>C. Crockett wrote:
>
>Speaking purely for myself, i have to say that i've never thought that
>Gislebertus (a.k.a. "Whatsisname") of Autun's characterisation of Joseph,
>from the first time i saw his Nativitiy capital --now detached--
>in 1967 in that upper room of the cathedral, was derisive; though it was
>certainly perceptive.
>
>Stuck off to the side there, away from the real action, with his chin in his
>hand, blank expression on his face, he seemed to me to be... well, just
>exquisitely irrelevant, the Ultimate traditional father at a birth.
Christopher:
The description you give of GIs. of Aut."s Nativity Chapel
representaion of Joseph is , broadly drawn, the traditional Byzantine
depiction( across all Byz. rooted cultures) of Joseph in icons of the
Nativity. Never with Virgin, he is always down and off to the right (
rarely the left) , sitting, or hunched ( always reminded me in a way
of Job on his dung-heap), head in hand ( or hands), clearly confused
and well, in doubt about what has transpired. He is usually
accompanied ( hovering behind, or to left of him) by the figure a
wizened old gnome-like man/demon clearly tempting him to disbelief in
what he had been told by Mary has transpired. It has as well always
struck me, rather than derisive, to be the figure with which we, as
participant/viewers of the icon/event, can most readily
identify;perhaps the most profoundly human and identifiable response.
Joseph's doubt and temptation is seen as simply another of the ways
of "knowing" and undersatnding, and accepting what has transpired,
like those other modes of knowing___ the shepherds, the angels, the
'Kings from the East".
Josef Gulka
Josef Gulka
[log in to unmask]
Tel: 215- 732-8420
Fax (215) 732-8420
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|