This article overviews the groundwork of the representation of the Cross in Belatedly Antique and Byzantine awe-inspiring art. Several contexts of the usage of the Cross are considered, such every bit the Cantankerous as a non-anthropomorphic substitute of Christ; the Cross as a cosmic symbol simultaneously framing the surrounding decorative space, and the Theophanic Cross in a vault or conch or as a counterpart to the "Earthly" register below.
This study into the visual meaning of the Cantankerous in the programs of monumental ornament in Tardily Artifact was triggered by the attempts to reconstruct the context for the prominence of the representations of the Cross in monumental church decoration programs of the Byzantine Iconoclasts. It is well known that the Iconoclasts obliterated religious subjects from the decora-tion of the churches. Notwithstanding, at the same time they also installed new programs in their church decoration, mainly consisting of the representation of the Cross in the alcove, as in the Hagia Irene and Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, Hagia Sophia in Thessaloniki,one equally well as the church building of the Dormition in Nicaea.two Iconoclastic replacements also included crosses in other parts of the church, every bit probably are medallions with golden crosses about identical in shape to that at Hagia Eirene in the south tympanum in the room over the southwest ramp at the Hagia Sophia, replacing the former medallion portraits.3 We cannot assess how consistently the Iconoclastic program of redecoration was carried out in the short time until the Iconophile interlude since the destruction of very durable mosaics and their replacement for new designs, as for example, described in the Vita Stephani, 29, must take been an extremely costly and lengthy enterprise. In most cases, peradventure, the Iconoclasts limited themselves to the installation of manifestly Crosses in the apses and whitewashing the naos ornament, as is prescribed in the fragment of the austere Nilus to Eparch Olympiodorus from the Iconoclastic florilegium of the Council in Saint Sophia:
In the sanctuary, according to the ordinances of the ecclesiastical traditions, it is sufficient to install the Cross through which all the flesh has been saved; and to whitewash the residuum of the nave ...iv
Generally, any decoration program adorns an interior or exterior infinite associated with a certain ready of rituals. These rituals may be liturgical in the example of a church service with its division of ceremonies and movements outside the church, in the narthex, nave, and apse with their respective decoration programs, but as well secular, for example, in the instance of the royal or popular ceremonials, each having its proper space in the city as well equally in and effectually the accompanying monuments.5 The tradition of many centuries conditioned the stability of these rituals, in some style similar to the rigidity of the ecclesiastical rituals. Thus, the imperial "liturgy" included the processions of the Emperor with his retinue, the ceremonies of triumph and adlocutio, in the same style continued with their proper decorations (reliefs on the triumphal arches, or statues) and monuments, such as, for example, the Purple palace, its vestibule or the Chalke,6 or the Milion (a monument from which all the distances in the Empire were calculated). The "political" ideas were most likely implemented past means of some decoration activities on the public monuments of the City: the reworking of the Chalke ornamentation program, the redecoration of the Milion with scenes of horse races instead of the previous depictions of the 6 Councils,7 or possible erection by Constantine 5 of his monumental statues in the City, which past itself carried a full-fledged program of Royal propaganda.
The act of dismantling the churches of their decoration and decorating them anew with secular motifs was considered by the Iconophiles every bit a blasphemous act confronting Orthodoxy, similar to the exposition of a Constantinopolitan Patriarch sitting on a donkey8 or a parade of monks and nuns on the Hippodrome.nine Even so, as opposed to these acts which required no great effort and finances on the part of the Emperor, the installation of completely dissimilar designs into churches must have been besides high-cost for the satisfaction of the peculiar sense of Constantine 5'southward sense of humour, and this "practical" reason offers some other explanation. Even with the "caesaropapist" leanings of the Iconoclastic Emperors, it is unlikely that they would have used images of their Imperial propaganda in such an inappropriate context for it equally the walls of churches without a radical modify in the ritual which the decoration plan was intended to frame, interpret, and enhance. In view of the importance of the Cross as the palladium of victorious Emperors Constantine the Great and Heraclius, indeed, information technology was just natural for the Iconoclastic Emperors to promote the Regal connotation of the Cantankerous, for example, on their coinage,x but if a purely political Imperial context would have been unsaid in the inclusions of the Cross in the apses by the Iconoclasts, for this context the apse was not the right place.
We have argued elsewhere that the representation of the Cross in the apse as well every bit in other parts of the church might have served for the Iconoclasts equally the image of Resurrected Christ in his Resurrected state with an unrepresentable subtle trunk, which went along with iconoclastic general denigration of affair and the material realm.xi Their endeavour at a change of church decoration programs may be interpreted as a conscious attempt on the office of the Iconoclasts to create a church building decoration programme coherently embedding both the epitome of the Tabernacle (or the succeeding Temple of Solomon), and a model of reality consisting of 2 katastases – material and spiritual. Thus, in the Iconoclastic church building-tabernacle, the Holy of Holies, the altar, might represent the noetic reality with the image of the manifestly Cantankerous – both the symbolic representation of Resurrected Christ in his present spiritual body and the future Parousiac Theophanic vision.
