A C T A U N I V E R S I T A T I S L O D Z I E N S I S
FO LIA A RC H A EO LO G IC A 26, 2009
P A W E Ł S Z K O Ł U T University of Łódź
THE MENORAH DEPICTED ON THE ARCH OF TITUS.
A PROBLEM OF ITS ORIGIN AND THE HELLENISTIC
SYMBOLS ADORNING ITS BASE
In the m o st books an d h an d b o o k s ab o u t the R o m an a rt, it appears a fam o u s p h o to o f the relief copied on the A rch o f T itu s.1 T h e picture show s a p rocession’s scene o f the trium ph o f the C aesar T itu s in 71 A .D ., after the victorious w ar in Ju d ea and cap tu rin g Jerusalem . In the m iddle p a rt o f it, there arc im agined R om an soldiers crow ned with w reaths and pro b ab ly som e Jew ish prisoners carrying the T em ple’s m en o ra h , o th er sacral equipm ents and tablets. In the central p a rt o f the relief, it is carved a huge scvcn-branchcd candlestick carried on the stretchers (ferculum ). Its tw o-steps base, hexagonal o r o ctagonal in form , is decorated w ith various Hellenistic and R o m an sym bols, as “ d ra g o n ” (capricornus), griffins and lions - on the low er b ase’s step and tw o eagles with a g arland, as well as “ sea creatu res”
(hippokam pos) - on a higher level o f the m e n o ra h ’s basis.2
The Arch of Titus
T h e triu m p h al A rch o f T itus (fig. 1) was erected a t via Sacra in R om e in 81 A .D . - ten years afte r the capturing o f Jerusalem . It happened ju st after the d eath and deification o f T itu s’ b ro th er - V espasian, w hat inform s
1 A bout the Arch o f Titus see: A ndrae 1982, p. 192-195, fig. 68, 394-395; Bianchi-Bandinelli 1969, p. 213-216, fig. 237-241; Hannestad 1988, p. 124-132, fig. 78-81; Busagli 1999, p. 93-95; Cornell, M atthew s 1991, p. 80-81; Ostrowski 1999, p. 282-285, fig. 244; Sadurska 1980, t. 2, p. 139-145.
2 See Sperber 1998, p. 50-52; Sperber 1965, p. 135-159; Klagsbald 1987, p. 126-134; Go- odenough n.d., vol. VIII, p. 123-125.
a dedicato ry inscription w ritten on the attica: SEN A T V S PO PV LV SQ V E R O M A N VS D1VO T IT O D IV I V ESPA SIA N I F[ilio] V E S P A S IA N O A V G - VSTO. In the m iddle ages the arch was incorporated into a fortress and in the X IX -th century its pillars were reconstructed, so now only its m iddle p a rt is ancient. Scholars presum e the arch was never finished in an tiq u ity .3 T he A rch o f T itu s has one gate o f 13.5 m breath, 15.4 m height and 4.75 m dep th . It is adorned with three groups o f relieves, which originally were covered with polychrom e. Tw o m ost fam ous relieves (3.80 m length and 2.03 m height) arc placed on b o th sides o f the passage. O n the n orthern relief it is im agined the em peror T itus standing on a ch ario t decorated with the eagles and a garland. In fro n t o f him and behind there are walking twelve m en w ith w reaths on heads holding bunches o f sticks with axes
{fasces). T h e em p ero r’s chariot is conducted by the goddess R o m a, while
V ictoria is p u ttin g the w reath {corona triumphalis) on T itu s’ head. Behind him, there is show ed a personification o f G enius o f the R o m an People in the shape o f a young m an and the old G enius o f the Senate dressed in toga.
T h e abo v e m en tio n ed relief w ith the m e n o ra h and o th e r T em p le’s equipm ents (fig. 2) has been carved on the so uthern wall o f the passage. Besides the m en o rah and the table for shew bread with tied tru m p ets, carried pro b ab ly by the Jew ish captives (with w reaths on their heads), other prisoners are lifting an arm ch air apparently for one o f the Jew ish leaders.4 O n the co n trary , the tablets probably w ith the nam es o f the captured cities are hold by the R o m an soldiers. T he conduct is h eading for the gate Porta
Triumphalis w ith a ch ario t on its top.
R egarding the form , b o th relieves are featured by the d ep th o f space, dynam ism , rhythm and an illusion o f the m ovem ent o f the stepping persons, as well as the optical light-shadow effects. L ooking a t the so u th ern relief one m ight have an im pression the processional c o n d u c t (o f a semicircle shape) after a while will enter the gate. T his effect has been obtained th ro u g h a differentiation between the co n d u c t’s direction an d the trium phal g ate’s axis. O n the opposite n o rth ern relief (fig. 3), the ch a rio t and the horses m ak e an im pression, as if they were on the b e n d .5 A ccording to the relieves’ au th o rs, they were intended to be w atched from a certain distance looking at the both a rc h ’s facades. It is the reason, now these effects are best visible from afar.
