One observation, and a bit of speculation:

The Lady altar at St. Thomas' Anglican Church in Toronto is to the left, but I do not know what the norm is.

My speculation on the use of statuary in the west vs. icons in the east is that the elaborate mosaics created in early Byzantium were only possible in a culture with lots of disposable income and a lot of highly-skilled craftsmen. Statues, on the other hand, are usually not encrusted with jewels and/or covered with gold leaf. Perhaps the west went with statues in part because they had plenty of rock.

I like the speculation. Although I note that there were Byzantine mosaics in Italy. I think the money may be dead on, though.

In England there was the tradition of painting the walls of churches with religious images - yet there were also statues. No where in the west, after the departure of money, do we see the mosaics in Churches. Statues - both of rock and of wood - become the norm. Money, I think, may be dead on.

Actually, the two-dimensional image predominated in Britain before the Reformation (both with painted icons, frescoes, and especially metal relief iconography) - as it did after (the oil painting above the altar for most Anglican history before the Oxford movement and the restoration of 'English altars') For the record - the ROCOR WRO don't do statues as much as the AWRV does. They have a different 'liturgical golden age' to look to. And a side note - our view of statuary predominating with the Gothic is because the two-dimensional was much more easily removed by Puritan iconoclasts: the Gothic statuary seems to predominate either because what there was is simply defaced rather than erased, or is a late Victorian/Edwardian accretion onto the old Gothic fabric.

If one pays attention to Rood screens, or simply the Rood (where a screen no longer exists or never was built) the B.V.M. is always on the 'Theotokos side' like the Byzantines. On the opposite side of the Rood/Christ is either St. John the Baptist (just so in Byzantine tradition) or St. John the Divine (quite Western). The Lady chapel as at Kettlebaston is rather something from another tradition (Continental) - rather Victorian/Edwardian. Nothing wrong with it, just ahistorical. The placement, East or West, is generally the same - where the West differs is that normally Christ Pantocrator rather than the 'Womb more Spacious in the Heavens' was placed over the altar (and, the altar frontal usually was either a Crucifix or Christ in Majesty.)

Re: the iconostasis - the why? I don't know - it was primarily a Slavic innovation, it seems, that spread to Byzantium. It has different reasons and placement than the Rood Screen, which is almost entirely a monastic feature (because the Western cathedrals were served by monastic brotherhoods/canon regulars.) The screen not only protected those in Quire from the cold, but screened them from having 'wandering eyes' over the congregation (or so I've read in various places.) It also served as a liturgical station, and a place to read from (those that have steps up to the top of the Rood Screen.)

This is all just an overview, I could go into far more detail.

One other item on statues - I forgot to mention that one should also remember to ask why statues went out of favor in the East. They were a feature of Christian iconography from the first centuries there... (hint, is has nothing to do with the schismatic Azkoul idea of 'naturalism' - Romanesque statues are far from naturalistic, and could be considered 'Byzantine 3D'.)

Ari - I agree that the placement on the Rood is the same as on the Iconostasis, but I've never seen a high Anglican (or RC) church that didn't have the shrines located as they do in Kettlebaston.

Perhaps I'm comparing apples and oranges here, but the Rood seems a bit far removed. One lights candles in front of the Lady Shrine or the Theotokos Icon.

Of course it may also just *not matter* which side who is one.

You seem to indicate that both statues and images were in both the east and the west. You have perked up my interest as I'd be happy to know what happened to eastern statues.

The Western images, yes, I see, could have been defaced in the reformation. While the tradition continued with Giotto and other such persons and places. Thank you for making that clear.

There's a nice Byzantine Theotokos & Child in the British Museum I've seen. Don't know if there's a website to look at it. It was done once, someplace, anyway. A pretty small, table-top size, so I don't imagine a usual in-church thing. There sure are alot of headless statues in the Victoria & Albert Museum courtesy of Boom-Boom Henry.

