Talk:Sicilian Baroque

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sicilian Baroque article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Sicilian Baroque is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 24, 2005.
Article Milestones Date Process Result October 27, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Arts article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Sicilian Baroque has been nominated for Selected article, at the Architecture Portal. For more information, visit WikiProject:Architecture

	Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Castle.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale.

• Giano, I hope my tweaks at this stage aren't just irritating and premature. If I'm in the way, I count on you to tell me to hold off a while. Prime questions: where was the money coming from, among the building class? Not just olives grain and wine, surely? Church patronage: were the early C18 builder-bishops Sicilian aristocrats themselves? Reurbanization schemes along Baroque lines will be something you'll address, I figure. Scagliola? --Wetman 22:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• No please help out - don't worry too much about my spelling I tend to fix that when I'm nearly finished, or the great blocks of Italian and French text, I put them in as memos to myself, they'll leave when I'm done. The money is a good point, well they were not taxed until 1811, and the aristos of Angevin,Spannish or Italian descent owned all the land, in reality governed and the people were completely at their whim, and until 1800s the Norman feudal structure was in effect still in place. Primogeniture ensured estates were kept together, all the poor relations lived together in one of the family's houses, which were usual a rabbit warren, often being mistaken for superior servants which in effect they were. Most families had more than one house, Lampedusa had (I think) 7. The unluckier daughters became nuns as this was cheaper than a dowry. The nobility rented the land to entrepreneurs who in turn rented to the peasants, there was so much land that even at a low rent there was a good income, plus the almost free labour. This all came to an end in 1860 with the red shirts. The Sicilian nobles were Europe's last truly feudal society, but any form of trade, even the law was totally unthinkable until well into the 1920s.

Yes, the clergy were mostly younger sons, and yes there has to be a section on town planning, I have an early urban map which will be loaded soon. Giano | talk 06:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

---

When can we expect this article to be renamed Sicilian Style Baroque? --Wetman 15:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You've got it, Wet Style Man! Bishonen | Style 16:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Aesthetic judgement calls 2 "Baroque", "Norman", etc. 3 Numbering and images 4 Not Claus 5 New cities (outside Sicily) 6 What about the workers? 7 What about the gawkers? 8 Messina 9 Fantastic work. 10 "governed by an extravagant and hedonistic aristocracy." 11 Numbering of Images

[edit] Aesthetic judgement calls

In a couple of places in the article we encounter things like the following:

"While each facade of Quattro Canti is pleasing to the eye, as a scheme it is out of proportion to the limited size of the piazza, and like most other examples of early Sicilian Baroque can be considered provincial, naive and heavy-handed, compared to later developments."

Whose opinion is this? I don't know much about architecture, so there is no way for me to tell if this is the kind of thing that would appear in an undergrad textbook or if it is the sentiment of a particular critic, or of the editors of this article. It sounds like an aesthetic preference, and needs some kind of attribution. Jkelly 20:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppinion of Prof. Anthony Blunt "Sicilian Baroque" Page 31

I think in an article as long as this, eventually one has trust that the writer has read the listed reference books. There are many footnotes to things which I personally think may be contraversial, or not understood by a non Italian. If every statement illustrating the development of the subject is footnoted then the page will soon start to look like a sudoku rather than an article. Finally, there are so many illustrations on the page, not to make the page look pretty, but to better illustrate the development of Sicilian Baroque from a provincial form of architecture to a higher art form. Giano | talk 10:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand the concern. Allow me to make a suggestion. In a footnote referencing the first aesthetic judgement, add a note saying something like "For this, and other discussion of the development of the style, see reference". The danger there is that other editors may then add their own opinions to the article and the reader is unlikely to be able to differentiate between what is a professional judgement and a personal opinion, but it would avoid having a forest of footnotes. Jkelly 19:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Baroque", "Norman", etc.