C om p arin g the com positions o f both relieves, one ca n notice they were designed according to the specially defined rules. T hese are first o f all a m u tu al sym m etric ap pearance o f the m ost im p o rta n t m otives, as the em peror on the ch a rio t o n one relief and the m en o ra h on the other. T he
3 H annestad 1988, p. 126.
* Ibidem, p. 129.
C aesar, being a central m o tif o f the n o rth ern relief, is carved right opposite the m en o ra h - the m ain elem ent o f the southern com position. F ollow ing it, the horses with heads turned upright and left are parallels to the captives bearing the seven-branched candlestick. T he im agination o f the em peror Titus has been sym m etrically set with the m enorah - a sym bol o f Judaism and the Tem ple. In this way the glory o f R om e has been opposed to the glory of Israel, which was destroyed after the fall o f Jerusalem in 70 A .D . T h e form er and the latter arc expressed in the d ecoration o f the m e n o ra h ’s base and the C aesa r’s ch a rio t - b o th ornam ented with the eagles and a garland.®
T h e third less know n relief is found on a partially preserved frieze in the m iddle p a rt o f the eastern w all.7 It shows a triu m p h al procession, which there are left the im aginations o f sacrificial anim als, d o n o rs, m en in toga and soldiers. A special atten tio n should be turned th ere to a personification o f Jo rd a n , which is the oldest personification o f th a t river in art.
T h e m iddle o f the arch is decorated with panels, b u t a separated m etope is filled w ith a relief show ing T itu s’ apotheosis o n eagle’s w ings.8 O n the vaults o f the o u ter p a rt o f the arch, there is depicted a n im agination o f the young G enius o f R om an People. F ollow ing it, in the spaces between the bow ’s line and the beam s there are im agined the flying Victories.
A description o f the T itu s’ triu m p h was w ritten dow n by Josephus F lavius, w ho was a witness o f the procession in 71 A .D .9 T h e w riter m entions in the procession to o k p a rt aro u n d 700 Jew ish captives, and one o f the uprising leaders - Sim on, was executed the sam e day. Basing on Jo sep h u s’ account, it is qu ite probably o n the so u th ern relief o f the T itus arch there were im agined som e Jew ish prisoners bearing the m en o ra h and o th e r T em p le’s equipm ents. O f the Jew ish origin o f those m en m ight ensure us their Sem itic features, leaned heads, faces expressing the p ain , sham e and sorrow . L oo k in g on the crow ns on th eir heads, we m ay explain them as the sym bol o f their slavery.10 Josephus Flavius noticed also the m en o ra h had a different shape as usually, apparently because o f the tw o-steps decorated base. W riting a b o u t a fu rth e r fate o f the T em ple’s treasures, he adds after the procession som e o f them were taken to Templum P a d s and o thers to N e ro n ’s D om us Aurea.
6 It seems, the parallel appearance o f the eagles with a garland on both opposite relieves weren’t accident there. We only don’t know if the m enorah’s base was genuine, or it was elaborated later after the destruction of the Temple.
1 See the fig. 1.
8 See Bianchi-Bandinelli 1969, fig. 241. This scene is similar to the other depicted on Gemma
o f Claudius, which shows an apotheosis o f one o f the Rom an emperors; see H annestad 1988,
p. 79, fig. 51; Ostrowski, 1999, p. 268.
9 Josephus Flavius, Bell. lud., VII, 122-156.
10 See K opaliński 1990, the entry „wieniec” ; Cooper 1999, the entry „w reath” ; Cirlot 2000, the entry “ w reath” ; de Vries 1974, the entry “ w reath”.
The menora. Its base and origin
W hile studying the southern relief o f the A rch o f T itu s, we m ight ask ab o u t the authenticity o f the m e n o ra h ’s base o rnam ented w ith som e H el-lenistic m otives, as well ab o u t their o rig in .11 F irst o f all, it’s w ondering if the base deco rated with the elem ents alm ost totally alien to contem porary Judaism was truly sup p o rtin g this seven-branched candlestick standing in the m iddle o f the Tem ple? O r, w asn’t the tw o-steps base especially do n e for the procession? O r, if its Hellenistic o rn am en tatio n w a sn ’t invented by artists creating the arch for T itu s’ glory?12
O th er problem is regarding the origin o f the an tiq u e m otives decorating the base, nam ely a “ d ra g o n ” (capricornus), griffins, lions, eagles and “ sea creatu re s” (hippokampos) and - w hat d o they m ight express. T h e following q u estio n considers, w hat kind o f shape should have a m e n o ra h base accor-ding to the Jew ish, hallachic, prescriptions, as well as how it looked ou t before the H e ro d ’s era?13
C onsidering a problem o f the authenticity o f the m e n o ra h ’s base copied on the T itu s arch (fig. 4), we have to think if there arc reasons for claim ing the an tiq u e d ec o ratio n was only an invention o f artists m ak in g the whole relief.14 If it were such, it could m ake im possible the studies o n the base and its o rn a m e n ta tio n in the context o f the H e ro d ’s T em ple. B ut looking at the copied m en o ra h , we see the upper p a rt is a typically Jew ish, com patible with the Biblical description - so, it was precisely copied by the artists. Besides, the tim e o f the T itus a rc h ’s creation - som e years after the cap tu re of Jerusalem - confirm s its m akers had a direct access to the T em p le’s booties. T h e artists had a very good o p p o rtu n ity to carve the m en o ra h , as it was in reality. K now ing R om an s inclination to realism and verism , it is difficult to presum e, the artisan s carving the southern relief o f this triu m p h al building invented a new k in d o f m e n o ra h ’s base, hav in g its o riginal at hand! M oreover, we have to rem em ber the whole arch ’s decoration truly depicts the historic events and belongs to the docum ental stream o f th e R o m an a r t.15 O n the o th er han d , it’s w ondering the C aesar c h a rio t’s o rn a m e n tatio n w ith eagles and a garland on the so uthern relief is parallel to the upper level o f the m e n o ra h ’s base, also em bellished w ith those m otives. In
connec-11 See the note 2, also Wirgin 1961, p. 51-53.
