157 the Veiled Metaphor in Hugo Van Der Goes' Berlin Nativity: Isaiah and Jeremiah, Or Mark and Paul? JOHN F. MOFFITT in an Impo
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
157 JOHN F. MOFFITT The Veiled Metaphor in Hugo van der Goes' Berlin Mark Nativity: Isaiah and Jeremiah, or and Paul? In an important article published in 1975, Barbara G. Lane had explored the complex symbolic modes structuring Hugo van der Goes' Nativity picture of ca. 148o in Berlin (Fig. i).' As she points out, Hugo's unusually proportioned oak panel probably hung over an altar and thus she seeks clues to its iconographical significance and sources in liturgical ceremonies and the dramas of Christmas Day. In the larger sense she reveals once-common traditions by which the altar symbolized both the sepulcher of Christ as well as the manger, thus evoking the parallel between the Incarnation and the Transubstantiation. In Hugo's painting, she states, 'the manger imitates the shape of an altar,' and cites examples from patristic literature (Augustine, Walafrid Strabo, Guerricus, Ambrose, etc.) in which this manger-altar comparison is mentioned. It is also noted that the Christ Child lies upon a white cloth, and Lane plausibly relates this configuration to the paten upon which the consecrated Host is presented to the participants in the Mass .2 As she concludes, this altar-manger conflation represents 'the symbolic transubstantiation... where the Infant Christ lying on the manger explains the meaning of the consecrated Host to the worshipper.' The symbolic act of transubstantiation, itself the celebration of the Eucharist, is further underlined by a sheaf of grain placed directly below the manger in Hugo's painting, a reference to Christ as 'the living bread come down from Heaven' (John 6: 5 r - 52 ) . Lane has even found a plausible metaphorical ex- planation for the oddly horizontal proportions of Hugo's panel; given the fact of the tradition of an altar-sepulcher-manger equation, then, as she affirms, 'Christ would lie, as it were, in his manger and his tomb simultaneously, for the Nativity is but a prelude to his sacrifice.' Given the weight of the detailed and well-documented evidence assembled by Lane in order to ascribe an overriding symbolic, specifically eucharistic signif- icance to nearly every mundane-appearing object in this painting, then surely the single most unusual feature of Hugo's composition must similarly have been derived from liturgical or scriptural sources. This striking motif is Hugo's inclusion, as Lane puts it, 'of two dramatic foreground figures who open cur- tains to reveal the Adoration of the Child.' As she also demonstrates, 'Hugo has carefully identified his curtains as belonging to an altar by his emphasis on the ?simulated? curtain-rod, for it is actually a piece of wood attached to the panel, over which the rings have been painted.... By implying that the cur- tains are open in the viewer's space, [the motif] also intensifies the dramatic 158 revelation for the worshipper.' Her conclusion is that 'the parted curtains reveal the child, just as altar-curtains disclosed the transformed Host to the congregation. 13 Therefore, she concludes, 'the veil is now opened to reveal the new Holy of Holies, the Eucharist on the altar, symbolic of the body of Christ.' As is suggested by such statements, the parted curtains, vigorously drawn aside by two as-yet unidentified (Biblical?) personages, are a concrete sign of Chris- tological 'revelation,' but far more specifically, as I would add, the 'revelatio' of the New Testament founded upon the flesh and blood of the crucified Christ. Whereas the symbolic identity of the curtains as another sign of the Revelation of the Christ to the shepherds as such is obviously correct, I must question the specific identity given by Lane (and others) to those 'two dramatic foreground figures' who so dramatically lift up and draw aside these symbolic curtains in order to reveal the first epiphany of Christ. As Lane hypothesizes, 'the figure on the left is probably Isaiah,' while 'the grieving expression' on the right hand figure in turn `reflects the suffering experienced by Jeremiah.' In fact, this pair of figures (who, it must be noted, have no distinguishing attributes as such) had been identified as Old Testament prophets as long ago as 1903 , and more recently, in i 983,.J. K. Eberlein similarly had identified them as 'the two pro- phets who foretold Christ, Isaiah and Jeremiah.' 