Rebirth and Afterlife: A study of the transmutation of some pagan imagery in early Christian funerary art 9780860541189, 9781407323916

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Copyright
Table of Contents
Preface
List of Principal Abbreviations
Dedication
INTRODUCTION: EARLY CHRISTIAN MONUMENTS AND THEIR STUDY
CHAPTER I: ART AND THE EARLY CHURCH
CHAPTER II: THE CHRISTIAN ORPHEUS
CHAPTER III: THE CHRISTIAN HELIOS AND THE VINE
CHAPTER IV: THE CHRISTIAN ARK OF NOAH
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION
THE CHRISTIAN ORPHEUS: APPENDIX TO CHAPTER II
NOTES
FIGURES

Citation preview

Rebirth and Afterlife A study of the transmutation of some pagan imagery in early Christian funerary art

Sister Charles Murray

BAR International Series I oo 1981

B.A.R.,

B.A.R.

122

Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 7BP, England

GENERAL EDITORS A. R. Hands, B.Sc., :\I.A., D.Phil. D. R. Walker, :\I.A.

B. A.R. S 100, 1981:

© Sister

"Rebirth and Afterlife"

Charles Murray, 1981

The author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9780860541189 paperback ISBN 9781407323916 e-book DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9780860541189 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library This book is available at www.barpublishing.com

CONTENTS Page v i

I PREFACE I I I

v i i

L IST OF PR INC IPAL ABBREV IATIONS I NTRODUCTION.

EARLY CHR ISTIAN MONU MENTS AND

THEIR STUDY 1 .

1

The h istory o f t he s tudy o f Chr is t ian Archaeo log y a nd t he d if f icu l t ies t ha t b eset i t .

2 .

The n a ture o f C hr is t ian a r t .

The q ues t ion o f i t s i den t i ty

a nd d ef in i t ion , a nd i t s r ela tionsh ips , c auses a nd c on tex ts . 3 .

I conography a nd method .

Chr ist ian i conography a nd

t er m ino logy. 4 . I V

C onc lus ion .

CHAPTER I . 1 .

1 3

ART AND THE EARLY CHURCH

The h os t i li ty t heory. Ou t l ine , h is tory a nd p resupposi t ions .

The b yzan t in .e

i conoc las t ic c on troversy. 2 .

Minor p ieces o f e v idence. Ter tu l l ian .

Ear ly Church Orders.

C le men t o f

A lexandr ia . 3 .

Ma jor p ieces o f e v idence. De Pud ic i t ia V II , x .12. As ter ius o f Amaseia . Ca tho licae I , 3 4.

Paedagogus I I , 1 2.1 . De Mor ibus Ecc les iae

Car men XXV I I , 5 42f .

Let ter t o t he Empress Cons tan t ia .

Let ter t o J ohn

o f J erusa le m. 4 . V

C onc lusion .

CHAPTER I . 1 .

THE CHR ISTIAN ORPHEUS

3 7

The e v idence a nd i ts e arl ier i nterpreters . The Chr is t ian Orpheus r epresen ta t ions . S hepherd t heory.

The G ood

The P sychopo mpos t heory.

The

J ew ish t heory 2 .

The p agan b ackground . The a r t ist ic t rad i t ion a nd t he r el ig ious t rad i t ion .

1 11

Page 3 .

The C hr is t ian l i terary t rad i t ion . C le men t o f A lexandr ia P ro trep t icus I .

The e ar l ier

a po loget ic t rad i t ion o f t he C hurch . 4 .

The v isua l t rad i t ion . The o r ig in o f t he i conography : A po l lo c i tharoedus , A pol lo Musage tes . Quest ions o f e scha to logy a nd e ar ly C hr is t ian monumen ts .

5 . V I

C onc lus ion .

CHAPTER I I.

6 4

THE CHRISTIAN HEL IOS AND THE V INE

The To mb o f t he J u l i i . 1 .

S ec t ion A .

Descr ip t ion .

The T o mb .

S truc ture a nd d a t ing ;

e x ten t , p reserva t ion ,

o rgan isa t ion a nd c o lour o f d ecora t ion . The D ecora t ions .

The p a in tings .

The mosa ics :

a nd wa l l d ecora t ions ( orna men ta l c o mpos i t ion ); d ecora t ions ( p ic tor ia l c o mpos i t ions ) ;

c e i ling wa l l

c ei ling d ecora t ion

( p ic tor ia l c o mpos i t ion ). S um mary . 2 .

S ec t ion B .

I n terpre ta t ion .

P er ler 's e xp lana t ion . The meaning o f t he d ecora t ions .

The g roundwork o f

t he p rogram me , t he s ubord ina te mot ifs o f t he p rogram me , t he c u lm ina t ion o f t he p rogram me . 3 . WI

S ec t ion C .

CHAPTER I V . 1 .

C onc lus ion . THE CHRISTIAN ARK OF NOAH

The t hree ma jor i n terpreta t ions . The r epen tance s y mbol .

The b ap t is ma l s y mbo l .

The e cc les iolog ica l a nd c o mpos i te s y mbo l . 2 .

The o r ig in o f t he i conography. The b ib l ica l b as is .

The c o intype o f A pamea .

The a r t ist ic t rad i t ion o f t he c hes t o f Danae . The l i terary t rad i t ion o f t he c hes t . 3 .

The s ign if icance o f i conography. The c onnec t ion w i th d ea th a nd wa ter .

The C hr is t ian

f unerary s ign i f icance . 4 .

The r ein terpre ta t ion o f ap agan t he me. P agan i deas o f d ea th a s ap re lude t o l i fe. C hr is t ian r ein terpreta t ion .

5 .

C onc lus ion .

i v

9 8

Page V I I I. I X .

CHAPTER V .

APPEND IX TO CHAPTER I — NOTES AND F IGURES NOTES t o :

1 12

CONCLUSION The Chr is t ian Orpheus

1 14 1 22

I n troduc t ion . Chap ter I . C hap ter I . C hap ter I I . C hapter I V . A ppend ix .

F IGURES

1 85

PREFACE

Th is monograph a t te mp ts t o d e mons tra te t wo t h ings :

t ha t t here i s al i nk

b e tween s o me o f t he e ar l ies t i mages o f C hr is t ian a r t a nd t he c on te mporary p agan w or ld o f e scha to log ica l t hough t , n ot s imp ly i n t he ma t ter o f f or m b u t i n t he r ea lm o f i deas ;

a nd t ha t t he C hr is t ian i mages r epresent a r e in terpre-

t a t ion o f s o me o f t hese i deas a s ar esu l t o f t he d oc tr ine o f r eb ir th i n to C hr is t , t he s p ir i tua l r egenera t ion a ch ieved t hrough b ap t is m a nd i ncorpora tion i n to t he C hr is t ian c o m mun i ty. A l though a s tudy o f a l l t he a va i lab le e v idence was p rec luded b y t he l im it a t ions o f a monograph , i ts ee med p oss ib le a nd r easonab le t o e xp lore t h is q uest ion o f t he t rans mu ta t ion o f i deas b y e xa m in ing s o me r epresen ta t ive i mages wh ich o r ig ina ted i n t he p re-cons tan t in ian p er iod , at ime o f f lu id i ty b oth i n t he h istory o f e ar ly C hr is t ian a r t a nd e ar ly C hr is t ian t hough t . o f t hree d i f feren t t ypes :

These i mages a re

o ne , as ing le f igure c o mp le tely d er ived i n f or m f ro m

p agan a r t , t ha t o f O rpheus ;

o ne , as e t o f i mages , f ro m o ne monu men t , wh ich

e xh ibi ts a mixed i conography o f p agan , n eu tra l a nd b ib l ica l c on ten t T o mb M i n t he Va t ican n ecropol is ; N oah .

t ha t o f

o ne , ap urely b ib l ica l s y mbo l , t ha t o f

These i mages a re d iscussed i n C hap ters I , I I a nd I V , wh i le Chapter

Vb r ings t heir s tudy t o ac onc lus ion . The me thod u sed i n a t te mp t ing t o i n terpre t t he i conography i s t o s tudy i t i n t he l i gh t o f c er ta in t ex ts o f t he Fa thers , n o tab ly C le men t o f A lexandr ia , where t he s ame i mages o ccur i n v erba l f orm .

Bu t t o p resu me a r e la t ionsh ip

b e tween a r t a nd l i tera ture i n t h is way mean t t ha t c er ta in q uest ions o f p ro legomena were u navo idab le , a nd h ad t o b e t rea ted b efore t he s tudy i t se l f c ou ld b e u nder taken .

Accord ing ly , t he I n troduc t ion s urveys s o me o f t he p roble ms

c onnec ted w i th t he s tudy o f e ar ly C hr is t ian monumen ts , a nd C hap ter Is eeks t o p rove t he p resuppos i t ion u pon wh ich t he s tudy i s b ased . Dur ing my r esearch Ih ad t he i nes t i mab le b enef i t o f t he s uperv ision o f Dr . H . C hadw ick , a nd t he s y mpa the t ic f r iendsh ip o f P rofessor J . M. C . T oynbee .

Iwou ld l i ke t o t hank t he m f or t he g eneros i ty w i th wh ich t hey g ave

t he ir t ime t o d iscussing p rob le ms w i th me , a nd f or t he g rea t h e lp a nd i nsp ir a t ion wh ich t hese d iscuss ions w ere .

My t hanks a re a lso d ue t o t he Ed i tor o f

The J ourna l o f Theo log ica l S tud ies f or p erm iss ion t o r eproduce t he ma ter ia l c on ta ined i n C hap ter Iwh ich f irs t a ppeared a s a n a r t ic le i n t ha t p ub l ica t ion ; t o t he Ed i tor o f t he C ah iers Archeo log iques f or p erm iss ion t o r epr in t ' The C hr is t ian O rpheus ' ( see A ppend ix ) a nd t o t he B od le ian L ibrary , O xford f or p erm iss ion t o r eproduce t he p ho tographs f or f igs . 9 ,39 .

Iowe my i n terest i n

b o th t heo logy a nd a rchaeo logy t o my p aren ts , a nd t o t he m t he work i s l ov ing ly d ed ica ted .

v i

L IST OF PRINCIPAL ABBRE V IATIONS

Ac ta S S .

Ac ta S anc toru m

A .N.F.

Ante-N icene F a thers

A .R. V .

A t t ic R ed-Figure V ase Pa in ters

B .Z.

B yzan t in ische Z ei tschr if t

C .A .

Cah iers Arc Holog iques

C .C .

C orpus C hr ist ianoru m

C .R .

C lass ica l Rev iew

C . V . A.

C orpus V asorum A nt iquoru m

D .A .C . L.

D ic t ionna ire d 'Archeo log ie Chr a ienne e t d e L i turg ie

D .H .G . E.

D ic t ionna ire d 'H is toire e t d e Gk ograph ie Ecc lesiast iques

D .O .P .

Dumbar ton Oaks Papers

G .C .S .

D ie Gr iech ischen C hr ist lichen S chr if tste l ler

J b. A .C .

J ahrbuch f ür An t ike a nd Chr is ten tu m

J .H .S .

J ourna l o f H el lenic S tud ies

J .L. W .

J ahrbuch f ür L i turg iew issenschaf t

J .M .E . 0 .S.

J ourna l o f t he Manchester Egypt i a n a nd Or ien ta l S oc iety

J .R.S.

J ourna l o f Ro man S tud ies

J .T.S.

J ourna l o f Theolog ica l S tud ies

L .C. C .

L ibrary o f Chr ist ian C lassics

P .B.S. R.

Papers o f t he Br i t ish S choo l a t Ro me

P .G .

Pa tro log ia G raeca

P . L.

Pa tro log ia La t ina

R .A .C .

Rea l lex ikon f ür An t ike u nd C hr is tentu m

S .C .

S ources Chrbt iennes

T .A . P. A .

Transac t ions a nd P roceed ings o f t he Amer ican Ph i lolog ica l Assoc ia t ion

T . U.

Tex te u nd U n tersuchungen

Z.K .G .

Z e i tschr i f t f ür K irchengesch ich te

v i i

INTRODUCTION EARLY CHRISTIAN MONUMENTS AND THEIR STUDY One of the most attractive parts of the legacy left by the early centuries of Christianity lies in its material remains; yet, despite four centuries of active interest beginning with the pioneer investigations of Bosio in the six­ teenth century, 1 it is a surprising fact that very little is understood of them. Since this cannot be, in the primary instance, due to a lack of sourc�s-quite a large body of material survives-their must be another reason; and I would like to suggest that it is the result of two interrelated difficulties, one concrete and the other interpretative. The first is the nature of the problems which beset the scientific study of the monuments: that is, the haphazard survival of the evidence itself which is widespread geographically and often hard to come by. In the present state of scholarly opinion this is largely taken to mean the problem of the origins of early Christian art, for under this over­ arching discussion and other difficulties connected with early Christian arch­ aeology have tended to be collected. 2 A work therefore like this present study cannot ignore such problems, and some standpoint must of necessity be taken with r.egard to them before any attempt can be made to interpret the meaning of the representations to be found in Christian art. But by reviewing the state of the evidence and its current discussion in an evaluative rather than a purely descriptive way per­ haps a fresh appraisal may be offered of the field as a whole and the subject of the origins of early Christian art in particular, and one which will also help to demonstrate the validity of the convictions of the work as they appear towards the end of the study. If this can be done successfully then there should emerge a better understanding of Christian art, which in turn may facilitate the interpretative study of the monuments that is the ultimate aim.

I. THE HISTORY OF THE STUDY OF CHRISTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE DIFFICULTIES THAT BESET IT It will be helpful to begin by examining the worst of the problems that face any student of the monuments, the difficult nature of the evidence, and then to go on to consider the way in which the discipline has developed in attempt to deal with it. The complex state of the problems involved may easily be illustrated. In some cases, that of Rome is the primary example, historical develop­ ments have made accurate analysis and even sheer recovery of the evidence extremely difficult; this is particularly the case with the excavation of the necropolis underyling the present basilica of St. Peter. 3 Again, some sites have been destroyed and literature is the only record;4 small objects like the lead vessel decorated with a mixture of Christian and pagan motifs found in Tunisia in the nineteenth century have disappeared; 5 and art thefts continue.6 1

The r everse c an a lso b e t rue :

a monu men t may s urv ive f or wh ich d ocumen-

t a t ion i s l os t , a s i n t he c ase o f t he a nony mous c e me tery o f t he V i l la P a mph i l i , wh ich s ee ms t o b e long o r ig ina l ly t o t he midth ird c en tury ;7

o r i tc an o n ly b e

p a ins tak ing ly r ecovered , a s i n t he c ase o f t he u ncer ta in t ies a t tend ing t he d isc over ies o t P or to ;8

a nd t he d ocu men ts wh ich m igh t p rov ide a k ey t o t he

u nderstand ing o f s o me o f t he p ic tures o f t he V ia La t ina c a taco mb o r t he s oc a l led C leve land J onah f igures h ave y e t t o b e d iscovered .

9

A s ar esu l t , v i ta l c o l lec t ions o f ma ter ia l a re s t i l l o n ly i n t he p rocess o f b e ing f or med .

The c a ta logue o f t he C hr is t ian s arcophag i e x ists a s y e t o n ly

f or R o me a nd O s t ia ;1 0

t he c orpus o f t he C hr is t ian b asi l icas i n u nf in ished ;1 1

a nd e ven t he r ecen t Reper tor io o f t he p a in t ings o f t he Ro man c a taco mbs 1 2

c an

o n ly b e r egarded a s p rov isory , s ince t he p lan o f t he C hr is t ian c e me ter ies i s i n f ac t i nco mp le te . 1 3 Fur ther , s uch i m mense p rob le ms mean t ha t t here a re p or t ions o f t he e v idence a s y e t n ot r educed t o a ny s or t o f o rganisa t ion a t a l l . Th is i s p ar t icu lar ly t rue o f t he monu men ts o f t he p re-cons tan t in ian p er iod wh ich , a rchaeo log ica l ly s peak ing , i s c hao t ic .

T he g raves , whe ther o f mar tyrs

o f o therw ise , v enera ted i n t he c ryp ts o f S ic i ly , Nap les a nd R o me a re n e i ther we l l k nown n or w ide ly s tud ied , a nd t here i s n o i ndex o t a l l o f C hr is t ian t o mbs . 1 4 And t h is means , t herefore , t ha t t he t ransfor ma t ions t hey h ave u ndergone i n a n t iqu i ty a nd s ince a re p oor ly u nders tood . 1 5 There i s a lso t he p rob le m o f t he i n terna l a nd e x terna l t rans la t ions o f ' r e l ics , wh ich c an c ause d if f icu l ty e ven f or s o we l l k nown a s i te a s S . S ebas t iano. 1 6 E p igraphy i s b e t ter s erved t hrough t he work o f D ieh l a nd l a ter s cholars , b u t t he p rob le m wh ich s t i l l b es ets t h is s tudy i s t o i den t ify wha t c an b e r egarded a s s pec i f ica l ly Chr ist ian ma ter ia ll 7 a nd t o a scer ta in t o wh ich monu men t , o r e ven p er iod , i nd iv idua l i nscr ip t ions b elong , s ince t hey a re r arely f ound i n s i tu a nd s u f fer p ar t icu lar ly f ro m t he p rob le m o f t hef t a nd a rchaeo log ica l r acke teer ing . Because o f t hese c o mp lex i t ies C hr is t ian Archaeo logy a s ad isc ip l ine h as t ended i n al arge measure t o d eve lop a long a c er ta in , v ery u nders tandab le l i ne .

A ma jor p reoccupa t ion o f s cho larsh ip b o th a t t he p resen t t ime a nd i n

e ar l ier s tages h as b een a c oncern w i th o r ig ins ;

a nd t he s tudy o f t he a rchaeo logy

o f t he e ar ly C hurch h as c en tred i t se l f b as ica l ly o n as earch f or t he g enes is o f Chr is t ian a rch i tec ture a nd a r t .

Why i ts hou ld d o s o i s e asi ly a pprec ia ted :

i n t he f ace o f t he c haos p resen ted b y t he e v idence i tf or ms o f t he b es t means o f o rder ing a nd s ys te ma t is ing t he ma ter ia l . There a re t wo p ossib le ways o f d oing t h is a nd b o th a re much u sed . 1 8 The f i rs t i s t o s tudy t opography , a nd t he s o-ca l led ' t opograph ica l me thod ' h as a s i t s l ead ing e xponen ts t he I ta l ian s choo l o f C hr is t ian a rchaeolog ists .

H ow-

e ver , when c lose ly s cru t in ised i tr evea ls i t se lf n ot t o b e s o much a method a s r a ther a t heory a bou t t he o r ig ins o f C hr is t ian c e me ter ies . s u l t o f t h is t ype o f s tudy i s t he p roduc t ion o f g round p lans ;

The ma jor r e-

a nd i ti gnores t he

i conograph ic e le men ts o f t he ma ter ia l e xcep t i n s o f ar a s t hey a re u sefu l f or p rov id ing i nfor ma t ion w i th r egard t o c hrono lo g y . 1 9 The s econd method o f a pproach , e spec ia l ly i n d ea l ing w ith e v idence o f t he a r t is t ic t ype , h as b een e i ther t o s earch f or t he o r ig in o f C hr is t ian images o r , a s i s p ar t icu lar ly t he c ase w i th works o f t he B yzan t ine p er iod , t o s tudy t he ir f or ma l c o mposi t ion :

t ha t i s , t he e le men ts wh ich when c o mb ined—struc tures ,

l i nes , r hyth ms , c o lours , p erspec t ive —cons t i tu te a work o f a r t .

