Face to Face: Portraits of the Divine in Early Christianity

r ....n TO r....(E FACE TO FACE Ponraits of the Divin~ in Early Chri>t;;,nity Copyright C 200S AUg,burg !'ortre.. ...

Author: Robin M. Jensen

111 downloads 1851 Views 24MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

r ....n

TO

r....(E

FACE TO FACE

Ponraits of the Divin~ in Early Chri>t;;,nity Copyright C 200S AUg,burg !'ortre.. , All rights r...,rved. Exc~pt for brief quotation. in critiocal aniel~, or reviews, no part of this book m.ay b< reproduced in any mann~r without prior written ptrmission from the publi.hu. Writt: Pcrmi .. ion., Augsburg Fort""' .. Box 1109, Minnrapoii>, MN 55440. Scripture quotations, unlen otherwi'e noted,.re fru m the New Revised StandarJ VeT$ion lIible, copyright 0 1989 by the Divi,ion of Chri,tian Education of the N.tional Com",il of the ChurchC$ of Chri,t in the USA and used by permi»ion. Cowr and book de,ign: Zan Ceder About the ,over a n: Lef\: Det,il "f J..... emhroned, ca. 400 C.E. Church of Sant, Puden,i'n', Rome. Middle: Detail of Dome m.,.,.ie. early 6th cen. C.E., Arian ilaptistery. R,a",nna. Right: Delail of MedaUion portra it of Chris! from "",h of presbyter;um. San Vit.le. Ravenn. , All photoo; are by Robin Margaret Iblication Dat. J.., .. n, Robin Margare! F.ce to f.u;~ : portraits "fth~ d ivine in early Chrisl;;,nity I Robin Margaret [en.. n,

p. em. Includ ... bibli"Sraphic.1 referene ... and inda. ISBN 0· 8006· 367S · } {pbk. : alk. paptrJ-1SBN 0· 8006·6092·7 (alk. paj>Cr) l. Jesus Christ_ Art. 1. God _ Art. 3, Saints i n art. 4, Art, Early Chri'ti.n , 5. Purtr.tit" Roman. J. Title , N8050 ,j431004 704.9·4SS·09011-dc21 2004012360 The paper u .. d in this publ i,,"tion med, the minimum ~uirem of American Nat ional Standard fo r Information S
"'

, , , ,

;

,

Contents Preface ix Abbr... viations xv

I. Visual Art, Portraits, and Idolatry I Early Christ ian Views of Visual Art: Historical Analyses Art and Idolatry in the Early Third-Century Christian Wri tings Jewish Background for Christian Rejection of Visual Art The Earliest bam pies and Type:; of Christ ian Visual Art: Church Regulation Portraits: A Particular Kind of J>roblematic Image The First Portrai ts

4 9 15

19 23 30

2. Image and Portrait in Roman Culture and Religion 3S Idealization versus Realism in Roman Portraiture The Savior-Type and the I'hilosopher Funerary Portra;h Portraits and PrfSt'na--Th e Image of the Emperor The Images of the Gods

37 42 44 51 59

3.The Invisible God and the Visible Image 69 Justin Martyr: Refutation ofJdols and Di vine Theophanies lrenaeus: The Unity of God against the Gnostics Tertullian: The Dignity of the Incamation and the Distinction of the Persons of the Trinity Clement of Alexandria : Philosophical Aniconism and the Futility of Idols Andent Roman Precedents for Christian Aniconism The Philosophical Argument in the First Four Cent uries C.E. First-Century and Early Rabbin ic Teachings on the ln~isible God Thwphilus, No~ati an, and Origen: Sal~ific Vision n;eeingGod and Li~ing~)

71 74 77 81 83 86 89 91

VII

V III

4. Seeing the Divine in the Fourth and Early Fifth Centuries 101 The Invisible God in the Fourth Century 103 The Anthropomorphite Controversy 108 Augustine and the Problem of the Invisible God 109 Portrayals of God and the Trinity in Visual Art of the Third and Fourth Centuries liS

5. Portraits of the Incarnate One I] I Traditions and Legends regarding Jesus' Appearance 134 Jesus'Variant and Changing Appearances in literary Sources 139 Jesus' Variant and Changing Appearances in Art 142 Jesus as Savior and Healer: The Beautiful Youth 146 Jesus as Teacher, Philosopher, and Ruler: The Bearded lYpe 154 Christology and the Image of Christ in Ravenna 159 The Transfigured Christ and the Two Natures Controversy 165 Christoiogy, Salvation, and the Role of the Image 170

6. Early Portraits of the Saints and the Question of Likeness 171 Descriptions of Saints' Portraits in literary Documents 179 Specific Examples of Holy Portraits 186 The Question of likene~: Conclusion 196

Notes 201 Glo~ary

223

Select Bibliography 225 Index 231

Preface

I N TH E EA R LY autumn of 1888, two years before his death and , despite the ravages of his final illness, experiencing one of his most pro ductive periods, Vincent van Gogh WToh' a few lines about the nature of portrait painting 10 his broth<.'f, TlIeo: Ah my
bro{h~r,

"",""Iim« J know so well what J ....tnt. J can well do

without God in boih my life .nd al"" in my paiming, but , uffering" I am, r Cannot do without som<1hing greate, than myself, "'rn'-"hing which i. my l ifo>--th' POWeT 10 cre.t". And if, deprivN of dl< phy,;'::!1 power, Ont tries 10

creale thoughu ins\""d of ch~dren, one is .>IiU very much l>an of humanity. And in my pielu,,,,, I wan' to say s"mething ,()n,,~ing a, rno,i, doe. _ I want 10 pa int nlen and women with" touch of the "" .... nal, wh.,... .ymbol " ..IS on~ the halo, which we try to '<>"'-ey by the '''ry radia nc. and vibran,y of our colouring.... Ah portraiture. portraiture. with the mind. ti>c soul of tht modtl_ that i. what .-tally must come, it
Vincent's insistence that a true portrait captures far more than a physi cal likeness by also portraying the mind and the soul of the model, is well illustrated by the work he produced around that time. Departing ff<)m a concentration on landscapes and stilllifes, or anonymous scenes of workers and cafo! sitters, he produced a series of memorable images incl ud ing the portrait of the postman Joseph Roul in (Arles, August, 1888), the Arlesienne (ArIes, November, 1888), the Woman Rocking a Cradle (Arles, D«ember, 1888), the Head Warder at the Asylum of Saint~IUmy (St.-IUmy, 1889), and finally h is own self-portrait, painted two mon ths hefore his suicide (Am'ers-sur-Oise, 1890). Through color, composition, and technique, Vincent here captured the distinct person ality of each model , and time's passing has borne this out as a "touch of

IX

x

PREFACE the eternal.~ These portraits say as much about the painter's skill and insight as they do about the model's pt'rsonality or aspirations, and the faces of these ordinary persons indeed have boxome eternal in their way. Van Gogh's models appear on postcuds sold in nearly every art bookshop in the world, their faces as familiar to us as certain celebrities or pop stars. The fascination with trying to "capture the soul~ of an individual by making a physical likeness coexists wilh art itself. From Egyptian mummies to Byzantine icons to the work of such twentieth-century photographers as Alfred Steigleitz, Richard Avedon, and Diane Arbus, portraits have been private and intimate, pub Ii, and monumental, huge and tiny, religious and s<'Cular. They might show the whole human form or merely a disembodied face. Sometimes portraits had utilitarian purposes such a~ rewrding the phy~ical appearance of prince&> candidate~ for dynastic marriage; others guarded the family as tutelary spirits or mediated the divine presence of a deity. Essentially, they portrayed the appearance of an individual (human, divine, Or imagined) produced from life or from memory, so as to allow identification, aid the memory, revea l key aspects of the subject's character or persona lity, or invite devotion. Portraits are potent and can be dangerous. Persons who have be.:ome ostracized or unpopular may have their images cut out, painted over, or digitally removed. Portrait statues of former rulers and dictators have been toppled or decapitated as a means of erasing their memory and indicating their impotence. In some cultures, taking a photograph of an unsuspect ing stranger is not only rude but equivalent to stealing. To own an image is to rob identity or to gain access to the inner being, possibly for evil purpose. Portraits alSQ present a moment of a li fe from a c... rlain vi ...wpoint, which may be rewa ling, manipu lative, truthful, idealiting, or distorting. Portraits honor, expose, examine, or expres~ the reality of a human, physical exis tence. They can describe, eult, or ridicule; th ...y may inspire wntemplation, derision, imitation, or d... votion. They may be brutally honest or deeply sympathetic, their subjects shown as heroic, noble, saintly, stupid, weak, or evil. Likeness is not an easy thing to define, and its measure lies in the response of a viewer as much as in the skill or intentions of the artist. Whereas caricature captures certain id ... ntifiable features and exaggerates them into humorous or mocking portrayals, idealizing images work in the opposite direction, but bot h can he Iikene~es. Picasso's portrait of Dora Mar in the cubist style is also a likeness on its own terms. The matter of identification is key since the original and image are related but very different things. One is not wntained within the other: the latter only refers to the former, or merely even to some aspect of that other's existence-merely a single moment in time, an episode of a life, but not the whole. Thus, the capturing of the soul is on ly for a specific

PREFA(E fixed time and place and only according to th e eye of a particular beholder (the artist and the viewer). Even so, some portraits have come to be indelibly awxiated with their model, like Gilbert Stuart's George Washingtoo, or Hans Hollx>in's portrait of Henry VIII. Portraits are relational, since the viewer meets the model face to face. And the face above all (in particular, the eyes ) serves as the vulnerable conduit to the soul. Although portraits may include the rest of the body, the face also is the basis of the likeness. Eyes don't always meet the gaze of the viewer,since some portraits are in profile, but a faceless portrait is almost incomprehensible. Without the face, the portra it is incomplete, but a superficial facial image itself is not noxessarily a portrait. The dri. ver's license or identity card only roughly matches an external appearance and has a single function . A true portrait conveys something e>sential about its subject that transcends mere surface likene>s. This is achieved through the use of color, composition, technique, or style, which includes such secondary details as costume, props, or setting thaI add important identifying as well as descriptive elements. For some religious persons, Ihe idea of making a portrait of God is utterly blasphemous. God is asserted 10 be invisible and beyond human comprehension. Nevertheless, Scriptures are fiiled with anthropomorphic descriplions of God and slories of God's appearance to humans in one form or another (a burning bush, an angelic visitor, the Ancient of Days on a throne). Moses is told that he cannot see God's face, but the Apostle Paul assures his readers that one day we will see God "face to face" (1 Cor 13:12). Jesus tells his disciples that if they have Seen him they have seen th e Father (John 14:9), even though the fourth evangelist still claims that uno one has ever seen GQd" (John I: 18). The Epistle to the Colossians calls Christ the "image of the invisible God" ( 1: 15). And, even though it avoids any representation of the First Person of the Trinity, the Orthodox Church defends the importance of portrait icons on the basis that the i'Karnation of Christ gave God a "human face." These statements of faith all claim that verbal expression is not God's on ly means of self-revelation and that Christians might well claim that there is also a visual means of knowing and comprehending the Divine- having both ears to hear and eyes tos« the~glory of the Lord" in and through the testimony of nature, history, and everyday human living. Not on ly whether but how the image of God or Christ should be portrayed is a different problem, which has been deeply controversial and divisive in th e history of Christianity. The problem of representing a divine nature, or even upturing a physkal human likeness of that One who left no certain record of appearance or eyewitness description, might be insurmountable apart from an act offaith, a belief in the gift of a miraculous image, or the acceptance thaI a true likeness is nOI based on mundane historical data but can emerge out of tradition,

XI

XII

PREFACE personal religious experience, Or eVen particular visionary experiences. And, if the record shows us anything, it is that a wide variety of different representat ions does not imply that all (bu t perhaps one ) are wrong. It may be that all are right. The nearly infinite variety of portraits of Christ that have been created by Christians in all places and times may lead us \0 one almost paradoxical conclusion-that no one image can tell the whole story and that all can show us some aspect of the truth. In a se nse, more is better. The existence of four separate canonical Gospels perhaps demonstrates this. But the same might be said of any human portrait as well. No one image can capture the whole of an ind ividual's life and character. Every image leads us to the model, while at the same lime it shows only an aspect or even a tiny glimpse of the reality of the individual. Thus, the term ~portrait" here has a very ~poxific meaning-i t aim~, like van Gogh's paintings, to capture not only the external appearance but also the whole person, including the mind and soul, and to portray that ~touch of eternit y.~ Thus, the picture tell~ a ~tory far more expansil'e an d profound than it might seem on the surface. The beauty and the truth of these images have less to do with verisimilitude or even aesthetic judgments than with the way they affect their viewers. Such images lead viewers to a different kind of understanding of the subjoxt, and perhaps even to the story arousing affoxtion or devotion, and finally allow th ... observ... r both to sense th ... presenC<.' of the model and to be inspired to imitation of the virtues conveyed through the image. In this way, the faculty of sight is a potent means by which humans may come to encounter th ... holy and to be transformed by th at encount ... r. This book examines the power of images, especially in the early Christian tradition in th ... C<.'n turies just prior to the establishme nt of and controversies surrounding the place of th ... icon in liturgy and devotion. I contend that the seeds of what later would become the Orthodox defense of the icon already existed in early Christian teaching and that actual visual images W<.'fe both used and apprecia ted, almost as soon as Christians had any distinct material culture of their own . The later rejection of visual images by the church at various times an d places (in both East and West), even when prompted by legitimate fear of idolatry, usually misund ... rstood the natuT<.' of most of these images and fa iled to attend to the esS<.'ntial ro] ... of seeing in the Christian teaching about salvation. I began this work three years ago a~ a luce Fellow in Theology, funded by th ... Henry Luee Found ation through the Association of Theological Schools. In add it ion to the Foundation and the ATS,] wish to thank my teachers, Richard Brilliant, for stirring my interest in andent portraiture, and Richard Norris, for his wiS<.' commentary on the problem of God 's invisibility. Mary Charles Murray, Ja~ Elsner, Tom Mathews, Corby Finney, and Graydon Snyder have also been important

PREFA(E influences nn me as well. The International Catacomb Society. Amy Hirschfeld. and my other colleagues on that Boord have ~en immensely generous with their images and their time; Kale Layter read and ably edited some of my first drafts; and Lee lefferson proofread and indexed the final version. I am especially grateful to Zan Cedey of Fortress Press for her work on the design ofthis book-an essential aspect of any book on the visual arts. I also want to thank Andover Newton Theological School for providing a sabbatical leave; Vanderbilt Divinity School for allowing me an ini tial lea,'e from teaching after I joined its faculty; and my colleagues both in Boston and Nashville for stimulating conwrsations and support over the past deude. Finally. I want to thank my husband, I'atout Burns, for being my conwrsation partner, trawl companion, generous and patient editor. and handy reference service. He also should get the credit for many of the photographs in this book, but we usually cannot tell which one of us took which pictures, slides, or digital images in our collection.

X III

Abbreviations Ancient AaM.c..... Adv. Elm, IIJv. I:'>on. Ub. 2

Front." AdM. c.""""", (To M"' ..... Aureliu.) B.,il of CKsarea, ildvm-u, IAgai"" Eunomiu.) Gt"ll"'Y of Nys.oa, IIdwr,,,, t'"""",;",,, /i"" 2 IAg>ilUt EuJ'lOmiu,'

Eo""""",,,

5«<Joo II..... "",. Ilk..

11",,,,,,,, m .

1l<><>I:;)

Arr><>l>ius, ,u",,,", "',,",,'" (Agoi",' tho Nations) Plutarm. Ah.M" Gregory of N)U>.lk an,,,,,," "'""«IWn' (On the Soul.t>d the Rosurl'Ktionl

Toe;''''' A"n.1n (Annab) 1<»<)'11 us, An ,j~" "'di. ..... (j,,,,i,h A<1tiquit in) 101m of o.IN>
;'.'"

., &11./"1-

C"" ell,.

Con,,,,

"''',usi...,

~'"

~"

Cam. elu. ~,.

Ca,«/t. ,Uu",.

'on''''

C.",,,,,,,

Gem,,,,

co. C Eu"C ("ot",. .4 hltt.

0 •. GJd<x Thtoo.

~".

Comm. Om'. C"",,,,, f:u
Comm .

ApoIogi .. >&>inst 'I""" \\'ho Attock tt.< l)i.;n< Im.s",) l .. tin,A~" ([Jof,n .. ) 'I<"ulli,n. Itpoia;:<' ",um (Apology) Th.Ad Au,o/)"",,, (To AUtolycu» l"""J'hus, &lIu ... Judo""", (lrwi>b \" .. ) Salhut, &Ilum '"lImnm"m ITh< lugurthi .. W,,) 1<>O<»h us, Apw ....., (Ag.i "" Ap "'") Om, ...... MO."", (Di""",,,,, 'Vim' tho Ar"n') F<>r1um'", 00,." ... ("""m.) f\oulinu>. C.,,,,in" (I'o<ms) T(Jmru.)

.'.1.".

Coo,,,,

A,n,n ..i,.., Co",,,, tt"'" (Ap;n" ,n, Pa&'"') ~[)io"ysi ....

p< ,,,,,1,,,1 hi<",,,-j,'. (On

,t... Ctbh,l

Hi.mchy) Augustine, 0. 0.; (Ci'yo{ God) Cod£x Thro./o,;'n", (Th«>oJo.i, n Cod<) John eo .."", CoIJ4licr<<> (Conf"",<,,) Oris'''' Co,","""."", ;" c.",","", (C<>mm,n'ory on ,t... 500g of

Nvi,."

~.'

rio""" ;"

I""""", C-",""""", f:UChiNm libri X VI (Co)mm
c-""''''''' w,,,,

.'.1"""""

Oris'''' Com,"""",,um ," '''''"8mm
h"l"""'"'

Tungues) ....uS"" 'n<, 0. """""'" ,"'ngt!"""",n (H. ml<>ny 0{ ,~, Go>pd.) ~hil" 0. .ita "","mpJo'i.a (On ,o. ConltmpLui .... lift) Ph~" 0. CH.:alofo (On ,II< CH.:.!ogut)

xv

A BBREVIATI ONS

XVI

Dio Chrj'1OOlom, Dt Dri rot"j,,,,,, (On ,bo Know\
D<m. E. U;'1

Do • . """'. ~:a.

hin.

D<""""".'"

""'"sdi<- (D<momt, ,,io<J of lb< Goopdl jU;.it>< 1\>.m.<)

Ewcbi ....

h""",""

"""i

W.

POition of tho hoInuJ Plot inu~ E"",.d"

~.

IwgUOlin<, Ep;,,"lat (L
~.

l\;4i1, Eri"u;', (le" e,,) C)'p.-i'n, Ep;,,~I.. (kl len) Grof Rusp<, ad (Lrttt,,,ion of th. Ap<»1<'hc Pr0 Otry",,,lom, li>:poririlmtt in /'JoJ""" (E:<poo;h"o of tho 1'0> 1,,,.) J'mn", 14',,"al", i. l)oni.!.", (Corn"""''' y 00 [bni.iJ Aug""i"" Dr fik" 'Y"'OO/o (00 Fa;th lind tho S)TIlOOl) Joon of [brnaKtl5, Dt M< (On th, Ortl>orlOJl F. ;th) Cyprian. Ad ""rI",,"'"," (To l'a"turuotur: E.xhorution 10 MlIrI)Tdom) Euripide>, Fmg"'''''. (Fr.rsm,n") luli.n (Emprro,), mrg"",",um Epi,,,,/M (F,.gmrnt of. Lrttll

Enol"" , PI.

~.

"" ""

Ep. ",V.";'"", Ep. ~.nd", Epid.

txp. "'/4>1 IM. _ Fid. 'rmb. Fid,onh.

-."

F"'g.
lip;"""" fpi""""

£p,""/""

fr'""''' """""du,,,

0"""""'.

Gion"

kr.Pri",) ~ h i l", 1J< ~'"g.r " ;",..",",,,, (00 Hight .nd ~inding) ~ hil", 0. G",""

/I ....

i r<". ...... Ad"",", ha"""

1/", IImld I/i".

Ov~

~'ug .

lIu,_ I/u,. I/u,_

1/;',.

11m. iii", I/i". A."K' 5< •. AIt... /10m , /fom ,

110m, /10m ,

I/om. I Cot. Hom. 56 Mon. /10m . ....-c ... i. M,k< /10m , ExOO.

110m, C..... 110m, 11<0.

/10m. "'urn. Ido/.

,.''''''t_

(Again" If"",i..)

H""i/k! Lu";"", Hrnuks 1-;"5, H i,,,,,i. «ooim ri<:. (11 [,,0<)' of tl>< aru"h ) N'«r/I<Jr"" 0,,"""'" II,,,,,",,,, (Br;lf If ist"ry) Phil""org.iu~ II~"";' mktimri<: Church) I\r lybiu~ lI~r()<'" (l lillor,«) Soc .. I.., m".,;. «toryof tho OlUrry tho Gr ... , /1001,1;"" (lI"mil,,,,) Grt Epi>tlf to 'h, CorinthiMu) Jolm Otry>oo10rn. l-iomUiM in Man,""",,, (Homili", on M.tth,w) Jobn aITY_om, Ho",i/", ,"",miu", in ,-/di,ium (Homily in P"i>< of Mridiu.) Orig,n. Ho""li.,;" EMd"", (Homilie> "" hodu.) Orig.", lIorni/"";,, C~im (llom ;li« on G,,,,,i.) 10100 Cry>oolOm, lIomilia<;n '1';",,1001 oJ 11<1",,,,,, (Homili", 00 Ih. Epi"", to ' h, H«>r,w.) Orig"" Ho","i.,;n N"m"", (Homili<> on N~mb... ) Trrtullian. fX Ula/olorrio (On Idoiatry) Luc;"', Imagi"" (b>ay> on I\rn .. i,u «) IIth.n .. ' '''' Dt i_null;"", (00 tl1< I,.:omotion)

5<""",

ABBREVIATIONI lui.

Lap,. Loud. Throd.

'" M"t<.

M"rt,

M.

MN. «
M." MY'" ,Mc. NlJr, NlJr, d. /Ii"," fu.

Opi! ~. ~.

XV II

Su ... ~ L<:gt<'io "'" (Sul'I'lic>tion for ,h. ct.",,,t.,,,) lih<. Rm'jfo:o>li, (Ilook of I'op<') Po'p nyry, Ad Mo""U"", (10 M.r«Uus) Tmullt.n. Adwr>u, Marne.."" (Agoin>' Marcion) Tmullt.n. Ad Ma,,,,,o, (To the M." y... ) PIu .. ,ch. Mo,a/,a (Morab) Au~"" in<. De >m'T;b", ""It>",. ,,,,.. /ita< (MQlo. ], of ' i>< C.tooli< Chur'hs of 1'm«uIon) I-'>rndo.UiollJ"hu, V. "'Y'oo. (On My>,kallb.,.1) a.m
"'P'"

0.,;";"""

,h.

..,.rt'''"'

' ' ' ' 11'' ,h.

,h.

(0.-.'''' .... )

~.

Obi, &11_ ~d ~mm ~,

,~

P"n,

Eg<Tix. ~n""'", (Pilgr'rnoS" '" I'lnmry) Pmdrn'iu~ P
~.

Ati"OIi<. _.." ( Portia) Philo, 1>< Coin; (On ,h. Po"eri' yof C.in) Eusrbiu~ ""'"",,",,'''' f ",.gu,l'mxfiI, (Agoi"'t Pru... ) O'isY' On l'oI1 .. itu« D<1.odn to tl>< Gr«ko) T«'ulli.", D< p"dic~", (On Mod""y) Kabbi Uippotytus. omnium """"';u", (R.futotioo of Mill.......) Theodor. ' h< Studi ... RLfu,,,,Iotu-, (Refutation. of the Iconocla,U) Tmullia .. Scorp;"" (Amidot, JO, th, Xorp""'" St ing) Augu" in<, Srrmo"
~.

Lro,

"'"

lhtulli.n, fi< ' F«'","Ji, (On ,h. Silowsl Basi l of eae.. ... , Spi,;'", ",""'"' (Th. Itoiy Spiti') Ch,-yoost",n, Ad p"p"lum ,I",,,,,,ht><"'" de ,,",u;, (On ,I>< S"' u .. ) PIu .. ,ch. 0. StoirofUm "Pug",,"li,, (Slo;' Srlf.Co"' fild;'tioiu) Clem<"' . 5,,,,,,.,t';, (Misc,llani .. ) Ep i pll . niu~ (T.... ""'"t) Su 0<1 th, Gooprl of Johnl p I"'iyt .... T,.d;,"' "1"" '01"" ("""",toIi< Tt< 1,;n;",,, (On , h. Trini' y) r-;",~ ,i:tll. I>< T,ini ,.,. (On ,I>< 'Iiini, y) Augu"ir.<, o. vrm "I,! ;'", (On TN< Religion) Phil""", ,,'u~ Viroltpol"",ii (Life of Apo lloni", ofl}-llna) EU>
~,

-. Po,,_

I'n>
f um

""'I,".~

fu ,

, '"' &f

•.

'if ~

Spi,. ",.",. 5,.,-

Stoic, "p. ,~.

'"' Tib.

T,""" Eo, /0. r ••.tAp.

r.",_ r.",_

1-..... ,tI.

V,< !!poll. V,< c.,.,,,. Vi,_Piot.

po""';'."

Pt',.,-;p'"

JUfu"""'

5<,,,,,,,,,, ( SrrfOOn»

r",,,,,,,,,IU,,,

u,

XV I II

ABBREVIATI ONS

Modern

" '"

ACW

'"

~,

ANRIV

=

""

B/I,. B"lIl1i>y 8<1 CaILArch. CCSL

C;,S,

0"'

=, K

co H[)R IITR

'"

'"

/£CS

"'"

IS)Sup

rl"S

In. MDM MU. NPNP PBSII

"

~c

Ri.AC SH AW.PlI

Art Bullnin

Andtn, CI",,,;,o

I"" ,...

Art 1/;',"'1 Ammc~n

Jou,",,1 ofA'charo/ov

An,.. Nk:rn, Falhnr Aufi'irg "nd Nirolrrgo"g drr r/i",j""," Wr/l

Art. /It/ig;'''' • • ...J T~""I S,"d'" Bibl",,1 Arch<>
Bulk,i" NodI",;' Royok d, 8 ofW.,t<m Srir,'WI~'y D"~lbarn," Oak, Pap,I><'H'[ 'ht 0""'" Pit g";«hi>n lI""",rd Thr%tuol /Ir,;"" 1",,,1 ExpJam,"," ",,,mal Jou "",f of Bibl"al L ,rna'""

,io.

"'u"",) of Ea.lyo,,.,.,,,,"

"'U "",) of /Ir/ig;""

S,ud",

,o.

"'U "",) for s,udy of 1#0;' '" Survltmtnts to ,I>< Jou,,,,,) fo' 'he S,udy of judo;,,,, Jou"",) ofTh~kd! S,ud;" l.otb <:l..,;ca l Uhmy Mirrril,,"K'" d" Dtu",,,," o~,,"hrn 1m","" !.Itkin!!" d'o"'~k" d 'hi,w''''' de fkoJr fro","" d, """'" Nianr and fu,,·N""", "',,""" Stri.. l of ,lot B.i"", Schoola, Rom< p"",i<
""P<"

",,"""""t"'

o..i""",,,,,,

ONE

Visual Art, Portraits, and Idolatry

FOR TH E MOST PART, existillg examples of Christian visual art come from Rome and date to the beginning of the third century C. E., a time when Roman Christians were enjoying a brief resp ite from the widespread but sporadic perst'cutions they had suffert'd during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (160-180). During the relatively tolerant reign

of Emperor Commoous ( 180--192). the church acquired land outside the city walls,on the Via Appia An tica, for usc as a burial ground. allow -

ing them 10 inter Christian dead in cemeteries separa ted from their non -Christian neighbors. This cemetery, unlike most n..cropoli or mau solea from earlier times that were eithe r just at the surface or above ground, waS constructed as an underground network of branching and connecting tunnels on four different levels, containing tiers of narrow horiwnlal nkhes for individual bodies (Iowli) and open ings into larger rooms (,,,bie,,I,, ), which may have held several burials from a single family. The loa.li were doSl'd with slabs of stone or terra cotta on which were inscribed simple epi taphs and often a figure or a symbol (such as a dove, praying figure, anchor, or fish). The walls and ceilings of the wb;cula (3 word that means "sleeping chambers" ) were often adorned with traditional decorative motifs as well as some narrative images based on biblical th emes. According to his later rival Hippolytus, the oldest section of the first known Christian cemetery was placed under the supervision of CaliistU5, a former slave who had been condemned to hard labor in the Sardinian mines as a Christian. After he was released (through an intervent ion on his behalf by the emperor's mistress Marcia, who seems to have had Christian sympathies), Callistus returned to Rome, where he received a pension as reward for his suffering from Bishop Vktor J (189- 198 C.E.). Under Victor's successor Zephyrinus, Callistus Was put in charge of the

1

FACE TO FACE

2

Christian cemetery, and when Zephyrinus died, he became Bishop him self, dying as a martyr in 222. ' In time, the cemett'ry Callistus had supervised (although not whert' he himself was buried) came to Ix called the

r"

I.

w.,

~~"i fn:om

a

~

., th~ c.t..:oni> d s.... SebostI....,. """"" (Q n" 1""""...".,,1

C"'...-cmbSOOety._ Estok Bmtman~

r" 2 Good Sh<;>he>d. C ..... QmbofC r "t<.

R<>mo (Cl TO. lr'!tem. tlOnaI Catocorrb Society. 1'Iloto: Estek Bmtman~

Catacomb of Saint Callistus.' In scriptional ev idence in its oldest area, containing lhe so -called Crypt of the Popes, was found to indicate the burials of a number of third-century bishops of Rome. Hi storians regard this site as especialJy important because of its many wall paintings, most of which are assumed to be oon!emporaut'ous with the first years of its use, making them among the earliest examples of Christian figuratiw art. No sim ilar body of art works is known from the preceding two centuries of the Christian era. Moreover, given these paintings' location in a site owned and supervised by church officials, we can assume that Ca lli st us and other subsequent ecclesial au t horities allowed the production , style, and content of the frescoes. In othe r wnrds, the images that decorate these burial spaces were officially permitted, even though they appeared in quasi -private space (family tombs) and were presumably wmmissioned by ordinary individuals to enl iven the crypts of their deceased relatives. In time, the de.:;oration became even more uofficial~ as frescoes came to adorn the more public burial chambers of clergy and martyred saints.' These early images are fairly simple, and many were clearly modified from conventional Roman funerary art and trad ition al wall painting. They include the purely dewrative, customary, and religiously generic iwnography of garlands, fruit, flowers, and birds that appea rs in neigh boring pagan burial chambers as well as domestic settings (fig . I ). Some common figures borrowed classica l motifs and adapted them to convey specific Christian meanings such as the fish, dove, anchor, shepherd, praying figure (oram), ooat, and funeral banquet (figs. 2- 4), H owever, we also find a number of distinct, recognizable Christian motifs in the oldest chambers of Callistus's catacomb including the socalled cubicula of the sac ram ents, where, alongside the figures of the shepherd and the orant, we also see the figures of Jonah, Moses striking

VIIVAL ART, PORTRAITI, AND IDOLATRY the rock, Abraham and isaac, and some early scenes from th e New Tes tament, including the baptism of Christ and the healing of the paralytic (figs. 5-7). In time, as this and other Christian catacombs continued to be enhanced with frescoes, the iconographic catalog grew even more complex, adding such figu res as Noah, Daniel, and Jesus perform ing va ri ous healings and working wonders. By the late third and into the fourth century, these same images began to appear carved in relief on the front and ends of the large stone coffi ns (sarcophagi ), discovered within the larger chambers of the catacombs or sometimes in above-ground mau solea or nearby basilicas (figs. S-9 ). These various Christian motifs and symbols referred to ideas, stories, or events that encapsula ted an aspe\:t of the beliefs or hopes of the fa it hful, in th is context particularly referring to th e expectations for a blessed afterlife promised by the sacraments of the church, or to the character of the de\:eased as a person whQ lived a life of steadfast piety, fidelity to the community, familial affection, and high mora l character. Most of the early paintings were of relatively low quality and style when compared to much more beautiful enmples of Roman wall painting, although they strike the viewer as expressive and vigorous in their own right. The relief carvings, on the other hand , often were beautifully crafted and well composed. Whether highly crafted or not, these paintings and Carvings are necessarily exceptional and ground breaking as some of the very first examples of Christian art. The visual image was allowed to carry the weight of message and meaning, in the context of the most significant of all life's moments--death and the burial of the body by the rciatives and friends of the de\:eased. Perhaps more generally, these art works demonstrate that Christians valued and used visual art, at least from the time that we may identify obj«ts and spaces that were openly Christian -owned.

3

F;g. 3. P...,;ng f'i'-'""'. Catacomb of c:.Ii
--,

Rome (Q ~ Int=>...".... Catacomb Soaot): Photoc

F'i ". F., r>efoI b¥>qo.>et. Crucomb of CoIOst ... Rome (0 TO. Int=>.ltioo ..

FACE TO FACE

4

Early Christian Views orVisual Art: Historical Analyses

I

'--

.

••

•

Fog S. """" .. no<\; Scene from Jonah q<1e. u t.xe,1\omo (C The

"temotoonaI c.~ Soc>et1 PI>oto: Estelle

"""'"' Fog. 6. _

stri'-"g the nod<

" the ~= ut.>, Rome (C n" IrItlion.>.l c">< e
Est.,.., Bmtman~

The very fact that we may study Christian art from the turn of the third century is likely due to the fortuitous surv ival of certain sites, in particular those that were underground (catacombs) and safe from future urban renewal or deliberate d..struct ion during earlier eras of persecution or later periods of Christian iconoclasm (especially in the eastern part of the Empire ). Because of such vicissitudes of survival, whether the corpus of alia· comb art points to a significant 'hange or development in Christian tradition and practice around the turn of the third century may be a debatable point. However, the absence of any significant and definitively Christian artworks prior to this time has often been taken as evi dence that, for a century and a half, the church had no large body of dearly roxogniubk visual art of its own. If t his is 50, the painting of these catacombs signaled a watershed moment, when the church changed its habits, tradi t ions, convictions, or values and created a distinct form of art where there once was non e-a form based on a combi nation of familiar and newly invented motifs. The positing of such a radical sh ift suggests a possible theological or social transformation within the commun ity-a change of perspoxtive that allowed something to exist that would have been seen as problematic in the previous era. Alternatively, this shift may merely imply a change in the communi t y's social or economic circumstances. Historium have offered different theories to account for this change of pattern. To some interpreters, earlier generations of Christians con sc iousl y decided that visual art was to be rejected because it amounted to idolatry and was tainted with th e vanity of pagan decadence. For these interpreters, Christians were act ing like Jawabiding lews, taking the prohibition o f graven images to heart, thus neither making nor using fig-

VIIVAL ART, PORTRAITI, AND IDOLATRY

uralive artworks (despite evidence thaI actually demonstrates a wide spread use of figurative art among jews-see below ). The production of visual art at the beginning of the Ihird century consequently indi cates a change in altitude loward that proh ibi tion, perhaps capitulating to popular culture, or extending a grudging tolerance tn new converts who were less zealous or theologically conscious and wished 10 con tinue their traditional pagan practice of embellishing their family lombs (at least) with images.' A differen t theory takes a more progressive and positive view of the development of recognizably Christian examples of visual art. Instead of seeing the advent of visual art in Christianity as a signal of the loos en ing of discipline or a mark of decade nce, this view argues that the appearance of 3rt waS a natural development of an evolving faith, as it came to have its own modes of expression and communication. If one assumes that such new modes require a period of gestation before they emerge on the ><;ene, then it stands to reason that Christians first used those symbols and motifs that were available and generally understood, having come from the iconographic vocabulary of the common culture. Of course, although these " borrowed~ images were adapted for Christian use and endowed wilh meanings that conveyed key aspects of the new religion, they migh t not be obviously "Christian" to the majority of viewers then or now. Eventually these symbo ls and motifs wou ld be entirely transformed, and new ones would emerge, about the same time as adherents as well as new converts achieved the necessary 5O<:ial, economic, and intellt'dual stability necessary to generate a religious material culture of their own ' Both points of view assume that the apparent emergenct' of Christian art at the turn of the third ct'ntury indicates that at that time Christianity became engaged with its surrounding cu lture in a different way than it had bet'n previously. Either Christian pract itioners cea.sed to be so

5

Fig. 7. Baptism of O of Calistu<, ~

(eThe lotemat>onol

Cot . :o.tt> ~PnoIo; &t
BrottrNn ~

6

FACE TO FACE

distinct from certain aspects of pagan sO(iety and religion (in particular from its rich artistic tradition), or they beg.m 10 produce a distinctive iconography that would dearly identify them, instead of adapting reli· giously generic images. The main difference betwet'o the two perspt'clives is whether such cul tural engagement and/or artistic development is understood as signi fying the erosion or the elaboration of a distinct theological identi ty. [n the first view, Christians became more like their pagan neighbors, and in the second, they became more markedly Chris-

tian (at least in their visual art). Both views accept that Christian iconography in the early third century marks a cultural evoJulioJl-

Fog. a joooh ~ ... late 3rd <en

= MoJ>eo Pio

en......"V.b
(PI>oto:Author}

whether that evolution was a good thing for the religion itself is also the subject of some disagreement. Other explanations have been offered for the lack of Christian visual art from the first and second cen turies. One argument, that the first generations were expecting an immediate end to the world as they knew it, presumes that believers saw no value in (or had no time for) making visual expressions offaith. Only when the parol/sia (Christ's return) was seen to be indefinitely del ayed was there widespread effort to establish the kind of cultural permanence that would include tombs, churches, and colle<:tions of sacred texts. Anothe r t heory, that almost all older arti fa cts were lost or destroyed owing either 10 the vicissitudes of persecution (the destruction of Christian objects and buildings) or the consequence of urban renewal (when older and less opulent churches were torn down to make way for new building in the fourth century), is supported by archaeological finds. The Christian building at Dura Europos, for instance, survived because it was deliberately covered over as a defe nsive move by a Roman garrison . Burial places likewise survived because they Were left in tact, perhaps out of respe<:t, bUI also because they were underground and therefore not as subject to destruction . In fact. this latter argument also serves to e;.;plain the very limited conte;.;! and geography of those artifacts that can be dated prior to the Omstantin ian era, which brought an t'nd to persecution but also marked tht' begin ll ing of monumen tal, large-scale, and signifi cantly permanent building projects, many of them adjacent to or incorporating th ese I'ery burial grounds.

VIIVAL ART, PORTRAITI, AND IDOLATRY

7

I)~pite

these various theories, many historians still assume that the first- and second-ct'ntury church consistently repudiated the creation of figurative art for theologi<;cal reasons. As Mary Charles Murray SO clearly showed nearly a quarter-ct'ntury ago, leading historians of Christianily as well as many important art historians often assumed that the religion was, from its origins, characteristically hostile to all kinds of pictorial art. She cites articles and books published from the 19505 to the date of Iler own article in Ille lale 19705 by sucll prominent academics as Jolln Beckwith, James Breckenridge, Ernst Kit7.inger, and Henry Clladwick, scholars whose work is still very influential. ' For example, in his now classic study. Byzam;tlf Art itl the Mukiflg. first published in 1977, Kitzinger wrote at the end of his first chapter: Th"", i, no evid"""e or any art with. Chri'tian WIItc"t earlier th. n the )'<'3r ~.o. 200. In . 11 likelihood this is not merely du. to accident.l lo ..... The ,ur· vivins monument, of Cllr;'tian pictorial art whi.ch GIn "" a{{,ibuted to the fi rst half of the th ird centu ry bear the m.rk> of a lme ""Sinning. Moreover. One ''''n f,nd in eh,i"ian litffature of the pe,ioJ ",n""tion. of a changing a{{ilude loward imag... nd Ihei, role in 'eligiou s life. Th.1 altitude W" undoubtedly negal"·' prior to this period.'

As evidence of this negative attitude , many of these historians of the past century, like tile iconoclash of the eighth, collec ted ancient written testimonies that could be interpreted to suggest tha t the early church was offidally anti- image. This historical persp«:live was examined and refuted by Charles Murray, followed in detail two decades later by Paul Corby Finn.. y. Bri..ny, however, the sources that historians most oft .. n cite as evidence of early oppositio n to pictorial art are short excerpts from the writings of Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. For instance, Henry Chadwick, in his widely read The furly Chtlrch (first published in 1967), wrote:~The second of the Ten Commandments forbade the making of any graven image. Both Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria

Fis- 9. J=' Oe.Iinj MId ~~o.nn..n '"""'~

• ...ty -4th ,on u .

r-\J5eo Pic Cnst"'""'ViJIign City (Photo< Authoc~

8

FACE TO FACE

re-garded this prohibition as absolute and binding On Christians. I magt"S and statues belonged to the demonic world of paganism. Actually in reference to a rather polemical aside by Irenaeus, although ident ifyi ng his informant by name, Chadwick contin ues, "In fact, the only second· ",'otury Christians known to have had images of Christ were radical Gnostics, the followers of the licentious Carpocrates.»' In this short quotation, Chadwick claims that the so-caJl.. d Second Comm and ment {Exnd 20:4-53; DellI 4: 16-19; 5:8-9} was normative for the early church in respe(l 10 visual images. Here Chadwic k repeats the predilections of earlier scholars and takes early Christian anioonism for granted. Chadwick further cites the writings of Tertullian and Clement to imply that Christian teaching at the time generally forbade Uimages and statues" of any kind as belonging to the demonic pagan world. However, the actual sources themselves are far leos clear about the matter of visual art in general than they were about idolatry, specifically. For example, an often-d ted excerpt from 'lhtuU ian's treatise 011 Modesty has been judged to condemn any use of religious pictures (in this case, of a shepherd) on chalices used during the eucharistic meal.' The text, however, actually denounces those who favored a laxist approach to forgiveness after bapt ism, in particular the author of th e treatise The Shepherd of HenllIlS. Since Tertullian associated such t'Ucharistic cups with this treatise (because of the shepherd image), he 35Sumes that those who had such implements believed that they could be forgiven transgressions such as drunkenness and adultery. Tertullian's obje<:tion to the image on these cups was an objection to what it signified (a lack of moral rigor), not to its mere existence as a pie<:e of art. Furthermore, Chadwick suggests that the production of visual art occu rred first within heretical sects, specifically among Gnostics. Hi s evidence for this association of art and heresy comes mainly from Irenaeus's treatise Agaimt Heres;es, written in the late seo;cond century. listed among the many undesirable praCl;'es and traits of the Carpocratians, such as practicing sorcery and astrology, Irenaeus also accuses them of making and honoring images- according to him, a practice peculiar to this sect. Irenaeus even notes that they had a portrait of Jesus, fashioned by none other than Pilate and honored with garlands and other unnamed tradi tional pagan offerings (probabl y lit candles and incense): H

'they al.., poose>. image>,.!Orne of them painted, an d othe" formed from dif. ferent kind. of material; while Ihey maintain Ihat . liken.., of Christ ".~. madt by Pilat" at that Ii"", wh~n ~u, li,"ed . mong th~m . 11,'1' crown th...., images, and M them up along wilh Ihe image, of the philo'ophe" of the world; th.t i. I<> "'y, with th< im.ages "f Pyth.SO,...... and Pial", and Ar;'loli" and the resl. They al", h",'e other modes of honoring lhe .. im.ges, .fler the .lame man ner of the Gentile>."

VllVAl ART, PORTRAITI, AND IDOLATRY

9

Wh ile this short excerpt demonstrates Jrenaeus's assumption that hon oring portra it images was a reprehensible characteristic of certain heretks, he offers no general condemnation of visual art, whet her St'(u· lar or religious, narrative or iconic. What he apparently objects to is the inclusion of Jesus with the other phi losophers, and the crowning and honoring of their images.

Art and Idolatry in the EarlyThird-Century Christian Writings Because Tertullian (ca. 200 c.~. ) was deeply concerned about the prob· lem of Christians being ensnared in a polytheistic culture, his treatise 011 Idolatry extends the definition of idolatry far beyond a nything to do specifkally with pktorial ar t, For Tertullian, idolat rous practices include preoccupation with the way one dresses, the foods one eats, or the pursuit of sexual pleasures or material wealth- all things that humans mistakenly take for hal'ing intrinsic value and that they honor more than God. In regard to visual art, for example, Tertullian worries about the temptalions that artisans must face and the fact that bOlh Iheir skills and the ir lools cou ld be misused: ~ There are al>o other species of very many arts which, although they extend not to the mak· ing of idols, ye t with the same criminality, furnish the ingred ients, without which idols have no power, ... No art exists Ihat is not mother or kinswoman to some allied arl; nothing is independent of its neigh· bor,"" Tertullian even urges those in his aud ience who make their living by craft to use Iheir skills to make useful objecls that could nOI possibly serve the purpose of polytheistic worsh ip. Rather than S(;ulptors, these folks shou ld be plasterers, roof menders, Or marble masons in the building trades. However, recogniting that some fine artisans earn their living by making ostentatious and luxurious objects, he allows that it is better to gild slippers than to fashion a statue of Mercury or Serapis. TertuJlian may have had Acts 19:23-41 in mind as he wrote this, comparing the predicament of Demetrius and the other Ephesians whose income depended on making and selling images of the goddess Diana. Tertul· lian, wishing 10 support artisans in Ihei r work and nOllo reduce them to poverty, suggests that they find olher al'enues for Iheir crafl and merely avoid making images of the pagan gods. Clement of Alexandria (ca. 160--215 c.ti. ) approached the problem of figurative art from an angle more characteristically his. less concerned about Christian engagement with the habits and pleasures of Roman culture than Tertullian was, and not as fundamentally disturbed by the construction of images of the gods as a profession, Clement adapts PIa· tonic teachings to offer a more complex discussion of the inferiority of

10

FACE TO FACE

an image to its likeness, and the potential for the confusion of likeness and prototype on the part of those who view ar t. Attending to the de{eptive p<Jwer of imitation as weU 3, the allTac! ion of both material and natural objects, Clemt'nt S<.'es danger in the human tendency to misunderstand the image-and to fail to distinguish between representation and reality- between the sensible and transcendent realms. And b.-.:ause objects of worship are not always only human -made idols, he extends h is concern to include even the mistaken veneration of things found in the natural world. It was in th is respect that he reminds his audience of the biblical prohibition: What is more, we are ~XV", ..ly fo,bidd..., to praOJ'S "Thou not make a likene .. of .nything th.t i. in heaven abo", orthe tanh bm~>th ," .. , But a. for you. wh ile you taR gr~>t pain. to disco,'u how a st>tu~ m.1y be .haped to th. highest po .. ible pitch of beauty. you never give a thought to prevent yourse"... turning out like .tatues owing to w.nt of sen<e.... Here the ho,t of philosophe" turn aside, wh~n th")' admit that human. are beautifully made for the ~ont"mplation of he,,·.n. and yet WOrShip the thin!;' which appear in he""en and are apprehended by .ight .... Lot no"" of you WOrShip the .un; ... ther 1<1 him yearn for the maker ofth •• un."

"'.It

Clement's objection to images is dearly different from lertullian's. His wncern is not so much the adoption of polytheistic practices or being captive to the alluring aspects of popular culture, but misunderstanding what it is that deserves honor- what the ~true image" is. He follows a well - known Pla tonic axiom t hat images made by artists (or even things of the natural world) are on ly reflections of reality and should not be w nfused with the eternal and ideal For m (or in Clement's case, the Maker) that transcends any earthly creation. However, he also argues that, properly understood, images can serve the useful function of reminding the viewer of a higher truth- which is why. although he generally d isapproves of jewelry. he lish the appropriate images for Christian signet rings (a dove, a fish, a ship. a lyre, or an anchor) and urges the faithful to avoid sea ls wit h images o f the gods, weapons, drinking cups, or scenes of sexual intercourse . The fnrmer symbols draw the eye and the mind away from themselves and toward the reality they represent, while the latter indicate a life of idolatry, indulgence, and even licentiousness. On the other hand, modest Ch ristian symbols on everyday objects of some practical necessity did not constitute a form of idolatry." In the Stromateis (or Miscellanies), the last of his treatises and the most esoteric of them all. he cont inues with that same theme and this time credits Moses with the original formulation, later taken up by Pythagoras:

VIIVAL ART, PORTRAITI, AND IDOLATRY "Don'l wear a ring, nor engra>,<, on il Ihe image. of the god.,· enjoins f'ylhagora,; as MosO$ as.. b
Clement's problem wilh visua l art poses a distinct set of issues. In another place in the Stroma/tis, Clement claims that the injunction an artist breaks is nol only that against making idols but also that against robbing the divine prerogative in the act of neation." In these passages we see how Clemenl develops his own version of the doctrine of imitation, asserting that a work of art is deceptive, intended to fool the viewer into mistaking a mere wrY for its model, into wnfusing the imi tation with the reality. Perhaps Clement was cognizant of Pliny's critique of artists of old, who prided themselves on work SO convincingly lifelike that viewers mistook the image for something real. Zeuxis, for instance, is said to have painted a child carrying grapes that caused birds to fly down to pick at the fruit. " After Tertullian and Clement, the matter of early Christian atti tudes toward pictorial or figurative art be.:omes more complex, perhaps in part because the art itself has begun to be made and owned by the Christian wmmunity. Probably the most vehement wndemnation of figura tive art prior to the iconoclastic period comes from Origen's argument about Christianity with the polytheist Celsus in the early third century. Or igen's argument is similar in certain respects to Clement's objections to visual art as setting up false objects of worship, although at first it appears to draw a paraUel between fai thful lews and Christians regarding the biblical injunction . In his long and complicated defeme of Christianity, Or igen argues that Christians are at least as enlightened on the matter o f the vanity of images as the philosophers were. He also defend s the lews against what was apparently a fairly vidous attack by Gelsus on their culture and religion, which he saw as an earlier form of Christianity.lews, accord ing to Gelsus, were "fugitives from Egypt, who never performed any thing worthy of note and neVe r were he ld in any reputation or accounc"" Taking exception to this unfair characterization and turning the tables on Celsus by pointing out that he represents a religion that worshiped images ofucorruptible human beings, and birds, and four-footed beasts," Origen offers an example of a particularly praiseworthy accomplishment of the lews, citing their observance of the prohibition as found in Deuteronom y (4: 16-18):

11

FA<E TO FA«( _ 1 ........1C
"" ripu~ riWt, hlp Fut -.; .... pU .... _ .................... in""'" .............. ..,..tIiat.u - " ""'" it, ............... II< 001"""" io< "" """-~ .............. "' .......,.-"" ......... ~-poopk. .... ,t..! d•• """.... .,.. 01 II...... &om Gn
f'&fr. _

""'"

.Tow., .... -.._".0. ... "...• '. Ii><

........ _,.,,......- • ...- ....... ...,._01 ....... _

"""' . _

01-,.-","" mol ........ , ... . . - ... _""1ok-

... "'...,. ........ .". ..... ft;., _ _ ... '*-01...,. (lW, h,.

""0\8 ,"" """" .,.,. .......... '" • ""-"'..,. ~ .... """" _

II>< "' .... __ tho...,., (~',',,"II ).-

Orill'"" ..... p~ ,II< kw1 1m

... in

t"" ...-iotto.! in;""",,,,,, (a •.......abk

Uld gnnd prohibit;""') avin,t \oolI',....p to ""._Int~,... ' ht ....... __ ..... nd ... " 0 .... ohoold b< kd ..... y to Wou5h' th.t til< !<w. otIooid II< p'oi>
abo.,

• 1'''''%1 (Or or t<mptalion kI idol,atry. I" hi< I>omiliet un F-.! .... 0,;8'""' ,.rn, >pin t. th< bibliil»· tion. but ht off.... on ;"'pon.n, dioti",,' ion betw«n til< 'emu "idol' ( oiJClo~) ond 'Iil:d 2(t4 p,,,rubiu !he ..... b,,~ of boih ( .....,., .r..u "'" "",u fot ~....,If.n idtd nor 'Il)' liu,- of ,..."" 'hinp which . '" in ......., or which.", in ttI ... rth or wh i<~ 0 . . in 'h< ""'kTf 1IIHIn ....

"0"""'."'.

or..n

. ." h"). To j ... 'i/y 'hi> d;o.i,..,;..n. 'un" '" I'. ul", fin' Lrtt.,. to til< c...tinlh"''''' Ht noIeS lI'\;It Ih. >j>OSIit lOY' I""t·"" idol in Ih.1o'OI'Id ..... Uy ..;""" ..... il< .. . h< 10m. , ..... "";"11 "th
,ho,

alkd god> in .......... or on .. m.- in fxI ....... 0 . . m. ny sodo .nd ""'''l' lords" (I 0.- 8:4·S). ~nl1r l'ltul-.... to Iuvt t> mlitdy from th< hUllWl inugi ... tion ond ....... <>c in ... t ...... (m. rom', bood on 0 humoR body). Thi> io .....Y Paul <.an all idob n<>rtaist poinu OUI. bo,h Ii""........ . nd idol, W:od » .5) . • nd pooo ... aJOlon ) ,n ony ~ 1 n.: _", in "'n ...... to .... 't." (/Icmoiii .... ). wltidt onm hao. poo.niv< ..... ni~ In addi'ion ' 0 'ht .1>0..·,i,«I ,... , fro m I COrinlh ...... l'lIul.p<.ko of idol,. ido/"ry (.
,ha,

,ho,

i""._,.

,h.

VIWAl ART. PORTRAIT!, AND IDOLATRY

..""!' by ,t.. mul< """. ( ' Co, J2:2) .nd V'f ....nou. ",no (Rom I:Z4-Z 7). P.ul do<$ 00' •• rl"....,'I)'. di"ingui,b 1>« '" .... 'u"'. Thq limply 1..". II<> Iif<.oo .......0' iptU I",ml"'" I Co, IO:I~ J. O';l'"·' " s um.n, PO'"" probltm. how""". in r<prd '0 ,h. d,f(I&m.n, G,..p'," .nJ Epi"l<s ul< ,be '«m, ·h~." ..." ( h"",. "'"", ) .nd -, .... ~< . (,,;:.;" ). Fo, tk 12:16). ,h. word u!Cd (0' ,h.I, r". In I Cot 11:7. rom ar. ,be image (.;.run) and &lorynl God. ju," .. hU,,"n, \H:" ,h. imag< (NJ") of ,h. rna" of du" ( I Cor n:49) and ,,·ill ",mf ,h. m." of be, .." ( I Co, 15:49,. I" I Co, 4:4. Cluj" i, 'he imol' (';M" ) of G04 , ,n Phil 2:7. Ch,;" """ .h. f"u" (...".ph6,,) of. ,I ..,•• nd', born i" huoun lik."", (h • ...,;,;"""; ".,h,';pOn ). In C.,k" ,I.n, he " the im.g. (,;"'") of the in.i,ible God ( I : l~). M",rillDI '0 '" 3:9. human" " m" l< in the lilo ..... of God I""""';';';" ,,,,,"w). ,od in 2 Co, J: Poul "'.; ... ,h •• hu ..... n'.y "" II I>< , ... rulonocd in'o ,b. im~ (ril'ow) of 'h, of ,he 1'>Icl_,>.p'" ItO"' .h, 6 .... , .. mpl< l'lt< ",in po""itl. 'h, s< ''''' .. "hly ''I',-""hon, h • .., ' lilo", .. ' "h ilt d"',n, .imili.ud< .nd fu,u" 'nm,fon""ion' . r< . polon of in

'0'

,..,ha,

""'oo,.•

"'b,,,,., '$.

vo' y

It,,,,, ,,r·I,,..

~.

,"

,bo,

Impil< l'auJ". dolm iclolo ... none';""" objt< l"S'n """OU of Uio>lo''l'.• nd 10 "''''' tbr-,o """" , .cd ,h. roakin& and .... of mu,l . " i" srnaoI ... ith p""k<. Thq .-..li~ ,h., < .",.in kind! of .""""k< could I>< m;",,,dm1<>Od . nd . bwcd or of 1"&"" 00' ~ip, Fur,bet· ..or<. 'hundi"8 l"3"n ",I. Ur< . od ,I> .UUMS "trlKl ions. M"" Ch,;",," ",n.,,", ""'" fo'n'. . nd .~" <>f ilia. polytl>ome of, non·Ch,;',i," nhri", <0 'h, family'. ,u,.0,,,,, or "'md ,I>. .,m "" oo"fp<»t" 110",,,..... II~ .od «iJInp.· lltnUI< <>f .heir high rio!> of CO"tomi",,;""" pai",m; . nd sculp. 10"• • Ion~ "';,h octo" , nd ..." l<.
-.."1<,,

<><"n'

,bo,

,io"

,bou,

'''''''
"

14

FACE TO FACE

professions that produced, used, Or even brought them into the proxim ity of these kinds of images." Resisting idolatry was not easy for Christians who lived in urban M'I. tings at that time. T heir surroundings were filled with the temptations of luxuries as well as with signs and tokens of polytheistic religions. Greco-Roman cults d.. pended on images, rituals, and public spectacles; they did nOl draw upon texts of sacred scriptures (apart from those myths found in the writings of Homer and Hesiod ) or dogmatic statements of faith. The traditional gods had shrines that were open and reflected civic pride and iden t ity. Almost any aspect of daily life, even just pa~ing through certain neighborhoods, brought early Christian> into contact with imag~s of th~ traditional Gr~~k and Roman gods. Th~refor~. th~ earliest Christian writers who have been presen ted as objoxting to pktorial art were actually p<.Iinting out inherent dange rs that attached tn the making nr even admiration of things that were made for polytheistic cult. Given the wide distribution of such objoxts in the e\"~ryday world. ~ven the most stalwart Christians might be implicated in a kind of accidental idolatry, ewn if they tried to steer clear of anythi ng that might tempt or unwittingly taint them." That Christians were unable always to avoid the images is apparent from the instruction about what they might do if they came into contact with the idols. Apparently some Christians practked explicitly disrespectful behavior toward images or their altars . Tertullian rders to Christians spitting or blowing on smoking altars as they passed by. and according to the Oaaviu> of Minucius Felix, Christians offended pagans by spitting on statues of the gods. perhaps as a way of protecting them selves against inherent and ever-present danger. 1> TertuUian assures martyrs that One of the advantages to their imprisonment is the fact that they no longer have occasion to see strange gods or bump into their images and no longer can be even accidentally involved in some pagan feast or sacrifice.'" Cyprian also urges Christians to avoid looking at the idols, even declaring that Christians who did not awn their eyes from the images were guilty of a form of ap<.lstasy, and their subsequent tears of penitence (a literal cleansing of the eyes ) were a way to make satisfaction to God for their sins." Thus, the typical early Christian theologica l position on visual art was less an objection to art as sllch than an attack on non -Cllris/jml images that invi ted worship and activities that drew the faithful into the values and practices (both religious and soxular) of the surrounding witure. Significantly, these first- and second-century writers said almost nothing about Chri5tian art, either because there was very little (or none ) in their purview nr because if there was, they did not see it as problematic. Clement's recommended motifs for Christian signet rings offer sllch an example. Furthermore, these writers said very little about art that was basically secular or neutral and without obvious pagan reli -

VI!VAl AH, POHItAITI, AND I DOlATlty

Siou. . . >o<;",ioo>. .uch .. imag<> of fish, h i,d" >h< gikli", of oIipp. '0 bo,row, ph,,,.. (TOm T.. "uW,n, ,od n,,' e,p«i,lIy 'rooblinA by i'>I.l:>iy, r.o.....~" ,hest ....,.. ,i>< ...". ""'" of i",,1I<' first "bp,«I (<>r o.ri>li,o uw.nd >p«itK Ch';"W1 m<.nins. ~ C.o' u,.,. or '" 1.0"", ~ ,ha ... ~ u, "n>!' • 're";'" .pi"" ,i>< <>f ,II< p.opn.- ,n" "'ocko>r>h ip of ~tK ..... , erial obj«u un ,"" di 01 '"'ning 1<>W:O,J ",'1IIy pI<.. u,....nd "'"ay from di" .. ,.inllS- Hunun. wOo ,nduls< '00, lu." I. """" of ",Ji"",.,..nd lif.. _ I<» nu, ... ili. do:-ifyi"5 ,"" .....1'<' of .ni""," .. wdl .. ordi ... " mor"l • • nd m""I< iu mod<-I. J~in8 ,...., • ..., fu""", in,o ,I>t mud of ,OOr viI< pouion. Icf. Rbm I :~l-l 5). n.. God. on Il>tod.... bond. io inco,flIpt ibk.nd b< rep. """o''''! ,h",uw. ", in oln""C1ibk m",,"Io. no, C.n C".J 'PP"" in o.och """ic di...,.';,y offornu. ~tlutw.iu~ inl<,""ing!y, abo cl.oim. tho, ,nug< lo'Oo">hip i, cond<mn > "","lion of ''''' I>..c>., 1U,"in8 <1 10 ... 115;4_8 ("Thei, idol, "',.;~ .00 gold. ,I>< wor\ of."""n !u.ndo") .nd h. ":9·10 ("AlJ who mol« idol> ,re no,hing. . .. Who """id f.shion • god Of " ' " .n i""«l' J,ji,K.>. ~, .....,.;'" rn.kn .n''P'm ><,ually d ishonor 1h< 0 >houid to. mor< hishlr hono..,J ,lun ,"" prod""" <>f lhri, c<>ft. Howc...,. I>t """,Id cl.ol'" ,n. rno« iliUfnl.1>t . rt;",1h< more IiUIr ,I>t i..... will n. S«n 10 ... m· moo .h .. d .. i,y, ,,,h ... ,h.n !
p"'.'I""""

.,-n".

,Iu"

",,,,,ed ." .

an_

'N<

i""..

,Iu,

'<

im'i" '~

Jewis h

8a~kcrou"d fo~

Christian Rejection ofVilualAI"t

w...... nol«l Ih .. ><>m< hi"ori.", of (h,;'''.ni'y (. nd of o.,;";.n .n1cil< Chri"i.oni'y', Inuai .".Such ......umV''''' .om ,nronol.ogially <"lO\l' Ch,;'· ,i. n ><<orr>< ..-cond- ,nd ,hird-c.n,u,y o.ri,,;.n cnn<.km ... ,ion, of i.lol."y .h. rep"di ..i<>n of 8"...n im.!!", in ,I>< 1<" Com_ m. oom't' fi8u,ed 1"<' domin."'Iy'n 'I>oI. n • .,.. "gu.-.! ,II<

".",ed.•

",ed

'p.o"

,Iu,

16

FACE TO FACE

Decalogue itself generally played a minor role in Christian theological reflo.><:!;Oll before the mid-second century and moreover was often misunderstood, abbreviated, or quietly sidelined.'" Added 10 that, the ways Ihat Jews themselves understood the injunction against graven images at this time (or any time) are nei ther dear nor consistent. The Hebrew Scriptures themselves offer some internal contradictions, i f we note that Ih .. apparent condemnation of figurative art is shortly followed by vivid descriptions of the cherubim set up in the tabernacle over the mercy seal (E~od 25:17-22). A bronze serpent healed the Israeli tes in the wilderness from snakebite (Num 21 :8-9), and the figurative de<:oral;ons of Solomon's temple induded lions and oxen as well as cherubim (1 Kings 6-8). Enacting the Decalogue's prohibition of graven images may date no earlier than to the religious reforms of images of King Josiah in the seventh century 8 . C.~. reforms that may have had political motivations as much as religious purity at heart (2 Kings 23)." The iconoclastic destruction of the high places coincided with a centralized juridical and religious power in Jerusalem and its temple. Thus the prohibition came to be understood as prohibiting any scu lpted figure that might be taken as an image of a god or otherwise draw t he people of Israel into polytheism (the WOr_ ship of foreign or multiple gods) and idolatry (the worship of divine images) and away from the exclusive worship of their one, invisible God. No one is allowed to paint or sculpt an image of God according to the book of Deuteronomy, because no one actually knows what God looks like (Deut 4: 15-18)." Jews in the Greco -Roman period, like Christians, consistently con demned images associated with other religious cults, especially when they were requ ired 10 tolerate Or even worship those images by foreign occupiers or Roman governors. Such repudiation is evident in the polemic againsl worshiping Baals and Aslarles in Judges 2, the humorous description of Bel and Nebo hanging off pac k animals in Isaiah 46, or the I Maccabees account of Jewish resistance to the desecrations and anti -Jewish practices instituted by Antiochus IV Epiphanes.ln the first century C.F.., Josephus criticized Solomon for allowing images in the temple, and he records Jewish repudiation of certain kinds of figurative art (including images of living creatures and God), especially thei r refusal to set up images of the Roman emperor, wh ich, he explains, was an allowance made by the Romans themselves to the Jews." In his history of the jewish war, Josephus teUs about Jewish riots in Opposilion 10 Roman imposition of images of the gods or the effigies of the emperor (busts or portraits attached to the standards). Not only did Jewish law generally forbid figurative images, but these portraits were particularly offensive b-ecause the Romans wan ted to S<'t them up at particular Jewish holy places. Moreover, he insists , the Romans themselves had granted Jews the right to abide by their anc ient religious laws. Like the

V!lVAl AIJ.T. POIJ.TlJ.A IT! , A!'ID IDOLATlJ.Y

LIt'" '.bri,t"" .~ .... ",""""u • ......, e..1> lewoo roovicliom .. ~_ al l(1 to $QUnd philooophi wm u....... hiop. """hr no" .... t>f hum, ,,, !>Of of.1x d;.i ....." Pbil .... til< I<wish A I<.."d.;'n pIodQO
""'r< ' out of wood. .."" ... o. p<e(i<>us m<1al~ ·Ih. Wf cr.. lioo. FuTtIxnno«, 'h"y . " ribu" 10m. kind olli/< or IOui '0 d< ~t«, II< ~, '" deify ,I>< OCuiptoN .... 'II«. Phil., d'«I ai t><»,ibl. from . "y in,~,,'ion of f.b~.nd who thint.. fi, only", wl lk in tho p>th'of'rutb iudf:Th< OUle""" of mel> «,i"' n« '0 pu.· .ui" of 'h" im'p,in"ion ",hit II< -b.ni.h«I fro m ''''' ,oolt i,",ion. which II< "" <Stabli""". ''''''' ,,1<.ou,iful.,,, of .I"'u"Y •• ~ p. i"'i"" t.dy imi.ating tb. ",tUf< of'lI< 'ruth. con"i-. J«f .ho .".... '0 ",,~ .. il. ,h. 10"" whi,b or. Ii . bl. '0 II< ... ~y won O''
",i..o'

'0 .h. o'

It,..", ""

,h.

,,,,,I>

"'""

l>..pit< /Ilkphus'. h;'totiul m:ord ,nd Philo', phil_pIoic. 1 "S'" m<""'''''' .• rc~coI di>«>V<' t>f.1I< ~, «n,ury h. ... d.<mon " .. ,«I 'hor ...... t>f ''''' r, .... ......,." """uri« of th< Common E,. h ron" .... Th ... di,",,,,,,,,, r...v< includ«l • '.'''"y <>f m«l;,. motif.. , nd ''''' .... ' fr<s 0( Romr and on .. rwphagi; figu . ",i,.. mo,ift (including zod iac fi8"'" .n.! 'ep"""""''''nI <>f tho god flclioJ) f""ndon mooaic !Ioonof 'Y">s<>s"'" in til< Gam« hrt fill«I...uh fit!"""iv< p>in'ing in ,h. 1Ju... ~:U"'flOO '}"'8"8"<.- ).xu.,<"!> ",,«I .0 It.... "m< «n',,"" '"SIl''' ,ho.IlI ..., >on,. I<wUh k.doTs ... '" (h" 0>'-;";'. """n, .. p>''') morr {on« rn«l wi.h ,h. p"nk" of idol.,ry ,b. n wi,b til< .... king 0( p,,,,,.,.1 It, .. '"'h. Whil< urging , .... '0 . Y<>id
vi,,,.,

,1..;.

