When I have been to art museums and looked at their art from around the Middle Ages I have noticed that when several of the artists depict Biblical scenes, they show the subjects in Middle Ages dress. A good example of this is this painting by Nicolas of Bari painted around 1485 at
http://www.slam.org/images/euro/11940.jpg. I was wondering why they painted like this, and if there is any modern artist who paints bibical scenes but in modern dress.
I think it was common practice through the Renaissance, but then they left off doing it in the 18th century. Maybe it’s the result of an increased historical imagination? But G.K. Chesterton thought it was because modern dress was so ugly. He mentioned a Belgian or something in the late 19th century who painted Biblical subjects in modern clothes styles; this had a disconcerting effect on museum-goers.
Lack of historical imagination is not exactly the reason. There are several reasons, and I would urge you to look in a book about the basics of medieval art.
For my part, the depiction of antique figures in medieval dress is indicative of medieval perception of time. We see time as linear, but to medieval man it is simultaneous, or more accurately, it is God’s time. For God, everything is simultaneous, from the creation, to the salvation, to the lat judgment. God is not bound by the constraints of linear time, and experiences all of eternity in one divine moment.
Consider also medieval exegetical, or interpretive techniques. Medieval interpreters of scripture discovered patterns in Scripture and revealed how these patterns compose existence recursively. Isaiah prefigures the coming of Christ, whose death and salvation is mirrored in numerous other parts of scripture. Time is composed of such patterns, and they repeat themselves ad infinitum.
So when you see a Christ in a tunic, it is not because medieval man didn’t have a clue what the ancients dressed like. It is because all of time happens at the same time, and because the story of Christ and the pattern of his sacrifice and salvation plays itself out for eternity, even in the artists’ own times. The crucifixion could have happened yesterday for them.
I realize this is not an easy topic, and it is a little outside my area of expertise. If my explanation is not helpful, fire away with questions and I will try to clarify or elaborate it.
Regards,
MR
Maeglin, that’s fascinating. Tell me - was that perception held by all sectors of the public of the times? Or was it limited to the “common” folk, or the intellectual, or the church establishment?
I hate to say it, but scholars really don’t know. This was the prevailing theological view, for discussions about time and its relationship to biblical interpretation are rampant in scholastic literature. The Didascalion of Hugh of St. Victor offers a lucid discussion of these concepts.
As for the “common folk”, I really don’t have a clue. I have little doubt that they speculated as much as ordinary folk of today do. Unfortunately, just like today’s villeins, they do not leave permanent records of their ruminations.
A good book that addresses this subject and places it within the context of medieval scriptural study is Beryl Smalley’s The Bible in the Middle Ages.
MR
Late medieval/ early modern art PhD student butting in here:
Oh my God, we’ve been talking about this very thing in a seminar on narrative and comparative epistemology.
Maeglin is pretty much right about a synchronic view of time, in a large sense. Of course in the day-to-day world people did recognize that there was an apparent linear time, but they also had a notion of cyclical time-- seasons, liturgical calendar, etc. But the moment of Christ’s incarnation is all through time-- at this time there IS no “time” (I think this is sounding vague). They had more of a sense of an ontological time, rather than linear, as far as the time of mankind goes, with the beginning and end (so to speak) of the Fall of Man and the Last Judgement bracketing it (everything before Chirst is connect in prefiguration, and everything afterward is the carrying out of his ministry). So what we see as an anachronism in a medieval painting isn’t that (I’m not even sure they had a concept of anachronism)-- the two moments (Biblical time and present-day) are seen as co-extant, really. The other common “anachronism” we see in these pictures, like a crucifix on the wall on Christ the infant’s manger, is called “the proleptic passion”-- all sorts of prefiguration and prophecy, but it isn’t the artist being historically sloppy.
This kind of time is a theme that is covered by Augustine, etc, but given the importance of liturgy and belief in everyday life then (think of the yearly processions recreating the Passion that would take place in a person’s town, and how those sites would hold that memory-baggage year round, or the importance of imaging and personalizing the Passion in one’s devotions) I don’t think it’s unlikely that a regular Joe or Justus wouldn’t see things similarly.
Anyway, if you want some geeky scholarly references (I can’t imagine that you would) or better examples. . . Gee, I’ve just been holding forth, haven’t I?