2

2 0

The method

u sed i s a na logous t o t ha t o f t ex tua l c r i t ic is m i n t he f i e ld o f l i tera ture : a t te mpt ing t o d ec ide wh ich c opy i s b ased o n wh ich , a nd t o e s tab l ish a s te m ma f or e ach mo t i f a nd p ic ture , e tc ., a nd s o t o i so la te i n f luences o n e ach e le men t a nd t hereby e s tab l ish p rovenances . Th is w ork i s o f v a lue i n h e lp ing t owards a ch iev ing a c hronology f or t he monu men ts ;

a nd t he i nves t iga t ion a nd methods

o f a r t h is tory a lways r e turn o ne t o t he r ea lm o f f ac t . Bu t a l though a r t h is tory i t se lf i s a n o rder ly d isc ip l ine , we l l e s tab l ished f or G raeco-Ro man a r t , s o me t i mes i ta ppears t o b e a pp l ied w i th l ess t han r igour i n t he c ase o f e ar ly C hr is t ian a r t a nd a n i mpress ion i s l e f t t ha t i tc an r un t he r isk o f h igh e xposure t o s ub jec t ive c r i t ic is m i n t erms o f h istor ica l j udge men t . Th is i s b ecause t wo d angers c an a r ise f ro m t he ' t ex tua l c r i t ic is m ' me thod when a pp l ied t o t he monu men ts o f t he e ar ly C hurch .

O ne i s t ha t i fr egard i s

p a id o n ly t o t heir o r ig ins , n ot e nough s tudy i s g iven t o t he r epresen ta t ions a s t hey e x ist i n t he mse lves.

A nd t he o ther i s t ha t t he d i f feren t s or ts o f i cono-

g raphy , whe ther b ib l ica l s cenes o r s y mbo l ic s cenes , c an b eco me i nseparably c lassed t ogether b ecause o f as hared r e la t ionsh ip o f f or ms .

I n b o th c ases

a ny i dea o f c on tex t i s l os t . The s econd d anger i s t he more s er ious , f or i tc an e nd i n a mis taken i n terp reta t ion o f t he mean ing o f t he i conography. h ope t o s how i n as ubsequen t c hap ter ,

2 1

A c lear c ase i n p oin t i s , a s I

t he i conography o f O rpheus , where

a ssoc ia t ion o f t he f igure o f Orpheus w i th t hose o f t he G ood S hepherd o r K ing Dav id , made o n t he b as is o f f orma l r e la t ionsh ips , h as c aused mis in terpre ta t ion o f t he mean ing .

Because s y mbo l ic a nd b ibl ica l i conography i n t h is c ase h ave

b een c lassed t oge ther , i n terpre ta t ion h as f a i led t o t ake i n to a ccoun t o ther f act ors a t work i n t he p roduc t ion o f t hese s cenes , a par t f r om t he p ure ly a r t ist ic o nes ;

f ac tors wh ich a re h is tor ica l .

C oncen tra t ion o n ly o n t he f or ma l r ela t ionsh ips a ga in e ncourages a n o vera l l d evelop men ta l a pproach t o t he i conography wh ich i s f ound i n s ta te men ts l i ke : a n i n i t ia l ly ' neu tra l ' s ub jec t d eveloped l a ter i n to a s tandard p or traya l t hrough a n a ssoc ia t ion o f i deas .2 2

A nd t h is f requen t ly e nds i n g enera l ised c onc lus ions

s uch a s , t he a r t o f t he c a taco mbs s tresses o n ly s a lva t ion a nd r ede mp t ion . 23 I ti s i mposs ib le t o c heck t he v a l id i ty o f s uch g enera l isa t ions u n less a g rea ter d egree o f p rec is ion i s i n troduced i n to t he e nqu iry a nd f u l l a l lowance made f or t he h is tor ica l c on tex t a nd t he s ign if icance o f e ach i nd iv idua l i conograph ica l s che me. When t he me thods a re p roper ly u sed a nd t he ma t ter i s l e f t a t t he l eve l o f e l ic i t ing f ac ts a nd o rder ing e v idence , t he s tudy o f t he o r ig ins o f C hr is t ian a r t i s s c ien t i f ic , b u t , a s i s b eco m ing a pparen t a lready , i ti s r arely l e f t a t t h is l eve l .

F or o nce a t heory a bou t t he emergence o f a monumen t h as b een e s tab-

l i shed , i tt ransfers i t se lf a l mos t i m med ia te ly i n to a n i n terpreta t ion a bou t t he n a ture o f C hr is t ian a r t a nd t he mo t ives f or i t s g enesis , wh ich a re v ery d i f feren t p rob le ms i ndeed a nd n eed t o b e d is t ingu ished . b as ica l ly h e ld v iews a bou t t he s ub jec t ;

Th is h appens w i th a l l t he f our

a nd t hey c an b e c r i t ic ised n o t o n ly o n

t h is g round o f f a i lure t o d ist ingu ish b e tween p roble ms , b u t a lso o n t he f ac t t ha t t hey a ppear t o r es t , a s Ib e lieve , o n a misconcep t ion o f C hr is t ian h is tory , f ro m i t s b eg inn ing t o t he t ime o f B yzan t ine i conoc las m , i n s o f ar a s i tt ouches o n t he q ues t ion o f C hr is t ian a r t , a nd wh ich , b ecause o f i t s f undamen ta l i mpor tance , w i l l b e d ea l t w i th a t l eng th i n t he n ex t c hap ter .

3

These f our p os i t ions , wh ich g o b ack t o t he e ar ly d ays o f t he s ub jec t , a re v ery wel l k nown a nd t hey a re s t i l l t he i nf luen t ia l o nes , a l though t hey a re n ow p ropounded i n al ess p o lar ised f orm ;

f or t hey h ave moved i n p ara l le l w i th

t he p ub l ica t ion o f a rchaeo log ica l e v idence , a nd h ave b een mod if ied i n v iew o f r ecen t d iscover ies a ccord ing t o t he i nd iv idua l i n teres ts a nd men ta l i t ies o f t he s cho lars who ma in ta in t he m . Bas ica l ly o u t l ined t hey r un a s f o l lows : a ) e ar ly C hr is t ian a r t was t he p roduc t o f G raceo-Ro man mode ls .

Th is was t he p re-

v a i l ing t heory o f t he n ine teen th a nd e ar ly t wen t ie th c en tur ies d ue l arge ly t o t he a u thor i ta t ive a nd l as t ing c on tr ibu t ion o f D ö lger , a nd t he t heo log ica l e f for ts o f t he H is tory o f Re l ig ions S choo l . 24

Bu t b ecause o f t he d es ire t o a l ly C hr is t ian i ty

a s c lose ly a s p oss ib le w i th p agan is m , t h is t heory made v ery l i t t le a l lowance f or c rea t iv i ty o r i nnova t ion o n t he p ar t o f t he C hr is t ian a r t is ts ;

b ) t he o ppos i te

v iew , t herefore , was ma in ta ined b y W i lper t , who s tressed t he u n ique n a ture o f C hr is t ian a r t , i ns is t ing u pon t he r o le o f d oc tr ine i n i t s c rea t ion . 25

Wh i le

t o v iew t he a r t f ro m t he s tandpo in t o f d ogma was a v a luab le i ns igh t , W i lper t 's work was marred b y ar efusa l t o a ccep t a ny i nher i tance f ro m t he p agan p as t , a nd a lso b y al ack o f t heo log ica l n uance i n t he u nders tand ing o f C hr is t ian d oct r ine i t se l f , d ue p erhaps t o ac er ta in k ind o f C a thol ic v iew o f r evela t ion c urren t a t t he t ime , wh ich s aw t he d epos i t o f f a i th a s a n i n i t ia l a nd u nchang ing who le , a nd wh ich made n o a l lowance f or d eve lop men t o r c hange i n i n terpreta t ion . Th is u se o f d ogma t ic a nachron is m c aused Wi lper t t o f a l l i n to t he e rrors o f f ac t a nd c hrono logy f or wh ich h e h as b een c r i t ic ised e ver s ince .2 6

Bu t h is

i nsigh t h as b een u sed i n a mod i f ied f or m b y t he s cho lars who h ave p laced emphas is o n o ther C hr is t ian f ac tors a s p oss ible r easons f or t he d eve lop men t o f C hr is t ian a r t s uch a s t he l i turg y o f t he C hurch a nd t he f unera l c u l t ;2 7

c )

t he t h ird p osi t ion h o lds t ha t G nos t ic is m was t he o r ig in o r C hr is t ian a r t , a nd i th as b een r ev ived i n r ecen t y ears b y C orby F inney , who i n a n a s y e t u nf in ished s tudy i n tends t o c o mp le te a f u l l i nves t iga t ion o f t he q ues t ion . 28

The d i f f icu l ty

h ere i s t ha t t he a r t o f t he Ro man c a taco mbs a nd o f t he s arcophag i wh ich a re r e la ted t o t he m s ee ms t o b e who l ly o r thodox ;

t he o n ly p oss ib le p ieces o f

a rchaeo log ica l e v idence wh ich migh t b e made t o s uppor t t he G nos t ic t heory a re t hose p rov ided b y t he e n igma t ic p a in t ings o f t he h ypogeu m o f t he V ia le Manzon i a nd t he t o mb o f V ibia , a nd wh ich wou ld c ons t i tu te a n e xcep t ion r a ther t han t he r u le . 29 The c a taco mb o f t he V ia La tina , b es ides b e ing l a te , may b e d iscoun ted a s d iv id ing i t se l f r a ther i n to Chr is t ian a nd p agan a reas ; t here s ee ms t o b e n o t race o f h e terodox i deas i n t he p a in t ings o f t he C hr is t ian t o mbs , wh ich d isp lay s cr ip tua l s ub jec ts a nd n eu tra l mo t i fs ;3 0

d ) t he f our th t heory ,

o ne wh ich i s much t o t he f ore i n c urren t d iscuss ion , i s t ha t o f t he d ependence o f C hr is t ian a r t o n J ew ish mode ls o r p roto types . I ti s i n t he s tud ies o f Kur t We i tz mann t ha t t he a rgu men t h as b een mos t c ogen t ly p resen ted t ha t C hr is t ian a r t d er ives f ro m J ew ish i l lus tra ted manuscr ip ts o f t he B ible .3 1 B u t t h is v iew c an n ever b e r egarded a s more t han h ypo the t ica l s ince n one o f t hese s upposed e ar ly i l lus tra ted t ex ts e x is t .

I n a dd i t ion , s o me o f t he mot i fs t o b e f ound i n

C hr is t ian a r t a ppear t o h ave b een d er ived f ro m J ew ish l egend r a ther t han J ew ish S cr ip ture , a nd s o p erhaps a re t o b e i n terpre ted a s c om ing f ro m J ew ish l i terary s ources a nd n o t f ro m p ic tor ia l mode ls . d eve loped b y S trauss ,

3 2

Th is p oin t was made a nd

a nd i n h is v iew a d iscuss ion o f t he e v idence wou ld

s how t ha t i n t he r epresen ta t ions i n Ro me , a nd a lso p resu mab ly o n t he A pameaK ibo tos c o in t ype ,

3 3

t here was t he p oss ib le i nf luence o f J ew ish s tor ies a nd

f olk lore wh ich h ad c urrency i n t he p agan w or ld o f t he t ime , b o th i n l i tera ture

4

a nd a r t —as i n t he P o mpe ian p a in t ing u sua l ly t hough t t o r epresen t t he J udge men t o f S o lo mon , i n wh ich t he f igures a re c ar ica tured a s p ygm ies .

3 4

Among t hose

who b e l ieve i n t he t heory o f t he J ew ish a n teceden ts o f C hr is t ian a r t S trauss ' v iews a re v ery i n f luen t ia l , b u t l i ke We i tz mann 's h ypothes is , h is a lso , a l though p ersuas ive , l acks c onc lus ive e v idence .

There i s n oth ing , t herefore , t o s how

t ha t t he e ar l ies t b ib l ica l s cenes i n t he Chr is t ian c a taco mbs a nd o n t he s arcophag i were d er ived f ro m a ny p re-ex is t ing J ew ish w orks o f a r t .

They were c er ta in ly

n o t b ased o n J ew ish a r t i n Ro me , f or J ew ish a r t i n t he c ap i ta l , a s i ti s k nown f ro m t he J ew ish c a taco mbs , c o mbined s tock p agan mot i fs w i th u nequ ivoca l ly J ew ish o b jec ts s uch a s t he menorah , b u t p roduced n o f igure s cenes b ased o n t he B ib le o r o ther J ew ish l i terary s ources .

3 5

Chr is t ian a r t , o n t he o ther h and ,

b es ides i t s s y mbol ic a ppropr ia t ion , u sed f igured a r t o f u l t i ma tely p agan d er iv a t ion a nd a lso a r estr ic ted r eper to ire o f b ib l ica l e p isodes f ro m t he S cr ip tures ; b oth o ccur t ogether , f or e xa mp le , i n t he e ar l ies t k nown C hr is t ian v au l t , t ha t o f t he J u l i i u nder S t . P e ter 's a t Ro me.

3 6

When t he t heor ies a re s e t o u t i n t h is way , i t may b e s een t ha t t he whole p rob le m o f o r ig ins i s n o t a s e asy o ne , a nd c an p roduce w ide ly d i f fer ing i n terp reta t ions .

A nd i fo ne a sks why t h is s hou ld b e s o , i t s ee ms t ha t much o f t he

c on fusion may b e t raced t o t he u se o f t he t er m ' or ig in ' wh ich i s amb iguous i n i t se l f ;

a nd i s o f ten emp loyed i n s evera l u nd i f feren t ia ted s enses a t o nce ,

mak ing i td if f icu l t t o d is t ingu ish wha t i n f ac t i s u nder d iscuss ion :

t he f or ma l

o r ig in , t he c hronolog ica l o r ig in o r t he s oc ia l a nd g eograph ica l o r ig in o f Chr is t ian a r t . Any a t te mp t , t herefore , t o p roduce a c r i t ique o f t he o r ig ins o f Chr is t ian a r t o ugh t t o b eg in b y t rying t o b e more p rec ise ;

a nd b y a sk ing wha t i s t he

r oo t p roble m a bou t C hr is t ian a r t wh ich i s l y ing b enea th a l l d iscussion a bou t i t s o r ig ins , i n wha tever manner t he l a t ter may man i fes t i t sel f . A nd t h is a ppears t o r educe i t sel f t o t he q ues t ion o f t he n a ture o f C hr is t ian a r t . S o , t he f irs t t ask must b e t o t ry t o d ef ine t he n a ture o f Chr is t ian a r t , a nd t hen t o a sk why i tc ame i n to b eing a t ac er ta in t ime a nd i n wha t c on tex ts . I .

THE NATURE OF CHR ISTIAN ART , THE QUEST ION OF I TS I DENTITY AND DEFIN ITION , AND I TS RELAT IONSH IPS , CAUSES AND CONTEXTS I n l ook ing a t t he p rob le m o f t he i den t i ty o f C hr ist ian a r t i ts ee ms e ssen t ia l

t o b eg in b y s epara t ing t wo c oncep ts wh ich a re d is t inc t a nd y et h ave o f ten b een c on fused i n s cho lar ly d iscuss ions .

These a re t he c oncep ts o f o r ig ina l i ty —

wh ich means s o me th ing n ove l o r f resh i n c harac ter o r s tyle , a nd wh ich i s u nder ived o r i ndependen t o f wha t h as b een p roduced b efore ;

a nd t ha t o f c rea t iv i ty —

s o me th ing wh ich , t hough p roceed ing f ro m a n e s tab l ished b ase , y e t c a l ls i n to e x is tence s o meth ing c o mp le tely n ew b ecause a f resh c oncep t ion h as e n tered i n to t he o ld f or m , mak ing t he r esu l t n ot s i mp ly a c opy o r a n i m i ta t ion b u t a n ew p roduc t ion o f h u man i n te l l igence a nd p ower . When t h is d is t inc t ion h as b een made , t hen o ne i s a b le t o s ay a t t he o u tse t t ha t wha t c ons i tu tes t he s pec i f ic i den t i ty o f Chr is t ian a r t , a nd i t s d is t inc t iveness , o ver a ga ins t a ny o ther r e l ig ious a r t o f i t s own t ime o r mi l ieu , mus t b e i t s c rea t iv i ty.

F or i ti s o bv ious a t o nce t ha t t here i s n o s ense i n wh ich Chr is t ian

a r t c an b e t hough t o f a s o r ig ina l .

The f or ma l a nd c hrono log ica l f ra mework o f

t he e le men ts o f i t s s y mbo l is m i s q u i te c lear ly i nher i ted f ro m t he p agan a r t is t ic p as t a nd a lso f ro m t he c on te mporary p agan a r t is t ic mi l ieu . 5

And s o i t mus t b e

t ha t t he p roble ms o f Chr is t ian a r t a nd a rchaeo logy , u nders tood i n t h is s ense , c an o n ly b e p roper ly s tud ied a s p ar t o f t he w ider a nd more c o mp l ica ted p rob le ms o f l a te Ro man i conography , wh ich i s at ype o f s y mbol ic a r t c o m mon t o H e l len is m , J uda is m a nd C hr is t ian i ty a l ike .

The p rob le m o f t he n a ture o f

C hr is t ian a r t i s t herefore b as ica l ly t he q ues t ion o f t he a va i labi l i ty o f s y mbo l ic r epresen ta t ion a nd t he c rea t ive u se made o f i t . Ab r ief s urvey w i l l s how c lear ly t he a va i lab i l i ty t o t he C hr is t ian a r t is t o f s y mbo ls f ro m t he s urround ing m i l ieu , a nd t heir a dop t ion , a nd h ow C hr is t ian a r t , i n i t s f orma l s ide , i s ac on t inuous b ranch o f t he a r t o f t he c lass ica l Ro man wor ld . I n t he C hr is t ian a r t o f t he Wes t , t he s ame i s t rue o f t he Eastern p rov inces a s t he A lexandr ian t o mb s hows , s y mbo l ic f igures o f i n i t ia l ly p agan o r ig in , a nd i dyl l ic a nd p as tora l —buco l ic s e t t ings f or m t he e ar l ies t e f for ts o f C hr is t ian r epresen ta t ion , 3 7 wh ich f ro m t he t ime o f C ons tan t ine a nd t hroughou t t he f our th c en tury , g ive p lace t o v igorous ly p resen ted b ib l ica l , n arra t ive t he mes , a s e xe mp l if ied o n t he f r ieze , c o lumnar a nd ' c i ty-ga te ' s arcophag i o f I ta ly a nd S ou th G au l , a nd i n t he p a in t ings o f t he V ia La t ina c a taco mb ,

3 8

t he mes wh ich ,

i n t he ir t urn , a re s ucceeded b y p ure ly C hr is t ian s y mbo ls o n t he s arcophag i o f Ravenna a nd A qu i ta ine. 3 9 F ina l ly , t he C hr is t ian a nd J ew ish f l oor mosa ics o f t he c hurches a nd s ynagogues o f t he e astern p rov inces o f t he B yzan t ine Emp ire , w i th t he ir b ibl ica l , g enre a nd p agan s y mbo l ic mot i fs ,

4 0

t oge ther w i th t he g rea t

b ibl ica l a nd i dyl l ic wa l l a nd v au l t mosa ics o f t he Ravenna c hurches , S S . C os ma e Dami a n° , Mar ia Magg iore a nd P udenziana i n R o me ,

4 2

4 1

a nd o f

a nd t he

Euphras ian b as i l ica a t P ore ' d "b r ing t he h is tory o f b oth l a te a n t ique a nd monumen ta l C hr is t ian r e l ig ious a r t t o ac lose . 43 I ti s c lear t hen t ha t , f orma l ly s peak ing , Chr is t ian a r t i s r oo ted i n p agan a r t ;

a nd t h is f ac t may h e lp u s t o g o f ur ther a nd s ugges t a n a nswer t o o ne o f

t he ma in p uzzles o f i t s s tudy , t he a pparen t ly s udden a ppearance o f C hr ist ian a r t i n t he t h ird c en tury.