FA(E TO FA(E

.,...n i _ '" Ions" tl>
onm petmining ,......, I" nuke >nd

Ihird.«otury Robbi 101un'D "t'I"rcnliy ".I,,,,,ed inu&<> p.io~ on ... 11 .... nJ R.h),i Ahu" I"',",illed Ih. ""'king of im.&<> in mooaie.~ Oth .. robb" cI<.dy ro~ 6SUnr'iv< intOV' J.ng '0 ""un .h<",.~ fnn whrn "'" fiod • C.htiol ..... ,-"f""",,,, 10 J<wi>h .nironi.",. wch • • Origon. ciled . """,. "'. m... d«idt whcthn ..... I>a>«I <>II ......1 oIn<mrlion or only. proj< _ d ."d ,bird UII,ur;" c. .. m'r hoV< brtn n ... iroy Jim:lal.goino' !<ww. wonl>ipuffor irmg<>. no' .gai"" , ,, ....1 On II'DC'fIll. or rvoncin~ ,h. in"";'". "f . )'n,gogu" wilh ftguro'i ... J«o,.,;"n. It i. unlik0, Chri" i&n. '" .niconi.nt. Inl OT'm"'!> 01;., ... ,I.. d«q>ri.~ .. ,J d..".rn"ll q ....\i'i'" in 11<=, in orl Of W .1>< id<>b"y .....,.;,1<'<1 wi.h ,lit w"""nding ",,"u .... 11>< '> P' III Ou-i,,;'ni'y • • n ..,tll<e, .... Ur on.! ,piri .... Uy mLiah .... ed ioitlt. .od 'hIrid "1'1"'111 to .... >mS.ibilil'" u( • ph""""",,i· ally oophi""".",!.,,,,'-<modwo on f.irly .. f. grouoo . "",king imag<> .. iU..-,. dong< ",.p<m . ~ 'n onr <0>< • ...,i.k" ICDGI of ,I>< ph_phial ",i';quo: of (mi· ""w< , n """ .. d ,,, hoI'< dou"l«I .... iodivHl ....... OO Ii... < a,,;"ion <.raoomM in 'I>«0.... ,I>< ...,rk .... "'" irrt¢nd«I. or ~t< foolr;"ni"ll of i"'"8<" of ,I>< ""gan ijOd>. 11>< im., ,h< m....u.. r." Woh "'" imit< wormil' Th¢rogan to m.k< .nd uo< . iIDi f".nl . nd o,o<".-;IIi ........ 1.11 of th.i. awn _"",oJ ,I>< btJinni"8 "f.1>< ... itd ","IUry. il W. f not boa .... most fi ... • . nd >«:ond·«ntu .... Chris';.n .......c &<=0«011, iro"""",*,ic or .""ni· mou< in ,htir .i ..... "n 'he ",,11« of,~ 0_ ,his." bpi«! by 0,1>< making of i..... b ... pet. ho", ,.1,1«1 '0 it. An. in """icuLB • ., .... ", """'''' ........ "-,,,, .. hinS ,11>1, wbil< I""'mWibl<, "","iraJ .... " • control It>

wo,

1If'

.r.d....,n

.hoi,

.ha,

",,,,,,,,,,Iy

.,tln.", .r.d

VIIVAL ART, PORTRAI TI, AND IDOLATRY

19

ensure that it was understood in its proper sense. In other words, it should include only ~ppropriate im~ges (excluding certain forbidden ones) and be as different from a pagan idol as possible.

The Earliest Examples and Types of Christian Visual Art: Church Regulation Obviously, such definitions and regulations only make St'nse for a time when Christian images were being produced in enough quantity to make these p<Jlides ne<:essary. As we have seen, Christian writers of the second an d early third centur ies seem unaware of any significant amount or type of Christian an worthy of condemnation. Their objections were aimed at the art of others, paga llS or perhaps Christian heretics, and not 3ttheir own coreligionists. The warnings against idolMry were warnings agaillst the cul t images of other religions, not against Christian artworks. Based on this lack of awareness, we might reaSOn ably conclude that Christians produced very linle religious art , or that what they did produce was so innocuous that it nei ther a11raCled atten tion oor raised concerns. In the third century, however, the ma terial situation began to change. In add ition to the modest domestic objects that may have seemed uncontroversial (small ponery lamps with images of th e Good Shepherd, for example), the catacomb frescoes in Rome, relief carvings on sarcophagi and tomb epitaphs, and early evidence for wall paintings in churches demonstrate that change. Of these, the most imp<Jrtant existing exam ple is the decorated baptistery found in a Christian house church at Dura Europos, with its frescoes depicting biblica l sce nes (ca. 249 C.E .; fig. 10). Above the font, an image of the Good Shepherd and his flock stand over the smaller figures of Adam and Eve. The side walls contain painted scenes particularly apprnpriate for a baptismal space: the healing of the para lyti<;, the stilling of the storm, the wa lking on the water, and the woman at the well, as well as a somewhat enigmatic pain ting of three women carrying lamps approaching a ten t-like structure (variously identified as the three

Fig. 10. f\e<:onruuaion of the interior of the Chrnt>on t>optiste<)c DIn. Europo<. mid- Jrd <:etI. c ... (I'hoto; FI.jgI>to ¥ld

R'F":.o\!Cl¢."!s ~ Y... ~ArtGa""").

20

FACE TO FACE

WOmen arriving at the empty tomb; three of the five wise brides carrying their lamps to the tent of the bridegroom; or virgins escorting Mary

10 the temple, an illustrat ion of a passage in the ProtQevu"ge/;,,", of James)." Based on the example from Dura, it seems likely that other early Christian buildings were similarly adorned. We do know that Christian

buildings were demolished during th .. great persecution of the early fourth century, and their walls may well have been enhanced with paintings." Despite certain di stinctions in slyle, the similarity between some of the themes found on the Dura baptistery walls and motifs from the Roman cata(Combs also suggests some common intluem'c and

perhaps {'ven some shared models. Although we have no extan t examples, it seems possible that certain influential prototypes (illuminated biblkal manusnipts, perhap~) provided patterns or cartoons contained in cir.::ulating books of artisans' motifs that could account for some level of consistency." In any case, given the certain fact of an emerging and distinctive Christian iconography, church authorities may well have tried to regulate the trend, especially if they con tinued to be concerned about the snares of the surrounding pagan religious or even secular culture. Surprisingly, however, we do not have much evidence of such reaction. The earliest known regulation of Christian visual or figurative art comes from a canon of a local ch urch council held in Elvira, Spain, about 305 C.H. Curiously, the canon's meaning is a bit ambiguous. Two different translations of a key Latin clause in that canon are possible, resulting in two rather different meanings. The Latin reads: Plaw;1 picwras itl ecdesia eJ5e non debere, lIe quod co/jwr et adorawr i" parie/iblls drpj"garur. One possible translation is: "There shall be no pictures in chur.::hes, lest what is reverenced and adored be depicted on the walls,M while a s«ond reverses the verbs and modifier~ of the second clause, that is, "lest what is depicted on the wall~ be reverenced and adored."" The first translation, which seems the more grammatically straightforward, prohibits pictures b«ause of the danger that certain sacred or holy things or persons might be inappropriately portrayed (or even exhibi ted to view). If one accepts this as a limited prohibition, then perhaps other images might be permissible (perhaps in other places than the walls of a chur.::h ), or at least not as problematic. The second translation demon ~trates a concern that viewers might confuse the image with its model and mistakenly offer the image some kind of adoration or worship, thereby falling into idolatry, in which case the prohibi tion primarily attends to the poteotial for misuse, not exactly on the images them selves. Nevertheless, both translations appear to prohibit art 00 the walls of the ch urch , albeit for so mewhat diffe rent reasons. Furthermore, the

VI!VAL

A~T.

PORTRAIT). AND (DOLATIW

....... otm-. d......"," .. bI ....*"<. w,

P"""'" hod . .....,,! in ,...

d>ooKh bofot< tho: tun< rJ c-ur.'ID<. S<± .. q....... doao""" .. COIIlin ... "" ..... IIw Ih< ~ '" ,..,;. """'..., WOO In< < who _ k f.h ,Iw "'" ,.. «I.d '0 ...... ' "'..... itdmJ"p at """"" ...... po&hop '" Solo. .. w "' ..... Ot' ' 0 • way "" ...Iivm , ... N>i!;';' ... in - . rJ s."" F """i.... 1<>, odotrung. ,h"",h .... with .'1',....",.. 00... oIlivinJ !ndi>id...... which II< > WI>.n "" .......1 , ... tom. II< ,Ioi"" thot he d id i, l.ofJ<1y '0 . It ,oct the ,..hI> _,,'d olh.,wi .. 'p'nd th." 'i .... f...'ing . nd d.inkin~ .. tho 'Om" of ""'''~ •••atho. ,tun ''''''in! in ...... ,ho ,".."h.o Th .... in Ii ..... r"""'" .... w..... ~ t<> h.ve ben«" .. cspUy ... did>
,...,hon''''

r-n
ildm.

' ru"",'

.. tIOn.oI ,,,,-

,h.

'wo

Sud> "~ w.....itt .....w.I. «1>1.., . . 10 .... in ,..., wwn opillitt "' C,.... r Iht Grn, 10 IIilIt.or s.,..., ... of MI ..... lel.l" Ih _ .... Itt""", r... bon"",,,", ;......,. from d ....d .... in hio d;",. ... (on< "'11M" 6 ... L--to """'''''''' '"

J.,..

i
".net ..-.n..

n, ~I'" "'""

.... pitOonoI ""',... "_ io ...& _ of io _ ~ .....

..... _ '" Im
... oItio _ .... ~ .......... tilt _

r.... fr""""r"""'" _

,hty '"""'" ....... - . . .... w.l tilt ........... ".,..,.. .... tho p«tpk _

... ..... '

t.... IrooIr ,..•

odot...... 01 t ......

"'tN.

P<"t"'' "....., 01",,,,, Il10)"'' .. .."...,Iri"!l'" ,''', 'tr.r m.,. pll><,

-It,....-

kouw\odfI< of ,I>< ""'Y .... tilt p«tpk """" _ ... """"'" oJor .. _ "'.

Of" 10 ...... Cr
ry~ , ... , s.......... hod ~"Itd h ~ o.hor1.,"", ("""II """ _ _ tIut I>< ~, G,tttd '" ......... itt"'-'l wi.h ~" ..... ,.... Uw ~

"""*' _

........ '" _ .. ''''''''' tuod<.odortd. """ " ....... in ..... ,.... ~ ........ ",I>< ...... d _ 1".... ,.,.., but _ bWnt,.... '" """,,,bn*n them.- Mol. ~....., ..... pouM ..... """ yai .. '" ,,",",In rotlht i1t ......... ("1*' .,Iy '" Ih< ...... u: tb,o, ... Iht local ...... . 1.0.;" •• ode" 0< ~).~ "'ttbto ....... nott.I tho,

I VCD< ..;,....,-.... n.iN1itr i>nd tho .....ibIc objKt. Ind low.. d tl>< OWl .... ,hro"", ," ..... ltn'"! of Love fr:,r 'hOi whit, ..!-..t. u-.>i",

oudo

rri<1~'" ·" ' _· ........·Iud

22

FACE TO FACE

aside the problem of what image Gregory might have meant when he referred to reading by~lookingat the walls; it is clear that he considered

certain ·appropriate~ images of things deserving of devotion when he made his case for the value of visual images. Since Gregory speaks of saints' stories, we may assume that what he refers to are representations of biblical stories or episodes from the lives of saints. The issu .., then, was about how images were actually regarded, not aoout their existence per se or even their placement in churches. Given that the ecclesial authorities (at least initially) supervised the construction and de.:oration of the earliest Christian catacombs in Rome- it seems logkal to assume that someone offidally approved the doxorat ion of the Christian building at Dura- we may conclude that the kinds of images produced for and placed in these spaces were jndged acceptable by local church authorities at the t ime, The elaboration of Chri stian buildings gained enormous momentum in the fourth century, initially fueled by the patronage of Emperor Constanti ne. By Gregory's time, the view that the images had no place in the church would likely have been regarded as out of step as well as unpopular, which is perhaps why a significant part of Serenus's congregation went into schism against th eir bishop. In the mid-fourth century, however, the motifs and themes of Christian art had jus! begun to change, deemphasizing the symbolic and narrat ive art of the third and early fourth centuries in favor of the more dogmatically derived representations of Christ's passion, enthronement, and triumph. The visual art was still edifying, but t hose previ ously popular biblical narl"3tives that showed the Old Testament heroes or the works of Jesus (for example, his hea ling or wonderworking) were gradually supplanted by images of lesus handing over the law to his apostles or being judged by Pilate. The depiction of Jesus' mission or divinity was thereby changed from an emphasis on the deeds of his earthly ministry to an emphasis on the events of his passion, ascension, and judgment. By the end of the fourth century, this development went another stcp further, when explici t ly devotional images of Christ and portraits of the saints also began to appear. These images had a role in the developing cult of martyrs and saints, not only by honoring a holy person with a portrait, but also by playing a part in the cult itself, in parallel development with the cult of relics, which sta rted to appear at the shrines of martyrs. As we have noted, the earlier symbolic and narrative images, perhaps even the dogmatic images of the later fourth century, were not intended to attract prayer or veneration, Their purpose was to symbolize or iIIustl"3te a key aspect of Christian belief (such as the 10~'e of God or Christ for the individual believer, the resurrection of the dead to Paradise) or to offer a visual reference to a bibl ical story that might convey ce ntral Christian beliefs or values, or to serve as christological or sacramental

,. [ ... n tho .. ,'" vi."01

.......... rr<"'n"l;"o. of Chri"i...exhiJlf;<. ..... rh' , nd c"",,1I<1ic.1 in"ruclion. Thry - . , Ln"""" vi......,,, Ln 'lK fundamrn .. l. of 'he f.i,h (}, k> ""pi« ,""" '" off« ~ .. i'" .nd ,1"nk>iPv"'g, Th< im'g'" n..... '«1 ",,,,i .. ,n IlK I'UI ,Iu, on< «)\IIr!. in ....... , ,,,10,,, ,Ir,n m«l,.r"'g' living holy prt>rn« ,Iu, One rould <"' . n.... ",,,,,Ii,,, in,.. " ra'''''. 'IYn """do; rbry poio'«I '0 Goo's ..T-ilic ..1< Df hi""'Y'" .is'' of hop< .nd promi .. for ,I>< fU'"I<.· By c,",'ra< n.w im.og< Lot< fo""h «mu'f <>Iftr ",,' n ......~ Po""Y''' .n.,N of "'" drdrn'''ion of 0 .. (". ,h. fiK"" or.1>< Good Sh«1. 1:.-, of ",010. s.:..... of I<>u. o. ,I>< . post!<> rJrow ,hom " cho.",' porf",m,ng 0' lo'i ....... n8 wuin "'IS ", ..",ks. r ...... ". "'"

"",.n,'" >
-"""h"

.ho, """n'•• .ho.

.,,""'i.........

,""j«'

"'''lop

po,,.,i, o"i"

PO"''''''' .och.

po""i'"1<

Thi. 4ck of ""y CIrri""n <>nn01 ho .. pt.in«l ••• n orxide",. h", ",1><, .. ,I>< .... of . """",iou, t<>iimpl~ "I"...,n'''ion of Clr'i .. •• 0" ..in ... foc< • .. i,hou, no",,;'" con,,,', Iud 'he po"n'iaI ,,, ~n 0' "",""'ip. In tho ~'" thl« 0, wu. «n'u,i .... d.,, · g"r)Ud~ ';",il.o, to ,h. "")'> IhOl in,,8'" Qf ,t.. ,t>tlih"n.lll< dI<. idoLo'''! ..... ,,<>id by O'QiJing . ttI •• iD bnd of no. by avoiding imagn in F ......I. A, • ,im •• whon • d,/kr.n' kind of rhog<1"iI.

,,1.

'"y

.8-"" '"

"tr""

'hi. _

' ' OJ!<.

1.0".

Portraito:A Particular Kind of Proble matic 1ma&'" Po,h'po.1>< ..... ,or oh",,-dlod "., ..... '" r:r:ntJo"' .... ''''n DfOOIr po""i" .. fr)Uoo in • f.mou. I< from f.uo<"l>i ... Df F.mr<"" o.n".n.i,..', ,he "usu", Con'''n';' (m"ri«! '0 hi'

,i.",.

c........."

FA{[ TO FA(£

,;m in , .... n>!. Uciniu.). in whi
-.0' ...

....... '" thor """" I>< .....

"'m

=, r.. ....... ,..,...tbot io. ..... I>< _

.. ....

of . .........' ... &.t """iDIJ' ............. to. .. """ " .......... "

Ow ......... aod .... of .... of-' """" 1><1""'" "' .... ... ....'ho>-.14.

.................... wrth -'...d ;" " ;m'" 0>10<>.", '" -....."" .... ....... OM - " " " _ _ ....... .,. .,...., 1'""'0"' ..... ~

n.._ .......... "" .... _ _ _ .....

aDd Ih
~.,_

.. _

r.... .......... "'" ""r- _ ................

1«""

In • 1008<' .....oon of , .... (foWld in • difl< ..... ' rtaI ft .... !> "","n ..... t.... th.., no liknooId b< .....:k < ... ,,, .... linc< caclt iI "" inc1lriably bound ur "';,h , .... othCtn11r. bot!t .. s umma .ntic"",.. . n. obj.nUhal ond f",", dr"tdr.a all ",.... tit< world, and .. it no< rommon ~ ,hat • ..m

,Iu,

,ha,

ir.ca,,,,,'.

,ho,

,ha.

.,.i.""".

"po'''''''

tha,.

"'l"'"

" "ud
p<>
• _no! .t>«oiot •• !
to

bim a pia"", of twa mm in , .... 1"0.. ol philoooph .... doimi", ,hat ,hty '"Irmdo..l him, Euoebi", ronfion ..... it. [.....,iUl obo m..,.. of Simon Moguo..,d MoIti to _ " ', .. ,he ·wn ...... of I"in'«\ """",iu with, in b .. opinion, ,he ....... <0" ~f heri .... Th< Iu•• dil'«t/y "'",... dim ...... tioru .... """'" Nc-...... '" of ,;,un' ... ; ...... for iNI' n« of • ( now lost) bron« ''''uc !"'"P in Canor,,, Phili!,!,i ,hot
1Icc._

m.n '"

ot.o",

b
""m..,.

VI!VAl

A~T,

POHMITI , AND IDOlATRY

kned,n~

"Qonon with h" 11m, ou",mcb«l ,0 '.pplk .. i<>o 'o'h" uprogh, ligu ... of . ".,11-<1.....,.. ""n_ 11>< I<>cab held 'his '0 1><, "'P"'. _ u ,"'" of (hri>, h<.aIing ,I>< woman IUltt,ing from h"""'rtho~ In .."n' reported hav< .. ken 'hi' _y f.ul idtnh,y 1H)' ~""""~ ,,, He <"V<1t rommtnd. ,he GcaI. bel~«I ,Itt bot< ,he I,kt-nm of )<>"'. wbkh ..... ..... ty .-.wgnit.lblt from ",her pa,n,ed ,mos<> th .. he h.ad hiJm<1{ .... n. 'nd h" ili<> "'en'~, .. o,h .. pot'",i,1"""""", of Pfler . <><1 !'lui;

'0

pi"" ., ,i,,,, ""te<.

".'n<

,Iu,

""'" ~ ~,... "'" on- of do< G "'.. ond P>:t
pouo.;"I' fINrIt.o~ <1"" .......I. tht _ " . , . . . . Otom<t. '" I"Y"'~ kiod of """'" in
- tr .. ,,,.,..

~

by"""' ..... _

.

.h"

Eu><. "'" might {ondud< ,h.a, 'he mwop<>· ltatkr< roruitkml to be -old idol'''0\11 The ,u' hrn'itlte, g'ound> .. -u. Orr. l.wllll '!reory '''111\<>1, ,h., i, .....,. be , rorvrr If"m •• ,uch ..,,' pI"IIi,,1 poI,mi
"f. ""....

,ian

,.k< ,...... "'" ,...

r=' "",... w""

",.ro,,,.:

""'It

"'"''''1· \\"h"h", 0' ""' .... ''' ,he ....i."nC< '0 Ch,i,,;'n pot".; ,u", in ,he lot< w"rth ""n'"'y c.n I><
f..,U TO f ..,U he ..... __ l'Iin'

writing> obo ......,.., indica'e tlu •• in hio .i<w........ . ..""..,...,., ...... pratti«. and h, hi' ... d,,, (in on. c... tho ~mpofOr ThItop Iohn of Inwo ..... ) ,,, ""P tho ptocti« outrip\. 1Im>I . '''II 'he dd'rn.. of 'tnaS'" .Irndy cirnrl.ltin50 ho

"'VI

,Iu, m""

declord;

Iu.. ....",

l'
"' ..... and -.hlp " - .. "'"' to pIooo
""""". "~~"" t!Uo _ _ ohaI _01,... ..... _

.... _ ........ _ ... c.,.r ..... '" _ ... "'$ '0" ...... ., """'" __ p;n-.of"""'''''' """' .... fuI, .. .... ....... b· ,~ of _of

_ _ ............................. "" .. ~ ....... po;a...""'O
' . LO ""....., ....

~~

.Iu,.

Epipiunius ""'" on to point out pOflf.i, of . n ""<Tior .ppnr_ .~ " mndy 0 I< ... ,.1< d,(fc=>, (tom "",... ,iY< OJ symbol;' ;r\'U5"'- in ,..., 0..;, pri""",}, Pu,p<>ft p ........ , .n ir>
Iu..

o~'"

"'0

only .... b"" 0' i.«. C-""'""pIa' ;",,, o{ co ..... <0" Itod ' 0 "I>'

.".. "10,, . nd ,hn>.tI "'" ~';Iy to ..".,..,'on . .... "h i. ,II< poin,.t ....ich til< po" ..i' '" <Sptci>lIy ",I_obi< t" m ",""d,u,ondi"! ur m"· o", .• r>
,1Ir {a« .nd ~

A,,_,'" ...t.Qk pti..... , pU'P<>« .. u, ""'_ ,oIity of • ouIri«' cJ.im to

"".:ICt<'t '" "", ....

"hi.o< ",m. kir>trikinS "I>m W~ ,on,id" 'bot ,ho ." of FO""'i' "I< .... , _ II .... 1>1;>11«1 in ,h. Ro",.n ...,.Id.nd woO, in f.a . .., ..... <1, pOf>ul.l. "00"1 ,I>< Upporsinoi", to prod""" pia ..;.; .1><1 ,,"phi< .rr. M \\~ <>nnot <mIit • la
.Iu, 'ubj«, .. .

no

..........,.

,m." .Iu,

'0

,tI<._ '"

,tI< .....,.,"""

.Iu. "'''''' ."",,,t..

'.·.-.01

VUVAL A"T, POH"'AITI, AND IDOlAT"'(

dtrtlldtd on ,h" l.iBd "",,,,,,,,,,,,. An""",k i. mo .. '" In. ,,",Iy .""0.1""",,,he qllOblyol'ht -k. ""''''' ito""",,, ...,..... "'" milt!

'N'

mo6r._

PO""'" """'"

~ ~ U. ron"'" olf hm". for ~.. IyChn>tiut """'" ott.....t .. _ ........... ~ w.. "'" ,"" prohib~"" oIl'iJ1o ........., I"" ... \\'bo' ""'" ron''''' diflt" '" in •• rly CIt" ..... ,hootJlt, ,,"» u.n. ..... iLarity idol. 0I,1It pol,.. ,hn.. ~ l'urtl>mno«....q ..... ""'" To "'M< ,.1ebi". '0 Conn.n,i, Of ,II< ",U ' uf l:p;pit.oniu. motlt I poin' ..... 0"' of 'm< WI,h .....1· "'.. " "p,..1«I1>y ,II< philo"'phcn. Th. im, ... of ,he: •• ,n,...... 'fIU.toty "inwn,«l" I»' lh< PU' .,r .!>cit ,"»gin" ion. Th. ,"1111" «.ouhl "'" ""n"in ,t.. ,o\.aI ,.oI ,' y.,(,.ho CIt,i" wa~ ....... in h .. hum,.

'0 ....

n..r

"nd
.>t."

'_lIy

.<1;,,,

ine" ...., •.

Th1.t ..

,he ..t>jt<,..... Lo pori""' inug<>. .. ",tit ..,h..
,n·

......1... ill ..... 'oI . .it..... ",..cit "I"'" lh< d"1inl philooophini dition .. _ • ..,. ...."'" Irwioh ",.«do .... In ",hot.- wont .. _ "'''''' .. , th..t. lOt" ..,.... 0 ....... 0 1
,.rI,

1
Moo... for .... a"......... '«"'..... ,N,.al ron ...... on.! npt.

<..Jlyd,., ... 'm ............. br...,.,Jt,d It'"ftO ,houp tIwr m.oy ...... ~ ~_ oriptol..,..«< ro. welt ococt.. ...). from. ",,~.1CIoI 1""'" 01 ...... . J'Of'taio', duo&<-< ........ ""'" .........".... 0' m"uk. do.m. '0 p........, _h.", t:oq.:md ...tf~ ..,.~ry .nd I""" 'b I""ro.oaI for 'OlIN"", ........,. _.IK....... ol ,II< ..,rm.oI .nd nn," ...,tIt ,he ""riluol ond ;"fini". In CIo' ...................... w
'N'

""' ....

,he....i.h ,>Oiy,h...... I'f........ or ... .. h .......,.!... • ,he Ca, 1"><' "i.on.).~

,,«I .. ''''' rn pit.

Ito",..., .......I

~y

lrot

",.«1'1' (",m >«on«tion In .... ..rond. '" lIUrd.c..uu'1 Ir1Ob>blr

l''''k~l .. «><, ... G""",i<~ F,"" , . ........

,.... 1.

V,I.n'i~ .. n ) """ II{ /DIo" .... , .. . h. ""'1 of L,.""k ok;, .......'" old•• f""","",, ~ w.,."J, hc:aI
...".,n ....Ithy ..... n.

wi"'.a..p.o......... "","". L,.._....... wi",,", to ....... po<

,,," uI ""'" ... . Ioa. "" ""P' ....." ... h.. i""... <"",mi.........d • ro,m •• ' 0 ....It: ,lit ~kr ...... in I«,n. Iob~·. kttOwIod ... L,....". h ... ,d '" ~ "'" J'Of"oi~ put ;, ;" .... bod"""" .. ""'"

it", _1ampI_.n

widoou.

l1'rIor>oh .... i•. ond oltor bOnd, 1ft , , In 'N' C"~od _ moy ..11 "", oatlh/y bomm I . toW1I and lov<.ntI _ ..n«... h..>"inS 10«0.... , ,1>0<1 ",oJ< ", ......... John ,<>Ok • look .\ ,1>< imoll" ."d \I'" 'I, rtlnl """,", hi. ""''' r",. r." .h. fi .., tim, (.. ""U •• ft.o'1<ml by;u bo'"'rl.

''',ical.-.......

"

f AU TO f,o,.n Nevrnhd .... 1'1< r
"".1Iy >urnm,,,!! up .1>< prob-

lem of i""If<.nd " ..,...., ,,.; •• ,at«l .h. d • ..oc.1 .......ts thai Epipl>anius"",,'d t.ttf «ho, dtd.1rt<1:

."u_~',

onJ, in

"" .... l.on<';' ~ ... _ , . . ""' ........ . . , _ bo, Ii« ." .... ;" .... 1IctII; fo, if .... poial« wbollu bet< ....... '" pot . . . . . . <-1m. ..... to. .........
. . . _.mol . .

"'I"i
ohap< of.., ...., ........... ,.,..... ....... _

_tbt . . . . . . . _. . """'" _,id,... ..

....

bit .......... oIo)
poim

"";,hc I.itII .. God. b _ I '. "'d .......;......... kl, ,tip. 1biId-. ~brotIwrlr_......,y, ,; "".,."........... kwh' dooorlW· ..... ,j;";'y. And .11< _ hood of color> _ pOn"'1'''''''' ~ ..... .......,., .... "Vpowg... ' , ...., -...... _~ ..... _ _ .... _ up, _ ""'" """ _ ond ..... ,.,... .......... . . II> brid. '""'" . lull"' ..... """"",of " " " _ Il00_". "'"~ .... ,.,... ...... k will p...... i' ............ d lnu>CbrioI .... ;,m , ........ ond,m S d ..... . . . . - .. """'-""' ...... "", ..... _ _ ................. impnf«~l"'" ...... dt.... . _ ·lnGOof_ .. - .·

111 .. bnd """",nl ... rall'" ."""""""" unmWII • ....",rd rd phOOoopi>
pan""""

en

hom, A1oun"" ,h. ern' .• oJ Orp ....... 'Tht

=.,....,,'""""",'Km. , """he<, ' uiio

M. rnm •• , hod IUmmoN'UFO of philoooph.ru. and Arisootlt) ..... U.. of I<sw and <>ffom:l th<m crow",.nd "'. . . . . of vn>ci.ott< oppositlon--l><mia Of pasana. In ..m ....IJ"..... po"" I" ll of pon ..i" ..... at I.... twofold: th
,ba,

_ 'It.

likely '0'"

m~

0,..,

up ..,d (O . . ....t with sarUnds, scmted wim

NnOkins i.n
P'OlW like ,I>< idolo of tM poIyt ...... o-.nd ,bey WCI< fol .. """ im~.· ,;.., «>pi .. of ..",,,,mi,,, ,h.a, ,... a\>oo>Iutdy bt-,o>nd d"';, abilfly." r<"P" r<>Cftt. "Tho: dil... """ bc!WIkIvi<w. which ttpfn .. inmrnt In physiQI 0' ""'<1~ antion, . od .ho ....,..k of human h.andl ........ "i.«I .. Imit";" ., best. "Tht U>, in«n><. or .......

tu'"

"'~

VIIVAL ART, PORTRAITI, AND IDOLATRY AS we ha~e s~n, the criticism of portraits as essentially fTaudulent did not emerge first within Christian thwlogy but was a standard philosophical truism that can be traced all the way back to Plato's doctrine of mimesis, in which the earthly «COpyMis many steps removed from the reality of the eternal ~model."" This standard philosophical adage was carried forward into the Ch ristian period in the thin king of the middle and neo-Platonists, but most notably Plotinus (ca. 20~270 C.E. ), who was said to refuse any attempt to have his por trai t made . His rebuff incorporated the standard Platonic objection: "Is it not enough to carry about this image in which nature has enclosed us? I){) you really think that I must also consent to leave, as a desirable spectacle to posterity, an image of the image?"" His disciple and biographer, Porphyry (ca. 232- 305 C.E. ), began his Ufeof Plotir1ll5 by recounting how the foremost portrait artist of the day, a certain Carterius, attended Plotinus's public lectures so that he could obs<>rve the philosopher and catch his ~most telling personal trai ts" in order to produce from memory (and clandes t inely) a sketch that could then be circulated among friends for their cri tique and suggestions until a lifelike portrait had emerged. Such a portrait would have been a sort of hybrid of~from Iife Mand "from mem ory"- an attempt not simply to capture an e~ternallikene:ss but also to represent the character of the model." Sin<;e the Christian chuKh emerged in this cultural milieu, we must assume that converts not on ly were familiar with the practice of making and using port raits but were possibly also awa re of the criticism of that practice. If so, they may have adapted this criticism to reflect the ir own theological issues a<serting, with Plotinus, that portraits mistook the external world for the true ( invisible and ideal) one or that they were products of a materialistic and idolatrous culture that adherents to the new faith ough t to reject on general principle. If such objections were taken from the ph ilosophical sphere into the Christian theological one, we may also assume that wncern with the dishonesty and even danger of portraits wuld run deep within the intellectual tradition, affecting the everyday practice of Christians, including the art they created to express their faith . Evidence for Christian adoption of Platonist objections to art may be found within the wider Christian intellectual circles including the writ ings of Valentin uS (ca. 120-160 c.~. ), who offers a criticism very similar to Plotinus's, but from a century earlier: Howew, m""h • por!ra~ is inferior to . n aclu.al f3<~. ju" so is the world wors.lhan the living ,eal m. Now, what is the ,"use of lhe [df""'iven= of 'he] 1'0'trait11t i. lhe maje"Y of the faooe Ih.l has furnished 10 Ihe painter. prct01ype 00 (hat the port .... i{ mighl bt honoml by hi. name leilh« of Ihe model Or the pa imer l. F<:>r Ihe form was n01 rel'rodu<ed with pe rfect fidelily. )'e{ the name compktN Ihe lack within 'h" act of modeling. And aloo God', invi ,ibk [nalure) cooperale, with whal " .. been modelN IAdam] to lend it credenooe."

29

fAU TO f A(E In ,hi. "'or' rragm ... ' of V.JmtiDW', .... d1ins, I i rrt«I by d<m h;' bkm of .i.1Ui """:xr,,.. ,;"n b<1weJO. of thrir o:oruid< ,u"""ndingming.n dSrn,iol form of 1 "', " ko" <>II • pa' .. ;,11 im>g«y, We m"" "" wt>., 'hroIo«itccs were ~k '"u im ....."n' u"",il;"n in the
""<:I..

'm<

""'ale

"'.=

Ooi""" .......

""""i""

in

'h" ...

.W

w..

,.,..,.."

'~

Of ""ur.." much of n";,;"n ,,,,,1 pi"", in tondtm "';,h """"'" dunges in 'hc ""urclt'.I1.... and ouppon . ... ft.,. o.n.tantiD<'. ""' ..... oioo to Otri!t .." i'y in ) 14 <;. L, ,he cirru""'. nc<> of the ch. rclt chans«! obruptly from J><1>eo "' .. ..,.", «pandnj to i"dude portr.i" of 'he ..i".., Ch""h ........ built and decor.. 'od ...... lL .. imut.,«1 " 6", br imp<Ti.II"'''' '' '''j!< _ moD<)', bur ...., by . V>d1Ui1y rn><m,n in c.... .. mo Philipp; (which cau'" hi", ,,, ""'c,ha, t.. hal abo ,.." ".,..rai .. of the .. ints I...... nd hul), Eu! lha, Co","n,in • .:om· mimor>«! KUlplym 61P'''' of the Good SI"p/K , d and DoniIH: fuu "" in' in Coo ..,,,, .>.=nling '0 Ihe l.ibt ",d Ch,i" in ~ . .. , .... of /<0 ... and hia ",'q;on ' ... b< includ«l in the ironogr.. phi< P'''II'''"'' of ,he cat.acombo """ 'PI""'rN on OIbcr m«li>. ruch .. goId-9-.nd S'mL In ,he 6~h . nd >inh <m. of ,be .. in" ."d Christ .. " h"""" manyn. M

i""".....

"""'ifiaJU.

k""",,, '"

,",..... p..,,,...,

(0"""''''

VIIVAL ART, PORTRAITI, AND IDOLATRY

31

and bishops) Were added to the frescoes of the Roman catacombs long after burials ceased in these places, particularly at the sites where their remains were interred. The emerging cult of the saints in the fourth and fifth centuries brough t pilgrims to these places, where they might share a commemorative banquet to honor the holy persons near their mortal remains. Jerome, for example, menlions regular Sunday visits 10 the calaco mbs when he was a boy in Rome "to pay homage to the sepulchers of the apostles and martyrs.~" The art o f the catacombs changed from symbolic and narrative images to representations of the sain ts buried therein , or portraits of the martyrs, apostles, or Mary in company with the deceased ." Just prior to the emergence of saints' portraits, however, the first examples of portraits of Christ appear, including one in the vault of a burial chamber in the Catacomb of Com mod ill a, showing the head and shoulders of Jesus featuring a fuJI dark beard and long wavy hair (fig. 11 ). Dated to the late fourth century, his head is framed by a halo and on either side we see the letters alplla and omega. Christ's face seems to float on a patterned background of squares and rosettes, perhaps meant to represent a coffered ceiling. Elsewhere in this catacomb are images of the denial of Peler and o f Christ shown between two martyrs (or

Fig. II. Bust of am". C".,-omb of Coo, .,oi .... I\omo. mid- to tote 'Ith ""'. c!. (PI>oto; ItoIyIHeId Coiledg=>on -"rt I..mry).

,-

-

• •

32

FACE TO FACE

r..

12 M=1Ic f\or!r.n 0( CIwist from ~V' Io ., H;"too St toto'"" o.:.-.et late W1 <en.C!..

London. ~

Museo..o"n (f>t>o\o;Au\ho<)'

between Peter and Paul}. Ano ther such image, also dated to the latt' fourth century, was found a\ Ostia Antka, made of opus sectiJe (colored marble). Like the Commodilla image, Christ's head, here framed by a simple nimbus, also has a dark beard (but in this image with a pronounced fork) and long dark curly hair. The face of Ch rist alone, without any background or context, had become a subj«t of art and perhaps an object of devotion." A third famous late fourth-century portrait of /esuscomes not from Rome at all but from a mosaic pavem{'nt in the Roman villa (or perhaps small house church) discovered in the 19605 at Hinton St. Mary in Dorset, England, and now in the British Museum (fig. 12). A medallion in the center of this large mosaic shows Je,us with quite a different facialtyp.: than that of the Commodilia or Ostia imag~s. This portrait of Jesus. which may have been plac~d originally in the domed ceiling, shows him beardless and wearing a rather mild expr~ssion. His hair is light in color and pullo.>
VIIVAL ART, PORTRAITI, AND IDOLATRY

Concurrent with the development of visual art for the church, along with t'Xplanations of its potential value , was a fading concern about idol atry in the late third and early fourth centuries. This may have been becauS<.' the surrounding culture was gradually becoming Christian (and thus less threatening), or because the traditional gods were steadily disappearing from the sc.. ne, or perhaps, even more significant, because the focus of theological condemnation moved from the danger~ of idolatry to the (Contr(>versies about the person and namrds) of the savior. Th .. demons that entrapped the people into worshiping the vain and empty creations of human hands now had another way to drag the unwary into perdition, through false teachings rather than through the worship of false gods or the veneration of idols. Pagan gods were no longer the competition and threat that they were in the first centuries, and the secular world was something to be accommo dated rather than avoided . Unt il the beginning of the eighlh century and the outbreak of iconoclasm, portrails of Ihe sa inls, Mary, and even Chri~t were hardly a matter for concern. In stead, images of saints as well as scenes taken from the Bible became more and more popular for church decoration. Intended 10 inspire awe as well as to teach, th .. artwork in church was as much a mode of theology as th .. writing of treatises or delivering of homi lies, and il was as effectiv.. a means of nurturing devotion or pious emotion as any of the rhetorical arts. However, even though the material evidence certainly demonstrates

33

Fe. I J. StMett<: ted ctneO NiIl>Of\O/e (P>I>=> Mo"'rY<> "" T=ne~ """"" (Photo; ....,tI>or~

34

FACE TO FACE

r"

that portraiu of the sain ts, Io.lary, Or Chris t had arrived, at leas! one provincial but famous bishop at th ... turn of Ihe fifth century was worr ied 300ul how the uistence and popularity of su.h images still might lead his congregation astray. Noting that some of the better educa ted pagans in his ci ty had turned the tables and actually were chiding Christians for being "ador.. rs of columns, and sometimes .. ven of pictures,~ Augustine grants that such things are taking place ("would to God that we didn't have them") and notes that the practice is defended by what will become the standa rd Christian 3gum... n!: ~ 'We: they say, 'don't adore images, but what is signified by the image.'~" Augustine obj&ts 10 such an argument by poin ting out that it would be wiser to pray directly to the saint rather than to the image of that saint, an argument that might seem eminently sensible if posed to a congregation that was unat tached to such visual and material aids to prayer. Whether his congregation was persuaded or not (we hal'e no surviving icons from Hi ppo) is ultimately less interesting. however, than the fact that, accord ing to Augustine. Christians are being accused of the very acts their authorities had formerly ridiculed in others.

14. San::op/1'1!U'

of;....,.

~]S7CL T~ryof

S~

P
s.sac... ~

1WO

Image and Portrait in Roman Culture and Religion

v

P t.OTI N 5 objected 10 having his portrait pa inted because he dis tinguished between an individual's character and mere external appearance. 'Ine outward form and, even more, the representation oftha! form made by an artist using pigments on wood was, to his mind, an illusion. A paillled portrait had no life, depth, or meaning beyond recording the transitory and superfidal aspoxt of the model, and, if it pretended to show any more than that, it was a fraud. P]otinus, like Plato, not only regarded artistic images as inferior wpies bUI also as deceptive snares that would lure the eye and turn the mind away from con templation of r..alily. Plotinus was wary of the material world and of seductive physical delights that entrapped the soul in base pursuits and pleasures, keeping it from ascending to more lofty truth. Whether or not this philosophical critique was heeded, the ancient monuments that till today's museums show that the production of portrait images was widespread in the ancient world and no less in the Roman Empire in late Antiquity. The disapproval of intellectuals does not appear to have affected the PQl'ulation's desire for artistic representations of family members, great heroes, rulers, statesmen, and the gods. However, the question of what consti tuted a worthy PQrtrait-or like ness-is complex. Although the ancient Egyptians may have been the tirst to have fashioned PQrtrait-like art works, art historians (l ike many ancient philosophers) generally cred it Greek sculptors with the tirst rec ognizable artistic likene:SSl:s, a development that characterized the tran_ .ition from the archaic to the classical period, reflecting an increased emphasis on individuality and naturalism over standardized types or forms. From that time on, classical portrait images ranged back and forth on a spectrum between realistic and idealized representation- the matter of what constituted a PQrtrai t dependent on how the concept itself was understood.

35

FA{[ TO FA([ "".
,h.F:Jd,:, ("" H ..

~ c. .. ) dt:><~ed n...Iy on ""tit<

voI" m. of hi, .'1.,"",( H;',,,,,. '0 ,I>< pain'ins 0( """ ... ito. 11= I>< lamrnto "'" lo< ",,'lIIobk r.... ... tI...ymboIo """"'8 ,ho: """"rdly mobtl< .... iddle do .... of hi> 'imo. In hi> .;....••

i,..

po ..... mooI ""po"'. ' funru..n - . ' 0 fool« m<m<>ry .n.:! 1ftP"<' 1'0. f,mily.nd "oJit"",- ~, Plinya.mploi"" Iho,ioc of. po....;, ( it< physi< quali'y wed on ,I>< J>ffltn'io"~ of ,ho W<>fkm.n$hip. Sou..nnsl'nJ m ..... 1;I><.n old· f..tUoncd mUnge1, ho .;..,. ... ,ho d< dcpIo •.bIc t..bit of pop. pi,,!' ..... 1'<'" .. ,' htad "pon ,n cddhould bt .... ~"

,ho..

,h.

_,roJ,

_«. ,_. . . . . "

n.. poiDt .... oI"poruai'~"'" ., ,......... ....,.,... ........ ..........,. "". 01",.....,..., .... "'to--rir ......... -... _

f«I _

.. """"' .... ~ with .~ .. _ . _....,..

... _

... up

Iifw
._...! . .

",.. .,. _~ ....
'1'~ ...........

loom
...... 01"111 ...... """"" _

.... wallo of ...... ~i
................................ __ .01 ... _

1W"'._. . . . .

...............

,,, .......

eon..q.o,n..,..

;'1b<1"ic<. ... to' .,.. I«-r .............. _ ..... ""'''1'' ......
;-'a' " .... , ""......" """"" .......,. 0«

• dioM 01"

...-"$"i, ..... hh-o .... 01"_....... .
(m

_ro,od .............. """'....- ....... .,..,..... '" 1"""""1."", ~ h · ......... abo ,."" ....... "" hoIIo
,I.,.d","'""*,, ......... __ ... ......

_~ ... _

"'" boot4. ., """"" " ....... ., '" <miod in """ ";M 7

... """' .. ;" .... """- ""' ....... _ _ •• I ,of~

PI-" ..... ""

.., .. _oyol .... _thot ...... _ _ .... ro-
How<"" . 'h< ~"",'i"" of ..... ' <»fU';'U,td. 'rut IiUn"~ ..on . rhrsiaIlikotd/.. ..... det...,.lok. DtsP"o Pliny', ...... ion "mi"",· could "'" to< po .. royod. h< .00 ~ .... , the dtmmto mad< an n.1 po""i' 'rue 01 f. I« ...... dffl"" ,h.n m.... ou'wan:! « · 'Th< ~f ""'" of "" ,",..I. '" .. bot 'ht < modd ..... nK.....1. Fliny ,ritit •• od It< rommoIIy inv
,ho,

<"..

.Pl"'......

,ho,

"P"""""'

""""'8'

,ho.

..coun''''

IMAC(

"'N~

fOHMIT IN

~OM"'N

(V,TV M ... ND

~HICION

u,l ,h""""" 01 ...·'n bib~oprul" (I,k, hino"U) .. ho ~",,,.<4 and «I i,«I 'h, """bot: OIbcn---<".,i"l! ~tmli<110 hoo>< 'IK thougt", .nd .. ,,'inti' of S"OI 'hin ........ ,h" thon n><"'1y show<>.in& i,.... gi. nory and <mn:h hin"'!l "plain~ gs .""'" 'h, gr<" d«<;, ,ubj<1;"«1 ,h.i, , ~uoI ,hoilld I>< 1m """""'n1<mal 'p!",,,n« and mOl< with ~g Ih, in .. ngibl< of Ih. ptr>ouoli'y. ptrhap$ ,hrough ,I>< .. p,.,.;"n of tho t"" . nd '''' <}'< l;.es of f.mou, mrn. Plu,uch . .... ". ,n" .n individ ... r, gl<" <J<,ed. 01 oct .... far I"" ~... lin8 ,If ,h.i,. pt""o·. ">tu", ..-..y b< ddin.at
,I><;,

'm<

,I>
.ni"

"at.

"poe"

.ubi'"

... ;, ;, ... "'-';" .... ' I .......... ;... bo, l""",.,.j '" "" _ iIJ.M"""" d«d! """ i. "",.,...,.. ~""" of"""'",.-'.or. ""l'.~;gh1 ,,",. ~ • "", ... of.)11. 0' ,h ..... of , it"'"

.,n' .........,.. '" ""'"

.-din~. ju>o

.. painvn", .... !;k'w"";. ......

.00 .......... ' •.., of ,... .,...."........ ....

,.,.",i" _ .... r.or

o;b.,...., '-;"ott: bo, .....

... y I.... *""""' of ... """, ".. .. of ... '-'y. ., 1 ..... '" ...... ,,,j 10 " " - ..,'!df f(O 10. . . . of ............ mm, ond by- ....... 01 ...... to po<--

...-, ... 101< 01 ,"". l
""i, """ (t>,,,....:

Plu"rch'. pro"'" only higJilighl> on< of '''' .... ,n function. of vim'" nr. its. ho .... "',. Vi .... ) im'8 ... 1i ... ,h",. i" of now rwnrt... indivi",.i' ,ugo'" oafI$ f....., A, In.. i, wa,Ii'iea! ""u" ..... llh •• """'- Ot e,.." "'n~y ot th< mo
1"""""

I""'alindon ...., .. us R"alism In Ro man Portn.it" ,.., "'hen Pliny '<mOn.",,' ",I"" of imag« nol death m..b ) w.", pop. ular du,ing Ih. l\<-p-ublian era. parhcul .. lr .round '''' mid_fi'" , .. _ 'UIY • .c...' Art hi>toria ... ha.. found ,bal ,hi, prt .. i.~ ""'''1' of thom .:opKd in ..,Iy

,ha,

38

r" 15.

Bust of L.uOu$ Ctcli", ~ p"" .,. ; ~ - . l it , ..... C,L""" fI:" ope;;" Mus
Upodimoote, NopIos (P\>ru>: AIiNrililrt Rooource, NY).

r..

I6.Augustu, from Primoporta. 1+-29 CL.V-.n

"'""" """ "'"'"

~-)

FACE TO FACE

imperial limes. Although this era was known for its emphasis on real ism, there was also a continued tradition of idealized heroic represen tations based on earl ier Hellenistk models. Scholars have noled that late Republican -era realistic portraits focused more on the expression of ind ividual persona lily through certain unique facial features , depict ing their subjects Uwarts and aiL" Possibly bas...:! on the practice of making death masks for funerary purposes (se .. discussion below), this shift also seemed to capture the Republican values of practicalily, frankness, and unsentimentality. One particularly vivid example of this. now in the National Museum of Naples but originally from Pompeii, is the bust of the Augustan-era banker and businessman Lu<;ius Cedl iu. locundus (fig. \5).' lbe literalism of this portrayal, wi th its wart and protruding ears, suggests that the aim was to create a particu larly detailed and recogn izable (and not noticeably beautified ) likeness of its model. During the early imperial era, the classical heroic or idealized portrayal became more popular, although somewhat infl uenced by the earlier tendency toward realism.' The tendency to vacillate between the classicist or idealizing mode and the realistic one sometimes produced odd combinations of realistically executed heads on heroically posed bodies (see fig. 18). Good enmpIes of idealized portraits are the representations of Augustus, who is usually shown as a youthful and heroic figure (fig. 16). The next generations of the Julio -Claudian fam ily generally kept up the ideal izing tradition, especially 111 posthumous portraits of the deified ruler, al t hough occasional reappearances of older Roman realism sometimes reappear in certain instances, such as the almost com ical portrait of Claudius in the guise of Jupiter, now in the Vatican Museum (fig. 17). At the end of the first century, the portraits of Vespasian (69- 79 c.~.) are also quite realistic, perhaps meant to associate this middle-class emperor with old Republican values. But even Vespasian could be represented as having a rea listic visage on an idealized body (fig. (8). Although we

IMAGE AND PORTRAIT IN ROMAN
39 Fig. 17 (\eu:n. I\omo (f'Wo; ","thoc) Fig. 18 (right~ \lespa>ian. rrod 111. cen G. from tho SIlnne

clthe ""'S",toIes, ~

-,

Castelo (!;

s... (Photo

Fig. 19 (beb.wP'C/t of . """""" Impenol IWmon Penod, T,,,!,,-,,: ~ ~noe. 100-125 c.r. Pla.:e 0( """", fa.:tu"" Gr=<: (J:~ "Ny). r-Meum 0( fine ~ 8octogr,,*, ClOO4 MJ",um O(F ine ~ 8o
cannot make dear judgments about uact likeness, the works suggest an apparent effort on the part of artisans to achieve realism while still flattering their subjects and showing them at their best. The women of the Flavian court, for example, affected elaborate hairstyles on their official portraits and sometimes had themselves appear with the figure and pos ture of Venus, At the same time, women of this and the next dyna5ty were also shown as aging, with wrinkled foreheads, bags under their eyes, and sagging cheeks (fig. 19).' Ar t historiam note a pronounced return to ideal types during the era of Emperor Hadrian, when urtain facial features clearly were intended to suggest aspects of the mode!", character or virtues. Hadrian, however, was the first emperor to show himself with a full beard, in the style of the Greek philosophers, a trend that caught on for male portraiture, since it seemed to emphasize the gravitas of the model. Hadrian's lover Antinous, on the other hand, was shown in the form of a young Greek god, with a beardless face, curling hair, and a sensuous, even feminine body type, The bearded emperor types (with luxuriant and curly hair ) were still in vogue toward the end of the second century, especially for the portraits of Antoninus Pius and his successors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, who wished to be regarded as intellectual rulers (fig. 20). Marcus Aurelius's portraits are especially

40

FACE TO FACE

'OS 10. Bust of AnIInorIinu< PM, GO. 138--40 CEo. t1u>oo PaIot.OO, Rome (POOle; ~-)

interes ting. however, .~ince they show a progression from attractive youth (beardless), through vigorous middle age (bearded), and finally to a wise and ,omewhat world-weary old man . The same pa!lern describes the portraits of his wife, Faustina, who also moved from youthful beauty 10 midd le-aged matron and finally showed the dignity and wisdom of age .' At the b.>ginning of the third century, the St>1'eran .. mperors were likewise portrayed with long curly hair and forked beards (fig. 21). CaracaUa however, favored a more clipped beard and hairstyle (fi g. 22).' Verisimilitude came back into style beginning in the nos for portraits of the soldier·emperors Maxim in u~ Thra:o; and Balbinus.ln order to express the personality of the model and to achieve a realistic Ekeness, artists employed rough and even impressionistic modeling. T he results produced an appearance of severity and implied strength of character. H. P. L'Orange has analrt.ed this shift in style as the attain ment of~psychologi cal" imagery. Musing on one example of this type, the bust of Emperor Philip the Arab (244--249 C.F.. j, L'Orange writes: With. great simplifying 10IKh the anisl has managed to concentrate ph)"· iognom;'; life in one characteri!t;'; ''''''''P.'Ihe central motif is the th""'lening lo"' of the mouth. The p'rchoiogic"~1 picture "h;"",s .n . 1,,"",st utIC.n ny intrn'ity. Behind the nerv· ou, quivering featnr.,. the eXl'r.,.,ion itself .... ms to change and move. nosh · ing like a glimml."ring name "''CT Ihe f.<e.~

F"og.2 1 . ~.~ u..200-2 1 0cE..~

Museum. P...... (Photo: ~-)

r"

22. Bust of Ca....:ola, c.o. 214 c.E.Museo ~ ... Rcmr>o (Palau<> MM", o¢ . . T""",,~ Rome ~-)

(!'hot'"

The "man of action" type disappeared again as portraits of Gallien us (253--268) returned to t he idealized types. Shown wi t h a Short beard, this ruler's smoothly modeled and almost delicately rendered portraits present him as a sensitive person, and his upturned eye~ give him the look of spiritual or in teUe<:tual aspirations, even though he was an active soldier-emperor in the style of his father, Valerian. Possibly intended to remind the viewer of youthful depictions of Augustus , Gallienus's image also bears some resemblance to a contemporary portrait found in Ostia and identified by some art historians as a portrai t (finally achieved) of the ph ilosophe r Plotinus. " The intell&tual image was dislodged again, however, at the end of the third century, as the Tetrarchs (Diodetian, /I.1a:o;imian, Constantius, and Ga1erius) wished to have themselves portrayed as strong and de<:isive types, like the soldier-emperors of t he mid-third century. The style was more abstract than realistic, however, and likene~s appean to have been less important than a kind of conventional frontality and symmetry. In place of smooth modeling, sharp lines and geometric shapes predominate. Facial features are stylized, with the wide-open and staring eyes that make these subj&ts look, in Diana Kleiner's phrase, like " bearded

IMAGE AND PORT RAIT I N ROMAN
(fi g. 23)." However, they also lend the portraits a kin d of hieratic quality that foreshadows the portrai ts of the ea rl y Byzantine period, especially their emphasis on the eyes as the mos t striking facial feature (fi g. 24)." These styli led or abstract types were adapted onet' aga in with the portrai ts of Constan tine. Earlie r images of Cons tantine followed those of the tetrarchs, showing him with a short bea rd and sold ier haircut. After the bailie of the Milvian Bridge, however, Co nstantine's port raiture underwent a dramati c reinvention. He began to be shown as beardless and youthful, with longer hair in curls ove r his forehead, somewhat like the portrai ts of the first August us, or possibly Trajan. " One of the best-known portraits of Constantine, the head from the co lossal statue from the Basilica Nova (now in the Museo del Palazzo dei Conservatori; fig. 25). shows some si milar ities to the ea rlier tetra rch portraits, with its wide-staring eyes, geometric shapes, and sharp angles. But it also shows the empe ror as beardless, looking slightly npward-giving him a kind of spiritualized appear ance possibly intended to associate him with his patron gods (Sol and/or the Chr ist ian God ). Port raits of the S{)ns of Constantine are often difficult to distinguish from those of Constantine himself, as once more the portrait type became convent ionalized , now having a more idealized appearance and what Kleiner calls "the bland dassidsm of Augustan times which also subsumed individuali ty.~" All these changes in the way that imperial portrai ts were produced show the difficulty in trying to establish the parameters of a "likeness." Roman portraits, especially portraits of rulers, were carefully con· structed images, revealing more than the mere physkal appearance of the model. Character and pa rticular virtues were prnjected through blockheads~

41 Fig. 21 Potp/»<"y ~p ~oftheT~

300 c..o.. ongj r..tr from Conrt..rt.nopIe, now ..,

<0.

St I"W'<". ~."""ce (Pt>ot<x "'-'tt-.o.-~

Fig.

l~. TheodoW.

,

380-90 c .... u.".,.,., Mvoeum. Pn (PnoIo:A..ttt>o<).

<0.

Fig. 2\. Const.wttine t, from the Ba.ia NcMo. a. 3 t ~ 30. Mu=:o del P.>azro de<

eo-r.aton. ~ (Pt>oto: "'-'tI><>-").

fA{[ TO FA«( '*'i«h, 000, po"";( ..... "f(en in. tmp"" .... t.;. mil· ;lOry m;5h( . nd...-_ fo, ... mplt ( •• mon of octMon"). might I>t oMwn ,.;,~ • i.>nd to"" "IWI ..... ;-, knitttd brow,'OO p<1!d .. t i"ll .!I.~ If, on ,he "' ...... hood. tht " .",.. ~ WOO i.'< plo. f<>,uon«>uld lot Mlnli.o0 "","ed.o bt on ;",dk< ....1might bt rq>,Cktlt«i in ' he g"il< of. philo",pl><' ",ith un.rimm«i bnrd .nd.n intf'p>iub;!i.y _ auc1al. or ,he p'If".i, _uld ..... to fun<1ion at th< ""'" '-ic Inrl .... "'" ";U J«, ,~ .. m. COI>«m. ond 1"'l< "",,,ruction of....,. Qlluwn port ..i.. of Chri" ,~_

p«e
..,.J ' ..... int~

,h.

~ "yli<ed po"n;'." 'he ,I>< .-,11 quit< d ... inn &.,m Of>< 0"",1><,. )'
Thi"8"iubil;,y, "'I'*'rty.nd

r.-, ......oon...

Innl <>gh <=>gniuble " .. ract¢rillk> in comnwn '0 bt odnowl· «lg< m<>dd, if <>nlr b«.>Uk of omain ~'''''' qp«1~ or kI'u .... Th< i.... ,WOr\J. 10 100« .. ,I>< viewe, u..,..., who ito modd .. ODd 50 Ions .. it wp<>. ";Morus, or tv< in, .... • ';on,ol ,lit ,honk< (0 ,II< obilitr of the .n...... In 10"'" a..., ,II< 0 well 'hOI ''''' fDOd" ,t..~ ";,h 'l'i"',itioru or .. in" in 1."",Ot,....... , ..di,;on. who .f< ~It "'fF17 b«.>Uk lik" 'n' di'.:n,.1 po" " i'~ Th .. ,II< q ....,;g., of mol;,.", .00 vcrioim ilitutk of. JIO<, .. it h«om. complint«lby ,I>< pn>d ~ "ion .nd di...,minotwn ol

."riOO....

.n. . .,!;m,. . . . ,. . '"1'""''''"

'0

1">"''';' ...,'....

"><,.·Iook

,hti,

,_< _

....,

the i""'S< ,..elf

The Savior-Type ""d the Philosopher A·

t"O

MH'

~I",.fth·. re&c,",," On ",~uri"8 the .... d

"thcr ..... " the df ill....

tnow pttton.o !!trough h" ",ririn, of 'hoi, · Ii...• """',. ., ' .... lqin·

"'''8 of hi> """v.p"" of Ak ..odcr. Th .. co",<'" 0«"" p",,",uLuty apt. fo, Aknnd<, _ ,t.. proto,ypiaI ...... ,·"' ..... boIh i" t.;. kt po",.i". _U· known ioftal< .Iin t.;.
IMAGE AND PORT RAIT I N ROMAN
ally heaven -bound or apotheosized,as he was trans formed into a special kind of transitional deity, a god-man-hero savior figure along the lines of Dionysus, Orpheus, or Hercules." As art historians have noted, the pallern of Alexander's elevation was borrowed for subsequent rulers, in particular certain Roman emperors who, like the heroes of mythology, were seen as acting with divine guid ance in life and undergoing apotheosis or deification after death (Julius Caesar or Domitian, forexample}.And as these mortals were elevated to the level of the semidivine Or divine, they acquired a particular type of portrait image that transfigured even the plainest visage into one of stri king beauty. The coin portraits of Julius Caesar before and after his death are a case in point. While the rea lism of the Republican style guided his portraits in ljfe, after death he was granted a you thful beardless face and an abundance of long, curling hair, often held back with a fillet or a diadem surmounted by a comet-the sign of his elevation to the rank of a god." This affiliation with a Hellenistic prototype (Alexan der) alS{) drew upon an actual divine image, the portrayal of Apollo or the sun god, Sol, who served as a model for many of the coin portraits of la ter emperors, including Constantine I (see fig. 41, p. 6t\). The heavenward turn of the eyes suggested both pious affiliation with the upper world and ITans<:endcnce of mundane or eart hly matters. As discussed above, emperors such as Anti noninus Pius and Marcus Au relius, however, d ropped Apollo in favor of a different model - the facial features of Jupiter or Serapis with full beard and abundant hair (fig. 26}." According to scholars, these emperors chose to project the maturity o f age and to appear mOre majestic and wise than beautifu l and heroic. In his book The Mask of Socrnles, Paul Zanker wri tes that the male population of the Empire adopted a new style during the seco nd century (a ~clas sical face~ ) and tha t it was • Hadrian's appearance with a beard that marked the turning point." Imperial portra its that reflect this

-

43

Fig.26.~

2nd """ C.l.

Bn"'"

~lot>don

(Phot"Autho<).

44

FACE TO FACE

type include the busts of Lucius Vern. and Septimius Severns (compare fig. 21)." Facial features associa ted with the ~seniorH gods (especially Jupiter) emphasize the d'3raCleristics these emperors valued-sagadty, gravitas, and ruling authority. In Zan ker's view, tit is shift of portrait Iype WaS driven by a «profound transformation of Roman society and signal..d an emerging ~cult of Jearning.H Prior 10 this time Roman men had been depicted as clean shaven. This transition to the bearded type reflected an interest in being portrayed as intellectuals. even in the guise of philosophers or poets, with longer beards and hair. They carried scrolls in their hands or had them in baskets at their feet. One p<Jpular figure in Roman art was a readn shown ;n profile, holding a partially unrolled scroll and wearing the traditional philosopher's garb of the pallillm (an outer mantle wrapped ~omewhat like the larger and more formal toga, and mu<;h like H

Fig 27. RMro Head s.rcop'lagu~ \no 3rd c.... , CL I'1u>eo Pio Crist;."", VatjCi!rI City (Photo; ""-'tho<).

the Greek himMiOlI), often without the undertunic, thus leaving a partially bare chest (fig. 27). Such 3 physical presentation suggested indifference to worldly beauty and a preference to cultivate the mind and to develop a disciplined or spiritual outlook on li fe. " Many such (XIrtraits, ~hown in half or three-quarter profile, appear on ~econd- and third_ century sarcophagi, all with the apparent aim of (XIrtraying the deceased as a learned and reflective man.

Fune rary Portraits As we have seen, portraits of living people, from Roman emperors to more ordinary persons, usually had a practical as well as an aesthetic function. They honored, enhanced, and even shaped the character and reputation s of their model~ while preserving evidence of their existence. The funerary portrait, by contrast, was a sp&ial kind of image, usually produced after death but also occasionally made while the subject was still alive, meant only as a re<:ord of the deceased's physical appearance for posterity. These funerar y (XIrtraits had a particular ceremonial func-

i

:I

c..

~.::.

3~

ll3-f.q2.;r"i~"'!O

!

,!E.1~ .·~ii,.

g

~
iriifil ii~~l~~rilf~!i~ t

ia~ ll"S ?3-_I<:T~U~Ol" f t-] f
lH 'l'l f i!,.! ~ ~

~

~a.iiI?

.tv· -i;,> I 8"-a~'Ji:l -

~~j/-i1t"'''

_

~t

t

I

&

j .,

&:

~~

i'~.

$'!i!~i

-<

0

" •"->

>

•0

Q

>

~·i

I.

I

t

I

fi.

![!f!li!llrl

•

1.

"?[

~i!~--l . .. if~ .

ittt!;

L

' .~8"

~

•

0

0

•

-

Q

• >

< >

::~I'l.Hl~'i~r jl"'. ,r.!{1,H1l t·!f· " l =-;it 1rr t P ~i~~ f E'·'" ..... 'i:"', •. , pf' l [ . • j<. •"

,... •

~'

•

0

, Ilftlll!lltl[I!I!II!!I. tlllll!II[II~ I!IIIII • Hdg iiloil'1?",i!~~! r ' . 1 I' f'f~' , , [",!;.I ['I'lt~'~l~!!. !1'I'lf'!11' ~lrl'l •

FAtE TO FA {E cupboof'i<, Iil.< ,h,;ne>. u • ...tly n ... ,t..: "",,,. 1.. rium. ond "
"" oll rntmbm oJ tilt howthold. ;""1"";,,, dimll ond sI"~ lhey ...... ",,,;«1 ',n >. ~ ( p<.hapo by hi.ed for TIIi,

"u' or .. ,,,,.n

function ) du,ine Ih. funmol

oc''''''

~

of ",<=<:dins m
elm. Unfurl.n.,dy, gj... ,t..: fragility of ,h. wu, 00 oumpla of ""'" fun .....,. n\Uk> haw 'U,,';vN. AldwotoloJi>o. dilCOY<1' fin .....mpl .. 0( po"";1 bu.lS Ita .. • 100 b«n found. for ... mpl. in tilt wlumb.rium of Cod;.i ;n Rom., in ..,n,. of.,.. nkh .. o. ;gin.olly in,,"ded kI. ,in .... .,. om" ...ttich ,ha, .... .". "odi,io ...1 bwt po""'i" .... .l< from lif. ""'Y ha", .. rwd Ihi> I<' (i~ dipdttdtl, wbidt wer< '" up in ,om, 1'1<00< public pla«$.· Mo" fU"f ,'" ~, rith<011"«1 /,.;.,«1 .nd pIaeod ....... ,'" ""...... id .. tv«l,h. ,i,,,,,I • ....,... t< d.. d, wh"" ramily and fr;'Dd. _uW ~II><' •• II>< lomb for > h.onquf tho .lr<.toO«i we ......,mat.o 1',.. ,,1>< of.1>< meoi; ,hrir p..... g"'''"'«f phyaical ..... ins-• Som. S'..... \OYf< "Iuipp«l with hoi.. or pip'" for pouring food. nd d. rnk duwn ~, ,),,;. 1><, ..... '" ...t.... 011...... bd ..bb ..,;TII d ...... . nd ~ ",n'td in", '""'" "'" food <>I!fflnp. n..... ".di,io", Wft< carri Chm,ion ril"~ .!though oom< churd! officio!> 00j«to,,",. Ch,;"i.". ""n.ip . nd h<>no. pon"i" of ,I>< ~ ,hat -... pla«d n... YU dead bod;." ~ "< ..;"" "' ..... '0 be ..... ,.,;.,«1 I>'''ieuI.< Iokr UIo< ...m.ri>Tie .. bk ,I>< "\iQ;.,,J tl>< ven<>< funerary ,nd;,iooo. OOfI,inuod "'" fim four hundred )'CI" <>f ' 1>< Common ErL .... Riclunl BrillUn' has .... ,«1; "$I.ndin, bot~ lhe "ill · living .nd tl>< 01 ... dy.f I""UK d«ii< di", penaI'y of non·"m.mbran« imp~cit in TIl. dom ..," on"",,,",,,, ,h. ""';on of ",n>ivaI ;n wb ....·'" fonn .........t ,,, Iu", • op«:Ul .'!"ncr, si ... n ,he oxtriOO,dinuy I bun<WIC< of monument> dediutcd to ,h. p_... <>f ,h • • of rho, ...... """_•• The i",pom""" af funer, .,. po"'"i" for ""riol pr..,'i« .. ......,. I<WI of Homon ooci
\'w..

_To 0'

""","",_ro'.,,,,

,h<j.

, >1,' .....

nu'..,

",,,,1>0

<"""'"

wi'.

wnt

,h.

,,,mb

,i".

"F"''''.''''''

"u.,

IMAGE AND PORTRAIT IN ROMAN
evident by the thousands of surviving tomb monuments,grave markers (stelail, private altars, and imposing stone sarcophagi that can be found from the soxond century onward, in which distinctive portraits of the deceased were carved into an owrall iconographic program." These stone sarwphagi probably were usually purchased partially fin ished, then were customized with likenesses of the doxeased, either on the front of the sarwphagus or on the top of the lid, which would be turned into a kind of funeral couch with deceased (often both husband and wife) portra)'ed as if alive." Modeled on earlier Greek and Roman (as well as Etruscan) monuments, these sarcophagi might display certain standard funerary motifs such as the doxeased reclining and sharing a funeral banquet wi th family and friends often shown in the dress and posture of mourning." Some particularly affoxting wmpositions emphasize the happiness of a marriage by portrayi ng both spouses, sometimes in the guise of Admetus and Alcestis (t he quintessential de,·oted wife), sometimes showing the traditional gesture of marriage (right hands clasped-fig. 28), or a gesture offarewelL'" xcnes from daily life also appear. Women may be shown with servants and children, even pets; men and sometimes women are depicted with the symbols of their profession or as being philosophkally inclined----&:ated with a scroll on the lap. Not all the funeral iconography is affectingly personal. however. Some sarcophagi have monumental narrative images drawn from mythology or from famous battles, often with the faces of the deceased imposed on those of particular characterstransporting them to the realm of heroes and thus according them both status and honor. Some overt ly religious references to certain cults (such as th at of Dionysus) may haw expressed special beliefs or expectations about the afterlife and triumph over death." Christian sarcophagi dated to the lale third and fourth century also often feature likenesses of their occupants in sculpt ural relief, so me -

47

F;g. 28

Mart fnom

Rornon~~ probobIy eorly to mod""'t~ (mid-2rd cen. C.E~ !!ntM MoJ=.m, London

{Pt>oto; ...... t/>o.-~

48

FACE TO FACE

times as part of the general composition in wh ich women, veiled, may be represt'llted as praying (hands eXlt'nded from their sides ) or seated with attendants, while the men are shown in philosophical guise, with the scroll, tunic, and mantle (and solll<.'t imes bare chest) of the intel· lectual type (fig. 29; but note the unfinished portrait faces on the figures on th is sarcophagus). Some of these images were biographical, intended to rdleet a particular aspect of the deceased's life or profession. Beginning in the third century, portraits of the deceased were often set into a medallion Or scallop shell recalling the military sh ield portrait (C/ipellla imngo, mentioned above ), placed in the center of a

Fo&. 29_ s;on:<:>pI1'f:UO Itom O>.r
double-registered sarwphagus amid a complex composition of bibli(a i s(enes. In many cases we see a husband and wife, but, in one famous example, we see two men with in the prominent central portrait (fig. 30). We may assume that in at least some cases the choice of iconography elsewhere on the sa rcophagus renected upon the piety, faith, and hopes of the now deceased . Rare examples of funerary busts have also b«n found, like the set of six (three pairs of the same husband and wife) now in the Cleveland Museum of Ar t, whkh were found along with small-scale scul ptures of Jon ah and the Good Shepherd and which are usually assumed to be from a tomb somewhere in Asia Minor. Third - and fourth -century Christian funerary frescoes in the Roman catacombs include a numlxr of praying (orant) figures with such individual facial expression and features as to be identified as actual portraits of the deceased- usually women (fig. 31 }.'" Here the emphasis is on t he religious devotion (pietas ) of the person portrayed. Occasionally a family group appears (fig. 31 ), which was sometimes mistaken by early viewers as an image of t he Holy Family (Mary, Joseph, and the child Jesus). Some of these funerary portraits are strikingly realistic, showing particular facial characteristics and expressions that suggest a great degr« of likeness to the modeL The portraits that

IMAGE AND PORTRAIT I N ROMAN
appear on stnne sarcophagi could have !leen inserted at a late stage of thei r completion, the personalized details added after the client had sel«eted from among a number of partially finished monuments. The funerary pavement mosaics typical of Roman Africa were placed direct ly over the tomb of the de<:eased and, in the case of the Christian examples, into church floors, either in the nave or in the aisles (although we also have examples of mosaics from open-air cemeteries ). These highly stylized mosaic portraits are usually full length and appear to make only a passing attempt at ac tual likeness. Still, the indusion of the name (and sometimes e<:c1esialtitle) of the deceased, the years of life or date of burial, and simple epithets such as ;ml0Cell5 or /lmmll1> de; assist identification. Like the catacomb frescoes and sarcophagus reliefs of praying figures, these individuals also are shown with their hands stretched out from their sides and their eyes often upraised . Figures are SUTTounded by the birds, flowers (roses), and candles I ypical of funerary iconography elsewhere (fig. 32). As the burial sites of special individuals became pilgrimage sites, portraits of those saints were often added, either in or near the

49

Fig. JQ. s..-oopnoguo of the ''T"", ~•. mi P>o crntj""", YaWn City (f'hoto: Aud>or).

Fig. 31. F..,.;oy ~ Mom the Cm ofP..-.o, Pane (Cl The ~aI C".,.omb Soc.oty. Photo: &t
50

FACE TO FACE

supp
church." Th ... emergence and development of the cult of sa inI> In Christianity spurred this increase in funerary portraiture, including detailed frescoes of the saints shown in heaven with Mary or Christ, or more simple objects such as the gold-glass portraits, probably brought from a collection of small domestk objects and

Ff&. 32 c:tn
the saint's mortal remains and drew some of its sig nificance from it. Just as on the African lomb mosaic~, names of the departed saint~ were often added to their image~, both as a means of ideotification (lest someone forget who was buried within) and as a means o f associa ting external appearance wi th personal character. Placing the name together with the face al~o signaled a certain quality of presence, allowing the image itself to become a virtual relic in the absence of ac tual remains. Candles could be lit and

(PI>o!o;Author~

r" 33_ St

~

(""th

cNCJfocion halo) from to. c:.tacorrb 01 s.... Gennaro, N~ (O The I ~

c.. ...orrb So:>c>oI~ ~ &tole B<ettma"~

left behind as graY<.' gifts or taken home as pilgrimage souY... nirs.'" The importance of these portraih lay partly in t heir proximity \0 the relics of the saints. In a real sense, the image pa rticipated in the actuality of the physical presence of

IMAC( AND PORTAAIT Ir-I ROMAr-I (VnVM ANP RE liCION

pl. «J vn ,i,h" "d. of ,h. im.g< wh,n pro)·. ,. WC" vf(..«I '0 .... ' dtpiclN ..;nl . 0 ... ""h 5< ..... i< ~Iusu.l«l in ,t.. 6hh.«nlu'}" fmoo f,om • " ,n,b in '0, Cot.comh"f $,on G,l.1nd. On <,,1,, •." Thi. p.>rli011 (m ,·" 'i..) imagac"," ",'u,. of .1>< '
"Ddt"

"f.

.1<"",.,,,,,..

.,n.·

Port~lts

ilnd

P ~sence-The

Image of the Empe ror

'h,

Ao ..... ju,., ,« n. nr"n~ ",nn«''''n b.ct,,«n ph)">iul 'pr""n« .nd pr<>rn« It...t ""'n , «n,r&I ..p«1 of ,II< Rorn.ln lmpf IIxi, .. in". Th< srntt., '0 • .,1 .... m<>dd. f,,,", ''''' H,II,,,b,o.: .",pil< .nd '" "=' I""""'I.rly ... 11 "Iobh>h«l in (""

t<m ' 'lion, of tl>< [mpif<.~ ID AI;' Minor. in 1""""'1.".•" . nd ."hi"·""rt of(rus.cuh W"",,,;"n,. IPm<>, , nd public ""rilK<> (ofr,n for ,h. <mp< do,<. ''1Iion •• nd rul<, (th. W..t ..... ,.", .han the ~ (0 uk< up tt.. cul'l. (h< <ml"""'r"-" p tho gods. "p<. <;.lIy ..... il. .,illl ;,.;ng. 0<1.,.; •• . for in,..""". initi. Ur kpt ur (h< ,radi,., .... R.)""n in,i""""" "n bg >e"«T«I nO! .. 0 god himsdfbu, '-'Ih, >on of. god (dj,.j /II,",). (h" io. of (II< myin, lul,,, .. whol< ..... ¥,,,r&lly odnowl 'Un« ch. ng«I 0"'< (Xu.i. n oflXi.oll~ Aug""u, (or s.m.""" in (II< w( I. p<,mi ««I • cult k> hi, S"Ulio~ ''';ri' lUni",l, .nd aI~ ,).., p""',nci ........ _ A1i.o Mir.or to off.. him ""rm,p in ronjunctioo ",i,h ,i>< gOO. dd. Rom • . h<TI "" J<prnding On ,h. 1" " < .nd ,im<. 'h< .mpp«i.uy in "aly .nom,,,f ,i>< W<>t .... n p...,...in(or;'o.lo.o ... diop<J . ",,", ,h, ...... ,,( ' II< vi<wng layahy and I""rioti,m. .nn( (001 fu, «>noolidoling . u,I>oti,~ and rnforciog R.)nun rul<.ct ....... {ul,UI"< ' OO poIi. (i<> ", ".. ..... " pol;'i<> and reliv>'" .ml;'(i,," ~ 1ti<~y.... n hi>1on.:..! di".n".11>< l'Ouray" of Aug"""''' lupit" or tl>< ""........Iion ofb"

".r!«l

.po!h
""'.om<

"'1« '"

,,,It

52

FACE TO FACE descendent Claudius in that same guise (fig. 17) should probably not be taken as an assertion that Augustus or Claudius was transformed into a Supreme Dei ty, but rathcrthal 1hc (lQsilio n and authority of the emperor "0lS parallel to lhal of the chief of the gods. Howe"cr later historians pcrCcil'C political function, the hono r or worship gil'Cll \0 the Roman emperor, his ancestors, his wife, and his children was a signifiulfl\ aspect of ('\'<'fyday life in the first four centuries of the Common Era," As a key material aspect of this cu lt, The emperor's portrait played a spedal role in addition \0 establishing his personal character and general appearance. It CQu ld represent the ab~nt ruler and receive the

honor and respect due him. The system worked emi rely through the connection of image and presence, the actual likeness of the imperial visage being enough to est ablish a kind of proxy prescnce. That presence was not, of course, actually of the li"ing emperor himsclf, because he was bodily elsewhere. What was present was the emperor'sgenills or nllmen, his sacred and guiding spirit that was attached to any image of him. This genius could be simultaneously in several places at once and could be the focus of a cult without a too owrt or unseemly show of imperial hubris. Naturally, this spirit became more powerful and omnipresent as the emperor himself was elevated to the nmk of divinity while yet living, as in the case of Nero, Caligula, or Domitian. But sum a claim, if overstated (a t least in Rome), could lead to the downfall of the daimant. The di!;tinClion between divus (as in Diyus Julius) and dell$ (generally reseryed to the gods themsclvn) was important and politically sensitive, and titles or honors bestowed in Asia Minor or Egypt were often not acceptable in more t raditionally minded Rome itself." Whatever the divine status granted to the emperor as mediator or ,·icar between the Romans and their gods, his image mediated presence and allowed access to power- mostly for the purpose of receiving honor, homage, or adoration, but also to establish his authority o,'er poli t ical and legal matters. The imperial image was a vital presence that commanded fear and obedience, receiving and dispensing all that was due the emperor himself. [t witnessed official acts, presided o,'er judicial hearings, enforced laws, guaranteed oaths, dispensed clemency, and accepted giflS and sacrifice$.. An illustrat ion of just such a tribun al can be found as [atc as the sixth century in an iUumination from the Rossano Gospels depict ing the t rial of Jesus before Pila te . Given the image's role as proxy for the emperor, disrespcc{ shown to it was C{juivalent to treason and was met with the harshest possible consequences.'"' One well- known description of how the emperor's image functioned (and how it might have been both similar to and different from those of the gods) is included in the correspondence between Pliny the Younger, th<.'n GOI'ernor of Bithynia, and Emperor Trajall. Pliny had rec<.'ivcd anonymous accusations concerning certain «Christians," whom he ~ub-

'''''''C£ "'Nt> fOHMIT IN

~O"''''N (VlTV~E

"'Nt>

~WClON

kled . H, ",1..1«1 .h,m, t.: "."", in bi, kit" '" 'h, ,ml'<'''''''' Io"l\ ...hoy ok.ied ,t.: ...cttftl. p"ytr '" ,t.: god> die",,,,, by him,,'f.• nJ m..:lt on .,(f",inS "f win, 00(1 ''''',." '" rllt .. at"" of ,I>< .... p«<><. whkb Pliny had I>roush' in,,, ,I>< coun I", lhi. "Ofi< who 'li,,,, ro.1d no' I>< mod< to do. ~ P~D)" may ""'" <",,01, d .. 'insui,h.n<,oI,I>ctush "',Jc,.. ;nd ia" '''''' both 'ype> of imag<> WlUp«! (.......... "1 on 'hi> ol.ndr.blyl mod< .. , "",und ,t.< 400:

' ' 'eg<,

1"'''''''''

"rot,

,..>f

"0« .. ""r<"" ,,"""' ...

p"""" to ... ,.."...... ~.........,. .. '" or tho tho in low ""' ...... pb.; .... p"bli< .... mbIi
"""".,r ,m""",,

m,,'"

10<,," _ ..

"' ... ... p ........ , ...... , .... """""'.,.,. ...... """"" ""'"

to"" pIoco.

I;"

' .. ""I'<"'" ~ ""'r • " - b
Th ... ""<m.nt >110 ... thot !ill "nW upL. in divini'y. Im>g< mon"m'.tol ,0. min;"' .... P<'" "at"" _~..n up in <
'0

,h.

lo'()Oo,j.n pan.J or. port..i, OI ...b ....." tV'« ,nd wo> ...~n p , lUnd of ",~",,-

'u",...,....",

'ilCl!'". " M"" ..-ideop",.d ,<>","no (oct figs. iO--4l , PI' 67---611), 11>< r< ..--01"''''' "'.. 011"" wHkIy 'nJ
SO'"" ,.." '''"I''''''Y . ' rlom by gr .. ping '" im!' w.. on< of to. ",bj«u or. in'

irnog<. ~

'"tor

Co",,""

c....,

v"" ...... _ ... oil th< """"Y-< ........' ........... _"'- bnol ..·I1 .,..,....,

.....,...., w'"""""- ,o,...nrt, .od ,,,",,,,,,.. 'hn' , .. ~, of "'" ....-l 00.;.,.,......,. ................... ""'" 0(""," K>b. ........ ".; "" j I,d

"

f,o,U TO fAtE '" , ..."j in • pIoio. ..,. "' .... - ' f ~rI< ~

01\.,., ".........

0;.,. ,.,... IiU-

"""110 .. ,,, • ....dIof .<MOo....... , ...... ..t.no ,.,_ . - t . "'1''7'> wido_

"'" noWoo(",,""" "'I' Iipo io •• _

............. of 1""-'

"'..... 00 ....u or badly <'UCU1n<..... n<e...-ry in oroor '" allow .... inuse '" be ~iud, ,-..",ion. ohm • ."..or of .mpom>D who """' _ .. ;"",«1 o. di>gnc«l, u ... U os in""ripbo"' 'h,' .
n..

" p«'

(""mOd"" """""'''').'' au", .. " otti' ....... 'oward im.,.rial imogrs varied. '" .'".... .<,uolly '-;.-.1 ,h...., ~~ A Vtl1 01..1.,r m ..... """ .... nding ..... "'"nd. ,I>< roI< ....... i!IUp plo)'< pt<:Ution ofChri ,, ;'n~ Tho .poIogrti< literotul< of Ih< ..rty period plOrid .. ",m. in ...... i"8 vo.i· .Ii"",,," h_ 'he impcri>.1 uru;lcntoo.l to fuJKIm""" ,I>< d.""", 'h< Goo.,.)...".,. in whid; Jaw""," ,I>< figul< of Ca«a. OIl • «>in to r.q>loin ...... , ..... dut '0 ,I>< .mr<"".nd ..... , '0 God (M.ot. II: Ij .,7). )",rin W<>inlod '" ......' oe>I li...-· .-.....I0,"" <mpdn,..,..rup. hot in oth w< gIodiy ....... )<>U. acknowlodg;n8 you .. lin&" . rul tuI
i.,.... __

idola",.

,h.

i"""" ...'·... T
.bou,

dir«t tho distinc,;"n ~ pnyin ~ r." .h. < c.n." (prnumobly ind...till8 ,boo< "'och«l 'Q 'hoi, 1"""0;"). ( hri"ian" o~" all ...1< mjoir>«l to P"l' for .. nhly "' ..... () Tim l;l ) but not ro,,,, ,.., d«.. 1»', DO •• h. 1OJ"..r< (hr;'.ulU obi. '" ",,"for di.in. bono. "" ,II< ,,,;.~ of.1I< .... py Iriod ' 0 pon .. y Ch';'Iian... I",,;...i< in 'hrir ""'" ....,. ond. in foct. C>ttI pro. '< lind of honor only dut God. A~ .. alL II< IOJ". if ,II< ""p< and ""'pom>D ' " "'" .... v1<

lMAC£ AND POH ...... ,T IN kOMA"

(V~TVM

AND MU"ON

/b".1 f."nto! upon .. f!O« tt..;, .ffigi... but tl>ty <" honom! in ~ng ,,".m! u ;but. OS 0<1",1 !TInt or o"'"o"din& ~".I"y" I\f It.. ",1m, 1><"" 1'1 """" ~k oid·f. >IIio"«IIl<>nw1. ,h." d.'W,ou, , "b~ in ,...." ." "ud.. 'oward tho d.. fo""ion of hum. " rul .... To tho .....nt tlt.1, p.tl",,;'m u.mandto!. ,h"""'t th ........... .. qui.. ~p«1 ' ful of "'" offic. or .,r,b< <. Th .. - . ,I>< 01M>< ",ko by kws. .. """rib«! by Io«pbu~ who W<. indudin! off-;! -Sp«w ""nor" "",,«Ito! 10 no mha p«ond.«n,my Chr"';'" "',.;,'" kp1 • J;",'0", th< problem oftl>< cui, ...,.j ,,,hie im.g<'<<>ftll<<m"""r. tit. firSt· «0,"'1' In<;$b """,mun ify did ,"" , t)n« 'h h.,d «">li«J '" ....1'«' tItp or of "'" pqao f!O provOd<." iml"","n' ",ute< of infortJWion .bout ,t.. ' 0k of imperial p,,,,,,i,, in tho ,"igion . <>.1 politic> <>f th< f.rnpir<.Io«ph", ","",n". d<mon .... tion of ,ha, tool< piau ..,IO"I! C<>"Uin piou' J<w> whm Pd.. ", brought mili,",}, ... "duds witlt < ".ndus . o<>th k1tl • dUl, ....,." 10 b< 1"" 10 dm hi, OW" """"";"0 only

w.:!f.,.

pool,.,n

a.......n""

'""'"3<

Gal""..·, """" ,I.,

by ,he .....,; ... rion of Y1igu4.lll frrign !!O lor '" """P)1"l! ,um) in ,OOr holy ~ ~ N""",h
no'

,ho, ,I>< ~sh~"" '0 =

0, hoM' " . , .... 0{ "'" J"'''I'«'_ r", Ilotrt. ,nd

«ItJ'<1'>1" ..... boO. H< .. plaiN ' hot .hboogh rio ... ~ "",h.,....d ,he "",k,ns Q' ",n,r".,n of im.og«. Ihq """". th.k<>"<'"«< ... dlioS t f.mily. fu"hk '0 n< m.kin~ '" imaJ! .. "r livinS <,,"0=1." tit.,. ooO<1h ..... off<m! p<rpo.nd praym for Ill< <101""""<>.1 hi, f. mily,MTh, Talmud ,f <> lifo "'.." k>ol«d upOn. coin. l><eauo< il "...". 'Il< im.o"," (of ,II< <mp' Hippo!YM offimilor ....'imonY ' 0 """'" !bou, ;mpo
"

56

FACE TO FACE

r~

TIl{' story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the Book of Daniel provided a model for Jewish resistance to imperial images, and we have abundant textual evidence that Christians saw it as a type for their own resistance 10 religious persecution in the first three centuries C.E. According to the story, when King Nebuchadneuar of Babylon set up a gold statue and ordered that il be worshiped, these three refused and were thrown into the fiery furnace. Their miraculous survival demonstrated the power of their God and their own heroism in being willing to die rather than worship a vain idol. Christian interpreters made much of this story, seeing the three as figures of martyrdomforced by imperial edicts, like many Christians, to choose between performing idolatrous acts or suffering torture and imprisonment. Cyprian praises the confessors (those who survived martyrdom ) by comparing t hem to these biblical heroes: ~For we can see that in your own case there have been pu t into action the words which these courageous and celebrated youths proclaimed before the king. They declared that for their part they were prepared to burn in the flames rather than to serve his gods or adore the idol that he had made; yet, they asserud, the God whom they worshiped (and whom we also worship) had the power to

- ~ ----

3i. DMloel ~ )<>Ulh<.

and N. OIn>tlM1 .. rtopl'¥'. (wiII1 ert~ MJ""" do

rMe!.Atlt>:p.oo ~-)

(~ :

IM... C( "'Nt> POHAAIT IN

~OMl'lN

CVLTVM ... ND MLiGION

rd ..... h.", ft.,,,, .1>< f.try fu.-...u,.nd '" f<'S(U< dxm frum ,I>< hond, of ,t.: king."" Thus .11< m, uYI"$ of c..uhage "'"" Ii~ ", ,I>< you.h, "f "'byk>n .n< IIom'n CotllOOrnb of Mm" • .u>d M, r<.lIin". < ,h ... youth. .... nd,ng ",,'h ,I>< ki08 ...Ito p<>in .. ' •• b ....... up<>n , ,,",umn. An".he< founb.en"u'}" rd .. f corvow> .h. 'hR< )"".h, ,ulni"3 w.:kJ On' " ntil., .... " " "P' ,,,he< mol< om ... column. D.nid .ppn.. i"" ,,, .h. light of 1h.i.1«n•.• Ix«>k noo< ",i.h his n,h", ",,,,!>;m',,n < of ,I>< bibl;'aI "MY. Th< " ....... f< flO! mod< ,,, kook .. 'f,~ f.:",y ",bi,. high .nd m;od. ,h ... 'PI""" ,,, in'df. looIo.in8 very much lik< • pon ..;, of. 110""," <mpa> , I,n dy iDCO'p<>,,,«I tl>< "'nrn' (Of i"" m:rntly 1"") >i'LlO1",n of Chri"i,.~ who r<>i,,«II"Y '''8 """"'. '" Un.!~ of ,t.. ''''p. Tt.. d"'''1f< of Chri"ivrify"' "",u' Co"'''n,io< . fT ""'" ,h. of imperi.1 cui. "nly '"Pwing him ."""d.ng in." 1>< ...... in. ,h • • ;.". OOn;; f Ch,i>,ian 8... ,«1 .hi. di"in,~ion . inltfJ''''iog i, ... d.im eon",n,i", w.. «('«ia/ly guideJ by, . nd in , ("fi>il<s«! ,d fuh",ntI •• roo ... nins ODd p ... id_ ins " "" 'h, ""menk.1 ",unril ., pli" .. io l2S C.~.: .fu, hi. d.>th. II< " .. hur><>ml .....,0' ",.I buh«! '0 ,I>< Churd of lh. ~I""'_ .1.,.. Iii. " h<1cr." A
""rI<..

.t..;,

<1<,.",

...

"bIe,,,,,

t"-

ellO" "" ,h.

"n""

,ii"",

"'bj«"

,b"

fi",

I">",..i".

II""

~r

"_~00.1

,,, .....m ;mpltiO
h.,

"" "d.

"r th< "" ... ,

from dw ,imrJrIot>_ ""'". _

of d;";'" I. R" ...,. ..

1Iio""""

to . . .umr«i

p.o'." mo...,. . . . - Hb """'oi' ....... ioII ............ plO ..,.-_ .. dw .....to.......-J

.. dw.,..,." """ 0("" ""1"1< _ .... .piift<.! .. '" "" 0( "" W '" GoA ond .h" b.c."" """'" .h",,,,hoUl ,,,, Rom ..

.. ,f ;" pt ' 7""~

_.oW

In ,hi. ".y. CoII>"n.j",', biOSJ'P/>« fbtt'o ,h. 1 to , ..... in """" .h, ,01. of imp" .. i1> "m. in,d "''Y

""1"''''

''''1'<... '''''(1«

"

"

FA« ( TO fAtE

m,"", It.< "'m<." mtinl! tht r"'*"C< of t~< ptnOn himodf.~ Tl>< ..... of ,he..,,1'<"'>' 1"..... 1<1. tho, of ... in, in ChtUtion ',.,..,1 .... , ..... i<1I

ironi<>11y n~ ""'" b«n • ck.ol'n" sqw,'ion from dirinily,ban ,"" dif· I<~ b'm:

,"""u....

"'" m;p." I'"' imr«1 -..10 .. _ ,.."md-.ld _ _ _ . - mda.riorimo ....... . . -

m_....

viW<'Y. 10 <»d\or«..... " ~I« 'ckd ......... of ci< • ........ fu_ft ... _ .... . - . , .... _ _ ..... """....., ....... I, ... of I.. olo .. riotL mr-l" . - oktp
- ""'" """"" ....... _...-

..,..Ie. _

""" """'_ ........., -t.J..w """- ..

.......

.....,~

1tR<_.

~

but .. _

.......

~.

,,.";,io"

N", long .fta ,h.n<, CltrioIian ,b<_ ol"1lu". mI .h. imp< Trinity. Mh.m"; ... >pnki", of II>< idtnlj'r of ""to,", bdlo'uc=rJt """,." tit< Ario>"~ ..,..inN ,II< _ from II>< Goop
Joh .. _'"Th<"n<,.. .......... -" ,h. """ .... >«n III< ""'II ... • (1<>10" '.:91 by ..... "1IY ... II>< ;",,11" of ,I>< ""'P<"'>"

A." ... ....,. .-
~

/.0 .. ,""

OIl"".",... or '................

...... "'" .. til< . . . . of til< ""J'<">f ;, .... ""'r< """ 10"" of tho ""1"'0<. on.j . . . . .

....,....or" ... ""'" -

~ ............. "'" ... ,""-""' .... ..

............. dv ............., ......,.,.....,. ...... I0:>04 ............ _

. . . tbr ........ . .. ...".dROPY .... __ ...... _ I "

......... n ~ _-

""'" tbr <m/'«Ut ."'" lot .......... io IUo .-... .. . o.d _ " " ".'

l.il
"'''''1< On 'h< lIo>ly Sp;'~. ~iI ,,(Cut.oreo uoa 'h<

.~ <>f ,I>< .."pon>", 'mag<" "" illlul",,, hi< proof ,"" Son> do no' """,nut< 'wo diffmn' s<>
For .... Son io .. til< "'"". _b io " " _

11K Fits' .<><1

p....., "'" tho f ....
_

...... 1lBir)o. So "'" ""'" "" .. tho """"'""" 0/" 1\, . .. _ ... ~ ·nloyol ............... " - . - ' N .......... _ ............. _ pIoI _ _ >p<'Ok 01. kioJ. "'" 0/" .... i _.• 04 "'" 0/" _l,.o. n.. onoia<>';, _ dmm .. _ ..... >Iv ...,..,._ 1"110 ......... roo.d ......... y _ ... • . -. "",,,, .... _ -

_ -' _."""

"''''wo'

"Of',

-"" ......

",,-nboJ l'I' .... "'" ....... bo'_.boa ....... "'-".;d ...... ....

...-,....

"

Hi, f... "I~".. ";"n -.w ,,,... day h«,;.it;i<.1 j".. i~t.lt",n for _00 ... " w"n'. s..;1 con _ clud •• hi. renlp"j,,, .. b~ poi"hog Qut ;" b>,i<; H. w, WI> ..... ,h,

ron""

imJ'< Sun ,lure> th< "', ..... n"u,. of ,.... !'>.he< 'nd .h... is in fIoU ;"n

co,,,''',,,,,,-

w"n It." C
Y"'"

Amlr.linS to ,n. '«oN. f"u, hun, ...., Ii.... '.,. p""",,",.u.l ., on in,I">"'"' I'..u"" of "nhOO"'r.' "<><-,i",,, iro"""t. ... Biohop Th f.;Ih . 1><1 .. k< ,.. ",..,«1 ... n oflhod.,. h no.in;; , rommoD proche,", 'For if 'he prop" go forth ,,;,h IIS'1II ond i-«nlt'o ">«1 tho '1.0 ••• ,4' . .. d i""W" "f,t.. [n'lP<,.., .... ,,10 .. th<J' .... 1<'" '" cili ... or , ....., diu,k ... 'I>0_ ,,,,,,Iy "", ,h. u!:>l''' wi,h wu. bu, 11>< f.mI"'ror him>< .. ...ti' •. "ho di«l in ",ii, ",uinS ~IV' of ,I>< ":o"",,Lu, .nd "tIo> , ;,«1 bo>1h ~,I .nd '\,h,.u>;u, to 'h" ..... , < ~ of tim •• nd "",Un« tho .mI"'ro, W", himlno, '0 h" ,.... S... h.d di .... pI"'. f< ..,.n OS m",w f<JI.....,"'.ti,~ of tl>< h."...,ly K"'t!. The ,it ... b &>>o< old =p<,o,.
Ilk.'

ro<''''''

i"".

'h,

'T'''''''''

I."

""'1"'<'''''

,ho,

Rom."

""""'"Up

The

"...,1;; lawxlxd "6"""t idoIaIry by en,"".n 'hrol/>.

E""n though ,I>< gUn. from f'.uI '0

~,I\o .. ~ ...

would ,uWS'

,""n'~'n.1 G,«o· ~"OI.n

,ho, tl:>< adb
rn> ...", ronf",.,. ,u .. i.,ng docu",,,",, "", .... Uy """,. ,I:>< iot< mflM. rit ... h. and Idol. of ,h, If.d"ion.' ,«1 0' .b,.o,b0 «Iu<1i< , U.,.", .. ,n" <>< h<wi"& 0",,1i r .,. ,.n..~ Ilk l><1id". !hot IouU=I 0' limit. For 'hi ' purl"»<. ,I><,r 'm.g... <.~ .n~ I"lnt«l. -... rroti<><' . n fo,-m. ", 'ho ,"""" .nd """" ","ndo"e. T.... ,pl......-dI ....... r· k." ..«. filJ«l .. i,h f'Su .... of tho sod>: >Iorin ... nd . k ... in publi<

,1\0,

'h,

d""m.

,"'0, 0'

,i.,",

'h.ku.

1"'. ,.

Im~gn

of",c

God~

fAU TO fAU

sp..:n. ""'" _f>
r"""" ...

rum'";''''' ffl lh. godo W<wpt<m. btu mo .. olt of fa....,... .. ,,"co. Coun'\eu Oltv:r. mod< r,um mold .......~11 p>u.tingo.. portoble im'l!"-.nd """"ie> al$o d~ " 1«Ilh, ho.,.. "r ""'" who ",Wd 0&«1 II...... ~ 1);0 Ch,.,...,.", ..,. ~ ... "" ...'u'1' oro'''' .nd philoooph«. Ii"... art ... Ii< "",rum,.,,,,,,, ffl ,It< JOdI .. «p1ion '" Ib, d;";'" loion& ";'h the inno" • nd k _lod,. p intpk who nwIr It.." " 0. likc:1>CSkl, whethn in "0.... wood. m...l ..... or poinl land he li,,«1 many of II>< grnleM , n"" 1m",," 10 him ),1P"" III,;, .,.Iron," .mpl< ond , .. ,i<>u, O"e Ibi"~_ 'h.,. , hird ow.y r",.. innovo,i"n., pld< I ni,,', 1"" ;""1., ,".".rilno • .,., 10 tho work of moIci",.n imag< of I !I"'I m"'" "",1« i, , ...... ,h.n. limpl. «>rI' 0. im it.tio" of . ... " . d.ard fig.", .. I,.. t in tit< vi .... of """" "'puncnll. Accordin! 10 his thied·, ... b~ ... pl>rr Phi!<MI,.tu .. ApQ&ni ... ofTyo .... obj ...nimo!. o. birds.. Sud> thingo J«O>«i.o him in .. ion,1 and i!>do:ctJl. and h< lh<. than It qrption omtponw.., ,,(fMi-hod 'i>q prod""rd ,h";, fig",,, of ,h. """1_r", wha' bct.idco imi, .. ion 0>u1d be • ~i< for such "'tlt""'? ApoIloniu • n,~ tNIl tit< . nisl·, imagil>l'ion" a .... btk 'hins. "prepoon' wi,h wiodom.nd ,...;"..; Ind ,h.I! Wn y
.......

w<" "",pi,

"""""undi..

0"',

r....

,".y

.Iwi. """

" ""U"

,twi.

i,"

"p,..

.

u.

0.'

'MACE AND

PO~nAIT

'N AOMAN
Altboogh tl>< ub"lu,ty .,( ,uch i~ .~" tbat thmmonpl><. ohjf dommi< dtwr.. ion IDOl. tlum point! <>f d«p odigio ... pi .. y. wh .. ,II til<>< wid<1y varying im. s .. <>f t~. gods h.d in ",,,,,,,on ..... t~.il supe,fici. 1 t1< to idontify til< sod in the imoS •• " In>! from c..• ,.in ch ..." ... ;;,jc .ttribu'd (. prop;. bair Or be.rd "rI<. and,., fo,th). the ""'''''''y prop> for the cult of. sod. without bei" ~ the >(:to, 1 foco, of ',- t<".aDy id• ."i,,1 wi,h th"", (oin« '" ... ny t • .,,- df local. <;vic. or .... tion.1 pride that ....."plm..! '" ..".,. ........ in the ph """ "",,,hip«!. $isnifi<>", .. «pti"", 10 thi' ron'·c n,ion.1 r<"'ptiOfl "f de'ti .. <>f un<- iD Eph ....... for inll. n«. '" the m,.".';. ou< black "on< I!a.oI of l'.I"II'bal .... whid> ot<m ha ... h.d a n>Of< row' .-rfuI ..,Id on ,II< ;m..poo,;"" of thei' dovot= n Ho ........ '. lI.di,,,,.,, poly,h.i ... m;g)" 01 .... l>< .... ,y or ' much ,upli,joo ,n ""&,,d '" .",b thios<- Piu""b. for one. apr<Monr ,,"" m>< f""Jlb «n,ury» Emp 'h.m ......... 'ixy ibould d,"ing"i>h b
roc",

''''"1\<' ......

<1<"",,,,,,...

w.,

,h.

.to,....

<1I'' cd.

'0

,11<.,'

iu""

h;w ..... r..thm ~

.....1" """.rw,...,d ,0.

ow""...... of """r-

'tIC ~". """ ~ """"'" <>'t"t}"\h.,. of..,. ""'." If ",bob 01 "" r-"
.,..,.l>u< ..... -""l'

......mp
....... of .... pJo ,'''''''''' .... .,.J< _ no
""""'" of..,..,..,. ""n' .".,. "" """" .. _I« .. thin. ttwy ....... .,.t
,"""""

o<.o>J.l>u<

1. < ~m
~

"", ........... ol ......""""' ... -.. _ ,0<1 _ " " ' - . . ....... ~ ..... do W< .. , 'bey ' r< ,]" ""'f'<"'I"' .........1.... H< ,,100 low< "" ,m ..",' tl>n' J
"'w.'> '" ...

""n

k"

62

FACE TO FACE the image$ of the god' and their likenc$>1e$, a nd should feet ",,"renee and >hudd .. with a ..... of the god> who look b""k from 1M un""," world."

Fo&. 35. Bust< of Rom.n Gods. oc>w in the Iloto;Author~

Cull images were equally important for the ancient and traditional Roman gods (for example. Jupiter, Juno, Mars. and Minerva) as for imported or regional deities like Mithras, Cybele, and Dea Caelestis, who tended to hm." a more self-selected group of devotees or provincial transplants. They played a key role in the religious revivals (and politi cal propaganda) of particular emperors, such as Augustus, who associ ated his family with Venus and himself as a special favorite of Apollo. These cult images of gods had generally recognizable appearances, even when their identitit'S were conflated (as in Apollo/Sol/Helios). Jupiter, for instance, was presented as the supreme ruling god (a mature potent male), with full dark beard and abundant hai r. He was usually pictured as enthroned and holding a scepter or other props of the ruler of heaven, wi th an eagle at his fect. Dcpending on their rank or authority, other male gods might have a similar appearance. Neptune and Asclepius also appear with full beards and heads of hair as do Mars and Had es. Gods associated with Jupi ter (Zeus), such as Liber or Serapis, were given very similar facial features hut with their own disti nctive anribUles (in Serapis's case, the small grain measuring basket or modijjs on his head; fig. J5). Mars, on the other hand, was sometimes shown in full mi litary dress including an ornate breastplate (wirass) , while at other times appeared nude except for his mi litary cloak, qui"er strap, and helmet; the nude depictions are rare, although some exceptions exist (for example, the Jupiter Column at Mainz). Artistic representa-

63

IMAGE AND PORTRAIT I N ROMAN
tions of this group of gods intended to project dominion, authority,and an uncontested right to rule and to judge, Another group was made up of the younger male gods (such as Apollo/Sol, Hermes, the semidivine Hercules, and sometimes Mars ), gods associa ted with the mystery cults (Dionysus, Mi thras, and Orpheus),or heroes (such as Meleager, Hercules,and Adonis), Members of this group were often shown as youths with flowing locks and beardless (or nearly beardless) faces, although they could also be shown as mature figures with beards and older body types (especially Dionysus and Hercules), While Jupiter and the older gods of the Panthwn were usually shown bare-chested but draped, these younger gods often appeared nude, with almost pubescem bodies, This is especially true, for example, of Dionysus and Apollo (fig, 36), Mithras and Orpheus wore typical clothing identifying them as ~eastern" in origin (see fig, 69, p, 149) while Hercules-although nude- was usually bearded and was more ruggedly masculine. These gods, on the boundary between youth and maturity and even, in some cases on the boundary between female and male, projeded sensuali ty and could be polymorphic. They were the mediators between the upper and lower worlds, managing the transition from life to death or bringing messages from heaven or Hades. Sol/Helios was also a kind of mediator, riding his chariot over the heavens to turn night into day. Given the familiarity of the traditional images, foreign gods and heroes who were introduced to the Roman pantheon often entered by means of conflation with known deit ies. Jup iter was conflated with the senior gods of other nations (such as Sabal.ios or Serapis), just as the younger gods were often linked with one another. Apollo was variously 3S>
Fie. 36. o;c.,)'OUS WItt> panIhe< M O, . :o: p MJteum oJ tt...

PhI'.' ?? "" F;eIdo, 1st""" u. Ilornan =on<tructJo<\ 0( GrM~~di

s.... (Photo: AutI>c:<-}

64

FACE TO FACE mode~ t

Fo&. 37. Horpoo,..,,,, on

th ~

bf>

of I.... wal l 1" """'& frnm 1>00", ... KaO. ""'" on c.ro (Photo; George R. Swain, l>t perm«ion of th ~ Kelsey

and matronl y. Reclining Tellus (Earth ) holds her cornu copia, which makes her diffirult to distinguish from Ceres, Italia, or even Pax, as she appears on the Ara Pacis in Rome {fig. 38}. There were other female personifications too: Pietas, Salus, Fortuna, and Concordia each had a particular prop Or attribute to identify her. Winged Victory held out her crown. In a similar way, Roma became the personification of the state and re<;eived temples and cult, usually in conjunction with the emperor. Such personifications were adapted by the Christian church to represent virtues of its own (faith, hope, or charity ), or even the church (Ecdesia) ~ herself,~ just as the later Madonna iconography borrows from the various representations of both virgin and mother goddesses (Persephone and Isis, for exam pie). The practice of adding necessary identifying attributes of traditional gods and goddesses was dearly carTied over into the images of the saints from the fifth century onward." The function of the actual images of the god s can be difficult to specify and, indeed, was subject to a variety of interpretations. Like the portrait of the emperor, images of the gods served a kind of representative role. They did not entrap the spirit of the deity in a particular place or statue but rather mediated a presence that was understood to be in many different places simultaneously. At the same time, the image of the god was a central aspe<;t of the religion, since this was the way that devotees recogni zed the presence of the god and were called to reverence. To venerate a divine image was actually to exhibit a pious respect (if not actual devotion ) to its model. And yet the power and efficacy of these objects continued as an open qnestion well into the era when polytheism was waning, after the death of Julian the Apostate. For instance, in City of God, Augustine cites a debate between Hermes Trismegistus (the '·thrice holy ") and Asclepius aboU1the nature and operation of divine images that suggests the question was still a live one at the beginning of the fifth century.

IMAGE AND PORTRAIT I N ROMAN
In this document, Hermes contrasts the gods created by the Supreme Deity with images made by human hands but acknowledges (according to Augustine) that human artisans had a technique for attaching immortal spirits (or demons) to material bodies. In this way "the visible and tangible idols are in some way the IxIdies of gods; certain spirits have been induced to take up their abode in them and have the power either to do harm, or satisfy many of the wants of those who offer them divine honors and obedient worship.» Yet, even so, this is only an imitation of divinity, and Hermes predicts a time when all images will finally be destroyed as «delusional and pernicious." Augustine interprets Hermes' words as referring to the arrival of Christianity, which then casts the dehate as an example of pre-Christian prophecy.'" Taking advantage of divine images' power, the emperors, their wives, children, mothers, and even favorites sometimes were depicted in the guise of one of the gods, a tradition that may have begun wit h the representations of Alennder as Zeus. Augustus appeared enthroned with the goddess Roma, his portrait bearing some of Jupiter's attributes but holding an augur's staff rather than a thunderbolt. His wife, Livia, appeared in the guise of several goddesses, including Ceres and Magna Mater. Her representation as Ceres Augusta in the theater at Leptis Magna is a famous example." Nero (like several subsequent emperors) identified himself with Helios or Apollo and had himself represented with a radiate halo." Hadrian's lover Antinous was variously portrayed as Bacchus.Apollo. and Silvanus, the god of th e forest." At Ih e end of the

65

Fig. l8. Te ." (l'1othe<- EMtI1) rom the Iv. Paa. Au~ .

Rome 1)..9KI. ~-,

~

66

FACE TO FACE

second century, Commodus appeared with the lion's skin and dub of Hercules in a famous bust found on the Esquiline and now in the Museo del Palauo dei Conservatori, perhaps modeled after an earlier such representation of Domitian (tig. 39)." His mother, who appears in many

r~

39. ConvnociJ>

os

~ 1 9 1 _I 92cLMuseo

dI=o o<).

portrai ts, has been identified as the face upon the figure of Venus in a modestly draped group sculpture o(Venus and Mars {Iwr husband, Marcus Aurelius, appearing as Mars )." Julia Domna, the mother of Caracalla and Geta, was portrayed, just as Livia had been earlier, in the guise of the protective mother and fertility goddess Ceres (or Demeter) or given the attributes of Juno and Isis." [n most cases, such representations did not intend 10 identify the mortal ruler as a particular immortal god (delis), but to associate the one with the othu, and to give the imperial personage quasi-divine status (djyillillls)_ The intention was to legitimize their earthly authori ty by associating it with immortal divinity. AI the same time, adopt ing the iconographic aspects or attributes of the gods imparted a sense that these particular character traits belonged likewise to the ruling ind ividual. In some cases, the emperor even adopted the ha lo of the gods for himself.'" Like most of the earlier emperors, the first Tetrarchs-Diodetian, Maximian, vl!1stantius Chlorus, and Gale rius- were associated in their portraiture with the gods, in their particular case with Jupiter and Her<cules according to their senio r rank as Augustus or junior rank as Caesar, an ident ifkation that was reflected on the iconography of their coinage (fig. 40). Claiming to be in some sense human represen tatives of these deities, they adopted the divine names in to their own and in so doin g reaffirmed Roman religion, repudiating the quasi-monotheistic cult of the Unconquered Sun instituted by Diodetian's predecessor, Aure lian. The distinction between Jupiter and Hermles was significant with regard to the d ivision of authority and role among the four

67

IMAGE AND PORTRAIT I N ROMAN
rulers.lupiter is the ruler and judge whn sits upon his throne in majesty, while Hercules is the active agent, known for his wondrous deros. Such distinctions came to playa role in the iconography of Christ, whose facial features suggest that he plays both roles--on the one hand as the enthroned ruler, and on the other as the active and incarnate agen t of the Divine Trinity." However, when Constant ine I ascended to power and Degan to consolidate his rule, the divine patron was Sol. This may have been a way for him to signal a break wit h the Tetrarchy. The critical moment for this adoption (or conversion) was reported to be a vision that Constantine had while visiting a sam'tuary of Apollo in GauL" Since the worship of the Sun already held an official position and sign ificant following, when Constantine had his vision of the cross (or chi rho) and «converted" to the Christian faith, he may have conven iently confu.sed the Chri stian God and Sol, or perhaps allowed a certain ambiguity between their respective symbolism. In thi s respect, Constantine tried a different approach from that of the earlier Roman emperor, Elagabalus (218-222 C.R.), who also tried to establish the worship of the Syrian god of the sun under the Roman name «Sollnvictus" but who identified himself with the god, rather than taking that god as hi s personal patron. In any case, images of Sol, shown as a youthful nude god wearing a cape and radiate crown (or halo), remained on the coin reverses of Constant ine until the mid 3205 (fig. 4 1). Later, during the last of the revivals of polytheism, Julian the Apostate made similar attempts to promulgate the worship of So]' whom he associated not only with Mithras (into whose cult he had been initiated) but also with the language of Neoplatoni sm and even echoes of Christian teaching {his former, but renounced faith }. King Helios, as he calls him, is the Son and [mage of the Idea of the Good and coexistent with the Good from eternity." The religious and social culture in which Christianity emerged and developed understood viewing images of heroes, deceased family members, emperors, and gods as an essential part of one's engagement with these persons or being:; and with their personal patronage and authori ty. The center of one's gaze, specifically, was the face----the access point for this subject-object relationshi p. Whatewr its degree of «likeness," the face mediated the representative Or real pre.sence of the model as no other part of the hody (or being) might allow. The portra it thus had a disti nct function, more than a didactic, memorial, or even inspirational one. It also offered a mode of encounter or e.>
Fis- ~ Gold 000I"I' (~~) .na...ng D,,,d,,...,, Ma:.:Jrnwo (01; ,e: "") WIth k>rter.-.d Her>;:~ 00 u.,.;r respecwe ~ minted "Tn..;29" c,,~

eo.,.,...y oftl>e~ N~Sooety~

68

FACE TO FACE

visual man ifestation of a presence. But while the po rtrait opened lines of communication betwt'<.'n these realms, it also created and nurtured a.lnal relationship> between beings that 01 herwise wuld not nisI in the same space or timt', even if thai was a relat ionshi p of worsh ip given and re<:cived . And while bot h trad itional philosophers and eh ristian theol ogians str.. nuously argued against the presumption that likeness could be achi .. ved by a work of artistic im itation, p.>ople never uased 10 make images of the immortal. The need to "see" as well as to imagine, even if only symbolically Or partially, was essential to the human and so \ 0 the religious experience. The power of such images (and the ir religious fum'tion) was why early Christians avoided port raits as su{h, even while they made other kinds of visual art (narrative and symbolic imagery). The portrait represen ted the danger (a nd potential) that was known to apply to the images of the gods in polythe ism. And, as if in a wn{erted effort to dist inguish themselves from the religious practices, beliefs, or values of the surrounding culture, Christians at first avoided this particular kind o f ico nography. In time, the image won . Its place was too well established and its attraction too real to resist.

Fo&. i l.T1voe eon.Wrtroan coon. 'Mth .ogtrtIy _'d ,t ~ types. minted .. T
._,

THREE

,,~

\

'\~

,

••• ~.

~~ -,'

•

•

•

(-

.f -

• ••

.

~

•

The Invisible God and the Visible Image

A RO V N D TH E TV R N of the third cenlury, just before the earliest known date that Roman Christians began 10 adorn the walls of their burial places (with figurative art), a professiona l advocate and North African Christian convert, Marcus Minucius Felix, summarized a (probably fictional) debate between a Christian named Octavius and a polytheislnamed Caedlius. The dispute was over the credibility, moral·

ity, and value of Christian faith, and. although at the end Caecilius is converted, he offers some expeded pagan Hiticism of Christian teach ings and practices, including their lack of divine images. That Christians did things in se.:ret surely indicated their shame and perversi ty. That they believed the ir god to be invisible, omniscient, and omn ipresent demonstrated their gullibility: Why else should they go to .""h p.i~ . to hide .nd "0"",,,,1 wh.tever it i, they worship ... why do they h ••·• no .h.rs, no tt mples, no publicly known im.ges! ... Ile>ide" look atlhe fant.st;';, unnatural creature thai the .. Chri... tian. h.,·e devi
Octavius answered Caedlius's objections by asserti ng God 's essential transcendence of human vision and knowledge: Now you think that if we ha ... neither templ.,. nor altars we are ron""aling the obj«t of onr worship? But what image wonld I f•• hion for God, •...,ing that human, rightly ,omider them,e)"", the im.ge of God? What temple would I <'T<-<:t to him , seeing th.t thi. entire un iwrst, the wort. of hi< hanill, c.nnO! cont.in him? Would I enclo.. the might of ,uch majesty within the

69

FA(f TO fA« ..... ,s " 01 , ......
,"""'_oW """,-.,,'

o.:""u,', ....ponl< d .....,. « ...... Pour• .,.m '0 ,I>< A,bm',n .. , . """,,,,,,cd in """ 17, 'Tho: ,ex, ""i!Il'='I' '1>0' ",.1', ""d_ ..... ~ "

,IK behot of ,u..."u, 1_ .. well .. ~oi< ,,1<1 Epku .... n rhilooophoro.,

,ho,

with wIIom "" Ud '-n "'1ui"" ~ "" ..... « ,hat q hod.n 01 ... oI ,h., hi! obj«1lOm< ",,",,",n "",,,,,d wilh hi> ini
,hi 0."";',,, """obip l!I" '~n God.' . pi wIIo ' don not I;"" in .luinco· ... d i! "'" maY< n«ish', He- an ...... "" U .. pcd; I>< ir 100 pu", 10, Ioudt. H< annOO be n......"'" b< io 'DO P"'" to. ou, XI boundkoo infini'¥. shori"t ",til hinu<-lf .10 ... ,I>< ~ <:Jf hir ............· On ...... contin ..... drnyins llut .n)VII< 011 IIi", " "50 "'" _ .... ... ""'" ,hi 11< ir mod< '" 1Itoh, ohoold I call Him Ioplrndo,," All ''''''' trutlu ... -U known ' 0 !h. rommon p«>pl. . . ....u .. po .nd .udI ptlilooophm .. I'ythogoou. Anti und<'''' '''' 'h< ML~;~

,ho, '''''

T

•

...u •

""My; _ . .

ro,

,ho, ,ho,

'u'.

untn.cr.<.bility of the uniqL>t. un ........ n,.bl< •• n.d U"""mob!< ("..,d. Oe ..,i .. go& on to L'idiush '0011'" proy<1' 0' ",. ili« to i""P'l 01 tb.- 1'"8"" gods. No nu'~ h.ow "'U,kally things <"uk! b< nothins mO .. th.n d."" obj« .. mod< byotdinory humon <",It. fun . nimob. birdo. and in>«11 , .. Ii«..... .. ' i'q- t ...... pi<m lor ",. I" wip<. 0....... d.rou', ..m..~ AnY" .... b< Ny>. who wouW IOU pa" in .~tulo illYOlvi"ll _ i""P'l '" ,hN "'ppt ad pl. is booh t.~ ,nd pi'''bI., Lldudtd ,nd of LttI$OOnd mind,

'\
,0.;,

>CW'.

THE INVI!l81E

Justin

'O~ AN ~

Marty~:

TfH VI\IHE IMAGE

Refutation of Idoh I.Ild O;v;neTheophan;...

in,nim ... ""..... of 1"11"" sod> .."' . ......I· W«! rk11on~ b<{",. M in...:i,,' f.h. hi. di'I"I!IK, lOllin M,ltY'. ,,-ho liv,in& imagr< of III< g<>< .. livdr do"8<""'" Acs,linS I" luoti". ,b<x ...,..1.... fab,iwl, (ond "",. ,up,rd ) hum,n· mod, obi«I>. In" .. d, th, til>< dei,y Chri,,; ... , w,,,,hip. h, p,,,,,I,in> .. b .. ,n id.bI •• pp.... n" and &tory, which a nn", I>< ;mi"I«1 0' f<J'T<"rnlrd. Th;, ",10<1<» God. ,I>< !OOR:<.,><1" of :oil IhinS'- I>a> "" n«d of con .... '" co_king , nd "'l"i,.. h"""n ,h« olfd;ngo.· l.ik """l' of Ih, Ct.";"i. n and w,i'm "00 f"U<>W«I him 1;11( 100 ins Mio""i". I'd .. ). lu"", ..,kn ,tu, Ch ,i"i. n. ;Wtt in """"n mp«U with ,I>< It..,hinp of 1"11"" po«. and rhik>«>I>h 'udim< ..... ¥ hold in ""mmoo, and I>< 'PP"'" bolh '0 tIKi, "'..1... ' ....1""*'''Iinlio" » ...<11 .. to 'h.... h. ' '''''''- .< idol. oftlx sod> at m of mortal lund," . nd ... 'llltboosf1 phik>«lph ..-.J po«< Ito", alrcody .. id ,hi •• l"'lin "s"" ,Itot Chr;'li, ... I<",h _h ""'h, ""'" fully .nd olf... proof ol'h "''Y, JU>lin <J. bo· , .. «I IItt It .. hing> of1hi' n<W «ligioo in opl""i'ion 10 1"11'" idolatry .ud by lpooiti.. l oo>t,hy. Tho" ddpi" hi> < iovUibility .nd inrompropb" ...... n 'IJ>lm.n' ,h .. m.y n.", b«n iDIk ,n .. bI, (, .. u ..... """,. For .... mpk • .warn . nd E"" -heard ."" «>ton< tim< of ,h. <"mins br 'v AIm," "' """,.1 pL.o:", (Grn 1~:1., I'i""",: 17: bud 18:1 ) •• 1'1'<'" to M<

w,,,,.

,"J

.in"" ..

,ho,

'hoo m",,"" .poIogi>"

'h,

c..u.

.h.

>«On'

",-God ..

by''''

Lo. "

72

FACE TO FACE

Isaac (Gen 26:24), and (apparently) wrestles with Jacob al Peniel (Gen 32:24-30). God called to Moses out of a burning bush, and ~Moses hid his face for he was afraid to look at God" (fuod 3:2-6). Although the eIders of Israel are allowed 10 see God (b od 24:9-1]). when Moses asks to see God 's glory he is denied. since no one may see God's face and live. Instead, God puts Moses in a rock cleft, covers him with his "hand" while God passes by, and allows Moses to have a look at God's "back" (Exod H: 18-23 J. God has heaven as a throne and earth as a footstool (IS pure wool (Dan 7:9). justin. who repudiated the polytheists' material and anthropomorphic images of the pagan gods and proclaimed instead that God was beyond human conception or form, was challenged by these texts. He claimed continuity with certain teachings of ancient philosophers, which were (rathe r safely) critical of certain pagan religious practices. However, so long as his community retained the holy books of the jews as their own, he needed to resolve these awkward manifestations of God in their Bible. Atthe SlIme time, he elaborated the differences between Christian teach ings from beliefs he attributed to jews, in order to demonstrate the unique and salvific character of Christian faith . for example, in his first Apology Justin asserts that "all the Jews" understand that it was the "nameless God" or "Father of the Universe" who appeared or spoke to the patriarchs or prophets in Holy Scripture. Th is belief, he claims, clearly demonstrates that Jews are both ignorant of God as well as of the fact that God's Div ine Word (logO$) is also God. Furthermore, justin continues, the Logos appeared to and spoke with Moses and the others, wmetimes as fire, but also wmetimes in the guise of an angel or apostle. And when the voice out of the bush said to Moses, "I AM WIIO [ AM" . . . "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (hod 3:14-IS), it signified that all of these departed patriarchs now belong to Christ (the Word who has come in the present age as a human being).' Justin thereby explains all the Old Testament theophanies as christological events. In his debate with the jew Trypho, just in further elaborates hi s argument that the attributes ascribed to God in the Scriptures actually describe the Divine Logos, and the Being that the patriarchs and prophets heard or saw act ually was the Divine Word rather than the Supreme God . To this end, Justin ci tes the story of Abraham and his three visitors at Mamre (Genesis 18). HeJieving Moses to be the author of Genesis, he notes that the prophet declares that the one who appeared to Abraham under the oak in Mamre is God, "sent with the two angels in his company to judge Sodom by another who remains ever in the

THE IN VISIBLE GOD A N D THE VISIBLE IMAGE supercelestial places, invis ible to all men, holding personal intercourse with none, whom we believe to bt- Maker and Father of all things.H" Here Justin recounts the story in Genesi, that begins ~the Lord appeared to Abraham as he sat at the door of his tem in the heat of the day" (Gen 18:1) and con tinues through the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19: 1-28 ), and asks Trypho and his colleagues if they fully u nderstood the passages. They assert that t hey do understand , but according to their understanding, God fi rst appears to Abraham, an d then subsequently three angels appear- two o f who m go on to destroy Sodom whi le the th ird brings the joyful news to Sarah that she will become pregnant with a son. Jus tin, promising to persuade his listeners that these passages could only refer to another God who is subject to the Maker of all things (who is also called an Angel), bt-gins to attend to the varioU5 titles and modes of address in the texts as they appear in the Grt't'k text of the Old Testamen t (Scpwagim )." I.t:ading Trypho through a cross-examination he points out that the one who spoke to Sarah is ca lled ~the Lord" (Gen 18: 10 LXX) and that this one appears again at the birth of Isaac. Trypho, conceding that that this title"Lord" might indicate that God and two angels appeared to Abraham (rather than God, followed by t hree angels), still does not see th e n('(essity for a second divine !x-ing." Like other Jews, Trypho apparently can accept the bibl ical stateme nt at face value. If the text says that God appeared, then God appeared. Justin, however, having gouen Trypho to acknowledge that the ti tle «Lord" refers to Ihe Divine Being, draws Trypho's altention 10 the secti on of the story that names rwo distinct !x-ings as "Lord." After the two angels safely whisked Lot and his family out of Sodom, «the loRD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the loRD out of heaven" (Gen 19:24 ). To strengthen his argument, Justin then points nut other places in the Scriptures where more than one !x-ing is called «God or ~LordH (KuriQS). For example, he points to Ps 45:6-7, where God appears to !x- anointed by another God (~your God"), and Psalm 110 where the psalmist writes: uThe Lord says to my lord, «Sit at my right hand until l make your enemies your footstool" (Ps 110: 1).n Toward t he end of his debate , Justin summarizes his position---that all passages of Scripture in which God is said to act, to move, to spea k, or e~en to bt- seen, refer to the Word rath er than th e Unbegotten God. In other words, every scriptural allusion to God as being seen or hea rd (for example, Moses and the bush or Jacob wrestling with the man at Peniel ) should !x- understood as a man ifestation of God the Son or Logos. " In addition to asserting the superior Ch ristian understanding of the Scriptures (includ ing a claim that Christian believers were the heirs that God promised Abraham), t his clear distinction between the First and the Second God is absolutely necessary in Justin's mind, in order to protect the utter trans<:endence and incomprehensibility of the First: uFor the ineffable Father and Lord of all neither has come to any place, nor walks, H

73

FA(ETO FA(f '"'' sI«p<. nor n.... "P- .... t ...... in' in h4 own p/a«. whld ,nod qu;o. ." h., •• h ... ;n8 n";,h« .,... ,.,,, . .... two b " ill hio Son. b< Un.lrn Go.!, ,I>< Word COn " , _ h .00 inl..-"" .... h Ihe ""leti.>! . nd "",ru) .....1"'. s..,h '3
Irenaeus:The Unity of God qainst the Gnostic. ,

4~~'

>-l#

~_

A"'~rx1 .h... m. 'ime, ....1 fu,Jtffcrrn' ~n .. lr
i«l '" tcCOOcil. Ih< n bct"«fl COO', ....... ''''1 invitibility.rx1 i<>tfFobili1y wilh biblical ..", .... to of Min. 't..orhanin. In h~ Rtfi.",. '"'" of 11<.... ;... l~ Ilk I" " in, " ...... ,he ",tct ,.. no< 0100 wan" to pro!Kf ,he unityof ,I>< God· htod. h. ",uld nm ~ mply ~ to t!o<', direc' in'","""'n wi,h ,he in> the ,t...,p/unior<.,r ,t.. Old Test. · mm'" .pp.... nrdcr.o atabIir.h.1I< duoli'Y'" d •• d .. ;"" ""'" ('8'i ..., • )no), lmuoruo .. mot;",..1 by • d;/f< unily '" God, ,II< inga<>f ,he G_ia.. he connot U!< it It> .utltonu,i>« proot 'nt in the ....,. tha, I...,in did in Itis dW"3U< "i,h • J<w. I..... w ... liud ,ha,. ' .... h" lilt \'alentinu, ",uld >itnply oIiqr< ,ha, ,h. biblkol ... of di.ine IIwophan'" ptt: Word .......1>< Inl'isiblt: God, but on inlerio, 0.-.'0' who,..., Illilird by .""",;a.ion wi.h ,It< matnW rnlm. hu'in"' ><>lu,ion (,hal the Sorond hnon WOO ,be Ill,*" of'hcst: ,hcop/ronia) -."..t 01", ' 0 'hi> 0an8<'"" Fo. tltis t< cxioIrn« 01 , Sro>nd ......_ fOn in ,h. c:;.,.,±1><, d. A• • ,,,,.It. I~ O'Cp<,'cdly i • • Ul, th .. ,It< fu'"" io p~gcd in thos< biblical ..",i", of God', . .. nif....,ion.o h""""ity, And 'hi> wI> hi> proof mi,W . 00 ...n-oIh ,he f m. Adam'. WI and ,he

,hei,

"''''''tcncy

<>«""

"'*

"'God'.

THE INVIIiHE GOD AN!> THE V IIISLE IMAGE

s..:""d Ad,o",', m,kml";'" "'m'"~ in , .... f'<">O" of Iesu~ In ..J.lio.", '" hIS btlitf in God', un,ty, o.nd p< pr<-inc..""I. W",d wm ... ph. Mo,,,",,,,,, , .... {.., ,h .. God ",n>< i" diff.""" f"'m~ 'l'1"'"inS diff",,"tly diff.,.." individual> ... , a """ of Go< indud< P'";''''''' ion of ,I>< D;.;n. Wo,d who. .. God, is i""i>ihl • • oo t>oondl«1, ~ ,It< "'I"';'Y ,,, b«om< ..... iblt.nd ""uld 11\. poi", in Ih. {,, '"t<>dn ... ,,,J Io:.ov< fo, ""'''ion, ' " ''''''''' who h,Y< f.oi'h." Til< Word, who ""k<> God known '0 bWlWl> 'brough ,h. 51ft of rrorl>< " .. " Ii ...... ." In "' ..... """d •. 'h< propbru .nd l",ri.Kh> fo""'''' ,II< "' .... ,...,! m.n.iko",ion of God_ in Ch,is'. "isr><>"'" ott<>-,' wOo io.i" ,"', pruph"'. a.< , Jiff.I<"' God , .... " ,h. ·in ..... ibl. F"h< ",luI< 01 God no, "" of prOJ>h«r_ Ac, ,It<"' "'i,hin And 'h i' unique .. "hl, (. lw. Y' 1"" of G".f, o"ginal for"" ul''''''''' p< prop ......... . OO ('''<101d. Fu""""",,,.. wll0=;'1' bu, do< '0 Gooo~ , "d in ,II< .... y GOO < P"'" '" h<. n, fu, 'ht-r .. ill ... God." ,im • • • «o,ding Log<>< ... ill k ..! ,'-< l>I<s6tJ 0"<> ,,-/to 10,,, God ;"'0 'h< I'r<)"'-;,,< im""'tWir, Ci nrottupl;"n for <1",. nallif.") ""d hu,w boIh Cod .00 'h<m> and i"..;,;/)k Cod will be • ..dt ~ti· ble .n~ kn"",.\oI •. "rt<)ph .f< ""li,,,neJ by =>&"ition of God'. ~ in.i,wly io ..... ,.", and .ub.<.ju,",;o.. ;n Chtiot. Moming God an I>< p«<.i.-..l ""'h in 'h<

"'''''''''''1'.

"Q'''''

,ua.

'0

,.,.f.

do..,,, ,..

Th_

,h.

fu",,""

,,,,,,on"

i",,",""

'1'1'''''"''

&1<>',. "

A, ,h.
,ho,

'0 I""",, •. ,b.

.ogto,.

,ho,

;

!~a'

!l2

."=' ,

-~rl~,l

..

0

Ii.,

n ~-~"l"!- •• 1 .. . . . ~·'.Hlf!,.!
"1

o:f:f

1 '.F. 0~~~r.i~

..

itJliJI'i,llll~!~t~~t~!,,-t~lllr~iifl!tl ~Ii[ 1~ a.- s 1I='~ -iio'l~. ~r~~1!! ... a~?- "'~o;.~ .t Ilf~11~~fi!fl ~~ti~~il!'~ll~l~liil~fi ~it;ir !~"~'IH~t~h, ::i~,~t~H~~.! U.[dl Irli~~~ &.o9~ :!"jj"'~i:. ~g.!i ~-· ~£it~"';.!!.~~i l~i"~ ' ,ila' f § ~l~~i'i ~~;I'i·~~J;· ~t~~15l;-i~lw. 5' :i~~! .1

$ · ..

~~E~~lr~;I~-~~~i~' ~W~!~~~i~i~~~ 1 a- '!jf~[i-' ~ ~. ~· g.:;'f:l :-1 3 t~]t~ ~-t!:s ~ :fa.a.

- ' ~!~~-~r

'I ~ or' I ; /,. Ig~~~!~lJ~i'! ~(I~ii lfI!~r :t~ii(fl!ii~~i~I~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~lJ ~·~ }~!~r~! I ~!ti t~~~t~!~l! }j~; ~~ !I~] i ~~ ;''!"H~"immlnn FHHHw m~;rH W HH .•••.•. 1, •••••• , ••••• 1'''''',-1 ••••. ,. - ", he; 1 •• ;

'l-~ -~"'~. ~n;p~ ~ · :;!· 'tI5"~:!· ~t

d . • 0 F " r! ,'" ~! [,!! ""

:!' -r3'~s'O'nj' ~~;'

•

,

~ ;J

•

~

THE INVI!I81£ 'OD ... ND TH E VlllHr 1M... "

eonl< .. ",in fmm 5<'il"o" ",.m.,< ,I« kw> " 'hQ-im'$io< 'h" 'I><J' MuM kn",,' ,'" F by hi m..,Jf, "';,hool ,I>< lI'ord. wilhQU' Ih, S<>n,'· AI Ib ... 1D< lim •• I,m"" .. , .11<) Gno"in,.-oo ... iDly

.,htt

,om"""

,Iu, ;..

d.d1f. ,h .. tht purpo»<<>i Ih. I"'I-No on. """"" Ih. F.thtr ""'J'I tht S<>"-I hI.li II:l1; l.uk< IOcn) ..... '" in,rOO"'" ,,,,,,her. uolnown GOO. AgaiD! llbi>, lrm .. u, dod..... 1....1 Ih. l.ogoo ;. tht oD< ",flO w.. mani · feo' .nd who. in Ihi' ... f. -,,,,,,, ... '0 ","ul G<>
beoorn< Imow" ." " Worki"ll s.im .. II""""'~y .S'i"" iliff"""'l oppon.nl .. 1«"""" de"i« .....1 God ..... hu" .. nly .;'ibl< pnu, '0 II>< of 1<> .... whICh i. hi. w.~ of prol«linS Ih. uni', o/God ....... 11 .. ,ffirmins d;"in, «onomy Ih .. d,irnq .. , i y in Cbri" fo, Ih, •• k. of the "orld', ..!val ion. Thi. di.in. inilia,' .. low;" J homan. did "'" imply COO', mu"bilily. 1Iowtvcr. ,inc, Chri,,' ll ..-... "'" • mi.",kul ..;"n of II>< doi'Y'>r.n inhl P«><$ of "",,",.. ;"n, <'kr,.! in ,h. .Io Ih. w",d '0 >bow f"rth ('.<>gtty .od ,«I<ml"ion." mu"' .. ,h",ugh 'h< .i''''n' and word. O<m 'nd .... «1 by ,I>< Iltbmv pt<>phrt>.nd ".,ti>«h ~ I'.'oohi,,~ ,ht dudpl .. ' fut . nd ffflling ,h.m .. Iitt Lu. SupPf' w>.)'> llul COO "<xmi>«l pro.idtn«- lo ... rd lboot who ... n..tly d<>irtd 10 bthold God. bu, in thu woy. ">« .Dd k""", Iron ...... <101m. ron l, .. n. who ,h", .h..., .."" "'>in",.« .h,m,d... "l"..... ',.! in Ihol< .1lC"nl '<"~ The 'burch in ,,,., Old Teo""",nl •• 04 GOO ', «dtmp< who """

in<.>.""""'"