For seeing a wider context for the installation of Iconoclastic crosses, particularly in the apses of churches, it would exist helpful to get backwards and review the background behind the use of the Cantankerous in Late Antiquity.
The Cross is the instrument of Christ's death, the redemption of mankind, and the ultimate symbol of Christianity. Still, its ubiquity in Christian art often blurs the specific connotations of the Cross in each detail occasion. In individual cases they may exist more or less self-evident (coins, signet rings,12 sarcophagi, narrative cycles, floor ornamentation13) but in some cases, particularly when the representation is connected to and juxtaposed with the surrounding images, the exact meaning needs to exist deciphered.
The tradition of representing the Cross in the Resurrection scenes is, in fact, well attested to in early on Christian art. The representation of the Cross was the sign used for the Resurrected Christ as opposed to Christ'southward anthropomorphic images in other scenes; then, for case, in the Resurrection scenes at Christ's Sepulchre, the Sepulchre often exposes the defunction open on ii sides with the Cross inside.xiv In many instances, some of which volition exist presented below, the Cross featuring in monumental decoration represents not (or not only) the instrument of Christ's decease, or the sign of the Son of Human of the Second Coming, but serves a non-anthropomorphic representation of Christ Himself. Before starting the argument, it would be helpful to present the main methodological principles which will guide further assay.
1. The infinite of ecclesiastical buildings is public social infinite not limited to but form and function; its decoration does not merely illustrate the ritual but frames it, visually enriches the ritual, and communicates the meaning to the participants in the ritual creating a detail temporal and special continuum of sacred infinite. Programs of monumental decoration unify the chains of thought,xv which arise in the congregation while participating in the ritual.
2. The spatial location of decoration in microcosmic church building space corresponds to the physical location in the macrocosmic, earthly and heavenly earth with particular emphasis on the vertical extremities such equally apses and vaulting, particularly, domes in domed structures.16 Compages coupled with its monumental decoration creates "sacred" space, metaphorically speaking, similar to an extraterritorial Embassy of the Heavenly Kingdom on Globe17 with a particular infinite of the sanctuary similar to an part, not accessible to the general public but only to designated officers (the clergy).
3. Conscious reproduction of iconographies with the modify of a single elective element implies interchangeability in the primary meaning of the chemical element and changes merely in its connotation or secondary meaning. Both single images and compositions must be seen in context of the surrounding images and in juxtaposition with them as creating continuous space with the pregnant "flowing" through images and "irradiating" from the particularly semantically saturated areas of sanctuary in basilicas or sanctuary and dome in the domed structures.
4. Textual parallels to the monumental imagery need to be treated with caution: ekphrasis, encomia, inauguration hymns, homilies and kontakia mentioning architectural space and its decoration practise not help much; they are relatively rare and are field of study to the rhetorical laws of their genre and the full general purpose of spiritual uplifting on the basis of architecture or "architectural theoria" rather than describing actual architectural experience.
v. Belatedly antiquarian hermeneutical principles which were implemented in exegesis do not follow the police force of the excluded center, that is to say, if we detect several valid meanings in our visual sources, we practice not take to postulate the "either…or" relationship between them, but rather the "and… and" human relationship, which is brilliantly illustrated past Maximus the Confessor's exegesis of church building edifice in his Mystagogia, where Maximus symbolically interprets the Church as simultaneously, and not mutually exclusively, the image of God, the prototype of the world consisting of visible and invisible natures, the paradigm of the sensible world, the epitome of the human beingness, and the paradigm of the homo soul.18
half dozen. The iconographies on the periphery of the Byzantine works may preserve the primitive motives of the heart, which had been pushed into oblivion past the afterward changes in metropolitan iconographical patterns caused by theological, political, or social reasons such as ecclesiastical and political regulations of iconographies past the Quinisext or Iconoclasm. This is true that beingness discrete from the mainstream developments they may also expose local developments, but if we have textual or visual corroboration on the part of the mainstream artistic developments from the center, provincial fine art may often "explicate" the iconography of now largely lost central art being substantially its simplified and "petrified" version.nineteen
Keeping these six methodological points in mind, we will examine the usage of the Cantankerous in various geographical regions such as Cappadocia, Caucasus, and Africa, appearing in church space, and stemming from some mutual Late Antiquarian solutions of monumental decoration. The space under the conch of the apse is the infinite housing the altar table and the planned coming of Christ in the course of Eucharistic Gifts every bit the focus of the liturgy. Naturally the decorative space above the altar table would be dedicated to Christ. Its specific connotations, notwithstanding, may be unlike, emphasizing his power, his glory shared with the saints, or his everlasting presence in the Church culminating in the Eucharist as the first fruits of the bliss after the Second Coming. Several pictorial solutions of this concept were proposed.twenty
For rendering a complex theological thought, early on Christian art oftentimes utilized the principle of registers within a unmarried space, which had to exist read together, mutually enriching each other's meaning with a particular bulletin. This solution tin can exist found as early equally the fine art of the catacombs. 2 registers in this fresco from the Catacombs of Peter and Marcellinus21 (Fig. 1) bear witness ii interdependent aspects of Christ: His glorious ability (enthroned figure in the upper register), and His cede and redemption of mankind (Lamb in the lower register). The composition is unambiguous: both scenes create a single message of the Epistle to the Philippians 2: 6–xi: Christ atoned mankind being God in nature, humbling himself to expiry and becoming the sacrifice, and is exalted to the college place and worshipped by every genu in heaven, on earth and under the earth.
