""i-1: i r■ ■ ■ images. L'lu^. an drliil wild wished to base £ portrait on either of ''true" images would need transpose the facial features u\
Christ in I heir painlingn. This- protend, course, raises I he problem of hn'.\ carefully a copy would <•■•: patterned after an authenticated arc-lit type .lthI ol whether the validity ol i he image might be based on the degree 10 which ii was .l »no.' l i r fai th! 11: i ¡.'[i roduet i-nn- \rgus bly, ^ru- a claim was made rhat is what i hi -t looked like," the task was one of failhful repmduetion rather than producing work from an individual imagination I lowevereven though the similarity of a par ticular pot trait to its arche(> pr was crucial for establishing the validity of the representation;. -mik- varialion did not nece&sarily ■.!iidermine iht. accept.l ¡i l l- uf an image as authentic.
Other miraculous and "from life" images of Christ art- known in die tradition, including 1 he Vol to Santo (Holy Face) ol Lucca, a twelfth-certury version of which is^-rii' on display in the cathedral of that ttal ian tily.1" Yet, despite the claims made at various points in history for portraits that had been made "from life" and die perceived importance :■! tioii si stent ¡Lnnoyraphy for Christ h ore famous .nil hority indicates that no such tradition was known or recognized ■:n the West Neither for lenus or any ot the -..lint-,. [n hit- treatise on ilil rr nity, AugL stine po ris to the variations :n the ways Jesus is portrayed in visual urt js kind of proof that no one possessed anyone record nt his actual physical appearance, an J then adds that (to hi-. mindhat least the matter reallj was of very little importance. As long as one recognized that as jic was a human Iteii:^. Je^us must have I..ilL nome kind ol appearance; this is nec-for the reality the incarnation. ];nr him.the work of art1* .il,d-ity i-, not a matter ot its verisimilitude or its faithful reproduction nf a t ■ 11 ■■■l . SirLe imagination 111 Is in what can no! Iv known, one naturally will imagine Jesus with in me kind of human face and form, and that is a^ far as August ne wished to go:
Jisieii tht physical fact of the Lund n jiidunrtl with infinite variety by a>unt-Lcsf. ¡JTnijjinjMrJtiii, lhoLLjjh whn.trvtT h wiLtlilif hb-Ltrcjinlv lud unly hihl-. \"iu it ropaidtlhi failh we have in tin.1 Lord Icsus Chriii if. ¡1 in thelca^t rtlL^-unt to .ulvjl ion whal our ima^i nut ions pitiure him Jake, whi^h is. prt>hiih)v -qui re lLi i fL"rc■ r11 hi mi 1 Ik1 : I il y. . . . ','■. 11. .■ ., ■ .■■, rn ;i1 m i is 1 :\.i i wf i hi n k 11 f h i in ;l\ .¡i
,iii. i<-i wt lijvf i-ncii diiiv. in us as 11 a ■-.!.-::.I , ,1 nnriitn the lUiua1 of ni-aii.'
Jesus' Variant arid Changing Appearances in Literary Sources
Augustirie'fi recognition I li.it everyone who iitiagLrtes how le.HUH (or one Ihl" -.j:in-.' looked ^i^njLir^.-- a different image has parallels in earliei document^ so inl' whil 11 even as.Herl that lesus actu-.illv had a variable ur polymorphous physical appearance, particular!) (but no: .■.'.■.t.u-O in his
Was this article helpful?