--excerpt from "Archaeology of the Cross and Crucifix" in THE CATHOLIC
ENCYCLOPEDIA, 1908 at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04517a.htm
(thanks Steve for this resource). I had never considered
the cumulative (preceding) 'crosses' that then became
symbolized- as the general story of punishment is that
which I until now thought was unique to one person in
the 'stations' and other aspects (plaque). even the 'tree
cross', prior to its graphic symbol (symbols.com) having
such a story is quite incredible to consider in its depths,
history, and the context of pure misery. one aspect is of
particular curiosity that I have up until now assumed is
contrary to archaeological considerations- that with the
basic religious foundation of many in places considered
to be of 'modern times' -- that in the systems of belief and
of faith, that such knowledge may generally be of more
interest than is apparent in today's (e.g. .US) societies,
in terms of basic knowledge (for instance, not limited to
architecture, but using architectural history as example,
that 'modernism' and 'modern' discourse is a limitation
on perceptions and conceptions of architectural ideas,
conceptions, realities). there has been something that
is in the general rhetoric, also, of the 'west' which is of
being 'the future' and 'post-post-modern', 'post-future'
or whatever. and the idea of 'progress', always in the
contentious state of the 'new'. versus this 'oldness' as
a type of knowledge, stories and grounding-- largely
absent in much if not most contexts.... and critiques of
present day discourses are always assuming a type
of superiority to 'western' or even '.US' hyperdriving
forward (off-the-planet), instead of a looking-backward
as a possible way of going forward (dealing with issues
not yet addressed, recognized, accepted, such as with
the repercussions of decisions in planning, uses of
natural resources, pollution, and economics/society/
politics in relation to this, not some nearby future day).
and a lot of the rhetoric, unfortunately, to those who
are elsewhere yet equals though often dismissed as
in a less-developed existence (probably much more
mature as cultures in many ways, in terms of refining
of particular or unique systems)-- is that commentators
often say the problems are ones of 'backward places'
which is, IMO, wrong-headed, as what a lot of places
indicate is an integration into a shared world of some
equalness, which archaeology seems to bring with it,
in terms of complexities and commonalities. it is this
which to me is a way of 'looking forward' which is not
'backwards' in considering democracy, modernization,
and other development changes. yet, it is disparaged
often by what may be a too future-focus/external view/
super-egoid/escape velocity superiority simplification.
for the first time I felt that it is possible that many would
be able to find intrigue, here, in looking back, in a way
to connect with traditions, to relocate values of places.
used to know a few who wanted to visit and some who
did, the middle-east yet fighting stopped some from it.
the attacks at the pyramids in Egypt were the last time
it seemed feasible to consider it, in any future, should
one ever get to travel to places only seen in the books,
yet whose maps one studies in school to learn about.
it is strange as reading a book 'looking backward' by
bellamy a few years ago had some flashback or some
storyline which had music piped into peoples houses,
a lot of the e-commerce infrastructure (if it were to be
built around decentralized delivery networks and a
looksee/order store, yet not supply-warehouse model)
and basically the iTunes and other online music stores
are of this (past) modeling. makes me wonder what the
future may be like if, for good reason and of importance
all around, it were to not be 'out there' but 'in here' within
places now largely opaque or translucent to one another.
the future is another's past, another's past is a new future,
in a cyclical or some metabolic or some connecting of
cycles, where one place is not predominant, but that a
variety of configurations could be complimentary, just as
with religious beliefs helping in defining what is valued.
with archaeology, maybe too, for architecture, as with
many if not all fields, yet geography, anthropology, etc.
brian
The punishment of the cross
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04517a.htm
'...According to Roman custom, the penalty of crucifixion was always
preceded by scourging (virgis cædere, Prud., "Enchirid.", xli, 1);
after this preliminary punishment, the condemned person had to carry
the cross, or at least the transverse beam of it, to the place of
execution (Plut., "Tard. dei vind.", ix, "Artemid.", II, xli), exposed
to the jibes and insults of the people (Joseph., "Antiq.", XIX, iii;
Plaut., "Most.", I, 1, 52; Dion., VII, 69). On arrival at the place of
execution the cross was uplifted (Cic., Verr., V, lxvi). Soon the
sufferer, entirely naked, was bound to it with cords (Plin., "Hist.
Nat.", XXVIII, iv; Auson., "Id.", VI, 60; Lucan, VI, 543, 547),
indicated in Latin by the expressions agere, dare, ferre, or tollere in
crucem. He was then, as Plautus tells us, fastened with four nails to
the wood of the cross ("Lact.", IV, 13; Senec., "Vita beat.", 19;
Tert., "Adv. Jud.", x; Justus Lipsius " De Cruce", II, vii; xli-ii).
Finally, a placard called the titulus bearing the name of the condemned
man and his sentence, was placed at the top of the cross (Euseb.,
"Hist. Eccl", V, 1; Suet., Caligula", xxxviii and "Domit." x; Matt.,
xxvii, 37; John, xix, 19). Slaves were crucified outside of Rome in a
place called Sessorium, beyond the Esquiline Gate; their execution was
entrusted to the carnifex servorum (Tacit., "Ann.", II, 32; XV, 60;
XIV, 33; Plut., "Galba", ix; Plaut., "Pseudol.", 13, V, 98). Eventually
this wretched locality became a forest of crosses (Loiseleur, Des
peines), while the bodies of the victims were the pray of vultures and
other rapacious birds (Horace, "Epod.", V, 99, and the scholia of
Crusius; Plin., "Hist. Nat.", XXXVI, cvii). It often happened that the
condemned man did not die of hunger or thirst, but lingered on the
cross for several days (Isid., V, 27; Senec., Epist. ci). To shorten
his punishment therefore, and lessen his terrible sufferings, his legs
were were sometimes broken (crurifragium, crura frangere; Cic., XIII
Philipp., xii)...'
'The penalty of the cross goes back probably to the arbor infelix, or
unhappy tree, spoken of by Cicero (Pro, Rabir., iii sqq.) and by Livy,
apropos of the condemnation of Horatius after the murder of his sister.
According to Hüschke (Die Multa, 190) the magistrates known as duoviri
perduellionis pronounced this penalty (cf. Liv., I, 266), styled also
infelix lignem (Senec., Ep. ci; Plin., XVI, xxvi; XXIV, ix; Macrob.,
II, xvi). This primitive form of crucifixion on trees was long in use,
as Justus Lipsius notes ("De cruce", I, ii, 5; Tert., "Apol.", VIII,
xvi; and "Martyrol. Paphnut." 25 Sept.). Such a tree was known as a
cross (crux)....'
--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To signoff, send mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Visit archives: http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html