Upcoming Publications

I have two contributions in Aurora: The Journal of the History of Art, vol. XI, to be published in November of 2010.

First, my article “The Elephant in the Living Room: Jan Steen’s Fantasy Interior as Parodic Portrait of the Schoutens.”

Here’s a synopsis: The Dutch painter Jan Steen (ca. 1626–79) is well known for his topsy-turvy comic genre pieces. Steen’s handful of portraits, however, are typically viewed as conventionally decorous and flattering to his sitters. Even in his commissioned portraits, I propose Steen includes a comic mixture of genres and juxtapositions of levels of decorum that his erudite sitters found compelling. Steen’s witty, parodic images emulate the ancient serio-comical style. The focus of my paper is Steen’s Fantasy Interior (ca. 1663, Nelson Atkins Museum), a portrait of his friend Gerrit Gerritsz. Schouten, a Catholic brewer become landed-gentry. In the work, Steen contrasts Dutch social classes and family generations, comparing their looks and morals in parodic ways. Steen points to the folly of late-century forms of exclusionary classicizing etiquette and dress, proposing instead a medieval type of sociability as a preferable alternative. Steen notes the disjunctions in the seventeenth-century social fabric and explores them in his portrait. Even as Steen humorously subverts viewer expectation, he practices a comedy of inclusion versus a satirical rejection of “societal outsiders.” Thus, he creates an endlessly entertaining and provocative image that allowed Schouten both to celebrate and laugh at his own success simultaneously.

And second,“Enchanting the Intellect and the Eye,” Review of Aneta Georgievska-Shine,“Rubens and the Archaeology of Myth, 1610-1620: Visual and Poetic Memory.”

You can purchase copies of Aurora via their online subscription form.

Upcoming Publication

For those who might be interested, my latest article, “The Wise Man has Two Tongues: Images of The Satyr and the Peasant by Jordaens and Steen,” will appear in Myth in History, History in Myth, volume 182 in Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History series.  It is due out in August of 2009.

Here’s the article abstract:

“In the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, Aesop’s Fables had widespread appeal in Netherlandish culture. In particular, we find many examples of the “Fable of the Satyr and the Peasant”. In the story a wary satyr rejects the perceived hypocrisy of the peasant, “blowing hot or cold” as the situation dictates—once to warm his cold hands, and again to cool his porridge.

The Flemish artist Jacob Jordaens’ name is most synonymous with representations of the theme, for, by one count, he created a dozen versions of the story in various media.  It was one of his most repeated, most popular subjects.

It is often noted that Jordaens’ images of “As the Old Sing, So Pipe the Young” and “Twelfth Night” served as models for the Dutch artist Jan Steen.  It remains under-stated, however, that Steen also painted the Satyr and the Peasant fable several times in apparent emulation of Jordaens.

In this paper, I discuss the timing and execution of Steen’s paintings as evidence of competition with the older, more famous Antwerp artist. And, I ponder what the combination of Classical mythology and genre—a marriage of elite and popular culture—reveals about correspondances between Northern and Southern Netherlandish humanism.

The answers reveal much about the cross-fertilization between these two artists, and how they used mythology to explore the similarities and differences between their respective Netherlandish cultures and identities.”

And, here’s the book synopsis from the publisher:

“In 1975, a group of Dutch and British scholars published a conference volume of collected essays entitled Some Political Mythologies. That conference sought to examine the political myth as an object of historical study, particularly in the context of the tumultuous and exceptional history of the Low Countries. Thirty years later, a more diverse group of scholars gathered to re-examine the history of Dutch myth-making in light of developments in theoretical and methodological approaches to understanding the role of myths in national identity, moral geography, and community formation. The results of their efforts appear in this volume, Myth in History: History in Myth. The essays cover developments in history, anthropology, cartography, philosophy, art history, and literature as they pertain to how the Dutch historically perceived these myths and how the myths have been treated by previous generations of historians.”

Ajax’s Tale

Ajax’s Tale

When Ajax in his shining armor, out to battle flew

Friend and enemy alike would rush to read his cue

His height a tower, his might a wonder

They loved him soul and sinew

 

When fabled Achilles refused to fight

Brave Ajax took his place

Alone, Ajax of Salamis

Rose to meet the day

 

A man of integrity, virtue and courage

He rushed to save the Greeks

But his valor alone could not surpass

The Trojans’ many ranks

 

Then, Hector, bold prince, charged the enemy line

And felled Patroclus, loosing the beast

Held deep in Achilles’ mind

 

Even Ajax could not quell the fury

Let loose that fateful day

Then Achilles’ heel dropped him low

And Paris had his way

 

Ajax held fast to honor

Bringing his fallen friend home

Yet Odysseus’ pride in his own cunning

Named Achilles’ suit his own

 

With malice the gods crazed the man

Ajax, who’d been so true

To the Greeks home and abroad

And on Hector’s sword he slew

 

Such a pity to waste a hero’s life

The gods they surely felt

In remorse they wrote on the hyacinth, ALAS

To cleanse their blood stained selves.

 

 

 

Postscript to Noah’s Rainbow

Postscript to Noah’s Rainbow: the Epistle to Diognetus

In my web travels today, I came upon the Early Christian “Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus,” dated to approximately 130-200 AD. You can read the full letter here. And, nice explanations of it here and here.

The letter’s anonymous author, Mathetes (simply Greek for “disciple”), is rather polemical in his discussion of Jewish tradition, as he attempts to firmly delineate between Christian and non-Christian practice for a second-century audience. Nonetheless the letter is an interesting document concerning the general understanding of a developing human condition in the tradition of Christian Apologetics.

Of particular interest to me—considering my previous couple of posts—the second-century letter espouses the teleologic notion that in the eras preceding the Incarnation humankind was not yet developmentally ready for the Christian doctrine of abiding compassion.

In the section entitled, “Why the Son was Sent so Late,” the letter reads, “As long then as the former time endured, [God] permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able…” [Italics mine.]

In his letter, Mathetes paints a picture of a compassionate, loving deity who—like a dear parent [an Abba]—patiently waits for his children to grow and mature. All the while, providing support and guidance along the way.

Gabriel’s Revelation

Gabriel’s Revelation

In today’s NY Times there appeared an article on a controversial first-century BC stone tablet with two columns of painted Hebrew text, the so-called “Gabriel’s Revelation” tablet. This “stone Dead Sea Scroll” recounts an apocalyptic vision revealed by the Angel Gabriel, one that involves a suffering messiah who will redeem Israel through bloody sacrifice and be resurrected after three days. The Jewish text relies heavily on the Old Testament prophets Daniel, Zechariah and Haggai. What makes it controversial is that it seems to be an archetype for the Jesus movement.

In part, there is small-scale controversy among archeologists and scholars arising from its various readings, due to some missing text and faded lines. In particular, in the faded line (line 80) addressing the “prince of princes” which appears (to some) to read “In three days you shall live, I, Gabriel, command you.”

Undoubtedly, the “Revelation” text helps to situate the New Testament Gospels in a new light. Perhaps, as the scholarly evidence works itself out, the stone will further elucidate the historical context surrounding the life of Jesus and ancient Jewish culture. For instance, some scholars believe that the scroll coincides with the career of a man named “Simon,” killed by a Herodian commander, as mentioned in the first-century writings of the Jewish historian, Josephus.

It remains unlikely, however, contrary to what Israel Knohl (professor of Bible Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and senior fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem) states—that the common understanding of the mission of Christianity will change. Referring to the tablet as evidence of a purely political view of a Jewish messiah, in the Times article Knohl states, “This is the conscious view of Jesus himself. This gives the Last Supper an absolutely different meaning. To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring redemption to Israel.”

There are many glaring problems with his opinion. First, it categorically neglects the repeated attestations that Christ and his apostles understood that his death and resurrection were a new covenant to abolish sin, as represented by the Last Supper. (Matthew 26:26-30; Luke 22:14-20; I Corinthians 11:23-25; Acts 2:36-42; Acts 5:31-32) And, that they felt this salvation was open to Jews and Gentiles alike. (John 5:19-29; John 6:25-59; Acts 10:34-43; Acts 13:26-35; Acts 23:1-11; Romans I:16-17; I Corinthians 15:1-11; we might also cite Isaiah 25:6-9).

