Sorry I haven’t posted any of my college papers as I promised last week. I’ve strangely been less confident with this set of papers and I’m not entirely sure why. Probably because, as you’re about to see, they have very little to do with politics. But since someone expressed interest in the 3-faced Jesus, here’s that one. I’m actually a huge fan of Andrei Rublev’s work, so this topic was a bit of a no-brainer for me in this Art Appreciation 225 course offered by the Purdue University network.

The Holy Trinity is one of the most important but difficult to understand beliefs in Christianity. Since the days of the early church, church leaders, theologians, writers, and artists have struggled to accurately describe the concept to both faithful Christians and non-believers alike. Perhaps the most famous explanation of the Trinity came from St. Patrick to the Irish when he compared the Trinity to a shamrock. St. Patrick may have gotten lucky, because the stakes are incredibly high when explaining the Trinity. After all, if the Trinity is not explained correctly, it is very easy for someone to come to the conclusion that Christians are polytheists who believe in three separate Gods; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; when in fact Christians believe in one God; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The idea was incredibly complex and the number of people who could be fortunate and clever enough to explain it like St. Patrick were too few and far in between. Given that few Europeans were literate, the Orthodox and Catholic churches were unable to explain them in writing. This meant the concept would have to be explained visually, requiring artists to understand and portray the Trinity in a way that ordinary people could understand. To illustrate how this was done differently, the works of the famous Russian painter Andrei Rublev and Spanish painter Jerónimo Cosida have been provided. Both works were named “Trinity” by their creators. Rublev’s was painted in 1411 and Cosida’sin 1570. It is obvious to the naked eye that more than 159 years and the length of the European continent separate these two pieces of religious Christian art.

Andrei Rublev’s “Trinity” was immediately recognized as one of the best and most perfect icons in the history of iconography. Although it was a blessing for Rublev in life, it was a curse for the painting. In 1575, Ivan the Terrible ordered the icon be decorated with gold and the process was repeated in 1600. Although it remains a remarkable and inspiring piece of Russian iconography, it is not as Andrei Rublevfinished it. Although meant as an honor to this historic and beloved painting, the consequences of the decision to decorate the art piece resulted in the world not being able to see the original masterpiece. With that said, it is still possible to interpret the codes left by Rublev.

The three figures in Rublev’s “Trinity” are not literally the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Rather, they are the angels who God sent to meet Abraham at the Oak of Mamre. For this reason, it is often called the “Trinity of the Old Testament.” With that said, however, Rublev intended for these three angels to be symbols of the Holy Trinity using widely accepted color and object codes in the painting. This is why the gold decoration was a curse to Rublev’s completed painting.

From left to right, the angels are symbols of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Blue is the one color that unites all three figures, which is considered a heavenly color in all of Rublev’s art. God the Father is symbolized by the angel wearing an entirely shimmering blue and gold robe, symbolizing his divinity. Behind the angel is a church. Normally, Orthodox icons as well as most early artworks in Christianity lack backgrounds. However, the church portrayed here isn’t supposed to be a background as much as a symbol, being God’s house behind the angel representing God the Father in the painting.

The middle angel symbolizes Jesus Christ, who wears a brown garment under his divine blue cloth. Brown, of course, represents the Earth where God became man in Christ. Understanding that the church behind the first angel was a symbol of the “Father’s House,” it can now be seen that the tree behind the angel representing Christ is also not a background, but another symbol representing the Earth.

Finally, on the right is an angel representing the Holy Spirit. Behind this angel used to be a brown mountain, which is still remotely visible through the gold over it. In the Bible, the mountain is where two of the most well known acts of God occurred, namely the Transfiguration of Christ in the New Testament and Moses meeting with God in the Old Testament. The mountain is also where the earth seems closest to touching the heavens, also making it an excellent choice to symbolize the Holy Spirit, which can often be difficult to do. Also of importance is the green robe being worn by this angel. Green represents birth, renewal, and growth, all of which are important elements of the Holy Spirit’s nature.

Before Rublev, generally, iconography was relatively simple. That is not to say they lacked power, meaning, or artistic value. Instead, the artworks featured simple characters, intentionally unrealistic. The goal of iconography through the ages was to give the viewer an object that would help a Christian focus during prayer or the liturgy while avoiding idolism, which was banned by God in the Ten Commandments. This meant that figures were commonly depicted without expression, with no movement, and out of any dimension of time and space. The origins of this concern likely dated back to the protests of the iconoclasts.