"...but I've never seen a high Anglican (or RC) church that didn't have the shrines located as they do in Kettlebaston. "

I'm guessing all the 'high' AC parishes you have been in were on the 'Anglo-papalist' style (not a derogatory term, but a historical one) ie, those who mixed Anglican use with Tridentine style. In the Gothic there were often statues - but not outside the rood screen: they were rather on opposite sides of the East window.

" One lights candles in front of the Lady Shrine or the Theotokos Icon."

The Rood screen was a place for lighting candles - in fact, the practice of lighting candles is primarily for illuminating the icon, statue, reliquary, etc. For that matter, the rules about multiple candles in the Sarum tradition refer to candles placed up on the Rood screen rather than the altar (the altar only ever had two on the mensa.) The interesting thing about the 'sides'? They were identical early on as the West also once had the practice of the separation of the sexes in the Nave.

Re: 2 dimensional icons - the early 19th c. Catholic historian Daniel Rock, DD who wrote the book on the English local uses (literally) discussed the icons specifically. 2D Icons in British churches were in fact the norm - they are discussed in the literature, survive in places, and we have archaeological evidence. The specific British/English custom seems to have been the gilt bronze or silver metal relief icon (much like the Georgian custom is the enamel icon). Silver and Gilt Bronze were something the Isles were renowned for before the Reformation, as well as textiles (embroidered tapestry and vestments - Opus Anglicanum). As I've pointed out elsewhere, the icon known as the Pax-Brede (an icon of the Crucifixion) played an important part in liturgy in that part of the West: being what the clergy and people kissed at the 'Kiss of Peace'. The nice Our Lady of Walsingham icons from 'the Silver Icon' are rather in that tradition.

I was referring to votive lights lit by the faithful. Never seen votive lights lit for the rood screen.

Yes, I can see your point about Tridentine vrs Sarum, and I know very little about the latter.

Now, having said that, then I rephrase the question: the "anglo-papist" style then seems to have the Lady on one side while the sarum use has the lady on the other. In other words there seems to be no "point" in which ever side she's on - as there is in the Iconostasis where the Theotokos on the Left - then altar - then Christ is seen as a liturgical "story". Or - given that the stories usually come after the use - is the issue that in the west no such story has yet been made up?

PS: very cool stuff on the 2D icons. Has any odd (T)raditions developed in the English use of said? Or are they just painted/whatever by the artist? (Odd traditions - this colour then that colour, no shadows, etc.)

I can't recall any odd customs - though some might see the kissing of the pax in that light. There was an 'English style', as there was a earlier style we could call 'Heroic' (being used from the Anglo-Saxons to the far Irish). The English style's conventions, afaik, were never codified into manual's (something that happened with Russian iconography) - but, I can say that the Winchester school of manuscript illumination matches what we find (and are still finding) under the plaster in English cathedrals and parish churches.

As to why some Continental style would have Our Lady on the other side? I don't know - it might have something to do with where there were separate chapels, and then having the chapel on that side, then a parish without a side chapel would place the new 'Lady altar' on the side that they had observed the chapel? What I think you are asking has more to do with "is there an ordered theological structure to the ornamentation of the church in the West" - the short answer is yes.

Re: votive lights, I'll quote from history.uk.com "Votive candles were lit as a personal offering or sometimes as part of a bequest. When a person died they might leave instructions in their will that a candle be lit for them at certain times of the year. Their family would then be obligated to pay for the candle and ensure it was lit at the right time." No doubt the continuation/revival of this custom accounts for the ubiquitous red votive light racks in almost every UK church?

OK. I'm going to try to focus the conversation again. I only mentioned the votive lights in passing as to indicate why I was asking the question: let it go. This ain't about the history or use of 'em.

What is "ordered theological structure to the ornamentation of the church in the West"? Viz especially the way the left - at least in continental style - is Christ and the right is the Lady. So far your answers seem to indicate that doesn't really matter.