For t he p r i mary o r ig in o f a l l a nc ien t Ro man a r t was

t he u rge t o d ecora te emp ty s paces ;

a s c an b e s een f ro m e xamp les s tre tch ing

f ro m t he l a te Repub l ic t o t he f our th c en tury A .D . i n p agan a r t . 44

No Chr is t ian

o r J ew ish a r t wh ich may b e d a ted b efore 2 00 A .D . h as y e t b een r ecogn ised , a nd i n Ro me a nd I ta ly , a nd i n t he c ase o f af ew k nown e ar ly monu men ts f ro m e as tern c oun tr ies , s uch a s t he Dura c hape l a nd s ynagogue , i t was p agan a r t wh ich g ave t he u l t i ma te s t i mu lus t o Chr is t ian a c t iv i ty. 45 p ar t o f a man 's c om for t i n t he a nc ien t wor ld a s n ow . may wel l h ave b een , t here fore , i n i t ia l ly a l ay d e mand .

Ar t was a s much a

And s o C hr is t ian a r t Bu t t here i s n o e v i-

d ence t o s uggest t ha t i t was l i ke ly t o h ave b een d isapproved o f b y t he c lerg y ; a nd f or t he s ame r eason , t oo , i t s ee ms u nnecessary t o a ccep t t he v iew t ha t t he c ause o f i t s a ppearance was t ha t a t t imes o f p ersecu t ion t he l a i ty g o t o u t o f c on trol a nd i ndu lged i n a n o rg y o f u nau thor ised a r t .

The t wo-d i mens iona l

n a ture o f t he C hr is t ian r epresen ta t ions , i nc lud ing t he C leve land J onah f igures , d e mons tra tes t ha t n o q ues t ion o f i dola try o r t heory a bou t t he mak ing o f images was i nvo lved . 46

I tn eed n ot b e e i ther , o n t h is s how ing , t ha t t he a bsence o f a r t

i n t he f irs t a nd s econd c en tur ies i mp l ies a n icon is m , a s s cho lar ly c onsensus h as t ended t o h o ld .

I ti s s i mp ly t he c onco m i tan t o f t he f ac t t ha t n o a r t c ou ld

s peci f ica l ly e x is t u n t i l t he c o m mun i ty h ad p laces a va i lab le f or d ecora t ion .

I t

i s s e l f-ev iden t t ha t n o a rchaeo log ica l i den t i ty was p ossib le u n t i l t he c o m mun i ty was ma ter ia l ly i den t if iab le . 47

There i s , o f c ourse , t he p oss ibi l i ty o f i t s

e x is tence e ar l ier , b u t t h is r e ma ins b es ide t he p oin t s ince t here i s n o s urv iv ing e v idence o f i t . 6

This means then, that, jnst as in the case of the formal origin of Christian art, so far as its chronological and social genesis is concerned, there is again nothing original to be found, and that once more the agent or influence at work here is pagan art. So newness, if it is to be credited at all to Christian art, must be sought for elsewhere. That it exists is true, and a look at the surv�y of the development of Christian art as outlined above is helpful here. For if it is examined again, it can be seen that some sort of transition has taken place, that a period which begins with Christian art as formally indistinguishable from pagan art, ends with late antique art disappearing into something regarded as distinctively Christian; but something which is yet still not identifiable with the future artistic development known as the Byzantine style. Cre ativity must be at work in Christian art; but if it does not lie in the style, it must, then be looked for in the realm of meaning. So it is the conviction of this book that 'Christian art' is not a style but a content or meaning given to an image, and that it is from the point of view of innovation in interpretation of content that Christian artists, despite lack of originality, may be thought to be creative-although as history shows, eventually the content did affect the style itself. And in this are a it may be said that Christian art shares in, and emphasises, one of the general paradoxes of the Christian historical patterns: that of continuity and discontinuity. It is the part of the Christian craftsman to provide artistic continuity; in other words, formal symbolism can go on, but iconographic or specific content can change. 4 8 But here again, a careful distinction must be preserved between the actual use of symbolic art and the content put into the images, for in the matter of use, innovation again did not begin with the Christian Church. There was already a strong understanding in the pagan world that the use of sumbols is the only artistic process which can express with some sort of fitness ·an interior religious activity; 49 and it was in fact this form of art which predominated in the age when Christianity first began to make representations. The whole tendency of the age, in keeping with its general outlook, was towards allegory and symbol. And so it is clearly necessary to relate the Christian legacy, both visual and literary, not only to the artistic but also to the social and educational context of the time. If, therefore, Christian art may be regarded as undoubtedly creative, this creativity must lie , with regard

to

content, in

specifically Christian themes drawn from its own beliefs, and, with regard to artistic process, in the technique of selectivity and choice among a whole range of available symbols, which caused the artists to adopt some and disregard others as suitable for their purpose. So that while at the beginning of Christian artistic represe ntation the visual inspiration could only come from the religious and profane imagery that the Christians discovered around them, nevertheless a process of selectivity operates from the beginning and the range only widens late r, in the fourth century, as a full, mate rial Christian culture establishes itself. If this is true, then it means that the Christian representations while testifying to a share in the common love of artistic expression characteristic of the late antique world, and making use of procedures of an essentially ar­ tistic nature, were also serving practical ends; they were concerned to trans­ mit facts and ideas, and therefore the appeal of these images must be primarily

7

to the intellect rather than to the imaginative sense. And so the judgement of the aesthetic value or otherwise of the Christian monuments and the assessment-· of their quality as works of art is not a problem for thestudent of Christian iconography, whose concern is with the ideas. At this point, therefore, we have reached the heart of the discussion and the major concern of this monograph: the problem of the interpretation of _ the images and, by implication, the methodology to be employed in any attempt to ensure that the understanding of the information carried by them is as accurate as possible and not some sort of indulgence in wild speculation. This raises the question of the whole subject of iconography and its relationship to Christian art, and the meaning to be attached to such terms as 'symbol' and 'allegory' etc., which are frequently employed in discussions about the meaning and content of Christian images. III. ICONOGRAPHY AND METHOD. CHRISTIAN ICONOGRAPHY AND TERMINOLOGY. Iconography as an academically serious study began as a reinterpretation of the conception of the Renaissance which had been held by the nineteenth century, and it was associated with a way of studying art history in which the outstanding figures were Aby Warburg and Emile Male. 50 Initially, its area of work was quite specific: it was regarded principally, though not entirely, as the study of the identification of portraits, especially those to be found on coins, but it was expanded in the twentieth century to cover the whole investi­ gation of the subject matter of any visual representations. It is usually con­ sidered as having two branches, secular and religious, ·and in the field of secular iconography the leading scholars are Erwin Panofsky and his school, 51 who have been concerned not so much with the use of iconography as an aid to identification of subject matter, such as portraits on coins, but as a means of enquiry into the development of themes and the transformation they have undergone-for example, the images of the planets in astrological representations. The ideal aimed at is to analyse in each case the relationship between the idea and the image and so to try and understand the elements which contribute to the making of a work of art. The method is the same in tlie field of religious iconography, where an early, pioneering contribution of importance was made by the French scholar Didron in his Annales Archeologiques (1844 on) and his two volumes Christian Iconography; he did much _to explain the meaning of the symbolism to be found in the figures adorning Chartres Cathedral.52 The discipline has always had its critics, 53 and two of the immediately obvious hazards to be encountered in any effort to explain symbolism, whether secular or religious, are those of subjectivity, and over-interpretation. But if the method is truly scientific, as is claimed, the results, far from being speculative, should be able to meet exacting standards of demonstration. So in order to achieve this, the association of and identification of texts connected with the illustrations under discussion are always held to be part of the method, and to be that which provides the element of control which saves interpretation from becoming too speculative. What is desired is that an illustration should be matched by a text or series of texts which account for all its chief elements. By bringing together a knowledge of texts and a knowledge of pictures, the interpreter is able to fuse the subject matter and images, and the resulting 8

interpretation becomes, it is hoped, the reconstruction of a lost piece of evi­ dence. The evidence should then help to clarify the meaning of a story in a particular context, since meanings change over a passage of time, and the case may then be regarded as proved. This method can apply in any field of iconography, and it has been used in the attempt to understand the Christian representations discussed in this thesis, but only as one useful tool in an overall historical study. For the method, which, it must always be remembered, was .elaborated primarily as an instrument of art history and for the elucidation of modern works of art where the state of availability of evidence is quite different, cannot be auto­ matically and never over-rigorously applied to the art of the early Church. This is partly because of the parlous condition of the archaeological evidence described earlier and the limited amount which survives of the early literature; but a far more serious reason is the whole climate of thought in the early Church. This may be seen by considering the biblical images of the third and early fourth centuries. There are a number of images or cycles (Noah, Daniel, Jonah, etc.) in the art of the early Church which cannot be explained as the clear illustration of a given text: they do not, despite their scriptural origin, correspond with the biblical account nor-pace Le Blant, who used the icono­ graphical method-the Commendatio Animae. 54 It also seems to be the case from the catacomb of Priscilla that patrons could lay down subjects to be illustrated, such as the strange scene containing the female figure usually referred to as the 'Donna Velata';55 or they could se�k the aid of a learned man, as in the case of the 'philosophers' of the workshop in P annonia, to supply what modern American studies calls a 'programme'-the presentation of themes through a series of illustrations. 56 Whether this was of frequent occurrence or whether the Pannonian example is unique we do not known, although there is late evidence of a school of mosaicists in Gaza in the sixth century. 57 So, in the case of early Christian art, the problem of the use of the icono­ graphical method and the limitation of its application must be considered in relation to the problem of accuracy of in_terpretation. For even if texts are employed to arrive at the meaning of the significance of a representation, there could be a large measure of doubt as to the possibility of its being the correct one, unless it is always borne in mind that the literary sources them­ selves have a context. And so the interpreter must have, from the outset, an understanding of the kind of programme likely to be imposed on a Christian artist; hence the paramount importance of the grasp of the theological ideas current at the time. All historical research much depend on what is or is not possible within a certain period or milieu, and in the case of the early Christian images, this means primarily the theological milieu, since all belong to the category of religious art. It therefore becomes a matter of fact that, removed from the literary, social and educational as well as the political and religious context, in others words, from the life and thought of the ancient Church from which they flow, neither these images which do not correspond to a simple text, nor any others, can be correctly interpreted. 9

This is why I believe that nothing could be further from the truth than the 'dictionary' understanding of Christian art as it is found, for example, in the fundamental study of Chris_t_!_�n_icon�!�P��-made by Grabar. His the�ry began with the conviction that the early Christian images were to be seen essentially in the context of the general Hellenised-Western Roman tradition of art, which is undoubtedly true. But then, basing himself on the notion of the interdependence of artistic life in the late Roman world, he went on to discuss the meanings of the Christian images, and so proceeded to establish what appears to be a theory of iconographical constants which can b�read as in a dictionary and can provide the key to the puzzles o.f Christian art. 58 Once a set of constants (for example, Lazarus images = resurrection, vine = eucharist) has been established, one can then demonstrate the function of an image. Klauser pursued a similar path with his identifications, such as Good Shepherd = philanthropia, orans = pietas. Since Grabar's book is essential to the study of Christian iconography, it may be his theory which is responsible for the impression that one receives from some recent writings that symbols have a one-to-one relationship between the sign and its meaning. 60 What is lacking in the interpretation of Grabar and of other scholars is the sense of context: that is, the theological dimension involved. This is a surprising omission-and Grabar openly disavows theological interest61-when one considers that all scholars acknowledge early Christian art to be religious. But it is to be explained by the fact that the evidence and its discussion are in the hands of scholars whose major field of interest is non-theological, while the professional theologians themselves, including the patristic scholars, confine themselves mainly to the literary remains of the early Church. Two scholars, Danielou and H. Hahner, did try in collections of texts, which are of great value to iconographers, to make some kind of contact with the arch­ aeological mate-rial but not in any deeply serious way. 62 Hugo Rabner's book on symbolism is relatively neglected, largely owing to the unfortunate stand­ point taken in presenting his material;63 and while as a collector of texts Danielou is unsurpassed, his overall conclusions are not always reliable. Once the theological dimension is accepted, the dictionary id�a of necessity falls to the ground because of the relationship of ancient theology, based on the contemporary form of Platonism in which the early Church from the Apologists onwards was steeped, to questions of meaning and symbolism. Far from any conception of symbols as an agreed sign-language, the basic premiss from which the mind of the early Church worked was that the meaning of a sign was hidden and only revealed itself to those who knew how to look for the answer. It was this idea that lay behind the whole allegorical interpretation of Scripture which, deriving ultimately from the allegorisation of Homer, reached its peak in the third century with Origen. This conception has its roots in religion rather than in art and it sees symbolisation as of divine origin, mysteriously communicated. It is a method of biblical exegesis, and this must surely be the tradition to which Christian art belongs. On this view, therefore, far from being unambiguous, a symbol could have several meanings, and conversely several images may illustrate one theme: so that a meal may be the feeding of the five thousand, a funerary feast, or the Eucharist, or the heavenly banquet of the afterlife; and the resurrection may be symbolised by Jonah, Lazarus or a tomb. The very 'openness' of some of the symbols of early

10

C hr is t ian a r t may b e d e l ibera te . I ti s e ssen t ia l , t herefore , i n my v iew , t ha t C hr is t ian i conography must s tar t w i th a s tudy o f i ns t i tu t ions , t ha t i s , t he Church a nd i t s t rad i t ion , r a ther t han a s tudy o f s y mbo ls u nders tood a s c ons tants a nd t hen d ecoded . A nc ien t t heo log ians , b e long ing t o ad i fferen t t hough t wor ld f rom o urs , t end t o ' r ei fy ' t he ir t heo log y— tha t i s , a n o r ig ina l f ac t o f p ersona l e xper ience ( f or e xamp le , Bapt is m ) t ends t o b e l a id h o ld o f b y t heir c onsc iousness i n s uch away a s t o b e o b jec t if ied i n p ic tures . P rocesses a nd r e la t ionsh ips b eco me t h ings ( f or e xa mp le , g race , i n t he d iscuss ion o f Augus t ine a nd P e lag ius , i s a c om mod i ty , d iscussed i n t erms o f t h ing ly c ausa l i ty ) a nd s ta tes ( such a s h eaven ) b eco me p laces .

Th is i s u nderstandab le b ecause o f t he i n trac tab i l i ty o f t he

n a ture o f t he ma ter ia l b eing d ea l t w i th .

Bu t i t makes t he c rea t ion o f a n i cono-

g raphy p oss ib le —C le men t o f A lexandr ia 's v erba l a l legor ies c ry o u t f or i l lust ra t ion —and i ta lso makes p oss ib le i t s i n terpre ta t ion ; b u t ad egree o f t heo log ica l u nders tand ing i s n ecessary f or p rec is ion i n t h is . H ence , t h is work i s o f fered a s ap iece o f t heo log ica l i nves t iga t ion a nd n ot p r imar i ly a s ac on tr ibu t ion t o t he h is tory o r p h i losophy o f a r t . S o when t he t erms ' a l legory ' , ' s y mbo l ' , e tc . a re u sed , t hey a re n o t mean t t o r efer t o a ny p ar t icu lar t ype o f a r t is t ic g enre o r t o c arry a ny s pec i f ic p h i losoph ica l mean ing ; t hey a re u sed w i th in t he s phere o f o rd inary E ng l ish a ccep tance . " S o t ha t ' s y mbo l ' , wh ich c an b e u sed i n E ng l ish o f a lmos t a ny s ign , s imp ly means a f igure wh ich s tands f or s o me p rocess o r o b jec t , a nd ' a l legory ' t he t e l l ing o f as tory i n ad i f feren t way. B o th t hese words a re i n t ia l ly t aken o ver f ro m l i ngu is t ic c oncep ts b ecause o f t he r e la t ionsh ip b etween t he i dea o f c o m mun ica t ion a s a n o n to log ica l r ea l i ty a nd i t s embod imen t i n t he l i terary a nd v isua l a r ts a s t wo modes o f i t s e xpress ion , a nd t he l i nk wh ich f orms t he t ransference b e tween t he m i s s een a s t he me taphor o r a l legor y. 65 S o i ti s i n t he s ense o f t he i n terac t ion o f t he a r ts i n t he a nc ien t wor ld a nd i n t he a nc ien t C hurch t ha t , Ib e l ieve , at ex t i s n eeded t o c on tro l mean ing i n ap ic ture , where t he i mp l ica t ion o f c o m mun ica t ion i s c arr ied o ver . The t heo log ians o f t he e ar ly C hurch were b rough t u p i n t he r he tor ica l t rad i t ion , a nd t he p urpose o f r hetor ic a ccord ing t o C icero was t o p ersuade .6 6 The C hr is t ian i mages w ere mean t t o t each , a nd t here was a n o ld e duca t iona l t rad i t ion wh ich t hough t t ha t v isua l a ppea l h ad a more l as t ing e f fec t t han v erba l i nstruc t ion . 67 I V. CONCLUS ION I ft he f oregoing a na lysis i s t rue , o ne may s ay a t t he e nd t ha t c urren t d isc uss ion t ends t o min im ise C hr is t ian c rea t iv i ty i n t he a rea o f a r t , a nd t o s ee i ta s ad epar tmen t o f a nd a c on t inua t ion o f Ro man i mper ia l a r t ; a nd t ha t t h is i s t o b e t raced t o a n o bscur i ty i n t he p ursu i t o f t he s o-ca l led o r ig ins o f C hr is t ian a r t . A c onfusion wh ich migh t b e r egarded a s o ne b e tween c ause a nd p urpose.