5 Nevertheless, as Lane is careful to point out, 'there seems to be neither a literary nor a visual tradition for prophets unveiling the Nativity as they [seem to duo in Hugo's painting.' In fact, I know of no traditions, either visual or textual, which supply any grounds whatsoever for identifying Old Testament prophets, especially Isaiah and Jeremiah, with revelational curtains in any place or time. Moreover, as I do not find observed in the critical literature on Hugo's painting, the drapery withdrawn by these two obviously symbolic figures can not in fact represent a 'curtain' (or cortina) as such; being semi-transparant, it is obviously instead a 'veil' (velum or velamen). This critical distinction between physical materials and putative functions will now enable us to situate more accurately the drapery- motif within a familiar biblical context, pointing in turn to the real identity and significance of this anomalous 'curtain'-motif and its two dramatic 'un- veilers.' Thus we now recognize that we should be properly looking for two biblical personages who had specificaly associated themselves with a veil, and, more- over, with this veil as a sign of the manifestation of Christ to men on earth. Although no such figures are to be found in the Old Testament, the veil-Christ equation is common to the writings of the principal authors of the New Testa- ment, mainly Mark and Paul, and they supplied two different, but essentially complementary readings of the Christological veil-motif. For Mark, this drapery device was an actual architectural feature, the famous 'veil' (velum) or curtain originally found in the Temple of Solomon (Exodus W:3i-33), and subsequently reincorporated in the Temple in Jerusalem, re- built by Kind Herod between 19 and 9 s c, and later destroyed by the Romans under Titus in AD. An approximate or conventionalized idea of the ap- pearance of the interior of the rectangular Temple is given in an engraving by Franciscus Vatabulus that was published (Paris, 1540) in the illustrated Bible prepared by Robert Estienne (fig. 2). Here we see the gathered velum to the left, hanging from rings on a metal curtain-rod traversing the entire width of the nave (sancta) and covering a low wall that demarcates the area of the Holy of Holies (Sancia Sanctorum), the place of the Ark of the Old Testament of the Jewish faith.' For Mark, this was the velum that was parted, or 'ripped asun- der,' on the evening of Good Friday when Jesus died upon the cross at a I59 I moment when, states the Apostle, velum templi scissum est in duo, a summo deorsum' van der Goes, The Hugo an observation also Matthew, and Luke, Staatliche Museen (Mark 15: 38; repeated by 27: 5 r, Nativity, to the of Old Testament PreuBischer Kulturbesitz, Ge- Thus, contrary any previous, vague prophe- it was Mark's observation and that had maldegalerie, Berlin. cies, subsequent striking metaphor inextricably situated the parted veil within a specifically historic-narrative statement about the life and death of Christ, that is, at the very moment revealing the real spiritual meaning of the New Testament, 'in corpus G'hristi.' As was clarified slightly later by Paul (whom we may identify as the second veil-bearing 'prophet,' to the right in Hugo's panel), this veil is also the velamen, a parallel veil-motif that represents Christ Himself' in which He was hidden as a refuge for us. As was stated in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 6:18- 0, the sacrifice of Christ opens up for us, like a parted veil, the way to the Holy of Holies: 'We who have fled for refuge should have strong encouragement to seize the hope [Christ] set before us. We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner shrine behind the veil (ad irtteriora vela- mis), where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever (ubi praecurvor pro nobis introivit Jesus ... pont?fexIactus in aeternum) .' In Hebrews 10: r g- 20, Paul is even more explicit on the symbolic Christolog- ical significance of the veil, stating that we ourselves shall enter into that Holy of Holies, that is, by actually passing through that same veil (a parallel to Mark's 'velum templi'), and Paul shows it to be actually made of Christ's pre- cious flesh and blood. Clearly, this parted veil is, in itself, a complete euchar- istic symbol because, as Paul states, Christ is the veil, 'in flesh and blood': 'Habentes itaquefratresfiduciam in introitu sanctorum in sanguine Christi, quam initaoit nobis viam novam, et viventem per velamen, id est, carnem suam... (Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the veil, that is, through his flesh [leading to the] full assurance of faith.)' Paul also employed the veil-metaphor in another, and even more profound sense as a direct sign of `revelation,' a sign, moreover, that refutes outright Old I60 Testament prophecy. As he explained (II Corinthians 3: r 2 ff.), speaking in reference to Moses' veiled countenance in the presence of his Yahweh (Exodus 34:29 fI:), the Christians of the New Faith now see through, or lift up, the Old Testament 'veils' thanks to the recent intervention of Christ: 'Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, not like Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not see the end of the fading splendor.