This is a key point: the
nakedness of the central figure in the tetramorph. Upon hundreds of churches and cathedrals are of course the
Christ surrounded by the four evangelists. Usually NOT naked, however!
I personally agree with Ross Caldwell when saying that the 'image evolved from the earlier kinds by some such association of ideas'. Of these, I would suppose that those stone and painted depictions form part of the basis of the 'early kinds' of representations.
It was, perhaps, St Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd century CE) that may have been the first to link images from the four living creatures (of Revelation, harking back to Ezekiel, of course) to the four Evangelists (in
Against Heresies, Book III, Ch. XI:8):
For, [as the Scripture] says, "The first living creature was like a lion," symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second [living creature] was like a calf, signifying [His] sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but "the third had, as it were, the face as of a man,"-an evident description of His advent as a human being; "the fourth was like a flying eagle," pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church. And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated.
I also nonetheless agree that by 'association of ideas', and various representations of Mary within mandorla (again, many Lumiere-style cathedrals and other religious buildings prior to the 13th century have these), it may have occurred that the figure was transformed, at first perhaps by copying 'error', to a more feminine figure that also reflected the platonic
Soul of the World (as mentioned in the
Timæus, section V), though very likely via the writings of Philo (perhaps more specifically his
Eternity of the World) and Plotinus.
I have at times wondered, actually, whether the common
title of the card as 'World' is not short-hand for a neoplatonic 'World-Soul', especially via the writings from late antiquity.
With regards to the Sforza-Castle card that le pendu posted in his post above, it is for me one of the most lovely of any depictions, and would certainly like to have a far better rendition.
When Robert (le pendu) and I were recently discussing it, Robert pointed out that the face of the Bull was chopped off. I personally suspect that this is likely a consequence of the 'border' being folded over backing, cutting off not only the face of the bull, but also the halo and wings of the Eagle and parts of the Lion's face. If indeed the image sections are 'hidden' by paper fold, it would lead further credence to our suspicion that the number 'XXI' is an addition: the early card having neither numeral nor title.
Personally, I would consider this card to be earlier than 1650. Its lack of title, its possible lack of numbering on the original, and the
clarity of the image in such an early woodblock style tends to give it earlier, rather than Noblet-contemporary, dating (or so I would have thought - and that irrespective as to suggested dating by Kaplan and others).
To return to the primary images of the comparison, one item of interest is the alteration or difference between the Dodal's usage of leaves to cover the genitals, to what is effectively a more 'naked' depiction on the Conver, using the fold of cloth to mask the genitals from the viewer's perspective.
A seeming transition from an Adamic depiction in Dodal (Jesus as second Adam?) to a cloth (equivalent to a loin cloth?) of post-resurrected Christ.
Of course, in this, whence, how, and why the specific transition from masculine-like to feminine-like figure?