Second, Knohl intimates that (rather than a trailblazer) Christ was simply following an earlier construct of a resurrected leader, as laid out by this tablet. In fact, Knohl wrote a book back in 2000—which predates knowledge of the slab—that also outlines his predictive vision of a pre-Jesus suffering Messiah, based upon the Dead Sea Scrolls, and early apocalyptic and rabbinic literature. In both, Knohl neglects the originality of the Gospel accounts and the role of prophecy-fulfilled in the New Testament.

For example, though there were many messiah-like figures in Roman-occupied Palestine, most were military or politically-motivated warriors, not peaceful resisters who were given the severest form of capital punishment without committing a crime. And, according to the Evangelists’ testimony, Christ was always very clear that earlier divine revelation and Messianic prophecy were fulfilled in his life and work. Thus, just because someone else predicted a certain chain of events, or articulated this idea of Resurrection after three days, it does not nullify the originality of the life and teachings of Christ.

Perhaps most importantly, none of those patriot figures (before or after Christ) catalyzed an ecumenical religious movement that transformed world history. (How many of them can you name?) In essence, if Christ was “just another zealot” how then could we explain how so many apostles and early Christians were willing to proselytize across the Roman Empire and perish as martyrs if they themselves did not fully believe in the Resurrection message? Why would a third of the world continue to do so, even at such a chronological and cultural remove?

Dr. Knohl and his colleagues are laudable for unveiling new knowledge about ancient Jewish culture in the interest of history. But, like those in the science community who attempt to use science to answer questions of philosophy, or the Jesus Seminar of the 1990s who also worked to pare the historical man away from the myth, Dr. Knohl will find that scientific and historical debate can never fully account for the Christian phenomenon, one based upon passionate individual testimony and unflinching faith.

Venus was a Nun

Venus was a Nun: and Other Things Your Mother Never Told You

Though my post‘s title may sound like a Monty Python quip, it derives from a real phenomenon, that of syncretism. Syncretism is the reconciliation of disparate or contradictory beliefs, a term first coined by Plutarch (“Fraternal Love,” Moralia [2.490b], 1st c. AD).  It regularly occurs in visual, literary and philosophical arenas as a means to unite in difference; it is a means to forge powerful compromise in cosmopolitan cultures.

On this subject, back in 1953 W.S. Heckscher published “Aphrodite as a Nun,” an interesting article written in the heyday of the faddish pursuit of tracing the Afterlife of Antiquity down through the Ages.1  Heckscher’s project charts the direct lineage of Cesare Ripa’s emblem of PVDICITIA (Chastity) from its unlikely antique roots in Venus iconography; he begins with the ancient authors Pausanias and Plutarch, continues with the Italian humanist Alciati, et al, and ends with the fertile imagination of Ripa – “the encyclopaedist of emblem makers.” The resultant chaste goddess of love thus epitomizes the cleverly described “strange unity in disparity” that characterized much of the Baroque period in Europe.2

In the headlining example, we can see how two virtually opposing ideas can circuitously be combined into a hybrid symbol.  If Antique ideas could be morphed so completely by the time of their absorption during the Renaissance and Baroque, just imagine how changed some of our ideas of the past have become today, another five centuries later.

Take, for example, the mistaken idea that the three great Monotheistic traditions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have nothing in common, that they are singular and irreconcilable.  In fact, as Karen Armstrong demonstrates in A History of God: the 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (NY: A. A. Knopf, 1993), each of these religions share parts of their history, scripture, and modes of religious experience.  These Abrahamic religions, as revealed religions, have much to share with each other about how to find divinity within each individual and how to build a community of respect.  That is, if we would take the time to familiarize ourselves with our own storied, received traditions rather than simply reading contemporary, often fundamentalist gloss. In doing so, we might recognize their intersections rather than their divisions.

It will be interesting, following the Olympics and the national election this year, to see how the popular rapport between the Middle East, Far East and West will continue to stir our imagination and perhaps syncretize our cultures over the next few years.  I have great hope it will show us how similar we all are in our humanity, especially as natural and manmade tragedies loom large in the collective consciousness.

For, when faced with great tribulation—as Erasmus of Rotterdam put it—“Concord is a mighty rampart.”

——–

1. W.S. Heckscher, “Aphrodite as a Nun,” Phoenix 7, no. 3 (Autumn 1953), 105-117.

2. Ibid., 105.