12 Scholars d o n ’t agree as regards this problem. F or instance S. A. Cook maintained the m enorah’s decoration was any given and it was made in Rom e on a basis o f the account of some Jewish prisoners. See Encyclopaedia Bihlica, I, p. 644-647; PEFQS, 1903, p. 185f; G oodenough n.d., IV, p. 72.
13 See Sperber 1998, p. 50f. 14 Ibidem.
tion w ith th a t it is w o rth to consider, if such iconography on b o th relieves w asn’t intentionally designed by their authors? F ollow ing it, one can ask w hether, afte r taking the m en o rah from the T em ple, artists d id n ’t project a new base, which H ellenistic deco ratio n w ould express it was ideologically conform ed to R om e and m atched the whole com positions o f b o th relieves? L et’s see, the sym bols o f R om ans glory - th e w reaths, d u rin g the procession were ap p a ren tly carried also by som e Jew ish prisoners, in th a t case being a sym bol o f their cap tiv ity .16 A ccording to it, we m ig h t ask if such antique m otives, as eagles w ith a garland, griffins, a “ d ra g o n ” (hyppokam pos) and others ap p earin g on the m e n o ra h ’s base, w asn’t ju s t sym bols indirectly u tterin g the slavery o f Judaism , which the h ea rt w as the T em ple symbolized by the m en o rah ?
T here arc tw o answ ers to the above-m entioned questions. F irst possibility is such, the m e n o ra h received a tw o-steps base after bringing it to Rom e, an d its H ellenistic o rn a m e n tatio n was ab o u t to sym bolize the conform ing of Jews and Ju d aism to R om e an d its culture, as well as expressing the glory o f the co n q u c ro rs. Second possibility, supp o rted by m an y scholars is such, the m e n o ra h ’s base was original and it was created in the H e ro d ’s times, confirm ing a p h en om enon o f the H ellcnisation o f the Jew ish c u ltu re .17
In connection with the above considerations, there are w ondering som e w ords w ritten by Josephus F lavius describing the T itu s ’ trium ph. H e writes there such sentence a b o u t the seven-branched candlestick: “...the menorah
made also fr o m gold was constructed according to other pattern than we use” .18 T hese w ords express his surprise, the m e n o ra h ’s shape w as different
th a n usually. T he reason o f such reflection was a presence o f the tw o-steps d ecorated base, while ordin ary m enorahs use to stand on three-triple legs, as it is describe in T alm udic literature and illustrated in late antique synagogue a r t.19 A ssum ing, Josephus F lavius saw th e m en o ra h d u rin g the tim e o f the T em p le’s existence (w hat is p ro b a b le b u t n o t com pletely sure), this sentence m ight u tter his astonishm ent the m e n o ra h carried d u rin g the procession looked differently th an the form er. Such in te rp re ta tio n would hold u p the first idea, the candlestick’s base w as elab o rated already after the fall o f the Jew ish uprising, and it was ab o u t to express the d om ination o f Ju d e a and Ju d aism to R om e and the H ellenistic culture. O n the o ther han d , presum ing Jo sephus never saw the original m e n o ra h , the above sentence w ould express his surprise it was m ad e due to a different p attern , th a n this valid in the Jew ish canon, th a t is stan d in g on three legs.
