pothos.org

Hi amyntoros,

The other rod runs under the hand of the headless Philippos from one o'clock to seven o'clock.

I think you're probably broadly right about the sequence.

Best wishes,

Andrew

The person in the middle has cloven hoofs. So if it's Philip II, it's a beardless Philip II with cloven hoofs.

Taphoi wrote:I think you're probably broadly right about the sequence.

I would agree with that!

It's a nice mosaic - and even better because I didn't know it was there, and it was a pleasant surprise ...

ATB

the_accursed wrote:The person in the middle has cloven hoofs. So if it's Philip II, it's a beardless Philip II with cloven hoofs.

I agree, they do look like cloven hooves. However, although I'm no expert on ancient footwear, I suspect that they are soft shoes/boots as were worn in the 4th century, and aren't supposed to indicate or suggest anything sinister.

As for being beardless - 4th century fashion, I'd say.

ATB

marcus wrote: I agree, they do look like cloven hooves. However, although I'm no expert on ancient footwear, I suspect that they are soft shoes/boots as were worn in the 4th century, and aren't supposed to indicate or suggest anything sinister.

Wouldn't have to be an indication of something sinister. The person, or "person", could be a mythical creature, or Philip II portrayed as a mythical creature. Philip II with the feet of Pan.

marcus wrote:As for being beardless - 4th century fashion, I'd say.

Perhaps.

the_accursed wrote:

marcus wrote: I agree, they do look like cloven hooves. However, although I'm no expert on ancient footwear, I suspect that they are soft shoes/boots as were worn in the 4th century, and aren't supposed to indicate or suggest anything sinister.

Wouldn't have to be an indication of something sinister. The person, or "person", could be a mythical creature, or Philip II portrayed as a mythical creature. Philip II with the feet of Pan.

Perhaps I used the wrong word - when I said "sinister" I just meant "un-natural" ... which portraying Philip as a mythical creature would be.

Cheers

OK I think Amyntoros has hit the nail on the head, can't say I hold out much hope for conception if you stand fully clothed behind your wife though! That does give the narrative thread and explains the lack of the snake at the birth scene. Without wishing to Tarnish my reputation, I am converted.

The cloven hooves are just late Roman slippers and occur on many mosaics including 'Justinian's' at Ravenna, really Theodoric's reworked, of course. And Marcus is right about the clean shaven Philip merely reflecting 4th century fashion, Jesus is beardless in paintings and mosaics of this time too.

Nymphe I think is a name rather than 'wet-nurse' one time removed.

marcus wrote:Perhaps I used the wrong word - when I said "sinister" I just meant "un-natural" ... which portraying Philip as a mythical creature would be.

It would be an unrealistic portrait of Philip II, for sure. But since Philip II was the father of a man sometimes portrayed with horns, and/or wielding a thunderbolt, not an unthinkable one. Still, having googled the mosaic agesilaos mentions, shoes looking like cloven hoofs (or "hooves") seems like a reasonable explanation.