The c ause a nd p urpose o f at h ing a re n ot t he s ame , a nd i ti s

n ever e asy t o p in d own t he e xac t o r ig in o f a nyth ing u n less o ne c ases o nese lf o n at heory o f c ausa l i ty wh ich s ees c auses a s c ha ins , a s t he ' or ig ins ' p ursu i t s ee ms t o d o . The ma t ter i s more e lus ive a nd c o mp lex . The mos t t ha t c an b e s a id a bou t t he c ausa l o r ig in o f e ar ly C hr ist ian a r t i s wha t i s ama t ter o f o bservable f ac t : t he J udaeo-Chr is t ian t rad i t ion f e l t a n

1

u rge t owards d ecora t ion wh ich d epended o n p agan a r t f or i t s t echn ique a nd s tyle , a nd e xpressed i t se l f i n g roups a nd f igures wh ich c ou ld i nc lude s uch s tock p agan s y mbols a s Bacch ic f i gures , h eads , masks , S easons , W inds , V ic tor ies , C up ids a nd P syches , a nd p as tora l s e t t ings s o me t imes o f aq u i te c onsp icuous a nd e labora te c harac ter . Bu t w i th t he q uest ion o f p urpose o r i n ten t ion , t he ma t ter i s d i f feren t , s ince t he i n tended mean ing i s at heo log ica l c a tegory ; t ha t i s , ac a tegory o f s oc ia l a ccep tance w i th in a r e l ig ious c o mmun i ty. I ti s c lear ly l i nked w i th S cr ip ture , d oc tr ine a nd t he c on te mporary wr i t ings o f t he Fa thers ; a nd p agan r el ig ious a r t l acked s uch c lar ifying t ex ts , s o f ar a s we k now . Thus , i fi ti s t rue t ha t t he i mages o f a ny p er iod a re l i nked t o t he u n iverse o f mean ing o f t he mi lieu i n wh ich t hey were c rea ted , t hen i ts hou ld , i n f ac t , b e p ossib le t o s how t ha t awho le n ew c on ten t i s b eing i n jec ted i n to a lready e s tabl ished a r t f orms , p ar t icu lar ly i n t he a reas o f d ea th a nd a f ter l i fe , i n wh ich t he C hr ist ians were i n a n e spec ia l ly f avourable p osi t ion i n v iew o f t he ir d oct r ine o f t he p erson a nd work o f C hr is t ; a nd t he f ac t t ha t mar tyrdo m , s een i n t h is c on tex t , was a c ruc ia l p o in t o f d i f feren t ia t ion f or t he m f ro m t he s oc ie ty i n wh ich t hey l i ved . B efore mov ing o n t o t h is , h owever , av er y d if f icu l t p rob le m mus t b e t rea ted . F or t he a na lysis s o f ar h as b ased i t se lf o n t he p resupposi t ion t ha t t here was a p os i t ive a ccep tance a nd u se o f a r t b y t he e ar ly Church a s ac o mp le men t t o i t s l i tera ture , a nd t ha t b o th f orms t oge ther make u p i t s mode o f t heo log ica l e xpression . Bu t s o t o t h ink means p lac ing o nesel f i n o ppos i t ion t o t he e n t ire c onsensus o f s cho lar ly o pin ion , wh ich b e l ieves t ha t t he e ar ly C hurch was h os t i le t o a r t is t ic r epresen ta t ion .

I f , t herefore , t he p resuppos i t ion

o f t he s tudy i s t o b e ma in ta ined , a n e f for t mus t b e made t o r ein terpre t t h is q ues t ion .

1 2

CHAPTER I ART AND THE EARLY CHURCH

I ti s u n iversa l ly h e ld t o b e af ac t t ha t t he e ar ly C hurch was h os t i le t o a r t .

1

The v iew r ece ived c on f irma t ion i n ar e lazione t o t he N in th I n terna t iona l C ong ress o f C hr is t ian Archaeo log y wh ich met a t Ro me i n 1 975 , a nd h as a lso b een made t he b as is f or a n a ssess men t o f t he b ackground t o t he B yzan t ine i conoc las t ic c on troversy i n ar ecent b ook b y L . W. Barnard .2

H owever , i ti s t he p urpose

o f t h is c hap ter t o i nves t iga te whe ther t h is a ccep ted f ac t h as a ny f ounda t ion i n r ea l i ty , o r whe ther i ti s s i mp ly a n e xa mp le o f t he p heno menon b y wh ich r epea ted a sser t ion r a ises t o t he l eve l o f e s tab l ished t ru th wha t was i n i t ia l ly ama t ter o f s cholar ly o p in ion . I .

THE HOSTIL ITY THEORY The r eason why ama t ter o f c on jec ture s hou ld a ppear t o b e a ma t ter o f f ac t

i s n o t h ard t o f ind :

r epet i t ion h as n o t o n ly s tandard ised t he c on ten t o f t heory ,

b u t t he f orm i n wh ich i tr ece ives p resen ta t ion h as b y n ow b eco me c lass ica l .

3

A l though i tr ece ives s l igh t mod i f ica t ion a s i ti s r ehand led , n ever the less t he b as ic o u t l ine a nd c on ten t r e ma in t he s a me , a nd i t may b e b r ief ly s u m mar ised a s f o l lows .

Fro m i t s o r ig in i n J uda is m , Chr is t ian i ty i nher i ted i t s p ure a nd

s p ir i tua l worsh ip o f G od ' i n s p ir i t a nd t ru th ' a nd a long w i th t h is , t herefore , a

•

h ost i l i ty t o r e l ig ious a r t is t ic r epresen ta t ion wh ich b o th r e l ig ions i den t i f ied w i th p agan p rac t ice .

The s econd o f t he Ten C o m mand men ts h ad f orbidden I srae l

t he mak ing o f a ny g raven i mages a nd t he a u thor i ta t ive l eaders o f t he Chr is t ian c o m mun i ty s uch a s Ter tu l l ian , C le men t o f A lexandr ia , Eusebius , a nd Ep iphan ius r igh t u p t o Augus t ine , c ons idered t h is p roh ibi t ion a s a bso lu te a nd b ind ing o n C hr is t ians a lso.

Yet b y t he e nd o f t he s econd c en tury C hr is t ians were e xpres-

s ing t he ir f a i th i n a rt is t ic t erms i n a move men t g a ther ing e ver more mo men tu m . Never theless , t he o lder a nd p urer s tra in o f r e l ig ion was n ot l os t , f or i tr ema ined o pera t ive a t t he o f f ic ia l l evel , among t he c hurch a u thor i t ies , who c ont i nued t o man i fes t t he ir d isapprova l i n t he ma t ter .

O r ig ina l ly , a r t is t ic d isp lays

h ad b een s hy o f p or tray ing C hr is t a nd o f mak ing r epresen ta t ions o f t he c en tra l mys ter ies o f t he Chr is t ian r e l ig ion , p ar t icu lar ly o f t he Cross a nd Resurrec t ion .; Bu t b y t he f our th c entury , i fn ot e ar l ier a s i s s o me t imes s a id , a ny s ense o f r es tra in t o r i nh ib i t ion h ad v an ished , a nd i mages o r i cons r epresen t ing i nd iv idua l p ersons h ad b eco me t he c harac ter is t ic f orm o f p ersona l p iety. They h ad t hus e n tered t he C hurch f ro m b elow a ga ins t t he o lder f orm o f a us ter i ty wh ich was a lways p resen t a t ah igher l evel , a nd mis trus t o f t he i con e rup ted i n t he e igh th c en tury i n to t he b i t ter s trugg le o f t he i conoc las t ic c on troversy wh ich e nded u l t i ma te ly i n 8 43 w i th t he i con t r iumphan t o ver t he p urer s p ir i t o f Chr is t ian i ty. When t he t heory i s s um mar ised i n t h is way i tb eco mes c lear wha t t he p rob le m was t o wh ich i ta ddressed i t se l f ;

t here a ppears t o b e ad ivergence b e-

t ween t he a r t a nd t he l i tera ture o f t he e ar ly C hurch .

1 3

A nd s ince t he ma ter ia l

r e ma ins a re e v iden t ly i n c onf l ic t w i th t he t ex ts o f t he Fa thers , ah ypo thes is was n ecessary wh ich w ou ld e xp la in i t . The d i f f icu l ty was r eso lved b y mak ing t he a r t o r ig ina te w i th t he l a i ty i n o ppos i t ion t o t he c lergy. t ha t t he s o lu t ion l ooks e x tre me ly n ea t ;

O ne c an o n ly s ay

i tc overs a l l e ven tua l i t ies a nd i s

a pparen t ly f oo lproof . I ti s n o t s urpr is ing , t herefore , t ha t d esp i te t he wea l th o f n ew ma ter ia l wh ich h as b een d iscovered i n t he i n ter im , i th as r e ma ined u nexam ined f or more o r l ess f i f ty y ears . Who i nven ted i ti s af asc ina t ing q uest ion a nd a s earch f or i t s o r ig in a ppears t o l ead t o Renan , who made Chr is t ian i ty a n orma t ive ly i conophob ic r el ig ion b ecause o f i t s J ew ish ma tr ix .4

I n h is v iew t he e ar ly Church was c o mple te ly

o pposed t o images p r ior t o t he t h ird c en tury when , a s t he r esu l t o f i t s t ransp lan ta t ion t o aG raeco-Ro man e nv iron men t f r iend ly t o a r t , i tl os t i t s e ssen t ia l ly a n icon ic n a ture t hrough p ressure t o c on form .

S ince t h is was b as ica l ly d ev ia-

t i on is t i n t er ms o f t he i n i t ia l p ur i ty , Renan made G nost ic is m t he o r ig in o f C hr is t ian a r t .

5

The p resupposi t ion h ere i s o bv ious :

a s J uda is m was h os t ile

t o a r t , s o a ny r e l ig ion o f wh ich i t was t he s ource mus t a u to ma t ica l ly b e h os t i le t oo.

Th is s a me p resuppos i t ion a lso u nder l ies t he monu men ta l work o f v on

Dobsch t l tz .6 V on Dobsch t i tz was t he s cho lar f ro m who m t he c lass ica l p resen ta t ion o f t he t heory r ece ived i t s f ra mework , w i th i t s o pen ing s en tence d escr ibing C hr is t ian i ty a s t he worsh ip o f G od i n s p ir i t a nd i n t ru th a ccord ing t o J ohn i v . 2 4 , a nd t he r eference t o t he Deca logue p roh ibi t ion , wh ich h as b een r epea ted e ver s ince .

Von Dobschü tz , t oo , s ee ms t o h ave b een t he f irs t t o c o mpose

t he s tandard l i st o f p a tr is t ic t ex ts r egarded a s s uppor t ing t he v iew o f ar igorous o f f ic ia l a t t i tude t owards a r t .7 Bu t t he ma jor s ubs tan t ia t ion , g iv ing t he h ypo thes is t he g enera l a ccep tance i th as h ad e ver s ince , c ame w i th t he a na lys is o f t he l i terary e v idence made b y K och a nd E i l iger .

8

The ir s tudy l ed t he m t o c onc lude t ha t ac ont inuous

t hread o f o f f ic ia l h os t i l i ty t o a r t c ou ld b e t raced i n l ead ing c hurch men f ro m t he b eg inn ing t o Augus t ine . I n as econd e xhaus t ive monograph E i l iger a t te mp ted t o c oord ina te h is l i terary a na lys is w i th t he a rchaeo log ica l e v idence s o a s t o make c lear t he f ac tors f avour ing o r r e tard ing t he d evelop men t o f C hr is t ian a r t a nd t o d ef ine t he c on tr ibu t ions o f t he v ar ious r eg ions o f t he Ro man Emp ire t o i t .

9

Bo th s cholars worked f ro m Renan 's a nd v on Dobsch i l tz 's v iewpoin t

o f ap urely s p ir i tua l d ef in i t ion o f J uda is m a nd C hr is t ian i ty a nd t he a dherence o f t he C hr is t ian l eadersh ip t o t he s econd c o m mand men t .

Th is q ues t ion o f t he

Deca logue p roh ibi t ion was p robed more d eep ly s t i l l b y K lauser , a nd h e e lab ora ted y et more f u l ly t he t heory t ha t C hr is t ian a r t was t he p roduc t o f c er ta in c irc les o f t he l a i ty who o pposed t he mse lves t o t he t each ing a u thor i ty o f t he C hurch . 1 0 I n c ons truc t ing h is v iew h e a cknow ledged h is d eb t t o t he l i terary work o f K och a nd E i l iger .i i E l l iger 's i n terpre ta t ion o f t he p a tr is t ic e v idence f i na l ly b ecame c anonica l w i th t he u se made o f i tb y Erns t K i tzinger i n a mag is ter ia l a r t ic le o n t he c u l t o f i cons b efore i conoc las m , i n t he s ec t ion i n wh ich h e d ea l t w i th t he c entur ies o f t he C hurch b efore J ust in ian . 1 2

And i ti s K i tzinger 's s tudy , b ased o n t he

i n terpre ta t ion o f t he l i tera ture made b y E i l iger , wh ich i s n ow r egarded a s a u thor i ta t ive i n a l l s ubsequen t d iscuss ions , i nc lud ing t hose o f Breckenr idge a nd Barnard .

1 3

1 4

Why this should be so may at first appear to be surprising when it is remembered that Kitzinger's work was not in the main concerned with the early period. His purpose was toanalyse the cult of images at a time already recog­ nised as crucial, 14 the period between Justinian and Iconoclasm. But it was in order to throw into relief the phenomena new at this time that he went back to look at the attitude of the early Church, with the intention of setting out the maximum amount of textual evidence witnessing to an intensification of cult practices then and to. explore the motives for their development. He took his evidence from .the by now standard treatment of Elliger 15 and arrived at the view that 'an undercurrent of at least potential iconoclasm does in fact run through the entire history of the Church in the intervening centuries', l6 and to the necessity of thinking in terms of a continuing conflict which finally 'erupted into an eXJ?l?s_!o _ n of well-n_igh we,>�!� h��torical import'. 17 Ultimately he reached a thesis 'of practice, opposition and apologetic theory' as characteristic not only of the sixth to the ninth centuries but of the third and fourth as well. 1 8 Kitzinger's authority is not, therefore, to be wondered at since what he has done is to add a further dimension to the hypothesis. In seeing the whole sweep of antagonism to art from the beginning of the Church to the iconoclastic controversy as a genetic and organic development, he has linked it indissolubly with Byzantine iconoclasm. And in doing so has carried it out of the field of early Church history into that of Byzantine studies where it remains as the accepted interpretation of the attitude of the early Church in any discussions connected with the iconoclastic controversy. The patristic evidence, therefore, has changed its context. It will b� noted from the foregoing historical sketch that there are, so to speak, two peak periods of presentation of the hypothesis-the initial pne at the end of the nineteenth century,. which gave it the presuppositions upon which it is based, 1 9 and the confirmation in the work of Kitzinger which provided it with a new content; both are associated, though in different ways, with crises in the discussion of images. So, although the theory ult-imately stands or falls according to whether the documentary evidence from the Fathers, normally adduced in support of it, has in fact been correctly interpreted, nevertheless since the interpretation rests on these presupposition_s about the nature of Christianity as understood by the Fathers of the early period, and about the unbroken link in the matter of attitude of the early Church with the Byzantine Church, it is first of all necessary to discover whether these pre­ suppositions are correct. For if it is found that they are not historically representative of the social context in which the literary evidence was com­ posed, then the interpretation of the texts becomes seriously weakened from the outset. From the point of view of the literary evidence as it touched on matters of art, the essentially spiritual nature of Christianity was regarded as proved by the continual attempt to enforce the second commandment. Therefore a short examination is needed of what is actually known of the use of the Decalogue in the early Church to get the context right, and to see if there is any ground for continuing to believe that the prohibition of the second commandment was taken seriously at the 'official level' since all agree that it was disregarded as the 'popular level'. 15

I t s ee ms c lear f ro m t he s tudy made b y G ran t 2 °t ha t t here was n o r ea l t heo log ica l a na lysis o f t he mean ing o f t he O ld T es tamen t Law a s i ts hou ld b e r e in terpre ted i n t he l i fe o f t he C hurch u n t i l t he m id-second c en tury a nd t hen i t was made b y t he V a len t in ian h eret ic , P to le my . 21 o f t he o r ig in o f t he S hepherd o f H ermas i s t rue ,

2 2

I ndeed , i f G ran t 's t heory t he who le o f t he J ew ish Law

was n eg lec ted i n Ro me i n t he e ar l ies t , s ub-apos to l ic c en tur ies a nd t he Deca logue i t sel f h ad f a l len o u t o f u se among Chr is t ians a t t h is t ime . J us t in 's A po logy i . 1 4-17 d oes n o t e xp l ic i t ly u se t he Deca logue i n t h is c o l lec t ion o f s ayings o n p ar t icu lar v ir tues ; 23

a nd e ven i n t he c ase o f c onver ts i ns truc ted b y C hr is t ian-

J ew ish l eaders , where a pparen t ly t he Deca logue s ee ms t o b e s uperf ic ia l ly o f h igh v a lue , t he meaning i s a l tered . 24 C le men t o f A lexandr ia , wr i t ing f or t he more e le men tary p up i ls o f t he Paedagogus i i .8 9 , s ta tes t ha t t he Deca logue was made k nown o pen ly a nd n ot t hrough e n igmas , t ha t i s , i td oes n o t n eed a l legor isa t ion , b u t when i tc o mes t o t he S tro ma te is v i . 1 33-48 , wr i t ten f or t he more a dvanced , h is r ea l o pin ion c o mes o u t a nd h e e xp la ins a l mos t a l l o f i t s y mbo l ica l ly.

The t rue C hr is t ian d oes n o t n eed t he Deca logue b u t i ti s u sefu l

f or p rov ing t he d iv ine o r ig in o f C hr is t ian g nos t ic is m . 25

A s r egards t he s pe-

c i f ic p roh ib i t ion o f t he s econd c o m mand men t , t he Fa thers d o n ot s ee m t o h ave h ad a ny c lear i dea a bou t t he i n terpre ta t ion o f Mosa ic t ex ts , a nd s o t he ir e xp lana t ions a re n o t a lways c oheren t . 26

A c lear e xamp le c an b e s een i n t he c ase

o f Ter tu l l ian , n orma l ly r egarded a s p roof o f t he r igorous a t t i tude o f c hurch l eaders o n t he p o in t . Marc . i .22 ;

F or a s ound p r inc ip le o f a pproach w e h ave h is A dv .

r epresen ta t ion i s n ot i l lega l b ecause i ti s n o t i do la trous ;

y et

De S pec t . x x .3 a nd Adv . Marc . i v .22 s ee m t o s ugges t t ha t Exodus x x .4 f orb ids r epresen ta t ions o f a l l l i v ing t h ings .

Wha t we h ave i s n o t r ea l ly Ter tu l l ian is

own v iew a bou t t he l ega l i ty o f mak ing i mages , b u t ac onfus ion o f e xeges is r es u l t ing f ro m t he i nabi l i ty t o h armon ise o ne p ar t o f t he O ld Testa men t w i th a no ther .

S cho lars , a nd i n p ar t icu lar K lauser , h ave c red i ted t he Fa thers w i th

ac ons is tency i n t he ma t ter wh ich t hey d o n o t h ave .

I t s ee ms , t here fore ,

t ha t t he p ro tagon is ts o f t he h os t i l i ty t heory h ave b egun w i th a wrong a ssu mp t ion . Th is i s f ur ther b orne o u t i fo ne l ooks b r ie f ly a t t he s uppos i t ion u nder lying t h is a ssu mp t ion :

t ha t h istor ica l J uda is m i t sel f was a n icon ic b ecause o f c on t inuous

e nforce men t o f t he s ame l ega l p rescr ip t ion.

Presu mab ly t h is i dea i s a lso t o

b e r ela ted t o t heor ies h eld i n G er many a t t he e nd o f t he n ine teen th c en tury ; f or t he s tandard v iew o f t he J ew ish a t t i tude t owards i mages a t t he t ime when t he a na lys is o f t he C hr is t ian o ne was b e ing made was b ased o n t ha t o f Harnack 's f r iend , S charer , who s ta ted c a tegor ica l ly t ha t ' Juda is m r e jec ted a l l i mages o f men a nd a n i ma ls ' , l aw .

2 7

a nd r egarded t he p roh ibi t ion a s f ounded o n t he mosa ic

Tha t t h is v iew o f t he ma t ter c ou ld h ave b een h e ld a t a l l s ee ms e x traord inary

i n v iew o f t he f ac t t ha t t he h is tory o f t he O ld Tes tamen t i t se l f s hows t ha t t he l aw was n ever i n terpre ted a s c o mpletely f orbidd ing images .

