Dear All, I spent the week-end working this up only to find, on
opening my mail this morning, that most of it has already been
said. Still there may be some value in it so here it is: MORE RE
HORNED MOSES.
Regarding the "mistranslation theory" which postulates that
Michaelangelo was misinformed, a commentary by the late Dr. Rabbi
J.H. Herz states the theory succintly: "The Latin translation of
the Bible, the Vulgate, translates, `his face sent out horns of
light.' The medieval artists, therefore, including Michaelangelo,
were thus misled into representing Moses as with horns protruding
from his forehead!" I offer the following elaboration of the
problem, based on what I have accumulated over the years.
The problem is with the simple word "KRN" (Koph-Resh-Nun). As
a noun, and with the diacritical marks that are in my edition of
the Torah, it is "KARAN" (Koph/Aleph mark)-(Resh/Aleph mark)-(Nun).
This can mean either "horn" or "ray" or "beam". One might compare
it to the English word "beam", which can refer to a beam of light
emmanating from a spot-light, or a structural member of a building
(e.g., cross-beam).
Hence "KARAN OR" could mean "beam(s) of light" or "horns of
light". Thus we have (Exodus XXXIV, 29)...Moses knew not that the
skin of his face sent forth beams/horns of light (KARAN OR), and
(Idem, 30)...and the Children of Israel saw Moses and, behold, the
skin of his face sent forth beams/horns of light (KARAN OR)....."
Another interpretation I heard is that KRN used as a verb in
the past tense would render "light emmanated or radiated" (KARNI
OR = 3 pers., past tense) from the face of Moses. The arguement is
based on the practice of writing old Hebrew without diacritical
marks, (sefer Toras, used in the synagogue, are still written that
way) and one is free to interpolate most vowels as he may think
proper. However, a final "N" (Nun) is represented by a long
vertical stroke (long Nun), and the only way to get "KARNI" with
the spelling KRN would be to add a the diacritical mark, Yodh (e or
i) beneath the final Nun which is not (to my knowledge) allowed.
It would have to be spelled, (Koph/Aleph mark)-(Resh)-(Medial Nun)-
(Yodh), KRNI. I have never seen such a spelling. One would have to
see the supposed original text which was supposedly mistranslated
to draw a conclusion. What to do?
However translated, the image seems, in any case, to be
straight forward, and one wonders how Michaelangelo was misinformed
by any of the translations so far hypothesized. Also, line 33
(Idem) says, "And when Moses had done speaking with them, he put a
veil on his face." This would seem to have more to do with light
than horns, again making one question the "misinterpretation
theory".
One also wonders why other artists (painters) of the period
seem to have got it straight and represent Moses, in one way or
another, with light radiating from his head. In fact, there is one
in the Vatican, not far from the Sistine Chapel, which shows Moses
in two poses, with light radiating from his head in the form of
golden rays. This is "The Testament and Death of Moses" by Luca
Signorelli (1445-1523).
Perhaps Michaelangelo knew exactly what he was doing and we
have yet to figure it out. I am not a sculptor, but beams of
light impress me as quite difficult to represent in stone...and
Bernini hadn't come into the picture yet with his guilded rays
(e.g., Throne of Peter, St. Peters), and which Michaelangelo
probably would have regarded as too gaudy, anyway. The horns of
curly hair may have been a viable solution to a technical problem,
as well as an aesthetically pleasing form. Perhaps they have
arcane iconographic or mystical significance, as already suggested
by another respondent. Maybe there was yet another reason. I
don't know, but thanks for letting me share my musings on the
subject with you.
C. Thomas Ault
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Indiana, Pa. 15705
USA
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|