Figure ane
Enthroned Christ with Peter and Paul and the Lamb with Martyrs. Fresco from the Catacombs of Peter and Marcellinus, Rome, late fourth century
The same principle may be applied to "reading" the decoration in the apses of late antique churches. Apse ornament of Sta. Pudenziana (late 4th–early fifth century) represents Christ enthroned, flanked by the groups of Apostles and the female personification of ecclesia ex gentibus and ecclesia ex circumcisione, crowning Paul and Peter against the background of the buildings of heavenly Jerusalem and a Mount with a towering Cross and four apocalyptic animals against the background of the clouds of heaven – a standard group of Apocalyptic imagery based on the New Testament predictions of the Second Coming of Christ (Mt. 24:thirty, Mk. 13:25, Lk.21:27 and Rev. 1:seven) (Fig. 2). The sketch of Ciacconio from 1595 shows an boosted register showing the Lamb and the descending pigeon of the Holy Spirit, at present destroyed by the baldachin. The juxtaposition of registers is very similar to the above image from the catacombs: from bottom to top nosotros can read the composition as Christ the Redeemer – Christ the Law-giver, and the glorious coming of Christ in the end of times.22
If the vertical centrality of the composition represents Christ, can information technology exist that the image of the Cross in the upper register is not just the "sign of the Son of Man" merely besides the image of Christ Glorified in the Second Coming?
The theophanic and eschatological dimension of the scene of non-anthropomorphic Transfiguration in Sant'Apollinare in Classe (Fig. 3) is confirmed by the juxtaposition of the image of anthropomorphic Christ surrounded by the symbols of the Evangelists in the triumphal curvation above the apse. Ii groups of six sheep flank the total-sized effigy of Saint Apollinaris with his arms expanded in prayer and together with his body forming a Cross-similar figure23 in the lower register of the apse. This chemical element of the composition has a analogue in the form of two groups of sheep and four creatures flanking a medallion with the bust representation of Christ in the triumphal arch. Visually referring to Ezekiel's vision from the Onetime Testament, the Transfiguration equally a fulfillment of the vision in the New Testament, and the hereafter vision of the sign of the Son of Human in his Second Coming, the apse and triumphal arch institute a joint theophanic programme which makes the viewer, participating in the divine service, a participant in the timeless theophanic vision and a partaker of the flesh and blood of the Ane Who reveals Himself in the visions and in the Eucharistic Gifts. The latter aspect of the Incarnation is emphasized by the representation of the face of Christ in a small medallion at the intersection of the crossbars of the jewelled Cross – a "constructed" iconographic expression operating with both sets of imagery: anthropomorphic, and non-anthropomorphic.24
The composition of some other famous sixth century epitome of the Transfiguration in the apse of the basilica of Transfiguration in St. Catherine Monastery in Sinai25 (Fig. 4) mirrors Sant'Apollinare'southward mosaic, but is based on completely different, much more narrative principles due to its "memorial" geographic location in Sinai, the One-time Attestation typos of Mt. Tabor: all the figures are represented in full size in the human form. However, the timeless "heavenly register" is nowadays on top in the form of the Cantankerous in mandorla of radiating circles, echoing the mandorla of Transfigured Christ, and a Deisis composition in the triumphal arch centered effectually the medallion with the Lamb flanked by flying angels and medallions with the Theotokos and John the Baptist on the sides. The Lamb and the Cross consummate the vertical axis of the limerick and set its historical narrative meaning into an eternal outwardly context.
The Theophany of Christ juxtaposed with the Cross or expressed by ways of the Cross was something very important for the awe-inspiring programs of the time. It appears in the most elevated and/or sacred zones of vaulting, dome and apse, not only of churches, only also of ecclesiastical buildings intended for other purposes, namely, mausolea and baptisteria. The Mausoleum of Galla Placidia (400–450) (Fig. five) features the theophanic cantankerous accompanied by the animals of the apocalypse in the vault; the tabernacle-like composition is organized by the cross serving equally its ultimate focus.