'h,

Ev.·,

w=

Chrj".

,ba,

'PI'"''

i><>ro .lttr ,h. lim< "fTIt..riu.

ex..r.~

T ertullian:Th e Dil nity ohhe In car nat ion and the D i.. inc.ion of tho. .... rson. o f t h . Tnnity TenuUi.n. tiM hi> f<1k>w No"h I\f,ian Mino of 'ht gods """ """" fash iontd oul of .ln hi. ApoIov ..... PO'"" ou' Ih .. Ih"r .... ,,('f--·l«adI...- obj«" "h,,,, "" "".. of Ih. 111IU,i.. . nd di'S,.«. of Ibri. ,on ••", .. i"g ... Ib
,ba,

"

FA{[ TO FAH in .... eh fooli"'"_ "w...... oJ, an"ol be nwl. "'" 10 inju •• ,h_ lsod'] whom ....... «,,.in "" no....,'j';...·~ In hi.< ,,·..,i.. Ato;...r

1dJ>4. h.;' """ ""'" bLo .. nt/y

"""'''''pi''''.... dod.";ng 1M

(I""" who

m.ke .h.... hingo nol only r«
nor >mdI. I "d"'hrit!>
Apin" Ih ..... in jdol~ T.... ulli.n i"lim th.1 Ih. <>bjca of eh""i. n """"'ip iI ,h. On< G<.i _ ,'''' .,... ",,"not .... hhmogh h. ;, ..... ~u>IIy.uib!<. This God is indeo.:tib· .bI< •• houSh di>«mibl< in vac-. bq<>nd.1I or oonapIion. bu. ,.., ""'nif<>' in ,bat ""1' "Anf«1Idt_. H""",.. Owbil~r II) corooc;", of

....... nd .. rtb" (d. Ps

11S:81. ~

tho"""

""'rt"""

('.;d ",.wlIy a1kow> undrrot.nd ..... , God;,.. Fu"h
of God .inc< God', "";,,.no. i. d<mon" ..bIy .bown .... ,..... ...... in n>t.r<.Dd .hroush .h. workins ""' of hmory.OO ... ry tim •• "'., r,ivd ,h.nks or " ... """ for j"""'" HGod i...1'1<.<1"0.., J<> ..... hing hu" .... do "'" $t'<, bu, ~,.;." r""" .. ide"«.D "" • ...J Ih.,...,

,<1 .,...., in Ihri. own ;...ti"""..1b
In hi.< ,rf..... ;.,.. <JI"h<m;"'" oo_c<e<. Tenun .... <>OOoo< ""'" m"undt< ll. ,,,,,"..d '" and ~ with tb< prophtt,. i"l! M.~ II :27."D« no (mortal) God.nd I"" (e...)(nno~ On OIl< tt.nd. Tmullim:og=S ,ho th.ot M. rcion ...... 10 un.. t«! in b",My funn. ...... .... ' '1 ft.. hy .... " ..w._

o.n.,

ho.

""'' ins

c...,.,.. """" ",....

....,._It .. On<....,. ...

.ho. ""ibu'"

ti"" .Dd thu ...... nIIy "f.nd I:>m;"8 '" God_ Bu ...... tbrir.... ". b
,h .. ,h. w.mJ ..-.. ,h .. me",b., 0{ . 11< Godhpheu ....1 I"',w.;b. from ,"" t.c,inn.i~ m.W"I! hirn>w Iowuing of hi"""'f. ",.ually .....Dou•• nd p.... ic«om< .• And .hio _ ,ho On< who d view. t .... ,h_ ~ ...... of

",t<

...,n.

,h.

THE INVll18U GOD AND THE VIII HE IMAG£ AIi"h . ... in Cen«" I~ Ifuly . pp<. red OS '" .... JO ,hese wer< 001 wdinuy ml! from , "",,,at mt.v<'in8 '0 dOt. h' ""011,,,•. 110. IIa.h of ChriS! on 'Ii;" """"''''" ..... 01.., 01,,,.;,,,,,, wi.oou, b. if GOO co" on< ',

,hi,

h'"''

""8<"

,,,,,i.

WOrn." .....

mom."'

IQ,"'''

,,..,in,.

,,·...... I,n3 ..... "10 ." """"

,t.., ''''' "k'ng on of 10""",. 1\a.h i"di<.."

",*, ol disni'f'o.1I< S
""

""""n. r..,. ...... if on<~ ..... ,hi, aU

, _ '"8"" W<;, ... umpt,"," "fhum," ~"m dUl 't..m "" h.tm • .... n .oousb 'Ixy m",' i>< ...um«l '0 i>< inf... ", ••".i>< Son. NCON ' in8ly•• h.... umption of hun .. n /koh ",.,.n ""ion ,10 .. «>nfi,n!i~'y ." ."" of bodily ch'''S' . . .... hi . ... . ocrndmc< of.n ,II< plty!.>:alla .... A, ,Io< .. m< ,im<. ,i>< Socon of SClip_ 'Uf<. I"" .. PoUl <01" Ch,i" ti>< 'Imag< of."" h"isibl< God.- T.. ,ullion prod......... Ow< .on,ilotl]i .., ,t.. of Chri" .. i"";"I>I<. fur,,~ i, WlO""" Soo wOO .......... in 'im<> ... os."" im~ of tIw Fo,hu him>df.- · Such. rot. for ''''' Son. "" .imul......,.".y au_ '''''' •• m.... "'" b. undm'ood ,,, okmo"", . .. , Jifl'<'r<"", b<1,,«n. ,.;,ibl .... d.o ;."isil>l< God. lin« ''''' Son .... h. E!<mal WoN anJ Fi .... 81l< di"i",u,""" from."" Foth<;, w._ ,inCli,,". for T,"ulli, n..... IS "n ,10< dill><"''''''" b)o ,.hi<> "," hi", '" .lIitm.t.. ,.. Ii,y .nd disn;'rof,h< i"""n""", in hum.n fl .. h. o. '0 do,"""" .... tho un"1 .,r,1o< in,i.ibl< God "f

mow"

'""on.

.now ,ho,

,h.o,

f.,,,,,,

.ncirn,

in

""<

'1'1'1"'" to ''''' """..",h,. 11....11... 'go'''''

>c,ip"'" " 'ilh tho On< ""'" ''''' modal;',,' .. dial ido, ,hot

t"" iingl. GOO ' pp
'n"""" o. n;les, T.. 'ull... up"""" "'" plurol;,y.,rCoO
>how,,,,

,h. di"in<1",n, of ,h. ,III<, p<.""n. of."" Tfini'y. H
"

"

FAU TO FA{[

.t..O'd

",,">cu", co,..:.,," to . ho.. (b. 0<1"''' uf Go.! . 'on. with , ....

I.ogoo and If
cre.o,;"n.<>d ftdemption. Acco Igd .,t<m~ '" pro'"'" .1'1< un;1f of God by drny. '''II tho .-."iaI di"maion b" .,," C<>e< was born in.., ' 1.......1d (.nd ,hu, ' ''''pororily ....ibI<) .. th< Sa.ior. Su
i"'''"''''

"t.

7

ifnrIM'd th. t whm "l'I"",i"8" 0.,,,,. "'" 0... God .u/lCml ...... died.

Th;, I..t T,,,.lIi," '" """".. I'ro ..... of -"uo:ifyi"l! (".0<1 I..... Fothtrl,To "lute,........ l< d
by.obowi"ll til< pranja of Cod', opp"... nou. T«,uJl"n prod";m. tlul .mil< nu ....'" ""'1 flO1 >« God in God ~ full ""'~1. I...,. ....,. >« lilt s."",", Porton, by vin", of "th< d;,.p..n...tion of hi> dorivod "';"-n«,"" Th< s..~ God io /'f'< ........ l"I'" io n<>I. Thcrdor<, .milo: th< tt", I'n><>n ;. "'*'Iu'e/y inviliblt. God ,he < 1"..... ""'-. by_trw. an "....,. b<-... T.. ,.llion candidly acknoooi«lJ< xlip.u .. -.... >< ....,. ... God aNI I ... (d. E..,.J )):;!(II, whilt in <>It..r pbcft ~ p... oumplto of !hoot wbo djd led: upon ,Iv taco of God and OU" n· <>m1"""'''' ,II< "[,on:! kn .... f.u w fa« ' (0..., J.4:IO), """in~ , ..... >pporen. di.",opand•• ",n lnd"""", ,"", rith< or mislh .. bt, ,«" diffffm. divino "f"" ..." p,-. .... and hi. {nil.,...." ..out.! """" doimed ,"", _ h IU" ~....-Itd ,Iv dilF<1'rn' divino< .......... p
pl ural ~f

.Md-fo,

'm

T..,uDian .... ,I>< rontrodi< d",in<1ion of ,Iv , .. , ...... (on< wh...doc< misll' bt ocen, nn< """""" r- ....., _ I, b.., Iv .00 ShoukI I>< undoontood .. III micmo Or riddk, bwin8''''' li.... of""ul:",.,... we Of< 'h""'ljil • ",;,m.;n "" .... ~ b.., 'htn foc< to foc<' (I 0>r 1):12, ""hor', tr....a,,,,,)," Fo< iruanu, Iv"y>. ..-t.y ...... Moo<. ... to_God', in E..,.J 3): I) ond IS, ""'"'" Iv .... j ......... i~ """",dint to - . . 1110r why doesC<>d..n...;., ...... lO. whtn CoOd hod ol.....ty ....... n M-. Itio!.a! Can """" ..... _ fa« I>< """,oIly.w.row whil< -'"II tl>< othrialr Tonul· li.;on", ,qy OUt of 'hio ronundnim io to doim ,'''', ."" of II>< Son.!>ow> f<>rth ,Iv "fa« of tl>< F.. h
,""t

r..:..

oppd"_

THE INVUl8L.E COl! "I'll! TH E VUlBlE IMACE fi...uy. Tmullian ron.dud<.. ,II< Goo.,.!>.nd Epi"k> ........ bo,h. vi>ibk.nd ilSI invu.il>i< God. "undt,. m.nif.. , .nd .,.,...,...1 di'''IK,i<m in ,II< condi,ioo1h .... II~. in ,II< inu,n"io<," (,II< " F.ih<,"). Tmullian ""rho .... brrn lbinkin5ofP. ul'. howins forlh ,I>< "lis!>' of ,II< k"""''kdWO of ,I>< ~ of God" (l Cor 406 ). Sud. on 'flllmrn1 'her«mins hn 5,l7, ")'>\I1uvc TlCVt 1«" hi< form," and k>hn 11,45, "".""","" ..,.. Ill<...,. hinl who Jrnt n..... IIK:oUI< of ito "dibl< by will,.od btau .. of i" ho""" ..i."n«, ,I>< I ....""" WQ'" Is vi>ibl< by ( its hu!tW\) n"''' ....

u.

""<mrn".'

Cle m e nt of Ale xa ndria: Philo sophical Aniconi.m and the Futility of Ido ls Clhip of 0d0I • • nd, by apooi", ito fu ti lity. 00p< .. "" followed weh plactic•. 'n hi< f. up lor iru.p<etion .nd prom;"" hi• • lIdimu tlut " )'>\I will. "l"" 5" over 'h<m, find how'",11 >iU1;' ,11<",,,om in whicb )VII Iuvc brrn ",. ,..J, of ""'''''ipi''' tl>< ......"'" ....,,\0 nf ho""", luod~"· II, c,i ..... !,.. t <. .. Iogu. of .xompl<> 10 d.mo""" .. hi. poinl, i ...1ndin5 .n i.... 8<
to'"

no. w ,,",,,,,,, , _ ;, dOl ...... ..! '" 110< ",.u" of ...... who """" ;, '" " ....... ""'" .. 1""1"" .... " .. "'" ...... ....,.. \0 _"';,-~' .... "" ..... of ....h wontUp _ pI•• ..d dnnon., but ia mr';'" .. ~h • ..d .

_

.. ., mol< up ...... "" 'NIy,the ....... ~ ""'" "'... mltt
.,. u.. ."'..,,~ """'- .... _ ...... .., ,,-..,!

............

~ ~l')'\hr_

.. ,

......... ..--,V """",,,",,"

C· odwl>o_lo,noIyGod.'

Uk< )u .. in .nd Mlnuciu. Flood 'hat Ch,i.· , ..... W<1l' not un;ql>< in their t.."h i", tlu1 God i. invi,it.lr. In (0(1, "" him ...... mof< Ib. n tho« othrro. Ibi, i< ,n impor .. nt """po" to rom · ~, idob,ry. In thi. Non< prooon. o..",hr" ~k>on, til< Pytlug<>f<. "o. .nd lb. <)'1\0.: philooo. pM, An1i" ....... I. "udrnt '" Socrat.. ,nd 1hr found« of Cmid",, ) ..... mpl.o .. of non.(h,i"iln philooophr" woo hod in.i""" on thr If",,,""""nt prrf«-tion ,nd in";~bility of ih< di.in< ""inll- Mo,rov
FAn TO FA n It< odd>. ,"rh kn~ ;. lU.iw I<> ~ UIILI'" whether n.... ind ... ructib!t • • nd .Iu,·~ on high in tho outer""'" ipK<> ol tho h ........ in , print< watd>·,,,,",,,, God .. ul, oi ... fo r",... ' lind h, (ollows .hi. up with I quo •• •io n from

F..,tipidt"rt • ..,.. mu" ..... ocrib< ""God! Who,.". .n.nd r< ......~i ....n l II.li.y not ,1:>ooI"t< port..,.;"" an b< ochi<wd b!' hurtlll"'" God < ron_ templot«l th"""Sh .It< humon faculty ol ~""n b .. , bt >om '" ,I>< <>rd' ' ''Y 'I"'- (':\omrn, """ doi.....,.j PllIO btli""'! .Not (ft'';" hu .... n' m;gn. odtr.~ .1>< CI.~i t y I<> _ tho tru.h • • nd .1><0< p«>pI. hod ,n.iripa.«I both I"' .. " d«lar • •ion Ih • • -bl",sc.lI'" Ih. pur< in h<art, for 'h
,Iu,

'm"";" ......

=_

,Iu.

,Iu.

now """, ..... hrousn. mittor in," m. .fin&! ..... r..c.ion· can only I>< "uind in .1>< mind Of oouL ~ Thi> ~nol p«f< .... of .boo< .. ho K< Suprm>< One .. "'" """.,11 Uwisibl< bu. '"'''''"''''' ord"'r, .00 ..p....;"", <:Oot;"!! for btyooo ... rthlr 'I"" . nd ,inK. In hi' ' ':p\u<''ion <>f . It< ,.. , .. '" of God in ,I>< 51"' ......... Cltn ..... ' .. I, .... 10 Ihe I..cltinp of. number of philoooph ...... apt<;"lIl' ,h. I'ytlug<>tNM and Stoi< .ndoon hi< rndingo of th<m '0 .he bo, ir ol.1I< · "ulh-)q,;Il3· Plat", ' " .. hom M mu," wi,h ""' .. pr«!icubih" ...... d yo. Pl.I'> and lho ........ WCf< "'" ooIy indI~ all ,h .. ...,uld l>< V,.,.lai,.,«1 ,n Ch'ioti, ,, $crip'u" . 1'<:>, < ",n •• ined 0, 1<> 01 imat;n '" th< gods. .. did Plato wh....,.". < tItdor«! ,It< God .Not mod< .hr world ."" all thi"" in i• .s- not d¥rdl '" tempi .. made by human hond, ( 1I·•• '1"".,.., •• tho. it II impoMibl< I<> dodo:< ,he M.m- of ,I>< Uni· .~"' ~,,< (oin", 'hi ...... bt),<>nd.It< ordi""'y kirod of dor;wd from h;, (I'Ia'Q'.) hn,inA , h .. Moo
"gil'

,met,

yrt.'" ..

.Iu.

.h. ""''' '

,Iu,

.Iu.

.ha.

...

"""'U
"" h.

THE INVII18 l € (;Ot> A Nt> T HE VIU81E IM A(;( dark" ... wlI<", GoJ W1~ . 00 II< I P\.ot<» in,,'pr<1«1 ,hi, '" "'.." ,h .. "God i, ,nvi,ib), and b< r <ma<., of,,,,,,,,,,,,,, divin< b
"

An .. ie nt Rom .... P receden ts for Christi .... An i.... n lsm

Fo< MinUd no '.,.sa of tb
."",her

1"'<" ,. ",hm"",,,, uk >gi". diff<"", "'I'p •....:h." .... blilloin!. ' <>pk . • nd <""'0 """" . 00,,,'. pr h< . 1", p''''''''' rh' u,. ,1 p •• ·Chri"'on phil_ph, •• 1 "sum,n" r
,,0<.1 .

o,b" opotOSi"') < .. mo '1Uns> in • mann" mo" ",1<.00 rompl
,ho p<>pul.>f
", .. " . . Iy

.... i ... n'"'n .~

A,J.rn.gon; "",.."d. rho, t3i/u.,. '" dinins .iJ.I:r 1T0m 'ho u..." .. «1 God rlMn ,I>< pet,lloobl, "" ,1>. .. ",. pion. wirh ,t.< ino!'<'""h. bI. ,nd ••1"" ,h...","'" abo>< cb< ,WI of ,h. Any. on< m.)·s«. hown,«. ,ho, id<>l. "'.... ru<"C<J of o,d,r»ry """ ...... rt "n· "bl.. ..,h" ,h . n in"lli~;bl< 'hin ..... Th 1o,1«J ""'Y r< god • • "J <>nIy bo '" ""I« ,bm ••• ,h. ,im. J",wing W1' iID'rntrd. !(tI«t<W .1>< .ru.daw of . ....... in , ..... un. or , .... ""'~ of , .... Sifl who trlK«l ,It< ouriin, ,,( I>I. WOf' of hum. n . ni"", and 'h .......... )"""'5<' 'h," ,1><>0< v.. h., mod. ' .... m. Ikrof< 'h< iOI'd •• " 'hy J iJ 'hey.<.>t ... i>1 r",m ,b< I:><J!jnning'" "W'by Jid ,hty D«<,n81llut th", idol. po""y, did 00' ..i" from 'h, ",,-'" d ...... upOn '''' .",i,n' """'1 o( Errlt<m in ,h. to.rth ",,,,u'1 .. c." d . im """'''''''''' who Iud b< irnagoo of ,I><>< ~ h< 'horgt' d...",.... ..,.. '0 .. ' ,h. bt.x..t of ,II< ...,i!iors ,nd i~ , .... mind' of,b< """"'ipm., filii"" rh,m w~h ""P'Yvio;"", .. if

a" ......

'<eO"'

Ii",

'r<

"Ii><, ,,,

,Iu,

n.o..

F....H TO FMI: comi"ll (rom ,I>< idob ,1>nN 1"" ''''~r only ....... m. yjo:. 'i .... 'o b<< bown i""""oflh< sod>"'~ ""oId
t\,.,

,loan four ~undr In around llS .. c. .. Thlo i.. .....,iwIJI I... do.., romporla· '''''' .. II>< tirol< •...t..i< ~ ... di>ine imageo 10 . cenl"".nd. Ulf OM ,II< {QundinB of Ilmn<, or _ i n .. in ,II< Ia.. oi Iti.. orical do,um in hi> fi", book of ,I>< S,,,,,,,,,,,j~ ... 1Im: I>< d . im, Numa. ,II< r.", ki"ll of Rom ...... _ Pyth.~''' .. n, .nd 'oid", by ,II< p,«q><' of ""-- proM~iI'" (m. Ronu .. 1 from maki"ll .nr ionag< of Cod in human form. . nd of 11>< ....""of I 1i>-in@ctd",II<e ....1r .00....:1 'h<m d"" ,II< Ikot of !kin&, """Id !lOt b< .ppt< mmd olonc." Thi> .. ..:hin5o Ckmrn' Ulho<, inoduding II>< G...nc,yp. ...... OWdn .... A"rr"n~ Dtuidl. ..... ...-m It.. Moogi of til< i'.nd """" in,., til< land of ludan guOd«i br ' ....... Plu""h ""'Y loa"" b«n Clem ...", ""ur« r." 'hi> Iq UfrcfNu ..... told no","" til< _>to< .... )00:", .... . . h,,,, ''''on& .h.", " 'hi> e.rly Ii,., • • ny poin,ed < CU>I hu nd...! . n d ....,n'y yt.... """in""lIy bu ilding 'ompl ... ,tid ts,abIUh;ng wftd >hrin1 by lh. inl
'0 • no.,..

,Ila,

.h.

,hty,......

,loa,

CL:mrn'.

", Nu"",', bm durins til< ,im< of K.i"ll N....... 'n ,I>< middl< of •• <>p«iaIIy ";,00Ii< ,,!Xl on .... v.. ious Roman jIOdo ..... migiom of hi> doy. I>< """.. 1h< _"ulO< was "frupl." . nd ito "n... .....,. .impl.: witll no forw:y "pi''''' Or ol' .... "The GI'
CI.""n, p"" fo"""d M.,... II 'h< ""ur« of . ... if'>P>'
,n.,

loa,..

""irn,

Momon .. lilIiou, ... Iun . nd tIlw ... mot< f. ithiul ,h.n 'h .. to th
TH~

INVI\l8l€ GOD AND TH€ VIlIHE IMAGE

Thi, ,.adi'''' ....1 ""ihu,io" of , "iconic """o!Iip '" 'he ",i~i ...1 I!<>m.", through lilt fuu"h ""d in'" ,he fifth ""n'u,y c .. In Au~u .. in.·. Cit)' of God. ,h. l<s«>d " ""ibu,oph" and .",iquori. " \'",,,. According '0 Augu"in •• V•• t(J mai" .. in«" condU<1ed ",itb gr<'>t<, pu'ity." """"tiD< ,bo ")11 tlult Vat'" cr«l th .. .Ii.;". """&<' ull;" .. «ly kd lQ d~~r«' ro' mi· pon ,nd that 'too.. ,,-1>0 ~ ... "" up image> of tl>< rod' for ,I>< propl< Wpon~bl< fo, the .boIition of fo., ,n Ihri, < of ,h. ;""",,,biJity ofth.;, im.g<>.· ~ FllIlb., 0" io IW <1Kyp«bc how<w'. AlIS"""" .;,... V" ro 'sai" .. It" ""U'e< but iudge> rum more n.s>,i .. ly•• in« V.m, .1>0 n!.lin!.lined .h.1 when .h. im>g fioall)- w= im~nt.< who had b<m initialed into ,I>< my""i .." .ould fut ,hoi. . n.omel)- ,h. Soul of ,he World ,1><1 its "",ni· f.... tion ~" FlU ,10.0, ,he ~ ....I<>pmen' of ""k i ..... ~ .. ;n hum.n ""m _"""" ..,..,.. .hi"& of.he """"i,uti.', ..... u .. of God I.ina Ih. hu"",,, .pi,i' m"" n'>fly ,..... bl .. ,t... Immo"" Spi,;' .1><1 is m. n ""I,. f,,,,n "m. of Num.o to ,h ••!C1 tn"h 01 the m."" •• h. foct tb .. Ch,;"ia" 'hrolo&ian • ..,'"'' .bl •• o doim.n .ndent lI.om.an t.. di'ion 01 'm.gel ... worship ~«.b..., \e"'''ge with .h.i, crili••• who t<prded th.i, t<jeion '0 di";., j""g<1 . nd .ubo<1 <>p«i. Uy dtidtd Epicumll> fu,
II,,,

t.,,,,,

'''''tl''

'om<.

,h.

"'"><

"

86

FACE TO FACE We t..n.. an;J"" of god impLmttd in ou' mind>. you ",)'. \'os, and on idea of Jup;t~r with . b<-ard. and h IWI'" in 3 htlm", but do you thrrd'or. t..,li ..... that tho .. deities Of.....lI). lik lIut? The unlearned m"him"" is surely wi .., here-thty assign to god no! only a man',limbs. fur thty gi," him bow, arrow$, spear, shidd. tridtnt, thunMrbolt: and if thty cannot Ott wltat action, II>< god, p..fonn, yet 1hey c.nnot ",nee;"" of god as entirel)' in.irurr:uu' J not only do no ..",icc that you can !'Oint to, but thry don't do anything.l .11. "God.- [Ilpicuru,] ..yo, "i. fret from trouble." Obvious))' Epicu -

nu think$. as .poilt chiIdtw do. that idkn<$$ is lh. l><st thing there ;$."

The Philosophical Argument in the First Four Centuries C.E. We have s(:cn how the early Christian writers dted the "iews of ancient

poets and philosophers as being in general harmony with Christian tcaching on the invisibility of God and th{' vanity of the idols. The pre~ \'ious passage from Ckero's treatise De Narum Deor",,, partially summarizes his teaching about the gods in one of the three main philosophical s<:hools-the Epicureans. the Stoks, and the Academics. In religious mallen, Cicero generally sides with the Stoics, who traditionally objected to divine images, following the teachings of their founder, Zen o, who was famous for his opposition to temples and statues. In fact , the conflicting positions represen ted by Stoicism and Epicu reanism in first -century Athens on the maner of divine images may lie behind Paul's speech to the Athenians in Aas ! 7. The mention of the Epicureans and Stoic philosophers in Acts actu ally sugg~'S1S an interesting background to Paul's speech. Christianity might hal'e been seen by this audience as addressing current debates within two key philosoph ical schools and aligning itself with those who challenged the traditional religious practkcs of Roman and Greek culture with its images and temples for the gods." Pau]"s commendation of the altar to the unknown god (Acts 17:23) as a pos.siblc way for aC(cptance of the Christian God, who docs not lil'e in shrines or appear by means of artistk representation (d. Acts 17:14), has clear parallels with contemporary Stoic thought. At the same time, as Paul him self points out, the Athenians (and the foreigners who lil'ed in Athens) 10l"e to hear and tel l about something new (Acts 17:21). Around that same time (the first and second ceoturies , .E.j, a philo· sophical movcmentnow known as Middle Platonism was indeed form ing a ~new" syncretistic blend of religion and philosophy, especially Platonic, Aristotelian, and Stoic clements. This movement's influence on Justin Martyr is apparent, but it is even dearer in the thought of Clement of Alexandria, who refers to the writings of philosophers as well as the ancient poets in his exposition of Christian teachings about God. Middle Platonism'~ best-known anci ent repreM'ntative, Plutarch, echoes Zcno'~ and Plato's critique of temples and image~ (alw cited by

THE INVISIBLE GOD AND THE VISIBLE IMAGE

Clement) as well as Paul's address to the Athenians when he criticized the Stoics for their inconsistency regarding the images of the gods. Although they s.:.:off at the building of shrines, they continue to act in a traditional manner in other respects: M<>TWW', il i, a doctrine of Zeno·, not 10 build lempl.,. of lhe (!Ods, because a temple nol worth much i, al , o not '"' ~. and no work ofbuilde .. or me
meeha ni"."

In the next century, Plotinus also combined the ideas of Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics into a system that had enormous in fluence on Christian writers of the late fourth and early fifth centuries--particularly Augustine, whose encounter with this system was partly mediated by the works of I'lotinus's student Porphyry. Plotinus's view of the divine image bridged that of Plato and Aristotle, incorporating both the valne of the particular sensory experience and the assertion of an ideall'orm. This allowed him to elaborate the value of aT! as a mode of participation in the reality to which it pointed-a Form that existed in a higher real ity that lay somewhere outside the individual human mind. Plotinus agrees with Aristotle that anists begin by examining the naturul world. [n Plotinus's view, the order and structure they experience in nature, however, leads artists to dis<:over the transcenden t world of ideals and finally the experience of pure intellectual beauty, which they attain only through contemplation. Comparing two blocks of stone, one worked and the other unworked, Plotinus sees in the worked block a Form, introduced by the idea in the mind of the artist. This Form exists outside the stone, and oUhide the work of art itself. The original idea trans.::ends the material creation, even though its exhtence is, in fact, revealed in the anist's product. Consequently, works of art are not mere imitation of natural objects (which are imita tions them selves--imitations of a higher reality ), but draw upon the Form itself and, in fact, perfect what is sometimes lacking in nature. For Plotinus, this is as true for a painting of a bowl of fruit as a portrait, or even an image of a god: "Thus Phidias wrought the Zeus upon no model among things of sense but by apprehending what form Zeus must take if he chose to become manifest to sight."'" In other words, according to Plotinus, great artists like Phid;as pro duced works that were superior to nature by incorporating their vision of the ideal and by their ability to portray that vision. The influence of this thesis on Augustine is apparent in the C()/rfes~j()/rs, where Augustine wrote that artisans who create objects out of their mind have "the power to impose the form which by an inner eye [the mind ] can see within itself.~ This form derives from the transla tion of inward vision to

87

..

fA<E TO FA([

• .. «na1 {m.«rial) obj< worlt ..... """,n done,' or oou''''. for ""5"";0<. ,I>< ulb",,,< lOur« nf ,I><

on;"' ••• ;';00 i>.txt.. ttl< lium.I" mind, iI ;, pu, thm: by God," lha. thi, "'lummI of ~loIin ... ', i> g< inus< of z... .. For Pkltin ... ~ inf0 nm

or.--.«. h;p.r "';pon, pU< gods eouId not p""""d to _ .. in or «>mm""a" divi... ""'h

tn. •

,,,,,n

in ,~by their ""'Yaislrn« lhcydcmon<".tod ...:h ","uW I>< comprthtnd<.l. In "' ..... ..."ds. altho"&'> .h< 5"'io ...... no' I"'''r~ in 1M, "' ...... ~'''''Y W
pit".,

.hei,

""i«"

which Ih .;..... rlo,inu, nnlid .nd of I'io,w irmgos (;ndodin@:hi>"",npor_ t"';'). Hi<~ ... hown"
...;v..... pra«i
of tt.. divine. Th. coooi,ion.1 r0 _bI< tIuwgh 'he n....Ji .. ion of. hum.n b.m "f julio", til< <mp<1'>\' who ..,."....,«1 fn>m Chr;.ti.ni'r'o polytl> Mcl 0". o{QJd ilh........ tho <mi . tempon ry pop"I,,;,y of ,hi. m"""ment. In 00>0: po ... go H ........ .J.o ..... "r tho ... sod' •• ' ~ witll soul .. fuUr

''-boni.. ,....

""
,,,.1

'u..

<mibili,y and .p;rit; .."un wIUdI rorfu<m •...:t. V"" . ... wonderlul work.t; ...~" .. wIIk/I fnreI:_ til< fu.u", ."<1 k>m.U i, by nip", of ,h. 101 . . . ...... ich ~ di ... ..,. upon mIcwing ....d.ooo. iOY, according to dtteru.... Foo- ,,,- who .ub.a;1:><.! '0 ,II .. p""'ia, ;0\;18 .. ...,......;1. mb;.co: I>od a p"""'yl'< th.t mu", U;., in otdmmuni=IlI' """"" mi8h' t.. .... ' V«
0'

_ft<.'

TH( INVII18U COl> Ai'll> TH € VI\19U IMACE

"

""', .mp!' proof th.o, 'he go;.b ,1;,,«1 .nd ,h.o, Ih,y ",,,,i,«I ,W>g<S .110 m«li.>,«I . di.in< prn
first.Century and Early Rabbinic Tea(hlnll' on the Invisible God

w. h,,< "."n how .loophy w;,h ««>gniD"!I GQd', i "'· ";b~i'y .od ,.;ngul.ri,y...... ktihmiti"t\ r>",Ud fur lh<'gin,1 ,,"ur« "'" only Oui"i.n tu· ,;.n ,~~.hoogh poioting out lh .. wtirr"" Chm,ian' hod got . lcn 'h< tru,b \If th. 'h< C"",b (.nd Roman.) p<"i>,«1 in. ft.w portKuUrly "",; pmo,i, ... mi"n,M lu"in. who 'hat 'h< Di.in< Wo,d mighl ' PP"" in hum.n form. furth" "i,idu. I'ws f", .hoi, li,.,al· mind.dn .... d. imin~ thai tMy mi..,"«phu. "I,]" ,n, in hi' l"..i", ~i.... ,\pi,n lh" .mil. God mOj' It<......" in ,,,,. ation, God', form . nd m>gnitud<.", compl, _ ' ' ' ' pm:ioo .. rould bt wed to f. sh 'I)o im.18< of God. M"''rr. no ind;'idual "..,..,.... lh. ability ", <J i ' ... for i><1 of "l't<S~ O«n , .... ole> not inug'n<. " nd it i. unpiou.'o ronj<~", "",h,m. lhis from lh, Koman p< ..I'«'i...... )ing .h" J<ws of only on<~ .• nd lh" wi,h 'h< "mind "Ion,." "S.rdinS .ho", who m. k. divin< '<JI, .... ""lioo... impiou. >.in« tit< ,uP"'''''' .nd <1<m.al di,;.,. bt-in~ i, n
"r

",.'''r.

1.1",

,ha,·

"".n 'J><>Iosi>'"

'S"""

'0

.n

"""'0 """<101...."

_«1<,

.".
fA(£ TO fA(£ Vha., d .... , . 8..... with th;o I"'0.. wOO _,""i" obj«" in <"""ion rot"" t"'n ,I>< in "i ... ro, . nd hOY< don< S"'" injury to tho humon <0«, God 00.. "'" ~""Ily """ . dem" , _ who ""' ..... ip ,I>< di>-in< in "" 0,01 pbrn<>rn<no (fe, a.m· rI., tit< " ... ," tho , un ) .. ,h"..... hn ......." ·8~'V<" im.s .... • "'roroing to M...... h. 10}'> (o';"II 0n o'l"mrn' d .. , woWd "l'ps<...ruy bodi .. "fk,>d I... t"'n too.. who WOtoltq, idob.l>< latt .. do not POl"'" <.h~ t1ut human· nud< objeh 8""'1' ef iil<>!o.... h .. aWlty a nu,n ,uPI"''' of ,It< ",ui-th< pr<>[l<' ooo«ption 0(

o.>tQ""

c."

"'" .

Pha., ili<> "",;cip.ot.. CIrm..." .,.J Ot~ in iM"'I'mi"8,1>< bihli<M>~ For "..",pI<, ,"e roin5 to ""i!o. Mold' t~o ..' to ... God', fo« .... mod< <WtI though 1>1.,... rnliud t1ut .udI .......... <>I>IIlJ n...... b< 8'0nl«l. but SliD I>< 1'.....iSU un,il h. Mitt! ·;nto tl>< thid do'kn ... ...... ' God \0Ut.... ;,. in",. «>n1"'" "W'roi"ll ,t.. Ex;""", II to til< un' l'I""'""h, t.I • ..pm ........ ,..... . " no mal<Tial foft"" ... And "ut of thi> ""... , ..... '""'"" to M<*< • ,"" boon. ... m . pp ......... bIo 'n no O< contradktian ~ tl>< "'I'< tn' of EJodu .......... nd Philo', .... "M .... ttto, ""tlli"8 "'" t,. .. i4 dc>< may IN .. on actual phyoical vin< of.1>< Di'fin•• Philo ,Iso < u .......$IOOd in • 6guroiw .Dd "'" • li, ... l _ _ "'pIo, II< ooy<, _ ,t,. tc:rt"r> tlut 'T"h< -..t do7wn ,,, _ tlwtt d'r:and that (0(1101><1, Gon II'~ I ,;' ~id not m•• n tlu, God ••" .... llyCim. do7wn . nd .... TW arouDd .. if God I>ad • human i:ood)-, hut ...11<, that God fills aU pla<es 01 on« and buih < uniwne. Tho [)j-,i". Ilri"" ht ""'" is bo1h iovisiblo ",J inromp~ h.n,ibl., ond at til. 10m< ';m< "'ry>o"h<MOCYd OIl ·i....• ..... <>«< CII,;.'.... AI ... Dd, i' nI do lot.. on • .....ru.l.. tht imag< .. itn tht p~.;' .. n' Word of God-th •• gont of ,,..,,;,,n . nod ,II< model for humanity wbooof< to thi. qnal imago woo not ocroNinS to . n~ at ...... opp
,h. ' PP"""'

It"""""

I..,'"

'QW
_"'''8 Ii,,,

"i".....

"It ....

THE INVISIBLE GOD AND THE VISIBLE IMAGE

91

no one wuld«r~'Pre~ent this likcne~s as onc to a bodily form; for neither is God in human form, nor is the human body God~like.~" On the other hand, thc rabbi~ ofJustin's time and later maywcll have emphasilcd the human-like appearance of God, e~pec iaJJy as they wnsidered the epiphanies portrayed in the books of Exodus and Daniel. Au;ording to Elliot Wolf~on, some of the rabbink authoritics from the tannaitic period ~assumed an anthropomorphic manifestation of God in wncrete, "isible form~ was a basic part of biblical faith.~" For example, Wolfson cites the midrashic wlJ~ction Mrkhjlta de-Rabbi IslIIIlMI on the book of hodus and expounds on the polymorphic appearance of God as noted in these texts: ··The lord is a man of war" [Exod 15:3]. Why is this said? For at the sea he appeared as a warrior doing battle, as it says, 'T h<' Lord is a man of war." At Sinai he appeared as an old man full of mercy, as it says, 'And thcy saw the God of Israel ct'"'~ " Wolfson $CD ao ami-Christian pokmic at work in these Jewish tradi~ tions. Just as lrcnacus was wnccrned that Gnostic teachers might imerpret these thcophanies a~ the appearance of a lesser God, the rabbi~ were aware that Christians were proposing that they demonstrated the e:o;:;s!ence of a ~ond divine person. The polymorphous represemations of God (S
Theophilus, Novatian, and Origen: Salvific Vision ("Seeing God and Living") Theophilus, a late second-century bishop of Antioch, anaeked pagan idolatry and expounded his vil'ws on the visibility of God in his apology To Aurol),ws (his only certain surviving writing). In this work, Theophilus begins by sening 0111 the occasion of the di,tlogue. AlI10lycus has boasted of his gods of wO<>J and ston e, carved or cast, aod scornfully ash'd Theolophilus to "show me YOI" god .~ In response, Theophihls impugns Autolycu~'s character, ~aying that God is seen only by those who arc pure in heart (Matt 5:8), who haw cleansed themsclws from all sins, impurities, and evil occupations (adultery, robbery, slander, en"y,

" pandf 01", oouI" ln","~;"
""«;.;'"

au.-~ ""d

p.....,nl ,hom from Ill< light. Of .mng God. ~ !luI. wt. ... ~ how C..,d will """"" It> In.. .,..... ... "" .no ocl!;"""

,hi •• i(l.ht. Throphilw; ••• ...n> with. lo,,!! di"""u"" on lb. lolly of im..., __ hip .nd II>< utl« i~~ <>f .ny dCf(ti~ion of tho I:>i>'in<. Th;' dn hod much in oomn_ with tho writi"3' of tIw Su>i<> Ind of Philo, .nod ~ inrorpo.. tft both "'P';" Ik. in hdght in< 'u ..... 'n tb< o.kscriptivt ............. could to God. "'dudi". Lisht. "~Mind, Spirit. W"1Jdom, S<.:•• nd fi .. , Eod> of ,hco< .jd.... 1000"""8 to Th«>ph~" •. rtf... to. pmicular •• p«1 of God', being. "Lip'," fa. ' .... ncr..f.ro wG<..l', _k •• nd Flt<,. SI<>O: b<>,...,.,.; .... to God', .nfl
"f'pn"_

r<

lo"'.

""'i
""',in....

«hoin8 ,II<

'flU"""" of I ..........~ ....., tho"", God .. m.iaibIt '" II><

al.ma! <)'t. God can be pm:riY ..... 1M:> ' . .""'....,. IIo.m t.. o. oil< w;U _ Go6-ofiu "P","'~ toe;"8 •• ix< OJ .... of immor,oIity (&I !~ ..... doof). b~t .. ,hO "I>< pu,i!i.:>''''n of ,lit 1<)..1from .n i"iq .. ~ ... ). LA<.II .... otl...- 0.,;., .... ~ "Thoophil ... . """ko ,I>< imo.,.. of tho . . . . gud!.. "yi"l! i, ... I>< poin"ou~ ,he ...,.i.. told olio .. , ,h ... 8"'<1> <1<0 ..... """'" tb.t they .b.. hoIm.o. bc;np. dev.tta! ... ~ to ,iI< 01.11.. fA p>do. " - . in (II< mids! of bis KWUnt of <~'ion. II< digr<>o<>. < invioiblc .nd uoOr01 """Id h< d ... nbtd ....... I;.1 ;, ...." God', w.,ro """' •.......,..J.t.. _ oi th< Fothor ond '-'>«I of all: wI><> -..t 10 th< gmkn '" .11< 8\1"'" of God . t>. ,he ""'" lhol Adam 1N:a..! woo..., ... mhn ,!.on m.

c,.,.. .•

"",'ifl'

,1»,

0I't:'" .....,.."

TH( INVIIISL£ COD AND TH £ VIIISLE IMACE

.ok< of d,< Wo .. ~ .nd fur.ny f'U'f'OO< ,h., God wiIl •• nd is abk to bo: booh .....n .Dd lI<.nl in ,h .. J<.i1V"',Ih1oom" o( " ..,ion .nd tb< <1,m.1 Rt»on <)f("",.l. by ,,·tucl\.11 ,ningo eo"", in", <:< bos.i, of Iu •• rgu ....... , "1I"rding ,I>< of ,h. Losos '" A.d.am .nd I .... <)n . .:,o ...... "'. "Ill«>rhilu~ IiI« IU01in.t>ciOcv<s ,~ .. ''''' Word is ,n. mibl< fo,m of Divi ... lltio~ "ho un in'","" ,,·i,h huon.n b<,ng<. .nd ,i>< 00< "ho 'n th< pmphru. "'n>« in hum.n soW< < inco ..... tio .. ~ In ,10< mi.! · thinl N",.. ,,",, off....-..! h;, , ....... of Q,d., i...If. · bili'y in hi. " .. ti>< On ,~, Trio",. H,. k>",i,n' '''''' I~ 16). ~ """,,Iy show. how .'" 1""1'1, thoupt, of God "th.. hot do<> DOl rrll«t ho" God ",ally " .... God "'" n ,h.ng«l; 'h< I.ith(ul no Ion~ i..... gine ,1>1, ,~ rna. <»nftn< God in • '''''pi< 0' on , moun .. in. Qooti,,! th< Go;pd of Ioho. "","",ian wcru. 'G<:>d is 'pi,i".nd tho« who ~r Q,d mu," "" ..!tip in .piri' " nd in truth" (John 4:24). H<,ibrd . , h",;ng qn.,.. ..... i, m«« '0 G<:>d., will . • nd , m,m"'n of God·, fm i•• mn .... ion t(O (il< n«pi"'." "IOgbt' 0'· ""~." but ,il<>< .'" m 0' _oaIogid. DOl ....!lidm' ap,,",,,,o, of wba' God ",>II, ... ~ \to_~, . wh.n N",~,j.o odd, ..... _ 'p< th= 1"""'" Abuham o. ,il< Ont ,,"110 wrntkd J.rob, he >«< Ihvi ... Pmon who to...J ,il, ",""",i.o] apobilj,y of b. uuly G<:>d " .......... "","~ - . "'" th, h("" who " •.., ~n.M.c ' PI"'''n« ...... """"",ion to human f"illy. '"'lIS ,II< Dc.. in. Word .... " ."",;n !b< p,oem of grod""u.,. bMn< M to '''' blOnd ..... ~ by th.,or coming "'" of p"<J to ,b, proph<1>. in ili, vin<....... o".. ,,"P ... ... timt m.. o. of p'''l'',ing bu"""i', """ _ fu ,u", b<-.,ifi< .isioo •• ' wrlJ .. 1hr m..OS by

,tl.o,

'1'\'<'''=

God.."" tn.

>1'\'<'"

''''"I)'.

,im,.

.....nr.

,,"h

'h"

God·,

'0

'""'Iy

.«"..

,h.,

,h..

~ A (E

TO FA (E

wh ",h tl><-,' might .ppt oouId call th< pb« thot I>< w... tI< ."(Ift. "'Th. Vision 01. God" (!'midi.bo. tb;. idcn,i!ieltion o»uld only rffl-r '" hi> hovins ...,., God th< w",d or at .... (th. W",d mad. n... h).a And whik Tmullilm of tl>'otioru of ,II< ,I>< IJICOm by wIIid1 God b«omcs """". ",rntd 10 hulJWl app< ... au (ond lutu .. inez"" ion). _ian Wldtr· .,,"d. 'h<m .. . w.y ~ .. hy",.,.. to b< gtod ...11y oc<wIOm< wtlk".... ond iml"'rf«,,,," of 'h< human deotiny i, nou,i>hcd, led up.. .nd «1""",«1 by him;.., ,ho" ,",,,!! upon ,h. it may 0 .... d>~ be obi< "' ... God th< Fu l><;.. ,ho, it may _ be- .trid1. blighln .....od be hinJor< F,,'-. whom i, Iw aIwo,.. <0< ",h.... . MoI"«", bdicv«l ,ho, '''''''''bility ............... '0 Co<>d, olo"~ "";,h in1"iOY. imm"tol>ility• • nd '_"'p",!t<nsibili ' ~. Th;' 0>0n of ("o<>d., u,,'" .... ,>f«1ldigh' or knowI«lU led Orig.. ' 0 I>< I"'niorl.ny pi";,; """" 'hot '",mi"""'1r mi8l" ;mply' lind of ph, ;"'1 ... nisi.....,.." In tb~ t<Sp hio l"'un8<' ron, ....porary). In COn'~ to I..,;n. T.rtulli,n, o. N'''''';, n. h"""' .... OriUn ..... In'.'.....:1 th" ,h. i.... ;,;I-,;);'y <1 n .. n< OM ... WoN. " "" (in Ori8<"·, vi.".) .ho.... thi> .... "'i. 1 ch • ....:t<.ini.: wi,h Unh<eo" obho".,,« of ~n idoto). OriV"·.... mpl. of....., .... _ '" . ......... tho qU< ....k,gy (I« .........) co""", ,.;.run OliVO·' dot· ilia,ion of .1>< w.y bulItam . .. " ... «<1 .n... ,I>< Divin< 1m• • """"""'"'. ond to< ..... it '" < ....,. God """'" i\:Jrtlt on otI>«. wio< i",,;,ib.,. bu, ...., unlxanbl<. divin< 11o:.Mo.q,rn ",pl.i". tho, mon. 1q<S annot to<" ,I>< !;~t <Jf God difrt1l, bu, '<m littk by tittl<. un,il 'I><-,' can b«om< "",,..onl«l ",'1><... ,II< lish' in .. dc.o ........ 1I<>WI God (MOM 11:17) ond ,ho, can ap_ or r=oI1h< form 01 God ' " ,hose who ... copobl.< of it. And ,h;" OliVO ..yo.. i> why ,II< ,u,ho, all Cltn.. tho "brishtn ... of God·. glory." .. -U .. . ,t.. or..... imogo '" God ·,.oiotl •• Oriern " ... . n .n.!. ~ tho, II< O<"'"""~ both """" . 0><1 «ntdtuion io pmbI<-mItic. sinC< i' bo<mw< from .,t.. realm of "",,
.peal.

WoN.,

"""'' '>rn«I '" ""'"

,,,"".n';.I

,ft.

"

s.....

THf ItNlllHE COl> ANI> TH E VIIIBlE IMACE I ....

our,..,..."" ~ ....., .......... itt
.. fill .... who!< wo,j,j, bu! "".,., "" '"""'" ...,.,.... and ............ " ..... ~.. ...&, .u.w.. to> i, '" .....,.,. <.,.... . nd .... "" _ _ _ «I'UIoI "" '" _ _ , ...... ,».y hod _ " ,,"'" _ ....,. &OW ....

u... p""' .... ""11in< orWnbo . M

.",.u ""' . ..... _

,.m .,.j ....... y Ionn and

,,,"iI.,"y,·

I."

""""U[ ,..;m on obooIutdy """"'''8.'' ' ""'

OriS'n ddcruh hi< u .. olMKh.n

.""Iogy.d,imin8 it> only pufJH>'< io

'n """,. how ,II< Son of God , bdng 'b",ugh, willtin lho nanvw """pass of 0 bu""," body: rould bm",", ' on "I""'" i m. <>f ,u'" ".nc< '" .w,...."""· IH
,.,.1',

glory Of i.. "imm' and ,I.. only.""'F'"'' WoN i. ,h" "h'igIol,,... ligh,; ....t.o..: 1'0'1"* io '0 ...... .,... !Iu. W< .uri"" ,nul!< hu ...... I« in ChriSt io "'" in hi. physi<. 1 'ppur ... ,:< (hi. hum.n n .. u,. ) bu, ,,'h« ,h...,.,gb hi, ofC""" in lh.,;, It,n><f ,hi. ""rid ho. blind..! ,I>< mind> of ,I>< unbh,1I< "'" of bon< in "'" '0 "'~ .1>< liihl of II>< knowl<Jl< of II>< glory of God in the f>u of I<:>u, C/IrU,'U Cor 4:4 , 61. I\'" .nd ,.."ds bu' oJ.., ... O(I ...!-u. LoIbly ref.. '0 ,w<) d'il"..-.-n, God .. On" , ....1>It .nd .h. o,h ... ;m-ioibl •. 1\0." "n,l< T","II'. n m"" rng.>gUnl of ~..,..... re<[U<>l for • .won of (iod', r.... Orig dioru .. ",n '0 of Mu"" .nd the Proph.., , nd .led in't.: N<w T.... m.n'. I'or uampl., Oris< I'oo"h Go'p< oth< ... O riun ""mi" thi, . ppa .. nl ron, .... ;,;.. l;"n might .0Pl"''' . h . . .... ,;"n .ho God .. ""m M..... p"",I.im '

uf,,,,,

,ho,

,h.",

_er,·

8"'' ' '

''''''8'

'0

""'rI,

,n..

p.",,,..

w.,

,".God ....

"n< "" ""'" .....

.Iu'

,ho'

96

FACE TO FACE

(the Creator) is visible, while the God whom Jesus teaches is im·isiblc. BU1, he points out, an utterly irlvisibl.. God would have bem invisible c"en 10 the Sal-ior himself, a snag that would ma ke il impossible for Jesus truth fully 10 say thaI no one ha s seen God except the onc from God, as in "he has SC{,ll the Father" (John 6:46), or that "whorl'cr has seen me [also] bas seen the Fal hcr~ (Jo hn 14:9)," As a result, Origen conclud es, the language of seeing is not meant in a literal sense, bUI rather as a metaphor or an allegory. uWc must suppose Moocs to hal-c seen Goo, not by looking at him with eyes of flesh, but by understanding him with the vision of the heart and the percep tion of the mind, Imd in tI,i, parr 0111),."" And here Origen restates his position that God can ha"e no hody that could be perceived or known but is incorpor.:al and utt erly outside human >cnsate knowledge. ksus' statement in Matthew's Gospel (Uno one knows the Father except the Son,» Matt II :27) in some sense clarifies the meaning of his statement in John, sine.: the language of~>ceing» is equivalent to and best replaced by the language of uknow in g." As he says, it is «one thing to see and be >cen, another to percei"r and be perceived, or to know and to be known ."'" Origen's understanding of the power and nature of words as symbols, however, opens the way for a theolog), of image that will come 10 apply to th ings actually seen by the eye. Origen might have made the same argument with respect to the whole text of John 1:18: ~No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him kllOl"'( (emphasis mine; Greek'" exigi5l1fO , trans. "cxegCled~ or '"interpreted»). This Jrgument also allows the words preceding the claim of John 14:9 to explain its aclualsense:~Jf you know me, you will ktlOw (Greek '" gn(js~ rile) my Father also. From now on you do hlOw him and ha"e secn him . . . . Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not blOW me?H (John 14:i -8, emphasis mine J." Moren"cr, Origen argu~"S that this nonsight..-d '"knowing» also characterizes the way humans encoun ter the whole Trinity, since t he ability to be seen properly belongs on ly to corporeal bodi.:!, which excludes the Divine Triad, which by it s very nature "'transcends the limits of vision.~ Incorporeal and intellectual nature is only capable of knowing and being known. It is '1ewr seen, even by itself." Using the language of sight as a metaphor for intclloxtual perception, Orig~n interpr~ts the stories of God's appNfance to the Hebrew patri· archs allegorically. For example, in his fnlmh homily on Genesis, he gives the story of Abraham's divine visitat ion at Mamre a moral and mystical meaning. He focuse,on the diff~ren,cs between the waysAbra· ham and LO( recei"" and treat their guests, the significance of the placc name (Mambrc, thc name Origen uses, mcans "v isionH in "our langUJge~ according to him), the symbolic rather than superficial meanings that one can draw from the fact that Sa rah was standing behind Ab ra~

THE INV I!IB LE COD AND T HE VI !iBlE IMACE ham. 0' tlut GOO tcd in tIr< .. , ...1 iu, AU"'''. l'hu>iy un"'" t>< GOO. ,or,.:. . 11 thr« ""non, of tl>< T,in i'y Oil" in>;'il>l<." 5;mil..ly, In h .. romnwnlarr on ,II< SonA of Son!!'. Orill<"" ,II< ,im< of ,.., ,·i,it ~,""" n.m Imidday ) d.no,... >oul', pu"ui' of tb. d,,,, bright ligh' of i<Jxo,,-kJg< I< "II of til< iov<'< GOO', bad • • in« n, .... . not . 1I0w<, GoJ", f>«. Th. b"d< of tho SonS i, arrordcd romnhing ~I"", .... . no' un,il til< tr.n.figurati<>n, 011, m.y """«mpl". ,II< glory of GOO with " un,~iled fa«· lef. Exod .l-I : J3 · 3 ~: ) Coo- );7-18; I ' :J-').Such in«'p'<"U!",n' """'8<" out of Orig<">1', <>Senti,1 u"""""nding of how human ....<<<"J,ng to ti>< '''''S'" ,,( GoJ 'nd how ,...,. " ,II t.. ,«ltotmcd throoq,h th< ,."....;d of t1u, <>,igi .... in"I!'" o.i · g. to GOO ...., ... i""u,1>I< "oJ 'I'i';. 'o.ll i.."...., _ .n ",<mal Of rorp<>f< ,n ,I>< 'n .... ' I""f"'n, "'hieh ..... mad< immortal, i""Of'Uplil>l< •• nd in",· ib!<. T" 'hink 0' ......... """, Id I>< to >OPr<"'< impiou~r th .. GOO coold i0oi: liU u. Of ha,<- • no"",n I""",. Ho, ... ,I.., ifi<>, ""'t"n;'y ..~. ,..-_ .tod ,"onlins 'u 'hI ,m'g< of GOO. th< 5o.i<>,. "'00 i, ,h. · tho IU<' imp'"'' of GOO', '<"Iy boinS· Ill ... 1,3). In. "i'"-'II" of ,n. ;m'i';!.k ('.,.j" , n.J ", .. fi",OOm of all «wi<>n· (Col L:I SI. And, th .. " ..-IIy I<",. ..n ,,1M, 10 .. >«" m< n.. ....,n 1"~""""n "1 tn. h''''''" (I<>kn 14,9). SilK' .nl""<"-OO Iook> ... n im.oS'" of iOn""""..., t" or iglO'! mod ,nyo'" wt.u...., Clori>! prn:riv< GOO. So,h 1'<""<1',;"n i, ,i>< ~inni"~ <>f hum. n >pirit"'1 Pros, ..... ~hido lS ,I>< ,,,,,,,,I of t1u, inn". ;n,';,il>\< imaS'" S""" '0 m.-1;",-., t1ut , .. 'hin8 un, t..ho1J, i. " '10 .. <(Om ... lion, con" mpl ..", the im' g' oiGOO, on, will g,.du.ll y 0«01'<, ,10 .. lik,n<". If on, 'um, ;n";1. ,,,,., ""ill t..com< lik, th< o".il. Sin .,,'" on<". o,ig;n. 1 im.go . nd t><sin. to imp!.n' ,no,hn Undrr".ndinS Jyn, mie 1"'''''' of ,i.i<>n is critical ';IK. hu,",,, ...... ,"", d ,I>< 'I>n, '" IonS .. ,I>< con· "mpla'ion of ",n.ibi< thins' I< «ont<mpl.lIon of ti>< ,n,.-II ig" 1>1. """ IJ. II" .....". h< point> oot . 0(1<" tho .. "ho h,,'o 1><0. ""bled to fOfm tIr< """,;'1 Of om, il>l< "1"r..-n'ati<>n'.f< drawn ba< fooh>h «ro' of off« ioS 1',,,,,,-,, 00" ,,, ,..-,,«I th inS....ch.ng'ng tIr< .ubii"" fOf "" N><.nd making t" ""'h of GOOinto . I..... In, diff<<<m,. ri'ing ,I>< 1",,1>1< oftl>< WQtJUn .nd ,I>< coin ( Luk< U: ~-IO I . nd in«,·

,h.

"'Nl"''' ,Iu, ,0« .

=

"y,."

t'"

'0(>

FA(€ TO fA«

pt<1i"ll il ... n aUegoryof , .... .IO.. ·.1ost i..... In oni<"~ lit>d 'hot loot ""n (I.... i""'F). ,II< """""" had Iu lithl. lamp • .,.I . "'«I> ..... hn huult (Ill. "",I ). ft1'!IOVing lho ~~h ..,d rubbUh that had bmllnti~

up owr, '-II ptriod of slop"" ho....t. .... horne the i",..of' .... tnOn of JU>!. ,.. " iU....., boor , .......... of ' .... .... n ofhnvrn..... IiPi,;' ....1 . nd '''''''1''>",01 """""I ''t1'3'' "" .gr<eins wilh ,h. Gno .. '" r<J>IIdio'ion of matt ... V""ib,!i'y to. ~ of ,I« follm II". hh. """ ..... buund lu the ... r,hly bod)- .. . p....;.nmatU • ..... ,h. p!'OJ'<S'iv< ....~ of ,11>, "'.... ;,;.,., maUo hullWl> mor< ..,J """" ptl r...tly. in.i>ibIy 'piri, ... I. r.. CIrism ..t.-. to ap, in ,t...nd - bodily oa,u,,· wiU porilII. silKt ho ......u . ... bd~ thot '0 ..... wi,lH)u, .... 'd;1y tI<mn>, ;, . thmg ,11>, bdonp """" to , ........ of God. ,hal .. of ..... Fa,btr. Son. ond ..... Holy Spiri': n.. ptl ftel<'< boJily;o IQ .... knk bu, no 1.,1'111'" . ;,ibl, '0 Ih. ~ or in , .... ........... y tho, its 10-< form wal." La'.r in ,hi' .. me hom~y. Orison 00« ' saln . m p""".n . noIogy from ......1.n ' 0 <XJ>Ioin this p~ !pi';,,,,,, motwal of tho ori&i . 1'1 . 1,........ 11'1 thi> <»t. hnwrnl.ibly m<>rmooi$ 00;8<" 'p",k. of ,.... u.g.:... .. ,.... .,.isinol of. pain'inS " W
,t

,,,,.I<'
'u..

,h.

""uc,

"'ist il . • 00 h. rom""". 'he humon ..,w 10 'h<
bu, < h ... on . n ""0 ....... u_i"l! .mI r.-..h< human panicipoo . ,;"n in 'hio ....,tltof ,",,,, ..;,,n.,;_ ......i .. n.... bqth d, ......... ~ of

.'n

'''' -.."hly" pmon """ tht ori&inol ,mI m... t bt ....'" ..... touL suid<(\td ,h. ".00< ..J , ....... to irnmor'oIi'~. Or, ... •• idto of "",it",1 ftJI<""oi .. srounyo Uq> ,hrit ' inn .. ) ~on the modrl. And the ' ...... formo';"n from ,h. muddy "'n ... of >in .nd ronfu""" to , .... cl .., rod"not of di., .. Ii ........ "'..... in ""'-' . , It up ,I>< po,n' wit ... ttl. lOll! i> finally obit to

.--.,hn

.tt'"

"gil...,....,.., .n"..

'0

wi,h".nd , .... fwl hril/>' ..... of d;"r.c glory. 1-10-<" ' , in
THE INymBU (;OD AND THE ymHE IMAGE

,,,I>«

fu,"".i,...oo ..-lviii<;, .han .h, .itn of ..,Iv".,n .d=.d~ >eh;"'...!. irro""", bdi.,... .ha. ,'i,.,n oi ,II< Divine in il> IuD brillimr gIo,~ Wli· ...... tdl' ~, ..". hu ....... i"m,",".I;,I"od <.......1 inco"uphbili'y, ... hil< O,ig<;r.g lik< 'h< <1h ..."~ In «I"du,i"", .I,hou[d> m"" of ,b_ ,n.<4 '''J''IO< who migh. io<1u.1Iy , "um< ,h .. ,ho d i";o< "",W to. ..ch .".. migh' "'CUI< ,II< "' ...... of "t..;'m "' idol· "ry. d<prndinS <>< ;maB< <>f God "nd "-<0, ... m< kind of hUn<>< 0<> God " ..... prOOlnn <>I .. hal lix '«m "I ik"""," migh' m.. n ... d '0 w.... , ..1< ... , i, h., ,,,,y'h,ng '0 do wi,h . "" nal 'pp'.ranc< . And "',""ugh Ih. ,ha, God" i""i.ib!< >«"DU >impl •• oou[d> by i,,,df. ,t.. wh"k m'"'' i, ""mpl;,:.,...J wh .. S<,;l"u« ,01.. , .. w .. in 'h' , ..... ,i. 1 ",.Clu" of ,h, Godh .. d in eh';""n ,,,,,hinS.Dd 'h", id1>«;'Uy to obou,.11< plun.ii'y .... unily<.>f G;..J .nd ,'" wi.h "I"""'>hip of ,t.. Word 'Q 'h, Fo,I><,. Fw.bermo«. 'h, Ch,;""" d«· I. ",,;on ,I>< WO'~ beam< (",,,nul< in .. sib!< hum. n /k;h ,alb for • ,hroty.rou, .h< rda,ionohip .mollS 'b«>ph;Iny. I><.,'!i<.won, di.,,,, pm:< "".Id "'" k>ok .. ,t.. f_ of God .... d I...., bu' Chri" ..... '< Ol'l"»i'<-'h." -'"5 God "f_ '" i, .um .n~ ,ub"""" <>I b
_ '0

A,

,h.

,«.

,h.

' ' '11><"'

'<sO'" ''1I"""n"

,b.,

,h.,

j""

f.,," '"<

99

FOVR

Seeing the Divine in the Fourth

and Early Fifth Centuries

o fl.l' EN '\

AN ALOCY of. pain';n,. ,..,"0''';00 to nunun

..Iv.. io" (d o""","", in ,I>< r~' ct..p!C'fIIu>. ,lust p.lnHd in ,ho: w,;,;np of lh< mun • .,rn'".., Alp<.k. of ,lie- h,a"· ''''< l~ ... pain'''' or ott ,..,,,"', ..... ollh< hun",,. oouI, nudt in til< ilm3" ofGokmiohod or ooilcd p>intins, <>I>I to< com... """",ion of lin . TIl< log".,., , .... T.... 1m"" of G< painting ",ff>&"n .11<1 , .... liUn... •0;"5 Origm, < """ui Il001, , .. in< lii<m<1> to II>< im.s<" ,<,.",cd to ' u ",,,«1 ...""'"",,, .umy mi, ... " .. lib< """I I bring 'horoughly b,iJll,< !""'Sof ,I>< Flth< Word, and by 'hi> "...n. 'h< 01<, of 'h< F"II<" """"" I""'I!< 'h< s...ior io,"' Dnpi« 'I>r1 i"",lvod in ,II< pro<'" of 10< of Ib< i""I!<' Wh< .... Oril!<'" 1M o;.in< I""" i, <>I< .omp... 01. hum.n Oo.ly," fo, A,h.",oiu, ,h. In""n". 0 •• n«.... ,ily .i.iblr braus< .i.ibili,y " .. , «I<",i . 1 '" hi, , .. ing mi.· rion' A,n...,;", miri on 1M OCItaI, mat..i.tI «>'I"',nli'y of Ib< inn,· ... ,ion • • • m
,."o,ed.

wood,"

".'IIi.....

,,,,,,I>os

,,,,10,,,.:,.

10<

w.,

'"

'"

FA<E TO FAU humankind ""PI'<"" '''",ugh .. noiblo ",.. ns. s...ing G<.J', 'mov;" Chri" Wi> im~'.n' 10 boll. A'IwIaoi ... or>d 0riFn. bu, illY< ooid 'hot ,......,. w<>lins" dil'krm, thint<. OriJOn i>· 'ion Qf ,I>< mind, "hil. Allwlasi ... boii.....:! .1>< hwnan !kahly ... Iily i....tt' "'" "dot""obI.... d<morut .. t«l in .he i...,..nation ODd ...... f<'(.

,""".....,..)d

,.,. of lh< body of Oui". At th...rn< time. A,h.n ..i... bold •• mOl'< .,...umia';' vi ... of human;.y', ability 10 p'",,'" on iu -.. th.an Orisen nr~ blOndcd br " ... ond dt«;....J 1'1' domoru. fl...,. ou ,t.. "br «Old .. Mwin8 thr ttn.h ,"'C~od .. ;" r., ....... Ii"...,.." "'" ""'''V ft.. hurna", Iud miooodsMng .hit ~ and mo£t thri • .,... down,.... Tho: oru, mn ... I •• "1'1"'....1>«. 11) ............... n 10 the .....nd of "'!U.. • nd of .........0 'aUOfIO mortal b<>dy 00 t!w~ tbern half>< Th.. ( u><""l"'ttol) G"d br "'.. '" of wt..1 ,I>< I".,.".. .. Ont < fft""""ion of ,h. Sa.lot. ,00.. wOO W'ftt J ... wn '0 wo ...... ip ;dolo ot to IMm rot 5"<1' -"'",.. ...... tt <Ji ~tO<, br (nft'Iptiioo .... Aod Ii_ 0>" .... _. po ..... pp
", "',Iu...

ro""

""1'<''''''

,!><;.

"'i.,....

hum. n .. tva'iott, It.< Sa.iot 0""," OOrn could nOl immtdi.at< ' ..... ood tttU....roon from tl><
r.....,. ............. -'"_""""h_o.,-.,. D"'''''''''''_

,.;o,&, ........ ..,. ......... did.

..... ;.. ;. ~ mol ...... oudo - . .... ___

.......... hilnl.-. ........... lNmaI,boo .. God .... -.L

""'..,.bio-...................................r"·· _ _ ~...m

of ......

""' .......... _<7 dn •hftom ....................... . . ~ ~ ...,.,. ....... ,ioa>k· ...... ' ........... _inl _ _ ..,. .... _ .. .............. ofGo.!..md .... Lln-of .... uon-,-

f<>' A,ho""""" II>< _IT koowIa!s< llIat ."..... Ib"",«,> IMuttr ....1 1 f.". hu",",,,, '0 ........ ., to Otrioo. 'and .... Iet th< blind and tho Iamt. "'""sins w ..... to win<. om! to ""'hI and r ,I><
..,. _

",...,,«1

!EEIN(; THf PIVINf

",

had to biblt. Goo had to rom< dow" to til< hulJl.l" 101'<1.'Q -show up' in • body.., Wt hulIWlity migh, !« tlx Truth ,"d thmugb ,11< '",.."a" aui" 'sni'i<>n of GOO ""'" .pp< . ... in human form in addition to thos< ~i<>u.thor mo.n, had no' 'o<,o«lod. ,,.00 .""'" t" bum.";t, haIIWllY' and""", on it< phy>ii !'Oty>i" it.< .!e<. iny. In • mo .. 1it<,,1 ><M<. ,II< Origo:"oi>t Pf<'I"",,1 tho. what ott< Iook> .. i, wlt.&t <> .. utond on o.ri" ... h. ph)".kal . nd io<>, ... " modint
.,,,«.