I have just now slightly tweaked the section "Characteristics of Sicilian Baroque". I hope this and an earlier tweak are for the better; if anyone hereabouts disagrees, please change them back accordingly. As part of this, I've reluctantly changed one "baroque" to "Baroque" with the aim of consistency -- but I've no idea why "baroque" should be capitalized. I've left "Norman", although my (limited) knowledge of Sicilian architecture tells me that Sicily has a wonderful array of romanesque architecture, I think romanesque is what is meant, and romanesque is perhaps a commoner term than norman when not discussing NW Europe. This has also been my excuse for leaving "Norman Gothic": does this mean (i) gothic, or (ii), more elaborately, genuine gothic (not to be confused with gothick, gothic revival, etc.)? Or does it mean something else? -- Hoary 14:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The article refers several times to "Norman Gothic" - is this Norman architecture? In English, the Norman style another term for Romanesque, and is associated with round arches. It was followed by Gothic architecture, which differs in having pointed arches. Is Sicilian Norman somehow a mix of the two?....dave souza 19:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• That's an interesting question, Of course the Normans era varies acording to political viewpoint for quite a long time, in England from circa 1053 - 1154, and for longer in Sicily and as always architecture was changing, as you so rightly point out. Have a look at Norman architecture and then Cefalù, as you will see it does not quite fit the British perception of the name, even less so Monreale. Then see a Norman building [1] reminiscent of the Papal palace at Avignon. Finally see the Norman cathedral at Messina and there is a beautiful pointy arch above the main entrance, however that one was rebuilt circa 1900 albeit in its original style. The Normans ruled Sicily from 1055? until 1194. The transition between Norman/Romanesque was gradual and slow, and sometimes its debatable as to if a building is Gothic or Romanesque. The dates of the Norman/Romanesque period are seen rather differently depending on where on was taught one's history. There was obviously a period of transition in Europe generally between Romanesque and Gothic (I'll write a stub Norman Gothic in the next couple of days which will be easier than explaining it here) basically (IMO) I think the Gothic era began in France with Chartres circa 1160, but pointed arches had begun to appear as early as 1135 the Cathedral of St. Denis near Paris I think may be the most notable example of this. So you see there was quite an overlap from Romanesque to Gothic architecture while the Normans were still in power. This is what is generally understood as Norman Gothic. Giano | talk 22:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, however I think you're confusing the period when Normans were in power with the label Norman architecture which, rightly or wrongly, was coined to refer to a particular style in Normandy and England. Modern scholarship tends to utilise the equally invented term Romanesque architecture for this style, while acknowledging the widespread English language usage, "In England, Romanesque architecture is often termed 'Norman architecture'." I'd not previously heard of "Norman" being used for the rather different style in Sicily, which from the examples you cite looks like a variation of the continental Romanesque style. As the Cefalù article says, "This style of Norman architecture would be more accurately called Sicilian Romanesque." As with any categorisation of style, there are hybrid examples, and even the typically English Norman Durham Cathedral, begun 1093, features pointed arches (over the nave) from around 1130. The unusual usage of "Norman" for Sicilian Romanesque needs to be clarified and its characteristics defined on the Norman architecture page, and it would be useful to know which scholars use the term "Norman Gothic", with references. As you'll be aware the links to Norman point to a disambiguation page which is bad practice, and needs to be resolved. By the way, my old textbook by Nikolaus Pevsner states that "Whoever designed the choir of St. Denis [foundation laid 1140, consecrated 1144], one can safely say, invented the Gothic style, although Gothic features had existed before, scattered here and there". ...dave souza 19:30, 4 November 2005 (

Norman is not a term applied solely to buildings in Normandy and England. Norman Gothic is a term used quite widely outside those countries. Here's a link to help explain the term. Norman Gothic I see you now realise the Normans did indeed build pointed arches. As Pevsner so rightly says Gothic existed before St. Denis. However, I think Pevsner's dates may be a little askew, a mere 4 years between foundation stone and consecration, I know you are keen to prove a point, but 4 years! No you are mistaken here's a link [2] stating the west facade was begun in 1137. Also when I refereed to St. Denis. as 1135, in the message above my source was "World Architecture. (1963)". Hamlyn. Which is (IMO) one of the definitive architectural text books. When referring to "Norman Gothic in the context of this article I don't think the term unreasonable Sicily's Norman cathedrals (built during Sicily's Norman era) are world famous, and frequently referred to as Norman hence when they show Gothic characteristics, it is perfectly natural they should be referred to as Norman Gothic in that context. Giano | talk 22:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC) UTC)

