publications, especially on the iconography of the Last Supper (more up-to-date than Réau).

 

Some specific aspects are detailed below:

-In the introduction, the first paragraph is very similar to the abstract. The second one too, but what is said in the introduction is more developed. It gives the sensation that you are reading the abstract once again.

-Lines 107-109: why are some authors with the date in parentheses and others not? It would be good if it were mentioned uniformly.

-Line 118: Santa María Egipciaca: the accent mark in the word “Egipcíaca” is missing (in line 138 it does appear)

-Line 183: "medieval relivary". Does it mean reliquary or another word?

-Line 339: must be Musée d’Art et d’Archéologie (capital A's, not D’s)

-Lines 785-789: a transcription taken from Marquer is cited, but it must be taken into account that, as we can read in this text, the ` are ‛ : al-sa‛d al-dā’im li-llāh…

-Line 871: Burgos canvas?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf