by Diego Cuoghi
Edited by Daniel Loxton
Translation by Daniela Cisi and
Leonardo Serni
The Skeptic Magazine
July 2004
from
Sprezzatura Website
“Meanwhile
the average man had become progressively less able to
recognize the subjects or understand the meaning of the
works of art of the past. Fewer people had read the
classics of Greek and Roman literature, and relatively
few people read the Bible with the same diligence that
their parents had done. It comes as a shock to an
elderly man to find how many biblical references have
become completely incomprehensible to the present
generation.”
—Kenneth Clark
introduction to Dictionary of Subjects and Symbols in
Art by James Hall |
Around the world, millions of people believe that alien spacecraft
routinely visit our planet.1 This belief has been fueled
by 60 years of reported UFO sightings and thousands of anecdotal
claims. A growing number of print2 and web3
sources argue that there is solid documentary proof that UFOs have
been visiting us for hundreds of years, painted into the skies of
the European art of centuries past.
While it’s true that some pretty strange things appear in the
backgrounds of old paintings, they only look odd to modern
viewers.
A working knowledge of the complex artistic and symbolic conventions
used by Classical, Medieval, or Renaissance painters reveals that
these strange details meant something quite different to the artists
who painted them, and the audience they painted for.
A painting’s place in history influences
how objects in it are depicted, and that contextual information is
necessary to correctly identify those objects. Regrettably, the
authors who have discovered alleged UFOs in old paintings have
little knowledge of the meaning or context of the items which they
have selected as candidates for alien spacecraft.
Strangely enough, one of the motives for seeking UFOs in old
paintings was a particular observation about which skeptics and UFO
enthusiasts partially agreed. Skeptics have long found it suspicious
that thousands of UFOs apparently started arriving only after the
advent of science fiction.
This is hardly the most devastating or scientific criticism of
belief in UFOs, but it certainly makes a valid point: once people
started to write about fictional alien spacecraft, people suddenly
began to see them.
Some UFOlogists also felt uneasy about this coincidence. If the
“alien spaceship” hypothesis is correct, surely there would have
been UFOs in our skies before science fiction writers started
imagining aliens; and, if they’ve been visiting us for centuries,
historical records of extraterrestrial spacecraft should exist.
After all, people have been watching the skies for a very long time.
So, where’s the evidence of pre-Sci-Fi visitations? Where are the
accounts of saucers seen by medieval peasants, or of vast silvery
disks hovering over Roman garrisons? The truth is, there are no
historical records of anything matching the descriptions of modern
UFOs.4 This has prompt-ed many UFOlogists to comb through
ancient sources for obscure or hidden signs of premodern UFOs.
Perhaps, they reason, ancient observers, lacking the conceptual
framework provided by modern science (and science fiction) actually
did record spacecraft sightings—but without understanding what they
were seeing.
As Skeptic readers know, there is now a decades-long tradition of
pseudo-historical research devoted to uncovering cryptic signs of
alien “ancient astronauts” in the records, monuments, and artwork of
ancient cultures (Egyptian, Aztec, and so on). Since the 1970s, many
have been convinced (by writers such as Andrew Tomas or Erich von Däniken) that ancient, lost, or non-European cultures did record
prehistoric contact with aliens. If, as these “paleo-astronautic”
theorists imagine, aliens have visited here for millennia, and if
they were recorded by ancient non-European cultures, isn’t it
reasonable to hypothesize that similar evidence of their presence
should also be contained in the art of European societies as well?
Although the idea is reasonable enough, the conclusions they have
drawn so far have been seriously flawed.
The Art
A virtual cottage industry has emerged on the Internet to showcase
and discuss the many UFOs that have been “discovered” in the works
of long-dead painters. In one sense, the authors of these sites are
correct: if you search the back-grounds of enough old paintings
saucer-like objects can be found. Some examples are extremely
convincing, even to a skeptical eye.
A quick comparison of UFO websites reveals that the images offered
are generally the same ones. Once a new image appears on one site,
the others immediately pick it up, usually with the commentary that
goes along with it.
For web surfers with even a little knowledge of art history, the
first impression of these sites is that a very simplistic
methodology was used to compile them. To all appearances, the
standard practice is simply this: pick up an art book, preferably
one dealing with work from the 17th-century or earlier (religious
art is favored because it is crowded with odd objects). Browse
through the book for any strange detail with a circular, ellipsoid
or saucer-like shape. That’s it. This sys-tem obviously makes it
quite easy to discover puzzling objects and declare them “alien” or
“unidentified” without bothering to consider what they might have
symbolized in the period in which they appear.
It’s clearly foolish to publish anything (even on the web) on
subjects one knows nothing about. These authors err not just because
they misinterpret the symbolism, but because they don’t even realize
that it’s symbolism they’re looking at. The visual vocabularies they
are puzzling over are centuries (or even millennia) old. Those
archaic iconographic vocabularies are no more familiar in the TV age
than is Homer’s Greek or Virgil’s Latin. We shouldn’t be too hard on
UFOlogists for their mistakes in this unfamiliar arena, perhaps, but
we should feel free to debunk their poorly founded claims.
