Talk:Rood screen

Rood Screens and Pulpitums

The article confuses the two varieties of screens. I have removed the picture of the Exeter pulpitum. There will need to be a separate pulpitum article. TomHennell (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Now there is pulpitum - thanks. Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, can someone please explain the exact difference between the two? From the articles, there seems to be some kind of a difference, but I can't quite figure it out. Or is there maybe some difference in the use of the terms (for instance common/less common, or AE/BE)?

The reason for my asking this is that at the moment both articles link to the German article "Lettner". So which of them would be the right one to link back to from the German article?

Thanks, Anna (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

See the first para. If there are/were both, it is easy: nave, pulpitum, rood screen, chancel - progressing east. If there is only one, and no distinct choir, it is more confusing. If it has or had a large crucifix etc on top, I think it is a rood screen. If it has an organ on top, probably a pulpitum. Also the term rood screen is more familiar in English, and certainly used for what are strictly pulpitums by many people. I'm not sure about foreign terms - the English ones are confusing enough. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a quick answer - thanks!

I did read the first paragraph (and the whole article) but still I find it a bit hard to picture it. As far as I know, we only have one word for it in German (Lettner), so should that link back to rood screen then if that's the more commonly used term?

And here's a tough one for you: What if the crucifix and the organ took turns? I am not kidding; I know of a church where this is exactly the case. The crucifix allegedly was up there originally but was moved to a place on the wall when the church got its organ back in the 18th century. About 30 years ago the organ was moved to a different place, and the crucifix went back up there. Would that make it a rood screen, if the crucifix was the original thing up there? Anna (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would pretty much agree with that Johnbod. Descriptions of English Cathedral and monastic churches written in German tend to use the term "lettner" indiscriminately for both forms of screen - which led me to suppose that the "pulpitum" in its English/Scots/Welsh form might be unknown in Germany - even in Lutheran churches where medieval woodwork tends to be well preserved. Pulpitums arose earlier (those of Ely and Hereford, now lost, dated from the mid 12th century). Their original function was to provide a western face to the return stalls in a monastic or cathedral choir/quire, and a platform for the organ (which did not accompany the singing, but introduced the melody). In the late 12th century the Cistercians provided their churches with a second screen one bay to the west of the Pulpitum, which served as the eastern termination and reredos of the separate lay-brothers' quire. This dual arrangement may be seen in ruined form in Roche Abbey and Fountains Abbey. From the 14th century, as lay brothers ceased to be recruited, Cistercian abbeys converted their naves for weekly and festival choral services for ordinary lay worshippers. Later medieval cathedral and monastic architecture in Britain adopted a number of Cisterician features, and the double screen arrangement seems to have been one of them. The western of the two screens then functioned in the same way as a parochial rood screen (carrying a rood beam and rood), and was the location of those liturgical practices specfied for the rood screen in the Use of Sarum. Some 100 monastic churches part-survived the Dissolution of the Monasteries in parochial use, and in several the monastic rood screen survives as the base for a partition wall separating the roofed parish part from the ruined monastic part e.g. at Blyth, Bolton, Dunstable and Boxgrove. But only at St Albans was the monastic rood screen preserved in its original function. TomHennell (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the first para of the article. Is it a bit clearer? As a general rule - if there is a surviving medieval screen in a parish church it will be a rood screen; if in a cathedral or collegiate church, it will be a pulpitum; a post-reformation screen is generally a "chancel screen" (and is covered in the rood screen article). A parochial rood screen will usually have a central passage with wide upper openings to allow a good view of the chancel from the nave; a monastic rood screen would have solid wall with two lateral openings either side of the nave altar; a monastic or cathedral pulpitum will have a double wall with internal staircase and a single central through-passage. But sometimes a former monastic pulpitum may be found in what is now a parish church - e.g. at HexhamTomHennell (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this detailed explanation! That does make things a bit clearer.

As we have so many medieval churches in Germany, parochial and monastic (Cistecian as well as others) I would expect that we probably have both types in some church or other. But I guess we only have that one term. Maybe those who specialize in church architecture know better, but they haven't been around to look at the "Lettner" article.