Thank you for the links and further information. Unfortunately the link you give for "Norman Gothic" relates to an article on "ENGLISH GOTHIC CATHEDRALS", and as it says, "Norman architecture has been aptly described as powerful and masculine. It is marked by semicircular arches everywhere..[etc.]". From this example the term "Norman Gothic" would be more appropriate and clearer if replaced by "Norman". It would be helpful to have links showing use of the term outside an English context. I did not say or mean to imply that Norman architecture had no pointed arches: as you say in this article, to define the style you have to "appraise the composition as a whole". Pevsner's dates refer specifically to the choir of St. Denis, not the west facade begun in 1137, a point reiterated in Gothic architecture#Origins as "The first truly Gothic construction was the choir of the church, consecrated in 1144." The term "Norman architecture" in normal English usage conjures up images of round arches with abstract decoration, as in the top illustration here [3]. While the relevant Sicilian architecture was built under the Normans, if they were building in the Gothic style as were the largely Norman rulers of England (not Goths!) the term Gothic is more relevant. Since Sicilian usage of "Norman" appears to imply a different style to what Pevsner calls "The Norman style in architecture, the most consistent variety of the Early Romanesque in the West", the term "Romanesque" would be clearer and more informative for many readers, and "is characterized by a use of round or slightly pointed arches". If you insist on using "Norman" and "Norman Gothic", the differences need to be spelled out. I hope you can clarify this. ...dave souza 13:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing out the ambiguous links, I didn't know that. I have written a brief paragraph at Norman architecture covering Sicily, albeit rather superficially. Which now links to "Sicily's Norman architecture" at a suitable place in the text. Sicily's Norman period lasted from circa 1070 until about 1200, debatably perhaps until the demise of Frederick II, in 1250. During that period it is fair to describe all buildings as Norman, during the latter half of that same period the Gothic style evolved, hence there was a Norman Gothic. I'm pleased you have now conceded that the Normans did build pointed arches and windows, even in England the term Norman Gothic is today used as the first of the style's four phases - Norman Gothic, Early English Gothic, Decorated Gothic, Perpendicular Gothic so we have achieved something.

Sicily's version of Norman did include some Byzantine and Eastern features. However, Sicily does refer, and quite legitimately too to this period as Norman, the style is similar to that which is the English and their commonwealth understand as Norman in more ways than it differs. You see England does not have a monopoly on the term. I do not think lengthy explanations here are necessary beyond what is said already. One day a full explanation will hopefully be at Norman architecture. This page covers Sicily's Baroque style in depth. The page is already far longer than many editors like. I do not like the term Romanesque here, as I think that it is a confusing term to people who are not particularly interested in the subject, it implies Romans etc. which immediately conjures up pillars, porticos, temples and bath houses to many people. Most people have a vague idea of Norman architecture and the rough dates when it was built. If this explanation is still inadequate for you then please edit the page to suit your requirements and beliefs. Finally, I wouldn't rely too heavily on Pevsner. While very knowledgable and highly published, I always use him, and quote him as my expert witness on Wikipedia, and elswhere when I want to exert my own POV, as he can generally be relied on for that. As a Wikipedia editor he would have been banned for POV before the project arose from the ground. Giano | talk 18:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Good stuff. As you suggest, I will try to edit a few minor changes to make the article clearer to those from north-west Europe and former colonies, as well as Hoary above. From what you say, I think that by "Norman Gothic" you mean Norman style Romanesque with Gothic features, and would suggest replacing the term by "Norman with Gothic features", with a bit of explanation at the outset that during the period of Norman rule the style absorbed Gothic influences. If what you mean is full-blown Gothic during the period of Norman rule, do comment here. A couple of points: I refer to Pevsner simply because there's a copy of his An Outline of European Architecture on my bookshelf, and as it's a 1963 edition I'm sure that scholarship will have developed since then. I do keep up with TV programmes, articles etc. and would be surprised to find the term "Norman Gothic" being used in England. The article [4] showing it as "the first of the style's four phases - Norman Gothic, Early English Gothic...etc." is by "Istituto Comprensivo "C. Bassi" di Castel Bolognese (RA) Scuola Media "G. Ungaretti" di Solarolo", and strikes me as an attempt to fit Norman into a thesis about Gothic architecture. There's another earlier phase, "Saxon". I do agree that these terms are terribly Anglo-centric, which I'll try to sort a bit on Norman architecture, and that Romanesque architecture is perhaps a bit misleading to those who haven't come across the term, but we're here to educate so a reference to Norman being a Romanesque style might be helpful. ...dave souza 11:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• This University of Leicester site [5] explains the term "Norman Gothic" . Do what you like, I shan't be around very much for the next week or so, so have fun - all of you! Giano | talk 11:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm suitably astounded – well, there's always one. Note that the page links to "a more detailed look at... the history of architecture" which shows the more traditional periods. Anyway, I take the above as your confirmation that Norman Gothic = Norman. Have a nice holiday, ...dave souza 17:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Numbering and images