Another misunderstanding of these web UFO searchers is presuming
that the social role of the artist back then was the same as it is
today. Authors frequently make the anachronistic assumption that the
artists who executed these expensive, commissioned paintings had the
power or license to add details as they chose. It’s a mistake to
think that religious painters of, say, the 15th-century, were free
to record events they had personally witnessed, or that they would
have been allowed to add any non-canonical or un-codified elements
whatsoever.
The idea that artists should freely express themselves in their work
is a completely modern one. In past times, the patrons who choose
the subject and supervised the execution of the art-work (in these
cases, religious institutions or powerful nobility) would never have
allowed artists to insert stray elements from outside of previously
established conventions—especially in the case of religious
subjects.
Artists were, in those times, skilled
workers who were paid to do things in the prescribed way, and only
that way; they could no more insert flying saucers into their
commissions than your lawyer can add jokes or personal commentary to
your will. Even for master painters, tinkering with the schematic
conventions of their times could have been dangerous. Personal
editorializing would have been a publicly scandalous affront to
their patrons (who frequently held the powers of life and death, in
addition to controlling the prosperity of artists).5
Examples
Oddly, a striking failure of this UFOlogical fishing trip is the
relatively small number of examples it has managed to net. At this
point, one may be forgiven for wondering whether these authors, in
the course of their investigations, ever actually entered a museum
or a church. If they had, they would have been astonished to
discover the staggering array of strange objects depicted in old
paintings, statues, and other works of art!
So, what exactly is it that these web sites are showcasing? What
does art history have to say about the discovery of UFOs in
centuries-old paintings? Here are four examples. I include a
critique of each one to illustrate the shortcomings of their
reasoning.
1.The Adoration of the Extraterrestrials
Carlo Crivelli,
Annunciazione (1486)
Anyone familiar with 15th-century religious painting will find
it absurd that the authors of some UFOlogy web sites are
astonished by the object in the sky of the Annunciation by
Carlo Crivelli (now at the National Gallery of London).
What they consider most surprising
is the fact that there is a ray of light coming down from this
“flying object” to touch the head of the Virgin Mary. This ray,
it is claimed, comes from a saucer-like UFO hovering among the
clouds. Unfortunately, casual web surfers will find that posted
reproductions of the key detail (the “saucer,” actually a circle
of clouds in the sky) are small, blurred, or pixilated to the
point of being indecipherable. (No one seems to have searched
for a better reproduction, and identical poor-quality versions
continue to spread from site to site).
On the Edicolaweb site,6 the commentary is quite
restrained:
“Painting by Carlo Crivelli,
known as The Annunciation, shown at the National Gallery of
London. In the sky hovers a large, bright circle, from which
a beam of light descends, reaching the crown worn by Mary.”
By contrast, a site called The UFOs
of Crivelli 7 gets right to the point:
“What most
attracts our attention is the peculiarity of the cloud shape:
indeed it appears to be quite solid, with a circular structure,
and clearly different from any other cloud surrounding it. It
may be either the sun circle (direct emanation of the divine
energy) or an object really seen and thus represented by Crivelli himself. As evidence of this latter hypothesis stands
the ‘thickness’ of the object, which is not an abstract entity:
in addition the resemblance of the ‘cloud’ to a UFO recently
seen in Veneto [a northern region of Italy] in January 1999 is
clear. The reader may judge for himself.”
Of course, the reader
can’t judge without a sharp detail of the cloud, but the blowup
provided is of even lower quality than is typical.
Had those publishing this claim bothered to become familiar with
the art of the period, they would know that there are a vast
number of Annunciations in which a ray reaches from a circular
cloud to the head of the Madonna. This scene is, like most
religious scenes, an established genre rendered in similar ways
many times by many people. These various Annunciations speak a
specialized iconographic language that modern viewers no longer
understand.
For example, the Crivelli painting represents divine power in a
very common way: an object in the sky, formed by a radiant
circle of clouds containing two circles of small angels. In
close-up, individual angels are clearly visible, peeking their
little heads and golden wings out over the clouds on which they
sit. This same cloud-with-rings-of-angels device is used in
Annunciations by Luca Signorelli, Pietro Alamanno, and others
(as well as in many Medieval and Renaissance paintings of
related subject matter) to depict the presence of God.
Sometimes this device is a small detail, an anchor at the divine
end of a thread that connects a holy person to God; at other
times it is the central image, a vast vortex of heavenly power.
If the beam emanating from the radiant cloud in Crivelli’s
painting were actually intended to represent the action of a
technological device—a Star Trek transporter, perhaps, or some
sort of laser communications system—it would seem extremely odd
that this advanced technology was employed, apparently, for the
purpose of beaming a bird onto the head of the Virgin. In the
context of Christian religious iconography the little white bird
is far less bizarre. In fact, painters routinely placed doves in
such beams of light, with these doves representing the Holy
Spirit and divine guidance descending to the blessed contactee.