By the way, the one in that church I described earlier does seem to be a weird mixture of those two types:

• It is a "surviving medieval screen in a parish church" => rood screen?
• It does have "a central passage" but no "wide upper openings to allow a good view of the chancel from the nave" for the simple reason that the chancel is on the same side as the nave,
• it is a "solid wall" (brick, no wood) but without any "lateral openings either side of the nave altar",
• it does have a double wall and used to have a staircase (it may have been an external one though, I am not sure) and a single central through-passage =>pulpitum? (I am not sure if the central through-passage was there originally though, or if there was an extra entrance to that part of the church from the side)

Now did I successfully confuse everyone? ;-) Anna (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds very interesting Anna - especially in so far as you are saying that the "chancel" in the church in question is the same side as the nave. I presume that you are here using "chancel" to refer to the choir/quire stalls. The choir/quire in all English monasteries and cathedrals originally stood under the crossing, and hence to the west of the the notional division of nave and sanctuary. However, in almost all cases, the eastern arms of English cathedrals and monasteries were greatly extended in the 13th century, and the choir/quire was relocated into the eastern arm, in the space formally occupied by the high altar (Peterborough preserves the original arrangement). This meant that the choir stalls and their associated pulpitums had to be dismantled and re-erected further east (and then usually rebuilt entirely in the early 14th Century). I don't know how often the same thing happened in Germany; if not, then there may not have been the space or need for the English double screen arrangement to become established as the norm.

As I understand it, the term "lettner" is derived from "lectorium", hence English "lectern", which is cognate with "pulpitum" - i.e. a speaking platform for liturgical readings. The English "rood screen" refers to the rood or crucifix; in parish churches the rood loft would have been used for the readings in Holy Week, but otherwise chiefly accommodated singers (and portative organs). I suspect that part of the reason for the different architectural forms of late medieval screens may be the different development of the litury of the Use of Sarum, compared to the local Uses adopted elsewhere in Europe.

Do you know whether the screen is original to the church, and whether the church itself was, in the late medieval period, collegiate or monastic? I presume that the high altar is now to the east of the screen, but might that area once have been a separate Lady Chapel? All very interesting. TomHennell (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The Swedish WP, which I can't exactly read, has articles on "Lektorium" and "triumfkrucifix", for which there is also a large commonscat, stranded without an English caregory - mostly beams rather than screens though. Johnbod (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - the Swedish WP links into German images of crucifixes - and I note especially the images of Bad Doberan, which (if I read it correctly) is a German Cistercian Abbey re-used as a Lutheran parish church. The sequence there appears to be - from the west end - parochial nave, lettner, choir/quire, rood/crucifix, high altar. This would be consistent with the observation that in most of Europe the choir/quire remained outside of the eastern arm of the church. I would guess that Anna's example is similar. Hence the appropriate association would be lettner = pulpitum; triumfkrucifix/triumphkreuz = rood and rood beam. TomHennell (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Tridentine Mass

I'm not sure exactly what the removal of the rood screens has to do with the promulgation of the "Tridentine" Mass. The so-called "Tridentine" Mass was just the name for Mass of the 1570 missal and after, following some reforms of the liturgy during and after the Council of Trent. The 1570 missal was quite in line and continuous with the Roman tradition going back centuries, and didn't mark any kind of rupture. It would seem to make more sense to link the removal with the period of reforms known as the Counter-Reformation, rather than with a specific Roman missal. Also, it doesn't make much sense to say "at the Counter-Reformation." This was a bit of an on-going process or period, not one moment, so "during" is more grammatically correct. JNF Tveit (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