16 M ost o f the scholars see there only R om an soldiers; com pare ibidem. 17 Sperber 1998, p. 63.
18 Josephus Flavius, Bell. lud., VII, 122-156.
19 See The Babylonian Talmud, “M cnahot” 28b. Regarding the art see Hachlili, Ancient Jewish 1988, p. 236-256.
T h e earliest im agination o f such m en o rah o n coins com e from the period o f M a ta tia s A ntigonus (40-37 B.C.), the last Ila sm o n e a n king.20 Its ch aracteristic feature is the equal ending o f three arm s and three legs serving as a base. Such shape o f this candlestick was presum ably a c o n tin u atio n o f the older trad itio n . In o th er m e n o ra h ’s depictions co-m ing froco-m the p o st-H e ro d ian era, in all cases they have three legs sup-p o rtin g seven arm s.21 T he biggest n um ber o f such im aginations was ex-ecuted in the late an tiq u e period, nam ely o n synagogues from G alilea, G o lan , Ju d e a and in catacom bs at Beth S hearim .22 In the synagogue a rt the m cn o ra h s usually have five, seven and nine arm s, as well three legs bases.23
Such depiction o f a m en o rah is in unison with the hallachic description o f its stan d ard o u tlo o k know n from the T alm u d . O ne o f them begins in this way: “ S am uel said in the name o f ancient sages: a height o f the menorah
should am ount to eighteen width o f a human palm and a height o f its legs and the flo w ers - three width o f a human p a lm " .2* A lth o u g h this text d o esn ’t
m en tio n the precise n um ber o f legs, it rem inds they should su p p o rt the w hole candlestick. T h ree legs would be a m ost logical nu m b er in this case.
Basing b o th on the T alm udic literature and the archaeological artefacts, we have th e right to suppose th a t prim arily - from the period o f the S alom on T em ple and later in the tim e o f the Second T em ple - the m enorah had a base with three legs. O ther thing is, in the Biblical description there is n o t given a kind o f the m e n o ra h ’s base. T here it is only w ritten the candlestick, its base and a tru n k have to be w rought from the genuine gold and the sam e lu m p .25 T hree legs supp o rtin g the m e n o ra h w ould perfectly h arm onize w ith its three arm s and th eir seven endings.
M aybe one o f the proves in the H e ro d ’s era and later the m en o ra h had this kind o f base, as on the A rch o f T itus, is a fragm ent o f the book by P hilo from A lexandria, Q uii rerum divinarum heres.26 T h e philosopher, living betw een 20 B.C. and 40 A .D ., tackles there a problem o f the num ber relations in the m en o rah . D iscussing ab o u t the m u tu al correlations o f the n u m b er seven and three appearing in its constru ctio n , he d o esn ’t m ention at all the m e n o ra h ’s base had three legs. If it were such, Philo d id n ’t hesitate to m ention it. F ro m this we can conclude, in the tu rn o f o u r era the
20 Sperber 1998, p. 50.
21 Ibidem. Some examples o f the menorah with a three legs base, dated on the post-H erodian era, were found in Jerusalem and its vicinity.
22 Avigad 1976. 23 See the fig. 7.
24 The Babilonian Talmud.
25 The Book o f Exodus 25, 31-40.
26 Philo Judeus, Quis rerum divinarum heres, The Loeb Classical Library, IV, London 1932 p. 218-220; Sperber 1998, p. 52.
m en o ra h could have a different base, th an a three legs one. So, probably the base could be such, as th a t copied on the A rch o f T itus.
A ccepting a theory, the m en o rah had a tw o-steps base in the m om ent, w hen it was tak en from the T em ple, we could ask a question - when it received such a base, considering prim arily it had a base consisting o f three legs? O ne m ay suppose, it could h appen yet in the tim es o f H erod the G re a t, w ho built up and em bellished the T em ple. It is possible the tw o-steps base o f the m en o rah decorated with m otives belonging to the rep erto ire o f the H ellenistic art was m ade as a result o f these works. O r it had happened earlier before the year 20 A .D ., when it started the renov atio n s w orks a t the Tem ple. Josephus F lavius w rites for instance in the year 40 A .D ., d u rin g the reign o f M a ta tia s A ntigonus, Jerusalem was invaded a n d looted by P a rts.27 It is very p ro b a b le the invaders plun-dered also the T em ple, dam aging and violating its in terio r, and if they d id n ’t tak e the m e n o ra h , they could break it at its basis. A fter th at event the seven-branched candlcstick could have received a new double-steps base. It lasted th ro u g h the H e ro d ’s era an d w asn ’t changed both after his d e a th an d d u rin g the reign o f his sons, as well later on till the ca p tu re o f Jerusalem by R om ans in 70 A .D .28 F ollow ing this kind o f thinking, one can presum e the m e n o ra h ’s base obtained such shape, as it is visible o n the T itu s’ arch, yet d u rin g the suprem acy o f H erod before the rebuilding o f the Tem ple, o r in the course o f it.
The motives decorating the menorah’s base
and their origin
A s it was m entioned above, the m en o rah copied on the arch o f T itus (fig. 5) has the base consisting with tw o parts: an u p p e r one an d a broader, low er p art. O n the relief itself there is n o t seen if the b ase’s steps h ad six or eight sides.29 T h e m iddle panel o f the upper level is ad o rn ed w ith two eagles w ith slightly spread wings, holding a garland in th eir beaks. T he both side-parts o f it are decorated with the “ sea cre a tu re s” {hippokampos) w ith long tw isted tails. T h e m ain m iddle panel o f the low er step is adorned w ith a m ythological anim al looking as a “d ra g o n ” o r C ap rico rn - with a long u p rig h t tail. T h e side-parts o f th a t level are deco rated w ith the an tith etic griffins (on the left one) and lions (on the right panel).
