Joanna
At 13:10 10-07-00 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>>
>> Is that the one that argued that JC had an erection under his loincloth?
>
>I don't recall the title, but there was a longish essay on this topic in
Critical
>Inquiry. I didn't know (and don't know) that it particularly caused an
uproar: it
>certainly shouldn't have because its thesis in fact was run-of-the-mill: it
>usefully underlined the knowledge that in the middle ages and renaissance the
>incarnation of christ was emphasized more than it has been since. The
reason (the
>author argued) for showing jc with an erection (and not just under the
loincloth
>but quite visible) was precisely to emphasize that he was god *incarnate*.
The
>illustration I remember is a mother-and-child painting, in which the
infant has a
>quite noticeable erection even in a black and white illustration printed
in the
>pages of CI.
>
>Carrol
>
www.overlookhouse.com