The Cantankerous-monogram with the wreath and letter alpha and omega appears in the central medallion of starry heavens in the dome of the Baptistery of San Giovanni in Fonte (fourth–fifth century) in Naples. The squinches of the vault carry the representations of the apocalyptic animals.26
Figure 6
Cross carried by angels. Vault fresco of the church building of the Dormition, Vardzia, Georgia, twelfth century (photograph past Anna Afonasina)
Citation: Scrinium eleven, i (2015) ; 10.1163/18177565-00111p06
Download Figure
Figure vi
Cross carried by angels. Vault fresco of the church of the Dormition, Vardzia, Georgia, 12th century (photo by Anna Afonasina)
The Theophanic cross in the apses and domes was a pop arrangement which survived until the cease of the Iconoclastic Controversy in Byzantium and much longer in the periphery of the Byzantine globe, in Cappadocia, Caucasus,27 (Fig. 6–8), Egypt, and Nubia. The interchangeability of Christ and the Cantankerous in these compositions is confirmed past a diversity of cases, including "hybrid" Christ-Cross theophanic images (Fig. ix–11).
Figure 9
Deisis apse composition with the theophanic Cantankerous, carried by the angels. White Monastery, Sohag, Egypt. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Drove, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University, Washington, D.C.
Deisis apse limerick with the theophanic Cross, carried by the angels. White Monastery, Sohag, Egypt. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Epitome Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University, Washington, D.C.
Theophanic crosses as ornament of domes, 1 of which, incidentally, is mentioned by Paul the Silentiary as decoration of the dome of Hagia Sophia of Constantinople in the sixth century,28 were a successful solution, and could have persisted until subsequently times in full or abbreviated forms, as they did in the Caucasus or in Cappadocia. However, the victory of the Iconophiles inByzantium resulted in the preference given to figural compositions in monumental programs, thus making the scene of the Ascension, the "mirroring" prefiguration of the Second Coming the standard Byzantine scheme of dome ornamentation, later abbreviated to the image of Christ Pantocrator. It should, however, be pointed out that the epitome of the Pantocrator – the abbreviated class of the Ascension in the dome,29 freed from the narrative connotations of its Ascension prototype, returned to the original meaning of the divine attendance and an on-going theophany radiating downwards from below the dome in the sacred space of the church.
Figure eleven
A "hybrid" image of the tetramorph with Christ/Cantankerous in Abdallah Nirqi, Nubia, late 10th century (after P. Van Moorsel et al.)30
A "hybrid" epitome of the tetramorph with Christ/Cross in Abdallah Nirqi, Nubia, tardily 10th century (after P. Van Moorsel et al.)30
Citation: Scrinium eleven, i (2015) ; 10.1163/18177565-00111p06
Download Figure
On the territories unaffected or about unaffected by the Iconoclastic controversy, the abbreviation of the theophanic scene in the elevated function of the building moved in the opposite direction, and in spite of some Byzantine influences led to the persistence of the cross in the dome or vault both as a theophanic sign of the everlasting presence of Christ in the construction, and a device of the formal organization and structuring of infinite. The decoration of several Cappadocian churches is entirely built on aniconic principles (mostly geometric and floral designs, sometimes human beings are represented past symbols: animals or crosses)31 with dandy importance given to the sign of the sole Cantankerous, especially in the area of the altar function or the vault. Gabriel Millet first enthusiastically connected the ornamentation of some Cappadocian churches with Iconoclastic decor32 on the basis of external similitude. His hypothesis led him to even date some churches to the Iconoclastic time on the basis of mode. He was further followed past Nicole Thierry and Jacqueline Lafontaine-Dosogne who established the type of church edifices, especially densely located in Cappadocia and Naxos, coined on the basis of their common aniconic manner as "Iconoclastic churches."
The main objective to their method is, however, that it is very problematic to use the style of decoration as a basis for dating, and for the dating of the "Iconoclastic churches" we practise not possess enough written sources (beyond a few inscriptions) enhancing the establishing of the engagement for a detail monument after which art historians could found a typology and ascertain a tentative generic line of the decoration. Moreover, Leslie Brubaker noted that the tendency to prefer aniconic decoration might have been caused past economic reasons – for case, by the inability to find or rent a good team of painters.33 The low skill of local awe-inspiring decoration, even so, does not preclude that in choosing an "easily executed" non-figurative language the artisans might yet utilize the "standard" organization for spatially well-established structures of imagery, albeit often expressed in a simplified aniconic form.
It seems rather that in Cappadocia and Naxos, which were on the periphery of the Byzantine world, different styles could co-exist simultaneously, reflecting new developments and preserving the erstwhile ones, while not beingness dominated by a single artistic center as was the case of Constantinople. The earth in the age of Iconoclasm was not by whatsoever means a rigid structure and the echoes from the Byzantine Councils of the time can be detected equally far as Syria, Palestine, and the Carolingian Empire. However, the local responses to Iconoclasm took a very distinct grade as opposed to what happened in Byzantium,34 and, on the contrary, some artistic developments across Byzantium were appropriated in Byzantium in their distinctive forms. Thus, in his analysis of the Cappadocian church programs, Robin Cormack singled out at least four iconographic strata: pre-Iconoclastic art, gimmicky Byzantine iconographic developments, Armenian influences and the influences from the Islamic world.35 In addition, the Cross in the apse or in the dome of a church (and both are the loci of the church space which signify the most sacred realities) was not a monopoly of either the Byzantine Iconoclasts or of the Cappadocian artists – such motives, for example, be in another periphery of the Byzantine cultural universe, such as Georgia.36 Stylistically amid the Cappadocian churches there exists a whole spectrum of languages, ranging from anthropomorphic ornamentation, through some "transitional" monuments which include simultaneously aniconic and iconic/anthropomorphic elements in their ornament program,37 and, finally, to purely aniconic designs (Fig. 12–13).