as far as I am aware, the removal of rood screens in Catholic churches in the late 16th and earlier 17th centuries tended to be specifically justified in reference to "the spirit of the Council of Trent". It was widely believed, and taught, that the 1570 Roman Missal, by abolishing the requirement for screens that had been explicit in the previous local uses, effectively banned them. That was the view that obtained in the liturgical debates in mid 19th century England; Pugin, who argued for the restoration of the Sarum Rite, saw this as also a restoration of rood screens; his opponents in the English hierarchy, who argued for the 1570 Roman Missal, saw this also as obviating the need for screens. So the removal of screens does seem to me in these sources to be specfic to Trent, and to the 1570 Missal; rather than a general product of the Counter-Reformation. Or do you have other sources that indicate the contrary? TomHennell (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about this specific issue, but if it is anything like the similar issue in art generally, the decrees of the Council itself were short and a model of vagueness, which was followed up in succeeding decades by a bunch of essentially self-appointed clerical authorities like Molanus who produced lengthy & highly prescriptive and detailed books on what to do. Certainly a rood screen would have to go if you were doing a Baroque makeover, as so many churches did. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Are there specific references in the 1570 Roman Missal to the removal of the screens? Or else specific references in the Council documents? It would seem we should try to be as specific as possible. JNF Tveit (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at the council decrees & saw nothing, but I might have missed it - the headings are rather vague for much of the time. The Missal is the place for specific requirements. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I found this article http://www.smn.it/polis/hall.htm

The Vasarian remodelling was the expression of a view which became increasingly widespread in the last third of the Cinquecento that the rood screens and choirs in the naves served no essential function and impeded the view of the high altar. One of the chief abuses the Council of Trent undertook to correct was the remoteness of the layman from the liturgy. Again and again, the Decrees of the Council emphasized the importance of lay participation in the Mass. To facilitate the layman’s involvement, S. Carlo Borromeo, that zealous Counter-Reformer, advocated in his book on church architecture (Instructionum fabricae et supellectilis ecclesiasticae, 1577) that a church should be designed so that anyone attending Mass would have a clear view of the high altar. As Vincenzo Borghini attested (1585), this was directly contrary to existing conditions. He remarked that one had seen little of the altar even in private chapels where the gates or wrought iron screens were kept closed to separate the clergy and his ministers. Neither Trent nor Borromeo laid down an explicit rule that rood screens should in all cases be demolished. The Council’s Decrees, the fruits of many compromises, rarely stated any absolute prescription, but rather proposed the criteria for judgement. Thus it was that certain tramezzi, late in date of construction and already representing something of a compromise with the Renaissance preference for open and clearly demarcated space, were permitted to stand. Since the Anglican Church took no such position on the desirability of a clear view of the chancel the English rood screens were to a great extent preserved until modern times. In Germany and France, where the heat of reforming fervour was often dissipated in traversing the Alps, some examples escaped demolition. Italy, however, always more susceptible to Rome, went about the business of renovating old churches with far greater energy than its transalpine neighbours. In the rush to conform to the new norms virtually all the Italian rood screens and choirs were swept away. The transformation was effected with such efficiency, in fact, that by the time the urge to regothicize these churches arose, in the nineteenth century, the memory of what they had actually looked like had been obliterated. It is possible painstakingly to reconstruct the appearance of a few, such as S. Croce, where accident has preserved the crucial fragments of a record. In the case of SMN, what has survived nicely complements the visual evidence we have for S. Croce, for it is a verbal description of the church as it appeared before the Counter-Reformation purge.

So, although there is not explicit mention of rood screens in the decrees of Trent, the continued retention of screens was seen very early - in Italy at least - as inconsistent with the Council's decrees concerning the liturgy of the Mass. Nor is there any mention of screens in the Bull "Quo Primum", but most, if not all, the liturgical rites and customs associated with the rood screen in the Use of Sarum would have fallen foul of the stipulation that provided exemption for practices that could be proved to have been undertaken continually over the previous 200 years. So I do not think it unrealistic to state that the almost ubiquitous demolition of screens in Catholic countries was done to comply with the decrees of Trent, and with the 1570 Roman Missal that derived from them.

To put it crudely, Catholic churches in the late 16th century were not cleared of screens in order to replace them with Counter Reformation baroque fittings, they were cleared to comply with the perceived requirements of Trent concerning the liturgy; and only subsequently did the newly austere spaces come to be seen as a golden opportunity for baroque artists to make their mark. TomHennell (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As I thought - although the actual references in the Council decrees: "Again and again, the Decrees of the Council emphasized the importance of lay participation in the Mass." are rather elusive - there are bits on physical access to the Eucharist by the lay attendees. Even so, many screens must have been removed to allow a good view of a lovely new Baroque altarpiece. Johnbod (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Tom, I think you've said it best yourself: "they were cleared to comply with the perceived requirements of Trent concerning the liturgy." I think it is too much of a leap (unless we find attestation in the 1570 Missal) to say that they were removed in compliance with the revised Mass requirements, because what Trent called for and what was made explicit in the new Missal do not necessarily coincide completely. So, I propose that the article state something along the lines of "they were mostly removed during the Counter-Reformation in compliance with the spirit of the Council of Trent."JNF Tveit (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Images