Oh dear, Wikimedia's preprocessor (HTML/CSS generator) seems to require that images are typed on new lines; but typing an image on a new line messes up the numbering in what will be HTML ordered lists. Or more simply: my latest version has improved image placement (at least if your browser works as mine does) but has screwed up the list a treat.

Suggestion: wait till the list of characteristics has settled down (perhaps it has already), and then number it "manually": "1.", "2.", etc., rather than "#", "#" etc. -- Hoary 11:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Too be honest: why bother with the numbering at all? This is the first article that I see it in (granted, I don't watch that many articles per day, but still..), and I don't see any added value.. maybe somebody could explain it here? Mystman666 09:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not Claus

There's obvious inconsistency in the article in referring to saints, in names of churches and cathedrals and perhaps also elsewhere.

The article consistently uses Italian, rather than "Saint", "Saints", "St", or whatever's the plural of "St". Good so far. Now, my stupid-anglophone-tourist level of Italian tells me that nominative forms include and perhaps aren't limited to:

• San
• Santa
• Sant'
• Santi
• Sante

Should "San", for example, be "San", "S", or "S."? If this article were riddled with saints' names, I'd recommend "S"; but as it isn't, I don't have any strong opinion. Wondering what English-language books that can be presumed to have been carefully edited would do, I reached for Lorenzetti (trans. Guthrie), Venice and Its Lagoon. This uses English names a lot ("St. Mark", etc.); but when it does use Italian names it seems always to spell out the "saint" part ("San Stae", etc.). (Surprisingly, it routinely abbreviates other personal names, e.g. "Franc. Lazzari".) Perhaps spelling out "Santa", etc. would be friendlier for Italian-language-impaired anglophone readers, but I'm open to suggestions that other considerations make it better to abbreviate. Ideas? -- Hoary 07:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know? I never go to church in English. I would have though it should be (as this is English) when refering to a former person Saint Fred and Saintess Freda. Except a place name where the Italian should be used. I wrote the stubes for most of the saints here, I'll go and have a look at what I did there. Giano | talk 08:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I never go to church in any language! (I go to plenty of churches -- most recently in the splendidly baroque city of Vilnius -- but that's different.) We have:

• The Cathedral of San Giovanni Battista
• the church of Santa Maria di Porto Salvo
• The cathedral of San Giorgio' Modica
• the Church of San Giorgio
• the church of Santa Maria delle Scale
• church of S. Giuseppe
• the church of S. Caterina
• church of S. Agata
• The Church of Anime Ss. Del Purgatorio

Et cetera. I'd be inclined to talk of the chiesa/Chiesa di San/S/S. Giovanni Battista [hope I got that right] (and of a painting that shows (St [sans dot]) John the Baptist). But OK, let's have churches and cathedrals. Or should we have Churches and Cathedrals? I vaguely thought the standard abbreviation of Santa was Sta(.), but surely Giano knows what he's doing; still, "Santa" might be "user-friendlier" to anglophones than "S.", and if we have "Santa" (spelled out) then I suppose we should have "San", "Santi" and the rest. But I hesitate to make changes because I haven't even made my own mind up about what I think is best. Giano? -- Hoary 11:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's just Anglicise the lot to St.Fred and St.Freda. some one has emailed me to say the English don't have saintess,which is a pity because I rather like the term. The whole thing is becoming as Purgatorio as it is Giano | talk 11:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

