Jump to content

Talk:Christ Pantocrator (Sinai)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interpretation

[edit]

A discussion at Talk:Jesus about that page's use of the icon as the main image has spurned a digression into the interpretation section of this article. Copied in part below are comments by myself and @Erp:

I would also feel a lot happier if the sources (footnote 7) cited in Christ Pantocrator (Sinai) actually supported the statement; it isn't as far as I can see in Chatzidakis, Manolis and Walters, Gerry. "An Encaustic Icon of Christ at Sinai." The Art Bulletin 49, No. 3 (1967): 197–208. Galey, John, Forsyth, George, and Weitzmann, Kurt. Sinai and the Monastery of St. Catherine, Doubleday, New York, 1980 mentions the icon as showing the two natures but not as each on one side of the face. I can't quickly check the third source (Manaphēs) or fourth source. Erp (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to access a copy of Gale, Forsyth, and Weitzmann (1980), and it does explicitly link the two sides of the face to human and divine nature as cited in the article:

One represents the nearly life-size bust of Christ Pantocrator, blessing and holding a jewel-studded Gospel book. The hieratic frontality and the impression of aloofness on the one hand and the avoidance of strict symmetry and the enlivenment of the face achieved by different arching of the eyebrows on the other, strike a harmony between the divine and the human nature of Christ. (p. 92)

For a contrasting view, I found Trilling, James (1983) "Sinai Icons: Another Look" (available here for WPlibrary/those with JSTOR access)

It is tempting to equate the volumetric and linear aspects of the painting with the human and divine natures of Christ. Unfortunately, in the absence of confirming texts we cannot know whether Byzantine artists expressed theological ideas at once so subtle and so concrete, and above all so exclusively stylistic. (Footnote: Weitzmann sees the asymmetry of the face as a way of representing Christ's two natures (Weitzmann. 15). Again, it seems doubtful whether a Byzantine would have interpreted the image in this way.) (p. 303-304)

Also cannot find anywhere to access Manaphēs or the other work by Weitzmann. Should probably take this over to the icon's talk page, but I wonder if the interpretation is mostly Weitzmann's. I don't have the necessary background reading in the field to evaluate between Weitzmann and Trilling, though. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that at least the first sentence of the interpretation section needs some reworking - can we say "Many agree" based on the sourcing? Should it be attributed to Weitzmann et al? Should Trilling's paper be included, or is it undue? Cen anyone verify the Manaphēs reference?

Hopefully there are some watchers here who know the sources a little better that can help shed some light. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly not! The para we have on the "pro-2-natures" position seems ok, but we could probably do with another one recording the views of those who don't agree. Johnbod (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just tapping in to acknowledge the ping. I don't have any expertise in art criticism or iconography and I don't have the time currently to do a deep dive on the sources, but I appreciate y'all's efforts. -- LWG talk 04:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]