Re: the detail of Lady-side and Jesu-side: it matters in Byzantine churches - it mattered in churches in England. But, I won't judge the Continentals for doing differently. Most Byzantines are familiar with the fact of an ordered theological structure to the ornamentation of their churches. The same applies to Western churches (and, where Russians and Greeks have differences, one can expect the same with Insular and Continental to vary.) Why the Byzantines have it one way is not to establish an absolute, but rather a custom of ornamentation in their rite that fits with the ethos of that rite. The same goes with the ornamentation of our Western churches. That the images have their set place within their own local tradition does matter - that they differ from other local traditions shouldn't matter (where it does, it is rather a symptom of nationalist pride rather than defense of the Tradition.) Rather like the issue of the Antiphons in the Slavic and Byzantine traditions (both are correct for their local use, those who condemn one or the other use are simply wrong.)

ok... so it matters as a part of (t)radition but not as (T)radition, to use that language.

Sure, with the qualification that the traditions lead to the Tradition.

I think the danger comes with comparing this tradition to that tradition - using one or the other as the 'measuring stick'. Rather the same danger as when we compare ourselves with each other. The problem comes with deciding which is the standard (those who pick a single use as the standard tend to become the most divisive - whether they are choosing the 'Old Ritual' of Russia, the Nikonian reforms, the Great Church, the Tridentine, some Syriac rite, Mari and Addai, the Didache, this or that BCP, or the Novus Ordo.) A good personal guide is to be faithful in the little things (the tradition one receives) so one can be faithful in the big things (the Tradition) - and not to take one's typikon to another monastery (ie, don't assume your tradition is exclusively the Tradition.) At least, that's what I've been taught.

agreeing 100% but the the point was why did x and y develop different - not which one is better.

The Son sits at the right Hand of the Father, the Mother sits at the right Hand of the Son.

. . . at least in the Orthodox Church.

I think that will lead us (at least in Byzantine circles, again - not to be solely equated with Orthodox) to the 'chicken or the egg' conundrum. Did the theological fact (Tradition) or the Son seated at the right of the Father (and the Mother at the right of the Son) produce the placement of the icons, or was it a pious explanation developed later to explain the traditional placement of the icons on the iconostasis? The latter would seem to be implied, as traditionally the Son is seated at the right hand of St. John the Baptist (and again, the Rood Screen follows the same schemata as the iconostasis - Christ with Mary on his right, St. John Baptist or St. John Divine on his right, and the archangels Michael and Gabriel on the far ends.) I think the point being missed in looking for a 'different development' is that the placement of the Lady Altar/Chapel/Shrine has no relation to the iconostasis and its placement of icons. It is still an apple vs. oranges question (unless one wants to ask why the placement on the Rood beam of images, and those on the iconostasis are identical - even though an iconostasis and rood screen are not analogues.) We can answer why the iconostasis and rood screen developed differently - the iconostasis once was the altar rail, as it still is in the most ancient Byzantine churches. We've already discussed the 'whyfore' of the Rood.

What a lovely church !
I could quite happily worship W-R there :-) but I would replace the statues with large icons.
Been praying with icons so long now, statues just seem weird, apart from Our Lady of Walsingham, for some reason, LOL.

I have bene told in the past that the classical Western placement of Our Lord and Our Lady is exactly as it is in the East -- Lady on the Left (which is at the "right hand" of the crucifix, I might add), Lord on the Right. This, indeed, is how the men and women were seated traditionally -- women on the left, men on the right. This is the origin of the bride standing to the left of the groom (and has nothing to do with the groom's sword-hand needing to be free if the bride's family arrive,which is a spurious legend invented by people who would rather forget the mark that Christianity has left indeliby on the institution of marriage in the West).

The reason, I was told, for the Lord being on the left in some Churches is that as the iconography of the Our Lord of the Sacred Heart became popular, the side-altar of the Sacred Heart would be put on the Left (Gospel Side), near the pulpit to remind the priest of our Lord's sacrificial love, and to encouage the priest to preach this good news. In this configuration, our Lady was moved to the right. This is what I have been told; I do not know if it is actually the case.