As far as composition, the Parting of Lot and Abraham is a mosaic with dominant foreground figures which enhances the message of the artist as the core of the Biblical story is displayed in a very direct and powerful way through the two characters, Lot and Abraham, who are placed in the foreground. One of the most distinctive features as far as its symbolic connotation is the fact that the two characters are placed in the center of the mosaic with a considerable gap between them which emphasizes the irreversible decision to part. Being a mural, the mosaic expands high up on the wall of the basilica with a width of about 5ft, running down the nave aisle at a very high level. Abraham is depicted on our left moving towards Canaan. On our right we can see Lot moving the opposite way, i.e. towards Sodom with his two daughters. There is a very theatrical feeling about the mosaic. In this sense, the figures are somewhat fixed as the gesture and mimics are stage like, and the action appears simplified. This technique is employed in order to draw the attention to the significance behind the facts and figures presented by the mosaic.
The mass behind the two figures which are placed in foreground is shown using dark contrasting colors and tones which have faded considerably over time. In fact, the mass of heads in the background is a common Roman art device suggesting that the division is not only between Lot and Abraham, but between two peoples, and ultimately, two moral categories, i.e. good and evil. The shading also gives a three dimensional effect to the mosaic, this being a highly characteristic quality of Roman art. Nonetheless, the illusion of spatial depth is reduced by the strong outline of the figures. The cities are at best suggested, as Roman art in general does not focus on a replication of true landscapes, but on sketches which replace the illusion of reality and "trueness." Moreover, the size of human and animal figures is not true to real proportions because the mosaic is mostly symbolical, not mimetic.
God only speaks to Abraham after Lot's departure because Abraham's nephew is corrupted by the pursuit of wealth that results in...
Therefore God does not address Abraham while the latter is traveling with Lot, but before their journey, when God tells Abraham that his offspring will inherit the land and receive His blessing. In this sense, the fact that Abraham decides to go the opposite way from Lot is highly symbolical of the dichotomy between these two characters which is brilliantly illustrated in the mosaic where the two do not stand close together, but are depicted as divergent. However, the strife and the following rupture within Abraham's family do not remain confined within the limits of one family's rupture, but are deeply metaphorical as Abraham's family is made up of the only followers of God at that particular time. Similarly, Lot's choice represents the distinction between himself and Abraham on a symbolical level. He chooses the fertile hence economically productive lands near Sodom without considering God's will and the moral value of his choice. On the other hand, Abraham not only allows Lot to make the choice, but decides to go the opposite direction establishing a moral opposition between himself and his nephew. The mosaic Parting of Lot and Abraham illustrates much more than the facts presented in the Bible and the Torah. Its meaning extends and encompasses symbolical references to good and evil, right and wrong, and thus manages to convey more than a factual representation of an event, but also the latter's deeply metaphorical level.
Augustine, Saint. The City of God. Trans. Marcus D.D. Dods. New York: Modern Library, 1950: 543.
Fortner, Dan. "The Strife between Abraham and Lot John 4:26. http://grace-for-today.com/1772.htm
The Esoteric Explanation of Lot's Parting from Abraham." Sacred texts. http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/zdm/zdm098.htm
Touitou, Elazar. "Basic Jewish Studies Unit." 2004. Bar-Ilan University. The Faculty of Jewish Studies. http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/lekh/lech1.html
In 1837, Lincoln took highly controversial position that foreshadowed his future political path. He joined with five other legislators out of eighty-three to oppose a resolution condemning abolitionists. In 1838, he responded to the death of the Illinois abolitionist and newspaper editor, Elijah Parish Lovejoy, who was killed while defending his printing presses from a mob of pro-slavery citizens in Alton, Illinois. In a statesmanlike manner, Lincoln gave a cautious
Thus, as a candidate for a particular region of the United States, regardless of its importance, he could promote the morality of slavery or its lack. However, as a major public figure, he did not have the political support or the democratic one to advocate the freedom of the slaves. Nor did he want to take that road. One of the most evident proofs was the fact that "Lincolnin
Abraham: A Journey to the Heart of Three Faiths The book I chose to review is Abraham: a journey to the heart of three faiths by Bruce Feiler. Feiler is an interesting author for scholarly books, in that his work is not bound by traditional scholastic guidelines. Rather than studying about something in an educational setting, Feiler immerses himself in an experience. He has written about religious and secular topics, but
Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution" by James McPherson There has traditionally been a significant amount of interest in Abraham Lincoln's life and presidency, for the simple fact that his presence as president coincided with some fairly dramatic events in United States history. Many of these events and Lincoln's influence on them are discussed in James McPherson's non-fictional narrative, Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution. The author makes
history of Habeas Corpus. There are twelve references used for this paper. There have been a number of laws that have survived the test of time and continue to influence the legal world. It is important to look at the history of Habeas Corpus and the role it plays in the law today. The Start of Habeas Corpus Habeas corpus was first introduced in England in 1215 when the Magna Carta was
Christian Worship The History and Development of Contemporary Worship Biblical Foundations of Christian Worship The New Testament is, in many ways, the ultimate expression of Christian worship because the Gospels detail the life and teachings of Jesus Christ within the context and community of individuals who believed in Christ even in the midst of persecution. However, to understand the biblical foundations of Christian worship, it is important to first examine the Old Testament.