11 Josephus Flavius, A nt. lud., XIV, 363Г.
28 Sperber 1998, p. 53Г.
W here did these sym bols com e from ? A n sw erin g to th is questio n sh o u ld n ’t be a difficult task. T o sta rt w ith, a m o tif o f the eagles holding a g arlan d , present on the m iddle panel o f the up p er b ase’s step, was a very p o p u la r in the H ellenistic and R o m an art. I t ap p eared in a de-c o ratio n o f the sede-cular and trium phal buildings, tem ples and altars, as well as in the funeral art - on the territo ry o f the w hole R o m an empire, l'he follow ing sym bol placed beneath the eagles - the “d ra g o n ” or C a-pricorn is very closely connected with the im aginations o f O ctavian A ugust, because the C ap rico rn was his sign o f zodiac. H ence a presence o f the latter e.g. on so called Gemma Augustea (fig. 6).30 G oing fu rth er, the griffins ad o rn in g one o f the next panels, in the G reek and R o m an trad itio n were connected w ith A pollo — the god o f beauty, a rt and d eath. They o rn a te d for instance the arm ours o f m any R o m an C aesars, as well ap -peared on sides o f several sarco p h ag i.31 W ith the sea god - N eptune, it is related the next decorative elem ent o f the u p p er level o f the base, nam ely the “ sea creatu re s” (hippokam pos) w ith a h orse torsos and a fish tails. In the R o m an a rt o f the R epublic period sim ilar creatures appeared for instance o n one o f the frieze o f D om icius A h c n o b arb u s a lta r.32 They were assisting N ep tu n e and A m phitryte being a p a rt o f the sea conduct (gr. Thiasos) together w ith N ereids sitting on d olphins, try th o n s, sharks and o th er sea anim als. T h e “ sea creatu res” are also directly connected w ith the cult o f A pollo. O ne o f them appeared fo r instance on a co lu m n ’s basis o f the A pollo tem ple in D idym a in south-vest A sia M in o r.33 T he only difference betw een them is the latter has a h u m an being’s torso and is ridden by a nym ph. T h e last m otives - the lions depicted on the right panel o f the low er b ase’s step, in the ancient trad itio n were the m o st im p o rta n t sym bols o f kings and gods; they had also a solar and an a p o tro p a ic ch a rac te r on resem bles o f griffins and eagles.34
In the H e ro d ’s tim e, the analogies between a d ec o ratio n o f the A pollo tem ple in D idym a and the m enorah enlightened the Jerusalem Tem ple w asn’t ra th e r accidental.
It is very likely the official cult o f A pollo in the R o m an state played a certain role in the H e ro d ’s policy. It is w orth to m en tio n O ctavian
30 See Bianchi-BandinelJi 1969, p. 195-197, fig. 209, 211; H annestad 1988, p. 78-79, fig. 51; Ostrowski 1999, p. 233, fig. 180.
31 Cooper 1999 “gryphon” ; Cirlot 2000, “ gryf” ; Kopaliński 1990, “g r y f ; Vries 1974 “ gryphon” . T he griffins adorned e.g. the arm our of Octavian August from Prim a Porta; see H annestad
1988, p. 50-54, fig. 34-35; Ostrowski 1999, p. 222Г, fig. 166-167. 32 Ostrowski 1999, p. 179.
33 See Sperber 1998, p. 5 If, fig. 3-4. According to this writer, a lack o f the hum an torso and a nymph was a result o f adjusting the “sea creature” to the Jewish peculiarity. He calls also it a “d ragon” .
A ugust devoted to A pollo the victory over A n to n iu s in the battle at A kcium in 31 A .D .35 W ith a cult o f this god, as well as N e p tu n e could have been connected certain sym bols used on H e ro d ’s coins, as: a triple, palm s leaves, an incense basin and a shield w ith a solar m otif. In the face o f it, in the m e n o ra h ’s base o rn a m e n ta tio n the presence o f griffins being an attrib u te o f A pollo, as well the appearan ce o f the “ sea creatu re s” (hippokam pos), a n a lo -gically to those from D idym a, w ouldn’t be u nintentional.
In this m o m en t we should ask a q uestion, how could we explain the sym bolism o f the eagles with a garland ad o rn in g the ccntral panel o f the upper b ase’s level? G enerally the answ er on this question m ay be such: the aim o f p u ttin g the aquilae w ith a garland sym bolizing am o n g o thers the glory, m agn itu d e, the victorious pow er and im m ortality was giving a splen-d o u r to the m e n o ra h .36 A s it was m entionesplen-d earlier, the eagles holsplen-ding garland in their beaks often appeared in the G reek and R o m an art. G arlands them selves, th a t is w reaths m ade o f flowers and leaves, were from the m ost ancient tim es a sym bol o f the splendour and glory, and in a connection with the eagles th eir sym bolism expressed the biggest glory from the all possible.37 It is w ondering though, if the eagles an d o th er m otives decorating the m e n o ra h ’s base were placed there n o t longer afte r the O c ta v ia n ’s victory over P om pcius in 31 A .D . If it happened so, then th eir sym bolism on one h an d could directly p o in t to O ctav ian ’s and H e ro d ’s victories, bu t on the o th e r - it m ight be an echo o f the A p o llo ’s cult. T h e m otives ad o rn in g the m e n o ra h ’s base, like those appearing on H e ro d ’s coin and later on the T em ple facade (a golden eagle), would be a clear bow to w ard s A ugustus - sym bolically underlining a political dependence o f the Ju d e a n kingdom to R om e, as well as being an expression o f the H ellcnisation o f the contem -p o ra ry Ju d a ism .38 H ence the -presence o f the C a-p rico rn - a zodiac sign of O ctavian on the m iddle panel o f the lower m e n o ra h ’s base.
