The Baptism of Christ in the Arian Baptistry, although generally
> similar in composition, has repositioned Christ to the centre of the
> roundel, with the dove of the Holy Spirit immediately above his head,
> pouring forth, well, probably Holy Spirit, onto it, while St John
> gingerly touches Christ's head, without any liturgical vessel. The
> emphasis has shifted from the sacrament of baptism in the Orthodox
> Baptistry to the central action of the Holy Spirit in activating
> Christ's divinity in the Arian version, and the figure of Christ in
> the Arian Baptistry also has his genitalia more fully depicted than
> usual, once again, I've always taken it, on analogy with the Arian
> belief about the nature of Christ and his relation to God the Father.
> Perhaps you or the Supple Doctor might comment on this distinction?
The only comment I can make is to express my admiration for your
perceptions, which seem to me very probable. I have never had the
opportunity to examine those mosaics for myself.
The Supple Doctor.
> There were also substantial changes made to the mosaic programme in
> the Church of S. Apollinare Nuovo in the mid-6th century, after
> Justinian's forces had taken Ravenna; these, I suppose, could have
> been motivated by solely political factors, but once again, it is at
> least possible that religious ones were involved.
> Jim Bugslag
> > In a message dated 99-11-28 11:32:30 EST, you write:
> > << I am perhaps anticipating somewhat, but was there any
> > reason why the Goths adopted Arianism? In other respects,
> > for example, seems to have gone out of his way to emulate the
> > Orthodox emperors in Constantinople. And it caused them no end of
> > trouble. >>
> > In the 350's or 60's a christian missionary of the arian persuasion
> > Ulfila crossed the Danube to convert the Goths. He was apparently
> > with the blessings of the empire and achieved considerable success.
> Part of
> > his success was that he translated the bible, or certain portions
> > into Gothic, fragments of which remain.
> > After moving into the empire and establishing themselves as people
> > importance it is assumed the Goths maintained their Arian position,
> but there
> > is little other than anti-Gothic propaganda to support that fact.
> As the
> > term Arian was always used in association with Gothic or Germanic
> > institutions I believe it is quite possible the two became
> synonymous without
> > necessarily indicating a set of religious beliefs.
> > As for Theodoric, I'll assume you mean Theodoric the Great
> (491-526). Since
> > the emperor Anastasius willingly gave Theodoric the imperial
> regalia in
> > 497/8, it would appear that it was more than emulation. In fact,
> there is
> > much of that Gothic king's reign that appears imperial in every
> legal sense,
> > except that he never bore the title of emperor. Anyway, as far as
> > positions are concerned it is impossible to tell what Theodoric
> believed. He
> > didn't blink when the Franks became openly Catholic, in fact his
> > married one of Clovis' children. He didn't blink when the
> Burgundians and
> > Vandals followed suit. He encouraged the pope and the emperor
> Justin to
> > build "bridges." He certainly aided the building of a great many
> > churches. Yet, the executions of Boethius and Symmachus and the
> > of the pope John (which lead to the poor fellows death) has
> certainly painted
> > him out as anti-Catholic. My gut feeling is that these late reign
> > were part of a difficult political situation and had nothing to do
> > religion.
> > mark
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie