Raphael's authorship in the 'Expulsion of Heliodorus.' - interpretation of court painter Raphael's mural

The primary literary pretext of the mural is 2 Macc. 3. King Seleucus of Asia, having learned of the great wealth in the treasury of the temple in Jerusalem, sent Heliodorus to remove this wealth. Even after learning from the high priest Onias that some of this money was destined for widows and orphans, Heliodorus announced that he would still follow his royal orders. On the day when he set out to take the riches, there was desperate prayer by the priests in the temple and by the people in the city. Their petition to the heavens was answered with the miraculous appearance of a horseman and two youths armed with whips, who fell upon Heliodorus and preserved the treasury.(10)

There are three basic groupings of figures in the Vatican mural. At the altar of the Sancta Sanctorum, Onias prays along with the other priests for Heliodorus's thwarting. At right, a moment later in time, the three divine avengers prohibit Heliodorus from stealing the monies. And at left, a mixture of historical and contemporary characters witness the historical action [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 3 OMITTED]. These spectators include the widows and orphans, beneficiaries of the temple treasury, and a papal retinue, with Pope Julius II borne on the sedia gestatoria.(11)

The historical and contemporary figures in the group at left differ from one another in at least three ways. First, the clothing of the papal retinue is accurately of the period, that of the women and children less so.(12) Second, the contemporaries are relatively inactive and stationary, in contrast to the far more animated historical characters. Third, the papal group conveys a greater sense of immediacy than do the women and children.(13) This last distinction is generated in part through differences in modeling. The colors used for the historical spectators are paler, with modeling accomplished through broad areas of white highlights, the local garment colors in their most saturated state serving in many instances as shadow. In contradistinction, the contemporary figures have less bold areas of highlighting, darker shadows, a wider range of value contrasts, and hence deeper relief.(14) Yet despite different modes of modeling, the arrangement of lights and darks as well as the direction of cast shadows indicate that both groups share a common source of illumination.(15)

We need to discern the significance of the modeling modes. According to Leonardo's discussions on perspective, nearer objects are in general more detailed and distinctive than distant ones, often with stronger light-dark contrasts and hence bolder relief, whereas distant objects tend to be less plastic, bluer, and paler.(16) The respective modeling of the two groups of figures seems to correlate with these perspectival norms: the contemporary figures are darker in hue and fuller in relief, whereas the historical figures are somewhat less plastic, their paler and bluer coloration having associations with the sky view over the altar. I therefore would suggest that in the Heliodorus the modeling modes of the figures express a perspectival dimension such that the contemporaries are "closer" to us and the historical characters are "farther away." Spatial perspective becomes equated with temporal "distance." Although located next to each other at the same juncture in depth, the historical and contemporary groups are to be seen as not present to one another in time.(17)