2. The Shepherd’s Vision
The practice of representing the Holy Spirit as a dove is
familiar to Christians; indeed, it predates the word
“Christian.” For example, the oldest of the New Testament
Gospels, Mark, recounts that at his baptism, Jesus saw “the
heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove.”
8 Today, American churches and chapels are commonly named
“Holy Dove,” and the tradition thrives worldwide in both visual
art and hymns.
In high-resolution reproductions,
the identity of Crivelli’s “UFO” is clear, but UFOlogy sites
typically offer only hazy, ambiguous, low-resolution smudges.
Crivelli no more saw a UFO with his own eyes than cartoonists
see clouds emerging from people’s heads when they are thinking;
in both cases, these artists simply utilized established
conventions for representing abstract or non-visual concepts.
The only mysteries here are why some UFOlogists are so quick to
leap to unwarranted conclusions, and so slow to provide their
readers with the information needed to honestly evaluate the
“evidence.”
Madonna Col Bambino e San Giovannino (end of 15th century).
(Madonna and Child with the Infant Saint John.) Attributed to
Sebastiano Mainardi or Jacopo del Sellaio. The Madonna and Child
with the Infant St. John, on display in the Sala d’Ercole in
Palazzo Vecchio, Florence, has been attributed to at least three
painters active in Florence at the end of the 1400s. For
convenience we’ll refer to this as a work by the general
favorite, Sebastiano Mainardi.9
This painting has excited UFOlogists more than any other. Many
see proof of a “close encounter” with a UFO in the upper-right
background behind the Madonna. In the depiction, a far-off
character shields his eyes while beholding an apparition in the
sky (his dog is equally interested).
Daniele Bedini writes in Notiziario UFO,10
“We
clearly see the presence of an airborne object, leaden in color
and inclined to port, sporting a ‘dome’ or ‘turret,’ apparently
identifiable as an oval-shaped moving flying device.”
Once again, with a few keystrokes, a radiant cloud painted half
a millennium ago has become a flying saucer. But this odd cloud
is not the only peculiarity of the painting: to the upper left,
we see the Nativity Star with three other small stars (or
perhaps flames) below it. These particulars—three clustered
stars, a luminous cloud—tell us that this painting follows an
ancient iconography, an austere and rigid way for interpreting
not only sacred subjects but also city life itself.
When this work was created, Florence was under the theocratic
sway of the infamous Fra’ (‘Brother’) Girolamo Savonarola. This
passionate fire-and-brimstone monk had gained great popular
influence with his powerful, persuasive sermons linking the
corruption he saw in the ruling Florentine Medici family with
the coming judgment fore-told in the Book of Revelation. Like
many people through-out history, Savonarola believed that greed,
decadence, and immorality were destroying his society (and his
church), and he called forcefully for a return to traditional
Catholic values.
When, under the pressure of an
advancing French invasion the Medici family was eventually
driven out, Florence declared itself a Republic—with Christ
himself as titular king. Although Savonarola had no official
political power in this new Republic, his opinions were the
authoritative foundation for a Florence reinvented with both
civil law and social norms based on Christian ideology. The
resulting theocratic state featured pervasive surveillance of
the people and control over their everyday lives (one could draw
parallels with the modern fundamentalists of Ayatollah
Khomeini’s Islamic Republic of Iran).
Under the grip of both popular religious fervor and a theocratic
regime, Florentines, while pursuing their cultural revolution,
invented a famous expression that still resonates today: the
so-called “bonfires of the vanities.” In these huge street
fires, symbols of the degenerate corruption associated with the
old Florence were gathered and publicly burned. Gambling
paraphernalia (like cards and dice) were fed to the flames along
with symbols of material greed (wigs and fineries, together with
trinkets and baubles), and symbols of moral decadence—‘obscene’
books, art, and precious objects.
Savonarola fell from grace within a few years, having angered
both the Vatican and the people of Florence. Ultimately he was
captured by a mob, arrested, tried, tortured, hanged, and then
burned for good measure. Soon, after ascending to the Papal
throne in Rome, the Medici family returned to power in Florence
as well.
During the Savonarola years, the dangerous cultural atmosphere
of suspicion and condemnation born from his preaching greatly
influenced the work of artists. Several, including Sandro
Botticelli (whose patrons had been the Medici family), soon
denounced their own earlier work as heathen, and proclaimed
themselves ready to represent mystical subjects in a “purer”
(but also more rigid, archaic and didactic) style. Others, like
Florentine sculptor Michelangelo (another Medici-affiliated
artist), simply fled the city.