,,,,,,,OJ

Th e Invisible God In the Four1:h Century SOOnl, befur< Ath." .. iu ..... rot< hi. " .. ti .. on the incac ... tioo. Amobiu •• , Numid;'n ron"''' .nd tta<>l)"h<;'m. IIi> "" .....dr I,,<-b"t ... Iou, "'"""era""n of hi, form« «liSi"n ""y h.", I><,n p."I~ .. pl'i...oo by ,I>< .imi"g of hi . Io",i'in8 du,ing ,II< (, .... ""....,uho" IJoJ.-J" 0:. 0.1. nd by hio hop< ~, co{!Vi"", oth ... to ""n .... n .. II< d!d. tkJ, it abo .......1«1 n'uth tho ..... , of Ronun ,he ti ... ,. Hi! t, ... tis< Ago;"" "" ,ru;-.. that the Otri>ti, " bt ioW"3 Rum< to ,uin .nd. in 0"< 10<>8 .1«1",". ,<>log<"'8' , "d ",dow«! with tho Sill of,..;,dum .nd ,h. d""'<10.. pi"'" of t..1;nh gU .r< 'p<.I"' ""'n """",d. by "'inly . nd «U<> wo,k AmobiUi ill"" fdlowo til< pott«n ... by ,II< .f><>lugi'" .n.! .... il.< ''''' pOIy1hliling t~,

,.
.boo.

""ipo" "...

N..,"""

"no"'....

""ipo" .,

,ho,

'"

FA<£ TO FA«(

god< in • t<mpl. Or im.g< . Dd of pmumi"l! ,lut they ha... DMI of NC· rtfio . And.like h;,".Let O>\>"''''l''''' ......
pr..rno. of rdYoins botb t<mploo ... d ~ to God.. BIn "";!hln •

m""

f<w gm...... io ... Arnob;",', «iliq .... tuov. ><'al'I<'d do1«L d"" to tilt podual lllomon religion , o>d Ih. ",read of Chrio-

,ion.n

tianity in II>< Empire ....."I'hin. IjQ)' from O>OOcmnl"ltxlemoi idoto'rr.nd

focuOit!ni6<.n« in m. dopnaIic d~ of Christw. t~ I~"

diKu...J It.. maU..o! divino Im.ga ... ,",,01. n ... I<WI. _ibly becauI< 'I>< .ioIbl. mnnbc. m Ill<