The d escr ip t ions

o f t he Te mp le a nd t he p a lace o f S olo mon i m med ia te ly c o me t o mind , t he f as h ioning o f t he Brazen S erpen t a lso ,

2 8

t hough a dm i t ted ly t here i s n o men t ion

o f s cu lp tured s ta tues , a nd c er ta in ly t he c o m mandmen t was s tr ic t ly e nforced i n t ha t , s o f ar a s we k nown , J uda is m n ever made a n image o f G od . 29 There i s a lso t he wea l th o f a rchaeolog ica l ma ter ia l wh ich h as b een f ound i n t he J ew ish c a taco mbs o f R o me .

3 0

The V igna Randan in i wh ich was e xp lored i n t he l a t ter h a lf o f t he n ineteen th c entury h as r epresen ta t ions o f v ar ious a n i ma ls e ngraved u pon d oors , i nc lud ing c h ickens , b u l ls a nd r a ms , o ne b u l l b e ing u pon t he s epu lchra l t able t o f ad oc tor 1 6

o f t he L aw .

There i s a lso a p a in ted c hamber d ep ic t ing b irds , a nd f ragmen ts

h ave b een f ound o f as arcophagus wh ich c o mb ines w inged g r i f f ins w i th u nqeu iv oca l ly J ew ish s y mbo ls .

I nc luded i n t he wea l th o f p ic tor ia l d ecora t ion d is-

c overed i n t he c a taco mb o f t he V i l la T or lon ia 31 a re b o th J ew ish a nd n onJ ew ish emb le ms : s cro l l o f t he Law , menorah , d o lph ins , l i ons ' h eads , p eacock , r am , s un a nd moon . H owever , t he mos t s er ious c on trad ic tory p iece o f e v id ence i s t he s arcophagus o f aJ ew whose p rofess ion was t ha t o f ' zoographos ' , ' pa in ter o f l i v ing t h ings '.

3 2

F ina l ly , t he J ew ish b ur ia l c ha mbers e xcava ted

a t G a mar t i n Tun is ia , n ear t he s i te o f a nc ien t Car thage , h ave y ie lded e v idence i n t he f or m o fp a in ted s tucco f igures i n r e l ief , r epresen t ing w inged g en i i , h orse men , av in tage s cene a nd a f e ma le f igure.

3 3

The r epresen ta t ion i n

h uman f orm o n t he J ew ish s arcophag i a nd i n t he c a taco mbs p resen ted a p rob le m f or E i l iger , a nd h e was f orced t o c on jec ture t ha t t hey were made f or p rose lytes who h ad b een p ag a ns .

3 4

Th is i s p oss ible , a l though we d o n o t r ea l ly k now , b u t i ts ee ms u nnecessary , f or e ven i ft he c ases s o f ar r e ferred t o a re e xp la ined away a s p ieces e xecu ted f or J ew ish i nd iv idua ls who were i nd i f feren t i n ma t ters o f r el ig ion , s uch a n e xp lana t ion w i l l n ot c over t he r epresen ta t ions o f a n i ma ls a nd men a nd e ven t he h and o f G od , f ound i n t he p ub l ic s ynagogues —above a l l t ha t o f Dura-Europos , where a l l t he e v idence p oin ts t o t he o r thodox a nd p ious n a ture o f t he J ew ish c o m mun i ty t here a nd t he o f f ic ia l s ponsor ing o f i t s amazing d ecora t ion . 35 A l l t hese p roduc ts o f J ew ish a r t i n t he C hr is t ian p er iod p rove c onc lusive ly t ha t , h owever , t he s econd c o m mand men t was i n terpre ted , i t was n o t r egarded a s l i tera l ly p roh ib i t ing a r t is t ic r epresen ta t ions o f a nyth ing e i ther o n , a bove , o r n enea th t he e ar th , o r o f h uman b e ings . f la t a nd o f an arra t ive c harac ter . i n .

A l l t hese i mages a re t wo-d i mens iona l ,

The q ues t ion o f ac u l t i mage d oes n ot c o me

I t must mean , t herefore , t ha t t he p rescr ip t ion was u ndeis tood a s q ua l if ied

b y t he s econd p ar t wh ich f orbade t he a dor ing o r s erv ing o f t he m 3 6 — tha t i s , wha t was b eing f orb idden were i do la trous i mages.

The q uest ion o f a r t , t here-

f ore , f or J uda is m s ee ms t o h ave b een o ne o f f orbidden a nd p erm it ted i mages , n o t o f b lanke t p roh ib i t ion . S o we s ee m t o h ave a rr ived a t ap o in t i n t he d iscuss ion o f t he s econd c o m mandmen t where i th as b eco me c lear t ha t i n t he e ar ly C hr is t ian p er iod t he p roh ib i t ion was r egarded i n c on te mporary J ew ish c irc les a s d ef in i tely mod i f ied , wh i le b y C hr is t ians i t was r egarded a s i rrelevan t s ave i n ma t ters o f O ld T es tamen t e xeges is .

Therefore i tc annot b e u sed a s ab ackground f or

s uppor t ing a s pr ir tua l v iew o f C hr is t ian i ty n ecessi ta t ing a h os t i le i n terpre ta t ion o f C hr is t ian t ex ts w i th r egard t o ma t ters o f a r t .

The c oncep tua l f ramework

w i th in wh ich t he f irs t p resen ta t ion o f t he t heory was e xpressed may t herefore b e r egarded a s o u t moded . Bu t s ince t he modern p resen ta t ion o f t he h ypo thes is i s n ow w i th in t he c on tex t o f t he i conoc las t ic c on troversy , l e t u s b eg in a ga in f ro m t h is p o in t , a nd w i th t he l arge a nd e xp l ic i t b ody o f e v idence f or t he r e l ig ious v iews o f t he p er iod , a nd mos t n otab ly w ith t he D e f in i t ion o f t he i conoc las t ic C ounc i l o f H iere ia o f 7 54 t oge ther w i th i t s d iscuss ion among t he i conodu les o f t he S econd C ounc i l o f N icaea i n 7 87 , a nd a lso w i th t he H oros o f t he i conoc las t ic C ounc i l o f 8 15 ,

3 7

i n o rder t o b e c lear a bou t t he p os i t ion a nd a t tu t ide t o a r t e xpressed

t hen a nd s o t o s ee whe ther t hese c an r ea l ly b e r ead b ack i n to t he p er iod o f t he e ar ly C hurch , a s i s u sua l ly d one b y s cho lars s eek ing a lways t o u nders tand t he

1 7

earlier origins of the iconoclastic movement. 38 The case made is very reasonable and apparently well supported. For, in the first place, Iconoclasm seems to have been a crisis within Christianity itself; the most recent studies of its origins are tending to emphasise more and more the lack of influence of any non-Christian culture.•39 It was t�is recognition of Iconoclasm as a Christian phenomenon which led Kitzinger to link the 'uniconic (sic) phase of early Christianity' with Byzantine Iconoclasm. 40 But, as he pointed out with clarity in his study, it was the rise of the cult of icons in the sixth and seventh centuries, and not the origin of the movement, which is .the central problem of the controversy. And, as we have seen, his explanation of this central problem was based on the opposition of church leaders in contradistinction to the 'naive animistic attitudes of the masses', 41 whose adhen:nce· to magical _ .. belief had resulted in the production of and semi-idolatrous attitude towards works of art. This attitude he was able to isolate as going back to the time of the early Church. It was the final resist�ce to pressure on the part of church authorities which, in the late sixth century, was a major factor in the development of the outbreak. 42 In the second place, it is also true that what­ ever the root cause underlying their rise, the controversy was undoubtedly about images; or at least it is perhaps more exact to say that it focused on images. For if one asks what in essence the controversy was about, when stripped of all the learned explanations given, a nd the theological subtleties of expression, the fundamental cqncern was- with idolatry. As the Horos· of 754 says-the basic sin of mankind �s idolatry. 43 Here we begin to approach the heart of the matter, for this is the text which provides the clue to the reason for the assembling, by both sides in the dispute, of biblical and patristic texts which would support a doctrine about images; for idolatry had been the be­ setting sin of Israel and also of the pagan milieu against which the Fathers had struggled. And it seems clear, as far as one can tell from the literature preserved, that the iconoclasts, on their side, genuinely believed that th� early Church has been hostile to images. The whole iconoclastic case rested on an appeal to antiquity in which, of course, the scriptual proofs were paramount. The major proof was taken to be the Old Testament prohibition of images which became, as is_ clear from the literature, the real hub of the theological debate. 44 There was plenty of material to hand since there had been prior to· the outbreak of iconoclasm a Jewish-Christian controversy on the point and Byzantine apologists had compiled testimonia to vindicate the Christian position. 45 It was to be expected, therefore, that in the literature of the iconoclastic controversy much space should be devoted to the theological meaning of the second commandment. However, in the totally Christian context of this latter debate-it was the appeal to the Fathers, the other witnesses of antiquity, which made more sense, and in the whole exposition of the theory of identification of or distinction be­ tween icons and idols, it was the use of the texts of the Fathers which provided the evidence; and immense trouble was taken to assemble florilegia, regard­ less of the original context from which the passages came. 46 Now, _ in fact, we have arrived at the position of seeing how by Byzantine Church got its information about the early period. The collection of evidence assembled for the Council of 754 was state-organised and extensive and, because the Fathers

18

in their own contexts had said little on the subject of images, very attentively made. An illustration of the care taken is most interestingly found in The Admonition of the Old Man concerning the Holy Images, which dates from be­ tween 7 50 and 7 54. 47 It describes a dispute which took place between the iconcodule monk, George of Cyprus ,. and the iconoclastic bishop, Cosmos, who used the early writers Epiphanius of Salamis, George of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch in support of his case, and says that their writings were perused in the palace every day. But since, as George of Cyprus pointed out, George of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch were both heretics, 48 there was the problem of orthodoxy; and since, as he also stated, th_�_writings att��uted to Epiphanius were the fabrications of the Novatianists, there was also the problem of authenticity. 49 That this was quite serious the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea show, where scrupulous attention was given to the patristic texts quoted, because falsification, according to the Fathers of Nicaea, had been characteristic of the Council of 7 54. 5 0 It must be noted here, although for the moment only in passing, that some of the crucial patristic passages alleged in favour of the hostility theory only survive here in these iconoclastic florilegia. The point which emerges from this brief review of the iconoclastic back­ ground to the hypothesis is that in any polemic about idolatry at any period, emphasis will automatically fall on material objects. And what seems to have happened in the Byzantine period is that the iconoclastic controversialists took up these sort of emphases from patristic polemics against idolatry and used them to construct a theory about the making of material objects themselves. What they have done is to tie down patristic references to idolatry to matters of art and Christian worship. It is the failure to observe this on the part of modern scholars that has resulted in the identification of what was in the early Church a statement, possibly an _overstatement, of the case against idolatry in general, with the Byzantine controversy about the rightness of the use of images for religious purposes within the Christian Church itself. It seems essenqal then to detach the literary evidence from a preconceived notion of Christianity, and also from the Byzantine context in which it has become lodged, both things which automatically have _coloured its interpretation, and to see if it will still, in its own right, support the standard view of art and the early Church; for so far it seems to have become entangled in the various accidents of controversy. Before a re-examination of the texts is made, a few relevant preliminary observations must be put forward in summary form. Firstly, it is normally the same passages which are repeated from scholar to scholar, although a few which obviously Lack seriousness lose themselves on the way. 5l Secondly, the number of the Fathers represented in the evidence, and also the number of passages from their works is remarkably small in view of the weight given to them. Thirdly, because of the supposition that a continuous stream of hos­ tility can be traceg from one Father to another through the 'centuries, the method employed in discussion is always to treat them chronologically, and end with the immediate pre-iconoclastic period into which they are considered to feed. Fourthly, evidence from those writers who may be understood as not merely non-inimical to, but positively receptive of, artistic representation

19

are omitted; as are passages Irom apparently 'hostile' Fathers which in fact support an opposite view. This is particularly true in the case of Origen. Fifthly, Fathers like the Cappadocians who are too important to be omitted but not sufficiently hostile, are explained away on other grounds. Sixthly, passages in a writer, known to be hostile, which seem to conflict with each other are always explained away in terms of pressu�e from below. The theory also presupposes two more things: (a) that the views of any Christian writer, however idiosyncratic he is known historically to be, for example Tertullian, automatically reflect the view of the whole Church be­ cause of his eminent position, and (b) that only the church leaders represent genuine Christianity and therefore constitute the essence of the Church, a view which overlooks the fact that, far from being mere ciphers or naive animistic masses, the laity were responsible in view of their baptism for electing the official leaders of their own community. 52 It is beginning to emerge from the outset, therefore' that the -evidence is not quite so clear-cut as the normal interpretation presumes, and needs to be taken away again from another pre­ conception: this time an idea of a monolithic Church which gives no credit to differences of temperament, interest, theological standpoint, geography, or time. It needs to be examined carefully piece by piece. But here again it must be remarked that in fact the handling of these pieces is a delicate and difficult matter because of the way the sources survive. Some of the pieces we still have intact in the context in which they were written, and so they can be checked without difficulty in the actual works of the Fathers who wrote them. But others, and this applies to the key pieces on which the theory rests, do not-as was noted earlier, they survive only in iconocla,stic florilegia. Since the purpose of the examination is to reappraise the content of the passages and therefore of the theory, it seems best from the methodological point of view not to proceed chronologically, as is usually done, but to treat the_. evi­ dence in terms of minor and major pieces: for not all are of the same impor­ tance, and some may be dealt with briefly whereas others require longer discussion. Finally, this preamble may be concluded by saying that no protagonist of the hostility theory has yet been able to produce one single clear statement from any early Christian writer which says that non-idolatrous artistic rep­ resentation is wrong. The only text which might seriously be regarded as supporting this view is the 36th Canon of the Council of Elvira, though even here again the question of worship is involved. The Fathers of Elvira, the Roman city of Illiberis in southern Spain, near modern Granada, who met in a synod about the year 300, laid it down: 'picturas in ecclesia non debere, ne quad colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur': which means literally that there ought to be no pictures in a church (or in the Christian Church) lest what is worshipped and adored be depicted on walls. 53 And round that sentence has grown up a voluminous controversial literature. It has been claimed that the canon does not forbid representation completely or that it forbids a certain kind of bad church art which had come into vogue in Spain about A. D. 300.

20

Years a go , Funk d isposed o f t he more s pec tacu lar k inds o f a rgumen t a nd r ecogn ised q u i te c lear ly t ha tt he c anon r ea l ly d oes f orb id p ic tor ia l r epresent a t ions i n c hurches .

B u t b ecause t he c ircums tances t o wh ich i tr efers a re

l os t , a nd b ecause i tc omes o n ly f ro m a l oca l s ynod a nd n ot a ma jor c hurch c ounc i l , o ne c an o n ly g uess wha t l i es b eh ind i ta nd n o c on jec ture c an b e made o n t he b as is o f i tw i th a ny d egree o f c er ta in ty.

Wha t t herefore i s i tp oss ible

t o s ay b y way o f i n terpre ta t ion w i thou t i ndu lg ing i n a ny e x tre m i ty o f v iew a nd w i thou t d epar t ing f ro m t he t ex t?

The n e q uod o f t he word ing a ppears t o r efer

t o ad iv ine p erson , p erhaps C hr is t , b ecause whoever i ti s i s a dored a nd wors h ipped . S econd ly , t he emphas is s ee ms t o b e a ga ins t d ep ic t ing t h is p erson o n t he wa l ls o f c hurches — tha t f unerary monumen ts a re e xc luded i s p roved b y t he s er ies o f t he S panish s arcophag i wh ich s t i l l s urv ive .

5 5

Th ird ly , t here s ee ms

t o b e miss ing t he r eason f or wh ich i ti s f orbidden t o p u t wha t i s h o ly o n wa l ls . N ow a l l t hese o bserva t ions may b e d rawn t ogether a nd a t en ta t ive c onc lus ion a rr ived a t i fo ne r e me mbers t ha t , a rchaeo log ica l ly s peak ing , t he C ounc i l b elongs t o t he p er iod o f t he h ouse-church ; i s empha t ic a bou t t he wa l ls o f c hurches . v u lnerab le ;

a nd t h is may b e why t he C ounc i l S uch h ouses a re k nown t o h ave b een

t o r a ids b y t he i mper ia l p o l ice ;

o r , i n t he c ase o f E lv ira , where

j udg ing f ro m t he o ther c anons wh ich i mp ly a n a t mosphere wh ich t he Fa thers f ound t hrea ten ing , t o d esecra t ion b y p agans ;

o r e ven t o u se b y s o me C hr is t ians

f or p urposes o f b lack mag ic n ow k nown t o h ave b een o pera t ive i n S pa in a t t he t ime .

5 6

I ft he C hr is t ian b u i ld ing a t Dura i s t yp ica l , a nd i ft he l a ter v i l la o f

Lu l l ings tone i n K en t i s a ccep ted a s c on ta in ing a h ouse-church ,

5 7

t hen i ti s

k nown t ha t t hese c hurches were p a in ted a nd s o me i nc luded f igures o f Chr is t , B eyond t h is i ti s i mposs ib le t o g o a nd i n t he a bsence o f k now ledge o f t he o r ig ina l c ircu mstances wha t was , i n f ac t , i n q ues t ion we c anno t k now . I .

M INOR P IECES OF EV IDENCE

Ter tu l l ian Two q uo ta t ions f ro m Ter tu l l ian 's t rea t ise o n i dola try a re u sua l ly t aken a s s how ing i n h im a h os t i le a t t i tude t o a r t . "

Bu t d e I do l .i v .I i s s peak ing c lear ly

o f t he mak ing o f a n i do l a nd c anno t s uppor t a ny i nference t ha t h e r egarded i t a s wrong t o make i mages n o t i n tended f or worsh ip . The s a me i s t rue o f t he l a ter s en tence where t here i s ar eference t o t he s econd c o m mandmen t , n orma l ly t aken t o e xpress a n a t t i tude s uppor t ing t he p roh ibi t ion .

Bu t t he c on tex t

h ere —a d iscuss ion o n whe ther t he p rofess ion o f as cu lp tor o r p a in ter i s o pen t o aC hr is t ian —is a ga in c oncerned w i th i do la try n ot a r t .

Ter tu l l ian f ears t ha t

s uch a C hr is t ian may b e a ssoc ia ted w i th t he p roduc t ion o f s o me th ing wh ich may b eco me a n i do l . Ear ly Church Orders Von Dobsch i l tz h ad omi t ted t he i do la try p assages f ro m Ter tu l l ian b u t l i s ted t he f o l low ing e x trac ts f ro m t he e ar ly C hurch Orders a s f orb idd ing a r t . The S yr iac D idasca l ia s ays ;

5 9

n o o b la t ions a re t o b e a ccep ted f ro m t hose who

p a in t w i th c o lours , f ro m t hose who make i do ls , o r workers i n s i lver a nd b ronze. A nd i n t he P seudo-C le men tine C hurch Order , ap a in ter i s c lassed w i th a h ar lot , ab rothe l-keeper , d runkard , a c tor , a nd a th le te .

Bu t i ti s p oss ib le t ha t i n t hese

t wo c ases , a s i n t he p assage f ro m Ter tu l l ian , wha t i s u nderstood b y ap a in ter

2 1

i s mean t ap a in ter o f i do la trous i mages .

Tha t t h is i s v ir tua l ly c er ta in s ee ms

c lear i fi ti s i n terpreted i n t he l igh t o f t he E gyp t ian D idasca l ia wh ich s ays c lear ly : i dols ;

i f a nyone i s as cu lp tor o r ap a in ter l e t h im b e i ns truc ted n ot t o make

h e mus t e i ther s top d o ing s o o r b e d r iven f ro m t he C hurch .

