Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

910 30. the visual arts
of the church of the monastery of St Catherine on Sinai (the dedication to
St Catherine is post-Justinianic). Here the names of Justinian and Theodora
(now deceased) are carved in the wooden beams of the roof of the basilica,
as is the name of the architect (or builder?) Stephanus of Aila, now Eilat.
The church (constructed in local stone) thus dates between 548 and 565; and
a second inscription in the apse mosaics of the Sinai church mentions the
monks involved (the abbot Longinus and the deacon John) and indiction 14;
if the mosaic was carried out under the same programme of work, as seems
almost certain, it was done in either 550 or 565. The mosaic does not,
however, mention or represent the emperor. 56
The Sinai church was a martyrium built on the site of the burning bush, and
the mosaic programme of the apse commemorates events in the life of
Moses on the triumphal arch (Moses at the Burning Bush, and Moses receiving
the Law); the Transfiguration is in the conch, and figures of Old
Testament prophets and New Testament apostles are in medallions around
the apse (together with an early ‘Deesis’ composition and the two icons
of the monks). Compared with San Vitale (which also includes Moses
scenes), the stylistic treatment of the figures is even more ‘abstract’ and
boldly non-illusionistic. The viewers of this mosaic would be the monks of
this remote community, together with the intrepid pilgrims who managed to
reach such an awesome holy site. All equally would feel insignificant in front
of the vast and mystic imagery of the holy light of the Transfiguration. All
commentators on this mosaic have emphasized the levels of meaning which
they detect in the mosaic: ‘eschatological, dogmatic, liturgical, topographic,
typological, imperial’ (Weitzmann); ‘visual exegesis’ (Elsner). While it may
seem feasible to argue that we can see a chronological development from San
Vitale to Sinai ‘away’ from classicism, the analysis of the functions and evocations
of the mosaic programmes suggests that the formal choices were
made for more complicated reasons than the weakening of illusionism.
The development of the pilgrimage monastery of Sinai was mentioned
by Procopius (and the tenth-century writer Eutychius) as a work of
Justinian, but the details of the financial and practical organization of the
work are not known. Since sponsorship of other works in the Holy Land
which are mentioned in contemporary texts (such as the New Church in
Jerusalem) might be delegated through the tax system, it is likely that the
monks who are commemorated in the mosaic organized the work. This situation
may account for the debate about the origin of the artists. While the
architect (and probably the masons of the variety of capitals along the
columns of the nave) was local, the panache with which the mosaics are
carried out has led to the assumption that the artists were sent out from
56 Forsyth and Weitzmann (1973); Manafis (1990); Elsner (1995) 99–124. Doubts have been
expressed whether the inscription in the mosaic is original or added later. Ernest Hawkins pointed out
to me that since the sizes of the medallions below the lettering are adjusted to make room for the
inscription, all this section of the mosaic is homogeneous.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008