Rejecting the “degenerate” artistic practices that had emerged
from the humanism and Neo-Platonism popular among the Medici
circles, Mainardi’s Madonna reflected the reactionary trend to
return to older, safer iconographic con-ventions.11
For example, three stars often appear in the paintings of the
previous century, and in far earlier Byzantine icons of the
Madonna. Often, these stars are painted on her veil, on her
shoulders, or on her forehead. Sometimes three rays stand in for
the stars, but by any variant they represent the “threefold
virginity” of the Madonna (i.e. before, during, and after the
virgin birth).
Despite extraterrestrial speculations, Mainardi’s “UFO” is
actually an element found in a great many Nativities of the 1400
and 1500s: the announcement to the shepherds, as told in the
Gospel of St. Luke:
“And an angel of the Lord
appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around
about them: and they were filled with fear. And the angel
said to them, ‘Be not afraid; for behold, I bring you good
news of a great joy.’”12
Elements of Mainardi’s Madonna are
found in many other paintings of the Nativity or the Adoration
of the Child (by artists such as Foppa, Pinturicchio, Aspertini,
Di Credi, Bronzino, Luini, Ghirlandaio, Van Der Goes, and so
on). Each of these includes the same angelic visitation scene
—either a luminous cloud, or an angelic figure, or an angelic
figure emerging from a luminous cloud. In almost all versions, a
lone shepherd holds a hand to his forehead, as if shielding his
eyes from the shining “glory of the Lord” described by Luke.
Often, the shepherd’s dog also marvels at the apparition.
It’s clear that Mainardi’s “UFO sighting” scene can be
confidently identified as the then-standard announcement scene.
But one might wonder, since there is no specific mention of
“luminous clouds” in Luke, where did this particular convention
come from?
Renaissance sacred art took scenes not only from the four
canonical Gospels, but also from apocryphal sources and
contemporary devotional texts containing popular characters. We
owe Giotto’s Mary’s Presentation to the Temple (or The Virgin’s
Wedding), the encounter between Jesus as a child and St. John
the Baptist by Leonardo, and other favorites to sources
extraneous to the canonical Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke or
John. Painters (and their employers, who chose the subjects)
also routinely mixed scenes and situations from heterogeneous
texts.
One of the apocryphal gospels most heavily drawn on by artists
of this period was James’ Protogospel, which features a
description of the Nativity in which no angels appear. Instead,
a cloud of light attends the birth:
“…and behold! a luminous
cloud over-shadowed the cave. And the mid-wife said: ‘My soul
has been magnified this day, because mine eyes have seen
wondrous things: that salvation has been brought forth to
Israel.’ And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave,
and such a great light shone in the cave that the eyes could not
bear it.”13
While Luke merely notes, “and the glory of the Lord shone round
about them,” the author of James’ Protogospel adds that, “the
eyes could not bear it.” And behold! Most paintings illustrate
the announcement scene with the shepherd shielding his eyes. In
the case of Mainardi’s Madonna, the angel is depicted as in this
apocryphal Gospel: a luminous cloud. This was hardly an
innovation.
Discussing angel iconography, Marco Bussagli’s History of
Angels14 quotes the 5th-century mystic Pseudo-Dionysus: “The
Holy Scriptures represent [angels] in the form of clouds to
indicate that the holy entities are filled with a hidden light
in an above-mundane way.” In the catalogue of Wings of God,
Bussagli writes, “All things considered, the Middle Ages turned
out to be a central period for the development of the Angelic
iconography, whose solutions were to be re-interpreted in a
markedly naturalistic way by the later cultures of the
Renaissance and the Baroque. Such is the case of the ‘Cloud
Angels’ that would be later propounded as winged figures over
soft cushions of vapor.”15
We can, then, firmly link Mainardi’s Madonna to political events
and iconographic traditions reigning at the end of the 1400s in
Florence, but not to alien spacecraft. The three smaller stars
under the great Nativity Star are symbols of the triple
virginity of Mary (before, during and after childbirth); the
shepherd with his hand on his forehead is a standard detail
found in dozens of Nativity or Adoration paintings of the same
age; and the luminous cloud, symbolic of God’s glory expressed
through his angelic agents, comes from the narration of the
nativity in the Protogospel of James.
3. Unidentified Fluffy Objects
Il Miracolo Della Neve (c.
1428). Masolino da Panicale. (Napoli, Museo Nazionale di
Capodimonte.)
Promoted in the Italian press since
the early 1970s, this is one of the most commonly cited
“UFOlogic paintings.”16
Illustrating a 13th-century legend
regarding an alleged 4th-century supernatural event, Masolino da
Panicale (a.k.a. Tommaso di Cristoforo Fini) painted The Miracle
of the Snow as the central panel for an altarpiece triptych for
the church of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome around 1428. A web
author summarizes the legend:
According to historical
tradition, Pope Liberius was ordered by Angels to construct
a new church in the exact place where miraculous snowing
would soon be manifested. The day after, a strange substance
similar to snow fell from the sky in one warm day of August.