I snagged the illustration at right (plan) in Commons. I didn't want to intrude it into such a well-written and handsomely illustrated and laid out article, but I thought it offered visual information useful to the Wikpedia reader, if anyone wants to edit it in.--Wetman (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Added, thanks! I think the current lead picture is too murky. A couple of possiblities here. Or we could have a little gallery. Btw, I have swopped 2 redirects: rood cross now goes to rood and rood loft comes here. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Would rood cross not be plausible?162.104.12.143 (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

English bias

This article is too-much Anglo-oriented. As rood screens are used worldwide, giving such a stress to Great Britain gives the idea that instead is a typical feature of there, which is clearly wrong. I think such material and stress should be moved to a separate article.--'''Attilios''' (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Attilios, can you be a bit more explicit about what you propose. Rood screens were once general in Europe, but now tend to survive in numbers only in England,Wales, Brittany, Scandinavia and Lutheran parts of Germany. If you have material that can be added in with reference to rood screens elsewhere - by all means do so; but removing Ennglish material to a separate article would duplicate material without need, in my view. TomHennell (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mah, what to say... for example a chapter entitled "Notable British examples" gives me the idea that we aren't unable (or ignorant) to find details about other countries. If it is not a extremely typical feature of one country, we should give the article an international scope (for example retitling that paragraph as "Examples", with subsections "Britain", "Germany", "Scandinavia" etc... For an Italian example, see my new Vezzolano Abbey (the link leads to a photo of the rood screen, I seem; by the way, if you've time you could cleanup my mediocre English). Let me know and good work.--'''Attilios''' (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Attilios, particularly with regard to the sections Monastic rood screens and Destruction and restoration. In both cases, the section purports to discuss the topic of rood screens generically but uses exclusively British examples. For example, were rood screens not used in a monastic context elsewhere in Europe? If they weren't, that's a noteworthy aspect of the topic that bears mention. If they were, then what about surviving examples in Brittany, Scandinavia, Germany? Or what about documentary evidence that may address the rest of Europe? In the "Destruction and restoration" section, maybe the restoration phenomenon only occurred in Britain (though that's not stated with reliable sources), but clearly destruction occurred elsewhere, and not just tied to the events of the English Reformation and English dynastic reigns as the current text implies. While the overall article could probably use some spiffing up in this regard, I've tagged these two sections as needing special attention. —Ipoellet (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

And let me take back one small thing: The examples in Monastic rood screens are not exclusively English. There is one example from each of France and Germany. But those are set against five examples from England. —Ipoellet (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't want to intrude here but perhaps the answer is just to make this an article on 'Choir screens' - defined as structures serving to create a spatial distinction between the liturgical choir and the nave. Then you could have sub-sections on regional variations in both the eastern (iconostasis) and western (rood, pulpitum, jubé, east/west lettners, etc) traditions. The issues of whether screens were solid or temporary, whether they allowed or obscured visibility of the choir and whether they supported crucifixes, pulpits or organs, are all secondary to their architectural and liturgical functions in articulating the different spaces within the church. I arrived here because I was looking for somewhere to link to from a mention of the Chartres jubé - but frankly both this article and the one on 'pulpitum' are too specific and Anglocentric for that link to be helpful. Furthermore, the English practice of having separate rood and pulpitum is very much an exception rather than the rule so perhaps isn't an ideal basis for categorisation in what is meant to be a broader encyclopedia. StuartLondon (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The subject is certainly confusing - see the sections higher up. I don't think bringing in iconostases here, more than they already are, will help! The earlier parts of the history section are now pretty international - much more than they used to be. Most medieval Western screens have been removed, but only the English have revived them in a big way. Naturally many editors here have sources & knowledge that mainly relate to British buildings, but I think this article is now much more international than many in the field of church architecture. I'm not sure I agree that having a rood is a secondary aspect of a rood screen. Further internationalizing will of course be welcome. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a section regarding the decline of rood screens after the Council of Trent in Catholic churches, especially the Gothic Cathedrals of France, would be appropriate. It would tie together the reference to Pugin in the "Post Reformation, in England" section, the reference to the Council in "The Screen and Tridentine Worship", and explain why the whole article seems to only detail the English history of Rood Screens. Masterboss77 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