The Cross has iv arms pointing in four directions, and thus tin can be used for the formal organization of architectural space of domes and vaults, visually expressing the tradition which connected the four extremes of the Cantankerous with the four limits of the world, the metaphor suggested by the class of the Cantankerous itself, combined with the poetry from the Epistles, "Rooted and strengthened in honey, in gild to be able to understand with all the saints what is the width and the length and the depth and the superlative" (Eph. 3: 18).
Such cosmic perception of the Cantankerous is all-time reflected in several writings of Gregory of Nyssa.38 The visible shape of the Cross manifests Christ who, through his passion on the Cantankerous, unified and brought harmony into the whole world enclosed within its four boundaries.39 The aforementioned "four-partite" interpretation of the Cross may be establish in the fragment from Basil's Commentary on Isaiah, excerpted past John of Damascus for his Chapter on the Cross from the Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith (Iv, eleven):
… as the iv extremes of the Cross are held and connected by the centre of the middle, the same fashion by God's power, the elevation and the depth, the length and the width, truly all visible and invisible creation is kept together.40
The Cross as a figure with a naturally extending apex was user-friendly not simply for apses, but also for decorating niches of various kinds and purposes. The Cross was actively used in the decoration of niches in monastic oratory rooms in Egyptian monasteries (Fig. xiv). Of class, constant Jesus prayer every bit the principal occupation of solitary or semi-alone monks could and would be made in any position and during whatever activity of the monk; however, in the moments of temptations, when demons bombarded the heed of the monk with distracting imagery, niches with representations might provide a psycho-physiological "focusing device"42 assisting the monk in staying focused on the prayer. It is notable that the niches in Kellia incorporate just crosses, whereas the niches in other Egyptian monasteries, such as the Monastery of Apa Jeremias in Saqqara (sixth–seventh century) (Fig. 15) contain anthropomorphic images of Christ alone or accompanied by the representations of the Theotokos, which may point to the interchangeability of the Cross and Christ which we have already seen, as well as the echoes of the Evagrian traditions favoring non-figural imagery.
Even so in that location seems to exist one more office of the Cross in the monumental decoration, that of the structural organizer of space. The Cantankerous in full general is a formally convenient sign; information technology can be extended or expanded, fitting any architectural space which is difficult to decorate by other ways. This does not mean that cross in these scenes plays a pure decorative function; this means that scenes with the theophanic cross/heavenly Christ could be depicted in near whatsoever role of any building regardless of its configuration, and successfully open the "theophanic windows" in the surface of the wall, framing other scenes which could non be depicted equally freely.
However, our claim on the interchangeability of the representations of the Cross and Christ in Belatedly Antiquarian and Byzantine monumental programs will remain merely a hypothesis unless we present the voice of the original beholders of the presented awe-inspiring programs. Did they mention such an interchangeability or machinery behind information technology?
Indeed, the Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena describe the vision of Xanthippe, who subsequently prayer sees the Cantankerous on the eastern wall. A cute youth surrounded past the rays of low-cal immediately enters through the cantankerous. Xanthippe recognizes him and addresses him in the post-obit way, "You are the Ane, whose forerunner was the Cantankerous (σὺ εἶ ἐκεῖνος οὗ πρόδρομος ἔτυχεν ὁ σταυρός)."43
The idea that the Cross not simply refers the viewer to Christ only reveals him, which nosotros accept seen in the Acta, appears in i of the pseudo-Chrysostomian homilies on the Adoration of the Cross (CPG 4671), which straight states that the Cross is the revelation of Christ simply equally Christ is the revelation of the invisible Begetter, referring to Ps. four:half dozen ("Lord, Let the light of your confront smooth upon the states"):
What so is the light if not the Cross of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ through whom [or through which, the Cross] the earth has been saved and the believers have been freed from the captivity of Belial and the listing of our transgressions has been torn. The Face of the Father is Christ: The one who saw me, he says, saw the Begetter. Light of the Lord's Face, that is the Cross...44
The discussion concerning the precise pregnant of the Cross intensified during the Iconoclastic Controversy in Byzantium, since the Iconophiles with the same reverence accepted crosses, crucifixions, and images of Christ, whereas the Iconoclasts accustomed simply crosses and rejected the two other prototype categories. All major authors of the Iconoclastic time addressed the subject of the Cross. In his Chapter on the Cantankerous, John of Damascus expresses the traditional doctrine that the Cross reveals Christ as his sign of the Second Coming and is the ultimate image of the Crucifixion:
Thus, when He explained to His disciples maxim: "So shall appear the sign of the Son of human in heaven," He meant the Cross. For this reason, also, the angel of the resurrection said to the women: "You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified." Likewise, the Apostle: "But we preach Christ crucified." Now, at that place are many Christs and Jesuses, only only one Crucified, and he did not say "pierced by a lance" simply "crucified." Therefore, the sign of Christ is to be adored, for, wherever the sign may be, in that location He, too, will exist.45
The Homily on the Cantankerous and Icons confronting the Heretics, ascribed in the manuscripts to Patriarch Germanus of Constantinople, uses the unconditional adoration of the Cross, shared past the Iconoclasts, for building upwards the statement, that the Cross is the image of Christ just as the icon. The argument gives us a glimpse into the possible rationale behind the Iconoclasts' acceptance of the Cross every bit a legitimate representation of Christ.