The phenomenon was limited to the single zone of Rome in
which was then constructed the basilica of Santa Maria
Maggiore…. What was the cause of this impossible snowing?
Masolino from Panicale, in his
painting, represents a detailed scene of the event, with snow
falling from a ‘large and lengthened cloud,’ grayish and with
the shape of a cigar. Under this cloud are many other smaller
clouds. Careful examination of these reveals that they do not
seem like normal clouds. They are, in fact, all clearly
delineated in their contours and not vaporous, and are
represented in identical pairs with only the upper portion
illuminated, as are many ‘flying saucers.17
Although this modern UFOlogical retelling refers to a “strange
substance similar to snow,” the original legend speaks of
literal snow falling on Rome miraculously in August of the year
352 CE. According to the legend, apparently first told by Fra
Bartolomeo from Trento in the first half of 13th-century in the
Liber Epilogorum in Gesta Sanctorum,
…in the morning…the inhabitants
of the Esquiline hill got a strange surprise: during the
night snow had fallen, and a soft mantle of it covered the
soil. With such a miracle the Virgin Mary indicated to a
noble called Giovanni and his wife that she wanted a shrine
built there in her honor.
For a long time the old couple,
who had no sons, had desired to employ their riches in a
work that honored the Mother of God and, to such an aim,
prayed with fervor so great that she showed them the way in
which they could fulfill their wish. The Virgin appeared to
them in a dream, telling them to build a church dedicated to
Mary in the place where the following morning would reveal
that snow had fall-en miraculously during the night.
Astonished by the miracle, the
couple went to Pope Liberius, to tell him what happened; but
the pope had, during the night, dreamed the same thing!
Liberius, followed by Giovanni and a crowd, went up the
Esquiline hill and found that the still intact snow marked
the outline of the new church—which was soon constructed at
the expense of Giovanni and his wife.18
Historically, things seem to have
happened differently. The foundation of the basilica of Santa
Maria Maggiore on the Esquiline hill was actually laid during
the reign of Pope Sixtus III in the middle of the 5th-century.
It was the first church dedicated to the Virgin Mary (officially
defined as the “Mother of God” in Ephesus in 431 CE by the Third
Ecumenical Council). Esquiline may have been chosen in order to
eliminate the old pagan cult of Juno Lucina19 (a Roman goddess
associated with light and childbirth), which had a temple on the
same hill.
Because the Miracle of the Snow captured the popular
imagination, many artists represented the scene (and various
churches dedicated to the Madonna of the Snow were constructed
else-where in Italy). In Florence we find the miracle
represented in a fresco in the church of Santa Felicita, and in
a 14th-century stained-glass win-dow in the palace of
Orsanmichele.
As far as we know, the story was first narrated a millennium
after the legendary event. Another century passed before
Masolino painted the miracle scene with those strange
“UFO-clouds.” But how unusual really are those clouds in the
context of 15th-century art? Not unusual at all, it turns out,
because Masolino painted similar clouds in other projects,
including a Madonna with Child. Other painters of the time,
including Benozzo Gozzoli, also represented clouds in the same
stylized way.
Obviously, these clouds are schematically stylized, and aspire
to less realism than earlier sacred art from the first half of
15th-century; equally obviously, they are still clouds. Here,
realism is set aside in favor of simplicity, but most audiences
have no trouble identifying the cloud elements correctly.
Admittedly, these clouds do somewhat resemble modern flying
saucer images, but this was no more the intent of Masolino than
of his contemporaries who used the same convention.
The major cloud element aids our
identification of the object as a cloud, if any aid is needed,
with its billowy, frankly cloud-like upper surface. And, the
simplified (but nonetheless obvious) amorphous asymmetry of the
other clouds confirms that these are not meant by the painter to
be similar technological artifacts. It may be worth pointing out
that we have no reason whatsoever to suspect that Masolino ever
personally saw a flying saucer, a giant Jesus gesturing from a
gargantuan medal-lion in the sky, or, for that matter, a sky
made from gold leaf.
The snow legend itself could, conceivably, have been a
oral-historical record of a real atmospheric occurrence.
Independent accounts indicate that while snow in Rome during
August would certainly have been extraordinary, it could
actually have happened. Exceptional atmospheric events of this
kind have been recorded more recently. For example, in June of
1491 snow piled up to a foot high in Bologna. Three days later,
snow covered Ferrara as well. Snow is documented to have fallen
on the coasts of the Calabria in May of 1755, and in Lunigiana
in July of 1756. Prato is a fine modern example of a city
whitened in August: in 2000 it became covered in hail (in
certain points, almost 30cm deep).
It’s not impossible, therefore, that such an extraordinary event
could have occurred. Distant memories, passed along orally for
centuries, picking up rich legendary details could have
eventually transformed into the “Miracle of the Snow.”
Whether the legend is “true” in this sense is beside the point.