Th is s ee ms

t o d is t ingu ish b etween a r t is ts a nd t he makers o f i do ls a nd r enders t he p os i t ion c lear . These p assages , t hen , may b e t aken a s e v idence o f h os t i li ty t o t he mak ing o f i do ls b u t n o t n ecessar i ly t o t he mak ing o f i mages o f a r t . C le men t o f A lexandr ia C le men t 's w ork i s ap os i t ive q uarry f or p assages r egarded a s h os t i le t o t he mak ing o f i mages , " a nd o ne t ex t , made much o f b y B evan ,

6 1

may b e

s ing led o u t a s a n i l lus tra t ion o f t he s tandard k ind o f i n terpre ta t ion . S tro m . v i .16 .147 ,

' The a r t is t wou ld r ob G od :

Th is i s

h e s eeks t o u surp t he d iv ine

p reroga t ive o f c rea t ion a nd b y means o f h is p las t ic o r g raph ic a r t p re tends t o b e a maker o f a n i ma ls o r p lan ts '. A s was s a id e ar l ier , t h is p assage i s p ar t o f t he a l legor isa t ion o f t he Deca logue a nd s o , a pparen t ly , e v idence f or t he e nforce men t o f t he O ld T es tamen t p roh ib i t ion b y C le men t . t he c o m mand men t u nder d iscuss ion i s t he e igh th :

Bu t i n f ac t

t hou s ha l t n o t s tea l , a nd t he

s ubs tance i s r ea l ly a s o mewha t i nf la ted p roh ibi t ion a bou t n o t r obbing t he c rea tor G od o f h is g lory. Wh i le s uperf ic ia l ly i t may l ook l i ke a p roh ibi t ion o f a r t , C le men t c an s carce ly h ave mean t i tt o b e t aken a t i t s f ace v a lue , i n v iew o f t he r eason h e g ives f or i t : n o a r t is t e ver c la imed t o b e a maker o fp lants a nd a n i ma ls . I ti s r a ther , t hen , ac ur ious l i ne o f a rgumen t , u nusua l ly e xpressed a nd b ased o n t he p la ton ic d oc tr ine o f i deas a nd t heory o f i m i ta t ion .

Yet e ven

t hough i th as n o c onnec t ion , s ave b y way o f i nc iden ta l i l lus tra t ion , w i th t he q ues t ion o fa r t , b e ing c oncerned t o emphas ise t he t ranscendence o f God, Bevan r egards i ta s e v idence t ha t C le men t wen t e ven f ur ther t han t he Mosle m v iew i n t he ma t ter o f a n icon is m . o f p lan ts .

U n l ike I s la m , C le men t e ven f orb ids t he p or tray ing

Bu t t h is i s o bv ious ly p repos terous a nd t o make C le men t i n to t he

f orerunner o f I s lam s ee ms t o b e c arrying s o le mn i ty o f i n terpre ta t ion a l i t t le t oo f ar . Bu t i td oes s erve t o make u s aware o f where mis in terpre ta t ion o f o ther p assages i n t he A lexandr ians ,6 2 n orma l ly b rough t f orward , h ave o ccured . As we h ave s een , t he p assage f ro m t he S tro ma te is i s r he tor ica l l anguage s tress ing t he t ranscendence o f God i n ac on tex t a l legor is ing t he who le o ft he Deca logue . A nd i ts hou ld b e r ecogn ised t ha t l anguage u sed i n ad eprec ia t ive way o f i mages i n c o mpar ison w i th a n i m med ia te c o mprehens ion o f r ea l i ty , d oes n o t n ecessar i ly imp ly t ha t t he u se o f i mages i s wrong o r f orb idden . The l anguage i s r ela t ive o n ly a nd t he r esu l t o f t he P la ton ic b ackground f ro m wh ich t he A lexandr ian Fa thers d rew t he ir t h ink ing .

Wha t e i ther o f t he m wou ld

h ave s a id o n t he g enera l q ues t ion o f a r t is t ic r epresen ta t ion c annot b e k nown ; i t was n ever a q uest ion t hey c ons idered .

I ti s i mpor tan t , t herefore , n o t t o

u nderstand l anguage wh ich a ppears t o e xpress a r e la t ive d eva lua t ion o f ma ter ia l s y mbo ls t o b e ac a tegor ica l r e jec t ion o f t he ir u se a t a l 1 . 63 I I .

MAJOR P IECES OF EV IDENCE Now l e t u s t urn t o t he more s er ious p assages a nd c o mpara t ive ly r are

o ccurrences i n wh ich t he Fa thers d o d iscuss t he c ase o f a ma ter ia l image i n an on-ido la trous c on tex t a nd a re a pparen t ly a n tagon is t ic t owards i t .

2 2

T er tu l l ian , D e . Pud . The f i rs t a nd mos t f amous o f t hese i s Ter tu l l ian a nd t he G ood S hepherd c ups . 64 C lose e xam ina t ion o f t he c on tex t h ere makes c lear t ha t i tw i l l n o t b ear t he s tandard i n terpreta t ion o f s how ing Ter tu l lian a s h os t i le t o a r t . The p assage i s r eferr ing b as ica l ly t o t he S hepherd o f H ermas , a work a bhorred b y T er tu l l ian s ince i tr eadm i t ted t o c om mun ion t hose who h ad b een g u i l ty o f a du l tery i ft hey w ere t ru ly r epen tan t . Th is mean t t ha t f or h im , t he s hepherd h ad b eco me a s y mbo l o f l ack o f t rue mora l i ty. H e d escr ibes i ta s ' t he i do l o f d runkeness a nd t he s anc tuary o f a du l tery ' , a nd a s y mbo l f i t t ing ly c hosen f or r epresen ta t ion o n t heir e uchar is t ic c ups b y C hr is t ians who f e l t t ha t t hey c ou ld f ree ly s in a s t hey w ere a ssured o f as econd r epen tance . I n o ther words , t h is i sn o t a n e xamp le o f T er tu l l ian 's r igor is m i n t he ma t ter o f a r t b u t t he t rea t ing o f o ne p ar t icu lar s y mbo l w i th c on te mp t b ecause i t was u sed b y C hr is t ians f or who m h e f e l t c on te mp t . C le men t , P aedagogus 1 1 .12 .1 H ere , a ccord ing t o t he n orma l v iew , i s ap assage wh ich s hows C le men t mak ing a c oncess ion t o p ressures b eing f orced o n h im f ro m b e low , i n t he ma t ter o f t he d es igns t o b e p u t o n s ignet-r ings . I ti s p o in ted o u t , t o s ave h im f rom i nconsis tency w i th h is u sua l h os t i l i ty , t ha t t he wear ing o f s igne t-r ings was e ssen t ia l i n a n t iqu i ty a nd t ha t h e o n ly c oncedes t he r epresen ta t ion o f i na n ima te t h ings o r t hose o f n eu tra l c on ten t : s h ip , l yre , a nchor . B evan e xpresses s urpr ise t ha t h e a l lows ad ove o r af i sh—good Mos le ms s hou ld n o t—bu t s a lvages C le men t 's r epu ta t ion b y a dd ing t ha t i ts ee ms u n l ike ly h e wou ld h ave a l lowed a h uman f igure . 65 F or K lauser t he p assage was c ruc ia l a s i nd ica t ive t ha t t he l a i ty were r ea l ly b eg inn ing t o g e t o u t o f h and . The mass p roduc t ion o f G ood S hepherd c ups i n t he Med i terranean h ad a lready b egun t o f orce t he i ssue a ga ins t a u thor i ty a s t he p assages f ro m Ter tu l l ian , i n K lauser 's v iew , a lready s how . And h ere i n C lemen t 's r eluc tan t c oncess ion , t he f orced i n troduc t ion o f a r t i n to t he e ar ly C hurch i n s p i te o f o f f ic ia l p roh ibi t ion i s c lear ly s een . 66 Bu t r eference t o t he o r ig ina l c on tex t s hows t ha t t he o ppos i t ion i s t he o ther way r ound . The h esi tancy a bou t d es ign i s o n t he p ar t o f i nqu ir ing C hr is t ian c onver ts , u sed t o t he i conograph ic o dd i t ies o f g nos t ic g e ms , a nd t h is i s e nc ourage men t f ro m C le men t a s t o wha t c an c heer fu l ly b e a dm i t ted . Wha t h as b een l os t i n wrench ing t he p assage f rom i t s c on tex t i s t he t one o f C le men t 's v oice . There s ee ms t o b e g ood i nd ica t ion e lsewhere t ha t C le men t h ad a p os i t ive a pprec ia t ion o f a r t a nd t ha t i n f ac t i ti s ap assage f rom h is Protrep t icus wh ich may we l l l i e b eh ind t he f igure o f t he C hr is t ian Orpheus i n t he c a tacomb o f S t . C a l l ix tus .6 7 A s ter ius o f Amaseia K lauser omi t ted f rom h is e v idence a no ther p assage wh ich h ad b een b rough t f orward b y K och . 68 A s ter ius o f Amase ia r efers t o o ne o f h is s ermons ( £ . A .D. 4 00 ) t o t he c us to m p reva len t i n h is t ime o f Chr is t ians h av ing woven o n t he ir r obes r epresen ta t ions o f t he G ospe l s cenes : C hr is t w i th t he d isc ip les , t he r a is ing o f Lazarus . I ft hey t ake my a dv ice t hey w i l l s el l s uch g armen ts a nd p ay h onour t o t he l i v ing i mages o f G od .

Do n o t p a in t ap ic ture o f C hr is t .

Tha t

o f h is h umi lia t ion when h e t ook u pon h i mse lf o ur h u man i ty f or o ur 2 3

s akes o f h is own w i l l i s e nough .

Ra ther c arry a bou t w i th in y our s ou l

i n as p ir i tua l way t he i m ma ter ia l L ogos .

Do n o t h ave t he p ara lyt ic

man o f t he G ospe l u pon y our c lo thes , b u t g o a nd v is i t t hose w ho a re b edr idden .

Do n ot l ook s o s tead fas t ly o n t he s infu l wo man a t t he f ee t

o f t he L ord b u t h ave c on tr i t ion f or y our own s ins a nd s hed t ears y ourse lf f or t he m Bu t A s ter ius a lso g ives a d escr ip t ion o f t he mar tyrdo m o f Euphe m ia d ep ic ted i n h er b as i l ica a t C ha lcedon , a nd a lso s peaks o f t he c us to m o f t h is p er iod o f o f fer ing h o mage t o t he C ross . 69

The d iscrepancy i n a t t i tude wh ich

t roubles K och i s f ound n o t t o e x is t when r eference i s made b ack t o t he s ermon f ro m wh ich t he p assage c o me . The t i t le o f t he h om i ly i s i t se lf s uf f ic ien t ly i ns truc t ive : i ti s O n t he R ich Man a nd Lazarus , a nd a ppears t o h ave b een a ddressed t o a wea l thy a ud ience . R ead ing o f i ts hows t ha t i ti s n o t ad iscuss ion o f t he l eg i t imacy o f a r t b u t a mora l e xhor ta t ion t o v ir tuous l i v ing a nd a voidance o f l uxury:

t he d e mands o f C hr is t ian s erv ice t o G od a re n o t s a t isf ied b y wear ing

h is i mage b u t b y a c t ive l ove o f o ne 's n e ighbour .

I td oes n ot r ef lec t , a s i ti s

s upposed t o d o , a ny o f f ic ia l , o ppos i t ion t o a r t a t t he b eg inn ing o f t he f i f th c en tury. The C appadoc ians c ou ld n o t o n a ny s core b e made i n to o pponen ts o f a r t , n or c ou ld t hey b e i gnored a s r epresen t ing t he o f f ic ia l l eve l o f t he Church , s o t hey a re e xp la ined away b y t he h ypo thes is a s ' f leet ing r e ferences ' 7 °t o a more p os it ive a pproach .

And t h is g e ts o ver d i f f icu l t ies l i ke t he p assage i n Bas i l 's s er mon

o n t he Mar tyr Bar laam i n wh ich h e c a l ls u pon a l l p rof ic ien t p a in ters t o d ep ic t t he mar tyr 's s u f fer ings a nd t hose o f t he Mas ter who o rda ins a nd j udges t he c on test , C hr is t .

G regory o f Nyssa a lso d escr ibed a p ic ture o f C hr is t Agono the tes

i n a no ther r epresen ta t ion o f mar tyrdo m ; 71

a nd J ohn Chrysos to m i nconven ien t ly

k ep t ap ic ture o f S t . Pau l b efore h im , a ccord ing t o J ohn , Damascene . 72 t hese t ex ts a re g lossed o ver i n t he s tandard t rea t men ts ;

Bu t

t hey a re omi t ted b y

K lauser , e xp la ined away b y K och a nd E i l iger , a nd a l luded t o b y K i tzinger . There a re t wo o ther p assages wh ich a lso a ppear t o h ave b een wrong ly i n terp re ted a nd s o made t o s uppor t t he t heory. Augus t ine , d e Mor ibus Ecc lesiae Ca tho l icae 1 .34 Augus t ine 's f a mous p assage r eads : n ov i mu l tos e sse s epu lchrorum e t p ic turarum a dora tores , n ov i mu l tos e sse q u i l uxur ios iss i me s uper mor tuos l i ban t e t e pu las c adaver ibus e xh iben tes , s uper s epu l tos s e ipsos s epe l ian t , e t v orac i ta tes e br ie ta tesque s uas d epu ten t r el ig ion i . O n t h is p assage K i tzinger s ays : I ti s f ro m S t . Augus tine t ha t we f irs t h ear i n u na mb iguous t erms o f C hr is t ians worsh ipping images . Among t hose who h ad i n troduced s upers t i tuous p rac t ices i n t he C hurch , h e men t ions 'sepu lcrorum e t p ic turaru m a dora tores ' , t hus l i nk ing t he c u l t o f i mages t o t he c u l t o f t o mbs . 73 I tw i l l b e n o t iced t ha t h e h as q uo ted o n ly o ne p hrase f ro m t he p assage a nd t h is may we l l h ave r eference t o a buses a t t he t o mb d ur ing t he f unera l c u l t , a nd t o worsh ipp ing o f s truc tures a nd t he ir p a in ted d ecora t ion .

Wha t i tw i l l n ot

d o i s s uppor t a ny i dea o f Augus t ine 's a t t i tude t o a r t , a s c an b e s een i fi ti s p u t b ack i n to i t s c on tex t .

Augus t ine i s n o t s ing l ing o u t t he a dora t ion o f p ic tures 2 4

f or c onde mna t ion , much l ess t he mak ing o f t he m .

The p assage r efers t o t he

p rac t ice o f ap ar t icu lar s e t o f Christians o n ly , i n t he c on tex t o f t he f unera l c u l t , whose b anque ts i n A ugus t ine 's o p in ion a re e xamp les o f e xcess ive g lu t tony a nd d runkenness .

Wrong fu l i ndu lgence a t b anquets i s t he p o in t .

When h e

u ses t he p hrase q uo ted b y K i tzinger t o d escr ibe t hese p eop le , i ti s t o c onde mn t h is method o f h onour ing t he d ead ; t he p resence o f t he p ic tures a nd t he ir w orsh ip , i f more t han r hetor ica l emphas is o f d escr ip t ion i s i n tended , h e s i mp ly a ccep ts a s f ac ts . S ince t h is p assage wou ld n o t s uppor t E l l iger 's t hesis i n a n e n t irely s pec i f ic way , h e t r ied t o r ein force h is p oin t b y b r ing ing i n , i rrelevan t ly , A ugus t ine 's a t t i tude t o c hurch mus ic a s a n e xa mp le o f t he d anger o f t he a ppea l o f t he s enses i n r e l ig ion .

7 4

Augus t ine i s k nown f ro m t he C on fess ions t o h ave

b een much moved b y mus ic a nd h is v iew o f t he l eg i t i macy o f i tf luc tua ted b ec ause h e was a lways a l ive t o t he p oss ib i l i ty o f d anger f or h i msel f . s ee ms t o h ave b een much l ess s t irred b y t he a ppea l o f v isua l a r t .

Bu t h e

7 5

P au l inus o f N o la , C arm . XXV I I .542 f . P au l inus i n h is p oem i s s peak ing o f p ar t icu lar c hurches r ich ly d ecora ted w i th b ibl ica l p ersonages a nd s cenes .

When h e d escr ibes t he m a s e xecu ted

' raro more ' , K och t r ies t o u nders tand t he p hrase t o mean t ha t a t t ha t t ime p ic tor ia l d ecora t ion i n c hurches was s t i l l u nco m mon .

7 6

Bu t g iven Pau l inus '

e n thus ias m f or c hurch d ecora t ion r ecorded e lsewhere , i t i s f ar more l i ke ly t ha t Pau l inus t ook p leasure i n t hese p a in t ings b ecause t hey were e xcep t iona l ly g ood .

H e e ven men t ions a r epresen ta t ion o f t he Tr in i ty i n mosa ic .

7 7

Pau l inus i s f ro m t he f our th c en tury a nd a mos t i n f luen t ia l me mber o f t he ' o f f ic ia l c hurch ' who i s om i t ted , u nsurpr is ing ly , b y K lauser a nd K i tzinger . H owever , w i th t he f our th c en tury we h ave r eached t he k ey p ieces o f e v id ence o n wh iCh t he who le h ypo thes is o f h os t i l i ty r ea l ly r es ts a nd wh ich a re a pparen t ly i rrefu table .

Eusebius , b ishop o f Caesarea , a nd Ep iphan ius ,

b ishop o f S a la m is , r ea l ly s ee med t o h ave t hough t i t wrong t o make r epresent a t ions o f r e l ig ious t h ings a nd p ersonages , n o tab ly o f C hr is t . Eusebius o f C aesarea , l e t ter t o t he Empress C ons tan t ia We s ee m t o h ave i n Eusebius o f Caesarea a n impor tan t a nd i nf luen t ia l f igure a t t he b eg inning o f t he f our th c en tury who c a tegor ica l ly o pposed h i mse l f t o t he mak ing o f r epresen ta t ions o f C hr is t .

The e v idence i s , o f c ourse , i n

t he c e lebra ted l e t ter t o t he Empress C onstan t ia wh ich f igures p ro m inen t ly i n a l l d iscuss ions o f t he s ub jec t a nd y e t s urpr is ing ly i s n ever i t sel f s ub m i t ted t o d iscuss ion .

I ti s a lways r eferred t o b u t n ever a na lysed ;

i ti s r egarded a s s e l f-ev ident ly h os t i le t o a r t .

p resu mably b ecause

S ince i to bv iously s uppor ted

h is v iew a nd t herefore r equ ired n o c o m men t , Koch g ives a b r ie f s um mary o f i t s c on ten ts a nd t hen d evo tes t he r e ma inder o f h is s ec t ion o n Eusebius t o a l ong d iscuss ion o f t he c ross a nd t he l abarum .

E i l iger s ays a l mos t n o th ing

a nd , a s ton ish ing ly , makes h is f ew r eferences i n a La t in t rans la t ion a nd n ot t o t he G reek o r ig ina l a s i ti s g iven b y P i tra a nd Mansi . B evan r epea ts K och more empha t ica l ly , K i tzinger r e fers t o t he l e t ter i s p ass ing , a nd f or K lauser i t was af undamen ta l e xamp le o f h is t hesis .

