In painting St. Peter and St. Paul the painting tradition precedes written texts
Year mention: 1617
Subject:
St. Paul ; St. Peter
Conflict:
Outer appearance
Visual tradition/Artistic model vs. written Tradition/History
Criticism:

St. Paul’s exterior features are described in a different way than what is known from the tradition of painting, the painting tradition should be followed in this case

Agent:
Molanus, Johannes
Frostispiece of Molanus, De historia sanctarum imaginum et picturarum (1617), Antwerp, Gasparus Bellerus
Frontispiece of Molanus, De historia sanctarum imaginum et picturarum (1617), Antwerp, Gasparus Bellerus
Augsburg, Staats- und Stadtbibliothek — Th H 1475. Digital Reproduction: München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, 2015.

Molanus discusses the conflicts between the written sources and the tradition in painting regarding the exterior features of St. Paul, in this case the pictorial tradition should prevail.

“The same Callistus described Peter and Paul, princes of the Apostles, in chapter 27 of book II. However, for my part, I would give more credit to our traditional paintings than to a text of Nicephorus. To cite an example from it, how and why does he deviate from the painting of the Apostle Paul, when he reports that his body was small, curved and almost bent, and his head small.”

“Idem Callistus Principium Apostolorum Petri et Paulu staturam et formam describit libro secundo capite vigesimo septimo. Quamquam ego longe plus tribuam traditis nobis picturis, quam verbis Nicephori. Quale enim est (ut reliqua omittam) et quantum passim ab Apostoli Pauli pictura dissidet quod referat eum fuisse corpore patuo, contracto et quasi incurvo et capite modico?”

Date mention
1617

Historical Location
Leuven

Iconclass Number
11H(Paul)

Source
Molanus, De historia sanctarum imaginum et picturarum (1617), book 2, ch. 56, 192
Literature

Molanus 1996, 288.

Permanent Link
https://www.sacrima.eu/case/in-painting-st-peter-and-st-paul-the-painting-tradition-precedes-written-texts/