For our purposes, it is sufficient to conclude that Masolino
illustrated a then-current legendary narrative, according to
main-stream conventions of his time, at a church whose
miraculous foundation was the subject of that very tale. There
is no reason to speculate that he personally witnessed an alien
invasion, and no way that he could have witnessed the original
“miraculous” event (if it ever occurred); further, there’s no
hint anywhere that the original legend recorded either alien
contact or the sighting of UFOs.
The Images That
Started It All
In 1964, the “discovered” by art student Alexandar
Paunovitch in a 16th-century fresco of the
crucifixion of Christ, located on the wall of the
Visoki Decani Monastery in Kosovo, Yugoslavia. The
French magazine Spoutnik printed them, and they have
been featured in many books and web pages ever since
as “spaceships with a crew.”
While
a layperson might be completely mystified by these
suggestive images, a Medieval art historian would
only need to know that they were located in the
upper corners of a depiction of Christ’s crucifixion
to identify them.
Many crucifixion paintings and mosaics done in the
Byzantine style show the same odd “objects” on
either side of the cross. They are the Sun and the
Moon, often represented with a human face or
figure,
a common iconographic tradition in the art of the
Middle Ages.
James Hall, author of the Dictionary of Subjects &
Symbols In Art writes: “The sun and moon, one on
each side of the cross, are a regular feature of
Medieval crucifixion [paintings]. They survived into
the early Renaissance but are seldom seen after the
15th century. Their origin is very ancient. It was
the custom to represent the Sun and Moon in images
of the pagan sun gods of Persia and Greece, a
practice that was carried over into Roman times on
coins depicting the emperors.
…[T]he sun is [sometimes represented as] simply a
man’s bust with a radiant halo, the moon [as] a
woman’s, with the crescent of Diana. Later they are
reduced to two plain disks. The moon having a
crescent within the circle, may be borne by angels.
The sun appears on Christ’s right, the moon on his
left.”
The Sun and Moon are depicted as anything from a
flat disk to a hollow comet-tailed ball. The figures
within vary from a simple face to elaborate
depictions of Apollo and Diana in their chariots
driving horses or oxen. The Sun and Moon are also
featured on crucifixions painted by Dürer, Crivelli,
Raphael, and Bramantino. |
4.The Crimson Disk
Other examples abound, and many of them are decidedly weird. Of
these, the most amusing might easily be the “UFO” identified in
Paolo Uccello’s Scene di Vita Eremitica (Scenes of Monastic
Life), circa 1460-1465.20 That UFO is, no doubt, a large red
hat.
The painting is a montage of various key scenes of monastic
life: at the bottom left, the Virgin appears to St. Bernard;
above, a group of monks flagellate themselves in front of the
Crucifix; at the bottom right, a saint (probably St. Romuald)
preaches; while at the top, St. Francis kneels down and receives
the Stigmata. In the middle, in a large cave, St. Jerome prays
before the crucified Christ. Beside him is his hat.
According to one author on a UFOlogy
site, this,
“is a saucer object, suspended in the air and
surmounted by a red domed top. Red in color, the object comes
out over the dark background by contrast. The dynamic movement
of the flying object is rendered by means of light brush
strokes, again red in color, which provide the effect of a
sudden turn.”21
But the object is plausible as a saucer only if our view is
restricted to a small section of the painting. Viewing the
entire painting makes clear that the “saucer object” is located
inside the cave, on the ground beneath the crucifix, beside the
kneeling St. Jerome. It is also clearly quite small.
At this point, most Catholics, and many people with even minimal
knowledge of art history should easily recognize this red object
as a traditional Catholic cardinal’s hat— red, rounded,
broad-brimmed, and trailing tasseled cords.
According to tradition, St. Jerome became an eremite (a hermitic
monk) after renouncing his ecclesiastic career. By the time of
Uccello, Jerome was a standard subject of religious art, and
standard ways of presenting him had evolved.
“According to one
of the most common iconographical modules, Jerome in the desert
flagellates his chest with a stone while kneeling down in front
of a Crucifix.”22
In this iconographic scheme (one of three or
so main types for this saint), Jerome “is represented as an
elderly man with white hair and beard, his cardinal hat close to
him…As a penitent, dressed with skins or poor garments.”23
The small animal Uccello places with the saint is actually a
lion. According to an archetypical legend, Jerome saved and then
tamed a wild lion by extracting a thorn from its paw.24
Despite widespread association of a tamed lion with St. Jerome
in art and tradition, many web sites promoting UFOs continue to
quote an article by Umberto Telarico25 in which the
animal is described as a “little dog.”
A biography of St. Jerome from around 1348,
“gave artists the
following instructions, which became canonical, about the
saint’s iconography: ‘Cum capello, quo nun cardinals utuntur,
deposito, et leone mansueto’ [‘with a hat, the kind used by
cardinals, not worn but set aside, and the tamed lion’].”
