Interesting! particularly the Breugel example which, as you say, looks
quite practical. I don't know if it helps answer the question, but
here's the iconography behind that fellow:
The image compresses two sectionsof the David/Bathsheba story, briefly:
David spies Bathsheba bathing, becomes enamored, sleeps with her, she
gets pregnant. He orders her husband Uriah home from the battlefield so
that she can pass the child off as legitimate. Uriah refuses to go home
while his comrades in arms are still in battle. David finally sends him
back to battle with a note to his General commanding the General to make
sure Uriah gets killed in action. So, the main image in the foreground
is the usual Bathsheba being attended at her bath. The background image
is King David sending Uriah off with the message that is essentially his
own death warrant.
The fun part is that while the subject gave artists the opportunity to
paint the titillating images of nudity, adultery and lust, the medieval
iconography that built up around the images was quite different. Without
going into great detail, the image was viewed not as lust and adultery
but as a prefiguration of Christ, the Church and baptism. In this case
David is Christ wishing to be joined to the Church, represented by
Bathsheba who is being baptized, and Uriah, though a Hittite, represents
the Jewish people refusing to 'go home' to the Church. An interesting
discussion of all this can be found in several places, for example an
article by Wayne Craven in the Journal of the Society of Architectural
Historians titled 'The Iconography of the David and Bathsheba Cycle at
the Cathedral of Auxerre' (available online at JSTOR).
So, the figure of Uriah, being a historical character (both a Hittite,
literally, and a Jew, allegorically) may well be dressed oddly in these
images. Add to that that he is a soldier, who are generally depicted in
not-typical clothing. Also, the command from David telling him to go
home and sleep with his wife is actually given as "go home and wash your
feet." I don't think I'm suggesting his bare knees are related to that,
specifically: just thinking his outfit might not be considered what the
well-dressed 16th century man would be wearing!
- Hope
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Somebody tell me this guy is NOT showing off his barenaked knees in the
background of this painting:
http://www.formfunction.org/temp/1530dutchcalendar11bathsheba.jpg
Please give me a plausible explanation, before my perpetually-overheated husband finds out and demands I make him a pair!
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
