06.05.2013 Views

Untitled

Untitled

Untitled

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

208<br />

They differ in facial details such as their ears.<br />

Also, an inscription at the Tiberias synagogue<br />

is flanked by unidentical lulavim and ethrogim<br />

(fig. IX-5). The Beth Shean small synagogue has<br />

an inscription flanked by birds (fig. IX-3b) which<br />

differ in size, the one on the left being the larger.<br />

The biblical scene at Na#aran of Daniel flanked<br />

by lions presents the lions symmetrically, but each<br />

has a different position of the tail (fig. IV-16): the<br />

left lion has an upward-turned tail, whereas the<br />

right lion has his tail between his hind legs. The<br />

entrance panel at Na#aran depicts two unidentical<br />

(repaired) stags facing each other (pl. X.1a).<br />

The ‘En Gedi central emblem shows birds symmetrically<br />

placed, but with differences in size and<br />

stance (pl. IX.4b).<br />

Inhabited scroll pavements of groups I-III (see<br />

Chap. VI) sometimes contain antithetic designs<br />

with unidentical animals or details. At Gaza-Maiumas<br />

some of the medallions are inhabited by<br />

similar heraldic animals (pl. VI.1, rows 5, 7, 9);<br />

even these, however, show differences: the leopards<br />

in row 9 have unidentical tails. In row 3,<br />

different animals flank a dog—a lioness and her<br />

cub on one side and a tigress on the other. On<br />

the upper part of the Ma#on synagogue pavement<br />

the lions flanking the menorah differ in mane and<br />

heads (pl. VI.2). The two elephants in row 8 are<br />

rendered differently from each other, particularly<br />

their trunks (fig. XII-13).<br />

Heraldic symmetry with unidentical elements<br />

is also encountered on inhabited vine scroll pavements<br />

in churches: at Shellal (fig. VI-6, rows 4,7)<br />

the flanking animals are different; dissimilar birds<br />

are rendered on the ‘Armenian mosaic’ in Jerusalem<br />

(fig. VI-7, in rows 2,5,6,9). On the mosaic<br />

at el-Maqerqesh chapel the last row has different<br />

chapter nine<br />

flanking birds (fig. VI-11). Different flanking animals<br />

and scenes are found on the Be"er Shem#a<br />

mosaic pavement (pl. VI.5, rows 5,6 8, 9), or the<br />

same animals have unidentical postures or details<br />

(pl. VI.5, rows 1, 2, 4, 10). At Petra church many<br />

of the flanking animals in the lower half of the<br />

mosaic are portrayed in unidentical postures. Usually<br />

one crouches and the other stands (pl. VI.6,7,<br />

rows 2,7,8,10, 12,16) whereas the flanking animals<br />

and birds in the upper half of the mosaic are<br />

rendered in an identical stance (pl. VI.6,7, rows<br />

17-25, 27, 28). A particularly common method of<br />

stressing the unidentical character of these designs<br />

is depicting the animals’ tails differently.<br />

On mosaic floors in Jordan flanking pairs of<br />

animals and birds are frequently illustrated in an<br />

identical pose. But on some pavements though the<br />

same flanking animals are have unidentical postures.<br />

Particularly notable are the vignettes with<br />

unidentical flanking lion and bull on the diagonal<br />

designs (pl. IX.3).<br />

The antithetic symmetrical design was an integral<br />

part of synagogal art and to some extent<br />

also of church pavements. This tendency in the<br />

heraldic design must have been intentional as it<br />

would have been just as easy to portray perfectly<br />

identical designs. Nor should it be put down to<br />

unskillful artistry, as some designs do use symmetrical<br />

patterns. Jews in particular adopted the<br />

style of unidentical symmetry style intentionally.<br />

One may conjecture that it was associated with a<br />

desire to avoid competition with a perfection that<br />

only God could achieve. Yet it may have been due<br />

to the character of Jewish and Christian popular<br />

art, and to the artists’ standards of composition<br />

and their cultural environment, which did not<br />

traditionally demand perfection.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!