Pat:
Am I getting what you are saying is when we discuss "realisim" we are simply projecting our own thoughts upon the subject? What was "realisim" in Trajan's time was not realism in the time of say,
Constantius II? That both are equally reaslistic in terms of historical fact?
That
had you
confronted Constantius II with the charge that
his coins were not "realistic" he would have both been insulted (and likely
had you executed) and would have also been perplexed at your charge?
That he would have thought
his coins projected the emperor he was? A designated delagate from the gods to the people on earth?
"My coins must project who I am. I am the diety come to earth. Yes I have a wart on my nose. But I am also the representative of deiisim on earth in a real sense. And yes, I am indeed a god. Would you have a god have an unsightly wart on
his nose? It would erode the faith of the faithful who also have warts and boils and crippled legs and other human frailties. The empire cannot abide an emperor who would show such defects."
Later,
Christ, as a
man surely
had human defects. A boil scar here, an ugly scar there. would the later Christians have been happy with reproductions of the
Christ with an ugly just-healed infection present on
his images?
The later emperors adopeted an almost oriental role to play when in public. When one emperor visited
Rome a chronicler reported that
"The emperor advanced with a steady gaite. He showed no emotion, and kept
his eyes looking upward.
he was surrounded by solders in
red and gold garb. He looked neither to the right
nor to the left" Terribly
stylized, terribly rigid.
They could not afford Nero's jowls,
nor Vespasian's common look.
Am I right or just misguided?
P.S.
His godly status did not prevent him from taking back to
Constantinople every valuable thing that was not nailed down....after all gods have their needs... [Wink]
Report to moderator 24.167.179.185
Pages: [1