(Vol. v., p. 39.)
Your space precludes controversy: but the communication in Number 115.
from W. DN. requires an explanation from me; which I give the more
readily as it may perhaps serve to throw further light on a curious
inquiry. A correspondent in a former Number (Vol. iv., p. 422.)
questioned the correctness of an assertion by the Hon. MR. CURZON, that
"the crucifix was not known before the fourth or fifth century, though
the cross was always the emblem of the Christian faith." I ventured to
sustain MR. CURZON'S view (Vol. iv., p. 485.) by referring to
authorities for the fact, that the idea of ignominy associated with that
peculiar form of execution had long prevented the cross from being
adopted as a symbol of Christ's passion; that the actual representation
of the crucifixion itself was still more repulsive, and much later in
its admission into the early churches; that allegory was in consequence
resorted to, in order to evade the literal delineation of the Saviour's
death, which was typified by a lamb bleeding at the foot of a cross; and
that when invention had become exhausted, and inert in the production of
these emblems, the Church, in the seventh century at the
_Quini-sextile_, or _Council in Trullo_, had "ordered that _fiction and
allegory should cease, and the real figure of the Saviour be depicted on
the tree_." (The words in Italics are my own, and were not given as a
quotation.)
W. DN. in Number 115. (Vol. v., p. 39.) does not question the main
conclusion sought to be established, but takes exception to my reference
to the Council in Trullo as irrelevant, and says, "should your readers
turn to the canons of that council, they would be disappointed at
finding nothing about the cross;" whence he infers, that I have been
"led into a singular mistake." But the mistake, I apprehend, is on the
part of W. DN. himself, who evidently has not read the council in
question, else he would have found, so far from its canons containing
"nothing about the cross," one, the 73rd, is devoted exclusively to the
cross, whilst the 82nd is given to the crucifix. The 73rd canon of the
Council in Trullo directs all veneration to be paid to the cross, and
prohibits its being any longer depicted in the tesseræ of the floors
where this "trophy of our victory," as it is called in the canon, was
exposed to desecration from the feet of the congregation. The 82nd
canon, in like manner, has direct reference to the crucifix, and its
style of design. It alludes to the practice which had theretofore
prevailed, of representing Christ as the lamb, pointed to by St. John,
which was to take away the sins of the world (John, i. 29.); but as that
great work has been accomplished, the council declares that the Church
now prefers the grace and _truth_ of him who had fulfilled the law, to
those ancient forms and shadows which had been handed down as types and
symbols only; and it continues:
"In order, therefore, that what has come to pass should be
exhibited before the sight of all by the skill of the artist in
colours, we direct that the representation of Christ the Lamb of
God, which taketh away the sins of the world, shall henceforth be
elevated in his human character; and no longer under the old form
of a lamb."
The words are these:
"ὡς ἂν οὖν τὸ τέλειον κἂν ταῖς χρωματουργίαις ἐν ταῖς ἁπάντων ὄψεσιν
ὑπογράφηται, τὸν τοῦ αἴροντος τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου ἀμνοῦ Χριστοῦ
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν, κατὰ τὸν ἀνθρώπινον χαρακτῆρα καὶ ἐν ταῖς εἰκόσιν ἀπὸ
τοῦ νῦν ἀντὶ τοῦ παλαιοῦ ἀμνοῦ ἀναστηλοῦσθαι ὁρίζομεν."--_Concilium
Quinisextum_, Can. lxxxii. Concil. Collectio, J. B. MANSI, vol. xi.
p. 978.: Floren. 1765.
W. DN. has quoted this canon, not from the original Greek of the
council, which I copy above, but from the Latin version given in Labbe,
and which is much less close and literal than that of Carranza; and the
words "_erigi et depingi_," which it employs, are a very incorrect
rendering of the Greek ἀναστηλοῦσθαι, a term peculiarly
appropriate to the elevation of a crucifix.
But that the whole canon has immediate reference to the literal
delineation of the mode and manner of Christ's passion, will be apparent
from the concluding sentences, which expressly set out that the object
of the change which it enjoins is to bring more vividly before our minds
the incarnation, suffering, and _death_ of the Saviour, by the full
contemplation of the depth of _humiliation_ attendant on it:
"Δι' αὐτοῦ τὸ τῆς ταπεινώσεως ὕψος τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου κατανοοῦντες, καὶ
πρὸς μνήμην τῆς ἐν σαρκὶ πολιτείας τοῦ τε πάθος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ
σωτηρίου θανάτου χειραγωγούμενοι, καὶ τῆς ἐντεῦθεν γενομένης τῷ
κόσμῳ ἀπολυτρώσεως, κ. τ. λ."--_Ib._ MANSI, v. xi. p. 979.
How this impression of the "_humiliation_" and "_suffering_" of Christ's
_death_ could be conveyed otherwise than by a literal delineation of its
incidents, I cannot well see. And, indeed, of many authorities who have
recorded their opinion on the effect of this canon of the Quini-sextile
council, W. DN. is the only one who expresses a doubt as to its direct
reference to the cross and the crucifix. Both the historians of the
church, and those who have treated of the history of the Arts in the
Middle Ages, are concurrent in their testimony, that it was not till
immediately after the promulgation of the canons of the Council in
Trullo that the use of the crucifix became common in the early churches.
This fact is recorded with some particularity by Gieseler, in his
_Compendium of Ecclesiastical History_, sect. 99. note 51.; and
Emeric-David, the most laborious and successful explorer of historical
art of our time, in describing the effect upon the Fine Arts produced by
the edict of the council, adverts to the 82nd canon more than once, as
directing the delineation of the Saviour _on the cross_:
"La fin du 7me siècle et le commencement du 8me présentent deux
événements de la plus haute importance dans l'histoire de la
peinture. Le premier est la révolution opérée par le décret du
concile de Constantinople appelé le concile _quinisexte_ ou _in
Trullo_, et célébré en 692 A.D., qui ordonna de préférer la
peinture historique aux emblèmes, et notamment d'abandonner
l'allégorie dans la représentation du crucifiement de Jésus
Christ.... Ce fut après ce concile que les images de Jésus Christ
sur la croix commencèrent à se multiplier." (_Histoire de la
Peinture au Moyen Age_, par T. B. Emeric-David, Paris, 1842, p.
59.) "Lorsque le concile quinisexte ordonna de préférer la réalité
aux images, et de montrer le Christ sur la croix, l'esprit
d'allégorie, malgré ce décret, ne s'anéantit pas entièrement."
(_Ib._ p. 32.)