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. 
> Cheers, 
> Jim Bugslag
> > In a message dated 99-11-28 11:32:30 EST, you write:
> > 
> > << I am perhaps anticipating somewhat, but was there any
> ascertainable 
> >  reason why the Goths adopted Arianism?  In other respects,
> Theodoric, 
> >   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
> named 
> > Ulfila crossed the Danube to convert the Goths.  He was apparently
> working 
> > with the blessings of the empire and achieved considerable success.
>  Part of 
> > his success was that he translated the bible, or certain portions
> thereof, 
> > into Gothic, fragments of which remain.  
> > 
> > After moving into the empire and establishing themselves as people
> of 
> > 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
> religious 
> > positions are concerned it is impossible to tell what Theodoric
> believed.  He 
> > didn't blink when the Franks became openly Catholic, in fact his
> daughter 
> > 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
> Catholic 
> > churches.  Yet, the executions of Boethius and Symmachus and the
> imprisonment 
> > 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
> blemishes 
> > were part of a difficult political situation and had nothing to do
> with 
> > religion.  
> > 
> > mark
> > 
> > 

Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free address at
or your free address at