Message text written by "Frank Evans"
>Can this concept be applied to such dials as the Anglo-Saxon dial at
Escomb,
County Durham (Bull. BSS, 11,2, 1999, p. 100). This dial is six metres
above
the ground and at this distance, and given its size, could hardly have been
used as a timekeeper. Both David Scott and I have wondered whether the
explanation proposed for York Minster could equally apply elsewhere, as at
Esconb.<

Hi Frank.  I'm not sure I should be commenting because I don't really know
what I am talking about!  Also I haven't actually seen the Escomb Dial -
though looking at that side of the church and its two dials as shown at
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/cj.tolley/ctm/ctm-escomb.htm I do think it might
(just!) have been possible to read the dial - at least to the accuracy of
the four gaps and three lines. Still, it's easy to say that from my desk
here!

Your idea of designing to the greater glory of God is interesting and you
might well be right.  I am reminded that in those early times details and
accuracy were not regarded as important.  So, for example building followed
local irregularities without thought that this was somehow 'unsatisfactory'
- even in Tudor times house walls were rarely straight and some cathedrals
(?Malmesbury Abbey?) even had bends in their E-W alignment - all usually
attributed to God's will.  

We are much more tuned to details these days and maybe we are wrong to
assume that the window makers of the day would have bothered about such
things - they would I suspect simply have attributed it to God's Will and
as you suggest, being done for God. 

A particularly important 'detail' - that of perspective in painting - was
virtually unknown until 1400 (and then only in Florence) so that sort of
detail escaped many people of that period.

The various windows at York are dated (I think) to 1340 - 1420 (East window
1422 I think) and so perhaps we might forgive a little lack of recognition
that all the detail may not have been visible from the ground - after all
it would have been God's wouldn't it?

Patrick

-

Reply via email to