This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
English translation: archivolts with double keystones
14:44 Sep 8, 2011
French to English translations [PRO] Architecture / ecclesiatical architecture
French term or phrase:archivoltes à double clavage
Abbaye de Lagrasse (Aude, France) "il rappelle par son appareil sommaire et ses archivoltes à double clavage, les chevets des églises transpyrénéennes de la même époque"
I'm trying to translate itineraries with short descriptions of numerous Romanesque churches .... for the tourist office where I work
Thanks Helen, I think I'll use your term archivolts with double keystones although I honestly don't have the knowledge to be able to choose between your answer and Christopher's ! Thanks again to both of you for all your trouble. 4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer
"Snape Castle....Dating from c1430, mostly reconstructed in the C16...C18 alterations"
with, sure enough, two examples of a "double keystone":
"Bay 5: early C[entury]18....an 18- pane sash in architrave with double keystone.....Bays 3 and 4....24-pane sashes in architraves with cills [sic] and double keystones above."
We've really got to hand it to those 18th c. medieval architects, when it comes to knowing what "archivoltes à double clavage" were supposed to look like.
I've always thought that the terms "Romanesque" and "Gothic" were somewhat flexible, but I really had no idea how elastic they really were --at least in England (those stodgy, conservative French, what do *they* know?).
Maybe that's one of those "transitional" buildings I've heard about.
Gives an whole new meaning to the term "archivoltes à double clavage," doesn't it?
A search on "double keystones" yields a bunch more medieval examples:
Ask English Heritage or Images of England both professional agencies who are perfectly satisfied with the terminology. I don't have time to satisfy your curiosity, no, I have 3 catalogues to translate.
needs to tell me what "archivolts with double keystones" means, because I really have no idea at all. Can you find a pic of suchlike an animal on The Innernets, Helen?
is that we (you, Helen & I) really don't know what the building is that we're talking about --or that the "website" (another significant problem --don't get me started) which purports to describe it.
*If* it is, indeed, the dormitory which is the only building I could see on the web, then I'm fairly confident of my answer --i.e., the source text is sloppy and inaccurate (on the Web??! mais non, imposs*i*ble).
If it *isn't* that building, then all bets are off and what is being described (accurately or not) could be most anything, even "archivolts with double keystones," whatever those might be.
Thank you so much Helen and Christopher for your fascinating comments. You are right in that all this is WAY over my head - the trouble is that I've got a lot of similar brief descriptions of churches to translate and I can't be bothering you every 5 minutes ! I guess that a lot of these texts are simply taken from different websites and someone has 'sort of' resumed them - and now they need putting into English .... I've been living in France for 36 years and am completely bilingual but unfortunately know absolutely nothing about churches or church architecture. Anyway thank you again - and probably à bientôt !
As an art historian/architectural historian myself, I hardly need to learn that! I fear your two eminent sources confirm my understanding of the term, so I'm not persuaded there. Further we just don't know whether the particular image you describe in detail even illustrates the architectural element mentioned in the text. So, all in all, I'm going to stick with my answer in the face of very little to go on and silence from the Asker who has probably run away vowing never to ask us another question.
which you may have learnted from my proposed answer is that Art Hysterians are a bunch of damnéd windbags. The Bottom Line is that I simply don't see what else this (amateur) text could be trying to describe. So it is necessary to "take liberties" with the "translation."
Well, my work here is done. Will wait to see what you find to contradict it tomorrow. Though I suspect this discussion goes way beyond the needs of Hilary and her text.
(conveniently, some cynics might say), but I'm going to take exception to the definitions you offer here on the grounds that they do not correspond to the usage of the word in the Art Historical literature I'm familiar with.
This, despite the fact that my belovéd OED defines "archivolt" as: "The under curve or inner contour of an arch, from impost to impost; the band of mouldings which ornaments this curve."
An archivolt (or voussure) is an ornamental molding or band following the curve on the underside of an arch.[1] It is composed of bands of ornamental moldings (or other architectural elements) surrounding an arched opening, corresponding to the architrave in the case of a rectangular opening. The word is sometimes used to refer to the under-side or inner curve of the arch itself (more properly, the intrados). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivolt
An archivolt is NOT the individual wedge shaped stone, but the ensemble of all of the stones in the arch including the central keystone. It is the echo either above or under the arch in the form of moulding which may or may not have a decorative element corresponding to the keystone without actually having such a function.
the archivolts are *not* "the visible undersides," the "archivolts" are the stones which make up the arch, and *they* don't have a "keystone," much less "keystones" --the *arch which they form has a keystone.
In fact, now that I think on it, the term "archivolt" is not usually used for arches in general (i.e., the "stones of the arch"), but almost always refers to the stones which form the arch of a [usually sculpted] portal.