No, please, let's not! I mean, what's the English version of, say, S. Zita? (St Zeta-Jones, perhaps?) Whatever it is, WP's anglophone readers would probably have to translate back when confronted with maps of Sicily. -- Hoary 11:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sure whatever we decide here, there will be a naming convention somewhere which says something different, if there is not, then someone will soon dream one up, and have edless arguements and tantrums on the subject, then bring a revert war here with them. I honestly don't mind you choose, Saint, San, Santa, St. of S. its all the same to me. Just to clarify men are "San", lady saints are "Santa", unless there Christian names (either sex) begin with an "A" then it becomes "Sant' Ambrose" or "Sant' Agata". Sta. is more Spanish than Italian, when abbreviated S. will do fine for both sexes. (Blunt does this in Sicilian Baroque) Of course you could always translate the lot San Giorgio could become St George, San Giacomo - St James and so on. I'm not sure who Santa Zita becomes, but I do remember from my more religious, and Sicilian, youth that she was supposed to be very helpful if you .lost your car keys. Giano | talk 12:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Santa Zita sounds like a Genuinely Useful Saint -- enough for me to consider becoming Christian. If I had a car, that is. (I don't.) OK, I'll revise accordingly. And then let's have an edit war with each other. No, better than that, I'll have an edit war with myself. Yow! -- Hoary 14:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New cities (outside Sicily)

From the "New cities" section, I've removed two examples from English American, and a great chunk about non-Sicilian Europe. More precisely, I've left them in but put them within SGML comments. They certainly belong somewhere, and I encourage somebody to move them accordingly. But I don't think they belong, or even help, here. -- Hoary 09:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The context of the new baroque city planning in Sicily is undoubtedly unfamiliar to the average reader and needs to be returned, so that the reader can make sense of what was new in Sicily and where it was coming from. A few brief digressions here and there help set Sicilian baroque in a broader picture, a feature of all good Wikipedia articles covering cultural movements. --Wetman 10:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me the removal of the non-Sicilian European bit leaves a very noticable hole, in that the sentence "In Sicily, public opinion..." is based on the removed discussion. The paragraph frankly doesn't make sense in its shortened form: if the non-Sicily cities go, the only logical thing would be to remove the next sentence also. However, I agree with Wetman about the importance of context, so I would rather put it all back: the "chunk" wasn't that big, but just enough to set the scene for how Sicily was different. Bishonen | talk 11:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, but I've trimmed it slightly. I leave the job of selecting the best north American examples to somebody else (see the SGML comment). -- Hoary 09:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What about the workers?

We read: In Sicily, public opinion (the public being the peasantry) counted for nothing. But there were also merchants and storekeepers (as admitted in the article itself). Moreover, since this building predated the paradise [hollow laugh] enjoyed by the labourers working on the vulgarest most "prestigious" architectonic expressions of wealth today, the workers wouldn't have been bussed in: there'd have been an artisan class. I'm sure that all together they'd have been outnumbered by the peasants, but the article's a bit too pat. If it's going to deal with social history, it should do so scrupulously. (Alas I lack the knowledge to fixt this myself.) -- Hoary 09:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think one has to bear in mind how under researched this subject is. Apart from one book this is the most extensive description of the subject I know of. If there is another I would love to read it - seriously!

I think the article, and all reference books on the subject, make it quite clear that Sicily was ruled by a medieval feudal system - basically people did what their upper class masters told them, and I suspect the limited middle class (no reference books mention them by the way) lived by the old adage "he who pays the fiddler calls the tune" - but that is only my opinion or my research, so it can't go in the article. I imagine half the artisans working on the reconstruction were just skilled peasants supervised by a master mason, (probably also of peasant stock). A family of masons (often really architects themselves) would arrive from Naples of Florence, set up shop and employ and train numerous peasants and pay these eventually skilled but illiterate men a pittance. When the master masons were working to an architects plan (frequently they just followed the whims of their patron) the architect would often be absent - but that too is only my opinion. One only has to check dates to see that most of the architects mentioned has several projects on the go at once and thus could not be all over Sicily at the same time - but that again is own research.

Basically Hoary to answer your question why the artisans etc. did not rise up and express their opinion I don't know, but I do know - if they did - no reference book recorded it. Giano | talk 17:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

For comparison, consider Polish Baroque, also a very distinct local development initally spurred by architects from Italy. No "public opinion" operating there either. --Wetman 20:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My thanks to both of you. Incidentally, I'll try to find more time for the article today. WP is running at about five times the speed it was running yesterday. -- Hoary 05:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, compare this to Polish Baroque, which desperately needs a Giano to take it under his wing. Ukrainian Baroque and Naryshkin baroque are a bit more developed (nots sure about the lower case "b" in the latter). As for my stubby Earthquake Baroque...

