I'd suggest that another factor was the common medieval understanding of the relation between concepts, things, and images.
Broadly and briefly, since the ultimate reality of things was their presence as ideas in the mind of God, from which they proceeded into material actuality, the our understanding (i.e. intellectual "vision") of an idea was a glimpse of the true reality of a thing, more fundamentally "real" than the thing itself. The point of a painting or illumination was to engender this intellectual vision in the beholder. So, it didn't matter if you pictured Caesar wearing a toga or a 15th century French royal outfit, as these were merely material details which veiled the deeper reality conceptual reality of Caesar. What mattered was that seeing the image raised the mind towards the contemplation of the idea.
I don't know if I'm explaining this well, but once this principle is grasped it unlocks a fascinating dimension of medieval art (and writing for that matter) that makes the reasons for a ton of its stylistic tendencies click into place
absolutely! i had a whole second part drafted about the language of iconography and symbols in communicating underlying supposed realities in medieval art, but it got too long so i've just posted this bit for now. but i agree, this is a really good insight and well articulated!
Meh... So you've convinced me that the Medievals knew about Caesar's acts and deeds, but not really that they knew what he *looked* like.
Our worked the other way too; there's a 3rd century Roman mosaic that depicts Christ. He's shown as toga-wearing, short-haired and beardless, rather like Roman senator.
Clothing has meaning that depends on time and place. Alexander dressed in the chlamys and kausia of Macedonian aristocracy wouldn't have looked very impressive to the medieval French. But put him in silk robes, ermine, and a gold crown, and you've got a real king!
Similarly with armor. The French would have thought that Caesar's usual military dress made him look like a common foot soldier. Caesar and Pompey in expensive and prestigious medieval plate armor look like important military leaders.
"medieval Caesar ... would never ever make a human sacrifice in the name of Mars"
Human sacrifice was legally banned in Rome in 97 BC, about three years after Caesar was born, and was generally frowned on. On the other hand, Caesar carried out what amounts to genocide against some Gallic tribes, which Roman citizens approved of. So Caesar would factually never ever have made a human sacrifice, but mass slaughter was perfectly fine.
"In one fell swoop, he’s rewritten a thousand years of history, justified chivalric culture, and established France as the true inheritor of ancient empires, therefore making his kingdom the most legitimate one."
If fairness to the medieval French, this happens in more recent times. Putin informs us that Russia is the true inheritor of Rus civilization, Kyiv is the mother of Russian cities, and it is therefor necessary for Russia to invade Ukraine. The U.S. is the true inheritor of the Judeo-Christian tradition, or it's the true inheritor of British democracy (or Athenian), or it was founded to protect the ancient Biblical institution of slavery, etc.
This was really interesting and something I had no idea about! I've followed your twitter and always vaguely enjoyed medieval history and this was right up my alley. I was wondering, are you professionally interested in medieval history and culture or is this just a (really cool!) side gig or hobby? Thanks!
I'd suggest that another factor was the common medieval understanding of the relation between concepts, things, and images.
Broadly and briefly, since the ultimate reality of things was their presence as ideas in the mind of God, from which they proceeded into material actuality, the our understanding (i.e. intellectual "vision") of an idea was a glimpse of the true reality of a thing, more fundamentally "real" than the thing itself. The point of a painting or illumination was to engender this intellectual vision in the beholder. So, it didn't matter if you pictured Caesar wearing a toga or a 15th century French royal outfit, as these were merely material details which veiled the deeper reality conceptual reality of Caesar. What mattered was that seeing the image raised the mind towards the contemplation of the idea.
I don't know if I'm explaining this well, but once this principle is grasped it unlocks a fascinating dimension of medieval art (and writing for that matter) that makes the reasons for a ton of its stylistic tendencies click into place
absolutely! i had a whole second part drafted about the language of iconography and symbols in communicating underlying supposed realities in medieval art, but it got too long so i've just posted this bit for now. but i agree, this is a really good insight and well articulated!
This is such delightful, revelatory writing - I look forward to your future posts!
thank you so much!!
Meh... So you've convinced me that the Medievals knew about Caesar's acts and deeds, but not really that they knew what he *looked* like.
Our worked the other way too; there's a 3rd century Roman mosaic that depicts Christ. He's shown as toga-wearing, short-haired and beardless, rather like Roman senator.
i love this and you!!!
Mayhaps they just thought they looked hotte? (I am inclined to agree!)
Clothing has meaning that depends on time and place. Alexander dressed in the chlamys and kausia of Macedonian aristocracy wouldn't have looked very impressive to the medieval French. But put him in silk robes, ermine, and a gold crown, and you've got a real king!
Similarly with armor. The French would have thought that Caesar's usual military dress made him look like a common foot soldier. Caesar and Pompey in expensive and prestigious medieval plate armor look like important military leaders.
"medieval Caesar ... would never ever make a human sacrifice in the name of Mars"
Human sacrifice was legally banned in Rome in 97 BC, about three years after Caesar was born, and was generally frowned on. On the other hand, Caesar carried out what amounts to genocide against some Gallic tribes, which Roman citizens approved of. So Caesar would factually never ever have made a human sacrifice, but mass slaughter was perfectly fine.
"In one fell swoop, he’s rewritten a thousand years of history, justified chivalric culture, and established France as the true inheritor of ancient empires, therefore making his kingdom the most legitimate one."
If fairness to the medieval French, this happens in more recent times. Putin informs us that Russia is the true inheritor of Rus civilization, Kyiv is the mother of Russian cities, and it is therefor necessary for Russia to invade Ukraine. The U.S. is the true inheritor of the Judeo-Christian tradition, or it's the true inheritor of British democracy (or Athenian), or it was founded to protect the ancient Biblical institution of slavery, etc.
This was really interesting and something I had no idea about! I've followed your twitter and always vaguely enjoyed medieval history and this was right up my alley. I was wondering, are you professionally interested in medieval history and culture or is this just a (really cool!) side gig or hobby? Thanks!