A nalysing a com position o f the elem ents d eco ratin g b o th steps o f this candlestick ’s basis, one can notice their m u tu al sym bolic connections going on a d iagonal line. So, the eagles’ relief on the m iddle u p p er level’s panel - are m atching tw o griffins on the left side o f the low er basis’ level, as well tw o lions carved on its right side. F ollow ing it, with the “ d ra g o n ” (C ap rico rn ) filling the m iddle p a rt o f the low er step - harm onize tw o hippokam pos (the “ sea creatu res”) flanking the panel with the eagles. T h e la tte r an d the griffins m ight sym bolise a sphere o f the air and the sky, h av in g a clear so lar aspect (like th e lions), w hile a p a ir o f the griffins and lions w ould sym bolize also a sphere o f the earth. G oing
35 Sperber 1998, p. 5 If. 36 Ibidem.
31 See the note 10, the enter “ garland” (in English ed.) or “ girlanda” (in Polish ed.). 38 Sperber 1998, p. 53.
further, the ‘d ra g o n ” (C apricorn) and the “ sea cre a tu re s” (hippokampos) expressing a sphere o f the earth and the sea, would have a “ telluric” character.■1> In this way it has been show n, the m en o ra h was sym bolically set both on the earth and the oceans reaching the sky, while its light had to enlighten all those spheres - th a t is the whole visible w orld.
A presence o f the eagles with a garland on the m iddle p a rt o f the upper level ju s t below the m e n o ra h ’s tru n k and arm s - underlying its splendour and m ag n itu d e - could also be connected with the sym bolism o f the light. It m eans a kinship betw een the seven-branched candlestick - a sym bolic tree bearing the light pointing to the divine and astral light - w ith the solar eagles.40 The aquila, a sym bol o f the highest ancicnt gods, was in a certain sense the bearer o f their light. H ence the depictions o f tw o eagles on the m e n o ra h ’s base is fully justified from the H ellenistic p o in t o f view. It is w o rth to m ention, in antiquity the m utual relations betw een the symbolism o f the eagles an d the light was also expressed by placing the form er on olive lam ps, as well as m aking som e lam ps and candlesticks in their shapes.41 The m o tif o f the eagles pair on the m en o ra h corresp o n d s also with the golden eagle p u t by H erod on the T em p le’s facade. C onsisting together in the m agical n um ber “ th ree” - the eagles were a b o u t to express the glory o f the T em ple and the G o d , which it was devoted to, as well as the h o n o u r o f its m a k e r - H e ro d .42 As it was stated above, the eagles to g eth er w ith o th er H ellenistic m otives on the m e n o ra h ’s base were a m a -nifestation o f the H ellenisation o f Judaism pointing to a sym bolic sym ptom o f the dependence o f Ju d e a to R om e. Close to the eagles’ symbolism w ould be here the griffins, often associated with A pollo. Being a fusion o f a lion with an eagle they expressed in the a rt o f H ellenism the greatest pow ers, including the strength o f death. They were also the attributes o f gods and em p ero rs.43 Im agined on the m e n o ra h to g eth er with the eagles they strengthen a sym bolic pow er o f the latter. Sim ilarly, it referred to them a royal and a solar ch aracter o f the lions carved on the right p a rt o f the low er candlestick’s basis.
O ne d oesn’t need to be a student o f ancient a rt or theology to understand the presence o f the above-described iconographic m otives on the T em ple’s m e n o ra h base was alm ost com pletely in co n tra ry to the Jew ish trad itio n .
39 See Cooper 1999 “d ragon” ; Mala encyklopedia kultury antycznej, A - Z (Warszawa 1983), “ hippokam pos” .
40 See the note 10, the entry “eagle” or “ orzeł”. See also Cooper 1992, “ eagle” (Polish ed., Cooper (1998), “ orzeł” ).
41 F o r the antique olive lamps see Bernhard 1955, p. 320, nr 295, pi. LXXXI; p. 241, 319 nr 287, 288, pi. LXXIX; p. 320, nr 297, pi. LXXX1I; G oodcnough n.d., Ill, p. 152f, fig 285; F ortin 1999, p. 118, fig. 77.