Rublev didn’t break from this convention, but he did everything within that context and code he possibly could. Using a tremendous amount of symbolism, including keeping the faces of all three angels the same, Rublev was able to represent the concept of the Holy Trinity using three angels from the Old Testament and simultaneously leave many devout Christians spellbound by the mystery of the Trinity.

The next painting, which was completed in 1570 by Jerónimo Cosida, is shocking to say the least, especially if one is a stranger to the concept of the Holy Trinity. From the late 16h to 17th centuries, many artists attempted to depict the nature of the Holy Trinity by using a painting of Christ with one body, one head, but three faces. In the hands of the trinity here is a triangle explaining the nature of God as understood by Christians. At the tips of the triangle are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Connecting the exterior circles are lines that read “non est” or “is not.” In the center of the triangle is the name of the triangle itself, “God,” and each of the exterior circles are connected to the interior circle with a line that reads “est” or “is.”

During this period, artists were learning new techniques to create realistic paintings and were beginning to use them to provide a sort of “shock value” that was often being sought by western Christians in both Christian art and in the regular sermons of the Church as well. Although this is not the first or only example of the three faced “Godhead,” it was done in a iconographic style that should have made it more like the iconography being done in the Orthodox Church. Yet, it remains different largely because of the codes used by the artists. Whereas the “Trinity” by Rublev left one pondering the mysteries of the Trinity while not making any direct statement about it using colors and symbols, Cosida’s “Trinity” comes right out and tells the viewer what it is with a giant triangle map so there can be no way to misinterpret the clear symbolism of a three faced head. In many ways, the work is similar to much older icons in the Christian Church because of that lack of symbolism. However, instead of focusing on the mystery of the Holy Trinity because it is so well defined in the painting, the viewer of Cosida’s painting often finds him or herself pondering the mystery of how Cosida painted the three faces on one head.

The reception of Cosida’s “Trinity” were mixed, as were all other instances of the three faced Trinity that were appearing throughout the Catholic Church in western Europe at the time. However, people’s fascination, which was more superficial than spiritual, caused more paintings like this to begin sprouting up throughout Europe until August 11, 1628 when Pope Urban VIII banned all representations of the Trinity “as a man with three mouths, three noses and four eyes,” as heresy. In addition to the banning of this depiction of the Trinity, Urban VIII also ordered all existing paintings, drawings, and other similar representations to be burned. (Didron, 61) As a result of this order, Cosida’s “Trinity” is one of the few surviving paintings of its kind.

Clearly, Cosida’s and Rublev’s “Trinity” paintings were given drastically different receptions by the Church heirarchy. However, it is interesting and perhaps ironic that although one was declared heresy and ordered burned in the 17th century, it is the painting that is heralded as an amazing accomplishment in iconographic art that was damaged by the leadership of the community that loved it so much.

There are a few similarities beyond the simple portrayal of the Trinity. For example, both Cosida and Rublev used the same face for each of the three figures they were representing. That is easy to miss in Cosida’s painting however because of the fact that the three faces are on the same head, which distracts many viewers right from the beginning. Also, Cosida’s choice of using Jesus’ body with three faces rather than the Father’s body with three faces was an important choice. Cosida realized that of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the only one to have an earthly body able to be portrayed is God the Son. Thus, Cosida uses Christ’s body as a symbol of the Father and Holy Spirit in a similar way that Rublev used the three angels as symbols of the Trinity. As unconventional as Cosida’s painting was, he did stay with the convention of using a brown garment to symbolize the Earth in which Christ’s body existed, like Rublev.

However, it is impossible to ignore that Rublev depicts the Trinity using three separate figures, stressing the importance of the individuality of each entity of that Trinity, or the non est’s while Cosida’s “Trinity” is more focused on the est’s of the Trinity. In this sense, both Cosida and Rublevare equally right and equally wrong and it’s why artists have such a difficult time depicting the true nature of the Holy Trinity. The correct answer is that they are both separate, as in Rublev’s painting, and the same, as in Cosida’s painting. This complex nature of the Holy Trinity has perhaps provided viewers of these paintings with what is truly most fascinating about each works. Somehow, two devout Christian artists who symbolized the same idea and belief came up withthese shockingly contrasting works. Yet, despite the different codes and evolving contexts and drastically different results, both paintings succeed in representing one of the most difficult to understand concepts in Christianity, the Holy Trinity.

Works Cited
Didron, Adolphe Napoleon. “Christian Iconography; or The History of Christian Art in the Middle Ages.” Trans. Millington, E.J.. Frederick Ungar Publishing Co. New York. 1886.