Pteruges

[tlclark]

Eisenberg's contention is that the left, heavily damaged panel of the Symmachus diptych is authentic, but that the right panel is a poor Renaissance copy, perhaps of a badly damaged or fragmented right panel (I may have my right and left switched here, but you get the point). They don't match up at all, stylistically. There are so many things about the questionable panel that simply don't make sense, even in the context of late Antique art, that once you read his arguments, it's impossible to look at the piece quite the same way again.

Now the inherent problem with this analysis is that none of the panels match up! When you start looking at them in detail, and I have seen more than a few, you begin to realize just how many different hands may have worked on even one panel. The Justinianic period is the worst in this regard, with as many as three or four hands on each major work. The throne of Maximian and the Barberini diptych being two prime examples.

This is a late period phenomenon. Styles and hands are extremely divergent. The Symmachi/Nichomachi panel is a prime example of this. I use that diptych in comparison with the more typical consular diptychs all the time to demonstrate just how divergent and varied the late period has become.

A lot of the presumptions about style and form comes from old methodologies built up on the old notions of connoisseurship and formalism that really don't hold over time. The concept that hands and styles are consistent even within a period, is largely an old 19th C. assumption and doesn't hold up against the evidence.

I don't know if that's the case here, Eisenberg may know his stuff, and I will have to read the article, but it's entirely possible he's approaching this with an "old school" mentality that isn't as current.

OK, but compare this musculata to, say, the roughly contemporary one worn by the Colossus of Barletta (probably Valens or Valentinian I, but possibly Marcian). In one case, you're looking at a piece of armor that seems to make sense (no covering for the upper arms, for example), in another, obviously not. I would posit that in one case, you have an artist who is working from life and understands what he is looking at; in another, you have an artist "vamping" from his memory and/or imagination.

I think you're probably right, but "vamping" could be happening in the Valens statue as well.

I just don't think you can look at every rather odd, wacky late Roman depiction of a muscle cuirass and say, "ah ha! — more evidence it was made from leather!"

Well that goes without saying. If you look back at my first reaction I said "This is late so we can't say for sure, but it really is exciting."

All late period stuff is very challenging because of the variation of style.

Well I think that's a subjective argument. The stilicho diptych has many features that could be described as 'clunky', but I see your point.

Of course, this doesn't automatically mean that the Honorius panels are fakes, it just means they were made by a less-skilled artist, whether in the fifth or fifteenth centuries.

Well I would disagree with that categorization. I would say that they have dramatically different styles for different reasons, but to each his own.

Thanks for the exchange.

Travis