Clain's thought of "double archivolt" *might* be applied to the stones of the arches in the 5th image in the Lagrasse.fr slide show, I suppose --i.e., the profile of the archivolts is such that there appears to be *two* arches, one [round] below another [flat]; but that's a very, very awkward (and, essentially, inaccurate) way of thinking/describing what those stones are.
Définition : ENSEMBLE DE claveaux, VOUSSOIRS et dés formant arc ou plate-bande.
Which makes me think that it is the same thing as the ''archivolte'' itself, which is also defined as:
Ensemble des ornements, sculptures ou baguettes qui encadrent une arcade en soulignant les contours supérieurs et inférieurs des voussoirs ou claveaux de l'arc.
Par extension, ENSEMBLES DES VOUSSURES d'encadrement d'une baie, porte ou fenêtre.
Could the meaning possibly be ''double archivolt''?
the text is clearly not written by anyone who actually knows anything about what she's talking about --it's a text intended for tourists, right Hilary?
if I can see anything in any of your links, Helen, which might be called a "double clavage" --unless it is the form of the arches in the 5th image in the slide show, the archivolts of which do have a "double layer" to them (what's that called? they are not "doubleaux.")
I'm afraid that I don't share your enthusiasm for the folks at English Heritage. "Double keystone" is, simply, inaccurate --and, further, I've yet to see a "Romanesque" example of suchlike an animal.
is just a very curious way of saying what is going on, assuming that "double clavage" does indeed mean "double keystone."
Strictly speaking, a "keystone" is, well, it's a Keystone --and it's not generally thought of as being an "archivolt" --though it need not, necessarily, not differ in any significant respect from the archivolts on either side of it.
It is interesting to note that many (most?) Roman (and neo-classical) arches have keystones which are significantly different in size and shape from the archivolts in the arch (http://tinyurl.com/3g96cvu); while the keystones of "Romanesque" arches rarely call attention to themselves (http://tinyurl.com/3qm4suq) except, perhaps, on sculpted portals, where they *may* be iconographically distinct (though not necessarily larger or of unusual shape, save for their necessarily trapezoidal quality).
but, the more I think about it, it *must* be a single (enlarged, vertically and, perhaps, horizontally) keystone --rather than two stones, one over the other. There must be a proper technical term for the thing, but I've never heard it --and "double keystone" still rings flat in my over-sensitive young ears.
I am also having difficulty imagining this as being anything other than decorative, but there is nothing wrong with that, nor anything to suggest that the FR example given by the Asker is not also decorative. A keystone would surely be weakened by being split in two so I would have thought it must be one above the other. Given the paucity of FR ref material/examples, it does seem to be a bit of a novelty. I would not agree with you, however, that 'double keystone' is an inaccurate term; it just doesn't mean split.
as being one "keystone" *above* another. Clearly, technically, there is only one true keystone (the lower one), the other serves a purely "decorative" purpose, emphasizing the position of the first.
This sort of arrangement/motif is common enough in classical/neo-classical architecture --though I'm at a loss to know what to call it (if not by the inaccurate term "double keystone"). I can't think of when I might have seen it in "Romanesque" buildings, however. I think that what we have there is probably a *single* keystone, but one which is significantly larger ("taller") than the other archivolts (voussoirs) which make up the arch, giving it the *appearance* of being a "double keystone."
Rendered or cut-stone archivolts. Square-headed window openings to remainder. Stone sills. Rendered or cut-stone chamfered lintels. Replacement uPVC casement windows, c.1995. Round-headed door opening. Rendered or cut-stone archivolt with double keystone.
Here is mention of one: Round-arched entrance to porch consisting of pilasters and moulded stone archivolt with double keystone, set in a rectangular architrave with festoons in the spandrels; cornice with lettered panel to parapet 'PUBLIC LIBRARY'; the porch is cross-vaulted with a shallow domed apse to right and two flat-arched architraves with keystones facing the entrance, one for a door, the other for the foundation stone; first floor of porch wing set back with flat-arched window with moulded stone architrave and parapet with stone coping swept up to main block. http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/en-369132-north-libr...
as is obvious by the fact that a google on it yields ZERO hits. I've certainly never seen it, in my 40+ years of reading the literature. Some sort of "double keystone" or an arch with two keystones (i.e., two separate archivolts serving as "the" keystone?
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
27 mins confidence: peer agreement (net): +1
archivolts with double keystones
Explanation: Please see my reference and discussion posts.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 32 mins (2011-09-08 15:17:08 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
Helen Shiner United Kingdom Local time: 01:44 Specializes in field Native speaker of: English PRO pts in category: 110
Grading comment
Thanks Helen, I think I'll use your term archivolts with double keystones although I honestly don't have the knowledge to be able to choose between your answer and Christopher's ! Thanks again to both of you for all your trouble.
