"ECCE HOMO." — Words spoken by Pilate (Jn 19:5), presenting Jesus to the people after the scourging.
I. ARCO DELL' E. H. — This is the name given in Jerusalem since the 16th century to the central part of a three-arched structure that, at the beginning of the Via Dolorosa, spans the street with its sides inserted into private buildings. It was introduced into the history of the trial of Jesus because it was believed to be the entrance gate to the praetorium.
(Jo. 19, 5), presenting Jesus to the people after the scourging.
"Ecce Homo" by Andrea Solari (first half of the 16th century). Milan, Museo Poldi Pezzoli.
I. ARCO DELL' E. H. — This is the name, in Jerusalem since the 16th century, of the central section of a three-arched structure that spans the beginning of the Via Dolorosa, with its sides built into private dwellings. It entered the history of Jesus’ trial because it was believed to be the entrance to the praetorium, from which Pilate presented Jesus to the people, uttering the words: “Ecce Homo.”
Two large stones, said to bear the footprints of Jesus and Pilate at the moment of condemnation or of the *Ecce Homo*, were walled up at the top of the arch.
In 1878 the smaller northern arch was enclosed within the austere yet elegant basilica known as the *Ecce Homo*, framing its apse harmoniously. The southern arch was lost and reused in private buildings. Although archaeologists date the arch to the 2nd–3rd century and identify it with the eastern gate of Aelia Capitolina, they acknowledge its role in preserving for centuries the tradition of Jesus’ trial before the Antonia fortress, located north of the Temple. Recent excavations have uncovered traces of this fortress, including its double-arched gate and spacious courtyard (*lithostrōton*), in the foundations and vicinity of the Roman *Ecce Homo* arch (John 19:13).
II. ICONOGRAFIA
Among the scenes of the Passion, that of the *Ecce Homo* has the least ancient iconographic definition. It is highly unlikely that any pre–late medieval depiction can be identified, as some scholars have claimed, as the scene in which Christ, crowned with thorns and marked by evident signs of scourging, holding a reed as a scepter and draped in a red cloth to simulate royal purple, is shown by Pilate to the people.This motif first appears in a clearly defined form in German medieval illumination (the Codex Egberti, bishop of Trier from 977 to 993), and then frequently in 15th-century Northern sculpture and painting. One need only cite the *Ecce Homo* painting from the Westphalian school in the National Gallery, London, where Pilate is seen washing his hands and Christ is pushed by ruffians standing beside him, amid soldiers and hangers-on. The theme becomes more distinct during the 16th century in paintings and engravings, and is taken up by Italian art as well, leaving outstanding examples such as the works by Fra Bartolomeo, Cigoli, and Sodoma in the Pitti Gallery in Florence, and the paintings at Varallo by Gaudenzio Ferrari.
Connected with the development of this theme, which during the 19th century found its most characteristic expression in the famous painting by Ciseri housed in the Galleria d’arte moderna in Florence, is the other depiction, likewise called the E. H., consisting solely of the piteous image of Christ alone, almost always half-length, likewise with His head crowned with thorns. The body is scourged, while in His arms, bound at the wrists by cords or chains, instead of or beyond the reed, He holds a bundle of rods and the scourge of the flagellation.
This image, very frequent during the 15th century, not only in the northern countries, also assumes a particular
II. Iconography. Among the scenes of the Passion, that of the E. H. has had the least ancient iconographic definition. Indeed, it is very unlikely that one can recognize, as some scholars have wished, in depictions prior to the late Middle Ages the scene in which Christ, His head crowned with thorns and showing evident signs of flagellation on His flesh, holding in His hands a reed as a scepter and on His shoulders a red cloth to simulate the royal purple, is shown by Pilate to the people.
EXCEPTIONS (ECCEZIONI)
Exceptions may be either permanent or temporary; the latter must be proposed within a term fixed by law under penalty of forfeiture. Finally, in doctrine a distinction is made between simple exceptions and counter-exceptions, according as the defendant, in his defense, remains within or goes beyond the scope of the relationship asserted in the action or sets up a counterclaim against II.
With special regard to procedural exceptions, it may be held that even for these the distinction between exceptions in the proper sense (in which case they are based on circumstances and grounds that prevent the birth of the procedural relationship) and exceptions in the improper sense (which tend to nullify the constitution of the procedural relationship) holds good. As examples of improper procedural exceptions, which the judge may raise ex officio, may be cited those concerning lack of jurisdiction, functional incompetence, incurable nullity of the act constituting the relationship, and res judicata; examples of proper procedural exceptions are those of territorial incompetence, litispendence, and peremption.
While the plaintiff cannot bring different actions that are incompatible with one another, the defendant may plead exceptions without these having to exclude one another, even if they are contradictory (cap. 1660).
In canon law, the Roman principle of the imprescriptibility of the power of exception generally applies with regard to the right of action, inasmuch as the defendant, for the exercise of this power, depends on the will of the plaintiff (“temporalia ad agendum perpetua sunt ad excipiendum”). However, the criteria of the admissibility of the exception in the process must always be safeguarded, from which the distinction between perpetual and temporary exceptions derives its rationale. There is, namely, always an order to be observed that must be respected and which, among other things, ordinarily requires that dilatory exceptions be proposed and supported in the preliminary stage before the joinder of issue. Peremptory exceptions, on the other hand (except for those known as litis finita), may be proved after the joinder of issue.
With regard to proof, canon law follows the now common Roman principle according to which the burden of proving the facts underlying the exception falls upon the defendant.
Exceptions are extinguished for various reasons that do not always coincide (as happens, for instance, when prescription is not common) with those that determine the extinction of the action. Among these reasons, the following are to be noted: the death of the person entitled to the exception, where the exception is one that extinguishes with the death of the holder; the expiration of the peremptory term fixed for the bringing of the exception; and renunciation. The latter, in turn, may be either express—in the forms and under the conditions established by law (e.g., capacity of the renouncing party)—or tacit, as when the procedural conduct of the defendant clearly implies renunciation of a particular dilatory exception, such as when he proceeds to the merits without raising the said exception.