41 Sperber 1998, p. 52f; G oodenough n.d., VIII, p. 123-125.
O n the o th er h an d , because these im aginations w eren’t an object o f a sacral cult, their ap p earan ce on the m enorah w o u ld n ’t be a violation o f the Second C o m m an d m en t. But in a fear o f idolatry am ong the Jew s, in M ish n a there is w ritten e.g. such a text: “ I f a m an fin d s som e things decorated with
pictures o f the sun, the m oon and a dragon, he should cast them to the D ead S ea ” .44 It is n o t w ondering then in later Ju d aic art, startin g from II—III
century, in m o st cases the m enorahs are im agined w ith a base form ed in three legs, as it was characteristic for the earlier tra d itio n (fig. 7). In this way, the m en o ra h - a sym bol o f Judaism was deprived a base o f the H ellenistic and R o m an influences.45
P resum ing the double-steps m e n o ra h ’s base copied on the T itu s’ arch was genuine, we can conclude the decorative m otives, as the eagles, griffins, “d ra g o n ” (C ap rico rn ) and the “ sea creatu res” (hippokam pos) had an o r-nam enting function, bu t on the sym bolic level - they underlay the m ajesty o f the seven-branched candlestick enlightened the T em p le’s interior. In the cultural and religious spheres these sym bols indicated o n the co ntem porary relations o f Judaism and Hellenism , m anifesting also a political dependence o f Ju d e a to the R o m an Em pire. Finally, they expressed a d ep th o f the spiritual, cu ltu ra l, religious and political m eanings characteristic for them in the whole tra d itio n o f antiquity.
Bibliography
Andrae 1982 = B. A ndrae, Römische Kunst, Freiburg-Basel-W ien. Avigad 1976 = N. Avigad, Beth Shearim, vol. I ll, Jerusalem. Bernhard 1955 = M . L. Bernhard, Lam pki starożytne, W arszawa.
Bianchi-Bandinelli 1969 = R. Bianchi-Bandinelli, Rome. Le centre du pouvoir, Paris. Busagli 1999 = M . Busagli (ed.), Rome. A rt & Architecture, Cologne.
Cirlot 2000 = J. E. Cirlot, Słownik Symboli, Kraków.
Cooper 1992 = J. С. Cooper, Symbolic & Mythological Animals, London. Cooper 1998 = J. C. Cooper, Zwierzęta symboliczne i mitologiczne, Poznań.
Cooper 1999 = J. C. Cooper, An Illustrated Encyclopaedia o f Traditional Symbols, London. Cornell, Matthews 1991 = T. Cornell and J. Matthews, Wielkie kultury świata. Rzym , Oxford.
Encyclopaedia Biblica, I, 1899
Fortin 1999 = M . Fortin, Syria. Land o f Civilisations, M ontreal.
Goodcnough n.d. = E. R. G oodenough, Jewish Symbols on Graeco-Roman Period, vol VIII 1953-1968.
Hachlili 1988 = R . Hachlili, Ancient Jewish A rt and Archaeology in the Land o f Israel, Leiden.
44 The Babylonian Talmud, “A vodah Z arah ” 3, 3.
45 The m odern m enorah, besides the Star of D avid - both the symbols o f the State o f Israel, is a copy o f the m enorah depicted on the Arch o f Titus.
Hannestad 1988 = N. H annestad, Roman A rt and Imperial Policy, A arhus. Josephus Flavius, Ant. lud.
Josephus Flavius, Bell. lud.
Klagsbald 1987 = V. A. Klagsnald, “The M enorah and Its M eaning and Origin in Barly Jewish A rt” , Jewish Art, XII.
Kopaliński 1990 = W. Kopaliński, Słownik .symboli, W arszawa.
Mala encyklopedia kultury antycznej, A -Z , W arszawa 1983.
М а’о/. 1993 = Z. M a’oz, “G olan” , N E A E H L , II.
Ostrowski 1999 = J. Ostrowski, Starożytny Rzym. Polityka i sztuka, K raków .
P EFQ S 1903, Palestinian Exploration Fund Quaterly Statement.
Philo Judeus, Quis rerum divinarum heres, The Loeb Classical Library, IV, London 1932. Sadurska 1980 = A. Sadurska, Archeologia starożytnego Rzymu, Warszawa.
Sperber 1965 = D. Sperber, “The H istory o f the M enorah” , Journal o f Jewish Studies, 16. Sperber 1998 = D . Sperber, “ Between Jerusalem and Rome: T he History of the Base of M enorah as Depicted on the Arch o f T itus” , [in:] Y. Israeli (ed.), In the Light o f the
Menorah. Story o f a Symbol, Jerusalem.
The Babylonian Talmud = The Babylonian Talmud, ed. I. Epstein, London 1935.
Vries 1974 = A. de Vries, Dictionary o f Symbols, Amsterdam.
Wirgin 1961 = W. Wirgin, “Two Notes: On the Shape o f the F oot o f the M enorah”, Israel
Exploration Journal, XI.
