by Doctor Science
I was pleased to see Lee Siegal’s article in the New Yorker, Pope Francis and the Naked Christ, because it’s about one of my favorite books: Leo Steinberg’s The Sexuality of Christ in Renaissance Art and in Modern Oblivion. Coincidentally, one of my holiday presents the year was a copy of the second edition — my copy of the first seems to have gone walkabout, and I’ve wanted to read Steinberg’s expansion for many years.
I read the first edition (published in 1983) some time in the late 80s, IIRC, and was an instant fan. In a nutshell, Steinberg’s thesis is that Renaissance artists created images of Christ’s Infancy, Baptism, and Crucifixion that focused attention on his penis. They did this to demonstrate the completeness of Christ’s Incarnation: that He became a human man in every respect, even those that to us fallen mortals seem shameful.
I gather that many art historians and other readers were shocked and resistant to Steinberg’s argument, but my reaction was a relieved, “Aha! Explained at last! It wasn’t just me!” Steinberg was discussing something that had been bothering me for decades — since I was 8 years old, in fact.
Cut for images of Great Art of the Western World that may not be safe for your work and/or eyeballs, and for anatomical terminology.