Uk Ath.nasiw.. loin four1h-.otnlury

Yrin;' y (....... in ..... in Or T.. ,ullionlcontinu... 00' with.in ,"" pol<m. ical nruggk to . 1I< unity and >ham! ........ of.1I< Godh< unjty of th< Th ... J' point. 8uiI .mpioys ." . .. mpl. well ."""," '" hi' «>nl<mpo •• ri ... po., ..i, of , .... • mPft0, tl>< Divir>< r""'3<...:1 _YI'< ""'" ,t.. .. m< "'UI<. whidt i> n(I' divided ht' ,I>< f... ,1>0, 0 .... i, -"...:lilt< """'" ,h. "- nr. ......, . ...... tbm,if .... . md""" .... """ ... ,_.,.Iot 00< ... _ ....... ..-. ~ ond d ... ............ ...:1 _ oi_tiop. ir _ domo .... . . . _. . .....,_nr. .. u'S , .......- , _ " ' ...... ...:1 "' ........... , _ . . , . .. b _ plural but-. 1>«_ ... _ prO! .......... _oo., .... _1P<_Nowwlrotio ....... _ irl'" _ . . - .......... I.... '" in .... .... _, jj tim · .......... ... . I. " : ... ., portr'IO' s...;...,. ..""".oo .... _or .......... ......... ft • • · . , """ . ., " " .... _ .... """"'" .... _...... io .... . IIop«m.. ,tit im!">'I • • , ...."ion 11>01 will b •., i:>don3 to d", d.f..... of kuno: .1>0 • • ny honor poM! '0 ,I>< ;""6' J'Ui'" on ro .tIt prolO!yp<. H< COIrhn_ "'" m".tlininS.hollh< ",b'i<>mJIip of It.. Wo>rd .1> ..... of i""l<.nd pt""",p<•• nd h ... Y' .ho, wbrn 0.... pm at .h< be,",) oftht '.... one .. d.....·n "II '" .h. >p«,adc of IEEING THE DIVINE the archetype. Io.luch influenced by the teachings nf Greek philosophers, Basil sees vision as a dynamic activity of the senses and a spiritual aid , sim'e it leads the viewer beyond the external appearam'e and on to the perception of invisible truth, thus forming a critical link between the philosophical thwry of participation and the later defense of the place of icons in liturgy and devotional prayer. " lIasil, howel'er, does not have painted images in mind in his treatise, and he prefaces th is discussion with a traditional insistence that God is ultimately invisible and ineffable, a Spirit that must be worshiped in spirit and in truth. In his earlier writings against the neo-Arian Eunomius (ca. 363-364 C.E.), wh o claimed that knowledge of God was possible, lIasil insists on God's incomprehensibility and defends a metaphorical or allegorical reading of the theophanies in Scripture against a reading of Scripture that would take the anthropomorphic descriptions of God literally (whkh Ennomins probably did not actually do)." Correspondingly, in his refutation of Eunomius, Basil's brother, Gre gory of Nyssa, addresses the problem of names applied to the deity and their source as well as thei r validity. Gregory argues that the mind might supply terms, but that ultimately God 's essence is incomprehensible, and that the only true descriptions of God are in terms of negative constructs (for example, "pretemporal," "incorporea],~ ~imperishable: or «ungenerate Elabo rating on the unknowability of God and human incapacity to give name or description to this ulti mate reality, he asserts: "For this inability to give expression to such unutterable things, while it reflects upon the poverty of our own natu re, affords an evidence of God's glory, teaching us as it does, in the words of the Apostle, that the only name naturally appropriate to God is to believe God ·above every name' [PhiI2:9]. That God transcends every effort of thought, and is far beyond any circumsnibing by a name, constitutes a proof to us of this ineffable majesty.~" Gregory's friend Gregory of Nazianzu> was of the same mind, insisting that God was beyond expression and impossible even to conceive because of the udarkness of this world and the thick covering of the flesh" that serve as an obstacle to the complete understanding of the truth, not merely to the ignorant and ca reless but also to those who "are highly exalted and who love God." Gregory denies that even "higher natures n and «pure r in telligences" (he presumably means angels) are able to perceive fully, but, "bKause they are illumined wi th all his light, [they] may possibly s~, if not the whole, at any rate more perf...:tly and dist inctly than we do . .. in proportion to their rank.~ " Thus, the appearances to Abraham or the visions of Isaiah, E7.ekiel, or even Paul (when he was caught up in to the third heaven; 2 OJr 12:2·4) are partial and provisional glimpses of an indescribable mystery. !n another place, Gre gory speaks of the Son as the perfKt image of the Father, the "pure seal M ). 105 '" FA(t TO FA(£ t"""". .Dd hi> m",' "nC<'fI m< .... 1<'<" til< roth,," (John 14:9). Bu,. h< i">isu..1x kind of I<>ring mc. m ill thio tal. io mrntal. _ _ ihI<, pt"'P ..,..." In who. nuy ""'" b<m hi> Iu. _I:. pmbobly wri"~n in ,ho )91)0, GrCSOry of NY''' r"'POO«! Moon .......mpl .. of how • "'J"IiQlI ohrologion .pproadlcs tb. infin;" by "'ruistrn,~ r<mOOI'ing . .n.~~ .... '" ~'rh<>" th" _.Id deoa-ib< (or <;r<1 Y<" ,.... joomq judf;' the r"W<>' tt.;, •• 11< mak&olu,. , •• no«" d<J>« and infinity "rGod, and for Mo .... ' "orr. t..ro ..... tho filP'''' of .", ,-"". to'" """«ti,,,,_ 1<)"' ".m08 '" >« who. ;, =001 _. y<" dri>~ by 'ha' ..... ' ......., mokill@ 8. >0;1 .... pn'V<" 'UWI"J .pili'~ cnIiv.lCnmir· ,b., ing wh., ;.!>!' fu< tlut with .... ich h< ca"'tandy. filln««<> by ....ning .... , , .... Divi ... by ito n.'u", i, infin;t<, n.,,,,OO, . 11 'ru" ,.... '.x' .,( 'n Y' """,, .:on'''' all"""", in hia 1'' ''iruLI, """, john Chrysostom p.-...:t.cd fi ... .. rmo .. at An.""'h on ..... ,ub;.rt"( , .... in.:omp",h .. lihl< _ u", of 'oOd, olIO opi .... ,t.. DO>-.... ~ ",,",.ion ,/10, ;,;" _ibI< 10 know God ...... U.. God know. God, In , ..... homili ... lohn bbm """"mi ... for .. rogon1ly inii"in, , ... , God', ... ,"'"' rould bo .ppm... drd 'I\rou&h human .......... . nd ... dd"md, , ..... _Ul< in.;"5,· lohn ............ h.. ' 'luma\'' wi,h coKfuI . " .. ,ion 10 , .... "",iplural of God 10 , .... po'ri..-du ,tid prop ....... but <"'y .... God. unbo..abI< hwnon <)'<>- 10.;.... for .:umpl •• cri ' 1'1'<"' ''"'' ,Iu. '0 "".ual !EE!N<::THE DIVINE TIm /d6). Th" on;opp,_bablt ligb' nUl only inJi<.t« (0;.1., ill/;· ni,< gI<,,}" ho'.1so prot;li'y." Fro., ,hi, k,nd <>f(~ ~'I,"",1 ,n!'n.tic t h«>losy. In til< J. t< I'oonh con t ury. fo, i",,.ne<. ["' S' illS of P Clwrpm> ... """" h. gil'« dirtetoo .. , 'WII< in>p.....,J with ,11< ..01 ,,f "'''''' p."'icol,, oh.1p<. bu, ,,(her. .11 d " ,.. IX" tl>< unma(<<'" 8f midtodins «tn<'l''' or fini .. ftJ!u","" whko ...,uld tr.p "'" hU""D ",u l in. ",",,,riaI;',;< JuaI fr",;ng of "'" mind from the i""8< in ~,rkr to onrh· "'nd ruy>'ic&lly (II< irm.ibility 0' inrompribili'y of God ",n,in· u<J to "",uPT' 1'1.« in Ch,i ...". throlo~y ,od .puit",1 (hrough tb< fifth «Dt"'y, S«iptural <>d ,I", .ili,y of (".,.. in ""h " ,;,.,. .. Theodo,e! of Cyrus in the midMth «n'ory." Th. idOl """Id "och • kind o( high point" the l>i'" (II< A,,,,,,,.git. (1\io.tysi", ). who .... ~ fbMh G,<1"'Y "f Nr»o .nd ( "'Sf;'" II> wdI .. Philo).In hi. ("ati« My>ri
" 'h< ."tho' al", p'<>t <>f 'he 01'>< "'00 .!t. ;n" .uion "fGod by fi", >«inS God in .",hly m, nif.", .."., b", fin,lIy ",.ndi"8 in'" '0< 'd",,~ of "nl:o ....;ns· on Sin,i." Th< OIX "ho ",john to kn"'" God i. _",",>«I (0 .m uJ.« .\\,,.... pt«.... by S' .du.U y "",ting all poosibi< .!rK,ip'ion~ .ffum"ion •. n,m ... 0' ""ibo«.... ign.d (0 tho Di.in, 00. 1<11 · 'pn.,ic ,~). ,in« .11 tl><>1,. " 'h",h ""'" os ,he mr "" ,he lodOO of (owo,d ~ .. • "',,....... (by n'iion of .nd ""ion wi,b God. In . n,,(h« (,."il< (nm", Nom .. ). h< , ""'mot .... ,h. w.y ,hot. >«10:, 1'''''''''''' from th< ntjt.k.nd th." tho rot>«pttul. ""'Ily '0 or,i .. " 'h, in,';';bk (l ,h. rr.. (""" _"CJ. w" """"t p"'''''''' ""n fi", ue "",il '" ". ~A(E TO fAtE 0. n o _ , _<10<. io " '''''' (foo ..... .. ...... ~ ,.... lOooy ....' ... _God .... . . - .. Ilio ' , ..... io ......... 'or ...... . Dd - . . . . . .. itIf).buI "' .... _ o f ... ~ ..... Ii< boo .... _ ·r .. 01. .... _ _ ................... ,ofHio_por%··I' 7 .oor.. .. _ ..... _ _A'_ ---. -........ ... ...,.......... ....,-'...... or "'''''''''''_bf_ ' ... ."._........... __ . _ " ' • • Fo.. [)i(Inys;~~ 'hi!. P"""" ;. on .~ ORe, in wh "'" ,I>< 'r "0I>0I0 '" im.", ' hat hu .... n. opply to God that ... u.. fuJ at the ,,, .. of the . ..... , mu" b< finally ,bo,.Jc,ned AI ta.t, , .... "''''' .. cnm .. 10 _ _ G<.d .. 'he pnin' that all~ ... i ....... .wn ~ . .. .,.,. •• nd 'h,~. lik< ~"-. m l The Anthropomorphite ControverIJ ~ ,~~/ 'n~ n """' ,,_ .,......." "....... . H"",tvet. m'nd. do not .. wi""" 'm0t<" .."Iy, «r«io11r wht" 'he thinking r - i<>!&ntly. RnUtan<. to rotI · to th< .pirit.wt, o <11«1",. £"gn.n ) 8n>11P"""'"8 f-SYpl;'" """,Iu . nd Syt,.. (olk _ ... n( . cer_ tain A.di ... pooil< of Gon L:26·l7 , "Le! '" "",);0 ,,,,,t h8 mankiDd in oou imas<. O«OJdi", to Ml , .... opinion God iororp<>rOl and ha>. h~man furm. wt"l< . ........... "",,on 011 /00' ......... ," "P. So< .. , .. "PO"..:! .hot Bid,op Th«>phih.. of AI .ha. ;",-.;ghcd '5"i"ot ,t..- who I>< 10..... on,.n... ......... 'hoo< m< ,Iu. po,.;'' ' ' '''''', ........ " com"",,,, pan., m .. n,im<. h• ....,. 0<,~.11r Iu...... V anvy ld!he f~ of God." "'" a .. hile• ..,.",'" of Origen'" 'i>eoIdo.rnna,,,," of Orism', genet. oily "' .""port _ sit' IHIN' THE DIVINE '" .in'pl~ boing d ....... i... abou, ,h";. ""'n ' .... ,'ion'. in whtdo thty im'll' intding to , ........ inhibit,ng ..<m to pray. loon C... i,n '<'<0<10" an ...", in 10;' "oth Conf.",,,,,. ,h., c'p· nu of 'his .....,..n>.n' .nd 'h, ""m"" ."..:hmrn ' '0 tbri, 'mag< of God. H. "III tho .. I. of a monk ILImed s."p;"n, "''''' had IiV«l • lif< of dediat ,ed .".... i'y • ..:! di "'pli"". lkspi" 10" ag< . ..,...;" .M hol~ ~f., 100"""". h. ""''' linl, igno"n' 'If 'It"'p"b.n,ibl. m,d. no ....... It ... med on in~(i"" of i,, (dle« ....... nll • dir .... ro"tr.di"OO of tho s<;.irrur<~ H""' ....... "h.n, «r .. in <1<0<00 n.m«l Pho"n" , ... pt.ined ,hat ,h. "imal!< ,od 1ikrn<M" of God .... , b.- "M...tood in • • pi';'u,1 .. n .. (fo. God could 10'''"0 ""por<.li'y), ,b. old OLIn ftnalty pI'< io .nd >«<'I"ed "', ,• ..:hin&- I h' .... n' '0 ""1>0><1",, In' joy to . 1I in hi> rommu"i'y, who hod f< ,"""'. of 'hi..implt.mind«l bro'h< bum." im.", of God whi< "0«1 '" d .. ", Mor< him .. t.. p,oy«! .... 00" SO"' from Iili 10..". Sodd< mi.fo"un,! 'They'.., ,akrn my God .,...~ from m<. J h ••• no on. '0 hold On '0. ,nd I d"n', "now whom '0 .dor< or '0 ,tld""."~ " vi",. 1 id.. of God. ""'D 0"' only imagioed. w.o. if not ;mpouiblt... k." '''''ihl, diffl(ui< .nd < mind. t"",,'" .... .It. '0 ,,,.I AU luni ne and the Proble m o f the Invisible God Aufjll>tiD<" 'pprovaJ of one"",' lI.om.n . nkon"'" (in 'h< ,in" of K'~ NWtI.I) i, "'''';.'''''' with hi, 1I""oitiu" on "'1 to f... Cbrioti.w from tho ""'" of idola''}'' ""S""in, """n,«I in On< of h" ><,m"", ,"", idol, .nd im>"" hood n""""h.nd .I'd own prache. of inu5' ,LainUng ,"", 'h<J 'd why 'hry SO '0 ,to. tr<>ubl. of malrins ,."ain in"s.. , wh." ,10< mod.1 i< to "'i .... ... ""ar"''' .". t"'" .,,'" _'" ,hti, ,h 110 FACE TO FACE dircnly available 10 them, as in the use of the wn or the moon: «But since they can sec the sun, which is signified by the image of the sun, why do their turn their backs to what is signified, and their faces 10 the sign it is sign ified by?H He acknowledg~'1; that if pagans only made their images of things thaI were otherwise invisible, th~y might actually be acting in a logical manner, As it is, however, the action of offering wor~ ship or pra),er to an image of something otherwise I'isible or available is parallel to asking a favor from a ponrait, rather than from the actual person portrayed: How can you OX""C! him to he .. )UU, when YOII .b.1ndon him, and mm to ",me fahe and tot.H)· milkading image of him? It ', •• if )'()U wen' to the boo", of ",melanuowne. to btg for som",hing, and h. was standing jn hjs oourtj'ard whilo )UU turnw )'our b."k to him .nd f>cod hi, portrait; and if you not on1rroortd out your heart to. pj"u" and not to a man . but dj d '" in the rr~",,,,c of the man portrayed in the pi"ur~, wouldn't he a..ume )'0\1 WeT~ making fun of him. or put you d",,·n., "02y, and in any OaK haw )'0\1 thrown out of hi. hou",?~ But, as if suddenly realizing that his arguments might be used to justify Ihe visible images of invisible things for Ihe sake of prayerful petition, Augustine adds Ihal seeing thin gs and seeing God are two different operations. He tells his listeners that God "made you one thing to sec Ihese Ihings wilh , anolher wilh which he himself mighl be seen- fo, seeing these things he gave you the eyes in your head. for seeing himself he gave rou a mind-you cannOI therefore be allowed 10 say in Ihat inane way, 'I can't see him:» In the same way, Augusline continues, one cannot see a person's soul but can know that it exists from the eviden(e of its work to move and control the body." His argument here is llilrallded in a homily on the Gospel of John in which he distinguishes between seeing the visible miracles of Christ with the external eye and perceiving the lranS(endent and invisible reality 10 which those miracles point with the mind. By analogy, he contrasts the way one superficially sees the whole of a picture in onc glance with the fa" that one must read a text through to understand its meaning." Augustine's concern for protecting the invisibility of God is also evi· dent in his responses to severa Ileflers wrinen between 408 and 414. The first, written to a widow named Italica, offers some (omfort in h,'( lnss but at the same time refutes a popular idea that, in the resurrection, God will be seen by bodily eyes. He assures her that such an idea is absurd, since God is a sp irit and cannot be s,,.,n as a body. At the same time. he also reassures her-that a vision of God is promised as a reW'Jrd of f'lith. That vision will not, however, be a bodily one, but a spiritual one." He sim ilarly admonishes a layman named Consentius, who has trouble thinking of God as disembodied, like some abstract virtue (fo r example, '-~~"~lJ"""""""", , ,, ' .. )'0 ~ __ 0..... "'''"'' Mono _ ...... ,.., (L _ _ , _ ' - - \ -",,,,,,,,,-,, ",]00 • . 0 . . . . , _ -- .........,,.,..,.-.. ~,- ~ r.1_1_·'-'-'· ,_ O<-ot..,~ """'" _ ' ........... '"" 'La-,-..... '.J>Coo. -... '.. .... _ 'OI-''1eo. _ .......... ,Gc.--v _ -- '."00'01 __ ........ - ," . ... ' .. ,!C' _....... _ 10<.., ",-,,--""'1 '.1>_._. . . .",'" __ . '- __ . ""~ '-~ . . . . . . ..-___,s;, IHIN' THE DIVINE ,ish''''''''oc>' 0' piny). Aug"!!in . .dmi!> Ih. , it i. difl'KuJt M- hu ..... n' 10 ron«i,~ of . being "';lho.l • body. bta .... of l!>tif f.mili>rity "';lh vi, i"'<. bod,ly .hiogo. SIilI. h< ..ro. 'h< in.;'ibl<. inro,,,,,,,,I• • nd i"",,"tabl< Trini'y .. uobolUld<-d . nd omni.,.....n'. Thi, i, only known 'hrougb 'rue '''100 ond 001 'hmug./t nm. 1 apcri.n«.> Aug""in. ,h(-n "",h"d tht« k'nd, of .hi"" ,b.. """ b., 1«'" fif>!. octwd co"",· t (ha. hal'<"" bod ... bU'.r< m",,.11y concm»< m.n'oJ 'm ..V' thor "",uki giv< God It.. li~...... of. .ho. ,ho, ""'. .1."", lol..... Aug."i"" , ...... up ,h...m< them. in hi, ""'1">">< to fm'" • "",nun n.m«! " .. uli ..... App.o ..... tly. " .. uli ... hod . d« ~_. Augu"in. wroo<. book.l< thot II< I.. re, a llrd 0. Stn"~ God. in which It.....," .b.. Itu",",n, eon I« (".oJ. "'" . , "'" , .n I« ,h"un or 00;";'" h"' rotll<, wi.h .h.·SO'" of ,II< mind' .. 0 ......1"", i"...,,". f<>r 'h<1'). d~ingu ....... bodily ... ing:tnd minc. "'" bodi du, .loim tit" om,in 1"'<'00' h .... ....., God ~ 'pin" ,~ $Or ,h .. , ,uch up)t, i, in,po.,;bk. In.1t< ."",.i« ...... su>"n< >r«if" .. Uy f'om .h" Hc\" ...... Sc,iplu«1 in w~k~ God 'PP<'''. including 101<''''·' ."""ion du, · I...,. God foc. 10 fOOt and my .....1 ....... ve'itn(1nr,h,,'1 .. w.1t< Lo,d of_Hittiog "",,0 • ,hro ... • (I .. 6: I ). Not< ,It.ot thn< 1""'3<> a'" diffimh '0 roo, · din .. " ,,·',h tit. _minglr oppos«! d, im .b .. ·no on. h.. <",. . .U o.Il<, obj«" Of b<>o>. to \>«""" ",,;";hl<. No, con oom jU" Aug"""'" ,...".t"< ""h/y Au"'' ' . . ""-'I< .. ,ho, b '" FAU TO FAU Tb<1t. "I,mnl '" th. mI '" "'"' ,.,., '" 101", lole (" I' .. God ,ho only S<m. who .. do .. to ,ho F...... ·, h",n. who .... mad. him known·). AU5""il>< ,11uw> K>m. "su. ,lui tho Son woo ,h. _ who '»p ,Iu, =t,in adoption'" htmic> I'ht Pho,in;'DI). who anip • bqinninl '" 'ht Son . , 'ht humon bi"" from tilt If'qin. tto...vn. ho ron.in-. ,ho ~ i"3 of ,II< h.... """.,.,. "",...,., God" .... 110\ ,~ ci;"i",uUh .ht!'<non> of.ht Trini'y bu, ", ..,.bIi>h that no ..... "'n ... God;" ,ho Niln<so of God', dmni'y•• nd. mucro .... which i> ' mad< known by ""'n' ,1wI, "'"'Son" i.. ....,n lIlo«oflht mind 1Iun ,ht<JU,'A IOrm io_bul • pow ..... ""d. know,, ___ . Go.! .. nUsh' by l>o W&lk." ANI .,."" Ch. i$t .. .., Ioogor ..... in 'ht fItoh. bu, only in ...."...of ,bt Spiri'.~ in • ..-iified full;"". ~; ....""'" ontO < ... n_ Ci' ;ns .pin. AuJi .... int .... , ... ho, to anign thio 'pp<. nn .h. 'ish''''''' Bu,. Am_ So>n ""old I>< '" """'PI ,h. «otu", 01 ,I>< Fot"" i> invioibl. bot ,hot 01 ,I>< Son i> vioibi<. Htna ...... m.... ~ thot oil .h"" I'mo... or 'ht Ttinity . r< «j<Wly iovUibit ... <1 ." tht ""m' ..... , thty '»p< V- to ... God .. God io ( I lohn l:2). The unriJh'-'.. ""',"W. wiU not 1>< ..... 10 do ......... in Iht ...... _ioo. Only ,ho$< wlto . .. "d .... "nlt, n" ( Molt SoB) >hall r< . .. ;n(l...!ins ,11< [),nil. ' " ... Ind«l (mrn .""h ,""~ " .. i' hou', .ht;, ... ,h. -~- 'im<. ""'It Finally. 'pnlt.ins of hum,,,,,' ddi ... to 1ft GoJ. Aug"'ti", " 1111<0 tho •. 'Willy uNln1100d.lhi' i> not 10 .... portiall" • ..,.a of God. but nthtr ' 0 pt.«i .. Iht Divi", ..' Ult i!>< ...bI.J".,.! ,fie,- ,t.. ,..;", '" ,I>< .... n ottd ...... n Iht mind i, drown "'-'Y frnm all comal ....... wlliob i> wily ,h. So:rip,u' d tdtifr th,,, "no on. un ... ,he flO< of God , tid I.iv< •• On<. lb. mind i. ,un>«!"""*1" f,un> .nr """"y k ""~. his • oon 01 "",·ol·body np«o..a " milor '" dootb. which may hop- ,1><....,..,,, pen in ..... < of ..tv.""", ""'''y•• <X>ndi.;on .tt,i....:! by«n.in .. i~" prin, '" dooth wII< I",ftt.ion 01 .....Io' ion. li .. tho, d...:. ib< I... him . I,,, ... wiU ... hin> .. lot i'"I_Wh< Ilk< ,ho, of the . nsrl&. oro. w< dWl thm bt "1",1 10 tb<m" ,nd I>< obit to ... ,hinl!' tl\l, ...,. in 'hi> lift i"";";b!< , nd io "",,",ib!t. A" d In ian5""sr _old .... Lly tuv., upot! ,h. 'n,h""",morphi>' qyption monb. A...... tin .... ,to: "And wm ,ba, lEEINCTH E: DIVINE: 00, un. who <.n i".;,ibly ... God in,i,ibly <. n din g 1<> G<>li n. off... mOf< ";mpl • • • monil ion, ,b" • .!<,po" ,I>< m.oy .n,hropomolphitd.rkt",ns of God ,n Ih. Bibl<. GoJ do<> 00' h.,.., . ~i< ha> 00 lop 0' orm~ no 1:><.,..,.,. 0< h....h. In hi"h,'" "..,.« On I"""" Goi.r<1. h. «pI" n, ,hi> ond <"' "n go<> on I<> ..y 11K th;" .... God . ... no' ,I>< ..,., of fl"h bu, Son priol I<> ,I>< , ... .,... of , .... pu", h< ..... "od ,hi, i, n '.... ''''' of inw'""'on. Onl y lhoot who annot "&I"'" ,I>< i"",ibl<" .r< hdd Of II>< . i. ,hl. , 00 Ih", wp inlO iOOl.. ry. ~ E... n '" ""8u,'in. allo .... ,h. , II>< >crip'" ral ". p"..ctn ,h. '0 ,h..... " """""")n '"IlI!"" 'h" H" of ,h<s< Old T,,'. m... ' """'. ... """'. h~, dis· 'i"gui,h •• "" S" " io. from .orlie, Qni,,;. o 00 ,h •• ubi«'. ~.u ' 'S'"'''''' abou, ,h. invi>ioUi'y of ,I>< I)i.;in •• I>< r«il<> allow th;" ... ",>h.m·, .,.;~,o" _" '" ""' ....1 of ,ho Holy Trimly. ", . n ' rp<' '''''''' of ,I>< Do.in. Word wilh ,wo .nVl~ On tit< ",h.. h.nd. h< ",un,,,,.,J ,h. "'I1·r' .... I."t , ,"" ,h" pn>po...J ,h. or..in< WON .. ,I>< \,<""" . 1>1< ' 0 ...,.ibl. ,ncr",'"," ",",n I>< i"",n>1,on-o .i.w ,hoi rm of. hum ...nd arm' 10 Abraham •• Dd tho, il woold I>< impi . 0"'10 suF' Ih< ""cn. nll"bl •. ~ I",'g)"y GoJ """Id ha,~ J,m, ",,,n, by 'he "ory.~ t:.-b'"" ''''''p",,,,",n of Ih. ' Pr<"'''co, "f t,;.od in ,h. ltd. ...... Scrip'" ..... "nl ik ir"'.....·• Of Tatolli. ,,·,. do<> """ , n>«v 0"' of. pokrroi< wilh COO" ... 01"<1'<0 from .n ."Iy ..lorl 10 ", .. I>li,h ,h. d,!lin<1ioo of ,10« Pmon' of II>< Tri"iry >pi"" • ~. [i.1n ~. .. muis of l,.iaIt '" F.UO<"bi ..... '" "."" 10' ,,-hom ) ,h. proph .. "'"ally wh< ..", (,om Ih. Goop. 1of lobo .... id."« Ib" "'" 0"< ( md"d ; n~ l,.i. hl "" ..... __ ,lot Untq.:.II.n God. f."""i", 'nsi,.. lhol II>< P"'1'i>«od«1 '" hom. " .i<w.• o4 ho: """ nn ins,,, "''> 'h, Wo...:l (. od not (;oJ ) "'00 . pp.. ~ 10 "'braham. I..", I.. ob, Mo ...... nd E""id. fOrlh« 001;"! 'hot , .. ~ of ,1><... pp'' ' ........ .... d'>lin Ib<m 1o I>< ,bl. ''' .... o.fo,d>.tnd iu ;"",m," ..... p<. The "' ..... 'Pl""""'" (bu""ng ,,,i,,,, """i!eo","," ,h. 1>«."" _'"'y ,"'t ....".. 'h, ,.w «, ,h..r, for,,,,,, !> ,ho, ;, 114 FACE TO FACE bush Or pillar of cloud) inspired fear and wonder, but they also pro- tected the people from a sight they could not bear." In Augustine'~ opinion, however, claim ing that the Word appeared 10 these proph<.'ts and patriarchs undermined the equality, shared natures, and common activity of aU three members of t he Godhead, Augustine discussed the hospitality of Abraham in some detail in his treatise On the Trinity. Po inting out the problem of plural manif..station (three men) bUI singular address (" wrd"), he too interpreted the slory as a figure of the Trin it y and CQrreCled those (for example, Justin , [reneaus, and Tertullian) who maintain that while two were angels, one of them was the Son, ~visible in his own proper sub.tance even before he was born" since "only the Father is referred to by the words 'to the invisible and only God'~ (I Tim 1:17). Such a view was impossible in Augustine's opi n ion because the Son could not have been found in human form prior to his incarnation: «Surely he had not already 'emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, made in the li keness of men and found in the condition of a man'" ( Phil 2:7). Moreover, he noted, none of the three appeared to be superior in stature, age, or authority to the others. And, while Abraham addressed the one who remained as uLord," Lot bowed low before the other two and greeted them as Lords as wel L Th us Augustine concluded that all thret' were angels but that they also served as a figu re of the Trinity. The one that remained with Abraham tepresen!ed the Fat her wh ile the two that went on to Sodom the Son and the Holy Spirit, for t he latter are said to be sen t by the One who is never sent (the Father)." Augustine's refusal to set' the manifestations of God found in the O ld Testament as actual appearances of the Word was mot ivated by his resistance to any kind of distinction in th e Trin ity and to a differentiation between visible and invisible Persons tha t was untenable to him . Moreover, he rejected literal read ings of the texts a~ if God really appeared as some kind of material form. The full or true nature of the Divine simply cannot be set'n. Such a position is demonstrated in his subsequen t analy~is of the other stories of God's t hWl'ha nies, to Moses in particular (for exam ple, Exod 3:2 and 33:21-23), as perhaps manifestations of anyone of the three, since "right- minded faith understands these words of the supreme and supremely divine and changeless substance in which the o ne and <.mly God is both Father and.wn and Holy Spirit. All these visions, however, were produced through t he changeable creation subje<:t to the changeless God, and they did not manifest God as he is io himself, but in a symbolic manner as times and circumstances required." " In other words, God, whether as Father, Son, or Spirit, can be seen but only in a form chosen by the Divine will and never in its full ness, in appearances granted out of consideration for human weakness. And thus, while earlier thin kers allowed visibility only to the Son, in the fifth century Augustine, at least, eliminated it as a particular characteris- I EE ING THE DI VIN E 115 tic of only one member of the Trinity, yet he opened up the poss ibility that humans might see symbolic manifestations of the whole Godhead. And, although he doesn't have this in mind, we may spe<:ulate whether these manifestations could include visua l art. At the end of his great work City ojGod, he speaks about the kind of vision with which the saints will see God in the world to come, when the flesh will have become spiritual and bodily sight will be transformed into spiritual sight. Citing Paul's daim that our present insight is only partial (as th rough a mirror or in a riddle- t Cor 13: 12), he Can also cite Paul's promise that someday it will be uface to face" as the holy angels already see God. Of course, th is vision will be of a different order from the kind of~ tl eshly" or corporeal sight we now possess. God will be seen in the future time by eyes that are trans formed and possess the ability to disce r n immaterial or spiritual truth and then "perhaps God will be known to us and visible to us in the .sense that God will be spiritually perceived by each one of us ;'1 each one of us, perceived in one another, perceived by each in themselves. God will be seen in the new heaven and the new earth, in the whole creation as it then will be; God will be seen in every body, by means of bodies, wherever the eyes of the spiritual body are directed with their penetrating gate.""'"' Here, in a sense, Augus tine adapts the Pauline notion that all creation reveals God and in all creation (includi ng the human race) one may see God. At the same time, August ine insists that Paul's prom ised future vision of God will be a kind of disembodied percept ion- a sight received in the mind, nOl through the eyes. Portrayals of God and the Trinity in Visual Art of the Third and Fourth Centuries Although the question of God 's visibility to the human eye was a subject of much diKUssi on by theologians, almost no surv iving and parallel argumen ts address the related impossibility of representing God (the Father), the pre-i ncarnate Word, or the Trinity in visual art. Presumably, theologians who discussed the invisibility of God assumed their argu ments to preclude art istic portrayal in any form but particu larly as showing Goo with human features. In other wo rds, the possibility may simply have been unth inkable and so not raised. On the other hand, if they were aware of some visual art that portrayed the Supreme God , they did not di rectly attack it. IHspite this lack of comment, however, artists' workshops, beginning in the fourth century, in fact produced a number of images that were meant either as actual figures or as symbolic representations of God , the visible Wo rd, or the Trinity. The most obvious iconogra phy, the popular presentations of Jesus healing and working wonde rs, such as we fi nd so metimes rather crowded together on ea rly Christian sarcophagus 116 r~ FACE TO FACE 12Tho Holy T....-.t)< I no. (t""'p.. aon ~~~ RI.bIev (c. 1370--1OJ) (PhoIo; Trotyoro,. Gok)< ~, Rvsw.. 60 odg.""", Nt l.tI reliefs, might have been a type of visual response to the writings of theologians such as Athanasius, who writes that although God is invisible, God's power as much as God 's image is manifest in the person and works of Christ, including cleansing lepers, healing the blind, and changing water to wine." These and o!h<.'T miracles mentioned by Athanasius are frequently represented on early fourth-century .arwphagi as well a5 in catacomb frescoes and fifth-century mosaio; {see fig. 6(}, p. 143J, On the otht'r hand, certain representations, considert'd alongside the extensive discussions of human inability to "see" God, suggest a level of discontinuity between popular practice and theological argum .. nt, or perhaps a perceived difference between artistic representation and verbal discourse. While it is possible that such images were so rare that they were unknown to these theologians, their existence should have been disconcerting to those who believed that such a thing should not or could not happen. Abraham's three visitors at Mamre was a well-known subject in By tan tine icons, and visual representations of that scene are still widespread today, alt hough usually interpreted only as a symbol of the Trinit y and not as an actual visual presentation of it. The early fifteenthcentury panel painting by Andrei Rublev is the most famous of these representation s (fig. 42), but there were earlier models, including a IEEING TH E DIVINE 117 number of twelfth-century Bible illuminations. According to trad ition, a painting of this s.:ene also hung in the southern aisle of the church Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, over a table made from a tree cut from the very grove at Mamre." Possibly the earliest known representation of the story occurs in the fourth -century among the frescoes of Rome's Via Latina catacomb. This catacomb contains sewral other innovative narrative images, including Jacob's dream of the ladder and Jacob blessing Ephraim and Manasseh. Alx>ve the image of Jacob's dream is a fresco showing a seated Abraham (calf at his side) greeting three men dressed in !\Lnies, mant les, and sandals (fig. 43). We cannot be certain that this image is, in fact, any reference to the Trinity, but its proximity to the scene of Jacob's dream snggests that it might haw been meant to represent a divine theophany. On the other hand, given ih placement with other ~ new~ narrative s.:enes from the Old Testament, it may be merely a single image within a Genesis cycle. However, the similarity of the three visitors also snggests that the interpretatinn of the narratiw as found in the documentary materials might have been incorporated into the iconography. I n addition to this possible symbolization of the Trinity in the iconography of Abraham's hospitality, we also have evidence of other early, but now lost, parallels. EUS<.'bins of Caesarea mentions a drawing (graphc) set up at the traditional site of the visitation, a place honored by locals as a sacred place, where the trt'<.' ( Euseb ius calls it a terebinth, rather than an oak) can still be seen. And those who were en tertained by Abraham are represen ted in the picture sitting one on each side of a central figure, "Our Lord and Savior," who surpasses them in honor and "thus in perso n from that time sowed the seeds of holiness among mortals, putting on a human form and sha pe, and revealed to the godly ancestor Abraham who he was and showed him the mind of his Father."" This description actually comes in his argument that Almighty Fig. ~J.Abr.tlam ord h , three >$\00"$. V.. Rome (ClThe~" C01 ~ :on-t> Est uu.. Ca~ Soooty. Photo, 8r0ttm0n ~ 118 FACE TO FACE God could not have appeared, but only ~our Lord and Savior,» who could put on human shape and form in order to reveal himself to Abra ham and show forth "the mind of his Father:" The scene also appears in the mosaic cycle of biblical scenes of the Basilica o(Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome (ca. 435) (fig. 44). Here, the scene is divid...:! into two registers {Abraham appears three times in the composition}. At the top of the pand, we see Abraham bowing before his three visitors and makinga gesture of greeting. The three are dre~sed alike and have identical faces, but the central figure is distinguished from the other two by being surrolUlded by a mandorla (a full body halo ~im ; lar 10 the almond·shaped frame of light around the image ofChri~t in the transfiguration ).ln addition. the central figure makes a gesture of spt't'ch and faces directly forward, while the oth er two are slightly turned in a quarter profile. Below and on the left we see Sarah preparing food (three pyramid-shaped cakes) for the visitors while Abraham instructs her ("make ready quickly three measures of choice flour, knead it, and makecakestGen 18:6). r" « _Tho HO$pfIoify eI Abnham, e>o<. ~~. of SM.1A Mon. Mat:iio e, Rome (I'Iloto: SaWArt R.e.oun:e). SHIN'TIH DIVINE 00 ,h, ""'.... rigM, ,II< 'hI« mi,,,,,.Ii, "nda ell< Un " • "blt ... ...;,h Sanh', ",kc>, wIIik Abr.h.m I<J'Vt> 'hem. oIk-ring. pa"., ... ilb ,I>< ",,,,«I coif In fmoo <>I ,I>< ,obi<, ""'..,., an u'" (p«ltops fdlrd ",i,b mil .... i"". it> colo, .pp.... '" b< wIIit<: Grn lS:S), In ,hi, rom""';'ion. ,n. ,h,.. .01", ha ......... ~~ drnhcol ~.nd .I""" bu, 'he «n,t>! r.g.. .. i. no, 'hi> eim, .p«ioU y 0<, 0(( by. rnandod. and m«t in "'" uPl'" ",""'ring, ... migh' "' • • dud. rh. , 'h, .i,o...:I ,,,di,;on h., ,.H«I On I..,i." >r<>m' ,I>< SoD . nd ,_ .ngrh- ••hhoush "nlik< Rubl .... ·' f.mou, 'm. s<, th, • • w,.,mi"".io)ni" Trini.y (lite Son . nd SpO,i' .. inf""" In ,ho FOllin) •• 1.l>ough _h • con" ..... >«Tn, hi5hly unlikfiY!l"'" thor dot< ,nd g Undrr S;,,, .. III (wbo .... ~0Nl 'h, dI Abr>h.m·, h0or''''"'Y i> onl. on, .mong ' ... bok pro· gram o( rno .. i« in Son .. Mar .. M'Mi""" ""hkh ",.. n, .h .. in",· pming ,h. m<>n,ng o( .h" ~ ough' 10 mol""" ,,,wid«•• ion <>I ,h .... COn',,' .nd C)~1< of iron"!!,,phic pro~ .. m. MOl< ,h.n ' .... n'y )"C... ago, Suz.:onn< Sl",n . rgued ,hal ,I>< rno ..i" o( ""h .h. n.-.-c .nd'he "'''"'rh,1 ,,'h hhc ' p$< c ,jn,r<>y«!" 'hc ,,,d of 'h, ,hi,I<,.IIh C""''''f .nd hul 'on1Oin«l • n",num,n •• 1r'8"'" of ~1>,~ wi, h r.. u. on h<<wo 0" p"""'yp' of M . ry. ~ Th. "o,i .. oflh. Old Tes"''''''''. indud..,J in ,h. 0" .. ,11 d",,· ,,,ion, (",,,10"'11. Thooo",. ,b. <>I Ah"h.m '0.1 hi, v;,i'''10 i, 'M" ,00"' lb, promi« "I v'<>gible Divin. Word. Fo, , .. mpl<. , fig"" ' ppr>" in ,I.. "",,ooo', 11«..... . nd in 0 1",,,.)"1 of ,h. mon ... wm,ns '0 l.ro.li .... in.1>< .... iIh.m abo iD !lCV of San .. M.". M~r<. induding 0 Ian< "n ,h. m,in a"'" r .n . ngel. H"", Ahf. · Itom i.;howo in • PO""'" aim"" ;&nOOoI '0 b" grttl'''S of thor 'hI« .o!l'l_ {"""l" hrr< bi. h.nd. 0'" "'...-red)... ". t.u..~ belo", 0 of • ,...,.,,,," bolrung' clilld "'ilb • bolo , " d ""'" "...-r bi> h<>d, i"" to.ho 1«. of 'hc ""'""her on. of hi> 'hr« So><>": ")"0'" wif. S. rah "ill h .... a ..,n." Th. ""m.n holding the Ch,i!t cbild in ,,,. m.,..i<: i, none ",1><, ,Iton So",,- holding her gr..,.gr. nddlild, wh ik Abr>h.m finolly l<"O.>pim ,h. m•• ning of ,II< _ n' 'hOI l '.'h.. ,,,. ,.1., m<><>"' ...... ""0< ,ho, 'h, ' rP<"" ""'""hal, ko""'" v,,,,,,, '" 120 FACE TO FACE r" is.Abnham aM ", 1M:< Marnrt'. Thus, Spain argut's, Sarah has become Mary's alltitype (the "mother of many nat ions~-Gen 17:16) just as haac is Jesus'." Roughly a little more than a cen tury later, a portrayal of Abraham and his visitors was set into a lunette above the presbyterium in the Basilica of San Vitale in Ravenna (fig. 45). Although in many ways very different from the composition in Santa Maria Maggiore, it also has two parts. On the right is the scene of Abraham's offering of isaac, with the lamb at Abraham's feet and the lland of God staying his upraiSl:d knife. In the ,{'nler of the mosaic, we see the three visitors seated a1 a tabl ... under the oak tree, The table holds three loaves, marked wi th crosses (perhaps res{'mbling th ...... ucharistic br ... ad s... rwd during th ... actual liturgy). Abraham holds out a platter with th ... calf, and Sarah , on the left, watches from a smal l booth with a bemused expr=ion. Th e faces of the three atth ... tabl ... are again id ... ntical, as ar... thar dr... ss and this tim ... also their haloes. In this presentation all three visitors gesture to the bread on the table, as if calling our att ... ntion to it. And, while th ... other hand of the guest on our left is hidden, the persons in the center and right make particular gestures of blessing with their right hands-their index and third ting... rs ar ... ext ... nd ... d whil ... th ... fourth and fifth fing... rs curl down to touch the palm or thumb. The equality of the three and th eir function as symbols of the thrt'<' distinct persons with on ... shared natur... may be intentionally expressed by the composition. Here, however, the iconograph y also points to the importance of the ... ucharistic off<.'Ting mad ... directly b... low, at the altar in th ... center of th ... presbyterium. Across from the lunette of Abraham, Sarah, and Isaac is ont' that shows both Mechizedek, the priest-king, offering his gift of bread and wine (Gen 14: 18) and Abel offering his lamb (Gen 4:4 ) before an altar prepared as if for a Christian liturgy. But even earlier than these scenes of Abraham and his visitors, Christians employed visual representations for God the Father that were both less symbolic and more anthropomorphic, although still being curi ously amtract-a disembodied hand, reaching down from the sky. Pos- """"" mi<J.6th <en co. rr<>SaK. San Vrt1le, ~ (Photo:Ao.rthor~ IEEING THE DIVINE 121 sibIy drawn from Jewish prototypes (the divine hand also appears in the synagogue at Dura Europos), it frequently appears in s.:enes of Abra ham's offering of Isaac and the giving of the tablets of the law to Moses (fig. 46) and continues into the fifth and sixth centuries." Gregory of Nyssa des<:ribes a pain ting of the sauifice of Isaac in some detail, includ ing Isaac's bound hands and piteous expression and, as he says, ~already the edge of the sword touches the body, when a voice sounds unto him [Abraham] from God, prohibiting tile deed."" Gregory's description does not tell uS how God's voice would be portrayed, but we might assume it was indicated by a hand reaching down from the sky." Oddly, the divine hand rarely appears before the si ~ th century in scenl'S of Jesus' baptism, where the descending dove is shown according to the narrative, although it appears somewhat later, beginning in the si~th century. This is particularly interesti ng since, in the two prior cases (the offering of Isaac and the giving of the law), the I'oi(l' of God is no more signilicant to the narrative than it is in the story of Jesus' bapt ism, and because in Western medieval and renaissance art, the iconography of Jesus' baptism became a prime locus for iconography of the Trinity (sometimes with a hand of God, but often with an anthropomorphic Iigure of Go Fig. 0\6. t-1o>e< rec ~ tho ia'w ...., Abr...... m oIIeeo Pio Cn.-ti¥>o. VOIOn Gty (F'>oIo; ~-, 12> FACE TO FACE addition to his usefully distracting and didactic gallery of biblical scent"S and portraits of the saints, Palliinus also commissioned an apse mosaic that portrayed the Trini ty for his basilka a\ Nola in the early fifth century. Conscious of the error of represt'llling the infinite and unknowable divine nature as having human features but stil l wan ting to find a way to enlighten and inspire his congregation, Paulinus substituted symbols for figurative repr..sentations of God. In a letter to his friend Severus, Paulinus poet ically praised the result: "The Trinity .\hi De< out in all it' my'l~ry. Chri.t is ... pr=nt~ by. lomb. th~ Father', vo;';e thu nde,.., forth fT<Jm the sky. and the Holy Spirit Aow> down in the form of. dove. A wreath', g!u ,ni" 8 drcle surround, the ero .., and .round thi . ci",le the 'I>o,des form a ring, represented by. chorus of do>.... The holy unity ohhe Trinity merge. in Christ, but the Trin ity has ituhreefold symbolism . The P.,u hd. voia and the Spirit show forth God, 1h" ero.. and the lamb procl.im the holy vlct;m. The purple and the pal m I>o;nt to king.h ip and 10 triumph. Christ him .. lf, the Rod. 'land. On Ihe rock of the ch un;h, and fro m this rock fou r pla>h ;ng foun tain. flow, Ih. evangelim, Ihe living ,tream. of Chris.. " F~ 'f7. ()orn" me .... ~ "'" hand of God ~ • wr,,.\h i-om "'" ith C<11 . CE bopti.tery of 5arl Giu.tanni in Forno. Nopie< (Photo; ~-) The Trinity, portrayed as a lamb, dow, and something that would haw symboli1.ed a voice (or pe rhaps the hand of God), was based on the biblical descriptions of Jesus' baptism (including John's reference to Christ as Lamb of God, John 1:36). Paulinus's rcfcren.e to the image of a voice is similar to Gregory of Nyssa's descript ion of the !Kene of Ab raham offering Is aac and, based on the frequent portrayals of Abraham and Isaac with the hand o f God, it seems reasonable to assume that the divine voice was represented with a hand in both Paulinus's apse and Gregory's painting. However, according to Paulinu$, somewhere else within the composition a noss represented Christ, twelve doves the apostles, and the four riwrs of paradise the evangelists. The Bishop of Nola, proud of his portraits of sain ts and prophets elsewhere in the church, also chose to substitute symbols for portraits of the apostles or evangelists in the apse of his basilica. The use of doves to represent the apostles can be seen elsewhere, for instance in the early sixth-,entury mosaic from the baptistery of Albenga, wh ich also uses a triple chi - SEEING THE DIVINE rho monogram to symbolize the Trinity. And, just as the lamb often represents Christ (as in Pau li nus's basilica and in the dome of San Vitale-fig. 48 ), sheep or lambs frequent ly stand in for the apostles as well, as in the apse of the Basilica of San Apollinare in Classc (fig. 86, p. 166), or in the sb;:th·century apse of the Basilica of Saints Cosmas and Damian in ROllle. Arguab)y, a different kind of nonfigurativc presentation of the Trinity is the image of the empty throne with a crown or cross set upon its thick cushion, with ~ descending dove often hovering ~bove. One of the earliest examples of this comes from the mosaic program of Santa Maria Maggiore, but stunning examples may be seen in Ravenna, in the Basilica of SaIl Vitale, and both the Arian and Orthodox baptisteries (fig. 4'1). The absence of a figure rderring to the Holy Spirit in this case, however, is innplicable if this is a symbol of the Trinity, although the throne may be understood as a symbol for God, The image may be a more specific reference to the kingdom of hrawn, and the ascended and enthroned Christ as the Lord of that kingdom, with its parallel in 123 f ill· "8- t....."O of God. modoo/M <en Cl. m.,.." n the pt'elOy. to")" \lAcJ l SlnVItOIe. ~ (pt,oto; Author). FACE TO FACE 124 Fig. 49. ero.. >UrTOOU:l\ed on ~ , ,,,,.e, eorty 6th --, <en."'" me ; "< .. "'" dome 0( the ....... 0 bopt. more figuratiw images of the enthront'd Christ, like that seen on the Junius Bassus sarcophagus (fig. 14, p. 34), Despite these efforts to arrive a1 typological, symbolic, or nonfigura- tive visual images of God, the Divine Word , or the Trinity, certain attempts also were made in the fourth centuTrlo portray the triune God in Ihe form of tllre ... human-appearing males. Some e~amples of these images showed the Trinity receiving the offerings of Cain and Abel. For FOS 50. c.on oner>tng u....r gift> to God, 4th << Muse<> Pio cn.w..." V>1.On Gtr (PhoI",~), instance, on a sarcophagus now in the Vatkan Museo Pio Cristiano, a bearded male wearing a tunic and pallium and seated on a rock receives an offering from the two brothers; onc has a basket of fruit, the other holds a lamb (fig. 50). Tne ~arded figure makes a gesture of blessing over Cain's offering of fruit and grain- the same gesture made by the figures in the hospitality of Abraham mosaic descr ibed above (two fin gers extended, the other three curled back to the palm ). Behind his head are cut (in low relief) two other faces that might be interpreted either as onlookers (two angels!) or the other two Persons of the Trinity. If this was intended as a representation of the Holy Trini ty, then the Father's older (bearded) visage, as well as the distinctions among all thre<.> profi les, may be signi fi cant, perhaps implyi ng a subordi nationist or Arian Trinity. Or, if this is an image of God blessing the offering of Cain, then IEEING TH E DIVINE 125 Fis- 51, 'itt. cen. u. ~ go» '" do rN1e5 t"" "'""'"" Amique (l'ho the story in Genesis has been undermined in the image for some unknown reason. Later, as in the mosaics programs of San Apollinare in Classe or San Vitale, only the offering of Abel is depicted (while in a fourth -century fresco of Cain and Abel in the Via Latina Catacomb, God is not depicted )." Strengthening the identity of the above image as a portrayal of the Trinity (as opposed to God and two angels ) are the representations of the Trinity on two other sarcophagi from approximately the same date (early to mid-fourth century ). These images appear to depict the Trinity creating Adam and Eve. One of these is now in the Muste de l'Arles Antique (and may be the older of the two ), and the other is in the Museo Pio Cristiano in the Vatican. Both of them, double- registered sucophagi, ha'·e the image of a seated male in the upper left corner, joined by two other standing male figures, pe rhaps meant to represent the Holy Spirit, the Son {figs. 51 - 52) . In both cases, the«Father~ has a full beard, but, in one instance (the Aries example ), the ~ Son" is beardless while the "Spiritn has a dipped beard and shorter hair than the Sor=pn.- Fis- S 2,"~ Il"'.. 'Ith c en. c.E, 1'1IJ= p;" Crittiot>o, Vaticon City (PI>oto; """'" 126 F~ 53. DeuitAtlos ...-eopi'>. vo. "'" TriNry v.,.,,"i Adwn ..-.d ~ (PhotcxAuthor). r" 5•. Deuit the T...".y ~Adwn.ndE~ , V>tian ~IK s.ro~ ~, (Phot<>Authof). FACE TO FACE IEEING TH E DIVINE Father (fig. 53). On the Vatican sarcophagus, the Son and Spiri t bear more resemblance to the Father (fig. 54). Before this group are two diminutive nude figures, Adam and Eve at their creation. The Son puts his right hand on the head of Eve in each of the scenes (in one case Adam is still lying on the ground ), and the Father makes the nOW familiar gesture of blessing." On the Arles sarcophagus, the apostle Paul also appears in the scene, as if presenting the kold Adam» to the " new Adam.~ The images of the Trinity are presented in some CaSeS as identical and in others as having different facial types---either older and bearded or younger and beardless. The fact that the central figure is seated while the others stand suggests that these latter two a re the ones engaged with the world as agents or messengers of the Father (his «right and left hands" }." Given the date of the images (m id-fourth century ), the explanation for their age or facial distinction s may depend on whether the prevalent theology emphasized the identity and coeternity of the Persons of the Trinity Or tended to subordinate the Son and Spirit to the FMher. A Nicaean version of this iconography arguably would show the three faces as identical, while a pre- Nicene version would present the Son and Spirit as younger than the Father. The Son Or Logos figure may also be shown as identical with or old er than the figure of Christ elsewhere in the composition, arti stically capturing another theological idea. On one hand, the flesh taken in the in carnation must be 127 FI&- 55.Adorn ..-.d ~ WIth a..ist./l.ogo5 Or> 41/1 cen. CE Owi5ti&n ~ vpI , agu> in the t-'Meo Pio Cri City (PI>oto:AoJthoo") 128 F,&- 56. Det.;o;( Ador.uoo 0( the ""Ii 0<1 the Me. ~ (I'hoto;AlJthor). FACE TO FACE acknowledged as younger than the Eternal Word, but, On the othe r hand, the ~face~ of Chris! is the «image~ and revelation of God. The face of Adam (and also possibly even Eve) may also bear a likeness to the logos or Son, as ",<.'II as to Christ, the new Adam (compare figs. 54 and 55). lust below these Trinity representations, on Doth of the sarcophagi, are representations of the adoration of the thT"" magi. In paralJel pos;. tion 10 God the Father, Mary is shown, seated in an almost identical chair, while a male figure, perhaps Ilalaam, Joseph, or even the Hol y Spirit stands behind in the position of the same figure above (fig. 56). The jlUtaposition of these images suggests the story of the original nealion and the recreation of Adam in the incarnation; thus, the whol ... composition may refer to th ... economy of salvation (old and new creation, old and new Adam-which may account for Paul's appearance on the Aries sarcophagus), In addition to this, however, at least one interpreter argued that this image of the magi also suggests the doctrine of the Trinity, either that they symbolically represented the Trinity (in their number and appearanc... ) or that they, themselves, had a thwphany of the Trin ity (each of them seeing a different Person )," IEEING THE DIVINE This tradition has beeo hard to pio down, but it may be related to ao Armenian Infancy Gospel that reroun ts a legend of the three, each having a different vision of t he Christ child (as im'arnate Son, heaven ly commander,orsuffering sacrifice-a vision that emphasizes differenl aspects of Christ rather than the three Persons of the Trinity}." We should note that in the iconography of the two sarcophagi the first of the magi points to a group of t hree stars or disks, rather than to a single star, but that his pointing index finger also draws our eyes up to the image of the Trinity on the upper register. The iconographic message is conveyed through the arrangement and relationship of the images of creation and incarnation , fall and redemption. Mary and Eve are above and below,just as the Logos who prC'Sents Eve to the Father can be seen as a child on the lap of the new Eve, his mother Mary. That child, the new Adam , is then greeted by a trinity of guests, not unlike the angelic visitors to Abraham, but in this case the visitors are mortals and the host is divine. Such a dogmatically sophisticated iconographic program suggests that at least so me artisans, clients, or viewers Were conscious of the way visual art may convey a complicated idea in a visual rather than verbal idiom. It also tells us that making an image of God (or at least a visual metaphor for God) was not universally held to be impossible or blas phemous. At the same time, the iconography of God did not present a portrait of God so much as a representation of God doing a particular work-.:: reating Adam and Eve or receiving the gifts of Cain and Abel. Even so, at the end of the fourth cen tury, the anthropomorphic pic torial representation of God the Father goes underground until the seventh or eighth century in the West and almost permanently in the East. At the same time, the portrai t of Christ, along with images of the saints, begins to emerge and in a short time becomes a dominant moti f of Christian iconography. The representation of the hospita lity of Abra ham remains, especially in the East, but it is understood to be a symbol of the Trinity and not an actual representat ion of it, while the image of God as bearded old<.'T man disappears for several centuries. A condem nation of any presentation of God in actual visual art is specifically argued, finally, in the early eighth century in John of Damascus's treatise 011 Holy Image>: Fo, if "'.. w~re !o make an image of the invisible God, We would really $in; fo' i! i. iml"",ible to depict one who i. in of human beings .nd regard them and wncratc lh""' •• gods, we would be !ruty ,"cril<:giou,. But We do none or!hese thing •. r"(lr if we m.ke.n im.ge of God who in hi. indfabl~ goodn= w.n", inc.rna!e .nd was "",n uI"'n earth in !he fIt,h, .nd tived among huma" •. and . .. umN !h. na1ure and density and fo,m and colo, offle.h, we do nO( go .may. Fo' wolong to see hi. form; as the divine al'0 129 FA(£ TO fA(£ mi"... ..,j • -" JI"UI<.""""" .. ,... ........,. ........ IIor thr iok&«t. vmly w..L u .... """ '" """ b.,."d thr bod'if... ,10< dl .... G....,.,. Thro""""" h;.'< """,1m> gf idolot'1 U>d tl>< dr.'i., injul>Wibl, for.ny hu,,",n 10 malt on i.... <,i, .. (Xu, H I . _ M,*, r<mind. ,he l5ro)'01' from 'h< midio the !two beet..., th<}' ...... p .. 'irubrly pro ... 10 idoLo'f)' 0., ......... _ ,lit otl><, t..nd. .... obit 10...,;.,t ...... .,"'" r...,.;ngl"t«iv<< di,i"" "'Ul'< "P''' from ,h. im. . John. , "';dint .i>"" ~ .. 'iolU of lb. fi .... Po....., 01 the lfizlity _ It.< a.riJ,"'~ ..."!' of rtpodL..,ing ,I>< lin of idol ..ry. Ch,i"".. do noo mai:< i""F' of God 1>«>01< lb<}'.1'< 1Ur< .."" way ,Iu, Adun .. ius _mtd 10 dr. ... fuom the io of OriJhn. li'" A""' ...... "" ""' ..... di>,i",,",n btl ......... ,I>< ;""","bIt God oT Trini.),. and ,lit vioibl< I",",.", On. wooa .... '0 hu ...... in , ....bl<. rltysial. ,nd """p<>",Im.m .., ,Iw 1hrr migM fi ...11J ... and Q)mO ' " know. Otbn monifwncut q'" ,nd doJ«>.", it _ .iollt p<1'miooibk ,nd btrw/it;'L Th. im'g<." &.il >0)'>. r<)' lund in' o hi. ,id< (Iohn ».24· 19). ,Iu, Bu,. ,Iu, "';g'" 1"""'" ,bti, rum....,-ms .uo... FIVE Portraits of the Incarnate One Al TH £ previous chapters have argued, ao;ide from the f~·w anthro- pomorphic appcarances of the First Person of the Trinity in the latc fourth century, God the Father was universally asserted 10 be inaccc\.Sibk \0 human gaze. On the other hand, the Second Person, "the image of the invisible God" (Coi l: 15) might be peTrei,-cd, at least ill certain lim iled ways, according 10 various thrological arguments aboulthc divine activity (and presence) in both creation and redemption . Furthermore, God is known, prior \0 the incarnation, through God's deeds, as beheld by the prophets. According to Christian dO(trinc, the Incarnate Word cam.:- into the world as a human !x-ing (Jesus ehr;5I) and shar<.'d all the aspects of ordinary human existence induding an outward form (face and body) that could be .seen and recognized in hi~torical time and ~pace. And so, in contrast to the rarc reprcscntatiolls of the Father or the Holy Spirit, Jesus (as the human manifestation of the Word) regularly appcars in Christian visual art from thc late third century onwards, first as a figure in narrative images (performing the dc"eds or wonders that rewaled the divine naturc) and then- at the end of the fourth ccntury- in a portrait image that showed his face alone. As Ath anasius e"plained in his treatise on the incarnation, the invisible God had become fuHy visible in and through Christ, so that humans might fina!ly.see and comprehend their dh·ine potential and recognize the true works and nature of God. [n addition to ColI :15, key New Testament texts were cited in support of thc claim that IcsusChrist TCvealed the hwisibk- God (the Fathcr), not only through his teaching but also through his appearance. For instance, while Jesus says in John 6:46, «Not thM anyonc has seen the Father exccpt the onc who is from God: he has seen the Father," he saw; later ( in 12:45), «And whoe.-er se 131 FA([ TO FA<[ 'sn""· ... d", hi".," ,)0 you ..,. bd .... ,hat r .m in IIw: h .Iw: • • Dd IIw: htlw:, .. in rn< F...... wtu. dwdll in "'" d<>c$ h" W<>Itu..' AIxordin, 10 II..... .... t .. ·...,;ng· r....... .l.. , '0 co mp~~'ho: ond i •• i.i1ok [)~;, ·10 .. plo'" o. int<rp""" ratlw:. than. "'W< .m of John ,. contrast"'" vnbo ginD<0< GospoI J>I" "'8'" p.... n' I..,u, .. mort than.n.nsr! '" propl>< OC1u.o1 ...... ,~ .. iom of ,ho: On< wIIo ' dwcl"'in him, whoo< fa«.how> the ~ of G<>d (1 Co, .,6), Such ''1Iu"..."" ha.... imm ..... implicl.t ...... C/>risti.n iconogra. phy_J..... .....ooubt«ily had , hum.n f""" ,ha, «>IIld b<..." onJ _ __ niU .... n.. ,;.,. of en,;" u. ')'DIboIic Iorm .. Good Sh . . ~Ib of God could b< .~ndol> ..... n .. 'ion.' Tht fundom.n .. l qu<>bon ;. wh< 00 ,>< p/tysicIl form of kw, 0>u1d b< rep",. duud 0, "'Pied into aD ...~n .... "Iivins" rq>~ .. ''''n (. pointing o. "",Ipled im'5<), whim oopltial "I"mtic ..~n im_ibl<. Th. itt"" of viwatly " 1"""",i"8 d;.-u,· ity "'as t~ ....... of Ewi1>k oIJjpolll< to h., ~u ... fo •• port"'" of 0, ..... Althmogt. ,hr;n: io >om< doubt .trout ""'hrntirity of the documrnt, it. m.iot<>IoJiaol . '11" .... " .. odd~ the pt<>b\<m of divine ..,.mol ""po..- n. .... foI," rot t'" ""''',ra1 cln." ,h. pol".i" ."1',....,..,"'." ial_. . . ___ . . _" ...... , "'" 0( ...... '" 0ItD< ". ,.,. k.h... • !r it tilt "'" ""'..........,. _ _ boor. hi> ...... foo- .......... _ .....,'" .~ ... ""., of • ...-- IPIoiIl,7j .... Gr.......... bar _ "'.......... t do.." 'Nn~ ""'''''' _bar ",do_ltio _ _ . . . s....t., .......... ""' _;'1 bio ........ , 600b .......... po.- '" foo- ......... ,... w.."", _""",,bono _tbo,"' .... to"", _ """"'" _ .... !bY '" bio '*' A ''lummt •• ny ......1port,,!",,1 of A. . ... m...' b< inod· < divi .... tu ... POfl.Tft..... m OF THE I N(ARNATE ONE To .how only ,II< hum. n fOfm ..... ""rm "'... b"iPt..l1>00~ C""'nly•• ,,;,.w.. ""word ........ of J«u, Ch' ~' d,f· f.<¢df, i>. -..+.rtb ... i""V ''1' ......... b< >C1 ..... ......... "" btin8 of ~.1I'IOdmm.",on," ·<)' Pu l 'OO1h" "'''Y•• I>< probl<m abo loy ...;,n ~ ""'~ irn'F' "'" in". _ •• ""'~, mi$hl < 'mos.... ,uJ><'l'<'o) re<»ni of .... 'PI"""'« 'h,' I"n<100....:l .. . I ,d or ,n'pi'''Oon'' f'1><s< (1)$>iblt ~i,'" hod pr«< <mpcror. Aod..,.b< rrOOkm of,b< .... too"'l"p btI....,n '"1'''''''' ... 'ion . ",j .. , li'y, . nd bn-.n ,"<,", 1 f"m' ,nJ t" ..,,,nd< f",. _ .hi> ... n ""«1 mo .. ho>k probl.m:...., .. mod< 11K.,""" Di. i", 011<'-0'" ,ho, """ukl b..r """" ,.,.,.,t,U"", 10 10;, 1(, ..... '1'1"' ... 0« wb,!. 00 .",h! On "'hot b.... <. "'"'P'''''... or .·< Nin IOot . .1d<s<:ripl i"n> """ PM"ok """,gh dd,,;I ... buis 10' 1«. .. . ion of b .. ph)'iical '1'1"'.,-,,11«1 ~k,ng .o!h" of 'h .... how ""uld one """"""" . ',,,,,. ;m' g<' f i""lIy, of ' PI""" "'" ""uld . » pI. lft • ..~o "",,,r><,,,,,, I. .. u.... Iu>,in M.rtyr.'n hi. d .. logut w"h Trypho 'h, I<w . • ><po«n rq>011«1 to b< "not · It,,,,.., •• nd ,h" can COun' ... '0 ,.h.>1 ott, ,""uld . up!"'" fo' .b. In..., · "'" On. ("p«ioIly'" tbe mind of. G,,,,,i<. .. 0«1 to 'hink.ing ,ho, ,h. g<>< ,up"mely l><.u" fuJ). To ,hi, p<>'n,. Origen q.o ... Ol,u, .. ""m;""!!' «p«'S<'n"''''''' ,b.. ,b. 1"''''''''' ." II" ...,.. ""1'0<' '" ,h. ,""I """"''Y 1"""';" rotI,,,,,,, Add ",Iu,..,,, 01,.."." ""n.. 1<>", '0 I"". .ad".' Sin« • """,,,, .. "" .. ~ "" ~ lof "-I. " on"" """""r ..... boo" .wr",", Ito .. ,.., of""", 1><...,. ;. Iftp«tofpondru,. o >l><,.'y. "" """"h. '" -.,"" ' -'" .... _ .." ~ i> ""poI'*" tII>, M. '" """"" ... , "'po """"1""'. blt l....... '. Orin", wll<, •••"'/ .... ;po- '" 134 FACE TO FACE Origen, on the defensive, admits thaI there werc some Toxordcd accounts of Jesus' appearance as ~il!- fa\'orcd» but not actually "ignobk~ and cer- tainly not " Iittle.~ And, as a way of justifying the supposed lack ofbeauly in the Savior, Origen cites a pa»age from Isaiah (ha 53:2); «He has no form or majesty, and we beheld him, and he had no form norbcauty; but his form was without honor and inferior 10 thaI of the sons of mcn.~J Going further, Origen poill!s out (in a sdf-contradictory way) that Cdsus had ovcriookOO a key line in the Psalms (Ps 45:2) th~1 addresses the Mighty One as "the most hamhomc of men." Generations latu, John Chrysmtom cited this psalm in order \0 assert that Christ was c.'{traordi narily handsome. From that Ii me, reports of !eStis' unattractiveness seem to ha\-c been forgotten.' Traditions and Legends regarding Jesus' Appearance Other than the <:crypt;' allusions to Jesus' phys;'al appearance in Justin or in Origen (who cited the text of Isaiah as if it weIT historically des.cril'~ tive) , only a few references to ey,:witncss descriptions of Jesus' appearance oc{ur in the literature. On the other hand, traditions that 3{\ual purtraits were made "from life~ were more widely known. Among the rare textual witnesses is a letter suppusedly wrinen by a fict itious governor of Judea, Publius Lentulus, to the "Roman People and Senate." The oldest version of this document is found in a fifteenth -century manuscript, included with the «Life of Christ" by Ludolph the Carthusian and purportedly found in 1421 by a certain GiJwmo Colonna 'tmong some ancient Roman documents. In this let tcr, Lcmulus describ~"S Jesus as a man of medium site with a "cncrable appearance; his hair was brown, curly, and p'trted in the <:emer «after the pal1efll of the Nazarenes.~ Jesus' brow was smooth and unwrinkled, his complexion ruddy, his expression cheerful and his abundant (but not particularly long ) brown beard divided at his chin. Lcn tulus's description concludes: uHe is the most ocautiful among human ocings ~ (p"k/'errittws "',['1< in"" IlOmitles ).' Lentulus', depiction conforms to many of thc earliest portraits of Christ and, in one detail, finds a parallel in a fourth -century letter to thc Emperor Theodosius from Epiphanius of Salamis. Epiphanius opens his rener by denying that any ancient Christian " father" could ha\'c painted an image nf Christ either for a display in a church or in a private house, and he argues that any who do «Iic~ by rcpreseilling the Savior with long hair. This, he c];lims, they arri"e at "by conjectu re because he [the Savior I is called a Nazarenc, and Nazaren~"S won: long hair." Epiphanius jU5titles his denial that Jesus was a Nazarene (with long hai r) because while Jesus drank wine, Nazarenes do not. According to him, those who make su{h pictures ill\'ent physical Iypes according to their whim, e\"en though logic contradicts them. For, how could thc Savior havc had long POf';TMITI Of THE IN(A~NAT[ ",'I'J'<'I ONE hoi, II< " b, wIIrn hi> di>ciplr '" Hl<,,;.,.,.,.nd ,ho, Ph.,;""" COuld h.o,', ...I'd .h,', mol>tJ!' lo!l,ns)y, Epiph.niu,·, ""j«'ion. or, """"odini'd on many .. ,ly Cb, ..,;"o work> of . n, wb. U • .!(I • • nd ll. fu ....OlP).,). l. '""""' of. "from lif," p,>rt,.i, of I<>u~ ,I>< mi",ulou, ;mas, oy Kin8 Abs-or of Ed ......... 1>o, .uff of tht Itgtnd ni<1. b," ,""filing V" ....I ""tI,n<. f.b&.t'..". hi • .,....,.... ."ib< '" r....., w;,h. kI .... imrl<>rin£ him tQ V ....... ",.id til< .~ins king. ....... coukl ...,. ins th.ot 01>< of hi< . 1'<".... "wid "Ti,~ in hi> ".ad.Sorn< Ahgo, ""'y. hi df«oM I>y rontxt w;,h • po"',i' of Clui>! 'h" ..,urn«l to [d." , wi.h Abpr', n' .... ns" sai.... who ,i,1><>" • ,,,..-d. M H<>w< hoi,,,, imag<> in ,il< w,.lmown •• 'h, 1oI.>.dy/i.m, TIl< .. neti.y.<>d POW<'! of th. JM>,,~.i' d<monOl ..uod I>y its 1lb,1~y '0 J.,.troy cornp< ek>th hod ...... tU< ,i'y willo .nd 'h< "'lie ..... "mov«l '0 Con .... t i""Pl<. """" Em J><"" eo"".n,i,,, Porphyro",n. u",romm;';;or>< > Ch",,;'n Ctu>M.k.. "",kot) Ih .. o'y " til< "'sinnin! of ,I>< ,hi,",",ury, " I.... p,t< it> var"nt>. ,il< "ory of ,h. mi""ulou. im,¥ of E0'" ",oro of how I.. u. ·".Uy I""k«l.· 5<>. whik 'h' o.;!i" ,1 A/."d~;"" ~"', i" '"""m.uM, 'opi ... found ,hmughou, ,ho £.o" .. n Ch,i",," wo,ld in pani,ular. ,hat< """i" b ..", fn'u"". Mo.' I"""""."y, ,I>< ponto" of Chtl>l only .Ito..... hi. f~ .nd h.ir on on (JIh.,wi.. ""p'y fj,1d I,b. 1;"'0 m',.",""", w. «>,'"'''' .Ii., "",,,,' f". "'......J ... """ ,..,",h wo, 136 FACE TO FACE beneath a rather drO(lping mustache and above a beard that comes \0 two points (fig. 57). The hair of his head is parted at the cenkr and hangs 10 his shoulders. The story of Abgar and his miraculous portrait has a Western paral· lei in the legend and subsequent tradition of the veil of Veronica (also called the S"d<1fium). Th is famous image was also made "without hands" when Christ's face left its imprint on a cloth held out to Jesus by the woman Veronica, while he was going through Jerusalem toward Calvary. Veronica's name means ~Irue image," of course, and she is sometimes identified wi th the woman with the hemorrhage whom Jesus healed. Although neither t he portrait nor the Veronica legend can be dearlydatt'd any earlier than the twelfth century, the cloth was accepted as authentic, was promoted by Pope Innocent [[[ in the thirteenth cen tury, and quickly found its place among the most sacred object> of the Roman church (kept among the treasures of Saint Peter's Basilica). A representation of Veronica and her image became a permanent fiKture r" 57. Mo.~. 2O\n .;en. ~oo in !he KoIyTnnrty Onhodox c:t.urm ~ N_. Tem. (f'I'oota Author~ POR T RA IT) OF THE I N(ARNATE ONE 137 in Catholic piety when it hecame the sixth stat ion of the CTOSS . Like the Mundy/ion, however, this actua l SlIdarilml disappeared in the sack of Rome by German troops in 1527 and was reportedly sold in a tavern by Lutheran soldiers." Redi scovered in the seventeenth century, it generated a vast number of copies that were distributed all over Europe (fig. 58). Fe. 58 Soofl\ \It,-onoca, Muw ofSao1tVe, "..;a,.a. I «Xl. 01 on wood. N.oonoI G.I L..>""'w 138 FACE TO FACE 59. a.,., P>rttocra,,"".1.th C,"" G .E eo:>UoU>ti<: en f'O"eI. Mooasler)' ofSt c.theooe, Mt. Sinoi (I't Like the Marrdy/jar" the Veron ica portrait shows the face of Christ without any background. It often appears (as dOl'S the Mar/dr/ion) as Nt CoIeo:t>on. [hJg''''''' Nt Woo, a feature of a larger painting, the portrait upon the cloth held by Veronica herself, saints, or angels. The face of Jesus is ~arded and dark, with curling long hair, parted in the center and reaching to his shoulders. Jesus' nose is long and straight ; his mustache droops down to meet a forked beard. These two trad itional images have much in common with anotlwT ~miracuJous image,~ the Shroud of Turin, as well as bearing significant resemblance to the earliest {sixthcentury} Byzantine panel paintings of C llrist, like Ihe Teacher from t he Monasl<.>ry of Saint Catherine on Mount Sinai {fig. 59}. Earlier portrai ts of Christ also bear some sim ilarities, however, including the fourth- and early fifth-century port raits of Christ from the Catacomb of Commodilla (fig.II,p. 31). These two miraculously received images and their legends (includ ing their amazing travels and rediscoveries) hecame rather entwined with one another in the Middle Ages, and their details are difficult to distinguish. And while these stor ies dearly have enormous implications for the Byzantine and Western cult of images, ne ither the details of these stories nor the questions of their veracity are as important to this discussion as the matter of what constitutes an authentic portrait of Christ. [n both of these cases, a claim is made not only that the portrait of Christ was made from life but also that it was produced miraculously. However, a much simpler assertion, that a certain artist pain ted an image of Jesus during his lifetime, can be dated fairly early- the referenCe by Irenaeus to the Carpocratians' possession of a portrait of Jesus "from life," made by Pilate." Since Irenaeus shows no obvious doubt about this, one wonders whether other such claims were in ci rculation. Furthermore, since the details of Christ's appearance on the MafJdy/ioll and S"da,;um are quite similar (long dark hair parted in the center, forked beard, and so forth), the matter of t heir bearing an actual '"likeness" is mutually supported. Unl ike ordinary portraits, however, these images "made wi thout hands were alleged to be imprints produced by direct contact with Christ's body, making them "reverse" or D PORTRAIT! OF THE IN(ARNATE ONE "n,i,.."." iaug<>. Th"".n ....... ",t.; "",1>«1 of ,.,... '0 but • pO" .-.i' "" .ithtT "Jr",- ;m.gn would " , , , " _ ,~. (,,;'1(..,u, ... of 0.,;., ;" Ih.it 1";"';"11'- 'Th;' p _ of I«l.n,,, ,n ,o,h""h",,'..! 'YF of wh<'ht<Jd"",.,." A~. On«. d ,nm ..... mad< ,h .. "~ir is ....... Ch"" kw>k"rai' to i,. ."n<1)1'< hioS tho vili.lj 'Y of ,I>< ,ion. ""'" variotion did not DOCrSUril)' ..ooermin< 'h, oe«p"nce of .n i!rug<" .uthrn,ie" Oth<" i" ,I>< tr.diti"n. i"" ' ;'r " Y<1. < pn"li"Phy r." eh,i". one Ii",,>", .,,''''''i'r in,I""'" 'hi! no .... ,h tradi,ion """ known or r«<>p>iud I;" tho W<>t) •• i'l> i, pO,tr.~-..l in ,'is...t.n ... kind of p,"",f ,h .. DO on< pO.".kh ..r ,te"'" .ou w., '"P""""'" So",,, ,«.,iM ,ha, .wu"""'" wo, • "r ;, "", • """" f>Tn tho rbrN<-! fo« of tho lOrd ~ rK'umj with .. lin"" v""'~"" ootmI· "" ;"""""'_ """'F ...........,. ~ ..... Olor ... , .... inJy """ ~. unt. 1<0< .. ~ ,I.. I,it!> "' ..... ;o .... '-"ttI ...... a.ru. io ;, in ....... " ..t.v.no .. """' .... wIw .... ~_ pid ... h.... IOk, whld ~ proI>oI:.Iy""it< ~""' ..... """" "'" .......,.••• . Who, """ .......,.;, ", .. '" ,hOnk of OJ,,, .. . ""'" r.,. ..-. "". ",,\OdJtOd in"," ;, wtff .... noJ.tol _"'" ttl ........,.. "'"-" Jesus'Variant and Chan,;n, Appearance . in Lite ral")' Sources ""'S""in<', ~il",n ,h .. < ";(10) looked cooju,,", • diffuen, imag< .... """U1< '" pol~morpho", "t>y>kal.pp<' ''nu, ""rtku[;uly (h", "'" """y>l in hi, ,0.., """• '"' FA<E TO FA CE roUdvf'~ no""""<mic.alli,,,,otu ... od of II;' <'I'<"ionc< of"";"8 ..... ".",flg..>"'" J",'" "u, ....... f""" .. I ~... ..,.. "',.... in ." Fu" ..... on, in IW pf<..hi", !<>pth· ..... " " i1 (God ) who ia bolh gmo, .. d link. be.uliful:and ngi1. )'I>""8 ... d old, opp<.n", in .im< ,00"" in "'ttnitywhollr i.wi,;bk. __ . H< ...11 'hiop..nci thor< i> no01i>tr ,h,,, h•.•• In the SyriK MI' ofn.._ the "",,un' of ,h. dted. of J..... ·· "..;n.· f<1W hiHUdf .. odd......t .. bt.,.he Am 8fCO'' ' of JoIt._ .1.., con .. in. ''''0 ""pa"" .... " ion. of on inco"';".nq in Chriol', appean"«. but. in , ...... •• ision of til< Lotd in ..... """,lcI"" ""'.... h ",'i"",",." "*'" ..,;,00, ,Iu, >«ODd ",».n ,hn (who "'" to Vtu ...... J ouli>nfuor.d by "" deoeription of "" vi,;on. Thu, h< ea:plaine«d ""'hinS .... "8< or i""redibl< in ) ..... " apooen ~.nd And""".nd ,bon arne'o hi. Oro,"'"...,.;n~ "r.",... r need "",." And h" brother r.m« came'o lioI'"'''S '0 0.,,,,. ""'" ,"d ..> ......... ....., ...... '" ....... 01,,, dilld ...... _ . _ ( Joha J ~ WoododUldl"ADdh<_ a ul .... "Tht_whoio ............ k . . ", ..' """ , ooid. 'Thio ~ b«>"", « .... 100& """" ...... '" _...a.~ i p t . _ ........ Do _ _ _ 'h< ............. ....... .. ...... who ~ .....-. fa;, ..... <~ I. '."1" "'" '" oaOd to ow,'' do . . . 1ft I......... 1. "'1' toot ...... bo, I"" .. '" •..,JI ... wOll "" ...... , ,.... -" ,h ,,,J And '" the 'wo bnche" help) ~ to r...... him. and h, then " ppea,ed to Ilohn l .. rather bald bu, wi,h. ' hick 0""""8 be.tt 'ppea,,_.• n ~ m"", 0",.';n8 01.;", .... r pmcd. Joon '0'" 'wo tIu"" . . If"" PORTRAIT) OF THE INCARNATE ONE him "as he was," but Chrht's eyes never dosed and remained open, Sometinl{'s he looked to John like a small, unatuactiw man, and al other times he ~emed to be looking up to heaven, And he had another odd characteristic, as John redined on Jesus' breast; som~1imes it was hard and som<1imes smooth and soft. " The instability of Christ's appearance and bodily features disconcerted John, but also made sense to him, given that the being he was looking upon was no ordinary mortal. Surely Christ would and could appear diff<'rently to different p~'rsons and in different circumstances, sometimes a child, som<1imes a young man who is hand:;ome, fair, and cheerful looking (in contrast to Lentulus's description above), At other times, he might ,'ary between being a young man wilh the b~'ginning of a beard or an older man, bearded and balding, Sometimes he even appeared to look like someone else, indudingJohn himself, In theApocr}pllOtl of ,01m, the author tdls of a vision of the Savior, first as a child, then as an elderly person, then as a yOllllg person, and finally as a multi form figure with three distinct forms appearing through one another. The~ changes were mean! to re\'Calthat the Savior is simultaneousl y Father, Mother, and Son," Such variation in appearance was even bas~-d on the need or ability of the viewcr, according to Origen, again in his debate with CclSllS: Ahhough ksus was onl)' a single inJi"iduai, he was n<>'< de .. to tho .. ",ho notic~ why.• t th~ tim. when h. Wit' about to b. tran,figured on the high mou nt ain, h. did not .dmit all hi' apo,lI ... (to thi, ,ight) but only Pew, I.m",. and lohn, be<:.u.. lhej' . Ione wen: cap.bk of I>an,. r-rson to the ,jek, and to those ",ho nceded hi. h.aling aid as to Ihos. "'00 were able by ...son of their su.,.,gth 10 go up th. mountain along wilh him ." For Origen, Jesus' appearance changed to accommodate the different needs of th ~ viewers or 10 show forth the different Slag~s of his own earthly life. Cyril of lerusalem offers something rather similar in his lectures to those about to be baptized, borrowing the biblical metaphors to show that jesus adapts himself according 10 the n{"cd of an individual bdk-ver- 141 142 FACE TO FACE power or divinity than with a concern for the care of souls and Christ's sdf·cxtcllsion 10 persons in a way that could be most easily and hdp· fully received: The Savior comes in va.ious fornl< to .a who lack joy, h. ,,",com., . "ne, to tho", who wi>h to rn,er in . h. i•• door; for th"« who mu" offer prayers. h. i •• medialing high prj..!. To 1M'" in sin. h. b<'Wm ... she.p, to b. sacrificed on ,h, i, bth.lf. H. bocome, "all thing! to.lI people" remaining in hi. own n.tur< what he is. For so remain ins, .nd ptJS$<$Sing the true and unchanging di!!"ity of Son And while these texts imply that adaptability of Jesus' appearance was a mark of his divinity as well as of his loving concern for those who P "according to their nrcd saw him in differmt guiS<.'s, the construction of a visual representatioll of Christ ultimately came down to the dogmati cally oriented problem of how an artist might show both his humanity and his divinity (his two complete natun.'S rather than his varying physical appearances). As we have S<.'en. the Roman gods were shoym with .ertain attributes that suggested their divinity, such as the uS<.' of gold, halocs, relative size (conlpared to mortals), or other signs of their power and trans.:endence. Im'lgCS of Jesus would seem to demand the same kind of distinction, to sign al to the viewer that th is WaS no ordinary mortal. even if he was born into a human body. But, at the same time, Christian confcs.sions also insisted on his full humani ty. Pcrhaps this is why his divinity was signaled through certain traditional signs (a halo, for instance) while at the same time images showed him as having a human appearance and being proport ionally "ordinaryP when depiCted n~'Xt to other humans in artistic compositions (fig. 60, for example), instead of P being "larger than life or having a dominating stature. Jesus' Variant and Changing Appearance s in Art Although later (Byzanti ne and early medieval) representations of [esus ha,·c a remarkable degree of consistency, the earliest artistic portraYdls of Christ (in the third and fourth centuries) show significant inconsistency. 5<.Jmetim~'S Christ appears as youthful and beardless., sometimes as older, with full beard. or courS<.'. he is also shown (or symbolized) through the familiar visualmctaphors of ,hcpherd, lamb, or even fisher. One possible explanation for th eS(' varying preS('ntations is that it simply took time for artists and their clients to achieve the" right look'· for 1esus, perhaps struggling to find the key combination of featuR'S and attributes that com·C)'\.-d his dual natures, while still honoring some ancient traditions or ntemo-ries wnccrning his physical appearance. POR T RA IT) OF THE I N(ARNATE ONE A survey of the extant examples (coming mainly from the environs of Rome ) shows us that most of the earliest recQgtJizable iconography of Jesus presents him as a beardless and beautiful youth, although in rare instances he also appears as bearded and more mature in appearance. When he appears as youthful, he most often is shown within narrative compositions referring to his role as hea ler and wonderworker (fig. 60). In the earliest examples of Jesus shown wi th a beard, he generally appeaTS as a teacher (figs. 61--62 ). By the mid -fourth century, the bearded type began to appear in nonteaching contexts, a shift that may be linked with a general trend away from narrative images of healing and wonderworking and toward visual references to his passion, ascen· sion (enthronement in heaven), and the giving of the new law (lig. 63). At the end of the fourth century, when the lirst true "portraits" of Jesus began to appear, the dark and bearded appearance was hecoming standard and seems to be the precursor to the standard iconic presentation of Christ's image in the later Byzantine pe riod. 143 Fe- 61) ~>i'" ",th Old Teo,.."..,t "'" New Teo,.· rr.eno: scenes. 1th <"" CL ~ Pic Cnruano. V-.n City (Photo: Author~ Fe-6 t , ~",*,>i'" ~ ....ty 1th C ~ ....., . Tenne~Rcmo (PI'IoI.o; 144 Fo&. 1.2 a.,."", ~~ 4th """ a.. ~ Aotoq.Je (Photo;Author). 'OS 63.Je>m gMng tI1e low on 4th cen."" ~~ Mus« Oe rArles Mtq.>e (PhoIooAuthor). FAC E TO FACE POR T RA IT) OF THE I N(ARNATE ONE 14 5 Fig. M Ap>< ~ """-'lth <en. CL from the Mo"""""'" ofConstantioo. Rome (cn.. Intemationol c.t.ccmb Soc;- ety Photo: Estde However, the final transition to a bt'arded iconic type happened grad ually, and for some time both types (youthful and mature) coexisted, sometimes juxtaposed with in a singlt' space without raising apparent concern (or at least not enough to warrant removal of one or the other image ). For example, in the mausoleum of Santa umstanza (Constantine's daughter) are two markedly d ifferent presentations of Jesusalthough some scholars see them as representing God the Father and Jesus. Although both mosaics are dearly from the same date and workshop, they may be slightly later additions to the building (perhaps in the late fourth or early fifth century ) and their extensive restoration makes scholars doubtful about their original composition. However, the contrasting ksus iconography still appt'ars to bt' both intentional and ancient." In one, Christ is youthful, fair-haired, and ~ght skinned, with blue eyes. He has onl y the hint of a blond beard (no mustacht' ) and stands upon the rock of Calvary, handing a scroll of the law to Paul. He wears a white tunic (with blue stripes, clavi, from shoulder to hem ) and palli"",. In the other, Christ (m perhaps God the Father) is shown having a full beard and is seated upon the orb of the cosmos. His tunic is a rich, royal purple with two gold stripes. Both figures have haloes in shades of blue, but otht'lWise their presentation is strikingly differt'nt (figs. 64-65)." One explanation for the cont inuance of these contrasting images is that such a variation madt' a theological poin t or argument in a visual mode. Perhaps a polymorphous presen tation of Christ was seen as truer than a single static and consistent visual appearance. The texts, after all , suggest that during his life jesus may have taken on differen t man ifesta - ~). FACE TO FACE 146 Fo&.i.S. """" ~ mid-4th from the ~ of eonrt.o....... , Rome (P!><> ~-) lions, projecting different exterior features, perhaps in response 10 the need, expectation, ability, or even requirements of different viewers. From this van tage point, the Christian God recognized and accommodated viewer subjectivity as well as capacity for variety. Moreover, a changing e~terior also paralleled Christ with the other gods and then trumpt'd tht'm, 100. Christ's presentation in different guises was then less a result of confusion than an aim 1o show his superiority to the gods of the Roman pantheon, who also could appear in different forms or guises but for somet imes less beneficent purposes (a ccording to Christian writers}." In any case, divine ability to change form was a ""Tlain sign of a god's power and craft. Jesus as Savior and Healer:The Beautiful Youth These issues lay right at the heart of the development of Christian art that first ... mphasized Jesus' work on earth, as a savior who performed certain deeds. TheM' deeds, as they were repre~ented in visual art, were directly related to specific textual narratives. The art of the early fourth century did not try overtly to display Je~us' divine nature, or to suggest that he showed fort h the visible face of God, but rather it concentrated on narrating t he actions Or the stories that were told about him . For instance, the earliest representa t ions of Jesus display no haloes or even other signs of div inity that were already in use for images of the gods or of the deified emperor, or even the golden or purple robes associated with royalty or the supreme deiti es of the Greco- Roman pantheon. The earliest images of Jesus showed him dressed much li ke the other figures in a composition, in simple tunic and pallium and sandaled feel. He is not shown "larger than life" but rather as of the same stature as his disciples and followers . The only props he holds or attributes associa ted POR T RA IT) OF THE I N(ARNATE ONE 147 with him usually are related to the narrative itself (baskets of loaves for multiplying or jars of water for transforming). His posture is far from imposing, since he usually stand~ or wal ks among a nowd of others, rather than riding a chariot or sit ting upon a throne.Apan from his significantly distinctive facial appearance, Jesus looks li ke the other figures in the composit ions. Of cours.., there w.. r.. som.. ioteresting Hc"ptions, at l.. ast at firstand perhaps th .. ir very rarity proves the rule. In the famous early fourth C<'ntury mosaic sa id to be of Chri st Helios in the dom .. of the mausoleum of the rulii in the excavations under Saint Peter's on the Vat ican (fig. 66), we see a figure that may have been meant to repre>ent Christ as Sol or perhaps as a rival to Sol riding in a chariot, surrounded by a golden sky, and adorned with a radiate halo. This rather glorious Fig. 66. o.n.t .. I U )d, MooJ>OIeu:n M (or !he ~.). Necn>pok (C Th< In..".,.... oon.oI Utxotrt. Societ1 Photo: f Brettrr>on ~ 148 FACE TO FACE Fig. 67 CoI.Jmr..y- san:~ in the M= PK> Cristiaoo, V~ City (Photo; ""'-'t/Io<~ image corresponds with biblkallanguage about Christ as the light (for examplt>, John l:l·S and Eph 5:14) and with some textual references to Christ that employed solar imagery, induding Clemen! of Alexandria's description of Christ as the "Sun of Righteousness~ who rides in his chariot over all creation and "who has changed sunset into sunrise and crucified death into life.~" Rut while /esus' starKe. statu re, dress, and gent"Tal demeanor in the earliest iconogra ph y could be interpreted as a clear t'mphasis on his humanity, cerlain key aSpe<:Cts of his facial type are absolutely distinctive and, perhaps in a different way, offer a visual construction of his immortal nature. In contrast to later depictions of Christ as a dark, bearded judge as found in Byuntine icons, the art of the catacombs and the early sarcophagus reliefs almost always shows Jesus as a beautiful youth, beardless and with long curly hair. He has a gentle expression, smooth oval face; he appea rs to be both graceful and rather sweet natured (fig. 67 ). In this respect, Jesus' iconugraphy looks 'Ii- 1.8. Good Shq"'"d ..... """", ~ 3rd =>. Cf. Pi<> CriniM>o. V...,.., Cit)' (l'hot<>Autho<). ~ I POR T RA IT) OF THE I N(ARNATE ONE 149 F ig.69 . ~",,~ much like that of the earlier images of the Good Shepherd (fig. 68), which symbolically represented Jesus as a loving caretaker of souls. More sign ifican t, however, is the simi larity of Jesus' facial f..atures to those of th .. gods Apollo, Orph.. us, and both Dionysus and Hercu les in their youthful presentations (fig. 69). In some cases, he takes on other attributes assoda ted with th ..m, like the radia te halo of Sol or th .. lyre of Orpheus (fig. 70)./esus' representation also parallels that of , .. rtain hero ..s, many of whom bIXamc deified eventually (for example, Melcager or Beller0l'hon). These, too, ar.. usually show n ~ardless and youthful, and sometimes with long, flowing, or curly hair, thei r bodily postur..s eff..!e and lan guid . Th .. most important difference between the representations of Jesus and thuse nf these gods or heroes, however, is that whi Ie Jesus is som.. times shown as a nude child, as a youthful adult he is fully doth ..d in the relatively simple garb of an ord inary Roman male (usually a tunk or a tunic and pallium}." In these early fourth -cen tury depictions, Jesus works wonders (mul tiplies loaves and changes wa ter to wine), teaches, heals (the paralytic, the man born blind, the woman with the issue of blood ), or raises th e d ..ad (Lazarus, /aims's daughter). As noted, prio r to this time, certain visual metaphnrs had b...,n far mnre popular, in particular the Good Shepherd, which was not a portrait of Christ, but rather a representation of hi s attributes and a reference to the common - , go» ~ "II ' '' '~ 3rd <en. cl..MJ_ Pio Cristiano, VatK.! Gty (~~ Fig. 70. em... .. Orpneu> h- s.xie-ty Photo: "'t 150 FACE TO FACE biblj,aJ symbolism of the Shepherd, L"I'cn though the Shepherd's postur..- and countenance ",{,fe quite similar to /csus in the New Testament narrative S(;cnes,As we have noted, this facial type is a remarkable contrast with the apostles or other figures in the co mposition, who arc presented as typical Roman males with d ipped beards and short hair. Jesus' appearance in contrast to these others is almOM startling and the nearly inescapable conclusion is that he was dther a type of, or ~cn the replacement for the young savior gods of Greco- Roman religion. In many way$, the story of his virginal birth, miracles, wonder:s, sufferings, and resurrection from death make him their competition as much as their counterpart. Early Christian ",ritas were aware of the parallels between Je!iUS and th~S(" hcroes and s<wior gods. Justin Martyr had acknowledged the similarities and even argued that they demonstrated that Jesus was in nn way inferior to these gods. In fact, he asserted that the parallels showed jesus to be truly superior, if for no other rCJson than that these other gods wcre invented by devils and those who believed in them were influ· enced bydcmons (who deliberately wanted to mislead pcople), and thus they even had imitatcd Jcsus (in anticipation ). But, in any QlSC, Justin could insist that anyone who could believe all these things (heroic deeds or wonders ) of gods in\'cntcd by pocts ,crtainly could "edit thcm to Christ, the onc who did thcm "truly"; And ,,·h.., w. "'y. al", ,hatth. \\'ord , who i, th. first-born of God, was pro· duced without ,""xual union .• nd 'h,,' hc. I<:$us ChriSt. our '.a,hcr w•• cru,i · fied and di.d. and ro,"" again. and ascended imo h,,,·.n, w. propound n01hing differen' from what you Ixli.,"" regarding tho,"" whom )·ou .. I«III son. of [upiter. For you know how many ,ons yo ur «t.. med wrMrs "",it.. to Jupiter: Me"ur}". tilt interpreting "'ord and k.eher of aU; Aesckpius. who 'hough he wos a gre .. phy,iciall. "'3> stru,k by a thunderbolt. and >0 .scended to heaven: and Ba«hus. to<>' aft« h. had been torn limb from limb; and He,,;u l... when he had ,ommined him",lf '0 ,h, flames to e"ape hi. toil, .nd th. son. of Led •. and Dioseuri; and Per",u •. 'Oil of Donae; .nd Bdlerophon who, though sprung from mortals ro .. l0 h..",n on the hors< reg ...... , . and ... hat of the emperors ,,'ho die among )"0",..1...,.. whom )"" dtem worthy of ,jci!ionS of Jupiter of )'OU rs .. _.nd if Wt evell .ffinn that he was born of a virgin. ''''''1't thi. in ",mmon with what you ""pt of Per,,"u •. And in that we "')' that h. mad. whol. th. lame. the paralpi,.• nd ,h.,.. born blind. we ... m to sa)' what i. Vet)' simil."o the deeds $lid to MI" hrtn done by Aselepiu s.~ PORTRAIT) OF THE INCARNATE ONE Part of Justin's apologetic strategy was to undermine the discounting of ]csus' wonders (since people were willing to bdic\'e them of the other gods), while at the same time showing that these work>; by themselves were not the sum of Jesus' divinity or the only measure of his legitimacy as the Son of God. Still, the similarities were obl'ious to many people at least, and the iconography of jesus may have reflected that awareness. But, as we haw discussed, in whatever way Jesus and his companions arc depicted in the founh ·century catacomb paintings or sarcophagus rdids, they appear mort' as actors in a scene than as pure portrait typ<'s. Their faces are not revealed as the "isages of holy persom, and the iconography is not intended for veneration. These figures arc insepara ' ble from their specific narrative compositi ons, which arc meant to teach or rt'\'eJI :;ome meaning found in the details of the story itself. This was al50 the function of the various characters or episodes from the Hdm~w Scriptures that referenced a particular story that 31:;0 served as a typol· ogy for or prefiguration of a Gospel e\'ent, a sp«ilk Christian sacra· mental practice, or God's promised deliverance of the faithful from danger and death! ' The frontal, static, or formal portrait-type images, intended to invite prayer rather than provide edification, appeared somewhat later in Christian art. In these earlier images Jesus' face is more often in partial profile than facing forward, and cven those other figures (Adam ,md £\"e or Daniel, for instance ), who arc more often pre' sented frontally, arc yet characters within a sacred drama. ThUs, the figures in this kind of art take defined roles in their story scquenc~"S, and those roles arc repeated and standardizt' 151 FACE TO FACE 152 w.ru... r~ 71 .)=o> ... tsi-!g detoiIlrom • 4th , en CL ~gus. MY""" Pic Cristior», 'MIc>.n City (Photo: Ao.rtI'oo<} The predominance of this Jesus type in the earl iest iconography suggests that visual art, al least, emphasi1ed Jesus' role as healer and won derworker during h is earthly ministry, which, according to early theologians, showed forth the power and glory of God as well as Christ's Tole of savior. At the same time, (ertain key events of Jesus' earth ly life, which were equally important for r{'v{'aling his divinity, appear to be missing. For example, almost no visual representation s of the transfiguration, Last Supper, crudfixion, r{'surrection, or asce nsion appear in Christian iconography pr ior to the fifth century. Pictorial references to Jesus' nativity do occur with some frequency but seem more focused on the adoration of the three magi than on the incarnation (compare figs. 56 and 99, pp. 128 and 192). Toward the end of the fourth century, iconography of the passion begins to appear, but extant examples omit the actual crucifixion, which rarely appears [WfoTe the sixth and seventh centuries. Instead, they focus on Jesus' arrest and trial. An empty noss appears as a triumphant sym bol, surmounted with a wreath of victory and the chi rho monogram (fig. 96, p. 188). Arguably, one exception to this surprising (to us ) lack o f dogmatic images is the relatively frequent appearance of Jesus' baptism by John, where he is represented as a small nude child instead of a thirty-year old adult (co mpare Luke 3:23; fig. 72). In most examples, the dove descends into the picture, thus joining a narrative scene with a theological statement about the identity of the one being baptized. The lack of artistic portrayals of the key creedal professions of Jesus' virgina l birth, salvific death, and resurrection in the early period could suggest that the doctrinal emphasis on the human incarnation, suffering, and passion of Christ, so central in the literature of the first three centuries, was bypassed in the art altogether, or that the visual tradition balanced (or challenged) th e literary with images that represen ted Jesus' POR T RA IT) OF THE I N(ARNATE ONE earthly works- his teaching, wonders, and miracles-rather than attending solely to his nature(s) or divine status. However, a conc1l1Sion that the evidence of visual art emphasizes his humanity rather than di vin it y is challenged by the lack of artistic represen tations of Jesus engaged in more mundane human activities (for example, eating a meal or fishing with his companions). Rather, artworks portray him per forming wonders and healings and raising the dead-act ivities that still show aspects of his divine character and power. Such images may have been modeled on image ry of other gods performing great deeds (espe cially Hercules), which was available and fami liar to third -century arti sans during a time when the visual vocabulary needed to represent the distinct doctrinal aspects of the Christian religion was still undeveloped. In other words, the earliest artistic composi tions borrowed from and adapted the art of the surrounding culture, and they conveyed the message about the work and the person of Jesus through the established and available savior types. Fnr this reason, Jesus' image looks very much like one of the youthful gods, and the iconographic focus on certain asp«ts of the story- Jesus' signs, wonders, and miracles- was a way of establishing him as a savior god, who eQuid have a personal relationship wi th an individual or intervene in a particular historical circumstance. Such gods were more acces sible and immediate, present to their devotees in times of need or stress, and certa inly relevant to the hopes for a blessed life after death. Many of them were said to ha"e died, descended 10 the underworld, and risen into heaven , and so the analogy is that much more apparent." Certainly, hope for a similar resurrection from death (promised through faith in Jesus Christ) was especially relevall1 for the art, mOSI of it crealed for a funerary context. 153 Fig. n. Bopjwn of I=~_ hom • ~ ceo. <:.Lson::opho. ~ Muoeo Pic Crnt;..,.,. v A...I\!>of~ 154 FACE TO FACE Jesus as Teacher, Philosopher, and Ruler:The Bearded Type Despi te the preponderance of early narrat ive portrayal, of Je,us as a beard less and ~autiful youth, in at least some rare early examples, including the fourth -century plaque in Rome's Musco Nazionale aU ... Term ... (fig. 61), Christ also appears in the guise of the philosopher, with full beard and bare chest (he has no tunic orundergarment,but only the {XliiiI'm draped over his left shoulder- the garb of an itinerant intellec tual) and holding a scroll. His right hand makes a gesture of spe&h, and at his feel is a row of small figures meant to represent his disciples. Paul r.. 73. Portr.. , ne.d of Soc.-.tes,G--ee Pe.>od, a. 170-195. bued on Gr....!< ""il"'& Found .. Aruc.o. Ath<m (<>id to be 1rom~!'1o=om d F..., Art<. 805t0fl (\'I>otogr.p. ClOO4 Muset.m d r ... hu,805ton). , Zanker would identify thi s as a dassic representation of "Christ the teacher of the true philosophy.H" However, 10 either side of this group is a portrayal of Christ healing. Here again he is shown with a full beard and in one case (the cure of the woman with the hemorrhage) with a bare chest. The two proximate healing scenes prompted Thomas Math ews to point out the similarities between Jesus' portrayal here and that of the god Asdepius, who also is represented with a full beard and bare chest, his outer garment carefully draped, but with no undertunic." Early representations of Christ among his disciples dea rly present him as a teacher, although usually as a young and beardless pedagogue, without the traditional facial features given to Socrates or other ph ilosophers (compare figs. 73 and 74). Although some scholars have com· pared a similar image of Christ among his disciples from the Catacomb of the Via Anapo in Rome , , with a roughly contemporary representation of Socrates wi t h his disciples from Syria, the primary similarity between the two lies only in the ir general wmposilion." The first image shows Jesus and his disciples as rela tively young, and, although some of Ihe disciples wear short beards, Ch rist is beardless. The second image of Socrates and his followers presents them all as bearded and balding elders. The only similarity is the clothing of both groups (a pallium draped over a tunic).Another such image of Christ appears in mosaic in the apse in Milan's Chapel of San Aquil ino, attached to the Basilica of San Lorenzo (fig. 75). Here , , 155 PORTRAIT) OF THE INCARNATE ONE we again ~ a youthful beardless Christ seated among hisaponlcs., making a gesture of speech, with a basket of scrolls at his feet, and relatively youthful -looking disciples. In sevcral dearly Christian sarcophagi, a figurc appears in profilc who looks rather like the scated reader/intellectual/poct on some non-Christian monuments (fig. 27, p. 44). While on most of the non-Christian sarcophagi and wen some of the Christian ones (for example, the sarcophagus of San ta Maria Antiqua, fig. 29, p. 48), thcse may ha'·c been meant to be portraits of the deceased or at least referenccs to his learn ing and intellectual pursuits (in Christian contexts, p{'[haps a reader of &ripturc).ln some cascs. howcver, the identification of this figure is less dear. For example, on a mid-fourth-century sarcophagus in the Mus&: dc l"Arlcs Antique, we see Jesus presented with a youthful face standing ncar to a scatcd and beardcd reader (fig. 761. Becausc Jcsus already appears in the oomposition as youthful and beardless, we might identify this figure as God the ':ather. An cnigmatic diminutive figure bends f" 7~.1 ''''' .Hea.:I1"d,.."m .,.,., c.-.a<;0/Tlb of Dom. Rome (ClThe ntematlOl1.1 Crue<>rrb '><xl«)< Photo: L".n.~). fli· 75·1."" ,010.0<11 "" 4th ",n Cl "'o,.~ from the o..p.,l 0/ " 0 Aquilino. fu,,oc,, 0/"0 L~ro 1'1aig. ~M<1on (""at,,: Hod>.!eI fIe.j.:y. SI) puc AlpOljlne PP"l Olpl UOJ"lluud J"ll JO ~spoS JJljIC}~ ICSJJ .)"ll JJJ." JSJ"l.L 'Jpnu Alln} JJ.IJU I~owlc puc PJdeJP Allensn 'sJJlnJ 5C pUOJ"lIUJ UMO"lS JJJM AJ"l) ';)PSJ!CIlI pile pJpJUJq AI!/leJI-I ·(sJdA) .ipoq JJn)em JJOW puc spJCJq "ll!." uJJS Jq ue) 0"l." 'SM.(UO!O puc sJlnJJJI-I 'Jldwl1XJ lOJ ) u JoS!nS JJn)UIlI~ U! JCJddu osfU o"l'<\ spoS [nJljlno.' J"l))O JWOS se [p.'1 n '.'umdJN puc 'sn!d.,psV 'S!dcpS 'p)rdnj .i[I"!)Jdp 'ppo." In!""p Jljl)O spoS JlI!lnJSClU AIU.).IO puc 'JJn) rm 'l.)Plo Jljl)O UOlICIIIJIJld .)4) 41!"" PJUSlfU Aplop .)lOUI lUJJI SJ.)lj)O 'JSClll! J.)4d05OI!4d fUlIOptp -ell .'''l' 0' W10JUO) ,Jd.i, snSJj P-'PlC<>q J4' JO u!"lJn JI!"lM 'lJ.\J.IIOH ·SJSrs5JW )JU!IS!P ssJJdn 01 J.)pJO U! SJd.i ,o)oJd 'UJJJJJ!P WOJ) SU!"'OIJO'1 '[eUO!'!SU"JI In SJSew! J"l' IC"l1 JIC'!PU! ACW ~!"lJ. ·(55JIP1C')'1 JO pJpJCJq) JdAI IcpcJ Jljl 01 plCSJl "l'!.'1 pJUC ,1 JJC JJ,\!S~IU[ 10 'JJ4dOIO[!"ld 'JJq'CJI IC InSJj JO SJl nS!.j JI{1 'snq.L ·(L £ 1 puc tt 1 ·dd' LL puc f9 ·sSy) J!uq 10 pUJq lInl " puc p1f.Joq "selj oslc sns.:lJ "l'!"l'" ll! 5uo!ld.nxJ IUc,y!uS!S JJC J1J"l1 m'1 '!>'lJlpn<>q S\J snsJ/ MOqS .inuns n SUOl)!sodmo:> JSJqJ. ·(Stl puc tf ·dd 'L9 pur tl ·sSy JlcdmO)-.Iillpq SUIMOljS SUlle puc 'SlJp(nolj5 'pc.'''l 5'''l ) 5UJ.ICJlj .)1l))0 po8 J4' '!npc:»)o .)[IUUm Jljl Anunpu S! )Uljl 100'5100) U uodl1 I.,J) s!q '51! > )suq:) 'lIU!PUelS JO pe.),su! 'S.)'UCISU! Jm05 UI ·.)S!P"JCd jO 51J.I1' Jnoj J"l' lIUllds q)Iq." WOJ) u.)fY,l/cqloSI09 JO ~'Ol .)"ll uodn Allullm '{Me l .)qllO IIODS Jql 8U!"!')Xl1 5! mOlj.IIJO JUO} [ncd puc J.)I.)d u.'.\.\\ )<>q puc ,UOJJ lIu!),,) 'SPUCIS 15Ulj:) )u.)PU.):»U"JI p. 'SUOI1!50dwOJ J!JIlI)O 150lU uJ · (~!SJI OIl/plm) s.)llsodu 51q 0) (pds08 lO) .""1 ,,"'Ju" JII' SU!A!S se InSJ[ JO JSCW! JI{1-A lnIUJJ qlJY J1(ll(.'lnOJ1(llqSu '!"SOW puc 'Su!lll!"d 'JJllldl"JS P!(JJ m 1cl"dod JwcXlq Ai'P!llb )C41 p.l1cJddc JdAI :J!4dUl80uOJ! ",JU u 'AmlllJ' 4UIlO) Jlel 01 JIPP!W J"ll A9 ·qWO) JI{1 WOl} WIll SU!S!CJ ,snSJ [ JO 5.JUJJS U! snJUZC"} 10 JJ151S Jill ~c ;JJIlISO ~ -~ 7 ____ - , ........... D '(Jonb ·"'" ~L,'dpo.p<;u PO'iQS 'IL 1I~ 3)V~ Ool %, 3)V~ PORTRAITI OF THE INCARNATE ONE pa&S<.xi judgment on mortals. Certain early bcarded depictions of !csus emphasize this type o\'Cr the others, and the philosophical a>sociation is diminished in favor of an cmphasis on royalty, digniTy, and tran scendent power, And, as Math~·",s has wnvindngly argued. to thc cx1cnt that such an image is allied to the portrayal of the emperor, it is because the emperor himself wanted to be seen with the attributes of these ruling or supreme Roman gods_" The apse of Rome's Santa Pudenziana Basilica (ca. 400; fig. 78) is a superb examp le of this. Here Christ is majestic in royal purple and gold-the very image of the ruler god. Sitting in his high-backed throne with thick beard Jnd long hair, Icsus' depiction looks \'Cry much like the s<:ulptural or paink-d images of Jupiter or Serapis." For purpOSC!i of wmparison, we might consider the wntemporary apse of Hosios David in ThC!isalonica. which shows another "cT1;ion of thc transccndent Christ. but here <.'Jlthroncd UpOll a rainbow and appearing as a beJrdlcss youlh, e\"Cn Ihough he issimilarlydrcsscd in purple and gold. The Satlla Pudenziana iconography of Christ emphasizes his role as mature lord and judge; the Son who, according 10 the ehurm's cteed, has now ascended to heaven, where he sits on the right hand of the Father to judge the living and the dead; and the One whose kingdom will have no end. The image in Thessalonica points more to the one who is the Bcgol1en Son and Preexistent Onc--a prince and Sitvior instead of a sovereign magistrate. ThaI this similarity to the ironographyof the Greco-Roman gods was acknowledged at the time might be ugued from the witn ess of an ancient text. According to a story contained in the Eu/(sirutiml History ofTheodorus Lector (and repeated by John of Damascus), the Patriarch 157 Mi. 77. Jo,,", 6""i'~ !.Tw, ' Plo Cmtw>o, V (f't1ot<> A" tnor) 158 FI&- 78. Je= onthroned Gl. ~ ~"- O>.x-<:h of 5.!rtt.l Puo.,,10 f1 97, p.l 89 FACE TO FACE Gcnnadius of Constantinople healed the withered hand (or hands) of a painter who had dared (0 paint an image of Chrisl in the likeness of Zeus. The pagan who had commi&Sionlxllhc painting ""mted the image to be ambiguous (showing the hair parted and combed back off the face like Zeus's).]n this warbc could cominuc to worship as a pag;m, while appea ring 10 ,·cncrate Christ. The bishop, aftn healing the artist, admonished him to rdrain from portraying Christ in any other form than the «authentic one," wilh Ushort , fril~y, hair.~" Although we should not place too much wright on this single (and perhaps doubtful) text, il yel offers some slender evidence that in this era traditional polytheists needed to keep their religious loyalt ies a ~ecret by di~guising them as Christian and that people (indudiog church authorities) werc aware of visual representations of Christ in the guise of the regallupiter. The presentation of lesus Christ in the guise of a youthful savior, philosopher, or ruling cider god may haw been more than a maner of borrowing and transforming fam iliar visual prototypes in order to explain his di"inity in the familiar iconographic ~Ianguagc» of the cul ture . Augustine, commenting on the line in Psalm I.H in which the unity of brothers is comparoo to oil running down Aaron's beard (Ps 133:2 ), sars that the bcard signifies the courageous and distinguishes the mature man, the earnest. active, and vigorous." This imagery also sem a PORTRAIT) OF THE INCARNATE ONE 159 meS53ge regarding thc kind of god and teacher that Je~us was. induding savior, true philosophcr. worker of grcat wonders, human hcro, ruling and tran5Ccndcnt lord, and judge. H i~ many "faccs~ wnfirmed his duality of natures as well as his divine adaptabi lity. The language of visual metaphor was a matter of both available modds and effcctive communication, It was also a languagc that had been taken over from thc iconography of the Greco-Roman gods and CIIcn empcrors. Both youth and age carry particular connotations in ponraits, and each of them in som~ sense was an ideal type. For example, Marcus Aurelius was represented first as a youthful and beautiful prince, then in tim., as a bearded and vigorou~ middle-aged ruler, and finally a~ an aging and introspective elder." Christology and the Image of Christ in Ravenna The variation~ of Jesus iwnography within a .lingle building or iconographic program wntinued in the next centuries, particularly in Ravcnna, which for a short time""s capital of the Roman Empire in thc West. From thc mid-fifth to the early si.'(th centuries, persons with different politkal and theological affiliations constructed a group of important buildings in three subscqllcnt stages. The first was the era from 402 to 493 ( . E., when the city became the Western capital under the Ca tholic orthodox rulers Honorins and h is stepsister Galla Placidia, acquired metropolitan standing. and was s~r\'Cd by bishops Ursus and Ncon. From this era survive the so-called Orthodox Bapti~tery and the mausoleum of Ga lla Pladdia, begun around 425 when Galla Pladdia acted as regent for her son, Valeot inian III." In 493, the Arian Ostrogoth Theodoric captured the city and constmcted a palace, a cathedral, a church with a baptistery. and a mau soleum for himself. Still remaining from this second era arc the palace chapel (or ~Arian Cath~-d ral,~ originally d~-dicated to Christ thc Savior, but now known as San Apollinare Nuo\'o and probably finished after Theodoric'sdeath in 526), the Arian Baptistery. sam,' of the mosaic decoration of the archbishop'~ chapel, and the mausoleum. The third phase of Ra" enna's building was after the reconquest of the city by the Byzantine general Bdisarius in 540 and its return to the orthodm faith in the reign of lustinian (and the bishops Maximian and AgneHus ). New construction in this era included the BasiliC 160 FACE TO FACE Among all these buildings, three offer some insight inlo the matter of the variable visual portrayal of Christ. The first, the Arian church begun by Theodor;. in the early sl,<,h ccnlury (prob-lbly finished by his daughter after his death ). ha~ an inlcrior mosaic program thaI might well reflect the theological stance of Theodoric or his Arian bishop, perhaps deliberately meant 10 contrast wilh Ihal of Ihe orthodo:.; citizens and leaders of the city who were allow~d \0 continue to practice their own hg 79 j=J. cal ng ,0. do",,· pr.~ """"~, eac~ 6tn c"", co. s..o A;xlI""re ~ ~ (Photo: Avthor~ form of Christianity. Although much of the original dcwration of the cburch has been lost- at fust aherl-d after the llyzantine reconquest and subsequent rededication of the church 10 th€ orthodo.'{ faith, then by an earthquake in The eighTh cenTury (which damaged The apse), and finally by renovation and expansion in the sixl<:enth century {which destroyed any rem'li n ing mosaics in the apse }- some original decorations, in particular an upper register of mosaics along the nave abo'"e the derestory windows that shows narratiw images from the life of Christ, may reflecT an aspect of Gothic Arian Christology." The series of twenty-six images (th irteen on each longitudinal wall) may be the earliest c:l:tant examples of such a narrative series in monu mental art, and they seem particularly appropriate for a church thaI had been dedicated to Christ the Savior. We might speculate that the defaced mosaics on the lower r~"'gisTer (replaced by The TWO processions of marlyr~women on one side, men on The OTher) were either portrayals of Theodoric's court or- less likely-additional images from the life of Christ That were mOTe doctrinally offensive 10 the onhodox powers Ihan the smaller images of the upper register, since the former were rcmo,·ed wh iJc the laller were allowed to remain. On the left side of the nayc (as one looks toward the apse and above the proce5sing women) is a series 161 PORTRAIT) OF THE INCARNATE ONE of panels depkting Christ's min istry of healing, teaching, and wonderworking, while on the right (above the processing men ) is a series of scenes from his passion and resurrection. Looking at these two sds of panels, a \'kower will notice that the face of Jesus on the left side of the naw is markedly different from the appearance of Jesus on the righ t side of the nave, On the kft, in scenes in which he raises Lazarus, meets the woman at the wclt heals the man born blind, heals the woman with the issue of blood, heals the paralytic (showing both wrsions), multiplies loaves and fishes., and changes water to wine, Jesus has no beard and his hair is light in color (fig, 79), Along the right side of the na"e, we sec scenes of the Last Supper, Jesus in the garden, his arrest, the trial before Pilate, the trial before Caiaphas, the procession t01,\'llrd Golgotha, the empty tomb, and finally some post resurrection scenes (there is no s(ene of the audfixion itself), Jesus is shown with long dark hair and a beard that appears to grow longer as the narrative progresses toward the cmcifixion (figs. 80--81 ), In ot her ways, the consistency among all these images is stri king. Jesus always wears the same purple tunic and palliw11 with gold elavi, while his disciples or other maraClers arc in traditional white garments, sometimes with colored mantles or capes, His cruciform (and jeweled) halo is nactlythe same from panel to paneL The style of the work (folds on the garments, proponions of the figures) and overall compositional details of the panels (gold backgrounds, decorative borders) also arc the same throughout. Such consistency argues for a delibera te and mean ingful choice of these two ~presentations, rather than their being the result of employing two differmt workshops with two different perceptions of how Jesus should appear. hi. 80. J. "'" """"" Pilot •• m"""c' . ;rty 6th con. c ... s".., Apo ~ Nvc>.-c> p."...""", (""010: A,;t" c..). 162 FACE TO FACE F'i- 8 I J=' ;o'1 d dts<;opie< "" ,he mod to &r.m.u,. "",,,," . ~ 0M!y 6th con. C>, '..a Apo). I~ N..oc>.-o, R,y,'eo'Y\.I (~o; Ac An obl';ous explanation for these two different Iypes of Jesus ligure! is Iha! artisans deliberately portray~~ Jesus in scenes from his earthly min;<;lryas youthful. Once the narral;\'<' picks up his fulfillment of his destiny through suffering, death, and resurrection, Jesus is cast in the role of a mature god, one who is entering in to his inheritance and becoming both King and Lord. This might reflect an oth€fWise unknown aspect of late fourth - or early fifth -century Gothic Arian ChristoJogy th ai emphasizes the dual natures of Christ but th at sees !h~m as sequential, rather than simultancous. Arguably. this might be a form of adoptioni" theology that show> )csus coming into his divinity, perhaps beginning at his bap tism." Or this iconography might also reflect a biblical Christology based on the narrative structure of the Gospd of John, which begins with a rewunting of signs and wonders and transitions to a ~gospcl of glory" as Christ approaches his Passion. This transition commences with the washing of fect at the Last Supper in chapter 13, when ~Jesus km"W that his hour had come" ( John lJ:l), compared tohis earlier proclamation, "my time has not yet comen ( John 7:6). As we have noted, beginning with the image of the wst Supper at the apse end of San Apo!linare Nuovo, Christ's beard actually seems to grow longer through the story of the passion and the postresurrection ap~arana:s. Jesus' growing in stature and more mature masculine presence in this case represems Jesus' manifest divinity. 3ppar("nt morc through his passion thall in his mirudes. The same contrast of physical types for Jesus occurs in the iconography of baptism found in the two baptisteries of Rwenna, one designru for the orthodox (the Neonian Baptistery, ca, 475 ) and the other designed for the Arians.ln some respr<:ts, the iconography of these two baptisteries is 50 similar that it is dear the later one (the Arian, ca. 525) was modeled on the earlier (the Neonian). Although much ofthc mosaic PORTRAIT) OF THE INCARNATE ONE decoration of the Arian Baptistery has I>crn lost, and significant restoration work has made details ra ther doubtful in both, we also S<: 163 f'i. B2 Dome """"'~ m>< !!apt Sler~ R;t.-"""" (Photo: """tho<). 164 FACE TO FACE r" easily changed io later centuries. But, even assuming that the bearded Christ of the Orthodox Baptistery could be original, whether or how these two different images correspond to the different Christologies of orthodox and Arian believers is difficul t to say since we know very little about Ostrogothic Arianism {or its Christology}. Thus we cannot be ",'rlain that a non -orthodm theology was consciously procla imed on the ceiling of the Arian Baptistery, as a clear and dir<"Ct challenge 10 the Christology oflhe Orthodox Baptistery even though we may assert that the Arian re presentation of Jesus' baptism dearly differed from Ihe orthodox model. FUrlhermore,foUowing the IlYlantine conquest of Justinian, the Arian Baptistery was transferred to the orthodox (just a5 wa, the chun:h of San Apollinare in Nuovo) and converted into a small ora· tory (Santa Maria in Co,medin ).lf the iconography was in any senS<.' overtly heretical to ortllOdox eyes, it could have been removed or replaced (just as the lower register mosaics in San Apollinare Nuovo was obliterated by the Byzantines). But, as we can see in another important monument, a beardless Christ was not perceived as problematic by the ort hodox community. In fact, two distinct images of Jesus, one bearded and the other beardless, appear in the Basilica of San Vitale, probably begun in 526, but not con· se.:rated until 547 or 548. The striking apse mosaic- the focal point of a complex mo,aic program- shows a beardless and trans.:endent Christ, along with the orthodox Bishop Ecclesius (who founded the chnrch while the city was still nnder Gothic rule ), Saint Vitali s, an d two archangels (fig. 84). This Christ si ts enthroned on a blue orb and ha, short hair and a youthful face. On the inside of the arch over the pres· byterium, however, we see the bearded portrait type, complete with Si_Ap$e """"",, tnid-6t/'I cen C£. s.nVIIAIo. ~ ( Phot o:Aothor~ POR T RA IT) OF THE I N(ARNATE ONE darker comple xion and long hair parted in the middle (fig. 85). The bearded Christ may have been added at a later da te, perhaps during the time of Bishop Maximian, who appears in the lower apse with the Emperor Justinian. In this case, the difference between the beardless Christ in the apse and the bearded Christ in the medallion portrai t of the soffit of the arch is so pronounced that they imply the distinct styles of two different eras--un like the consistency of the mosaics in the upper register of San Apollinare Nuovo. 165 Fit 85. MctaAuthor). The Transfigured Christ and the Two Natures Co ntroversy In addit ion to seeing the variations in Jesus' image based on his different roles (savior and teacher versus judge and king), a key text of Scripture also poin ts to a var iati on in the ap pearance of Jesus at the crucial moment of his transfiguration. Up on a high mountain, Jesus appeared to Peter, James, and John as tran sfigured, his face shining like the sun and his dothes danling white (Matt 17:1 -8 and parallels ). OTigen pointed to this text as the proof that all persons were not equally able to look upon this sigh t in its fuU glory. Peter, James, and John were singled out from the others as alone capable of this vision,and in this way these three parallel Moses and Elijah who were both allowed a divine theo phany upon a mountain. As if this were his cue, Moses also appears , suddenly, with Elijah, talking to Jesus. And a bright cloud overshadowed them al l from which a voice said: ~ This is my Son, the Beloved; wi th him I am well pleased; listen to him! " (Matt 17:5; compare the voice at Jesus' baptism, Matt 3:17). 166 r" 86. Tr>.Mf'i"""''''' ~ rnod-6th ~ Cl. "!"" of~ ApoInat FACE TO FACE Based upon this pa~sage in the Gospels, Origen argued that Jesus had two modes of appearance: one for his daily appearance in his earthly life as a human (which would not cause comment or raise issues) and the other that only shone forth on One (known) occasion prior to his death on the cross. Origen uses this as a reason why those who cam ... to arrest Jesus in the garden did not recognize him, b«ause he was already "transfigured."'" Thus Christ's outward figure or form was capable of visible chang... during his life and also after his resurrection (accord ing to the Gospel narrativcs), when he was not necessarily immed iately Teeognizabl.. and might be mistaken for the gardener (John 20:15) or for an ordinary traveler (Lu ke 24:13-35) or even just a person standing on the beach (John 21:4), un til he caused his followers to ·open their eyes~ (Luke 24:31), Later exegetes alS<) saw the transfiguration as a vision of future glory granted to certain disciples, John Chrysostom, for example, wrmised that the ultimate purpose of the vision was to reassure and giw hope to the disciples, who had heard Christ talking much about dangers and death, even of impending slaughter of the disciples them selves, At th .. same time, it r.. waled who Christ really was and ant icipated the glory of his st"Cond coming! ' The artistic portrayal of the transfigured Christ in par ticular requir.. d that the artist find a distinct way to show the change in his POR T RA IT) OF THE I N(ARNATE ONE apP<'arance as the three d isciples saw il. The oldest known portrayals of the transfiguration both date to the mid-sixth century, and then almost no images occur again until the high Middle Ages. The first, found in the apse of the Basilica of San Apol1inare in Classe just outside of It:Jvenn a, shows the transfigura tion made up of sym bols ra ther than a realist ic oarrative image. Half-figures of Moses and Elijah float amid clouds on either side of a starry medallion containing a jeweled cross that has a bust of Christ (with beard) fixed to the (Tossing of the arms.lklow the cross are the words Sa/vil' M,,"di. Beneath the medallion and to either side on the ground (a green field dOlled with flowers) we see the three disciples James, Peter, and John, but here portrayed as sheep. The hand of God issues from heaven just over th e medallion. The starry medallion is centered in the apse in such a way as to give the impression of an oculus window, 0P<'ning into the night sky (fig. 86). Dated a lillIe later (on ly a decade or so) is a more narrative -based apse mosaic at Saint Catherine's monastery in Sinai. 1n this image, Jesus appears in gleaming while garments with gold bands. He stands within an almond-shaped aureole around his entire body (mar/dorIa), made up of shimmering bands of blue and radiating beams of light. The rest of the ground is shimmering gold. The three disciples (Peter, james, and john) kneel in amazement at the sight (Peter, in the center, actually prostrate) and are identified by the names over their heads. The two prophets stand to either side, also named for our convenience. This image is a beller il1ustration of the story of the transfiguration as it appears in the text, especial1y since the figure of jesus is dad in white garments, as it says in the Gospel of Mark: "glisten ing, intensely whi te, as no fuller on earth could bleach them~ (9:3) The Saint Catherine's composition may have served as a model, since later Eastern ;com share many of these same features- the aureole of light fractured by rays, three amazed disciples (the one in the center falling completely to his face). Elijah and Moses stand to either side of the spectacle" (fig. 87). 167 Fig. 87. B)'ZM'""" It,..". " ,.,..t>bIe Con o.p.cting th~ tr.>nsftg>..n!ioo. moooic rom the ~ MY,,,..,,,, Pari, (P!>oto; Bodgemon Art "'~) ". fA<E TO fA(E warm n,u ... lbt ,,, ... 'ion imaga.. .......hq ....... wet<. tdleainJ <>1" h"nun .nd ilivin.<, I nd pv< In indiwion < """'r«1ion. ..tI<" h< in", 11<0 ..... . This "' .. ..... ;"..,,,,. mod< try tItJ« ofh;" dioci · rico wtuk It., U.. ;,~ _ £>.1 .... ,""n II>< liI,h «'floury. oo-vn, u.... ""1 h .... b«n 0 ...... "'OJ" for .ni.. , to rnul ,t.. .1;';0< .,Iul'< of o.,iot- for i".,.",<, til< .... gold .. ~und Or ~)d.. . halo '«f< iimpl< way> of indic" '"1 ,II.. h< p<J_.-.d • d;"; ...... "'" .. wdI ... hu,.,..., form. llul .. b$... "" eumpk,."" ..,.,..;. froon. " ..unl>« of til< ea",omb of Domitill • • oddTflS< ... tttr orllio Ir,nlWld."", in • diffIf. This comp<><mon ...........,. Cbris, .... td on , hiJh·"ad,.d tbro ... within. "rip" 5f«TI S..,k)" . k .. "", «)ntoi_ ( , _ ) < IN<Mr of IN< philofophy. In "'I\< g.r«n 1orde-r fo< ,h. I.... I"",,,,' -v..., . r< ""lied , .... Soo . nd fOund t" be th< h thnl.hiv t.c.wocn ,I>< h ',"" .nd ,I>< Su.., .nd j, odd ...... ,t.. qu ... io~ of wbniI<wJtJz ~,of d,~, ""'"""" ,t.< Son bnns "",.ted by ,It< f .. h., I't.. An.n p<>ti,;"" ,_This moooic ..."". '" ..I:< • third I""i' ion, ,lth .. Ii..., II>< Sahdlj.~. 0' modIlj ... OII<-Ib. Sun. ddp'tr hi' .... hi. ' PI"''''''''';' It.. F"h«. on. ud ,t.. ...,,. wo, ."""dcd w" ", or IOu""......"'}' ,.._ .. ,,,'1lIy ...,,,,,Ie. "'-''''0«''' ,.,.,..i, " """"i, It,. """me ""m"", 00"8 (00)< p"""n wi,h Oft. 11.11",.), Th. &rJ!umf tl>< ........ oddt<so<s tho .... n« of the distinc! oppntoncr of ,...... who by virtu< alhi. di.i....... 'u" m ..... how hod tom ••1'1'...... , ~tT. ffl'n;o hi, hum.>o "1'1'<''''''''_ Gtq!Oty of N.uion ..... ~..,.inl PIoill,7.1I..rgu ,h., th.ot 100 OIri., ""Iun"ri", .,ripped ......, hi> ..-;,.;bI. glorr .., OS to be com,ibk .., nU""'" ...."., po."".. If bt o.d d."I,d ..itlWI hi> __ - . . t bt WeI _ """"" • 1 '., ~,.""WeI"""""'whorbt_ "'I·""-~ .,.; "'"",podwDotN.• • ,... p«1a ... _ tu...~ ... ,J bi __ """",,," _ .... . '-".1"".-.1)''''''' ... , ....... ...., .. f.;o .. ., ... .mb,j;fl;'''r tbt bod ro-"oiGod. r..- bt .........I0>00 00< ........ ...a " oi God, - . . - . . , ..... oJ ....... .....n.I <)'<01 .... ,..,,,,,,,_ .... "ril" himo .......... odI .. 1000 ....... _ I...,j I "",.k 01' ............... .. ;, wrn •• ..,... . - o<>d • oIiooo .. """" oi b.. ...,.,.), 100 lM""'KI by POR T RA IT) OF THE I N(ARNATE ONE Thus the artisans might want to represen t that glory, and yet also its diminution, in compositions that placed Christ within an halo of light, either as transcendent and enthroned (as in the mosak from Hosios David described above, p. 157) or by showing him at the moment of the transfiguration, when he did in fact appear to some human eyes in his full divine glory. Only certain persons could have barely glimpsed such glory, and then only at certain moments, for as Gregory says, in most circumstances Christ had to lower himself to base huma n form or be otherwise incomprehensible. Thus, when the three disciples looked upon the transfigured Jesus, they had a visual intimation of his full divine glory, and their vision was itself a sign that such seeing was actu· ally possible to thoS(' who were spiritually aware or open." But even so, theS(' images are arguments for the possibility of depict ing ksus not only in his human ity but also in his divin ity, a feat that Eusebius had denied was possible in that lett er to wnstantia where he purported ly claimed that no image could represent both natures. In his argument, he also cited the transfiguration as his example, a sight almost unbearably glorious: tndeed, il i. not ."rpri.ing lhat afler his a!'en he .ho"td ha,·• • p~ar"" a, ,ueh. when, white he-Ih. God Logos-was )·eI tiving among mortal, he~ha nged [from]lhe form "f a .erv. nl .nd indi~.ting in ad'.. n<e to . rho .." b.tnd of hi' di .. iptc, the a'p""t of his kingdom, he ,howed on the mo"nllhal nalu,e ",hi~h , urpasse, Ihe human one-when hi' shone tike Ihe '"n .nd hi. garments Iike tight. \""0 then woutd be able 10 repre .. nl by mean. of dead coto,.. and in.nimale detineation. Ibe gti.len _ ing. flashing radiance of ,,,ch dignity and glory. when even hi' ,,,,,,,,human di>ear 10 !:>ehotd him in thi s gu i.. and fell on their face>, thus ad minin s th.t they could not with>tand Ihe sight! .. , How e.n one paint an im . ge of '0 wondmu, and "natt.in.ble. form -i f the term "form" i•• t all applic.ble to the divine and .piritual ...",nee- unte •.., tik f,," the un!:>eti The way this text frames the issue puts it directly within the controversy surrounding the mailer of Ch rist's natures, and, if genuine, the letler anticipates the christological controversy of the late fourth and early fifth (enturies. The issue at stake was now no longer the equality of the divinity of Father and Son, but the ways in whkh Christ's dual natures (human and divine ) were united (or kept distinct) in one Person after the incarnation. Eusebius's point was that, even though the human Jesus had a physical appearance, that appearance was thorough ly and neces sarily altered by its being mingled with the divine nature so as to render it beyond the capability of any human artist to represent. This new appearance was S('en in the transfiguration, but it certainly could not be 169 170 FACE TO FACE reprodu{cd by a painted purtrait, because it " ..s unique. It had no (XIs- sible rcS<.'mblancc to anything on carib. Christology. Salvation, and the Role of the Image Euscbius's leller to Constantia was found (as noted above) in the icono dasticflorikgium dated 10 754. Its appearance there required its refuta- tion during the si.>::th session of th,' Seventh Ecumenical Council (787), when the definition (homs ) of the prior iconoclastic cQuncil was refuted point by point. When they came 10 Euscbius's kner, they introduced it as a product Of"3 defender of Arius.," an "opponent of the holy Council of Nicaca,~ somcone "hal' ing gil'ell himself up to a base milld,~ and "3 double-minded man, unstable in all his ways, who must not suppose that he will receive anything from thc Lord " (James 1:8)." Thus the iconophiles dismissed Euscbius's lener not on the grounds that it was inauthentic, or even on the grounds that his Christology was incorrect, but on the grounds that he, himS<.'lf, was a known Arian. But Eusebius's objections to images of Jesus as recounted in his let· ter (authmtic or not ) arguably have more in common with the Chris lology of Athanasius th,m of Arius, and (Crtainly more in common wilh Cyril than NeSlorius. His assertion- that the mortal nalurc was "swallowed up" by the di"in~ (dting 2 Cor 5:4), and that the mingling of flesh with Ihe glory of divinity made it so changed as to be no longer ordinary, but wondrous, unimaginable, and as such beyond representa· tion--has the ring of Alexandrian ,lrgummts, in which the purpose of the incarnation was to take the human body, transform it, and thus extend that possibi lity of tran sformation to all human beings (and bodies). Death and corruption arc thereby banished by human appropriation of his body and by the Ugrace of the resurrection:'" We recall Athanasius's vivid comparison of the transformation of human life to the work of an art restorer: ror as, " 'hen tn. likm... p.inted on . p.nel has been .ffa<ed by min . from without, the one whose likerl . ,. it is muST need, rome once more to enable the porttait to be tcnrwed on the <.:Ime wood s.in«. for 'he sake of 'he piting the image of the Father. ea me to oo r region to ron,",,' humanity once m.de in hi, likene... and restor< lhe one k" t. through th. remi ssion of . in • . . . and crca,ed.n",",' in God ', imag And the incarnation wa~ noxessary, according to Athanasius, becau~e humans had ceased to r{'cognize the divine image in creation through their own perversity and carelessness. Thus, the Image itself had w make PORTRAIT) OF THE INCARNATE ONE an appeJrance in order to renew the human "image after the image." But, he adds, the incarnation did not circumscribe the divine nature within a body but, while in the body, quickened it (and all creation ther.-by); the Image did not suffer any change o r dulling of glory, but rather sanctifi{'d and glorifkd the body itself, sine{' h{' was th{' maker and lord of his as well as of all other bodies." Rl'turning to his central th{'m{', Athanasius insists that salvation for th{' human means becoming a more perfect image. The restoration of Adam is, in effoxt, the work of a di"ine artist on a human canvas, an image perhaps suggested in some of the sarcophagus images of Adam and Eve with Christ. The parallel of s.1lvation to the work of the artist occurs in other late fourth-century writing$. which contain no condemnat ion or even criticism of the work of the artist, only an assertion that the making of art might be an object lesson, For instance, John Chrysostom, in his instructions to candidat{'s for baptism, compares the artist painting an im'lge to the ways these new Christians ought to be preparing their souls. The outlines may be erased and redrawn, but, once the colors arc applied, the image has been sct: let the ",me thing happen no", which occu rs in [he ,;lSr of painters. They sct forth tMir ",ood.n tablet" Jra'" whit. lin .. arounJ them, and trace in out~'1< [he roy.! images before thc)' daub on the true lead. ,o,,,cling miouJ i, ." imaSC_Ikfore daubing on the true color of the Spiri1. er.~ the bad habi" which ha". t..come implante..l in rou. , .. Th. bath takes .way the sin .. but you mmt oorr«t the habit, '" that after the pigmonto hay. t..en daubeJ on and the roy.1 im,ge ,hin", forth, )'011 may neyer thereafter btot ;t out or cau .. wounds or sco" on the beauty whicb God ha5 gi\'en you. ~ T he comparison that both Athanasius and John Chrysostom draw between the salvation of souls and the work of an artist suggests that they (unlike Eusebius) see a value in the making and appreciation of images. If anything, Athanasius's argument insists that all of creation rewals the natur{' of it s divine creator, although the incarnation makes it present in a unique and dramatic way. But the artis t, of course, cannot reproduce this divine glory. which infinitciy transcends its own image in its full glory and is fundamentally distin<;t from it, and the artist must be content with representing it in some kind of symbolic fashion that c.1n speak to the heart and m ind as well as to the eye. Or, the artist might chooS{' to represcnt a br{'akthrough such as the transfiguration , in order to show that such \'ision is fully pos~ible in certain circumstances. So, 171 FA{( TO FA«( "'" ort" not ...... n. to "" ~..tf .1I< tru.h but only 0 ......... of 1TY<>li"llo tNlh C;m"'" "" """ rained .., it, any .,.,.. tho" . ho b<>dy of J..... rnuJd cirruml<,ih< tho divil'l< IllIlu",. And yt1. I""" In!> "'81!'" ,ho, P'''''' ;'' -... ,.,,, d...... «1 h. "" ~ .ny 10......... Th. coio .tu.. wilh Iho «>n''''~y over tho "'-'u ... of Chri .. ;' ..... ioon'. Ti><>< im.~ brgan to iipp<'Ol ju .. " tl>< ....... im< .lul ,ho VCr lho mtion ."d ilii.ti"".ioon of til< di.ill<.nd h""",n IUtU'" in Ih< inc"lUl< lot!<»....ny~ witb itI full i"!tmily, n.. Thon _ 'PI'''''''nncil of O"I<w\< ,,, ;n 451 .nd "",. tribu,«I m",h to .ho <1'<'«1 p",mnlgot< dUti..ru...n ... of both ""n'" and ...!»tan.,.. .. p..... I • ..! in 'ho ina,' It!< InvUiblo ....... h;modf .;.ibk . .. c... •• inly '10 .... 11>< "dk.1 ",Itural .nd .h«>Josi<&l d ,I.. . . ..,.., ·w""""" < mid· fourth ' o . ho m Oi;l·fifth ""'''''1 hod. profound infllK1ltt On 11l<.ut.;= """"'1 .......1.. cultural and poIiliuJ fotCtO tlut >hapod.ho """t< and f"."", of CJ>riotuni.y .. .., «tabIW>n of tl>< Empir<, Tht ka, of J'OI'ID idolatry and migiorr _ no ion3 .".. .....n.o, r.. ....l ,nl'P',«I ,... ,..."." ,." .....;fi< ·f.." of . ho lord io pic • ;-,"",10"" ...1'«1 with infiRi« ..rirty by rountloa . hough ............ i. _IiI:< h. ttn.inly oRly h.tJ Ont,'" And .... althous/l tho beor!!' oiubl. i""5'" of (h,io<, "'td . ...-.y. SIX Early Portraits of the Saints and the Question of Likeness AS THE (H V RC H grew and buam{' securely csrabJish{'d, the threat of idolatry from the outside (polytheism) diminish~xI along wilh Christian reticence about making portraits of holy persons. By the beginning of th e fifth century, ponra irurc was becoming a dominant type of iconography and, while narral;"C art continued to be produc~-d for illuminated books or for d<'Coratiw programs on church walls., saints' likenesses wcrc c'.crywhcrc, often as rclali,'cly inexpensive items t hat might he mass produced. The portrait frescoes in the catacombs were joined by etchings in glass, carvings in stone or m(.'tal, and the insides of bowls or plates with images of martyrs and sa ints. As portra its, theM' images usually lad:cd a larger narrati,'C frame that would "tell a story." Instead, the physical reprcsmtation of the saim, solll{'timcs with simple props or spedfic attributcs Ihal as.sislcd in identificalion, provid~-d an aid to devotion and inspired veneralion. Saints, of course, were not divine beings, SO Iheir images could not be attacked for trying 10 drcumscribe an infinit{' nature or dil" inc glory. At the same time, the saints were exccptional persons, thought 10 be filled wilh th{' Holy Spirit in a special way and sanctified in bolh body and spirit, so Ihallhcir images were still different from portrdits of ordinary individuals. ' Almost as soon as saim,' portrails appeared, they began 10 playa significant rolc in the devotional practices of the faithful. Portraits were nOI seen as edifying alternativcs 10 written 11:..'1:15 or lessons from Scripture, bUI rather a means of focusing Ihe ";ewer's attention on an individual whose life was particularly holy and who, though no longer alive on earth, was still spiritually present. These images achiewd this by representing physical appearance of a sa int's or martyr's face and body, ofl<.'n with few ddiniti\"{' background or associated narrali\"{' dements apart from the helpful inclusion of Ihe sainI'S name over his or her head. 173 FA« ( TO FA(E How<"', t"' .. im'g", _f< ~rd«l .. mo« da n m,,,, ,rcord. of p/>yti",,1 ,nd .. ",dI thq b<&>n to f«.civ< ...... 0< hOIll po,uaillolthe sods'" I"'.m"""" IIad. !' of ohowing . - ...... toUm to it> rnods <WI of au·i tt"n ..in" .nd marty ... The ",roun' ol l}'<1<>« Niod ·""""nilfll.lo.inlio .nd offcri", ,",,,n,:. '0 i.: ""'n', ",.-:twn -,'0 "1'"di". t'" practk< 01 ""' ..... ion.nd.hm .'" po"',i' itorould no' br "truro ,nd "'8I<'t ,«m'rgrna in th.11,. fO"rlh . nd early fllih om· ,uti« _ no1 ..1>oI1y unprect:dffil .!moot en of u,rill of San Gm ....... in N.pI" that ronnY" bull of til< ~ Pr<>arl ... ... ,,,,und«l,lik< l~«Iro' im. 01 John. by prla"'" .nd ..nd .... Wh«hrr ,h. prrJ;' ..... 'imp!<: memorial "",Init is difficult to "".. m in<. Th. diff...... " brt.«n .n on:liruo,!, fun.romI:o& ... 1"" of Ift'<"" drrontion of .n OIdi",'1' pn-son', tomb wu b«oming JDOH f t_li, condl .. in ,'" 0'""" poo,;.ion . Hit lu.Io '""0 .... ,'" ehri>l"l"'m (wi.h aIpIur . nd """P'), and, over h;' head, .oldi,ir>ruoI tou·tI1o <~ appea', witll ,'" O«Ii" ' Q'!' inocrip. tion " s"""", M.rt,... Ion"",",' (/is. n .... p. SO). Allhough J.n""i",', ",lies...,.", broo.r~I" to N.pl .. . oo d<po. il«l in 'hi' c".comb in ,h • ..rty fi~h «n' u,y. tl>< bod;" octu.dly buri«! in th;, tomb . rr oflb. '''''' r., ..... I.. "",,"n '0 ,,,;00 ' p",,"""". t'" I'" ""I>.. i,_ '" Ii", ."is"••,".... '.bn.,;,,, ,,,«I is w" .h, _It 1.0,,,, ""n, i" /NK'" t'" EARLY PO RT RAI TI OF T HE IAIN TI A slightly ea rlier example, a fresco ben eath a tomb in the coofess io adjacent to the church of Sant i Giovanni e I'aolo in Rome, shows two individua ls bowing low before a standing figure who appea rs behind two drawn curtains, his hands outstretched in prayer {fig, 88}, Since the posture of the two kneelers is one of veneration, the orant cannot be an ord inary person o r deceased famil y member, as in earlier catacomb paintings, Above this image is a small opening, which may have given access to the tomb or served as a means of communication with the remains o f martyrs buried inside. On either side of this opening are the partially preserved paintings of two additiona l standing figures (with missing heads). On the two side walls are rare and unusual KentS that haV<.' been identified as the arrest of three holy persons (two men and a woman ) and their beheading. This latter image shows the three figures with their hands tied be hind their backs and their eyes blindfolded. Below these scenes are standing portraits of four addi tional figures (two on each side).' One other rare, early representation of martyrdom by beheading was carved in relief on a ciborium column found in the subterranean basilica of Saints Nereus and AchiHeus, built over the Catacomb of Domitilla in the late fourth century, which shows the beheading of Achilkus. According to one legend, prior to becoming a church the site of the confessio deKribed above was the dwell ing of saints lohn and Paul, who were martyred under the Emperor lulian in the year 362 C .F.. and buried 175 F~ 88. f r=o d Saont ftcom tho Con.....,d~Gi<Mo m iII>d Paolo. Rome (Photo: Graydon Sn) 176 FACE TO FACE inside their OWn home (or, according to a different version, in the house of a Christian named Byzans). In addition 10 the remains of John and Paul. however, tradition claims that the bodin of three other martyrs were deposited al this place, at a later time and by a lady named Ruffina, a sister-in -law of Parnmachius, who built the first basilica on the site. The identity of all the figures in the iconography is therefore somewhat problematic. The two «headless" saints might he John and Paul, while the two kneeling figures have been identified as Pammachius and his wi fe Paulina. The stand ing oran t has been identified as Christ (w it hout a halo), as one of the saints associated with the place, or some other saint altogether. The three martyrs are variously identified as Crispin, Cri~pi anus, and Benedicta; or as Cyprian, Justina, and Tl1e1xtistus, depending somewhat on the dating of the different martyr accounts as well as the dating of the painti ng itself. ' As we noted earlier, in t he third century, a sect ion of the Catacomb of Callistus was set aside for burial of the bishops of Rome. The remains of as many as nine Roman bishops were either buried at this place or translated at a later time (identified by their epi taphs as Pontian, Anterus, Fabian, Lucius I, Stephen I, Sixtus II, Dionysus, Felix, and Eutychian). In addition to these popes, three Afri..:an bishops (Urban, Numidian, and Octatus) are interred here. Adjacent to this ~crypt of the popes" is the tomb of Saint Cecelia, which may have originally contained the martyr's relics (prior to their ninth-century translation to the basilica named for her in Trastevere), as well as the remains of those who wanted to be buried near her. This chamber was adorned wi th mosaics and paintings in the fifth and sixth centuries, including fresco portraits of the martyrs Polycamus , Sebastianus, and Quirinus (their names appear above thei r portraits)./ust to the left of a modern copy of Mader no's statue of Saint Cecilia (ca. 1600), a small niche contains a painted portrait of Christ with a short dark beard and long dark hair, probably dating to the late eighth century. He has a jeweled, cruciform halo and holds a Gospel book in his left hand. With his right hand, he makes the traditional gesture of speech or blessing. Just next to the portrait of Christ is an even la ter portrait of Saint Urban (identi fied by name), an d above is a restored figure that shows Saint Cecilia hersel f, in the orans position. Farther on in the Calli.ltus catacomb is a chamber built by the Deacon Severus for himself and his family, apparently with the permission of Pope Marcellinus at the beginning of the fourth century. Adjacent to Severus', chamber is a small cubiculum with a fres.::o of five figures, tra_ ditionally thought to have bo.>en martyrs, each standing in the orans position and surrounded with birds and garlands, and each identified by name (Dion ysia, Nemesius, Procopius, Eliodora, and Zoe), with the addition of the epithet ~i " pace." A sixth epitaph, «Arcadia j" pace," appears below the figure of Dionysia and just above the image of a peacock. The five figures are all clearly intended to be recognizable portraits, EARLY PORTRAITI OF THE IAINTI and their hairstyles, clnthing, and body size vary according to their gen der and age. Almost nothing is known about these individuals, and their customary identification as saint~ is difficult to substantiate from any documentary evidence. Perhaps the only reason to assume that theS<.' were five martyrs rather than members of a single family is that their portraits were all apparently painted at the same time, suggesting th at they also died together, perhaps in the Great Pers&ution at the heginning of the fourth century. The cult of saints was stim ulated in Rome at the end of the fourth century, largely through the efforts of !>ope Damasus (366-384) to iden tify and restore the burial places of the saints and to provide itineraries for pilgrims' visits (along with verses written by the Pope himself, engraved and inserted along the route). Portraits of the saints began to replace biblical figures and scene~, particularly as ordi nary burials in the catacombs hegan to end and these places became destinations for pilgrims who came to visit the shrines of the special dead (fig. 89). As early as the late fourth Or early fifth cen tury, relics were even brought to the catacombs from elsewhere, despite the attempts by secular powers to prohibit the trans ference of such remains. ' Chapels soon were built into the catacombs with altars for the celebra tion of masses at martyrs' tombs, and dec orated with portraits that dis played both the saints' images and names. Since ancient Chr istians desired to have their own remains buried near a martyr's tomb, th ose sites were in high demand and probably only granted to individuals of wealth, power, posi tion, or influence. One example is the crypt of Veneranda in the Catacomb of Do mit ilia, which contains the only exist ing material evidence for the cu lt of the Saint Petronilla. Veneranda's tomb, probably built at the end of the fourth century, lies in the area beh ind the altar of the basilica of Saints Nereus and Achilleus that was filled with tombs of those who wished to be buried near the saint's relics. In a 177 Fig.!I'./. s.. cyprion ....d Stot)< Photo; EsteIe ~) . 178 FACE TO FACE F" 90."""' .....""" ",\11 S"" PetoOf" COIo Il00' ' C>t>corrb Socioty: Photo: &~ ~ n~ lunette fresco in a small cubiculum is the figure of Veneranda, identified by name and date of burial. The deceased is shown as an orans figure, being led into the garden of paradise by Saint Petronilla herself (also identified by name: "Petronilla marlyr~ ; fig . 90). Anothe r painting of a d istinguished person with patron sain ts is in a crypt at the oonom of the main stair of the Catacomb of Commodil!a, in which lie the relics of Saints Felix, Merita , Nemesius, and Adauc!us. In the early fi ft h century. a fTt's.:O was added portrayi ng Christ, enthroned on a globe and hold ing the book in his left hand, handing the keys to Peter with his right. To Christ's left is Paul, holding scrolls of the law. Both Peter and Paul are identified by name, and on ei ther side are the martyrs Felix, Stephen, and Meri ta. A larger sixth-century fresco dt'wrates the rear of the crypt and shows the Virgin seated on a throne with the child Jesus on her lap. To her right and left are Saints Felix and Adauctus, the lat terwith his right hand on the shoulder of a ra ther simply dressed woman who is merely identified as "Turtura ("turtle dove") in the accompanying inscription and who probably was a patron of the shrine and perhaps also buried nearby in order to be dose to the saints' holy rdics. She holds an open scroll in her hands, perhaps an offering either to Mary or Jesus. As this example demonstrates, in addition to portraits of saints whose relics were nearby, fifthcentury catacomb frescoes also showed Mary or even Christ with his apostles. An example of the lat ter was found on the ceiling of a chamber in the Catacomb of Peter and Marcellinus, where Christ is presen ted enthroned betwee n Peter and Paul. Directly below Christ is a small lamb, standing on a rock fro m which spri n g the fou r rivers of Paradise. To each side of the lamb are two sa ints, al together the four martyrs who are especially connected with this catacomb and ident ified by name -Gorgoniu s, Peter, Marcdlinus, and Tiburtius. A similar composition , in the Catacomb of Callistus, shows five sa ints (fig. 91). Like D 179 EARLY PORTRAITI OF THE IAINTI the saints' portraits in Commodilla, the style and composition of these images easily distinguish them from earlier paintings in the catacomb and mark them off as later additions for the purpose of en li vening a place of pilgrimage, rather than recording an ord inary place of burial. Fig. 9 t , F~ >aonU from tho c:.t.comb of Col istuo, f'Dme (C The IntematioNl c:-. ~ ~ Pi>oIo; Estelle ....." Descriptions of Saints' Portraits in Literary Documents At the beginning of the fi fth century, Paulinus of Nola, who had com missioned artists to decorate h is basilica dedicated to Felix, commended the value of paintings on the walls of churches-sacred scenes as well as portraits of Christ and the saints. He did not believe that the images themselves contained some kind of sanctity and, in fact, called them ~empty figures." All the same, he thought that contemplating things would ~nurture the believing mind with representations by no means empty." Accordi ng to his description, his art program induded narrative scenes from the hero stories of the Old Testament, as well as portrayals of the saints' deeds "performed in Christ's name." 0ver these paintings, he noted, were captions that identified them. Paulinus admitted that some might think his decoration · unusual," but he defended his artistic program both as a means of competing wit h the continuing attractions of pagan idols and as a way to draw pilgrims into the church and away from the martyr's tomb, where the customary feasting and drinking might get a litt le unruly; This was why w~ Ih oughl il o,dullO ~nlivcn alllh ~ hou ..... of Feli x wilh p. int i"!!, on ".cred them ... in the hope Ihal they would = ite the interests of lhe ,"'Ii« by their ,lIr.oclive .p""..... """, for Ihe ' ke1 '" F....{ ( TO FA«( ... , ..... """ ... 0... ""'" .t< .. ~ ;""";""on.. "" _ .... ....... ............. _ ... ,. '..,. .... p;oio ... •....... S._oI .... _ "I, folio ...... ' ... ,o.l ..... .,... .. """ ""'" "" .. ti po;n1.,j ...,. , .... offood. ...... .... i\tuo of~ ~., p~ 7 = .. .... ............ _ .. "" poioo .... b _ -,..,:ht .. to .......................... ' .... Ih<m . • . • ...,._. _ _ ~_ • .. and....,. """' .... Ioocioa I o . _ .....! ~ s.v..u.. In , I.. ,.. wri ..... to hi> frii in... io. d1~rd1 dmJo-. tion .... , p.... diffcrmt probk", .ho: . pptVptiotrnda of in k.,n«l !Iu! s.••"" ,,'od. .d<> .t PrimoWo,m w;,h pon ...i" of Soint Mon ;n .... Thu ... (ditd Yl11 .. wdI .. of ~.ul ;n ... hiJru • '1'0<0<,";1>« ' I>< boo: ,I>< I.... I!< .,( ,he hca~1y man t.,. hi> rnf«' ;miM ion ofChtU, lO .. hM men '-r uido l""oId 'III" '" Ibm earthly imag< in ,II< Np!;,nw ro .... tho portrait of • h • ......Jy ..,... ..""'by of Im .... ';.,n w<...w ........ II< ~ "'" 10 ..... """"' ,II< ",iubili'1 ofJu. own Iil tb,;,.,..... .1\0, _,tty Iood bod thio 1""',,;, don< -.p..,..I of l"'" ............. 10< .... I "..&d doufo' "'" wid. -.Id _...,j ..... ..,..s.,.;.:'"'" __ . . . - ... ....... .......... " ' d .. _ """"~ ...iL,... bod __ .. """-- ~ ..... "'·. hoIy ....· """ .od ..... ..,.-' "',.... bod ~ ODIytwa ond_ . Scveru,', sat... """ of in'pir«! by uuo . lfeaion, Poulinu, VO<M>uoIy off.... f<w ' ....... to Il" IIlonJI with tl>< twin port .. i" thot th Mo"in, ,I>< ..,.,.jd of .. inli)' COU"l< . nd n<>bil;,y, .. .....e .. Poulin.,., tho< mod ptt>llipt< cl!..ily, ,hey ho", b1M of .... II · d .... V< .... M . .. in', pO .."it "c.t<", f<>. ,I>< o:;>mfon of ~ tin ...... • Num.ro •• d .... iption, of .;. ••1 " I". .. n'........ of .. in .... ilt in "odi,,,,,, an< ..ioti.... "",1<1io1 ............ apMt from ,I>< ron~io .. Sain" Gi<wanni and Paolo tJo.t " ' - an oa of ....... ytdom .. .....e .. OIl 0<, of ~"ion, Ro,I>cf tlUII only '''''''m'i..... he .....;., EARLY PORTRAITS OF THE SA INTI of th e martyrs' passions, these interesti ng texts also describe the portr ayals of these passions as they appeared on art objects. A textual descri ption of a pidorial subject (ckpllr/Isis) had a rhetorical purpose of its own, of course; it may have been intend~-d nOt only to describe an act ual visual image but, e,'en more, to recreate the "isual experience and emotional reaction of a viewer who may have been simultaneously hearing the story." The audience (or reader) of this description is thus invited to imagine what it feltlikc to sec the artv>'ork and experience its emotional impact. However, in almost all cases, the works d~'Scribed in these documents hal'e disappeared (or newr existed),and so we have no basis for comparing a verbal description with an actual object. At the "cry least, we may assume that authors elaborated or enhanced the images they described in order to achieve a particular literary purpose, even if they did not make them up entirely." The value of these images lay not only in their accurate and edifying illustration of particular individuals' cou ragrous deeds but also in their ability to instruct viewers on the nature of sanctity itself, something that migh t be attained by gazing upon the image of the saint, while calling to mind the fort itude and transcendent aims of the hero. In time, the face alone could serve as an emblem of hoJineSlS, and gazing on a portrait would offer some direct knowledge or aWareneSl; of the character of its model and would thereby edify, inspire, or in fl uence the viewer to imitation. This was the case made by Paulin us, at least with respect to Martin's portrait as it was seen by those being baptized in the font at Primulacum. In that inst ance, the image, al though a simple portrait, revealed far more than a mere extern allikeneSl; since it bore witness to Martin's entire character and called to mind his many wonderful deeds. Another example comes from a homily of John Chrystostom's in honor of Saint Mclctius, Bishop of Antioch (360-361 ). He pointed out that parents both named their children after Melctius and reproduced his likeness in painted portraits that were etched on rings, seals, and bowk Thus, Chrysostom notes, the faithful not only hear his name repeated frequently in their community but can take additional consolation in seei ng his ~physical traits" on an almost daily basis. ~ In many of these literary descriptions of martyrs' images, the artworks described seem to focus on the acts of the hero, more than on his or her external appearance, and so arC not portraits in the strict sense. Many of them supposedlYl'rcsented scI"Cral scenes in scquence and Wilh extensive narrative detail. perhaps somewhat embellished by the writer in order 10 give a dramatic, pictorially oriented presentation, characteristic of much rhetoric of late An tiquity. Still, the vil'idneSl; of these writ ten descriptions provide important data about the significance of saints' images in the devotional life of the era. 181 182 FACE TO FACE One such example comes from a homily thai was apparently deliv- ered at the martyrium of Saint Barlaam in Antioch, which has been 3uributcd to Basil of Cacsarca. According to tradition, Barlaam died al the beginning of the fou rth cenlury during the persecutions ofGalariu5 and Maximinus Daia. He refused to drop incense into the sacrificial fire, allowing his hand 10 be burnt instead. The author (perhaps John Chrysostom, sinc .. the homily was delivered at Antioch) describes a "j,ual depiction of this s<:cnc (and includes Christ as the pre sider o,'cr the "contest~), possibly in the shrine itself, and praises the work of the artists who skillfully presented it: Ari$< now, 0 spkndid p.inter of tho f.ats of martyrs! Magnify with )'Our art th< g<1",,,,n tb. band and the fire. (In,. again. Let Christ, too. ",ho pre:s.ides ""cr the rontesl I>< d The indus ion of Christ in the picture, as the judge or presider over the conK'St, is similar to a tex! ascribed to Basil's friend and contemporary, Gregory of Npsa, whkh describes an extremely complex scene of martyrdom in Saint Theodore's shrine at Euchaita (near Ama.seia in PonIUS) . Gregory praises the anisl for induding the deeds of the saint, his resistan,;c, lorments, the "ferocious faces of the tyrants.," the insults, and the dealh of the martyr himself. He goes e\"en further, making a com parison benH"en the vivid portrayals of the martyr's passion as rc<:ord~-d in documents and the image as portrayed in visual art, credi t ing the painter with portraying by means of colors ~as if it were a book that uttered spec<:h . ,. for painting, evcn if it is silent, is capable of speaking from the wall and bdng of the greatest benefit." " Gil'en the many aspects of the artwork described, it apparently had many sequential scenes, showing the trial, mocking, and tinally the death of the saint. The powerful relationship we see here between storytelling and visual portrayal as lauded by Gregory of Nyssa above is also affirmed by Basil, in a feast -day homily he delivered in the Caesarea church that housed th e rdics of !he Forty Martyrs who died under licinius, frolen to death on a lake near Schasle. Proclaiming that the words of orators, like the visual images of artists, are equally able to make dead hnoes vividly present and excitc both courage and commitment in listeners and observers alike, Basil observcs: ~Those parts of the story that a sermon presents through the hear ing, the silent picture sc\s before the eycs for !he sake of imitation.w" Here Basil, like Grqlory, parallels the henetits of rhetoric and image and claims an equal \'a1 ue of seeing and hearing or reading for the inspiration of the fai!hful. EARLY PORTRAITS OF THE SAINTS A more detailed description of pictorial imagery in a martyr's shrine comes to us from Asterius of Amascia, who claims to have Decn captivated by a painting on cam'aS of Saint Euphemia on a visit to her tomb. Asterius provides a brief account of Euphemia's Story and the establishment of her cult and then goes on at great length to describe the visual ponrayal of her passion- a vast nanati'·e image that included a huge cast of characters (gm'ernment guard, soldiers, secretaries, magistrate, and executioners), as well as the saim herself in a number of episodic scenes including her torture, imprisonment, and death by fire. Throughout this dcscription, Asteriuscommentson his own reaction to the imJgery. For instance, Euphemia's expression at her trial showed a mixture of modesty and courage. Astcrius praises the artist for being able to combine both these affections in a single exp ression and adds that, although the virgin was portrayed as quite beautiful, he (Asterius) also perceived the "virtue that adorns her soul." Asterius even compares this image with a famous first-century paiming of Medea and announces that, based on his viewing of Euphemia's passion, he has transferred his admiration from those painters of classical myths to the artist of this Christian story, who "blended SO wd l the bloom of his colors, combining modesty with courage, two affections that are so contradietory in nature."" Perhaps the most impres.sive of these descriptions of martyr's images, combined with a verbal retelling of their stories, comes from the poctry of Prudentius, a Spanish ascetic who was a slightly older contemporary of PauJinus of Nola. In his cycle of martyr poems known as the Perislepilallol1 (meaning "wreaths" or "crowns~), he teUs the stories of fourteen renowned sain ts, including Peter, Paul, Lawrence, Cyprian, Hippolytus, and Agens, as well as more local Spanish saints from Cahahorra, Tarragona, and Saragossa. In most cases, these poems arc more than hagiographies pr~"S<:nted in verse, sin<;e th~"y also evoke the space and dcror of the martyrs· shrines and e\'en describe liturgics and pilgrims' activities at those places, making the work a valuable record of the cult of martyrs in the late fourth century.M For example, in his poem dedicated to Saint Cassian of Imola, the spea ker presents himself as a pilgrim on his way to Rome, stopping along the way at the shrine of Saint Cassian. Lying prostrate on thc ground in front of Ihe martyr's tomb, he tearfully looks up 10 the portrait of the saint, "depicted in colors and bearinga thousand wounds, his whole body lacerated and his skin torn by tiny punctures." '" According to the image, the link puncture wounds were inflicted by schoolboys wielding sharp styluses. These schoolboys were on 183 FA<£ TO fA(E Soint Hipp<>lyt .... tom 'p"n by wild _ ID)1holog¥. in " .phi< ..... (10'1 ktoil: Ii... hi< nomnak< in G=I< A __ .... n . " " . - ollt!.. b..,,01-. ... _ ..n..t <010 ..... ou, .... """"' """ •• """" __ .... _ ok '"""'" tIut _ .... _ ..... <>1 ... d,-.J ...... - . . - . , _ ohm ............. ,... ..... ",,0. 010 ..... of r.. ........... ,lot potpk ... ,h .. tbt b""" ..... " ...... uill
load -..lib _milboo f'OiM. 0... a...Id ..." ~ out tbt bo>dr _ .Dd