Przedstawienie menory na Łuku Tytusa
Problem jej pochodzenia oraz kwestia symboli hellenistycznych
dekorujących jej podstawę
S t r e s z c z e n i e
W artykule au to r naświetlił historię pochodzenia samego łuku oraz opisał zdobiące go reliefy. Najbardziej szczegółowy opis został poświęcony reliefowi znajdującemu się na połu-dniowej strom e bram y łuku, przedstawiającemu procesję rzymskich żołnierzy z wieńcami na głowach i żydowskich jeńców w czasie trium fu Tytusa w Rzymie w 71 r. n.e., po stłumieniu pow stania w Judei. Procesję tę opisał Józef Flawiusz. Osoby w niej uczestniczące niosą różne przedm ioty pochodzące ze świątyni jerozolimskiej, wśród których centralne miejsce zajmuje ogrom na m enora. A utor zadaje pytanie, czy na reliefie, obok rzymskich żołnierzy, nie zostali również przedstawieni żydowscy jeńcy - o ich pochodzeniu świadczyłyby semickie rysy oraz wyraz sm utku n a twarzach. Mieliby oni ewentualnie nieść na swoich barkach nosze z sied- mioram iennym świecznikiem.
Szczególne miejsce zajm ują rozważania na temat menory i jej oktagonalnej bazy deko-rowanej przez hellenistyczne motywy, takie jak: koziorożec (smok), gryfy, lwy, orły z girlandą oraz tzw. stworzenia morskie (hippokampos). A utor zastanawia się, czy baza świecznika była tak oryginalnie ozdobiona jeszcze w czasach H eroda Wielkiego, czy też została ona zakom -ponow ana w ten sposób przez rzymskich artystów, już po zdobyciu świątyni, specjalnie dla potrzeb procesji. Ewentualnie, czy taka kompozycja bazy nie została wymyślona przez ar-tystów tworzących płaskorzeźby łuku, dopasowujących ją d o dekoracji reliefu północnego bramy łuku, przedstawiającego m.in. T ytusa na rydwanie ozdobionym również przez orły z girlandą.
Próbując odpowiedzieć na powyższy problem, au to r przypom ina, że typow a podstaw a dla m enor w czasach antycznych miała kształt trójnogu. Gdyby więc po zdobyciu Jerozolimy i przywiezieniu łupów świątynnych do Rzymu m enora otrzym ała nową, zhellcnizowaną pod-stawę, taki a k t wyrażałby zdominowanie judaizm u - symbolizowanego przez m enorę - przez Rzym i jego hellenistyczną kulturę. Z drugiej strony, autor przychyla się d o teorii, że menora otrzym ała taką bazę jeszcze w 1 w. p.n.e., czyli długo przed zniszczeniem świątyni przez Rzymian. Stało się to najpraw dopodobniej w czasach H eroda Wielkiego (37-4 r. p.n.e.) lub tuż przed nim, a taka dekoracja bazy menory wyrażałaby symboliczny wpływ kultury hellenizmu na ówczesny judaizm .
N a koniec au to r analizuje poszczególne motywy w kontekście sztuki i tradycji antycznej. Przypom ina, że np. motyw koziorożca (smoka) jest połączony z osobą O ktaw iana Augusta jak o jego znak zodiaku, zaś gryfy w tradycji greckiej i rzymskiej są związane z Apollinem - bogiem piękna, sztuki i śmierci; ten ostatni był także bóstwem szczególnie bliskim temu pierwszemu. Zw raca także uwagę na solárny i królewski charakter motywów, takich jak orły, lwy i gryfy, których symbolika m iała przydać splendoru samej menorze. W przypadku orłów zasygnalizowany został również fakt umieszczenia przez H eroda rzeźby orła n a fasadzie świątyni. Przypom ina, że motywy orłów i gryfów symbolicznie wyrażałyby sferę nieba, a te ostatnie, podobnie jak lwy, odnosiły się do sfery ziemi, podczas gdy motywy koziorożca (smoka) i hippokampo.ia - wyrażały sferę świata wodnego. W ten sposób zostało podkreślone to, że m enora - symbol boskiego światła - była ustanowiona nad wszystkimi sferami ziemi i nieba, i miała oświetlać cały widzialny świat.
W wyobrażeniu m enory świątynnej dekorowanej przez powyższe motywy wyrażone zostały więc wzajemne związki judaizmu z rzymskim hellenizmem oraz podkreślono wpływ tego drugiego na ten pierwszy - zarów no w sferze kulturalnej, jak i politycznej. Same zaś kompozycje odnoszące się bezpośrednio do menory przedstawiają sobą głębię duchowych, kulturalnych i religijnych znaczeń charakterystycznych dla nich w całej tradycji antyku.
Pig. 1. The Arch o f Titus seen from the eastern side (After: Busagli 1999, p. 94)
Fig. 2. The southern relief from the passage in the Arch o f Titus with the procession scene after victory over Judea
Fig. 3. The northern relief o f the passage in the Arch o f Titus (After: Busagli 1999, p. 95)
Fig. 4. Fragm ent o f the southern relief from the Arch o f Titus (After: Cornell, M atthews 1991, p. 80)
Fig. 5. Drawing o f the menorah from the relief o f the Arch o f Titus (After: Hachlili 1988, p. 239)
Fig. 6. Fragm ent o f the Gemma Auguslea with the Capricorn
(After: Bianchi-BandineUi 1969, fig. 211)
Fig. 7. R elief with a menorah from the synagogue in Jehudiye (Golan). III-V1 century A.D. (After: M a’oz 1993, p. 534-546)