The
hat at issue is the cardinal’s hat present in so many
representations of Saint Jerome, together with the lion. The
fact that the saint was never a cardinal, and never met a
wounded lion does not matter. Once representations of Jerome
acquired these arbitrary characteristics, they became part of
the “facts” to be conveyed to posterity—fortunately by means of
wonderful masterpieces.26
Other artists freely employed these guidelines before and after
Uccello. In less panoramic paintings, the tradition-al hat
element was generally illustrated at a size sufficient to
prevent its misinterpretation as a UFO. In the Scenes of
Monastic Life, however, it is merely a small identification code
for the saint. Although it fails to identify Jerome for modern
UFOlogists, Uccello would have assumed his 15th-century audience
to be as casually familiar with this vocabulary as we might be
with such cultural icons as Lincoln’s beard, “The Force,” or the
phrase “D’oh!”
Conclusion
There are important topics on which skeptical empiricists and
Christians of various denominations are sometimes divided: did
such-and-such a miracle occur as a literal historical event? Is
there a place for biblical creationism in public schools? What are
the demarcation lines between issues of faith and issues of
falsifiable fact?
On the issue of UFOlogical hijacking of Christian artistic
masterpieces, however, they have solid common ground. It’s clear
that projecting modern concepts of alien visitation onto ancient
European canvasses is unwarranted. The examples offered by web and
book authors to date have sometimes been superficially striking, but
all have proven completely vacuous upon even moderately close
examination.
From either a Christian or an art historical perspective, seeing
UFOs in ancient paintings represents a distortion of both the true
meaning of that art and the intention of its devout creators. Many
Christians are likely to find offensive (or at least bemusing)
unfounded suggestions that some of history’s greatest artistic
expressions of the Christian faith, in fact, instead record
alien visitation. The willfully ignorant confusion of depictions of
the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit, or other religious symbolism for
aliens themselves is even less likely to sit well with believers.27
Why do some people believe UFOs are represented in these paintings?
The passage of time is partly to blame. Perhaps UFOlogists cannot be
faulted for incorrectly translating the visual languages of
centuries past. Time trans-forms languages, a fact all high school
English students realize when they find they need to translate
archaic words and expressions in order to understand Shakespeare.
There is even a core of commendable curiosity, an undisciplined sort
of scientific inquiry, behind some of these projects.
Despite this, however, it is fair to conclude that UFOlogists have
been far too quick to draw conclusions from their misunderstandings
of odd details in old paintings. Their failure to seek alternative
explanations for UFO-like objects has led them to exhibit sloppy
thinking, to diminish great works of historical piety, and to be
distracted from more promising candidates (if there are any) when
seeking proof of alien visitation.
References
-
Although belief in alien visitation
fluctuates, about 1/3 of American adults agree that some UFOs
contain extraterrestrial beings. Using the 2001 figures from the
National Science Foundation Surveys of Public Understanding of
Science and Technology, in which 29% of American adults agreed
that UFOs represent an alien presence, and assuming that the
U.S. has a population of about 293 million people, we can
estimate that 85 million Americans believe—a number more than
four times greater than the total population of Australia. While
29% of Americans believe in UFOs, incidentally, according to
other polling data “just 9% know what a molecule is.” For more
on U.S. belief in the paranormal see Susan Carol Losh et al,
“What Does Education Really Do? Educational Dimensions and
Pseudoscience Support in the American General Public,
1979-2001.” Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 27, No. 5,
September/October 2003. Amherst, NY. For thoughts on science
illiteracy, see the source for the above quote about molecules:
Norman Augustine, “What We Don’t Know Does Hurt Us. How
Scientific Illiteracy Hobbles Society.” Science, Vol. 279, No.
5357, Issue of 13 Mar 1998, pp.1640-1641.
-
See, for example, S. Boncompagni,
Clypeus #29, 1970; D. Bedini, Notiziario UFO #81, 1979; and,
Mass, the Newspaper of the Mysteries #107, 1980. (All Italian
language sources.)
-
Here are a few typical examples,
with Italian language sites in italics. Where quotes from these
or other Italian sources are used elsewhere in this article,
they have been translated, edited for English comprehension, and
corrected for typesetting.
-
There are, however, enough
similarities between some abduction accounts and certain forms
of ‘demonic’ harassment as subjective, experiential events to
merit investigation into the possibility that similar brain
activities are responsible for some subset of both. Victims of
‘aliens’ and ‘demons’ clearly describe different sorts of
creatures (effectively ruling out the possibility that both
sorts of event were caused by the same, objectively existing
alien species), but often describe similar symptoms of
paralysis, a weight on their chest, and so on. See, for example,
Andrew D. Reisner, “A Psychological Case Study of ‘Demon’ and
‘Alien’ Visitation,” Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 25, No. 2,
March/April 2001, Amherst, NY.
-
An amusing expression of the power
of an aristocratic patron took place in Florence in 1494. Piero
de’ Medici, inspired by a heavy snowfall, called for the
sculptor Michelangelo to come at once and execute a commission.