,;"""- """ _, ...... """"""Y"""" -... .......,", ............... ...

&,Uow"" ..."., ... "",..... poth,

"""Y'" ....,.,., .... faithl\Jl ...,..... St .. ""..! otith j:tid ood I<M
tIorit.,.. .. "'" _ ......

""""01_

,hq

11>< po
tyr', fOIlowrr. "",hm", up hi. rei", (includi", hi< !> ,I>< " 'nl·, ,,,,,,b pooitio""" in • 'p«",1 <M!",I with ~ nuo,bl< .nd rr«iow mOlob. 11>< fo"""'" oI.>n lodoubt thlll'" ."work 0<1.,.u.,. ..ist.od .... """,Id ha .. l:«n .. compi<>< .. Prud ..'i ...·• d""riptio .. WOtlId ""kt it. bul poition. bou, ,,,""'.., brins imagt ,nd ,\(Iry..,..11« .. ' tinill .....h< nth.. Iuond ..... if FNdy<W>. 0,,,«1 in po«ie or ",,",nie aJPOti ..... lor nompl<. rmrr<mlOn h< ~ Stephi,,'cd out SOW in .hio '''''3<, ... ndi", by ,nd lw>Idi"ll .1>< dt>oks of .hote .hrowinS ,II< "'On", ,h ... _kin! .IIi< imo8< in.... I<_n .boUI tt.: .fWllio",,,'ion 01 . pcNh,in< <>ISoin. Marlin {as >lIt.: IUln 0I11to, ""tury byG"W"YnlToun) ..... ~ktwite .1>1< ' 0 ... ....u po.inl'''3' .ho. dtpO:t
.doI.,.,.

pic,.,."1

.Ito, ....

,Ito,

o.

.-.t.uu.

"" i"...

f M.m..illet, for ""'''oyin, pl<'u~ on til< walb. lin« ...rn .hins> ..... ....lol lor in"nICI,ns til< unlwas< md ~ .. ti'u.J. ofb<~b Molicol

""'.... nd

0"""'0 ono,,_'

EARLY PORTRAI TI OF T HE IAIN TI Without any doubt, these visual martyrologie,~ had their OWn pagan parallels in the fi rst - and second-century wall paintings that showt'd mythological scenes of heroic suffering and death, such as the punishment of Dire... , the sacrifiu of lphigenia, or the tlaying of Marsyas (fig. 92). As noted above. Asterius of Amaseia mentions having seen powerful images of Medea (probably copies of a first-century original) and compares them wi th representations of the martyr Euphem ia. Th.. dose relationship between story 31ld image was, in this case, far olde r than this Christian tradition and provided a still- recognil.ed prototype for the figurative cycles of the Christian saints. At; we have noted, in time the emphasis shifts away from narrative types, and the portrait becomes more prominem, with the saint's face rather than the saim's deeds as the focus of devotion . Thus imag<J begins to replace hisroria in Christian art, insofar as it invites veneration and prayer. The narrative images do not disappear, but even as they continue to visually re.:ount the stories of Ch ristian heroes, their function is dearly different from the portraits, and their power more latent than active. The face, much like the relic of the saint or even the saint's name, is the point of attachment between devotee and object of devotion, whi le the stOTY is n{'(essaTY backgrxmnd to that point of contact. John Ch rysos tom, in his homily praising the sainted Bishop Meletius, comments on the importance of the holy person"s physical appearance on small domestic items (r ings, bowls, etc.) in t he formation of personal piety and inspiring his flock. Also im portant, however, was the fact that many of their chi ldren bore Meletius's name, which gave them a "double con solation" after the saint's demise." But just as the tradition of honor ing and even venerating saints by means of their portra its was being established, it was also being criti cized (ad ditional evidence that I't was actually occurring). We have noted earlier that Epiphanius 0 f Salamis ,"ndemns the ma king 0 f images of the saints, which he says were meant as a memorial and even worsh iped in their [the saints' ] honor. In his crit icism, however, he gives some information about the pract ices he abhors. For instance, he claims that some of his readers "dared to plaster walls inside the house of God and by means of different colors represented pictures of Peter and John and Paul, as r see by the inscription of each of these false images. Here, he may be referring to the pract ice of inscribing the names of the saints over thei r images. And then he adds: "BU!, you will say, we contemplate their images so as to be reminded of their appearance.·'" In response to what seems to him a useless claim, he reiterates the traditional argument that pain tings of external appearances from life are dead and speechless, whi le the sa ints themselves, although now dead, are still living, con formed to the image of God and adorned with glory- like the angels. l ike Lycomedes' John, he scolds those who would venerale a dead like ness of what is dead. M

18 5

FI- 92. t1N!y;o, 1« '" 2nd ~CL

bund

WI ~ .

l.oo.Me I"1u>eum. Pan.

' ~

186

FACE TO FACE

Specific Examples of Holy Portraits PETEII ASD PAU L

Fig

n Gold--&!- ~ d

Pew w>d P.....Votocoo Museun, Vot.:an City (0 The "temotoonoI c.~ Sod~,_h""~),

Epiphanius's condemnation of them by name indicates that portraits of Peter, John, and Paul were the earliest recognizable saints' portraits to appear in Christian art. Eusebius likewise had mentioned seeing portraits of Peter and Paul, paint...:! in colors, which were being accorded eer· lain killds of llOnor5.'" Augustine mentions portraits of Peter and Paul with Ch rist in a passing comment on misattribution of books to these apost les, baS«l on such pictures:" And extant art historical data show that while konographk representations of all twelve apostles, often seated to either side of Jesus, are relatively common in the mid-fourth ct'lltury, those of Peter and Paul begin to show particular, re.:ognizabl{' fadal featur{'s from that tim{', The other apostles are not easily rewgn izabl{' at this early stage, and it will be some c{'n turies before their facial likenesses are established ao;ording to tradition. Peter and Paul, howewr, are not only {'arly to appear but frequent by the late fourth century,espedally on Roman sarcophagi, where they often are placed on either side of Christ giving the law. In add ition to Peter and Paul being p.:rceived as the repr{'sentati,'{' leaders of the two ~branchesM of the church (j{'ws and Gentiles, respectively), another obvious explanation for their particular popularity in Rome, as well as their being frequently shown in double portraits, is the Roman church's claim to have a double apostolic foundation and to be the site of the martyrdom and burial of both saints. Rome's Christian id{'ntity is associated with these two in particular, and their portraits are widespread by the beginning of the fi fth century. Mort'<Jever, in addition 10 painting and sculpture, their likenesses appear on ivories, gold-glass (fig. 93), metalwork, and pottery, as well as mosaic {fig. 94) ." An interesting iconographic transformation of the mid -foUTth century is the assimilation of Peter and Moses into what w{'re formerly representation s of Moses' striking the rock to provide water for the Israelites in the wilderness {hod 17: 1-6; Num 20:2- 12}. In these scenes, the Israelites are similarly changed into Roman soldiers, wearing short tunics and fur caps. Although the t ransformation of the imagery may be based on a play on Peter's name (petros - rock), or- more likely-an ea rlie r (no longer

EARLY PORTRAITI OF THE IAINTI

existing) version of a later (perhaps sixth-century) insertion into the apocryphal Act~ of Peter that describes his striking the walls of his prison in order to baptize his Roman jailers, the typology of Peter as new Moses was also known in the literature. Augustine, elaborating on the text of 1 Cor 10:4 (which cites the rock-striking story and makes Christ the rock), continues Paul's typology by making Moses the figure for Peter. Moses doubted the Lord's good will, just as Peter denied Christ during the trial and doubted that he would be resurrected as he promised.'" Such a typology makes se nse out of the frequently combined sarcophagus images of Peter's arrest. the rooster, and the striking of the rock (fig. 95). The iconography also confirms that Peter, particularly in Rome, is the new leader of God's people, taking the place of Moses in the "old dispensation."

187

Fe. H F'od P..... latc 5th 0<"

....ty 6th Ceo , .ee).

Fe. 95. Pete.- ~ the rod:. ithc"" . cL"'~~

Mv<eo Pio CM\WIO, VO\>CIo1 City ( Photo:~) .

188

r".....,.t96.ofCoon

W>d Ab Crist;'..o. V.6un Gt)'

' 1'"",,,,''

(Photo:Author~

FACE TO FACE

Elsewhere, as on th e Junius Bassus sarwphagus, Peler's arrest is jw.. taposed with that of Christ's, since i1 is in a parallel niche on the upper register (fig. 14, p. H). Paul's arrest appears in Ih e lower register in the far right with a Roman soldier drawing his sword \0 suggest his beheading. In the cenler of the upper register, a youthful Christ is enthroned with his feet on the head of the god Caelus. On either side of Christ stand Peter and Paul. On another, single-regi ster, sarcoph agus from Rom ... of approximately the same date (ca. 360), the composit ion shows the arrest of Peter to the left of a centered triumphal nos> surmounted by a chr istogram within a wreath and, 10 the right, the arrest of Paul (fig. 96). On the far left, Cain and Abel present their sacritkes to God, and on the far right Job appears with his wi fe. The parallels with the Junius Bassus sarcophagus are marked even though the latter is of superior qual ity. However, on the single- register sarcophagus, the facial types of Peter and Paul are more dearly delineated, perhaps because they are not as likely TO have been resTored by later artisans. In the s«ond sarcophagus, Peter has thick hair that comes down over his forehead and a trimmed beard, while Paul is balding and his face is longer. A simi lar presentation of the two apostles' facial types appears on a tomb ca rving from the late fourth cenlury. In this case, both apostles are identified by name. Peler's hair is curly and thicker and comes down over his broad brow, and his jaw is quite square. Paul's forehead is more prominent, his hairline receding, and hi s beard slightly longer, making his face appear more narrow and his features finer. Between their two heads the christogram appears again. The two apostles also appear with Christ in the apse mosaic of Rome's Basilica of Santa Puden"liana, dated to the turn of the fifth century, The maj estic Christ sits on a jeweled throne in the center of the composition, flanked by the apostles. Immediately 10 Christ's right and left are Paul and Peter, identi fi able by their facia I types. Two female figures. offering crowns 10

EARLY PORTRAITI OF THE IAINTI

these two "chief" apostles are usually identified as personifications nf the Church of the Gentiles and the Church of the Jews. Although the mosaic has been much {hanged by restorations over the centuries, the central figures in the composition appear 10 be more or less original (fig. 97)." In addition to the tomb carving descri~ above, possibly th e earliest known example of a double portrait of Peter and Paul is found on a mid -fourth-century terracotta bowl, now in New York's Metropoli tan Museum. The exterior of the bowl has four circular stamps of a christogram enclosed in a wreath. The inside floor of the bowl is also stamped, but with an image of Peter and Paul, each identified by name. The two are seated facing one another as if having a conversation, and Peter extends his right arm, pointing at Paul, while Paul's own right hand is raised in the traditional gesture of spe«=h. Here, both Peter and Paul are beardless, and Peter's hair appears to be shorter than Paul's, which curls and covers the back of his neck. Between their two heads is another christogram inside a wreath." Other examples of the paired portraits of Peter and Paul appear on gold -glass, as well as one on a fresco in the Cemetery of Severo in Naples (ca. 350-450}.'" In most of

189

Fig. 97. Owist wrth ~er ...-.d Pool. <JetoiI of op>< .... ,ii<:.

Bask. ofs.rn. f'uder,,,., .. P.c.-n. (f't>oto; ..... tt>o.-~

190

FACE TO FACE

the se cases, Ihc christogram is placed between thc heads of thc two apostles, or Christ appears to orfa them both wreaths of victory. The traditional facial features given 10 Peter and Paul bcwmc even

wnsiSlcnl and pronounced through the next (Century. Peter's face is broader, his hair thicker and curling owr his brow. Paul, on th{' other hand has a narrower face. somewhat pointed beard, and balding head. Their appearances arc so marlc{'d that identification does not depend on

thc inclusion of their names, as in most sarcophagus presentations as well as others in i,·ory. bronze, or mosaic: for example, the late fourth-

century dome mosaic of thc baptistery of the Naples cathedral; a latc fourth -century lamp in the shape of a ship (thm is, the churc h), with Paul in thc ste rn and Peter at thc helm; a fifth-(cntury ivory beh bucklc showi ng the meeting of PelCr and Palli in Rome; or the sixth -century portrait medallions of Petcr and Paul flanking JeSU5 in the main arch of the basilica of San Vitale in Ravenna." Such convcntions may come from oral tradition or brief references in apocryphal texts, since there is no extant canonical descript ion of either man. For rxaml'k, the Acts of P that the portraits of Peter and Paul, as rlOCognizabk as they were, were based on collvcntions that rc\·cakd thc model as a philosopher or teacher." According to Paul Zanker, Paul's face is modeled on Socrates', while Peter's is baS<'d on the typical appearance of a Cynic or itinerant philosopher:" The compositional pairing of Peter and Paul with Jesus giving the law and/or the keys (traditio /egis <"I c/IlViwrl) \·ari~s somewhat according to geographical region. Those images that come from Rome tend to show Peler rc(eiving the law from Christ's left hand, while Paul stands in the place of honor to Chrisr"s right (sec figs. 14,62-63,67, 77 ), whereas artworks from outside of Rome (for example, a number of sarcophagi found in Ra\·cnna) often show Paul recei\·ing the law from Chrisr"s right hand. This variation of placement and of which apostle is given the law rna)" reflect a tradition of rivalry between the two apostles or the churches claiming their foundation, or it may be

EARLY PORTRAITI OF THE IAINTI

191

nothing mOre than a variance of traditions between Rnme and other regions." In some of the images. Peter and Paul are given equal stature and, moreover, appear facing one another in a composition often identified by art historians as the concordia aposlOlormn." In the two dome mosaics of the Orthodox and Arian baptisteries in Ravenna , Baptistery of the Arians-Peter and Paul both show up at the head of circling procession of apostles, each iden! ified by name. In the earlier mosaic, both apostles approach one another holding thei r crown of martyrdom. In the later, Arian, baptistery however, Peter and Paul face each other across an empty throne surmounted by a jeweled cross, Peter to the left of the throne, holding the keys, and Paul to the right, holding a scroll (fig. 49, p. 124).

MARY, TIl E MOTlIER OF IESUS

Prior to the Council of Ephesus in 431, which officiallydedared Mary to be the Mother of God (11'£OtO'\:05), little evidence exists to suggest that the Madonna had a specific iconographic tradition or standard portrait type. Given her centrality to the art of both East and West in subse{juent centur ies, it may be surp ri sin g to di scover that Mary d id not playa prominent role in early Christian ar!. Several mother and child images from the catacombs have been identified as Mary with Jesus, but lacking any dear evidence, they are more likely portraits of a deceased mother holding her ch ild (compare fig. 31, p. 49). Similarly, a scene of marriage, sometimes identified as the wedding of loseph and Mary, almost certainly portrays only a traditional Roman wedding." Mary's earliest and most certain appearances in Christian art are in scenes of the adoration of Ihe magi, dating from the late third or early fourth century, in both catacomb painting and relief carving (fig. 98). Other images of a woman seated wi th a visitor have sometimes been identified as early representa-

Fis- 98.Ador.uon ofth< M>&o rom • 4th <"" u.....,oph.o. II"~ r-beo Pic Cn5tj..-.o.

N~ViJljgr) City (Photo< Author~

192

FACE TO FACE

~) ~ .1'

99.Annur.ci.oon. from !he c.t.corrb 01 f'n><:iIk Rome r~

......,

(C The If'ltemMOnaI

c.a-

comb Soc~~ Photo; 8teIe

lions of the annunciation or of the Virgin and ch ild with the prophet Balaam (figs. 99- 100).

Shortly after the Council 's dedaration in 431, however, Marian iconography blossomed and incorporated images from both the canon -

inl Gospels and the Apocrypha. Empress Pukheria dedkated three dlurches in her honor, one of which was later said to possess an image of the Virgin painted from life by Saint luke, reportedly sent to her from Jerusalem by her sister-in -law, Eudocia. luke, of course, had provided the fullest picture of Mary in his infancy narrativ<" and, according to the

legend, luke included this painting (blessed by Mary herself) with the text of his Gospel, which he sent \0 the "most excellent Theophilus~ (Luke 1:3). The prototype.lik.. the imag.. ofth .. Mandy/ion of Abgar. had been reproduced and known under the name of Hoo..gilria Cshe who ~hows the way»), to which miraculous powe~ were attributed." Christian iconography soon b .. gins to present Mary in narrativ.. sequences, beginning with her youth and marriag.. to Joseph, con tinuing through the annunciation, visitation, and birth of Jesus, placing her at the foot ofth.. cross, and- by the sixth century-at the , .. nter of the apostles at Pentecost. A late fifth -c.. ntury ivory Gospel cover in ,h.. treasury of th .. Milan Cathedral portrays th .. apocryphal stories of

EARLY PORTRAITI OF THE IAINTI

193

Mary as a girl in the temple and the annunciation to Io.lary at a ~pring, as well as scenes from the birth and childhood of Jesus." Around the same time, the nativity and the flight into Egypt also began to appear with some frequency in Christian art . I>erhaps the earliest and most monumental program of Marian narrative imagery were the mosaics in the apse and on the triumphal arc h of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, often dated as early as 432 C.E. and dedicated by Pope SixtllS III (432-440). These mosaics must have been already underway some time prior to the Council of Ephesus's affirmation of Mary's status. The original apse mosaic of the church portrayed the enthroned ~ladonna with the child on her lap, among a group o f saints presenting their crowns. (The present apse mosaic, showing the coronation of the Vir gin, dates from the thirteenth cen tu ry.) The three registers of the tri umphal arrh in front of the apse depict scenes of Jesus' advent, birth, and infancy, in which Mary appears, perhaps along with her prototype or precursor, Sarah." The now -lost apse image of Mary enthroned with the child on her lap was nndonbtedly widely copied, and its parallel appeared in later works as reconstructed nave mosaics of the Basilica of San Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna. S<:t here after the reconsecration of that formerly Arian basilica, the Virgin is shown seated on the red cushion of a high -backed jeweled throne, her feet upon a similarly jeweled footstool. She wears a dark bluish-purple hooded tunic (maphorioll) with gold oonds, and her head covering is adorned with a single white star o,'er her brow. Her

F;g. IOO.V<"V' OM D"Id wM !!aIoom Cmcomb of Pri
..........,

194

Fig. 101. Madonna ;nl child, W, cent'-')' CL "" ' '''', 5or! ~N""", , ~

(Photo: """""'}

FACE TO FACE

child WearS a white tunic and palli .. ", with similar gold bands. The mother has a simple halo, while the son's is cruciform. Both mother and chi ld make the sign of blessing with their right hand. To the right and left stand archangels with green haloes that match the green ground on which they stand (fig. 101 ). A similar composi tion can be seen on a sixth -century Coptic tapestry, now in the Cleveland Museum, in which Mary sits upon a very sim ilar high -backed and jeweled throne, her fei'! upon a large jeweled foolstooL Her mantle and veil are the same dark bluish -purple. In this artwork, however, the mother has a golden halo, while the child has none. Her hand is on his right shoulder and he holds a scroll in his right hand (fig. 102). Her name and the name, of the archangel" Michael and Gabriel, are woven into the border above her, which creates an upper panel that shows a smaller figure of the enthroned (and nimbed ) Christ within a blue orb, held by two angels. Surrounding both scenes is a floral border that contains medallion por· traits of the twelve apost les, also ident ified by name." The transition from narrative image to icon is clear here, and one of the traditional modes of present ing the l>lother of Christ is established in these compositions. A sixth-century ivory diptych from Constantinople also shows Mary with the child On her lap, flanked by the two archangels, and a seventh-century encaustic icon from Sa int Catherine's monastery in Sinai portray:; Mary and her child between the saints Theodore and George, while the archangels stand behind the group of four. As in the other images, the central figures all face forward, and, except for Mary whose eyes look to her left, all gaze out at the viewer. The two angels, by contrast, are gazing upwards as if at God ( wh~ hand descends into the composition). As before, Mary is garbed in a dark purple maphorioll. This icon is one of the three important early pre -iconoclasm panel icons at Sinai, along with the famous icon of Christ the Teacher (fig. 59, p. 138), and one of Saint Peter."

EARLY PORTRAITI OF THE IAINTI

The early image of the Virgin enthroned became, in time, only one of the traditional presenta· tions of Mary in art. Sometimes she is shown chcck- to-check with her chi ld expressing compassio n and tenderness; sometimes shc is shown standing, with hcr child in her arms or in the orans position with a medallion containing th e child over her breast or womb, indicating the incarnation. Although Mary almost never appears wi thout the child in portrait icons, she (of course ) does in the narrati,·c icons (showing the annunciation, the crucifixi on, the ascension, and her dormition). She almost always wears the dark bluish-purple robe that appears in the earliest images, usually with a star over her forehead and one on each shoulder. Her centrality in post-fourthcentury art, of course, has much to do with the defense of art in general, since the incarnation of God in visible human form formed the essential argumen t in defense of Christian devotional images. The declaration that she be properly called "Mother of God" was a key part of the Orthodox christological position (proclaimed by the Council of Ephesus in 431 c.!:. ) ratified by thc Cou llcil of Chaiccdon in 451. For these reasons, her image is key to the theology of images in the Eastem church. The traditiollal liturgical hymll (koll/akim1j in the Orthodox church for the Sunday that celebrates the restoration of the icons after iconoclasm (t he Sund ay of the Triumph of Orthodoxy) is addressed to Mary, Mother of God, alld asserts the associat ioll between the icon and orthodox Christology: "The indefinable word of the Father made himself definable, having taken flesh of thee, 0 Mother of God, and having refashioned the soiled image to its former estate, has suffused it wi th divine beauty. But confessing salvati on, we show it forth in deed and word." " The invisible God became visible by means of thc flesh of this woman, and so her visiblc image is as essential as Christ's.

195

Fie- I02.1cc<> 01" the V.-gO'\ Egyp<. ~"" peo ¢d, 6th =.-y CL'" MId cIo:Mo uj ipestry _

. v.ooI.

178 x 110 em. (Q TI>" Ct.-..-e· land ~ m cf M 2003. L.eor....-d C. Kamo )": 8eque
196

FACE TO FACE

The Question of Likeness: Conclusion The qUCMion of actual

phy~icallikcncss

in all theoe port raits is a thorny

one, particularly since actual ufrom life" por trajt~ do nOl cxi~t (eve n including any that may haw been painted by Lukcj. Morro\'cr, in the ab.cn,c of contemporary wrinen descriptions of most of the .aints (with the possible exccption of Paul's descript ion in the Am of P'lIli mId TII~da),

we have no way of comparing dcsuiptions with portraits. Yet portraits of Peter, Paul, or Mary arC clearly recognizable, and they in

turn contribute to the established tradition of how these individuals "looked," alicast in their artistic representations. Through time, subse-

quent artis ts drew upon the early traditions, and SQ, in time, their images oc.:am.... wn more standardized. Even so, names were still plJc«l above or neJr thc faces of most other saints, and particular attributes or objects were includcd to aid in their identification (like SJint Law rencc's griddle or Sa int Catherine's whed). However, if the " truth~ of the port rait is based Jt some le\'cI on its purported likeness to its subject, then a likeness based merdy on tradition might be challenged, and the basis for an image's legitimacy would then bc open to question. At least one early critic, oppos«lto all kinds of religious images, may have used this problem of"likeness~ as a way to discr«litthcm. Epiphanius. the renowned opponent of heresy, wrote a letter to Emperor Theodosius I, urging him to tear dowo curtains that bore images of the saints in churches. martyria. baptisteries, and c'\'en private homes, to whitewash owr walls witb fresco port raits, and- as mucb as possiblc--to remove mosa ics wilb sucb figures. He claims tbat sucb tbings bave no autbority from antiquity and a"uses tbose who crafted tbem of im'enting falseboods and tberebydishonoring tbe saims: Furthennore. thr)' lie b)" ,epre.. nting the app"ornn"" of ",int. in different fornl> .ccording to their whint. ",mdim"" Mtineating the sallie person>.' old men. sometim., OS )'Quth" [ond so) intruding into thing, which the)" h.w" not «
Clearly, Epipbaniu; doubted tbe validity of anytbing cr~ated out of the imagination of artists, and he would have dismissed any claims of inspiration as m .. re "whim." However, he was not so mucb worried tbatthe artists got tbe likeoeSIJ "wrong" 3.\ that they dar~d to make portraits at all. But imagination was not always seen as a merewbim of all artist,since images (teated from tbc mind might also ~ S~"'"Tl 3.\ impro\'ements o\"cr those seen with tbe erc. Since cxte'rnal pbysical images We'rC ever-changing in any use, tbey could nC\'cr be an ult imate truth. This was an old

EARLY PORTRAITS OF THE SAINT\

idea, elaborated by the Greeks as far back as Aristotle, when he argued tha! the imaginative work of the artist had intrinsic I'alue and was not merely a mimetic act i"ity, trying to reproduce an exact ulikene&S.~ The artist's vision, according to Aristotle, was guided by divine reason and reflected an ideal image known by the mind. When this guidance was incorporated into the final product, the outcome was an improvement upon the original, eliminating natural defects and enhancing beauty. Li keness "''as not lost in this process, but rather more closely achieved." Nearly six hundred years later, the portrait-shy Neoplatonist philosopher Plotinus elaborated on this aspect of artistic uinvention," contendin g much like Aristotle that true artists do not simply imitate what they see, but instead tran sform their bodily vi sion through the work of the mind or sou l. Thus, the product is made more perfect th an the model (in nature) because of their inspired awareness of the perfect form, In this case, a work of art is no mere imitative by - produ~1 of a skilled or unskilled imitator or a mere physical appearance, but the result of an aim to achieve the perfe" likeness as it e.~ists in an idea l realm. For example, when he discusses the figure that the sculptor Phcidias made of Zeus, Plotinus regards the artist's imposition of a form seen in the intellect but not in the senses with approval: "Thus Pheidias wrought the Zeus upon no model among things of sense, but by apprehendillg what form Zeus must take if he chose to boxome manifest to sight."'" Such a statement recalls Apollonius ofTyana's defense of the manner by which Greek artists fashioned images of their gods: Imagination ",rought th ... work>, a wi .. r and ,ubtl.r arti't by far than imitation; for imitation
Although Plolinus's positi,'c regard for some kinds of artistic production may seem almost ironic givcn his general suspicion of the material world and external appea rances, he is joined in Ihis by another unlikely advocate. Augustine, although not a well-recognized defender of the value of visual images, took a similar line in his distinction between sense-knowledge aod art. For him, art is judged as Iruthfuilhrough the faculty of reason, although the senses arc the intermediaries in this proce&s. The standard of truth is perceptibk by the mind and absolutely uochaogeable. Becau.sc of this, the humao mind is also able to recognize error, and even to suffer it to some degree, but yet to distinguish the dis~ ,rcpaney between the ideal and the actual as wdl as the degree to which the image represents the world. For Augustine, however, good judgment is even betler than artistic skill."

197

FAU TO fA(€ Rdip,'" pO,hoi" WC,,"'" hold to in.:o,!,,>n" .hi> < -..1"", O. 0 product of ;m.g;n.. ion .lun of in.pimion ond "'_ion, .in« .i>< ......rul ttJ>n,J"",iono. Ila
."is.ic

0'''''

.h
,. _ " "'" .. ,if.:i.j " " - ' - 1

,."" P'-"<

c-.""

,

'0 ,h."

d olin i
"n........ ...J --... ...... '" i
""""'" 01""' ..... ........ 0.1"<10 oIhio buo.Io. Thio ;,., .. 01 .... poiMH,

_. . . . . . ....t_

"'" _

'''_, .... "'" _

who _ _ _ _ _ ~

,........J........,_

'Mot> tbt imprilll of ..... ..;,;a, t><

itliU ........................•

Th< .... " is h...... und of ''';';'rw-y, on< wbo .. « ;,e; ,n i"""" and gun'..! til< ability to ' .. n,1rr tII<;dto in.., vitiblo f.><m. Th .... th< Ii~ n of til< .ru ... wbKh would not haY< I>oiti,~ '" ....... adtqu.ot< ......... of .lUin;", a "likrnm" by i"""f, Th< doim fu, lil=.go,). in the .ndition (which .... y roW:. • daim f<>r.n o.i",,,.) "r""", lir," r"""'rr< "' . n <}TWit" ... d<1<,irlion). ,It in the limplr: ....:osnition c( til< devout beholder. In II>< end, tl>< truth Ii ... in .h. O(t.,,« o/" . h. im. . I nd in ilS.fficocy ... n obi«' of ~"".i"". whkh....,. h . ... nothi"3 in ,h • i,h abooIul< doi"" to ICCUratdy r< plIy$i<.aI ........ . """ of .1I< .. i"I-o, ""'" of Chriu. Aft .. all. ,h. ri.Irily ,w"lI doubt.
,,","w'" ..

'p.o"

..,d.o" ..

1'"""",."".

.,,)_he.. ,' " D· por1roiu pro .. t ... • .... "'gIy hrid bd;.f ,ho, .. in'" i~ - . . liti.hfui ..".....,..' .. io'" ol ' hrir act",1 phy>icol . ppoo~. Lat .... in,,' I.... <>f."" .,..,,;.,.. ,hei. "ttin~ for ,heir in til< co>< <>f Sain' lhootIo", c( SyUon in ,he """,'h ",,'my. wht, I hk l'Io1i<1 ...) ...tift'" . Dd had to II< poinl
1""'"''''''

""'"limn.

EARLY PORTRAITS OF THE SAIN TS

her in terms that match her representat ion in popular portraiture, which only makes sense. How else would they identify her? Epiphany depends, after all, on rewgnition. Gi lbert Dagron cites many cases where the !;lint's appearance to a visionary was authen ticated by referenec to its wnformity to that !;lin!"s portrait and wndudes: "I recognize the !;lint from his image, but th is image prefigures the vision I shall have of him. This is more or less the vicious circle in which we arc caught and which givcs the world of the icon its perfect autonomy.~" And thi s autonomy, as Dagron points ou t, is based in the same claims that the ancient ph ilosophers made about the portrait- that the ~truthH of an image never lies in its external accuracy, but rather in its ability to inspire the ,·iewer to.see more than the surface image and to re<:ognize the transcendent ideal to which it points. On a more pmctical level, the !;lints were recognizable according to the way that tradition had defined them, which might hal'e \"Cry link to do with the definition of likcnNs ill the purdy external or mundane sense, and, when traditions differed, as thL]' did later from the E35t to the West, the portraits might not be un il'ersally recognizable." And this point returns us to the one that Augustine articulated in his treatise on the Trinity, that the faith of the viewer was not shaken, nor the quality of devotion affcrtcd, in the end, by the external likeness of any portrait: An)'one, .urd)·, "'ho has read or hoard what tilt apo.tk Paul ""rot< or what "'as wrinen .OOuthim. will fabricotc a f.(C for the '1"),11< in hi. imaginotion md for e,'oT)"body d .. whost name i. mentionN in tM" texIS. And ~.ry one of the "." number of I"'0ple to whom these writin&, are knOW" will think of their physical features and line.me"" in a Uifferem w.y. and it will ~ quite im possible to tell who,. thoughts are nearest the mark in this r•• pect .. , , Ewn the phy.i".1 foce of the lord i. pi<:tured with infinite variety by rountl"" in.agination., though wha te"er it was like he ctrtainly only had one. Nor a. regard> the faith we h"" . in the Lord lesu. Christ is it in the I.. " relevant '" $ihk to ~y "Perhaps ,he had. face like this, perlt.1p •• he ilid not,""

199

Notes

Preface I. Ronald l.«'Uw. hed • ponion of this preface in , sl ighlly differ,nt form: "Image, Saoctity•• oo Truth: The PUC< of lh. fur,,,;, in Ori,,;'" T"dition; ARTS I l.1 (2001): 2<>-ll.

I. Visual Art, Portraits, and Idolatry L Hippolytu~

/I.! 9.1 2: tiber """"

17.

2. Tho Imn "catacomb" rom<. from m orKi,", "('«IK. to th. ' ''POS''phy of th. I....ol !In' ttl< >it< of. shrin< for P< Callistu. «mel.')". oontaining . bo 000n«i J"""">b III or lufo quuri<> t 0., ""'Y h, v< mod. i l •• • i", l<J oonOlrur It.: h"). J. AII"",,gh ct.ri"i, ,,. WOI ;""'"ltd byo.,i"" .. Of' practicrd u"Oq ... ly by th.m. ' ..... 1p.inlingo . 00 .dorn«! the burial dumbers.oo <" acorn"" of non·OI, i>I" n Komins. both .,.gan •• oo 10W<..00 .... known back ;nlo .nl"uhy. !ljbliogr.phy on , " orom"" and non·a.'''I''n Rom.., lomb r1lion (inh lOmb ", .. rom"") i> [lOW vw. InlroduI<,,;, Theo.,im.:" c.r".«) ..b, of /41"", IJuw".O<"''''''''n. Inlri "' ,on Thud.-". (JI<-g<nsburg: S."1Corby Finn"" and rh. ong,'", of Chris· u,,"ily (Flo ..",., Sc .... 1931 ); I.rn .. Steve",o,," TIl, G.rla(omb, Rnli«<>WmI: Mo""m"," of Early Chr;"io"ity (London, Thorn .. ,nd HooKln. 1978); I.udwi& HenHng .nd Engelb"" Kir..:hbaum. Tht Rom." ea,,,,,,,,,", Their ,If."1"" ( MiJ .... Bru«. 1'66). ~, The ,,,umplion th.t Orri,ti,,,, were r< "gum<"" in M' "m;""I . "i r . morf cautio< 'UlOO' . rgu<> Ihat · l"
,ubtm'"""

.mong

f"., g.rwp. '" "'or.""''' ""'''''m\os,

f.,

A.""

Qms,"".

""J

"x«:

".g<'

201

NOTEl TO PAGEl 5-16

202

of ph)'i<'. ankubt«l by inug... ;. ill ff'l' indud, t),roiogi.n. who or, .nt"SOni"i< 10 . ,.... 1irmS"'od d,mon",,'<, "fund",,,,",,1 dj>m< p<~iv< w .. b.u'",1 ui>lrnc<. in oth iocloding Finn<)', The ,"",;bit Goa, tOo;...!. 6. fur • I.., of th... "",4 "" Ch,IIn Mu,,,y, "Art and tl>< Early CbUfCh.· lO3 n. 2. s.. .ro Finr>nn, 1"""", OrA". Nv",,,,O.,><, with ,h,;r I..... W. h";'age, did oot US< I' Ea'ly (l!arlIlODd,worth: Progui", I C/",h of God" ... R,;n<"I''''.';'''' of fArly Chri";on ...", ,", om. Ori>ti.1n arl ffi>y h,,,,, rom< from Gnootk ""mmun;,;.. or rcfk<,
n..

a..,a.

,n. 'pl"'",n' • OOrogyny of ,h. iro,"'!l"'phy.

9. 1h,ull;'n, l'uJ. 10 ( ......., 7) . 10. I"n ...... II.",. I .l~.ti (Ir''''' "'NI' 1 : ,~I). Soo P.~I O>y ~·i"".y, •... k un. nO" l propo~'o dell< ;nugin i Co!pOC.nion< di c.,,,; RAC ~l (1 93 1) : 35-4 1. II. Tmulli.1n, Idol , 8 (' " .... /tNF 3:M) , 11 . o.m.n1, Prot. 4 Itrans. LeL 14Q..43). Her, a,m"n' ref", to ,II< prohibi' io" of idols •• f""nd in Deut 4: 19: ' and bcw. 1'< 1<>< )"'u ~n up )'OOr <)"<' '0 h"",n, . nd wOrn )"'U >« lh • ...'" ,00 ,h. moon . 00 the all the 1>0.1 of h..,·,,,, l"" be drown , w'y .00 """ship tll<m .00 k"'" th ,hot lh. Lord )'OOr God ha ••110,,«1 to. ~ ,be p«>pJe. un
"or"

5« al.., dO""'l\t, Strom. 6 .16.