7 8

H owever , a s Ih ope t o s how ,

h ad t he l e t ter e ver b een s ub jec ted t o c r i t ica l a na lys is a v ery d i f feren t v iew o f i t migh t h ave b een t aken , a nd a much g rea ter r eserve emp loyed i n t he ma t ter o f r egard ing i te ven a s i nd ica t ive o f Eusebius ' p ersona l o ppos i t ion t o i magery ,

2 5

much l ess t ha t o f t he who le C hurch ;

b ecause , f or K lauser a nd Bevan , Eusebius

was a r epresen ta t ive f igure , a nd h is w i tness was c ruc ia l a s p roof o f t he u n iv ersa l a t t i tude o f t he C hurch i n t he f our th c en tury. 7 9 Ne i ther , i n f ac t , s ay why ; o ne a ssu mes t ha t wha t i s i mp l ied i s t ha t E useb ius was t he C ons tan t in ian b ishop p ar e xce l lence , mad .

8 0

a nd a t at ime when a r t was e v iden t ly b eg inn ing t o r un

Wha t , t hen , may b e l earned o f t he l e t ter when c arefu l i nves t iga t ion i s

u nder taken? The f i rs t f unda men ta l a nd c o mp le te ly a s ton ish ing f ac t t o emerge , a nd o f c ap i ta l i mpor tance n ot mere ly f or t he p urposes o f t h is c hap ter b u t a lso f or o ther i ssues f or wh ich i ti s av i ta l p iece o f e v idence , i s t ha t n o t o n ly i s t here n o c r i t ica l e d i t ion o f t he t ex t b u t t he manuscr ip t t rad i t ion o f t he l e t ter h as n ever , i n f ac t , b een e xa m ined . The t ex t a s i ts tands a t t he mo men t i s n o t a n a nc ien t b u t a modern o ne , f irst p u t t oge ther i n t he e igh teen th c en tury a nd r epr in ted w i th a dd i t ions i n t he n ine teen th , i t s l a tes t r epr in t ing b e ing i n H ennephof 's c o l lec t ion o f d ocu men ts p ubl ished i n 1 969.

There i s n o t race o f i ti n t he f our th c en tury among t he

a u then t ic works o f Euseb ius a nd p resu mably t h is i s why i th as b een om it ted f ro m t he v o lu mes o f h is work i n t he B er l in c orpus .

Fur ther , t he t ex t n owhere

e x is ts i n i t s e n t irety , n or i s t here a ny t race o r r eference t o t he l e t ter f ro m t he Empress t o wh ich t h is i s s upposed t o b e t he r ep ly.

B o iv in a nd P i tra a s-

s e mb led i tp iece mea l f ro m a p assage i n t he i conoc las t ic f l or i leg iu m o f 7 54 wh ich was r ead a nd r efu ted b y t he o r thodox i n 7 87 , who d is m issed i to n t he g rounds t ha t Euseb ius was a n Ar ian , a nd g ave n o a t ten t ion t o t he q uest ion o f i t s a u then t ic i ty , a s t hey d id t o t he p assage a l leged f ro m t he o r thodox E piphan ius. Th is p assage i s n ot t o b e f ound i n t he o ther f l or i leg iu m , a t tr ibu ted t o t he n in th c en tury , b e long ing t o t he C hurch o f Ro me a nd s urv iv ing i n t he Par is c odex g r . 1 115 , where t he c orrespondence o f h ag iograph ic t ex ts w i th t ha t o f 7 54 i s r emarkable , b u t n ot t ha t o f t he p a tr is t ic p assages . f lor i leg iu m o f t he i conoc las t ic C ounc i l o f 8 15.

I t was a lso om i t ted f ro m t he

O ther p ar ts were a dded f ro m

t he work o f N icephorus o f C ons tant inop le a nd P i tra p r in ted t he whole t h ing a s c hap ter n ine , b ook f our , o f h is e d i t ion o f t he A n t irrhet ic i o f N icephorus. I t i s q u i te c er ta in , t herefore , i n t he c ircu ms tances o f t he t ex t a s we h ave i ta t p resen t , t ha t we c anno t e ven b e s ure wh ich s en tence c onsecu t ive ly f o l lows wh ich , e ven i ft he l e t ter i s i n f ac t a u then t ic .8 1 F or t he t ex tua l p roble m im med ia tely r a ises t he q ues t ion o f a u then t ic i ty. I n a l l d iscuss ions t h is n or ma l ly p asses u nques t ioned , a nd t he f ew s cho lars who d o men t ion t he p oss ibi l i ty o f s pur iousness d o s o i n o rder t o d is m iss i tw i thou t a ny s ol id r eason b eing g iven .

8 2

O n ly a n e xamina t ion o f t he manuscr ip t t ra-

d i t ion , wh ich Ih ave u nder taken a nd h ope t o p ub l ish l a ter , w i l l f ina l ly s et t le t h is p roble m . I n s um , t here fore , a l l t ha t c an b e s a id o f t he l e t ter f ro m t he p o in t o f v iew o f t he t ex t i t sel f i s t ha t t here i s n o men t ion o f i te ar l ier t han t he e igh th c en tury when i tc o mes i n to p lay a t t he t ime o f t he i conoc las t ic c on trov ersy i n as ource h os t i le t o t he mak ing o f i mages .

Accord ing ly , s ince a t t he

mo men t t here i s n o e v idence t o s how t ha t , i fi te ver e x is ted a s a n e n t ire c o mpos i t ion , i t was c o mposed i n t he f our th c en tury , i tc anno t b e t aken a s e v id ence o f t he v iew o f t he h istor ica l Eusebius t owards a r t , a nd e ven l ess a s a t es t i mony t o t he g enera l v iew o f t he o f f ic ia l Church i n t he f our th c en tury.

2 6

Bu t s uppose f or t he s ake o f a rgumen t t h is ma t ter i s a l lowed t o r es t a nd i ti s a ssu med , u n ti l s hown o therw ise , t ha t t he l e t ter i s a u then t ic , wha t c an b e s a id o f i tf ro m t he p o in t o f v iew o f t he h os t i l i ty t heory?

F irs t o f a l l , a nd

c lear ly , i ti s n o t a man ifes to o ppos ing r e l ig ious a r t is t ic r epresen ta t ion i n g enera l . The p o int i s s pec if ic : i ti s s peak ing o f a n image o f C hr is t , a nd wha t a ppears t o b e o b jec ted t o i s t he i dea o f a n i con , a s at rue p or tra i t c la im ing t o r epresen t t he a c tua l f ea tures o f C hr is t . Presu mab ly Euseb ius h ad i n mind s o me l arge-sca le r ender ing o f t he h ead a nd s hou lders —so me th ing l i ke t he s even th-cen tury i con o f S t . P e ter f ro m Mt . S ina i .

Tha t i t was p or-

t able i s c lear ly s hown f ro m t he f ac t t ha t i t was t o b e s en t t o C ons tan t ia . Yet o f i cons o f t h is t ype , p or table r epresen ta t ions o f h is tor ica l f igures , t here i s s o f ar n o t race i n t he f our th c en tury.

8 3

a r t , C hr is t a ppears e i ther a s as y mbo l ic f igure :

I n t h ird- a nd f our th-cen tury G ood S hepherd , f i sher man ,

o r i n t he p a in ted a nd s cu lp ted s cenes where h e i s s hown i n t he t eacher/ph i los opher t ype n o t r ea l ly d i f feren t ia ted f ro m t he s urround ing f igures .

H e n ever

a ppears i so la ted , a s ac u l t i mage , a nd t here i s n o a t te mp t t o d ep ic t h im a s a r ea l a nd d is t inc t ive p ersona l i ty. Th is i s t rue n ot o n ly o f t he C hr is t f igure o n t he c rowded f r ieze s arcophag i b u t a lso

t he more b eau t ifu l a nd d is t inc t ive

r epresen ta t ions o f h im w i th t he A pos t les o f t hose o f S t . Ambrog io a nd Ravenna . There a re i ndeed p or tra i ts i n t he s tr ic t s ense o n t he s arcophag i , b u t t hey a re t hose , u sua l ly f ra med i n s he l ls o r meda l l ions , o f t he d ead i n terred w i th in ; b u t e ven h ere , where t he i dea i s t o r epresen t d ef in i te i nd iv idua ls , i ti s u n l ikely t ha t r ea l is t ic p ersona l f ea tures w ere c arved . S t i l l , t hey a re more s harp ly c on tras ted w i th t he p ersona l ly n eu tra l c harac ter o f C hr ist a nd t he b ib l ica l f igures , a nd t h is i s b ecause t he r e l ig ious s cenes a re i nc identa l , t hey a re o n ly t he b ackground t o t he i l lus tr ious d ead whose p or tra i ts o ccupy t he c en tra l p os i t ion a nd t he c en tre o f i n teres t i n t he d es igns .

8 4

Aga in , t h is i s i n k eep ing w i th t he f ac t t ha t i n l a te a n t iqu i ty r e l i-

g ious a r t i s a lways a l legor ica l a nd s y mbol ic . S econd ly , t here a re t wo o ther p assages i n t he u ndoub ted works o f Eusebius wh ich men t ion r e l ig ious r epresen ta t ions a nd w i th wh ich t h is l e t ter may b e c o mpared .

The V i ta C ons tan t in i , i i .48f ., s peaks w i th z es t o f t he r epresen-

t a t ions o f t he G ood S hepherd a nd D an ie l w i th t he l i ons w i th wh ich C ons tan t ine a dorned t he f oun ta ins i n t he p ub l ic s quares o f C onstan tinop le , f igures made o f b rass a nd r esp lenden t w i th g o ldlea f , a nd t he Church H is tory , v i i .8 , ment i ons t he b ronze g roup o f Paneas , t hough t i n Euseb ius ' t ime t o b e ar epresent a t ion o f C hr is t a nd t he wo man w i th t he i ssue o f b lood .

Th is g roup was a ga in

af oun ta in o rna men t , d escr ibed b y Eusebius w i th s y mpa thy a nd i n teres t . F or s o me r eason t hese f igures h ad made a n impress ion o n h im , f or h e r efers t o t he m a ga in i n h is f ragmen tary c o mmen tary o n Luke v i i i .

8 5

Bu t t he

r igh ts a nd wrongs o f mak ing t he images h e d oes n ot c ons ider a t a l l , s i mp ly c ons ider ing t he g roup a s a n o f fer ing made i n t he manner o f p agan v ot ive s ta tues o n t he p ar t o f t he wo man .

The p os i t ive a pprova l o f t he V i ta , t he a bsence o f

h os t i le c o m men t i n t he C hurch H is tory c o mpared w i th t he s harp ly h ec tor ing t one o f t he L e t ter was a d i f f icu l t i ncons is tency f or t he h ost i l i ty t heor is ts , p ar t icu lar ly K lauser , who was r e luc tan t t o t h ink t ha t Euseb ius , a nd w i th h im t he who le C hurch , h ad c hanged t he ir minds a bou t a r t i n t he t en y ears wh ich h e r egarded a s l y ing b e tween t he ( unda ted ) L e t ter a nd t he Church H is tory a nd V i ta .

2 7

S o h e f e l l b ack o n at heory o f i n terpo la t ion i n to t he t ex t o f t he V i ta a t t he e nd o f t he f our th c en tury w i thou t s topp ing t o p rove i t . Never the less , h e s ee ms r ea l ly t o t h ink t ha t E useb ius d id c hange h is mind , f or o n t he f o l low ing p age h e s peaks o f ' Euseb ius ' me morable c hange o f p os it i on '. 8 6 B evan 's e xp lana t ion i s al i t t le more l owleve l . H e b el ieves t ha t e i ther E usebius c onsidered G ood S hepherds i nof fens ive , o r h is a du l ta t ion o f C onstan t ine g ot t he b e t ter o f h im :

wh ich amoun ts t o ap ersona l a spers ion

a bou t Eusebius ' i n tegr i ty. 8 7 O f c ourse , i ft he t ru th i s t ha t Euseb ius n ever was a n o pponen t o f a r t , t hen e xp lana t ion i s u nnecessary s ince t here i s n o i ncons is tency o f a t t i tude ; t he L e t ter i s o b jec t ing o n ly t o o ne k ind o f a r t is t ic f orm.

S o much t herefore

s ee ms t o b e r elevan t a bou t t he f ac t o f r epresen ta t ion o f C hr is t a ccord ing t o t he L e t ter :

t he p or tra i t i n q ues t ion a ppears t o b e a n i con .

N ow i ti s n ecessary t o e xamine o n wha t g rounds t he L e t ter c onde mns s uch a p or tra i t .

The r easons g iven a re t heo log ica l , a nd t hey d i f fer a ccord ing

t o whe ther C ons tan t ia r equ ired ' t he t rue , u na lterab le i mage wh ich b ears h is e ssen t ia l c harac ter ist ics ' , t ha t i s , h is d iv in i ty —bu t Euseb ius f ee ls t he Empress i s n o t r e ferr ing t o t h is — 'or h is i mage a s as ervan t t ha t o f t he f l esh h e p u t o n f or o ur s ake ' , t ha t i s , Chr is t 's h u man i ty. 8 8 The t heo log ica l p rob le m o f r epr esen ta t ion i n t h is c ase i s , a ccord ing t o t he L e t ter , t ha t ' t he f l esh was s o ming led w i th t he g lory o f t he d iv in i ty t ha t t he mor ta l p ar t was s wa l lowed u p b y l i fe e ven when h e was o n e ar th ' , a s t he Transf igura t ion p roves .

Bu t h ow

i s i tp oss ib le t o r epresen t t he t ransf igured c oun tenance ' when e ven t he s uperh u man d isc ip les c ou ld n o t b ear t he s igh t '?

I ft he i ncarna te f orm o f C hr is t

p ossessed s uch p ower , i t was e ven l ess s uscep t ible t o p a in t ing a f ter t he Resurrec t ion .

And when o ne a rr ives a t t he i dea o f ' f orm ' a s a pp l icab le t o

t he d iv ine a nd h u man e ssence , ' one i s l e f t l i ke t he p agans t o t he r epresen ta t ion o f t h ings t ha t b ear n o p oss ible r ese mb lance t o a nyth ing , f or t h is i s wha t t heir c u lt f igures a re ' . B ut C ons tan t ia k nows p erfec t ly we l l t ha t i ft he s ub jec t o f t he r eques t i s r ea l ly a p ic ture o f t he h istor ic C hr ist o n e ar th , n ot o n ly i s i tf orb idden b y t he s econd c o m mandmen t b u t t here a re n o s uch e xamp les t o b e f ound .

' Have y ou e ver h eard a ny th ing o f t he k ind y ourse lf i n c hurch o r

f ro m a nother p erson? a l l o ver t he wor ld ;

Are n ot s uch t h ings b an ished a nd e xc luded f ro m c hurches

a nd i s i tn o t c om mon k now ledge t ha t s uch p or tra i ts a re

n o t p erm i t t ted t o u s a lone?' The p resen ta t ion o f t he a rgu men ts c an s carce ly b e c a l led c lear b u t i t s ee ms p oss ib le t o u npack t he m e ven tua l ly.

To t ake t he ' archaeo log ica l '

a rgu men t f i rs t —tha t C ons tan t ia i s a sk ing f or a r epresen ta t iona l i nnova t ion . I ft he L e t ter d oes r efer t o aB yzan t ine-s tyle i con , t hen q u i te c lear ly i ti s a n i nnova t ion s ince , a s a lready i nd ica ted , t here i s n o e v idence o f s uch i cons i n t he f our th c en tury.

Bu t wha t r a ther s ee ms t o b e t he p oin t i s t ha t b ecause

t he s econd c o m mandmen t f orbids r epresen ta t ion o f t he e ar th ly C hr is t a l toge ther , n o r epresen ta t ion o f h im a re t o b e f ound a t a l l i n f our th-cen tury c hurches ; i n o ther words , Eusebius s ee ms t o b e d enying t he e x is tence o f ma ter ia l r epr esen ta t ions o f C hr ist i n t he f our th c en tury.

I ft h is i s r ea l ly t he p o in t o f t he

p assage , i tc an b e d isproved a s h is tor ica l ly i naccura te b y t he u se o f o ne s pec tacu lar e xamp le :

t he Emperor 's s is ter , a nd Euseb ius h i mse l f , c an

s carce ly h ave b een u naware o f t he f ive-foot h igh , h undred-andtwen ty p ounds we igh t , s i lver f igure o f C hr is t w i th t he A pos t les a nd a nge ls wh ich a dorned t he ' f as t ig iu m ' o f t he Bas i l ica C ons tan t iniana , t he La teran . 2 8

8 9

I gnorance o f ap roduc t ion l i ke t h is mus t h ave b een i mposs ible i n t he f our th c en tury ; v ea led .

i t mus t h ave c aused a s ensa t ion when i t was f irs t i ns ta l led a nd r eS o f ar t hen , i ta ppears t ha t Eusebius ' d en ia l o f t he e x is tence o f t he

ma teria l o b jec ts s uch a s t hose h e r efers t o i n h is L et ter i s a t v ar iance w i th t he a rchaeo log ica l ma ter ia l o f t he f our th c en tury a s i ti s r ecorded o r s urv ives : w e d o n o t h ave t he i cons a nd t here a re i mages o f Chr is t . To t es t t he t heo log ica l a rgumen t i ti s n ecessary t o s ee i fi ti s c ons is ten t w i th wha t i s k nown o f t he t heo log ica l p os i t ion o f t he h is tor ica l Eusebius . Basic t o t he r eason ing o f t he L et ter , a nd t o t he h os t i l i ty t heory b u i l t o n i t , i s t he e n force men t o f t he o bl iga t ion o f t he s econd c o m mandmen t ;

ap roh ibi t ion

a lready s een a s n eg lec ted b y t he e ar ly C hurch b u t f igur ing p ro m inen t ly i n B yzan t ine d iscussions .

Wha t o f Euseb ius?

A s Wa l lace-Hadr i l l c lear ly s hows ,

i t was c ruc ia l t o t he who le t heo log ica l p os i t ion o f t he h is tor ica l Eusebius t o d iscoun t t he Mosa ic Law a s o f s ign i f icance f or C hr is t ians . h is i n terpre ta t ion o f h is tory.

9°

I ti nterfered w i th

H is tory was t he p roof o f t he t ru th o f t he G ospe l

f or Eusebius , b ecause t he t ru th mus t b e ma ter ia l ly d e mons trable. ma jor w orks f orm a u n i t ,

9 1

S o h is f our

s e t t ing o u t t he h is tory o f mank ind f ro m r e mote

a n t iqu i ty t o t he p ersecu t ions o f h is own d ay , a nd d raw ing t he t heo log ica l l esson f ro m t he h istor ica l p rocess t hrough wh ich G od makes H i mse l f k nown . S ince t he a x is o f h istory i s a long t he l i ne A braha m , Chr is t , C onstan t ine , h e h ad t o s how t ha t t he r oots o f C hr is t ian i ty l ay n o t i n J uda is m f ounded o n t he Mosa ic Law b u t f ur ther b ack i n t he a ge o f t he P a tr iarchs .9 2 The Mosa ic Law was a t e mporary measure a nd o f s tr ic t ly l oca l a ppl ica t ion : i th ad r eference o n ly t o J ews o f Pa les t ine .

I t was a l ower a nd l ess p er fec t

way a nd t he d estruc t ion o f t he Te mp le b y t he R o mans s ign i f ied t he d es truc t ion o f t he Mosa ic d ispensa t ion a l toge ther .