This commission was a snowman. Michelangelo, of course, did what
he was told. (Nathaniel Harris, 1981. The Art of Michelangelo,
Optimum Books, Twickenham, England, 1987.)
-
http://www.edicolaweb.net/ufo_a04g.htm
(English translation by Diego Cuoghi; translated text edited for
English comprehension by Daniel Loxton.)
-
http//digilander.libero.it/mysterica/Ufocrivelli.htm
(English translation by Diego Cuoghi; translated text edited for
English comprehension by Daniel Loxton.)
-
Mark 1:10 (Revised Standard
Version). Matthew 3:16 also describes the Spirit in this scene
as “descending like a dove, and alighting on” Jesus. Luke 3:21
is still more literal, insisting that the “Holy Spirit descended
upon him in bodily form, as a dove.” Finally, John 1:32 tells us
that the Baptist “saw the Spirit descend as a dove…”
-
The Museum tag identifies the artist
as “Jacopo del Sellaio,” but the catalog entry under No.
00292620 asserts that the painting is best attributed to
Sebastiano Mainardi (1450-1513), member of the clique of
Ghirlandaio that worked in Florence at the end of the 1400s, but
also notes that elements of this painting (especially in the
figure of the Madonna) bear remarkable resemblances to elements
of works by Lorenzo di Credi.
-
Daniele Bedini, Notiziario UFO #7
(Jul-Aug 1996).
-
The archaic detail of the three
stars symbolizing the threefold virginity of Mary, and the
rendering of the Angel not as an anthropomorphic character, but
as a “cloud of light,” all suggest that the painter was
(willingly or unwillingly) following the teachings of Girolamo
Savonarola, the Dominican monk who preached a return to
tradition and purity in the arts as well as in city life. The
catalogue entry of the Palazzo Vecchio Museum for this painting
notes that it shares “striking similarities” with the works of
Lorenzo di Credi. And it may be worthy of note that Lorenzo di
Credi was one of the most devout among the followers of
Savonarola, attending the burning of every nude he ever drew,
before finally becoming a monk himself.
-
Luke 2:10, Revised Standard Version.
-
Apocryphal Gospels edited by
Marcello Craveri, Torino, 1969, p. 21. Italian edition.
-
Marco Bussagli, History of Angels.
Rusconi, 1991.
-
Marco Bussagli, catalogue Wings of
God.
-
See, for example, S. Boncompagni,
Clypeus #29, 1970; D. Bedini, Notiziario UFO #81, 1979; and,
Mass, the Newspaper of the Mysteries #107, 1980.
-
R. Pinotti,
http//www.notizieufo.com
-
Andrea Lonardo. 2000. The Jubileum
Places in Rome. San Paolo Publishing. (Automatic translation by
Altavista-Babelfish; translated text edited for English
comprehension by Daniel Loxton.)
-
Juno was the Roman counterpart to
the Greek goddess Hera. Her husband was Jupiter, the Roman
version of the supreme Greek god Zeus.
-
Scenes of Monastic Life (Scene di
Vita Eremitica), also known as La Tebaide. (Now at the Gallerie
Dell’Accademia, Firenze.)
-
http://www.edicolaweb.net/edic042a.htm
(English translation by Diego Cuoghi; trans-lated text edited
for English comprehension by Daniel Loxton.)
-
http//www.cini.it/palazzocini/testi/ferrar/gero.html
(English translation by Diego Cuoghi; translated text edited for
English comprehension by Daniel Loxton.) No longer posted.
-
http://www.thanatos.it/cultura/personaggi/san_girolamo.htm
(English translation by Diego Cuoghi; translated text edited for
English comprehension by Daniel Loxton.) No longer posted.
-
The lion is also the symbol of
evangelist St. Mark (patron saint of Venice), and thus of the
Republic of Venice. St. Jerome was said to have been born in
Dalmatia, a territory of Venice. Uccello himself had important
Venetian patrons.
-
Notiziario UFO #8 (1996).
-
From an article in FMR (the art
magazine edited by Franco Maria Ricci), by Erminio Caprotti.
Here, Caprotti quotes Andrea from Bologna about the iconography
of Saint Jerome. FMR #94, September 1992. (English translation
by Diego Cuoghi; translated text edited for English
comprehension by Daniel Loxton.)
-
Many UFOlogical speculations about
these paintings actually go deeper than those dealt with in this
article: some believe that the Bible itself records either a few
encounters with aliens or a vast history of such contacts. From
this perspective, presumably, biblical miracles would be
technological actions, visible heavenly phenomena would be
spacecraft in flight, and prophetic or messianic messages would
come from other literal extra-solar worlds. Websites flirting
with these arguments have an unlikely, unfalsifiable, and more
or less bulletproof answer to skeptics who point out that these
paintings were meant to depict miraculous biblical events: they
simply claim that those events really were spacecraft sightings
by the biblical authors, and that later artworks of these scenes
are therefore UFO paintings after all.
|