Oh, and the example you had a link to is a bit different of a sort of thing. Only the two kneeling guys are really in modern dress-- they are the donors, who are depicted having either a vision of the Virgin or are magically given an audience with her. In any case, the two “times” are conflated-- the biblical time and that of the donors. The other guys are their patron saints-- Peter is presenting the Dominican monk to the Virgin, while I have no idea what kind of guy John the Baptist is presenting-- I can’t see the picture well enough to tell that, or what the predella scenes are.
For an insightful look into art, check out http://www.bbcamerica.com/amusements/sister_randy.html
I had a Mexican nativity scene, not sure exactly when it was from but I think it was 19th century or later, that had biblical figures wearing sombreros and other anachronistic dress. In some places they apparently kept doing that longer.
*The other common “anachronism” we see in these pictures, like a crucifix on the wall on Christ the infant’s manger, is called “the proleptic passion”-- all sorts of prefiguration and prophecy, but it isn’t the artist being historically sloppy. *
Thanks MK! So is that why we also see medieval passion plays with Old Testament characters like Abraham saying things like “in Christes name” or “Mary aid me”? Man, that always weirds me out.
Ooh, oh boy, another thing we’ve been discussing lately. . . Yes, but there’s more to drama, too. Don’t get me started on Passion plays. . . medieval drama is another animal all together and is even wierder looking to us than the paintings are.
Ok, damn it. . . another aspect to Passion-plays: the site where pre-shakespearean drama took place was sort of divided up into areas roughly called the locus (“site”, sort of) and platea (“place”. . . in the same sense as plaza-- terminology varies a bit). The locus might be something like what we call a stage, or a scaffolding, or a throne, while the platea was just a big empty area where the play would happen-- an open spot in the city where there was room, out in a field, the plaza in front of the cathedral, whatever. The action wasn’t confined to this “stage”/locus, but was sort of just built around it in the platea. The characters situated in/at the locus did pretty much what we are used to-- “staying in character”, dressed in period costume, etc., but in the platea actors and audience sort of mingled a bit-- the place wasn’t as sharply demarcated as it is now. Action/characters who inhabited the non-“stage” platea had a time-position just like that-- between old and present, and would often jump “out of character” and time and act as commentators on the scene, speak in more modern language, joke around, or bring into play some current proberb about whatever subject, narrate or gloss the action, etc. (even if this character was a biblical figure like Joseph). So maintaining the illusion wasn’t the most important part of drama and wasn’t really the source of it’s efficacy or even a merit. In the Renaissance theatre, this sort of dramatic anachronism becomes less important than the “main plot”, so this role ends up left to clowns or fool characters (and eventually just dissapears). I do like the idea of this earlier flexibility, though-- this sort of self-consciousness is something directors still play with.
A big factor was that most of these were church commisioned. The church acting like the art director, if you will.
lee what was the picture on your link depicting? And Maeglin and M.K. thanks for helping me become much more learned.
Hey M.K., what are some of the references on the Passion Play/pre-Renaissance theater concepts you were talking about? I’m no playwright but those kind of concepts sound almost too irresistible to play with.
Excellent discussion, too! It’s times like this that validate the existence of the Straight Dope for me. 
On the drama: a good one is
Weimann, Robert. Shakespeare and the Popular Tradition in the Theatre: Studies in the Social Dimension of Dramatic Form and Function. Robert Schwartz, ed. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.
It starts with 5 chapters on pre-Shakespeare, covering mimetic theory, folk play, mystery plays, moralities, and Elizabethan era, and ends it with a chapter on the tradition and experimentation in Shakespeare.
And thanks, Olentzero and Mongrel8. Having one’s nerdhood appreciated is very nice.
It’s not as wierd as you might think. We do it all the time today. Just look at movies. Movies set in different time periods still use modern styles of make-up and hairstyle. Even in movies that tout their acuracy, you see people in full period dress wearing fully modern make-up. And even if entirely “authentic” costumes are used, you can bet they choose ones that use color and design that looks good to our modern eyes.
As long as nobody paints The Last Supper with everyone dressed like the cast of Saturday Night Fever ::shudder::
I’m gonna email this thread to my sister, who is a nartist herself. She might be able to contribute something herself. Or at least she might find it interesting.
Just heard back from my sister on this. Her email to me follows:
So there you have it, if you’re innerested.
Thanks for more detail, M.K.. My training is mostly in medieval intellectual history, so I am much more aware of medieval synchronic time in theology and biblical exegesis (hence the Smalley reference). I am glad that my few readings in art were at least reasonably accurate.
Where, and with whom, by the way, do you study?
Regards,
MR
Thanks for the source! Will see what I can do to pick it up, now that I’m no longer directly connected to the world of academia.
We recognize our own.