Baroque architecture is surely not that far away from being of featured quality... -- ALoan (Talk) 12:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What about the gawkers?

the eager paying public, albeit American and British rather than Italian

It's yonks since I was south of Florence, and I'm ashamed to say that I've never been to Sicily. But somehow I'd expect more than token numbers of Germans, Dutch and others. Is the paying public really predominantly anglophone? -- Hoary 12:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Messina

I have heartlessly gutted a magnificent footnote on Messina. Magnificent, yes, but inappropriate in this article. However, I've plonked the entire footnote here for recycling. -- Hoary 13:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

A picture was covering up a word, I think I fixed it feel free to yell at me again if I didn't do it right.

[edit] Fantastic work.

This is an absolutely incredible article. One of the best I've ever seen in Wikipedia. What marvelous pictures, what description. Thanks to all who have contributed. glasperlenspiel 19:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "governed by an extravagant and hedonistic aristocracy."

This appears in the first paragraph. Could this be explained a bit more using some more historical information. I donlt dispute it, but it sounds a bit too generic. The word hedonistic sounds a bit odd as well. Would a hedonistic society build so many churches? In other words, there is a moral criticism here. But was it not also a very exploitative aristocracy, taxing the peasants to death. This was one of the reasons Sicily and SOuthern Italy remained so desperately under developed until modern times.Brosi 14:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've changed hedonistic to egocentric. I think they were hedonistic, but I can't find a reputable author who quotes the word. It is important to remember this phrase is in the lead, which is briefly summarising the article. I think all the historical context necessary for an architectural page is explained later in this section here [6] and elsewhere in the page. I'm always meaning to do a page on the Sicilian aristocracy - a fascinating subject, full of interesting people, but have yet to find the time - I think I will make time very soon. Giano 14:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for responding so soon! I saw the text and liked it (just so that one does not get the impression that the churches were a natural extension of the region's history). But - to finish my small point - how about "extravagant and exploitative" to introduce the economic component. Will leave it up to you, since I think you know more about this than I. In a long term view, the question here is how we view the aristocracy from our post-Enlightenment position. Generally the post-Enlightenment critique of the aristocracy was a moral one, ie. they were hedonistic, ie played card games, were intersted in fashion and hair styles. went riding. etc.. While this is true, one has to also see the aristocracy as driving a hard-nosed economic machine. This is all obvious to you, I am sure, but thought it worth mentioning.Brosi 15:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think "exploitative" would have the POV police here in seconds ;-), and the wealth and secularism of the church is explained. I'm not sure the Sicilian aristoctracy were driving a "hard nosed economic machine" this was and still is one of the problems which has descended to Sicily today, and until very recently the aristocracy did not even in part grasp this. The British and Nothern European aristocracy woke up to the facts of life at least two centuries before their southern Med-European counterparts. I think a page on the Sicilian Aristos needs to be written. Change it if you feel I am wrong. Giano 15:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you are on top of it. Thanks.Brosi 16:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

egocentric doesn't sound right in describing a class (as opposed to which class & when?); nor were they notably hedonistic by comparison with other groups - rather a tight-laced bunch surely, especially the women? I'm not even sure about extravagant - did any go bust, as English and French arisos were always doing? Nor were they at all large as a group compared to Poland, France, etc. Surely the point is that ownership of the land was very concentrated in a small group? The point also needs to be made that Sicily, then & until the invention of the McCormick reaper & the opening of the Middle West US over a century later, had an extremely strong economy, exporting all over the place - wheat, lemons, wine etc. Lovely article otherwise. Johnbod 11:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Exclusive and parochial in outlook" is what was intended by "egocentric", I surmise: Perhaps there is a succinct characterization of the Sicilian aristocracy in Harold Acton, The Bourbons of Naples (1734–1825) (1956) that could be substituted.--Wetman 12:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I have boldly gone & made changes already, but yes that would be a better way of puitting it. Notably they had little alliegance to or interest in the larger states they were part of, & rarely left Sicily. In particular no tradition of military service, or civil service outside Sicily in any form. If Acton is succinct on the matter, that would be unusual! I think my copy is in the loft, so will leave it for others to resolve Johnbod 13:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Numbering of Images

This is a long page and it benefits from having the images formatted and easily referred to as each image has been chosen to illustrate specific points, as the page is long it is impossible to place all images close to the relevant text, hence annotating them allows them to be easily and clearly referred to. Please do not revert or alter the numbering, as the whole page can become confused if this happens. Thankyou Giano 14:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)