For I will inquire you: every bit the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father, in the same way the Image is in the Cantankerous and the Cross is in the Prototype, for the Cantankerous and the Image are the same affair. Moses the God-beholder showed this when he defeated sensible Amalek, stretching his arms crosswise on the mountain, representing through himself the Cantankerous as in an Prototype, that is Jesus in the Cantankerous for the sake of our mankind, and the Cantankerous in Jesus Christ. For the ane who honors and venerates His honorable Cross as well in accolade venerates His honorable Prototype…46
The Cross is venerable not just as a memorial of Christ's expiry, but because it represents the effigy of Christ with outstretched arms on the Cross. Information technology is this prototype of Christ which was reproduced by Moses (and is represented on a mosaic panel in Sta. Maria Maggiore in Rome), which appears on early Christian reliefs from the doors of Santa Sabina in Rome (Fig. sixteen), and it is this image, that is yet born by Orthodox novices during their tonsuring, and past pilgrims seeking for the healing.47
The afterward Iconophiles further developed the argument against the Iconoclasts around the mutual credence of the Cross equally a legitimate and venerable prototype of Christ. In his oration In Adorationem Crucis Theodore the Studite points to what may exist the Iconoclastic reasoning behind the veneration of the Cantankerous:
You see, my friend, what ability is in the typos of the Cantankerous! If it is so, and so it is also in the typos of the crucified Christ: for surely, inasmuch as the prototypes are more perfect, the copies are besides more useful. And what if everyone asks: "I desire to know: who prefigured the typos of Christ in the aboriginal times?" – Those, I say, who prefigured the Cross. For as the stretching of Moses' hands was the image of the Cantankerous, thus also Moses himself prefigured crucified Christ, defeating the invisible Amalek, and the same can be understood with other examples when 1 is revealed by the typos of the other. "Just that one," – you say, – "was an animated typos. Then why do yous speak well-nigh the soulless one?" As with the typos of the Cross – when a visible still soulless thing makes a miracle, [then] similarly to the Cross-similar epitome, the Christ-similar image makes miracles in the blithe and soulless, every bit having in itself the shape and form of the archetype and by this appropriating the same honour and veneration, as well equally the name – this is obvious.48
This fragment elucidates some other short fragment from the Inquiries of the Iconoclastic Emperor-theologian Constantine V, also pertaining to the Cross: "We venerate the typos of the Cross considering of the One stretched (ἐκταθέντα) upon information technology."49 The participle "stretched" would not take particular significance by itself50 (except that information technology would be, perhaps, more than appropriate to use the more than physical "crucified (σταυρωθέντα)" if exactly the same significant was implied) but Theodore the Studite'due south text helps us to reconstruct the perhaps more precise meaning of the participle. The Cross-similar figure of Moses with his easily stretched apart is also chosen "the stretching out (ἔκτασις)" and is considered by Theodore's interlocutor as the "blithe type" of Christ. It is, thus, possible that the Iconoclasts venerated the typos of the Cross referring dorsum not to the wooden structure of the historical Cross established on Golgotha co-ordinate to the Gospels' narrative but implying the animated figure of Christ with his hands stretched autonomously, the Cross as the not-anthropomorphic symbol (or typos, "impression," in the Byzantine terminology) – the unique and univocal representation of deified and God-like Christ afterwards His Resurrection.
In this case, the verbal pregnant of the term typos which always related to the image of the Cross, becomes significant: typos is an imprint or seal of the original executed in certain material. Then, the typos of the Cross may be understood as the schematic representation of the animated Cantankerous-shape effigy of Christ engraved in stone or made of mosaics or colors. In another passage Theodore the Studite refutes this relationship, established by the Iconoclasts, stating that the typos of the Cross only signifies Christ but does not "typify" Him as does the icon: "Christ is signified in the Cross; in his icon he is represented (Ὡς οὖν ἐν σταυρῷ ἐστι Χριστὸς σημαινόμενος· οὕτως ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ εἰκόνι τυπούμενος)."51
The fourth syllogism from Patriarch Nicephorus' ten syllogisms on the preference of Christ's icon over the Cross, which establish the refutation of the above fragment from the Inquiries, confirms our hypothesis. Patriarch Nicephorus writes:
The typos of the stretching out of Christ'southward hands and of this figure is venerable: however, as much equally the body differs from a effigy, to the same extent differ these things which are from those ii. For the things of more honorable archetypes are themselves more honorable also, since the figure and the stretching out are because of the body… Thus, those things which belong to the body are better than those things which belong to the figure, and if this is so, the typos of the body is more venerable than the typos of the figure.52
In cursory, according to Nicephorus' argument, the icon of Christ more efficiently represents Him than the Cross, being a footstep closer to Christ than a cross, which is the epitome of the Cantankerous, which is the image of Christ.
