The other day I wrote a post in which I informally examined Adolf Hirémy's polyptych, Sic Transit. Those who read that particular post may remember the central panel, which depicts a Christianized God of Rome hovering above the ruins of the imperial capital before two slightly curious but otherwise forlorn wolves.
When I wrote the post about Sic Transit, I didn't know Hirémy had completed several studies for the central panel, two of which vary markedly from the final composition and vision Hirémy decided upon above. Surprisingly enough, I prefer both of these studies to final version of Solitary Rome Hirémy chose as the centrepiece of his five-panel mythological/symbolist narrative. Nevertheless, I think I understand why Hirémy settled upon the image he did.
The first of these studies can be seen below. Overall, I think this a stronger composition than the final version. To me, the image better reflects the former grandeur of fallen Rome, which is effectively communicated through the angles and depth Hirémy includes in this study. Also, the God of Rome is far more identifiable. Yet perhaps that is where the problem in this study is situated - a problem Hirémy no doubt recognized when he completed this draft painting.
In the final version, the Christian elements infused into The God of Rome are easily recognizable - he is bathed in light, he stretches his arms out before him, and has his eyes raised to the sky. No such Christian elements exist in the study below. Save for the faint halo around the head, the God of Rome in this study is still very much a pagan. On top of that, he looks pissed off. Note the way he stares frowningly out into his collapsed city rather than the sky. Fully armed with spear and shield, he appears enraged, ready to seek revenge. The wolves scamper about his feet; one has its head raised, seemingly ready to respond to any beck and call the god may utter.
Although I find this study better from a composition perspective, I can understand why Hirémy chose not to go with it in the end.
The first of these studies can be seen below. Overall, I think this a stronger composition than the final version. To me, the image better reflects the former grandeur of fallen Rome, which is effectively communicated through the angles and depth Hirémy includes in this study. Also, the God of Rome is far more identifiable. Yet perhaps that is where the problem in this study is situated - a problem Hirémy no doubt recognized when he completed this draft painting.
In the final version, the Christian elements infused into The God of Rome are easily recognizable - he is bathed in light, he stretches his arms out before him, and has his eyes raised to the sky. No such Christian elements exist in the study below. Save for the faint halo around the head, the God of Rome in this study is still very much a pagan. On top of that, he looks pissed off. Note the way he stares frowningly out into his collapsed city rather than the sky. Fully armed with spear and shield, he appears enraged, ready to seek revenge. The wolves scamper about his feet; one has its head raised, seemingly ready to respond to any beck and call the god may utter.
Although I find this study better from a composition perspective, I can understand why Hirémy chose not to go with it in the end.
The second study of Solitary Rome is often referred to as Apparition or Night Apparition, and I have to say, it is one of the most haunting works of art I have ever seen in my life.
The ruined city, the wolves, a shining God of Rome with spear and shield in hand - this study contains all the elements evident in the previous study and the final version of Solitary Rome. but what sets this study apart is the god's gaze. In the final version, the god raises his eyes to the heavens. In the previous study, he stares sourly upon his ruined city. In this study, the God of Rome, his translucent chin dipped ever-so-slightly, stares directly and penetratingly at the viewer. At first glance, the locked gaze is startling, perhaps even frightening. It's far too probing - far too personal. The expression appears tainted by suffering, but rays of light he emits hint at the transcendence of this suffering.
I imagine Hirémy ultimately rejected this image because he correctly recognized that most people would not be able to discern any semblance of Christianity emanating from this rendition of a Christianized God of Rome. At the purely surface level, I would have to agree. In this regard, the final version with the raised eyes makes more sense. All the same, I think the Christian elements Hirémy depicts here better fit the Christianity that survived centuries of persecution within the Roman Empire, then rose to become the official state religion, survived the collapse of the Western Empire, ruled the Eastern Empire for another millenium, and reigned in Europe until recently.
I imagine Hirémy ultimately rejected this image because he correctly recognized that most people would not be able to discern any semblance of Christianity emanating from this rendition of a Christianized God of Rome. At the purely surface level, I would have to agree. In this regard, the final version with the raised eyes makes more sense. All the same, I think the Christian elements Hirémy depicts here better fit the Christianity that survived centuries of persecution within the Roman Empire, then rose to become the official state religion, survived the collapse of the Western Empire, ruled the Eastern Empire for another millenium, and reigned in Europe until recently.
The Christianity Hirémy depicts here lived the reality of Divine Love through diamond solid faith. This Christianity understood its kingdom was not of this world. Intense, resolute, indefatigable, and incorruptible, it knew no fear and did not shrink away from martyrdom. This Christianity insisted on the personal. It could not be ignored and was rarely forgotten by any who encountered it.
Once again, I can understand why Hirémy did not choose this study for the central panel of Sic Transit in the end. All the same, a part of me wishes he had because it is exactly the kind of Christianity - perhaps the only kind of Christianity - that can truly succeed in times marred the passing of worldly glory.
Once again, I can understand why Hirémy did not choose this study for the central panel of Sic Transit in the end. All the same, a part of me wishes he had because it is exactly the kind of Christianity - perhaps the only kind of Christianity - that can truly succeed in times marred the passing of worldly glory.
RSS Feed