1 day 3 hrs confidence:
arches made up of stones with a simple double chamfer profile
Explanation: Well, looking at the only pic from Lagrasse which I can find on the web which *might* be what this author is talking about:
I have to say that I can see no “double keystones” present at all –indeed, the transverse arches here seem to have *no* keystones at all; the stones of the arch just come together at the center. I would not call those “double keystones” –rather, there *is* no keystone present at all (much less two of them –structurally, an arch can only have one “key” stone).
Furthermore, as we saw in our lengthy discussion of this vexing question, the term “double keystone” *seems* to apply to keystones which are made more prominent by “doubling” the height (and, perhaps, the width) of them, relative to the other stones of the arch.
So, to call these keystone-less arches at Lagrasse “double keystones” (just because there are two stones which meet together at the apex of the arch, where a real, single keystone should be) is not only incorrect on its face, but potentially confusing (esp. if someone [say, a hapless tourist] has any idea at all what a “double keystone” might look like when she reads the term on an English Heritage site.
The only thing which I can see which might be considered “doubled” in those Lagrasse arches is the *profile* [or “plan” if you will] of the stones of the arches, which consist of two “parts” or “levels” –an inner (lower) one which has a simple chamfer to the corners of a rectangular block; this chamfer is “echoed” in the outer (upper) part of the profile of the stones and, thus, might be said to be “doubled.” However, I’ve never seen this kind of profile described as “doubled” (unfortunately, I can’t recall what term or words might be used to describe this sort of rib profile).
So, I think I’ll just make one up.
How about, “arches made up of stones with a double chamfer profile”?
The whole of Hilary’s phrase, “il rappelle par son appareil sommaire et ses archivoltes à double clavage, les chevets des églises transpyrénéennes de la même époque,” would be rendered as something like;
“with its rather haphazard [i.e., not true ashlar] stone work and its arches made up of stones with simple, double chamfered profiles, it [the building at Lagrasse] recalls the choirs/apses typical of the churches of the region beyond the Pyrenees [in northern Spain] of the same period.”
[Btw, those Lagrasse arches are certainly *not* “Romanesque” (in any sense of that troublesome construct) –though they may well be 12th c., I could even see them as considerably later, in part because of the boldness of their span; remember that complexity in such things as rib/arch profiles is not *necessarily* an accurate indicator of date, esp. in “provincial” architecture of this sort.
Now, I use the term “profile” because that is the term used *consistently* in the art historical literature I am thoroughly familiar with.
*Technically* –lexicographically– yes, it is the “archivolt” of the arch (i.e., the inner surface of the stones of the arch) which has a “double profile.”
But, Websters (and even the venerable OED) aside, anglophile art historians who *specialize* in 12th and 13th c. architecture and sculpture, *consistently* use the term “archivolt” to specifically refer to the *stones* of an arch –especially the carved stones of the arch of a portal.
To make my point, here are the results of a google on “archivolt” (images only): http://tinyurl.com/3qy3gbf
You see, the majority of the images are of parts of sculpted (whether with figures or just with decorative designs) portals.
*That* is what “archivolt” refers to in the field.
Yes, Professor Alison Stones (who owns the very nice U. Pittsburgh site) defines “archivolt” [note the singular] as “Bands or mouldings (moldings, Am.) [note the plural] surrounding an arched opening,” and her accompanying illustration points to a *single* stone –or, perhaps, to the decoration on a single stone.
One of my favorite reference works remains Sir Bannister Fletcher’s A History of Architecture on the Comparative Method (4th ed., 1905 downloadable here: http://www.archive.org/details/historyofarchite00flet ), with its hundreds of quite wonderful drawings (very useful for translators seeking English terminology, btw).
Sir Bannister, much to my surprise, defines “Archivolt” as “The *mouldings* on the *face* of an arch resting on the impost” [emphasis mine], and he offers this illustration of what he means by “face of an arch” from a Romanesque portal:
is looking more and more to me like 17th c. work (the "Congregation de Saint Maur out of St. Germain de Pres in Paris reformed Benedictine houses all over France at that time, building nice new dormitories for the monks --and huge administrative buildings-- as they went).
those windows with the round-top "lights" above them are certainly of that date, and the arches (with their "archivolts") could well be that late (certainly I'd prefer them there rather than in c. 12, though they *might* be 14th-15th c., esp. in that backward region).
Windows, walls and arches look all of a piece.
So, either this is *not* the building your source is talking about, or your source is *really* out in Left Field (a U.S. baseball term, meaning Beyond the Pale).
Christopher Crockett Local time: 20:44 Specializes in field Native speaker of: English PRO pts in category: 79
Reference information: Clavage est un terme de construction.
Le sens premier est celui de mise en place de la clef d'une voûte ou d'un arc formés de claveaux, c'est-à-dire de pierres taillées en forme de coins. La clef est le claveau formant le faîte de la voûte ou de l'arc.
Par extension c'est l'action consistant à solidariser deux parties d'ouvrage construites indépendamment. Exemple : le clavage du tablier métallique du viaduc des Fades
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs
(or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
peer agreement (net): +1
