Mark Holtgrefe wrote:
>...When I first looked at the picture of the Arian baptistry I thought the
old man observing the proceedings was God the Father. However, comparing it
with the Orthodox baptistry, where the figure is clearly labeled as Jordan, I
changed my assumption. And as I recall my art hist. prof. stressed that this
latter position was correct.
My incomplete and out-of-date memory is that the personification of the river
"god" (_genius_?) here is a continuation of a common Roman (and, previously,
Hellenistic??) iconographic convention.
[for the eidetically challenged, here's a not-quite-ready-for-prime-time shot
of the mosiac in question:
http://www.hp.uab.edu/image_archive/ulj/mosaic47.jpg
and a detail of the "empty throne":
http://www.hp.uab.edu/image_archive/ulj/mosaic49.jpg ]
>...Then I noticed the throne and the line connecting the throne with Jesus.
Could this be a novel way of depicting the Creator? An unseen ruling
presence?
Again, if rusty memory serves, the "empty throne" is _au courant_ in Imperial
iconography (cf. André Gragar, _L'emperor dans l'art byzantine_, assuming that
he, too, has not succumbed to merciless duck-nibbling).
>With the dove in between, and in fact looking to all the world like a
messenger on the dome, I thought this could be assuredly Arian: a
symbolic indication of the divine substance being delivered after being
created and packaged just for Jesus. But now that you mention Hetoimasia, the
throne "Prepared" for Jesus, I have second thoughts. It is not that
I see this so much as a throne prepared, but the line of development now looks
more like Jesus stepping off his heavenly throne to become human. Thus, a
fairly clear statement of the "Nicene" creed. In which, case, at least in my
mind, the iconography is even more muddled than before.
You are making a very good case for *not* treating these sorts of images as
some kind of subjective, haphazard Rorschach test.
There is no reason to believe that, just because they may *look*
(superficially) like comic books, they are any less sublime in their doctrinal
complexity and subtleness than the most perceptive and eloquent of
contemporary theologians (who indeed may have been "advisors" to the
iconographers), whose works i daresay you would not *dream* of
approaching in such a manner.
In any case, there is surely nothing "accidental" about any aspect of their
eloquently sententious iconography.
>...I feel like my knowledge of who built the structure is coloring how the
picture must be perceived.
Bravo!
That's progress.
Does your knowledge of the life and contemporary circumstances of Augustine
color how you perceive his works as well?
Objective Truth only exists as a goal over on the history list.
Again, duckwork aside, von Simson (_Sacred Fortress_) does an admirable job of
demonstrating how contemporary events -- political, material,
theological -- *might* be integrated into an understanding of these wonderful
monuments.
Of course, he *may* be wrong in his final conclusions; but as a basic
introduction to the fundamental methodology involved -- how to (and *not* to)
approach a "reading" of these images -- i know of nothing better (Jim?).
Good place to start, at least.
Best from here,
Crockers,
GrammerCop (ret.)
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|