The c on t inua t ion o f imper fec t J ew ish

i dea ls was p oin t less i n v iew o f t he I ncarna t ion o f t he Word .9 3 Because o f t h is h is tor ica l d i mens ion , t he I ncarna tion was c en tra l t o h is t h ink ing a nd t h is mean t , t herefore , t ha t f or h is tory t he e v idence o f s cr ip ture was p r i mary.

And i ti s

h ere t ha t t he l i nk c o mes w i th wha t i s o f g rea t i n teres t t o t he p urpose o f t h is d iscuss ion ;

f or n o t o n ly d id Euseb ius wr i te c o m men tar ies o n s cr ip ture , b u t

h e a l l ied w i th t he m ' archaeo log ica l f i e ld-work ' , i fo ne may b e p ermi t ted s o t o c a l l i t .

H is i n teres t i n i den t ifying a nd d eve loping t he a rchaeo log ica l s i tes

mos t c lose ly l i nked w i th t he h is tor ica l a ssoc ia t ion o f C hr is t ian i ty , a s r ecorded i n t he n arra t ive o f t he s cr ip tures , a nd t o wh ich h e g ave e xpression i n h is t opog raph ica l works s uch a s t he O no mas t icon , was mean t t o b e t he ma ter ia l r einf orce men t o f t he d ocu men tary e v idence , wh ich p roved t he t ru th o f h is v iew o f h is tory. 9 4 A nd t h is , d esp i te h is s o-ca l led Or igen is m , ' gave t he h u man i ty o f C hr is t a n i mpor tance f or h im t ha t i th ad n ever h ad f or Or igen , a nd c en tred h is t heo log y i n t he I ncarna t ion '. 9 5 Af ur ther p oin t s hou ld b e a dded h ere a s f unda men ta l t o t h is o u t look a nd y e t u sua l ly d is missed a s s o me s or t o f s ycophancy o r a du la t ion o f C ons tan t ine , t h is i s t he l av ish p ra ise b es towed o n t he Emperor a s t he ma ter ia l f ounder o f t he Church .

When i t i s r eco l lec ted t ha t wha t g ave Euseb ius h is mot iva t ion

t owards a t heo log ica l i n terpre ta t ion o f h is tory was p ersona l e xper ience o f wha t p ersecu t ion c ou ld d o t o t he Church 9 6

a nd t ha t t he p ersecu t ion h ad h ad f or

i t s a im t he d estruc t ion o f s cr ip ture — the d ocumen tary p roof o f G od 's work i n h is tory —and t he ma ter ia l monu men ts o f t he C hurch , 9 7 t hen t he amoun t o f s pace

2 9

d evo ted t o c hurch b u i ld ings , a ppears a s wha t i t r ea l ly i s ;

9 8

d ecora ted c anontab les ,

9 9

a nd r e l ig ious s ta tues

a ma jor t heo log ica l t he me .

The ma ter ia l r estora t ion o f t he Church was e ssen t ia l a s p ar t o f t he v is ible p roof o f G od 's c u lm ina t ing h is tor ica l work i n C ons tan t ine .

Qu i te c lear ly t he 00 V i ta a nd t he c onco m i tan t Laus a re works o f s er ious t hough t a nd n ot s ycophancy. 1

Qu i te c lear ly , a lso , t herefore , at heo log ica l t he me o f s uch ma jor i mpor tance mus t b e t aken t o b e r epresen ta t ive o f t he a t t i tude o f t he h is tor ica l Euseb ius t owards ma t ters o f C hr is t ian i magery a nd a r t .

S o , f ar f ro m b eing a n tagon ist ic ,

t he s tress o n t he monumen ta l e v idence o f C hr is t ian i ty was f or Eusebius a s e ssen t ia l a s t ha t o n t he l i terary e v idence f or t he d e mons tra t ion o f , a nd p rop aga t ion o f , t he t ru th ,

I ti s n o a cc iden t t ha t h e wrote f our b ooks o n a rchaeo logy

o f wh ich o n ly t he O no mas t icon i s e x tan t .

1"

Turn ing b ack t o t he t heo logy o f t he L e t ter , o ne c annot f a i l t o o bserve t ha t t he who le c hr is to log ica l t hrust i s c ur ious i n o ne who h as b een c e lebra ted t hrough t he c en tur ies a s a n Ar ian ;

f or t he b as ic t ene t o f Ar ian is m , wha tever

i t s v ar ie ty o f man ifes ta t ion , was t ha t i n t he r e la t ionsh ip b e tween t he Fa ther a nd t he S on t he l a t ter was i n s o me way s ubord ina te . Ye t t he emphas is t hroughou t i s o n t he t rue n a ture o f C hr is t a s d iv ine a nd t herefore t he impossibi l i ty o f r epresen t ing h im i n p or tra i t f orm.

Nor i s t here ,

i ft he f oregoing s ta te men t o f Eusebius ' t heo logy i s t rue , a ny t race o f O r igen is m i n t he h is tor ica l Euseb ius , a s i ti s u nders tood b y F lorovsky t o b e c harac ter is t ic o f t he L et ter , wh ich h e u sed a s e v idence i n a n i n f luen t ia l a r t ic le a t te mp t ing t o t race t he r oo ts o f I conoc las m t o Or igen is m t hrough Euseb ius . 1 02 Am inor p oin t , t h is t ime c oncern ing Euseb ius ' s tyle a nd h ab i t o f mind , may f i na l ly b e a dded t o t h is s urvey.

I ti s t he V i ta a nd t he Laus a ga in wh ich

p rov ide s o me means o f j udg ing h is n orma l a nd d eep ly r espec tfu l me thod o f a ddress t o t he me mbers o f t he i mper ia l f am i ly ;

a nd i n h is d iscussion o f

Theophany i .4 , Wa l lace-Hadr i l l i s a ble t o r e mark t ha t i ti s o ne o f t he f ew p assages where Euseb ius ' s corn g oads h im t o o ne o f h is r are e xh ib i t ions o f v igorous a nd e f fec t ive p rose . 1 03 I n k eep ing w i th t h is , h is h es i ta t ions a nd s uf fer ings a t t he C ounc i l o f N icaea , d is m issed b y a nc ien t a u thor i t ies a nd modern s cho lars a l ike , 1 04 may v ery we l l b e i n terpre ted r a ther a s t he h es i ta t ions o f as cho lar ly mind wh ich d is l iked b eing f orced b y p ressure i n to a d ec is ion o n a ma t ter o f f irs t i mpor tance w i thou t d ue o ppor tun i ty f or c a lm a nd o b jec t ive t hough t .

Ye t t he l anguage o f t he L e t ter h as

b een d escr ibed b y Professor Mango a s ' v i tr io l ic ' a nd b y K lauser a s ' i rr i t ier t '. 1 05 O nce more we s ee m t o e ncoun ter a d iscrepancy w i th wha t i s k nown f ro m t he a u then t ic works.

Bu t t h is b r ings t he d iscuss ion b ack t o i t s s tar t ing-poin t .

A f ter p ass ing t he e v idence i n r ev iew , o ne i s f orced t o c onc lude t ha t t he L e t ter s ee ms t o b e o f s o u ncer ta in a n a ture , i n s o many a reas , t ha t i tc annot b e u sed a s e v idence o f a n a t t i tude o f g enera l h os t i l i ty t o a r t o n t he p ar t o f Euseb ius a nd t hrough h im o f t he e n t ire f our th-cen tury C hurch . And s ince i t s o r ig in i s s o c o mp le tely o bscure , a nd i t s c on ten t s o much a t v ar iance w i th wha t i s k nown o f t he v iews o f Eusebius h i msel f , e ven i t s a u then t ic i ty i s d oubt fu l .

I fi ti s , i n

s p i te o f a l l , g enu ine , t he mos t t ha t c an b e s a id i s t ha t i tr e la tes s pec i f ica l ly t o a n i con o f Chr is t a nd c ou ld t herefore b e c ons idered t o s ugges t ad e mand f or t he m i n t he f our th c en tury , f ro m wh ich t here a re n o a c tua l k nown e xamp les .

3 0

E p iphan ius o f S a la m is , L e t ter- t o J ohn o f J erusa le m I ft he u l t i ma te p rob le m o f t he L e t ter o f Eusebius i s o ne o f a u then t ic i ty , t he c ase o f t he p assages f rom E p iphan ius i s q u i te d if feren t :

i ti s t h is t ime

o ne o f i n terpreta t ion . The a u then t ic i ty o f t he f ragmen ts a t tr ibu ted t o E p iphan ius b y t he i conoc las ts i n 7 54 a nd 8 15 h as b een c on trover ted s ince t he t ime o f t he i conoc las t ic c on troversy i t sel f , a nd t hey h ave b een d iscussed e xhaus t ive ly f ro m t h is p oin t o f v iew i n more r ecen t t imes b y H o 1 1 a nd O s trogorsky.

1 06

O s trogorsky d en ied

t he a u then t ic i ty o f a l l b u t t he Tes tamen t o f E p iphan ius , a nd H o1 1 a ccep ted t he a t tr ibu t ion o f t he m a l l .

The a rgumen t o n b o th s ides t urned i n t he l as t a na lys is

o n t he c hr is to log y c on ta ined i n t he f ragmen ts a nd t o H o 1 1 t he w i tness o f E p iphan ius was e ssen t ia l a s p roof o f ad ogma t ic c onnota t ion o f t he who le p rob le m o f i mages wh ich h e b el ieved t o b e p resen t a s e ar ly a s t he f our th c en tury ; t h is was t he r eason why h e d iscussed t he a u then t ic i ty a t a l l .

O s trogorsky 's

work was s evere ly r ev iewed a f ter i t s p ub l ica t ion , a nd h e c ap i tu la ted o n t he a u then t ic i ty o f t he L et ter t o J ohn o f J erusa le m . 1 07 Bu t o ne f ac t wh ich i s o f t he h ighes t i mpor tance f or t he p urpose o f t h is s tudy h as emerged f ro m t he c on troversy , a nd i tc oncerns t he t ex t o f t h is l e t ter t o J ohn o f J erusa le m.

I ti s n ow k nown t ha t t he G reek o r ig ina l o f t he f a mous

c ur ta in e p isode , p reserved i n t he La tin t rans la t ion o f S t . J ero me a nd b e l ieved t o b e l os t , d oes i n f ac t s urv ive .

1 08

A s w i l l a ppear , t h is i s c ruc ia l w i th r egard

t o t he u se o f t h is l e t ter a s e v idence o f E p iphan ius '

t ak ing u p t he ma t ter o f

C hr is t ian r e l ig ious i mages a s a n i ssue ' a nd t he f ac t t ha t ' even t he mos t s cep t ic d o n ot d oub t t ha t E p iphan ius was a n o pponen t o f C hr is t ian r e l ig ious imagery '. 1 09 F or i ti s t he l e t ter wh ich i s t he r ea l b asis o f t h is v iew . I ti s t he t ear ing d own o f t he c ur ta in w i th i t s f igured r epresen ta t ion f ro m t he c hurch d oor o f av i l lage i n Pa les t ine t ha t i s r egarded a s t he l ocus c lass icus f or E p iphan ius ' i conophobia .

F or t h is r eason t he l ess i mpor tan t f rag men ts

a re l e f t a s ide i n d iscuss ions o f h is s upposed h os t i l i ty t o a r t , p ar t icu lar ly a s t here i s a lways t he p oss ibi l i ty t ha t t hey a re s pur ious ;

t he c ur ta in p assage

s ee ms t o b e u ndoubted ly a u then t ic b ecause o f t he c on te mporary w i tness o f S t . J ero me .

H owever , s o f ar a s Ik now , t he Greek a nd L a t in t ex ts h ave

n ever b een c o mpared i n o rder t o s ee wha t Ep iphan ius a c tua l ly wro te , a nd i f , t herefore , t he u sua l i n terpre ta t ion i s c orrec t . The s cho lar ly t rad i t ion w i th wh ich t h is c hap ter i s c oncerned h as a lways b ased i t s i n terpreta t ion o n li r o n t he La t in t ex t o f S t . J ero me a nd t h is a ppears t o b e t he b as ic mis take wh ich h as l ed t o mis interpre ta t ion .

K och was wr i t ing

b e fore O s trogorsky 's work , a l though S erruys h ad i so la ted t he G reek t ex t b efore h is p ubl ica t ion ;

E i l iger p ub l ished h is monograph much l a ter b u t i gnored S erruys

a nd O strogorsky a nd r e l ied e n t ire ly o n H o l l .

1 10

K lauser , t oo , makes r efer-

e nce o n ly t o t he La t in t ex t , 1 11 a nd S chnee melcher who wro te t he a r t ic le o n E p iphan ius i n t he Rea l lex icon a lso r e l ied o n J ero me f or h is s ta te men t o f t he t rad i t iona l v iew o f E piphan ius a nd i magery;

Dr . K e l ly r e l ied o n

S chnee me lcher ,

a nd t h is may b e h ow h e was l ed i n to a n e rror o f f ac t i n h is r ecen t d iscuss ion o f t he p assage . 1 12 B efore c o mpar ing t he t wo t ex ts , s o me r e marks a re p erhaps i n o rder . I ti s n ot u sua l ly made c lear when J ero me 's t ex t i s u sed t ha t t here i s aq uest ion o f h is h av ing , i fn o t f a ls if ied , a t l eas t t ampered w i th t he l e t ter o f E p iphan ius wh ich h e was t rans la t ing . 3 1

The q ues t ion was s o p o in ted t ha t i t

d rew f ro m J ero me a r ep ly i n t he f orm o f al e t ter o n t he p r inc ip les o f g ood t rans la t ion .

I t s hou ld b e f ur ther n o ted t ha t t he s ubs tance o f t he a ccusa t ion

was t ha t h e h ad f a i led t o r eproduce t he c our teous a nd q u ie t t one o f t he o r ig ina l .

1 13

I n a dd i t ion , i ti s i mpor tan t t o emphas ise , f ro m t he a rchaeolog ica l p oin t o f v iew , t ha t t he c ur ta in e p isode h as a c on tex t .

I ti s i n e ssence a n a pology

f or n ot s end ing s ooner a c ur ta in t o r ep lace t he o ne h e h ad p u l led d own —for i t s hou ld b e o bserved t ha t t he i m med ia te c r i t ic is m made o f Ep iphan ius ' a c t ion b y t he p eop le i nvolved was n o t ap ro tes t t ha t h e h ad d es troyed a n i mage o f C hr is t b u t t ha t h e h ad r e moved a v a luab le c ur ta in a nd n ot r ep laced i t . E p iphan ius e xcused t he d e lay b ecause h e wan ted t o f ind a r ea l ly g ood o ne a nd s o f e l t i tb e t ter t o s end t o C yprus f or o ne o f t he r igh t q ua l i ty a s we l l a s o f r e l ig ious a ccep t ib i l i ty . I ti s t he d e tach ing o f t he e p isode f ro m i t s c on tex t a nd t he l oss o f t he o vera l l c our teous p resen ta t ion a nd e xcus ing o f h is a c t ion t ha t h as c aused a t ten t ion t o b e f ocused o n ar ab id t ear ing d own o f c ur ta ins a nd , a ccord ing t o t he La t in , as harp r em inder a bou t t he s econd c o m mand men t , r esu l t ing i n t he s tandard p ic ture o f E p iphan ius a s ar av ing i conoc las t . A no ther ma t ter o f c on tex t , t h is t ime o f s oc ia l c on tex t , s hou ld a lso b e c ons idered h ere , f or c on tex t s ee ms t o d isappear a l toge ther whenever E piphan ius a nd a r t a re d iscussed .

I ti s we l l t o b e r em inded o f t he b ackground a ga inst

wh ich E p iphan ius moved s o a s t o h ave a p erspec t ive f ro m wh ich t o a pproach t he l i terary e v idence ;

t he works o f S t . J ero me a re a mine o f i nfor ma t ion

a bou t E p iphan ius a nd e nab le u s t o s ee h im i n h is own t ime . A s av isi tor t o Ro me h e was awe lco me f r iend o f Da masus , t he P ope f a mous i n h is own d ay a nd s ince f or t he c are a nd money h e l av ished o n t he ma ter ia l monumen ts o f t he Church , i n p ar t icu lar , t he c a taco mbs .

S unday wa lks t hrough

t he c a taco mbs w i th t he ir p a in ted d ecora t ions , s o c onduc ive t o med i ta t ion , were af avour i te f orm o f r ecrea t ion w i th J ero me a nd h is f r iends ;

works o f a r t were

e ssen t ia l t o t he p ie ty o f a sp iran ts t o t he p r ies thood i n o f f ic ia l c hurch c irc les i n t he f our th c en tury —a l though t h is s ee ms t o h ave e scaped t he a t ten t ion o f t he h os t i l i ty t heor is ts.

Ep iphan ius i s k nown t o h ave r ece ived h osp i ta l i ty f ro m ,

a nd g iven i tt o , t he c u l tured a nd wea l thy l ady Pau la , a nd h e a lso p reached i n t he c hurch o f t he Anas tas is i n J erusa le m o n t he f eas t o f t he Ded ica t ion .

Yet

i n a l l t h is t here i s n o s urv iv ing r ecord t ha t h e f e l t h i mse l f t hrea tened b y r evo lu t ionary i mages p u t u p b y t he l a i ty i n t he t ee th o f t he b ishops a nd c lergy. 1 14 D oes t he l i terary e v idence t hen c on f irm t he t rad i t iona l v iew o f Ep iphan ius ' a t t i tude t o a r t o r n o t?

I n E p . 5 1 .9 o f J ero me w e r ead t ha t o n e n ter ing t he

v i l lage o f Anabla ta a nd s ee ing a l a mp b urn ing a nd l earn ing t ha t t here was a c hurch i n t he p lace , h e wen t i n t o p ray a nd : i nven i i b i v elum p endens i n f or ibus e iusde m e cc les iae t inc tu m a tque d ep ic tum e t h abens i mag ine m q uas i C hr is t i v e l s anc t i c u iusdarn , n on e n im s a t is me min i , c u ius imago f uer i t . Cum e rgo h oc v id isse m , i n e cc les ia C hr is t i c on tra a uc tor i ta te m s cr ip turarum h om in is p endere i mag ine m , s c id i i l lud e t mag is d ed i c ons i l ium c us tod ibus e iu s d em l oc i , u t p aupere m mor tuum e o o bvo lveren t e t e f ferren t .

I l l ique c on tra

murmuran tes d icere : ' s i s c indere v o luera t , i us tum e ra t , u t a l iud d are t v elum a tque mu tare t ....

3 2

C/

2

e‘Z

r

"

)

)

c

r

The G reek r eads : e ueor keV piX ov e s i pi t o upt p m (T r-r ov) 6v ( . ) 3 tJy r e l li o t . e ) , z C • 14 I / c/ %1 . . . . ‘ b4 y5p0e I KE -X0 V -n e io wnoe getS * 0 GÄE rov 1 1( ) (0‘ ) o T i A ourrou jv 1-0 ) I ,' „ C‘ . C ' . ) • / 2r _ l ( , ) / eA CT ( ) rt

k co

%

. 7

6 1

o curo

e . /

z . ) t e js) ; 4, . ( %

. ; e i

& V °b

G ./

0 7 1

'r i • *

"(

c9 / 14) Y

p uo os

6u -f ly

C T° Ve p c ) GÄe t . )T o (

/

• -e ) %etr i "-^ ic ' e cv -r e (. ö l% . : S ' c /(S oo

K 1 1Z Y

•

6 1 /( k . )

r

) 00

e A t

y f rk St " 4 1tA C