Conclusions
Since early Christian times the Cross accumulated a number of mutually enriching meanings in Christian consciousness, condign a "condensed Christological symbol"53 suitable for beingness represented in a variety of visual contexts indicating Christ'due south voluntary suffering and decease, redemption of the flesh, also as glory and ability in the heavens, which volition be fully manifested in Christ's Second Coming, preceded by the theophanic sign of the Son of Man. These meanings did not cause tension, since the primary pregnant remained one and the same – the Cross par excellence was the representation of Christ: just as Christ is inseparable from his Cross which completed Christ's earthly historical mission, the Cross is inseparable from Christ who took the shape of the Cross with His outstretched artillery during the Crucifixion. The theophanic cross alone or as a part of compositions thus became a customary composition of the most sacred parts of ecclesiastical building – apses, domes, and vaults. It is this latter significant that the Iconoclasts implemented in their apse programs with representations of Christ Resurrected whom they considered to exist incircumscrabable every bit a plain Cantankerous against the golden background which they regarded as a pledge of the future destiny of the faithful and the presence of the heavenly kingdom hither on Earth. The Iconophiles retained the primary meaning of apse programs, and changed the secondary meaning, stressing the true Incarnation and circumscribability of Christ according to his flesh, and expressing this gear up of ideas by the images of Mary with Christ the Child on her lap which replaced the Iconoclastic Crosses afterward the victory of icon veneration.
ii
P.A. Underwood, "The Testify of Restorations in the Sanctuary Mosaics of the Church of the Dormition at Nicaea,"DOP
P.A. Underwood, "The Evidence of Restorations in the Sanctuary Mosaics of the Church building of the Dormition at Nicaea,"DOP thirteen (1959), pp. 236–240. On the church building in general, run across O.K. Wulff, Die Koimesiskirche in Nicäa und ihre Mosaiken, Strassburg, 1903; T. Schmit, Dice Koimesis-Kirche von Nicaia, das Bauwerk und die Mosaiken, Berlin–Leipzig, 1927; see also Thou. Peers, Subtle Bodies: Representing Angels in Byzantium, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2001, pp. 61–88 and C. Hairdresser, Figure and Likeness: On the Limits of Representation in Byzantium, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002, pp. 63–69.
)| fake
Search Google Scholar
Export Commendation
11
V.A. Baranov, "The Theological Background of the Iconoclastic Church Programmes,"Studia Patristica
V.A. Baranov, "The Theological Background of the Iconoclastic Church Programmes,"Studia Patristica 40, eds. F. Young, M. Edwards, and P. Parvis, Leuven: Peeters, 2006, pp. 165–175.
)| false
Search Google Scholar
Export Citation
12
F. Harley-McGowan, "The Constanza Carnelian and the Evolution of Crucifixion Iconography in Tardily Antiquity," in Gems of Heaven: Recent Enquiry on Engraved Gemstones in Late Antiquity,
F. Harley-McGowan, "The Constanza Carnelian and the Development of Crucifixion Iconography in Late Antiquity," in Gems of Sky: Recent Research on Engraved Gemstones in Late Artifact, eds. C. Entwistle and N. Adams, London: British Museum Press, 2011, pp. 214–20. R. Milburn, Early Christian Art and Compages, Berkeley, and Los Angeles: Academy of California Press, 1988, pp. 279–282.
)| simulated
Search Google Scholar
Consign Commendation
19
See A.West. Epstein, "The Problem of Provincialism: Byzantine Monasteries in Cappadocia and Monks in Southern Italy,"Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes
See A.W. Epstein, "The Problem of Provincialism: Byzantine Monasteries in Cappadocia and Monks in Southern Italy,"Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 42 (1979), pp. 28–46, for the preservation of sure archaic schemes of ornament in such outskirts of the Byzantine Oecumene as Cappadocia and Southern Italy. See as well T. Velmans, "La koine greque et les régions périphériques orientales," Jahrbuch der Österreichische Byzantinistik 31. 2 (1981), pp. 680–684, 720–721; for the representations of the cantankerous in the cupola and vaults, see pp. 705–707.