You realize this is a 10-year-old conversation? See para 2 of the lead - short & sweet. Our English-language articles on church architecture are very often biased towards the English history. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not that we need a German section...

I just don't think we need a laundry list of examples at all. Yes, there's certainly an undue emphasis on the British history and examples, which undermines the worldwide view of the article. But it's more than that. This article is about the rood screen as a concept in general, and should be written in as broad of terms as possible. Look at the article on church tabernacles; there's no overly large list of examples there, just a few images to illustrate the concept. This article is actually poorer by trying to include specific examples, especially from one country. A brief mention in the history section is all that's needed to cover it, not what's there now. oknazevad (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The section is rightly at the end, and readers in English are naturally likely to be especially interested in British examples, and the few medieval survivals. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Considering the general history of screens in Latin churches, there should really be four main sections: France, Germany, Italy, and England. Perhaps a fifth section could address screen in other areas, such as Iberia and Scandinavia; but church architecture in those areas never adopted the screens in the same was as the four countries just mentioned. Germany and England have the greatest number of surviving screens, hence the bias for presenting those countries. English screens have almost entirely lost their roods; wooden English screens have also lost their lofts. France has many choir-aisle screens, remnants of once-larger works; little survives of the jubé itself. Italy has almost nothing. French and German screens generally carry stone sculptural programs. English cathedral and collegiate screens tend to be of stone with stone sculpture, though little survives; English parish screens tend to have a wooden sculpture for the rood group, other ornament being painted. There is a lot of confusion of terms in this article. These should be defined: Lettner, Kanzellettner, Hallenlettner, Schrankelettner; jubé; pulpitum, fence screen; choir screen, rood beam, rood screen, rood loft. MonteGargano (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the English terms are as precise in their distinctions, nor perhaps as well defined as German ones, but one can't just import the German ones, & I've not seen them used in writing in English, unlike e.g. Senkschmelz and Vollschmelz. By all means write a section on German terminology, and German screens, and expand generally. Perhaps a 2nd section defining the various terms is needed. The article has grown organically for the most part, and (I think rightly) covers a numbers of different animals together. I'm open to a redesign, but someone has to be prepared to do it. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There's an error here. Ottery St Mary did NOT have a fence screen. It had the usual 3-screen arrangement of collegiate churches: rood/nave-altar screen, pulpitum, and reredos. Of these, the reredos survives and has been conjecturally restored; the rood/nave-altar screen was sawed apart and repurposed as two aisle screens for the choir. The pulpitum is utterly lost. The fourth screen in the building is at the entrance to the Lady Chapel, and it survives intact, but somewhat altered. MonteGargano (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Better fix it then, with a reference. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Stylistic Question

Should "rood" be capitalized. I was under the impression that it was a sort of religious proper noun that gets capitalized when used in written form. Aquahelper (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

"Rood" is just an archaic synonym for "cross", etymologically related to "rod". As such, rood need only be capitalized the same way the word cross would be, and is no more a proper noun than that. (Also, new comments go on the bottom of talk pages.) oknazevad (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It is my understanding that specific liturgical terms have traditionally been capitalized in English. (E.g. Mass, Bishop of Ulster, Eucharist, Bible, Trinity) and rood falls under this category. So that while in general, cross would not be capitalized, the rood, as a liturgical term, is capitalized and so as a whole rood, in this context is capitalized. Aquahelper (talk) 06:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

-Nevermind, I found the wikipedia style guide on capitalization which states that traditional terms are generically lowercase as common nouns. (though it has also been my understanding that rood was much like Mass in its capitalization with more weight than other similar theological terms, though wikipedia seems to be inconsistant on that from time to time). Aquahelper (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)