Pteruges

[FlaviusCrispus]

Only in Late Roman art like those showing Honorius and this one of Constantine (again from Travis' excellent site) :

Wow, ask and you shall receive...

I also have a little bronze statue of Jupiter, ca. mid-third century AD, that shows him wearing armor and a baldric/sword. But it's not common.

BTW Flavius,
How about this ivory piece of work (showing Justinian ?) ? Is this another bad copy like the Honorius one ? It has similar features.

Well, certainly not a BAD copy... it's a much better piece of art.

Yeah, I was thinking about posting the Barberini ivory too, since it had a shoulder similar to the Honorius diptych. But note that the "tongue pteruges" (or lappets or whatever) are of a more conventional depiction; also, the mounted figure (either Justinian or Anastasius) has a more traditional muscle cuirass, without the rounded shoulder. What does it all mean? I dunno, except that life is life, art is art, and not always do the twain meet. [/quote]

[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

[FlaviusCrispus]

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.

I rather doubt it. Jerry Eisenberg is incredibly knowledgeable about all periods of ancient art and I seriously doubt whether he would make the mistake of judging one era by the standards of another.

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

Yes, but if he was vamping, at least the Colossus sculptor had a better understanding of military gear and vamped correctly.

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."

OK, point taken. I just thought you were getting a little over-excited over something that probably has very little relevance to the question of what ancient musculatae were made of.

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

I understand-- you're being commendably impartial and non-judgemental about the talent of our artists, as befits a postmodern academic. I, on the other hand, love being partial and judgemental. I think the Honorius diptych is an atrocity, artistically speaking, while I love the Stilicho panels to pieces. Can't say why, they just strike me that way. Such is art.

Thanks for the exchange.

Travis

Me too! I'm loving this!

[aitor iriarte]

David,
'The eagle-headed hilt could be a knock-off from the Tetrarchic statue in Saint Mark's... '
The eagle heads on those statues aren't looking upwards as on Honorius' dyptich, though! :wink:

Incidentally, each pair of Tetrarchs have been clearly carved by a different person or team...

Travis,
I'd LOVE to see detail pics of the scabbard worn by Constantine on that statue posted above!

Aitor

[Theodosius the Great]

I'd LOVE to see detail pics of the scabbard worn by Constantine on that statue posted above!

Here's the link, Aitor.

[url:97ejed89]http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lorica/images/capconstdeta.jpg[/url]

[Theodosius the Great]

Weird hock:



Reminds me of Stargate :lol:

[aitor iriarte]

Many thanks, Theo!
That scabbard is really weird but pretty interesting!! hock:

Travis,
Do you have any pic of the chape?

Aitor

[tlclark]

Weird hock:



Reminds me of Stargate :lol:

Not weird COOL!

(And was that a jab at stargate! :evil: )

I never got to the Necropolis in Alexandria this last trip to Egypt. It is full of stuff like this.

Syncretism of styles or religion is a subject for a different board.

[Theodosius the Great]

(And was that a jab at stargate! )

No, I like Stargate - (the movie) :wink:

Syncretism of styles or religion is a subject for a different board.

I remember the Palmyrans did this too with their gods. There's a frieze showing three of them wearing Roman-style cuirasses. But their gods were human looking.

[tlclark]

Incidentally, each pair of Tetrarchs have been clearly carved by a different person or team...

After a while you begin to think we should stop looking at these things, because everytime we do they get more complicated.

Thanks for the image!

On the constantinian statue, I can't seem to find an image of the chape in my archive, but I will have a second look.

It really is an odd image too. More surprising is the huge neck guard.

I will see if I can find a better image but don't hold your breath.

Travis

[tlclark]

I rather doubt it. Jerry Eisenberg is incredibly knowledgeable about all periods of ancient art and I seriously doubt whether he would make the mistake of judging one era by the standards of another.

Or by judging it by any standard at all. Formalism and Connosieurship runs on the assumptions that styles WITHIN a period are largely consistent. Heck, we can't even prove that styles are consistent within a workshop!

Well now I HAVE to read it since I use the symmachorum diptych every year as an example when I teach late antique.

OK, point taken. I just thought you were getting a little over-excited over something that probably has very little relevance to the question of what ancient musculatae were made of.

Well the evidence is so meager anyway, ANYTHING new is exciting. In the desert, a drop of water is an ocean.

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

I understand-- you're being commendably impartial and non-judgemental about the talent of our artists, as befits a postmodern academic.

:lol: Probably true!! Yet another bias of which we should be aware. At least you didn't accuse me of being a Marxist, which is what most of my students think!

I, on the other hand, love being partial and judgemental. I think the Honorius diptych is an atrocity, artistically speaking, while I love the Stilicho panels to pieces. Can't say why, they just strike me that way. Such is art.

Ok, here is where I give the game away and admit I like the stilicho diptych better as well, but not on matters for technique. I think technically they are more or less equivalent, but the subject matter of the Stilicho diptych with his wife and child is really unique, candid and somehow wonderful. The Honorius is more or less imperial boilerplate. As a set piece it's a good one, but boilerplate is boilerplate, which makes it more suspect than the Stilicho diptych which is far more candid.

Thanks again.

BTW - I've always loved your avatar. It just captures the martial virtues. Is that real blood.

[FlaviusCrispus]

Ok, here is where I give the game away and admit I like the stilicho diptych better as well...

Ah ha, I knew ya had taste!

...but not on matters for technique. I think technically they are more or less equivalent, but the subject matter of the Stilicho diptych with his wife and child is really unique, candid and somehow wonderful.

Call it what you will, technique or subject or composition, I quite agree. Anyway, Stilicho just cuts a more dashing figure that that lumpen moron, Honorius.

BTW - I've always loved your avatar. It just captures the martial virtues. Is that real blood.

Yes, indeedy. Shield rotation injury, probably the most common bloody boo-boo among Roman reenactors. I got that one on the "Conquest" TV shoot three years ago. I thought I'd learned my lesson about bracing my shield against my forearm during combat, but I'll be danged if I didn't end up with exactly the same bloody nosebridge after the final "assault the gates" battle last Saturday at Fort Lafe, AK. Along with Dan Peterson, Marius from Legio IX Hispana, and another soldier. We got a great photo of all four of us lined up with blood pouring down our respective schnozzes, which should be up sometime soon. I'll post a link to it for laughs.

[aitor iriarte]

Hi Travis,
I hadn't noticed your post! :oops:
You are talking about a 'huge neckguard' and then you tell me that I must not hold my breath? hock: C'mon man, if there is a helmet besides a sword scabbard on that statue, then it is a total 'must see' for me!

Aitor

[Razor]

It really is an odd image too. More surprising is the huge neck guard.

I will see if I can find a better image but don't hold your breath.

*holds breath* Perhaps you'd better come up with some images or else I'm gonna pass away before being able to see the helmet D ...

[tlclark]

Aitor & Razor!

I said DON'T hold your breath.

I cant find a better image sorry.]

*holds breath* Perhaps you'd better come up with some images or else I'm gonna pass away before being able to see the helmet D ...

That's just the thing. It's not on the helmet. It's on the cuirass!

It looks japanese!

If you look at this image:



and this diagram



you can see the neck guard that covers almost the entire back of the neck.

The one on the Constantine statue covers most of the back of the head!

It's wild.

At first I thought it was a head prop, not unlike the tree stumps near legs, but it has more definition than that. It's a feature of the armor.

It's very strange and I don't seem to have a picture! Darn!

Travis