)| false
Search Google Scholar
Export Citation
22
On the apse, see F.Westward. Schlatter, "Interpreting the Mosaic of Santa Pudenziana,"Vigiliae Christianae
On the apse, run across F.W. Schlatter, "Interpreting the Mosaic of Santa Pudenziana,"Vigiliae Christianae 46 (1992), pp. 276–295; the cartoon of Ciacconio represented on p. 278. At that place is a possibility that the lamb may be an addition of the late 8th century, if the monogram of HRD on the sketch was rendered correctly, and if it belongs to Pope Hadrian (772–795). For the survival of the juxtaposition of the Lamb and the Cross in the Ethiopian tradition, see E. Balicka-Witakowska, La Crucifixionsans Crucifié dans l'art éthiopien. Recherches sur la survie de l'iconographie chretienne de l'Antiquite tardive, Warsaw–Wiesbaden: Piotr O, Scholz, 1997.
)| false
Search Google Scholar
Export Citation
25
Encounter A. Andreopoulos, "The Mosaic of Transfiguration in St. Catherine's Monastery of Mount Sinai: A Discussion of its Origins,"Byzantion
See A. Andreopoulos, "The Mosaic of Transfiguration in St. Catherine's Monastery of Mount Sinai: A Discussion of its Origins,"Byzantion 72 (2002), pp. 9–41.
)| fake
Search Google Scholar
Consign Commendation
32
1000. Millet, "Les iconoclastes et la Croix. A propos d'une inscription de Cappadoce,"Message de correspondance hellénique
Grand. Millet, "Les iconoclastes et la Croix. A propos d'une inscription de Cappadoce,"Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 34 (1910), pp. 103–104.
)| false
Search Google Scholar
Consign Commendation
33
L. Brubaker, "On the Margins of Byzantine Iconoclasm," in XXe Congrès International des Études Byzantines. Collège du France – Sorbonne, 19–25 août 2001. Pré-acts,
L. Brubaker, "On the Margins of Byzantine Iconoclasm," in XXe Congrès International des Études Byzantines. Collège du French republic – Sorbonne, xix–25 août 2001. Pré-acts, Paris, 2001, p. 209.
)| simulated
Search Google Scholar
Export Citation
34
Fifty. Brubaker, "On the Margins of Byzantine Iconoclasm," in XXe Congrès International des Études Byzantines. Collège du France – Sorbonne, xix–25 août 2001. Pré-acts,
L. Brubaker, "On the Margins of Byzantine Iconoclasm," in XXe Congrès International des Études Byzantines. Collège du France – Sorbonne, xix–25 août 2001. Pré-acts, Paris, 2001, p. 210.
)| false
Search Google Scholar
Export Commendation
35
R. Cormack, "Byzantine Cappadocia: The Archaic Group of Wall-Paintings," pp. 23–27.
R. Cormack, "Byzantine Cappadocia: The Primitive Group of Wall-Paintings," pp. 23–27.
)| simulated
Search Google Scholar
Export Commendation
42
E.S. Bolman, "Depicting the Kingdom of Heaven: Paintings and Monastic Do in Early Byzantine Egypt," in Arab republic of egypt in the Byzantine Earth, 300–700,
Due east.S. Bolman, "Depicting the Kingdom of Heaven: Paintings and Monastic Practice in Early on Byzantine Egypt," in Egypt in the Byzantine Earth, 300–700, ed. R.S. Bagnall, Cambridge: Cambridge Academy Press, 2007, p. 425. In addition to that article, see M. Rassart-Debergh, "Le thème de la croix sur les peintures murales des Kellia, entre l'Égypte et la Nubie chrétiennes," in Nubische Studien. Tagungsakten der 5. Internationalen Konferenz der International Society for Nubian Studies, Heidelberg, 22.-25. September 1982, ed. M. Krause, Mainz: Verlag Phillip von Zabern in Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1986, pp. 363–366, andhttp://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/kellia.htm, accessed on 08/12/ 2015, for the images from the site of the Kellia.
)| false
Search Google Scholar
Export Citation
45
ed. B. Kotter, pp. 189.
46
Five.A. Baranov, "Unedited Slavonic Translation of the 'Amends on the Cross and on the Holy Icons' Attributed to Patriarch Germanus of Constantinople (CPG 8033)," in Scr
V.A. Baranov, "Unedited Slavonic Translation of the 'Amends on the Cross and on the Holy Icons' Attributed to Patriarch Germanus of Constantinople (CPG 8033)," in Scr ii, Universum Hagiographicum. Mémorial R.P. Michel van Esbroeck, s.j. (1934–2003), eds. A.V. Mouraviev and B. Lourie, St. Petersburg: Byzantinorossica, 2006, p. 16.10–21, p. 17 (trans.).
)| faux
Search Google Scholar
Export Commendation
53
Yard. Hellemo, Adventus Domini: Eschatological Thought in the 4th-Century Apses and Catecheses, p. 102.
M. Hellemo, Adventus Domini: Eschatological Idea in the 4th-Century Apses and Catecheses, p. 102.
0 Response to "Art Icons Gallery Christ Centered Composition Melismos Sanctuary Apse"
Enregistrer un commentaire