The jeweled Cross of Lothair II
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 окт 2024
- Cross of Lothair II, c. 1000 (Ottonian), oak core, gold, silver, gems, pearls, Augustus spolia cameo, cloisonné enamel, 50 x 38.5 x 2.3 cm, base dates to the 14th century, dedicated by Otto III (Aachen Cathedral Treasury Germany)
speakers: Dr. Beth Harris and Dr. Steven Zucker
![VICTOR Denmark Open 2024 | An Se Young (KOR) [1] vs. Gregoria Mariska Tunjung (INA) [5] | SF](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Y3QEyCih85s/mqdefault.jpg)
Once again, your explanation of this artifact is so understandible, yet scholarly. You are the best teaching team I have ever experienced; you seem to be symbiotic in the ways you each present your 'lecture'. I learn so much from you. Thank you.
The quality of the cameo of Augustus is exceptional. Any ideas about it’s age? Provenance?
It is thought to be early first century. Here is a detail from my photo set on Flickr: flic.kr/p/2oxHexx and here is a side view with the drum visible: flic.kr/p/2oxDrZH
Curious about this. With the example of such artistic realism as is in this cameo before them, they still depict Otto III in the standard medieval cartoonish way. I wonder if the artisans of the time thought about it. What would Ernst Gombrich say?
I love how the symmetry in the gemstone layout isn't as strict as it would be on a later piece,
Some stones are different colours, some different cuts or sizes,
It really brings the artifact to life for me, the imperfections, for the lack of a better word, feel very human
Brilliant analysis of how religion and politics merge to consolidate power. For me, the greatest artistic triumph of the piece is the silhouette of the body of Christ in pain. With just a few lines, the image suggests everyone's encounter with death and comments on the struggle for money and power symbolized by the gems on the other side.
The Augustus cameo didn't resonate with me at first, but when I thought of the link between God and rulers it made more sense.
I enjoyed learning about cameos and spolia. What a fun little detail the muses were. You could be looking right at it and miss them.
The backside of the cross waws another lovely surprise. I prefer it to the opulent front and agree with Dr. Zucker's interpretation. That's always been the wonder of my faith - perfection, purity, and the miraculous hidden within the guise of simplicity. It's so beautiful! ❤
Stunning.
I believe the serpent, although certainly representing “good triumphing over evil” is actually added to the cross as a reference to Genesis 3:15 “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”
Another interesting fact about Otto III is that he was set to marry a Byzantine princess but it never materialized because of his premature death. That princess would go on to become the Empress Zoe.
wasn't he the son of a Byzantine pricess as well? Theophanu ?
@@karlkarlos3545 That's right, seemed like the Ottonians were seeking to get closer to the Eastern Romans, maybe even creating some form of union between the two entities... His death is another "what if" moment of history
Thank you.
You could both be right
The humble side is for worship, the ornate side shows the blessing to the faithful
It is interesting how Christian and pagan traditions are both represented in the form of a cross! It seems Otto just couldn't resist the beauty of the cameo and to him superiority of the ancient art above his own was obvious.
It reminds me of the ancient statues of pagan gods being "deconsecrated" by the Christians of the late Empire. For example: they carved crosses on the foreheads of the statues. Destroying (and persecuting) the old religion they couldn't bring themselves to destroy art. They recognized the beauty in it and didn't want it to vanish. Mutilating sculptures was a sort of compromise (at least in their heads!). Here something similar seems to take place. Ancient pagan depictions are enclosed within the shape of the cross. They are cancelled in their primary meaning and yet they are reclaimed at the same time...
Otto III seems to shout out his share in the revival of the Roman Empire with its traditions and splendour. At the same time the cross speaks of the Holy Roman Emipre's role in the Christian world and in the salvation of its people... Holy Roman Empire tries to carry both Ancient and Christian values. Otto sees himself connected to both. Christianity and antiquity are both strong foundationd of the West and he wants to make it clear.
Augustus' cameo seems to be important not only as a remindmder of the greatness Otto wanted to continue, but indeed his reign was the time when Christ was born. There is not only the political connection but also a spiritual one. And although Augustus is shown as a triumphant leader, he seems to be "used" in a way he wouldn't allow or approve of - enclosed in a form of a cross.
We can always ask ourselves a different question. If Augustus is in the centre and seems to take the role of Christ, is he really used and defeated by Christianity or is he triumphant even though his own religion is dead? It is striking how he already carries the laurel wreath while on the other side of the cross Christ dying gains one for himself...
I think it expresses in physical form, the belief that the Holy Roman Empire was a revitalized and spiritually purified Roman Empire. Not only was Ceasar Augustus the first Emperor, he was also the Caesar Augustus mentioned in the Gospel of Saint Luke, "In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the whole world..." setting the stage for the nativity of Christ. So the cross expresses the spiritual and secular duality of the Empire's origin in both Christianity and the Roman Empire.
I find it strange to see a Christus Dolens engraved on the reverse side. For the Christus Patiens and Christus Dolens only appeared after the 13th century. With the patiens being the type of the transition between Christus Triumphans en Dolens. Can the engraving on the reverse side be from a later date?
I'd reevaluate those typologies. The suffering Christ shown here is not so different from the near-contemporary Gero crucifix (ca. 965-970).
@@Warren1453 well that’s to say: those typologies I mentioned are still correct and the timeframes too, but indeed and so I found out this night after some research in my literature on Christian iconography: the Gero and Lothair cross are the first ones to depict the suffering Christ on the cross in a what is called the Christ patiens or even Christ dolens style.
I also thought gems represent earthly realm, struggle for power and money, where plain side represents soul and simplicity of being good and devoted, stripped of all earthly worries
The beautifying of an apparatus of execution - what particular brand of psycho logical penumbra is this ?
Would this piece be carried in a procession? If so, the jewelled side would project imperial power outward, while the etched side would remind those following the cross- possibly including the Emperor- of Christ's Sacrifice and the power of God.
I would surmise that this is a personal object belonging to the emperor. Possibly displayed on an altar in his private chambers. The plain side turned out during prayers, the jeweled side out to convey the magnificence of the imperial household when not strictly being used as a object of devotion.
Ciekaw jestem gdzie podpierdolil te kamyki ?
Why is Christ represented standing on a platform? Isn't it usual to depict him with his feet nailed to the cross?