13. a.,,,..,,, 1kttJ. 3.11. S« P:ml Co,l>y f'inn.oo f.arly O d ... li.n ... " .. lUI' 41 (1 937): 18 1-86. 14. Ckmrnt, Strom, 5.S ('ran~ ... NF 2:451). IS. Ibid .. 6. 16 ,1 2 , Thi, J'I"og<;' dl>c""ed by M.ry Clurl .. Morny, • ... rt in tho E.rly Ou",h: Jlo.21. 16. Pliny, N.,.~~ . )6 _ _ 7. 17. Origen, C c.I. nj (l ... n~ /tNF 4:510). 13. IbKl., S« C. Cd>. ~.76, ,,""cr< O'igcn attock. lboo< who 'h .... n '0 '",trk •• nJ wo.-.hip ;""g<' or ,0;",.10 .. d;v;n" ... • • • ';n .. nt· ,00 lboo< woo f""ion .uch im.g<> , . boins pd. 8 ..l-t. 20. S«, for in"oIl«, T.nuil;'o, Idol. 15: :rnd -'1>..-r. II. 21. H i ppolytu~ Tr.d , Ap. 2.16. 22. For, so<>< . i.....1 cul,u", of tho tim. i. fo und ;n 14 11",or, 1001'..,;'11 /10"", d"d C/Iri""," Triumph , Tht /or< of ,ht /10m"" t'mp;" AD 100000SQ (OJford' o,fo,d Univ. Pr..., 1m). 13. MinoeL'" F,lix, 0«. 3.4; T11'< ,II< rabb ..' "milar i... lruction to I<w> dooc, ibod below, II. 39. H. Tr. Thti",ity: HTR 40 (1947) : 1_17,.nd .... mmory diocuuion in M.ry Ch ..ko MUIT'Y' "Art in E.rly o.urth," )(17---3, "" tho uk of lh. o.-c.)ogu< in ."Iy Ou-illi. n lc>ching.nd 'h«Jkogy.

.1..,

/)"pri."

,n.

NOTES TO PACES 16-2 0

203

19. On the D.uteronoml" Rdij;iow R'gu. proo« T. N. D. M<11ing", MJ er""," i,".:grd on I"nirularly J..... ish the· oIogical rdlro.ion or uaching. 191-97. 5« ,I>< old" "'" k oflo.eph Gu, m,mn. "D GrGV: S,udi<, n "" .od ,'" 11th .... Bibk. ed. r· Gutm.nn IN,w Yor\:, IWI), J-H, wher< "" ")' ,h. t Dmy, n\<)f, ,h'n '11)' <>ther """" in the Bible, ,he • .«I.. i", "">nhip oI'.n invisible deity,.nd he < ,",,lt /InoI, iJf Chn·"ol. giad M"",,'n.I,m. cd. C. :-: ..... ""'n el>l. (!Liden: B'~L 1999). 111l-lS, Rega,ding ,h. nulter of ,h. invisibili' y 01' God. 5« dilClWion below. chap~ ) . nd 4. )1 , 5« lo"phu~ 3.195 (on Solomon); ond C. lop. 2,71 - 78 (Oll the Rom. n imp or to thr Roman emperor. n T.... oonfli. 1>t<~1. H _ 6~ ,,,,,," C. D_Yong<, The I"",*, of Ph ilo, N<w Upd~ ..d EOi,"" (Peabody. M... ,: H< IIbrks of Philo. 15<1 . .l6. "Th, ...... mption tha t lud, i.m w.,.n .ntirrty .ni in ],.. ci. figu"ti", p.in' ing> in the J,,,i,h catacomb, of Rome ,,,d 'he like_" Among 'he e"lie11 '0 dire .... ,h, .. n" Uer< ""ntly .nironK " Iigioo ... t he ... mm. ry ch.p'" in M'rga'" Olin. The Notion wi'ho"'....,.~ £<> "'" I,wi,h A" (Unooln : Un iv. 01' Neb ...", Pr .... 2001 I. S-J I. 5", 5'""n Fin<', =y h.lpful w<>,k on Jewi'h .It .nd .n;g~ Supp l,mrntory Seri" 40 lfu"..mout h; R,t.; lourn. 1of Rom.n A"ha",l<>gy. ,00 1). IS J-.904. 37, R. Ak.,. allowh '0 OOtltinue in 'I> in , .... LoI> but , llows p>VOt 00;.<11 of"" nhi p. }9, Comp. ", r."",lern T.lmud. Z"",h l.l; 42b·<; Rabbi Yohanan explain. ,hat 0Il,5hou1d .mid looking .. the idol> exo:pt when th..,. r.U to ,he ground, crting I'> )7:3t, while Rabbi l..d. h .. ,.. th .. 0'" 5hould "",Iook.t them.t .u. 40, 5« di ....... ion in Gront, God, .nd ,m, 0... God. ,h. p. 6, pp, 75--3),.100 Finney, The i",,;,;bl< C.od. 26-lL 41 , Thi, last ident ification can be lound in D.vid C>tt lidS' ,00 Keith HI""t. "", and Ch,;".." Af'><'Who (Loooon: Ro<Jrlrdg<, ZOOI ), 36_ 42.5«. fo , «amp". Lac"ntio" d<><'iption 01' t .... m urrh at Nioom<1 G:oJ,riuund drscrib«l ... "lofty «Iifiu." Mon. 12. 4l, 5« Kurt W.itzm',"tl . nd H..,!>< Du,a S"""fOK"' a..J Ch, is,j.," A" (W.. hin~'on. D-C-: o.mha,tQn o.k&. J9\1(1), for. 'horough p"",nUtion or Wci wn. nn·, i n~u
"to"

,h.,

"m.>e$

A.,.

",,">I

Gi.""

,I.,

"r

Zo·""

",isan>

".ft.

l'"'"

1""1'"""

,h.

NOTEI TO PAGEl 20- 28

204

44. o,uOOI of Elvira. GUlOn 36. ~in tut. oo , .. noIa,ion in K.rl Jooeph H.r.) •. Hj".ryo! ,I>< Chri"jdn eolUla"ls. ,,,"" 1'/, Cbrk (london: T. &< T. Cbrt, l89t), 151; :J« . 1"" loot Vi,.... Gmfi!;", V;~,iw> < J/i,/'Ono-iIo .."nQS, &p.1U ,,;',io"i •• Text'" I (Bor(don.: Conkio Surooon: (:ootg< Alt." 11< Unwin, 1940). 114-1" . 00 M"y Chi,1<> Mur_ .. y. -An .nd .h, b. rly Church," 317 n. 2. 4S. I'.u[inu~ Cd"". n.';'H. 46. Gr in dlUrrn ....... Grint lng. ,.,n if it i•• iI.:nI, is eop>bl< of .puking from Ih. ""U ""d bcing of lhe S,-.:>I<" I><""f,'" Ur.n •. in Cyril M.ngu. An <wntn" iToro""" Un ;" . of Toronkl Pre.., 19&;), )6-)7), ,nd diKu .. i<Jn in ,h.p. 6. 47. G.-.gory to s.,,"u. Ep, J 1.13 (mn<. NPNP 13.5). tr",oJ'pt«l 1 " i"ing ioon. at. »und 11 Saint Grthc-rir><', M0na01« Kun Wri,zm;rnn, Tk M"""'1<1yofS.i"' CnOOo, Th."....nd tllkl""n. 1976). TO. icon of Ch,;" Pan""'","" ,, in dup. 2. 51. Tran<. from Dani.1 Sah ... fron OM UJso" Sou ..", in E'gh,h.ernl"" /coood.,m (Toronto: Un;v, of Toronto P....... 19116). 1)4. bas«! on ,n edition of the A", of the O>uncil of 787, origin. Uy puNished by G, [), M"ui in 1867 {S«ro,"", Crmcjli<wu", ""'"
,h.",",

a'

uk."

Coil",;'" vol

Ill.

52. 1-'rom Mong<>. 10< A" of ,Itt Br.a""'" £mp'r<. 17, whi'" provide> • iongcr ",r>ion of thc leu". I1k.n from 1. "- Pitt>". ,oll. 1700) , For , hri< TN< Im'g< of 0';,,: ~uO<1 ~p to >oJ<Jfn f""n,. iru in Con",n linopk. A«<>ttt Sowm"", HE 5.2 1 . M l'Itilo.l<.>rg.iu> 11£ 7.3, ."" ref.. to thi. ' 1" "", "hi'" (.«<><'oo to! ;'"" 1>«111.. of the posoibl. G"",k ;nsct ipt",n in<:luding .ith« th< \«1m """,i or thto. 55. 1" .,,,,u,,lIa,,,. 1,2 5.6. 56. M.ry a..rlin'" 1>" 1977 "Art ""d the Early Church," H5--~.oo the 1'181 r"pons< of Gr> hov< ITU inly r.oo "nly in ,h. "" .. of tho ",,,,,,th !>:um""",1Cou",il . 00 tho jIv,;I,,;um of Ni«pl>otu. of eo",1>ntio!,1<. who "'pied "ul • {'<"ti"n into. "",.. known .. ·Con' ", Eo.5Cbium ., I',piph.n;d.m." Stt 00,,,,,,, fot,." of Ni"'l'horu ••• ]i>led .nd br;.fly diKusoed in Gtrogoruy, «I .. SIW/inr 'Ut =/r;o:/", de, by""" N" ,«/r, B;ld",,,,;,,, (B ",.I>u: M",_ ""'- 1929), ~7 , Stt di ....... ion "SlIming the .uth .00 Ih< "' hn frosm of Ep ip/l.niu. in
.'io/""""",

,Iu,

~.lbid ,

59. s.. g<"",,1 J i",u .. ion in d"p. 160. G"",tiQl 'r< ".1 ...",d ..«1 with .. rly(lor'<1;"n i""'g<.making by .~to< i .n~ s.. Mot. · <w~ Clo"h ofC.od,. 138-39, or the old".oo probl,m.otic ""ork of w. I1<' l.ow,"" A,,;. ,Itt fA,ly C/r"felt (N ..... York: Norton, 1947). 12_13. 61. J\l1, of,\>h" 27. ~2. Am of,\>h" 2S--19. >l ightly odaptro from EdSllr H.nr,«k N<w Tm"""", ApoJdphi" W<Stmin""', 19591,

NOTE S TO PAG ES 28-40

205

1 :11G-21 , Th. u>o, A'I; ...
13.3. 63, Lomprid iU>, 11;>< A"S- ~. A..... 29.2. 64. s... dioco"ion i" dup.l. 65. L.mp,id i u~ 1/;',. A"g..'Xv. Altx. 29.1. 66. Porphyry. Vi< PIo,-. found i" S«p .... " M.ch ... na, 'ran •.• PIo/;n""

e;".

T'" ~""".d"

r
by B. S. "'gf (N.,. York: Fw.r Ind F.l>
68. So:< th, """'pli'm' fo, "'im ""nf.. red by '<S'I d«T'«$ '" eo,..t,nlin<. eo.:b: 110",,IH.I ""d I H .2. 69, Eui, Vi" (bn,< 3.49. ]0 , IJbn Prmf J.I.9 . nd II (Sylv<>",), «1. Lou;' DIlch•• <><.I.t Ub<, Prm'ijifiI)i, I (J>... i~ I!occord, 1 9~~ ). In. 174 , s... FngJi l.oomi>. Libt, Prm'i/i0. 71. k,om<. eo", ... me)" 405- ll 72. So:< mud. mor< in ch.p. 6. n. II fuji di!w. in d.'p. S. 74, Di>c1lM<'11",;,.. 7S. 1'<>, ... ,oed "Problem. d .. th< di""",ion of .."J«I.nd bc-.rdk>o Ch,i" in
a.,;"

Joo,,,,,.,

,hi.

2. Image and Portrait in Roman Culture and Religion I. PliO)'. Na,. 3S.2. 1- 7 (t"n~ LCL 'l:263--<;k JS i, desi
,,,Ii,,,

woo ".,

.not'"

'''''g';

7H12. 6, On th. luJio.U",du.n pon"''' in gf",rol "" 0..00 B,U,n Roo<, Dyna"i, Co",,,,,,"o·

'h,

""ion ond /"'p,,;o) Ibm.i,u" in /uho·Cloudion Prri04 {Camb,idg<: Cambridg. Uni., Pr .... 1'1\17). On tho inug<. '" Augu"u" "'" Poul bnko" 1M _,oflmal" in ,h. ,oil' of /luS"""S. ","' , A, Shapiro (Ann /lroor: Uni •. of M;,h;gon P,a., 1'138): 100 lal U,".nd II>< P'''I'.gand. of MooumO., i Claud;" 1/, l\\o""m ;" Ro"",. "-,, altd soo.". (Au.tin: Un;". ofTnu 1'1' ..... 10(0). S, s.. Richard B,illiont. Ro~ta" A" from ,ho Rrdoed ,nd Il<.rdl"" Men; 8J---93.

NOTE) TO PA CES 40-47

206

10. jJ . P. [Orang<. "111< Origin of Medi in C/.,,,,,,.l ""d fA ,1y M
,/0.

,<;n.Ip," "'. ~_ I l. Ibid" 'lS-lOl. Not<.ll< 'luo",ion from Pluta",h .bo~, S« 01>0 P~ny 11.14S. 14. KI<'. /10m,," Sculpt""', 34J....US. IS.lbid"Ul. 16. On 'hi> particular point,..,. P."I Zo..u:..r, rl« Ma,l of 5«.. ,,,,, Th< Im"1I< c{ ,'" kauOU" A.'iqu;'1; '",n'_ A- SN.piro (Borkd<)C Uni •. ofC.lif"",,, p....., I'I9S ). 17. I{ . P. L'Orong<. Ap",h""i, in Aft(i ....' PO"""'"" (Comhridg<' H.,,,rd Un; • . P,,,, .. 19(7). 19. Thi ...mi"",1"llilydiscu.... tn. im.g. at kngln .nd indud«.xampl.. from .",,;'nt li",atu .. t.... t uoo.rsror< t hi< a.
~ Q""'"

N.,.

,.ttI·

18. Ibid" 2&-29. 19. L'O"ng< ha> much to .. pbout th. h. ir of th.", fisu,e>. )0--102. S.., 01>0 Doroth<. Mkh<1M"",,,,",, ah VO,bild fo' ""mp: Lotomu>. Rion I>rIow of tIr< imp< image> to

u"",-

ea."".

In. !,>"tMul god<.

21 . z," .." .\I",k of5« ... ,... 202 . 22. [t>;d,_. 23. It>;d .. , ....1'. 5, "Had,ian', &ord." 24. Pliny. Nat. 35,2.1-'1 (t"',," Lel 9:26 .... 7). 15. fulybiu,. Hi". 6 ,53 (t"n~ loCI. 3:3-89) , u'mp'" Ovid, H". 1) ,153, .nd SaDWI, &1/, JUK. ~ ,5-{.. "<minen' men of oy, "",ntry had til< h.bit of .. )"ing ,n" wn<",ve, thted the im.Ki." oyf tneif a""<>t,,,>. theif"",," bumtJ with tho: vi,tu<."TIr"", tutU,e 0 Il«1>hu . Jit... Now".1 f\),,,,,i,,,,, in /10." .ruI ,10< A... of th< loa" "rJr< &public (Am""dorn : Noord IlolbOO.rn<. 1~J2) . 26.5« Nancy Il.1mog< ' OO Arth~, Il.1mog<. Rom"" Arc Ro","I,,, to 3d cd. (Uwu Saddle Riv<,. N.J.: P"ntic< HalL 2001). 141-4l .00 fi!l". 4, 1..... 16 of tire rolumborium of Vigna Codi"i. 27. Pliny, No,. )S.H. 211.5« J. M. C. Toynb<e, DrlJ (1l.1Itimo", )oI,n. H<." in I""'t" An';'1";'.';"· ~I;gio., "jJm, A Rc«ft Tu","", cd. Nioo;' Dt.", .nd Andrt Bui",," (1',,;'" D< 8oo;ord, 1999). 145. )1. 5«. fot cump!'. the " ' '''I'h.gu> ofTitu. Adiu. Eu.ng.. i~ fum",. ,",", 19IIS). do.p. I, TI>om"",8" des i,n.s" 'u' mort>." 17_) I, U.n, Illone> and Tom b Fumituf<" HH I; 101 FJ>n
m""

Crn'"'y

Con"".,,.,.

u

pot"'""

".d

It5-{.S,

33. S<.

~v,

U' Amb ... "Mou,ning .ncl th, M.ki,,& of A"c"to," on th. ·I'<".m.ntum

R
~ 2 (197 ~)'

4'19-5 10.

lS. Koonbojion. MY'". Mam inl, 1l~_2S. On Dion»lan ,h,,,,,,- 5« Friro,kh M. tZo Di, diony"«"," Sorl:ophagt 4 (Bulin : M.no. 19(8); Rol>.. i~ Boccard. 1'166); ' 00 Korll""1''''''; in !Io I""",,, (B. lt im""" W.ltm Art (;. lI<,y, 1942).

2 07

NOTEI TO PACE\48- 54 36, Th, lOmb of Prorulw in t-:.pl... "". O<". i .. of .. in" in ,h. ""ooomb •• nd ok. .. po",..it" which .... &<1m< of the ."I i... im..g.. ofthe ellr;'· t i.n .. inu, ... br;'f d;"u .. .," by EI,n". Impmol ~on'" nl_33,. 00 the o ld" wo,k by Rllfu. Mo'ry, l"ItL C.oId·(;j,,,, (;,,11«1",. of'~ V.,k"" t,brory, «i G. "'"ori (Votia n City: Biblioteco Apo>toli,. V.. iGl.IllI, 1'159). 3'1. So< IIelt ing. Lib'''''' o'ld Pm",,,", 7~. "p. 81 :utd fig, 32; . 1>0 H.fIS Ach.lis, Vi< /(a,.l:ornbrn "'" iW.l1'<"1 (li".I\C.; in,.......,h.'Id Ch,;"io" s../f.IJ.fin;/i"n, vol. 3, cd, S, f. M'Y"'oo E. p, Satol", IPhilidh;': For' .... 1' ...... 1'11t2). 171-&l; !'aul?.."..,. "Th. fuwe, of Imag..," in Po"lotld Fmp;": RLlipm aoJ /-\»W, in JIo""", ImphwiIn""i. of 1" I; u. Co ... ,. 5« $u<1oni .... I"L iii, Pliny, Na,. 2-'1"'; and [>i<> Co. , . iu. 47.13.$. 'f2 . lti>1ori.". who v i"", tho ruk:r cult i" ","" of """;., 1""",," 1><>1" 0.:. inclOO. ,h. ft>!, lowing: p,ice, R;,ual, and "''''"'' Iohn fl, W, G. Li., Con'in"ioy and a.ong.;n Roman Rdi,"'" (Oxfo,d: a.re ooon. (979); Lilly Ro.o T.yIo,. Tn. Divinity af th. Roman Emp''''' (Middletown. Conn.: Am<,kan ph~oIogi,,1 As>oc;'tion. 1931); .00 DunCln Fishwick, "Th. [):vtin is the ,io! in An,,,,,-h in 3117 c .•. wl>I 'Th«>dQoius I ,,;cd to impo .. . n<w tH. '1'1>< .mp0 a.ry.o.tom, 1_3. wh.", he ..id II>< whol. city.oould fm lik< lob on hi> dunghill, l>mled in )9) C. • , • .....,.. to "","" . d i ~in< sugg<sling O<1u.1 oed ition OT ...:,iJo:g<. On III< k:gaI '!>Iu'ofthe emprg< H,uiU.... 1977), 9()...93, pis. 30-31. ~S , PUll)', Ep, IO ..... S (To T",j.n), So< D.nid Sc~It: Font ... r"",. 1993). <>p. 4---t>, 46, Thl> qoototion . pp<." in El>rlrd Univ, 1''''.. , 1994 ). 6~70; M"iw"h<, S'Il11t. " Ilow W." Impe' ''l Por". i" Dl>tributcd thIOugbou, the Rom1ll I'.mpi"'!" AlA 43 (1939): 601 _ 17; P.ul Za n...,. Prov;"zi«m i1y. 50. f'ro",,,, Aoi M. 4. 1! .4 (tr. m . In. 107). < co", of Eutropiu. "" that ,o< woo ... tn,m;.oo Ebn
a..,...

fu"""

-n"

.ft"

".hI•.

S'"'.2 ,

5,,,,,,,

u.u

z..,

r..",.

11<>_.

11<>"".

111;_.

NOTE) TO PAGEl 54-63

208

ll_lJ. On tho pr""'" of d.", •• ,io ",,,,,,,,;.u in . n ",d .pignphy ... Eric V,m"",iM< (At","'" Mich ...1 C. Carl,," MU5m M''''lul," /8t 111 (1993) : 619-1._ 53. ""ulli,n, Apol. 111-35 p_im.

ec""" ..,i".,,

r",",-jo.",.,""

,h.

~ _I bid . ,ll _

55. Minuciw Felix, Or"29.S. S6·loo-174): romp''' B.ll_16: S~S7. On I..........d"'l> with ;m.s<' of the emp<"'" ' « Ctcil Roth. -An Ordin."". ' 8";"<1 Im.S'" in 1"",..1<",," lin 49

A."

(1956) : 169--76; . nd c.rl H. Kr.>J, of III< Rom.n SI'nd>rd! ., le""".,m,· IITR JS (1942), 26J.-39. Al.., =T"it .., A""_3,36; .r.ll/i,,_HI .. _r<es on the Rom.n

... oo..d~ 58. Ibid, RI. /. '0. 1_5: romp'''

'"01.0,,'

A.,. 18,8.1-'1. Tht "" in fl.1 . • p<wof

mor<

th.n "".

''''"'. whil. ,I>< in A." "",olio", only" ..... S'I. ",,",ph" .. "'P, 2.77- 73 ... citro . bo¥<. 60. To.du. 'loboJah Z.,.h S, I, r,k"ini"" Tolmoo. 'J\bodah 7.. ,ah II (42b); B..byIoni.n T.lmud. ')'bodah z"",h 4~ I •. Th<>< " Xl • .,< dtro in Bow o()dol.itry in to< Sewnd.nd Third Centu,i« in Light of At45, <sp. 152-51 ,nd 1)$-19. Alibtry.nd !'ubi;" Privi l'S'.- 15/5 (1974)' 15-Hi1. 61. Hippo/ytu .. Rtf. 9.16.1. This is _N by Fin""y. "Ft.bbi ond Co",: 636. 61. Cyp,;'n. Ep. 61.1,1, tr. M. G",m, CIoru. 1M L",", ofSc C:,pr;',," ,"01, 1. ACW.f6 (N,w Yorl:: Now""n. 1984).93. s... 0100 I Ckm"" 45:6-7: Tmulli . n.s.:o,p. 8.7:.nd Idol, 15.10; Cyrr''''' I'ort. 2. 11;.nd Ep. SIS.S.I;.nd 67.IU .nd LII/'" 19; I05Iom. SI.,. 4.6.nd 5, 1t; G«gory of Nui.nzu>. Or, IJ,,,. 7t. 63. s... Eukbiu,," Vi,. eo.r". 4.60 .nd 71; < ATi.n hi,tori." Ph ilo.torgiu •• 11;". 3.1, GCS (1971 ), 28 , who ".imN tlu, Ch,i"i, .. pray«! to (".o", .. n,;". .. ' 0 0 gOO . Phil""''''lli", i, ootro in IIoW-1798) 12.1()1}-IS (If. n<. NPNP 14,S3S). 70. ThrodOf' tn. Stoo L«. Rif. 2, I I. 13. 71. So< Ern" Kitz.ingrr. ""Th, Cult of ' h, ]m>g< bcfor< lronod.,m.· DOP 8 (19S4) : 116-13. 72. So< m","' di",u"",,, of 'h' 'i,uoll"'''royal of gOO. ;" ,h'l'- J. 73. So< d;",,,,,,ion in ,Iu 1'- I. R Tho"",. Mot~' h... rguro , lut po "'" p.;n ting> of the gOO. ,.." ,100 I'roJu=l, ",m. with oIiding door~ .nd wo 0.')_'010, v.;~" H - 46, Com!,,« ,h" miern« ,boot ;ntlo",t;"n 10 th< !.trr a.ri< ""''' (dr. p. 61, 76. Ph ilwoor...... Vi" ApoIL 6.19, 77. Elsn" d;"'u....! ' h, "",nie, boJ 'J"t,:tlly 1oc,1i1. imag< ;n Mothew.. Ckr,h ",God>. 131-3). 32. s.. dis
,<x,

ron";"

Ek:>w<:r""'"

'""';r.c.......

C.,.

""'to

Eo,,,,

209

NOTES TO PACES 6 4-76 S3. Augo"in., 0., IU 3-1 4. tnns. H.n,y B
tho m.tt in Nropl.toni< th""'gy. 50< tho bricl' di>ion in ch.p. 4. Si , l .. rdm, TII<""-Qflm"~. 23()..)8. 85. s.. 'ture.1\, God, of 14t-lL $6. Kl <jGod" tOO, fig. SI , . nd 20S n. 16, which helpfully I..d. tho r.. in pr<-Clrristi>n tim".. nd tl>< heal" .. on ""'per<><' M>rth, CoIlin,t-Gutrin, du Nimh<, dtl .,.i~;", ""X Itmp' nood""" (I""i~ N""",,11e! £dihon. I"ines, 1961);.nd Andru AtlOldi. " In.igni.n und Trocht Jer romi;.:h.n I(o;"r; 11M '>0 ( 193~); 1..... 12: M-4 1. 91. s.. tl>< dirrusoiclO of,l>< irooosraphy of Christ in dup. 6.. 92 , I>.ul 0,&'1>.-1... p .. mi ....i>ioo d. Co",a,,,tin (310) '" I< .. mpl. d'Aponon.l Nin..<; B.. Roy /kJ (l94S); 179ft"., ond tl>< occount in Lact. ntiu>. Mort, ~5.5-
Ra_.

]/u,,,,..

n

3,The Invisible God and the Visible Image I. Min""i". 1'<10.. O<'t. to.l-S. t"n •. Gro.m, o.,k<, The ('<'0";0' of Mo"", M'."d",

FtI;:c. ACW 39 (New York; N,wman. 1974), 66-67, 1 , Ibid., 32 , 1_1 (tronl. >lightly ad' plN, 11 1_ 11). ), 1bid. IS.&. whe .. h. ""flU to b< relying on Tth< only n dncrib< God (a.rkr, 260 n. 2H). ~, Ibid" l~. Se, d"ke', .nnol"''''' on lhi. porti"" (" ,h'p t<", u,}-72, nn. 2)O--tiI , ~ . Ibid ., 14. 10. Minuciu. I'< li, .1", .Ik>w, Octaviu.,,, brand pog' " d.i'; .... hum.n •• only mad, int" gods (Euh"" ....... , .ft.. th, fourth ""tury • .c". philosopl>·Romao on .nd poIythrl~, Art (N<w Yorlc o.fo rd Univ. Pm.<, 1m), ch.p<. 2 -~, pp. 1 ~ . 7. Ibid., 9 It",,,- ANF I; 165) , 8, Ibid .. 10. 9,lbid .. 63. 10, )u" in,DlaJ, ~ (,""" ....,,' P. 11lJ). 11 , Sin« the "xt tlut Just in dte> i> the (LX"), II< DOt" the "'" ofth, Gr«k "",r,1> ly.-io' ("lord") for God .nd 0"8'/Oi (".og,b") for tl>< visitor>. 12, JU>1in. Diol, ~. 1'- IISd .• 56 conI. In luk< 2lJo4J. J<su. cit.. thi' P"lm t<-
m".

I.,,,

Cion,,",",""

s.p"'oX'"'

.. m<

PO'!"'''·

Ii. Ihid .• ~7--«1 . I~ , Ibid., III (tra"" IlNF 1;163). 16, lren .."" L1O.3, 17, Ibid .. 4.m.S. IS, Ibid" i.2M. J9, Ibid" i.:WS- 12. s.. .00 2.«! th.i, h<art, "" tJut th<)' might DOt look with their .y« .. . ' h con,inu.. with thiJr th.m., citing tho viJrions of Daniel and tl>< Book of Fl< b
H.",

NOTB TO PACEI 76- 85

210

.. ,ion wa. the promi>J. 12: .nd Co .. "," (Am. 2. Il. l). ImlKU>, H", •. 4 .20. 11.

24. Ir<m.<".. fJ>id l~_lbid . ,H.

26. I"", .. ,...

"" ..... 5.

11.,,_4 .1.4

(A!II~'

H70)

17. Ibid .

18.11,,". 4.22.2 29. Tmullun, ApoI. ll_ll

M'F ):23-9). 30. Tmulli>n, Idol. 4.1 ..... , quoting r. II S:)·8. 31 . Tn'_ANF ) :)18- 19). Thi. deocripl"'" of Ih, Word rd1''''ing the p.r1 of human priof 10 tho ;n c>rn.'i<x1 'pp<>11 ,Iso in l'T"", 16. H< odd. h<" 'h.t hu""n' can mol'< ""dily ' «inc< &Orn<1hing "milar ~ h>pp io n~ 33. Tmullun, Mon", 3.9 (trll.... A.NF J;)18 _9). In h~ Co,". Cltr. (6..3). Tmull;'1\ .g.;n>! «Ito;n di.dpks of Mamon who tough , Qui>! might hav< hunun firm without boeing born . ilK< 0118<1. h . ... 'I'J'<"r«I in tho Iksh 'w "hout tho in"rvn , <10 , 1> th .. tl>< d iff,rcn« brtw«n Q"ist .00 tht .ng«OO«l into Iksh ,.ith th, intrnt"'" of dying. Angt]' did no< to di,.<><1 th,rcfor. did ""t .... to I>< born. But to br c'p.N, of dwh, o,rist h,d to I>< born . ) •. Thtulli,,,, (A,". em. ,. J~ . lhtulli,,,, M.". ~ . 19 . 36. Tmulli>n, Pr= I (t,,1U. ANF 3:597). 37. Ib;d .. 14 (,""", ANF 3:6(9). J.8.Ib;d, )\I. Ib;d. Thr lro nmtion of I Cor I J: 12 th'l I h.", .>Cd h,rc i, oot Ihe trodilion.1"",d irlj! bul ;, b.>rd on , TlK'r< L""I rc.ding of Ihe t<Xl, .. "'gg<,,«1 by my I<>cl.rr, Ric",d NOHi •. N",ri. roinl«i 0'" 10 m, thot th, "" of the t< in • .,.,;"nt ,hetoric. -1(1. Ib;d ., 15 (tran •. A""~' , :6 10). 41. Ibid" 1+-15. Compm (Jrn .. "t of AI< .. od,;', ""«I. 1,7, in "nkll th, instructor i. tn. "f.« thot l>rob .... ,. 41. Orrn""t, Pro,. 4 , I. 43. Ib;d .. 4.1, oonl. (t" no.ANF 2:18-1). H. Ibid ., 6. Qu<>I'I"", from Eu,ipides, Pr. 1129. Sr< P.ul Corby Finfllso cit'" Exod 11:20; .. w.1l" I Co, Il :11"nd M,tt ~:8 ) . Srr ,JooSt", ... 1.9, 46. jb;d .. ~. 1 1 _ 14. 47. !'-or " ,hm.8""" "8umcnts regarding th, t""hing> of th, phik»oph, "'" '-':\:, 6. 48. Ib;d .. 17. 49. Ib;d .. IS. 5Q. Ib;d, 17. 51 . C1rmno.ANF 2:JI ~16 ) . Thi. i, qU<)trd birr l>y Eui (Philadrl· phi>: Uni •. of Penn>yiv>n" Pr< ... 1931), 30';- 19, provid .. m.ny of th, .. pri mary oou«... 53. T<"ulli>n, ApoL 25, 5~. Ausu"in<. C;v, 4.31 , Henry B,ll,noon, Th< City of God (london: Penguin. 1972 ), 175. 1hr tr':ot"" ofV.,ro in whi<x nf irn.grs, Ad". N ... 2. 12, 7.2<> on th, ."ioonism ofv"to ... Ad". Na.7. 1. 55. AugU5tin<. Civ. 7,5. in Betteruon. CiryofGod, 261. 56. T.y!or, "Aniconk Wonhip," cbims lhot the <>,Ii"'t t""pI .. on ,I>< Cop itol thot hod ruh i,,"S'" d.tf< '" the f,rSt U"""," kinp. T'''1uinjus PriKuS .nd Srrvlus TuUiuo, 306-7. (1r . n~

'''''''is<,

,ho,

"gil'"

h.""

'''))5.

"

N OTE) TO PA GES 86- 96

21 1

a«ro, Na', d. 1.36,101_2. dted by D, Bak!t. "TIl. Al'f; An Appeal '0 ,n. S,oic H"'ori.n p.,.iin" Lal .. S'oia ",d I~' Epiou ,,,,,..." in Grffl;,. 1ID","",.oJ C/"i"w." £>sa,., i" Ho"qr of A~,"m /. Mal,,, .... «I. D. &kh <1 .l (Min""'I""i~ For1r<>S Pr .... ,9'OO),Sl- 79. 5.'1. ll.akh. "A<Mpogu, S"""h; 67_ 'J<J. 59. l'Iutarch, StW. "I'. IOl. H (' .. n~ ID . [Mord/;" Il .ll . 23). ("..ompo« Sirom. 5.11,'00 .to(}"'" llakh, "Areo",gu,Sp<<
a ......""

.-.

l'Iot;nus. En". 5.3.1. Ir..... S«ph.n MKunlU. Plali.u, Th< En ...",d, (1oooon: F. bdd (Chico",,: Uni,.. of Chico"" P..- 2000). 50-5] . 6] . A"S~"in<. C<;nf Il,S.7- 11.6,S, t .. n •. )tomy ChoJwick. S,. A~g""int. Om/<"wns (Oxford: Oxford Uni,., i>r< ... 19111).124, 61, Yoch.""n l.rwy. CMId""," Otorl<s a"d Th",'lY' MY'ti";,m. Mati< and I'.,t""i,m i. 'M 1",,1<, I/om." £mp'" (Cairo: I""hu, f,,"1"~ d"orclllologi< or"n"'. 1956): br;rl dis· <woion io B<"IIl~on. r ... ForlliJJ", I""'g<. 54-56 wi,h good not",. 6). S« Io"'ph Bid, .. Vi, d, Po'p,y'" It: philosep'" "&,pla,,,.k;"" (Il~d<>hrim' Olm~ 19M). ' I'I"ndiJ: I. 143-57.00 til, .nd im.g<:>. 5« Porphyry. Mar<. 14. 16-19. 64, Augu>tin<. Civ. e.n. t!ll .... IkttrdLng t">li",. of H......... ll"i'megist .... "'P. "'«kpiu, 2}-H,..,.. dilt;n. I ...",,1. ~9.• nd ,h • • ,."nymous wri .. r of th. " .. ,i>< form,rly . .. igo'" to ),,";n. known .. the "Add".. '0 'h, Gr""lu."Th"d.;m w.. also ""d< byTati. n.nd Th«>prnlus . nd (;In b< fou nd in J<wi>h .polo. get;' wri'iog" well (5« b<1ow), whi.h p"",nt> Pbto .. !<.>dco' of Moot. (h.-iog vi,· i'''' Egypt) 0< mrr0 Fut , 141. n. Philo.Comf 1).4..140. n Philo, Opif. 2M9. 74. EUioC Il Wolf""" Through" Sp, I il'H), ~J, 75, M,I:/riito d.·Rabbi """""~ Sh i..... 4. quoted in Wolfson. SpttW"m. 3.\_ ).4, 76, \'"'lfooo. Sptor/um. 39--10. 77. Th«>phi1us. ... uto. 1.1. 78, Ibid .• U (, ...... ... NF 2:N-90). 79, lbid .• l.22. BO, No ..,iao. r,m,1>-7. 81 . Ihid .• 18 (t,.. ..... ANf· ~062S). $2 . Ihid .• 18-19 83. Ihid .• 18 (tt..... ANF H23J. 804, Orig,n. Prin<, 1.1.4_5; rompo" w;,h Minudu. "'Ii.<. who pnx" im> ,lut God " "noth· ing bu, mind. roD •• oo >piri'." CH 19, S ~ , Orig l,U i.m Hutt'rw
"xl..,..

_=

.000"

,/w,

""'«

'I",

fi",

2"

NOTES TO PACEI 96- 107 92. Ibjd " 1.4.J, ronl" If.,..,

Btl",,,,,,,, .. onE"'. 98-99 (.mphos" miMI.

Q).lbid . qt. Th< G r«k ¥«bo (o,"koowtng in thne ~""'." 001 <xK1ly t~, "In<. 101m ,,18 n .. for II« ("'''''I.nd interpm or n,,,,', iai'groma,)' whik in Joon It:9lh, p.ir i. >« (h.m>J).nd kr.ow (gi,.;,kol . 9~ _ 0";&<1\, I'ri.c. 2.U, '",n •. Kut""""". O,ig<1l. 99. '16. Ong82) •• pp< .... i12, J9()..9 1. 97. Origrn, Com ... Com. 2.4. 9S. lbid,2.ll99. OriS"" 1/0"'_Grn. I,D , 100. Origrn, c: QI,. H . 10l . Origtn. 110m. em .. J 3,4. 102. Orig'n, I'ri.c. 1.& 4. 10J. Orig'n, 110m. Grn. !lA. 104. O rigrn, I'ri"<. 1.6.4, t .. m. Butterworth, O';Km S7.

,b.

""rb.

Exo.:i",

4. Seeing the Divine in the Fourth and Early Fifth C enturies I . .... h.n..i..., /"'_ It (It,,.,. NPNP 4:4l) . 2. Alh . "".iu~ C Ghol. 2-)..11'..... NPNP ~ ' 12) . Olh., O,;"i." wril.,..",,",I"'" I .. w<>,k of Ih •• lti" 10 Ih. gr. dual p",I«li"l\ of th. soul 0< , ... ooIon 01 .n . rt i.l'. !"I<11< .. bO'lOrn. Hom. j Co,. B.3: Ca,,,,h. ilium. 1.3.: Hom. Hm 17.1: .. woll :IS th ....m of /T«> in . ,,;.k. '""Th< Ar''''"'Yl''llm'g<: lohn O")'>05Iom', I'u l; /R 75 (1 995); lHJ. <>p- a-19 ,oJ 1Ul. 5S-S7. l . Orig
o.,

~ . Ihid.,

1$. 6 . lhid., 16 (,,.."'- NPNP NJ_ H). 7. ""gm'in.-. nu",e«l on • .,.,i, oyf Ih< vi.ibk".."rb of Oi,i>I " >hewing forth tho

s..

T"",.

invi>ibk ""Iu"of God, """'"'~ Ev. /<J. l4.1 _1. In thi".m< homily, "'uglUli,.. rontr.... ... ing piclUT<> wi,h Trading t ..... 3. Arnobiu .. ... .t.-. "at. 6, 16 (''""'' .-INF6;~!2) . 9. B"iJ of u"s,,, ... Spi,. So",. 18.45 (l,..n~ NPNP M 7). 10. Ibid ., l M 7. 11. lIa.il. Ad". Eu ... 1.14. f.piph.n iLa, in hi> "fuulion. quot .. FAlnomiWl .... ying ' hot h" b ...... (,,00 in rompl... d"ily' oo in f.M did not know hi"....llb--1 7). IS. G ' rso'y of NY"", Vir" Mom 2»-)6, I,..". . ... h"h'D' Mol .... , ..... OJ E.... ",ll Fry of Nrts," Th« LiI< of 101""", CWS (Now Yo<" Poul;... 1978), I 101-15. 16, J<>hn o.'Y"""''"' /"",,,,. J.. s.. t .... ;"t.oo "",ioo of I".,. (}.";~Iou '" I.. St>U<M (i.mi· .""" «Iition ollhe>< hom~i<. (Ann< ~l>ri< Molingr~ Qf&.hd', Vi""" of ,Ioc Cluu-i<J, from /"""",, '" ~ m< c..", (Boston: Still USA, l OOS). Chri>tm.n". worl<, " il l .n unpub/ishI-id<" d ... a:>.milUlio,. of p.olri hn Chryso>lOm, I~,o",- 3.7I1-11l. 18. Ev.griu~ 0.-. 66, I .. ".. lohn E. &mt>«srr. E""gnu, J\m,iro. Til< Prabikm and Cllop'''' on Prayt"l" (Kalamaroo, "-Ii"'.: Ci

.."

.us..;,

>ubi«\-

NOTE S TO PACES 107-11 8

2 13

10, s.. Andrew loulh, T .. Orig;", of'''' Chri,tian MyJli the Am>p.g.il<; 159--78. N<>Ie th .. lohn of !)om."",. ill> 0....... r«. mmm.ririllj!' I""'g< from 'he CeL h"" y Ih.t .i.ibk 'hing> .r< ""J'O,..,.I mood. th.t offer. vogue 'pp,d>:nlio" of i".i5ibl< .!>d ,oootl"'",, 1I h'oS'. I Ap.>L 10· 11 .!>d J Ap.>L 21. C"",!"", 'f'lI< ~ I OO'1<, 11'1- 2. 11, woo q""''' l'>;r#""/;'r: Or;,;n, '0 lit< Tw.lfrh Ce",ury. «I. B, McGinn <1 aL (I' .... York: C...,.., ro.J, 19a71. lJ2-~1 ("p. 14J----441. 11 . Poeudo-Dion),. i"" D'" nOm. S.H1159 C----!l72 II, ,,,..,,,- 1»0.,11, Ori:\:;n, if{ ,'" ""ill;." M".;.,,/ T~il""" l6!1. n. Soc"t.., IIi". 6.7. s.. M.rk D< An'hropo. mo.phi" Con'l"OVu", 1'''),<.,' CUS, 38,4 (lOCI3): 377 ....11. kI ••n .."lion, diKucioo of 'his t"Pic. 14, Ib,L also. Ep iph ........ Pan. 7O;."J krom<. 110m,", I', whidt ref... '0 the anthropomorrhi .. pooition II> ' t ... foolish ",,<>y," 15, lohn c.. .. CeIL 10.3, , ....... C<>Im Luit>lldd. John C«IS;.", um/, CWS (N... York: P.uliot. InS), 127. s.. p. ~). 17. .'.uguSl;n<, Sn'm. I 'J/!. I7. ltan~ lidm"nJ IjjJI, Th. IV"" .. of Sl. iI"~"";n., D, .5<"..,,,,, (I',wly j);o'in< ref....", a bit mY't"io"". Hill.ugg.... lhat Olm.;.,,,. may t\a,.. """" ki .. ing th, oolum". .. IhlV_ Rol.!>d I. -r",,<, S.)., 1·1t< \\-orb if{S";nI Au!"";",, 'Ll. ILl· ''''' '00-'55, «l H. RaInS<)' (HyJ< I':>.r\:, N.¥.: N,w C;IJI :100)), 329. M, Ibid. '8. T.sk. "" .... , )17_18. JS, Ibid., 20. :\6, Ibid., 2J-15, 3? Ibid., 37, Tes\r, Ita" •., 339. Th< p.ragr.ph con"i", • ,umn"'y of pre,io"" 0 cmli!> Ambro>< for SOm< of Ihi< ,,,,ching, Ik rws;' i" ,'" j,gdon, '9119) , 4' , Euocb iu •• Lt.,.,. Ev, S. '4 l,lt< mti", book, howd Hill. Th< hlrls if{ s,. Aut u",,,,,, I,S. Th< Trini.y, "I. I. b. ROo«II< (Bmol< 5odon: Pen· guin. 19721. '087. 4S, A.... n ..i"" 1",- '.!-19. 46, s.. flatu Bd'ing, 1"'.S. ."d I'mnr«; A lIiJ10rycf , .. 1""'1:< bow.n im:tg< of God ..-.d fell down a!>d "",ship«!.' -IS, Euocb i"" Dtm, no. S.9. 49, Su","""" Spoin. ' ·Th. Prorni>
.J."

'0 ..

Con"" c.""'n'.

"'n,

26. d,,,,,,,,,,,," .bo""

n

"_13.

.",wer

M.".

""'/'<"

off,,...

N OT ES TO PAG ES 119-1 32

214

.1'"....

50. Jbid .• 53~39 , Spain t ho. identi!i<. It>. worn. n in gold who four ,im<> on lh. " iumph.1 " ..;n mo .. ic> (,b, .do..,"'" of 'ho m.gi. 'he .nno"ei.bon. th. vi.ion " '0< b<1ro1h.J of M.,y ,.-.I J""l'h .nd ,n< m«t) ",ith So"h. ,,'hrT

,h.n M"y in Inu< P"'!!"'''''' .od "SUe> ,h. t Ab ... h.m Otis f. « bodl, """,ml) ",nd. with nor throughout. 5 L s." Il"bfloronto 197n 34 . 5). Although 'he h.nd i. "",.Uy in,"'J''''.,,! OS Ih< hmJ vi' God, tho: b;bi;oo l ..,tu'Uy s;tY' lb., .n .ngel 01" IIlpoke ,<) Abr.h.m. 'l_y hi. "'n. Thu~ if Ih. ioor-.>jlr'rhY "'= (.rg""blyl mor< d".ely b.O<J upon It.: text ,h.n Grtulin"", Ep. 32 , 10.. ' .. n>. P .G. Wabh. ut""s ofp"ulin~' "Nola, vd 2,ACW 3<\ (W<5Imen5l«, Md.: I'rwm;o ... 1%7). 14S. Comp..... ,t.. < ",'''h« fMn • ",.My doud." 56. O in.oo Al>li'o .., . "",h'gi, including 0'" thot tl>< .". .... of P<1«'OO P.ul (oe< lis· '16, p. IU ). S7. s..e Robin I......... "TIl. Trinity.oo 'Il< f.rooomy of S.h-.tio ..." lEeS 7 (1_): S!7-46. fo, "gu"",n" .bout d iff.«", jdf" ,i,i .. of ,hesr figu«" \08. Thi> i> , t.. in«rpm"ion of INn""", Ho.r, 1.2 ..... S . nd ~.6. S9. s..e And'" G"bar, 0..,-,,"," """'f,.plJr: .-I 5/"ay of Its Vrili"' (Prin«1on; Pri"""'n Uni •. P"",- 1%3), I ll. who ,il" 50me .ncienl S.mi';, I'g;"e. Th. idenlity of tho r<""n mnd i"5 behioo M"y i.'roubk>om<. "", ba>«l upon' sim;l" in",1I' on • ru"""ry pI"'!"r in , I>< M,,>«> Pi<> Oi"; • •",, it &«m, ..... """"'" '0 id.ntify him ... tWa.m. 60. s..e the Atm.nian Infaocr (""P<~ ch.p. 1I. 19-:ro. ' ... nch " ..... 1-'.,,1 I'«"r~ F.voniP/t, .-I/'OC'rP"" /I: C/!"'"gi/t d. I'Errf."" (Pa, i~ A. Pica rd, 1911 _ 14). 14l-<14, ,~.d in lhorn.. F. M. .imila, to ,I>< M,naI.Jt",n. "h;eh ~n" 0 Iesk[ m>n, ond ,h. Ihird ... n oIJ ""'n (th., i ~ ,h. "'hr« 's<" of man" 'rodition ), Th ... i• • ;mi l" to Ih. lr>dil.",.1inle'l"'eloli<xt thot II>< gifl.< of the m>gi (fI"Id for roy,olty, incrnl< f<>r high pM ..' 0' god,.nd myrrh for th .. uff"jng , nd dyingo".) projr ( C,,"~. N,Y.: S,. Vladjmir'. 5rmjn.ry Pr_ 1003). 61---'2, Ilo« Iohn Gregory N.,"'nz
rr....

[hu""",,

'h,

""-"'' n>..

,I>ow.

'<.<'

=""

'PP<"

=

Da"",,,",.

ci,,,,

S. Portraits of the Incarnate One I. Compv. M.tt 11:27 . nd luke 10:2l. 2. Not. I'>ulinu. of Nolo', dr>erip'ion of hi> 'I"< ".,....'" ""'~, .nd ,I>< frequent "-'< of Ihe I>m" .. lbe .ymbol of 0.';'1 in the or' of tl>< horth 10 ... ,h ernlu,;"" AI tl><,nd oftlx ""'< l .. nb .... symbol 10, o" i" ,inc< tn. h"",an inuS' of tl>< .. vior ..... """" < illv;"" in"",,,tion '00 "'p,"";ng Ct., ...', Ijf. in tl>< fkoh . 5r-r , Iso Throdo ... ,I>< SHodi«, 1 Jlq. 38, whi"" to canon. 1. From Cyril M. ngo, Th. Arr of''''' By",",;", E"'pire JI2_145J: So""", and Do<"m"," (Toron,o: Uni •. ofTown,o 19S6J. 16-17: fo, di=ion of
,<1'..-.

rr....

,hi.

NOTEI TO PAGES 133-138 5. Orig.n, C. uk 6.75-77 (tm... ANF 4:607). Com.,.", t o. " ... ofa.m.nt, fWd. 3. 1 and Justin. I Iopoi. 50, whi'" 01>0 hfr< ,h.t 'N' o..u'r i> no< v~i bl, to ,0. o.tom. bip. h. ".J (PG 55:185-86) . 7. and d il. T",.. t<xt and tran •. in Mango. Art of 'h< Bp.nli., E",pirt. 4 1-'11, from Grorgij< o.lrog<>nky, «I .. S,udi," ,u, G",hid", d" ~"'i"iKhno Bild""",itr, (Bromu : M."u>. 1929),67, I.. gm.nt 2. Ao M. ngo poin!> out, 10. .utl><:ntio r ooutc<) do<> 50y ""t Abgo, 5OW. " wond,nul vision on 'h, fa<. of'Th><>. p.inl«l ro,l,.it ) i, "",toin«! in the 'p'><')l'h>l d"" t ~ .... of A.!"'G«>-1 1, .1", • • "Th. Abgo, ~.nd" in Ws>, It.nn."""'kw T",'.""'n' Apodlmin>t foc;" l lik of'~ 1I01y APOifk Thad' .nd po" " hi. f.c< to I.... 'he im p,in' of hi. 'pp<. "r.cc--h .. ing good <)">. • "ro ng brow. and. long fo« wi,h ""'igllt I.. to". indOc>.ting "",turity; tr.",. G.. ngo:r R)"n . nd Il<> G 'he I"'"";"~ (I'G 110:920),0'I . n .n· tin' I'orphyrog< Shroud of T,,"" (G"dl-96, .. of t~, .. , Ii<.II ' hodi", of Ih. '<>1",,1 t"dition .nd thm A'·,ril o.m,ron, "Th, HiSlOt)' of Ih. lmag 1'rm" ,.,J 'Q '- ~"''''' Har","! Uknini.n 51..<1i", 7 (o.mb1'idg<: H..",td Uni ... Pms. 19IIJ),80-94 : ..., H.", 1l< 1m.!" b<prt ,he Em oj Art. troll<. f. I.phcott (ChicaJlO' U"iv.of dok. go I'r J. W. Drij=>. "Th, h,ugnJdox ofRtd Wolf (Il<>k>p: Nuov> Alfa , 1m). U - 5-I. 12 . On< ,.. ,h" ;0" ..... i"3 theory l Ugs"" that Ih' ",,,,,I Mo"d,,;"" lat« t~,0«1 UI' i" Tu,in .. lho 01,,000-... "'{!lson. Tht Shroud oJT,,"", R. D,..... In s.",.,h of'h< Shroud of T""", IWw Ut h' IJtI l u Hiif"'Y0tul o.;,i., (Tot"""'. N.].: Row""," & Allanhdd. I _)"nd tho critique of theory in A,.. ,il 00"",,<><>. "110. x eptic . nd the Shroud," [na usura) I.:Ih-Gm,,,,, B"","'i~", (londo.-.: V'OOrum R. 1ge 1l. 13. s... 1l .... , 1m ). d ..p. 7,"V;,io" .00 the V,,,,,,ka." 1 1 7~2 : G«h,ro Wolf, "~ m'" M, »ro;np noto., m irarulo", im.g. of Ch,;'t, Ih. im'll' of o.mul;""" ;n ~!,"go, A" if 'h< B""nfi", fmpi"" 11 4-15.

T."

E.n"

rrs

I"""

0""

'0

".J<

.um ,

i'l!,."""

215

NOT B TO PACES 139-151

216 15.

n- q"""io .... . f'< namin«l in K«>i
ibk by O:>pying ,I>< Holy Fa« ," 64--.87. S«.OO lronid Ou'pky ICre5I,..""J. N.¥'; SI. V!.dimir'. 5<min. ry Pr<>S, lnQ), )7, "fl= Ousprn>ky I,,,,, up Ill< prubkm of ",,;',ion. in oopin of Ih • .. 'n< ~yp<, chiming til< "d<1«1 of ........ bLa"" .. 00.. "'" co ..... lock of con,"""ion with '"' p"""'fP<.".. lod: of ""''''N,ion ,ow:llds him it.... int portr>y
, .0000'< tho S' .... it<, lllLf 3.&«. 5: "V,,,.,..,;oo .. "'" >hown 10 an iron ;"""'HId>.S it f.11s >hon of .... mNing th, protOlyp<. but ina>moch • • it r
miraculoU>ly fin;'h«l by . ng I<>U«l il into tho ... n<>f r."""krn. So:< """, diKu .. ion and b;bhoS"phyon ,hi. imago in B of O,r;" ;n ... " (I'e", 1I''''n; y.k Uni •. Pr= 2(00), 96---n, . 00 • I'duc';"" of ,h. two<> im'g<s. fig. )(), M. cGrl"'" .00 V.ronia imag« in hi< work. 17. AUgu>lio<, T,;rr, 804.7. ' .. n~ f.dmu OO Il~L Th< II'",., ofS,. Aug"";"', pl. 1."o'Ol~. 1M Tri.ity, nl. r,E. Rot,Ue (B~ New City, 1991),24647. 18. ..trn of 1'<1"," lO. ".n •. from Henn«k< .nd Sdtr>«mrkh
So"",,,,,,,

T",,,,,,,,.,

2'22~26 .

21.It>;d 2l.JIpo of r"",.1 And I "f.,. . 1", Ihedifl"em1' 'loge> of hi, lii<..nd '" 'ny ""io", pr< hi ••u{kring>.nd .ftcr hi. """'r«lion from the d..d." U . Cyril of kruoal"". < 10.5, 'r>u An'Oony A. Stq>h01. I, ~OC (W.. h;nglon, 1).(;.: Catholic Uni ... 1'1"<... 1\l69). 1911. 'S. It,n,i S" ,n. "1.« d, rOgli« de .. in,,·(".on .....:< l. Ro•.,.; 001' 12 (19)8): 157_2I S.s.. th , r«rn' « by R. R<m HoU"""'l'. Co .. ,.nri.. •• d RiJ"", (Ne", H.ven, Yok Uni .. rn;ity Pr .... 2(JOo1), Io.J, and K.B. Ra,mu ...... "Tradition 1« ROOin r,m,,", t.,Jy CJtri";.n A" (I.ondon: Routlodg<. 2000), 42____44. Proboblyunrel>t«l. bu, inte","insly. tll< im>g< ofSol olio ' pre'" in the rodi. , ",hoel ofth, 'rn"googu' povement .. H. mmath Tihr,iu~ 29. "TWo I'monin,o' "' Ito.. n ... b.opoi.,.. i.. (= di"u""" ....10"). ~y "'",'''''', Ch, i,,;'n or' Joeo &how bo,h Adorn and Donie! ... nud<; [nni,( esptci.11y 'PP<"'" t .... d ... ic h...,.,Yf><. A8"i"" ,h. """"ation of I..... with "'1",110 i> Po ul Z.nkff, 1M M.,l ofSomu,,: 1M 1""'8 1><" ohown in hio nude body (aud 1<>.,. io not .nown nud.). Z.nk" op.. in>... d fot" tl>< tradition of romanl;;i=! por1roi" of l""'''S men wilh long hoi, of lh< >«ond «nlury A.D,·.nd >p«ir." 'hr hrroi< im.g .. of AlUllnde" "'hilks,.nd 'he imllge of Ihr (Omi., I'tJp~l; Rom".,. H< .bo"'gg<S1' (prob;.bly h.,.ing lrtt«l ..... m.nt) thll' ,h. b<.u,iful l'""h im. g< ....... n in .... ntion of tho Gn",'ics,299. 3(). lust;n, J ApoI. 21-23 (t" ••. ~N~' I, 1_71); ..... Iso rusti n, 1M!. 69.J . For mol'< di ... cu .. ion on th, probkm of p.or btolOSY of Ear ly Cb ri>tionity," in Gn-el" Rom.n~ a,uj C",;,.i""~ EssaY' ;n 1-/0.", of Ab",""", 1- Mollo...,., «l. D. Il>lc~ .. .t. ( Minn'''f'''li~ furl""" p""" 1990), }-19.

,h.

'0

r...

""""'"<''''

Under"."","!

Au"'.

NOTEI TO PAGEl 151-170

217

l I. s.. thedisru .. ion of Old T..,am.nt typ<s in I.n>rn, Und",'ond,"t forly Chri,,;o" "",. 6&-77. n s.. In"in, lApeL 26,.00 M"h.,..., C/",h "fr::.xb, ,h.p.), "11" M.g>;i.n." Si---91 (w,'b bibliognophy"" tb'uubj«l). Jl. On thi. g.<1u«,..". I,ud." Dt8,u)"", "[.';ml"'.i'ion d .. m.;n. d.", 1'... ch,.,"n .nc;.n; R;,AC 20 (l ... l), 11l-166. M . Th ... p.i,.. I.,I.... not«l by lu"in, j 1tp<>I. 11. J5, s.. Zank,. Ma« ofSot:m". 18"-91. althoog.h h. _m, 'his ioonogrophic 'rr< (Oo,is, as philo>ophOnb..,d«l "eaeh.," typ<s as .... U• .l6. Math<,.., a",h "f GIIdJ. 69---72. )7, Ibid .. 109-11 , s.. .\;0 Un ..., MoA .fSot:"""" )1('- 11 , 33. Thi. i. 'h< ,h",i'of M"h<w .. a",h "fGod"..". "'P. Ch>pl«), "L"'g« Ih>" Lif<.· 91_ 11 4. Not. Z'nk~, obj«'ion to ,hi. id.n,ifica,ion. whkh h •• mibut.. to ,h. work of Din· kl« .nd oth .... MIJk ofSocra,,,. lOO, n. 51 (J91). J9, I.... ndomo"""'t«l by M. ,h<WS, CIaJ/o ",God. 9S-lOl, 40. T.k.n from Mango. A" of ,II;: Byz."t'"e E"'p;re. 40--11, who give. ,he "'"'" a, Throdo,u. Lec,o,. Hi". 1.15 (PC 86:17)),.nd ,hG 86:221). Also ci,«I by Moth"" .. nuh "fGod,. 186;.nd Gilb .nd Lik Jiff."nc .. i" •• rty B)'1;O"'i'" ,,,; .... S.· s.. j' m« ~r«kmriion in Rin'. lIemo""'n fro'" 'M- Rn TTK>numml> of Ita",n", by Fri<Jrich Driehm>nn, u""""",: 1f""",taMJe, Ab'l i'ical and «Iigious ron"" of I(,j",n". in this , im., ..". M.. k I, lohruon, 'Toward • • mltodoric', lluildiog i'mg<.m; [lOP H (1988): 73-96; . nd Otto "'" Simpson', now ew.;< wod. Sot:rrd I'orIm~ a,,~ ,. RawtI"" (Prioc«"", Prine«on Univ. Pm.. 1987); and Carl Ot,o NordMrf, di< M",.,m. t'01t Rmmn. (Stod· holm: A1mqu;st .".;1 W',):. ..IL 1~)). i5, On this building..". GiukJ'p< Bovini, Sam'Iop<>I!'''''" R. ..." .... (Mil.n : Sil....... Editori.l< d'.n<, 1961) , 46, ".il MocGr< d'M N<>to,,,n Oo,i<101ogy ,ath., ,han Arion Ch,istology.nd argu«l 'hat ,h. l><.rdI"" o.ri" r<pr<>< di,i"'lUtur< (>loc. h. wa> working wond .... ,>oJ mi",d.-.). whil< ,h. h<>.nlwM the hum.n ".'ur< (.inc, I>< ,uffx. I « the boric """k of Spiro Kmto( TIl. Onhod.>x 801";'''''' of R."",,,,, (N.w II.",,,, V.I. Univ. ~~, 1965) . i!l. s.. !W>in I....... ", 'Whol "" ~'g>n RiV<1 GoI""m'" 8U 9.1 (1993),35-4 1,5+-5). 49, Koo,of. TIl. &p"'''?" 87. 50, Orign,.nd othe,~ >l 8",«, Ion o"d ,Ir< lie ...,," V;""'r: r ..",fo''''';'''' of An fro'" ""goa WO,jJ '" a"i,,;.,,;ty (C..amb,idg<' Cambridg. Uo iv. Pr..., I 'I'J'i), 99-1(14, Ill_H. 53. G"go<'}' ofN.,;an,,"~ )'!,;;o. Oro,. l7.l (,,.."'. NPNP 7:ll9). 5-4. Ek"", "f." 10 ,hi. im.g< .. an -.",mplum of ,h. w of 'pi,i'ual v;""'i"s" .nd • 1""_ t rayal of my>tiaol vision,"''' OM ,hi: lie."," V,.......,.. 11 2_14. S5, Epistk of EUS.s, 1986), IH- H .

'0 '"

"""w.

y""." "'mer;""

&to,,,,,,

'" eon".",,",

w.,

'pl'".';!;'.

B,.,-."';","'''

S,.,"'.ft

Mo."" ;"

J"""

0,,_

-n..

,o.

NOTEI TO PAGEl 170-1 84

218

57. ",lunaol.,., 1..-. 8. ~. Ibid .. I " (,,,,no. NPNP '!;H);.oo cited in ch.p. t. S9. Ibid" 17- 18.

60.10110 Chry>o<1OfTl. c."",h. i/j"m, 12.2:>- H. t"n~

~

W, H,rli"" B.p~,m"j lMrucri<ms,

ACW J 1 (I..:<w York: !'I,wman. l'I6l), 17'>-SO. An ;nt
6. Early Portraits of the Saints and the Question of Likeness

i",,'

1. 101m of Dam...,,,, Ius 1n i"t<"Sling d.f."", of .. portraits .. oddM 10 im.!\<, of Ch,i" or M.ry. I !IpoI. 19. For ,n "",Ilent . nd g
=

Hahn, "S<< Construe'io" of San<1ity in E.,ly, Mtdi<.a1 Sai",,' Sh, i,...." Sp-1(16. 2. Sec ,h. p. I. PI' 27- 28. l. On th< "" of <010" • • •ymbol. for virtuC'S, 0« <m.nn. 19:16).6, 48, 68,.nO pI. ~ . Th. P"",u)", ,,,,,,",,, iurn ;, dil<WO«l n...... "'" 48. 6Hi3, ,,,J pL 17. So< >I.., Umbe<1o h",b., L< <"<11"",,,,1>< Ji S. Grn",,,,, ~ C.y><>I;•• 1 97~), 7l 'nO 93; .nO d;.. II th.ligur.. in these fr=:o<> or, much di>puttd. So< di>rus>ion of.il th ... pain'ings. with h.lpful f_no< ... in B in p.inting> . r. ,",,,ho:d by ,ho: oon""''''''y over ,n •• iudf. So< ,h. hdpful >urrum ry of the probkm in L..ey Crig', forth",m ing work. MaJ.in& Man,..., in u.rt Anli<jui'Y (london: Du.kwooh, 200i). 'ho p. 6. 7. "" h. nw, JWm, of"""h""' of Nola. ACW 40 (N"" Yo,1d to Chrisriao;,y (C. mb,idge: Cam_ bridge Univ. P..... 1995). 21-1S, wi,h bibliography. for an imPO"'''1 d"",... .. " of thi> 12. So< ,h. fo"hwm ing -...ott of Crig. Mabo& '[Kimt p,><'i«. 13. lohn Ol'p"'''om. 1/0m. .""' ... M,I« (PC StHI6). aloo oj,< Ii"" '" .. in" if upon living , nO moving ","u... nd imitate th.ir virtue; fp. 2.J . 15. Cregory of NY"". r..",,". TIwd. (PC -16:737). ... ,... M'''go. Att of,1tt Byz""';'" Empir<,

,n.

i,.

,h.

.,t'.

C., ....

M."rn.

,n

A"

50".-.-"

t.-.,...

,",,,,,'0

Door""",,

>,

36-J7. 16. S..il. Hom. 19 (PC Jl;S07---.s). An .i.gh'h- or nin,h--o< "",rtyr';' in . n ",,'ory '" lho: church of San .. M.rio M'iGUO in the Roman Fonorn.

,m... ..

17....... , i,«1 by M.ngo, At! of ,It< By..,",;n. E",,'r<. 37- ).8. 18. Prud1 .. "J ' .. n~ i" CCSI. 126, ed . M . P. Cu"n i"gh"n (Tu,,,bou,, 1961;), L 0" Prud lon«, tit< MartY'" (N,w York : OxfotJ Univ. Pt<,., 19~9): .00 Mieh.dl . j(ob<',), .nd ,It< C"I, of ,'" Marryrr: Th. Lib
f'r"a,,"';"' ""

Pr"J
19. Prud,"'i"~ Ptri 20. Ibid , 11.125---3 • .

9.~U .

NOTEI TO PAGEl 1 84-190 11. s.. diKw.>ion in Rob",,>, ""try.M Ih,OJI ofth, Ma,.".. 1].8 IL 14; also ... th. d is· """ion of Grig. Mo ,;,S M.rtY". ,h.p. 6. 11 . A"'gu>lin •• &"". lI6.S, . 1>0 ooIed by Robor.. , fWt'r ",a 0.1, <1'~ M",,,,,, ))8,

,n.

n. I i.

n . "'"unot"" c.:"". 10.6.91 . s..

"'y",ooci V.n Dan" Sam" ""d 1'1t.i, Mi""k< i. I.. " A.,Iq", Gaul (Pri",."",: Prine4), 1_>1 . H . Gregory [, lip. 9. 105; 11.13. lS . ..... d ted .00ve. 001. Il; lohn a"J'K'Stom. Hom. """''''. in !.kl« 26. Epiph. niu" Ttsr .• te.t .nJ '"n, . in Mongo, A" <1'~ 8y,""';"< Emp;", i i, from G«>rgij. o.trogo ... y, ed ., S'"ait" '"' Gt..-hirlo" d" byt.>"'ini",/wo 8iJdt",«i", (Dr<,I, .. , Mor< .. ~ 1929), 67. S« JiK""K>n b<:1ow or Ihe qu<'lion of .uthenli';ly of tho frogmon" of q,il'iun i= 17. EuO< 'oonogrophyofl'rtO 14S (OJord : BAR. 1932). 30 . ..... g.... i.., Stt'm. lSl.4. A otudyof tn;, i,..."io<1 into I". Am "",(",,,.nd ito "'. ,,.. ,,,;.,;0.,), w;t" its ""r;.,u, probl,m" "...yb< f""nd ;n i\<", ApollO""'", i\pd'''n Nt," in SBL Stm;"", AlP<'" 31 (1 '191). 3116-98. 31 . Th, identifiwion of ,1>< two women in th, '''"'' as th, frck<;" 'x c;..",;,,", and frcJe· ,;., '" Cj""mciJiont is SIlWO"ed by parallel m<»ai« in th, ~ i li .. of Santa Sobi"" in Rom •• which an b<: dat«i to tho early fifth «ntury. ll. S« K",<), Pelmo" ~1;9. 3l. On tho S"kI .gJ ... p<>linn Citl" Bibliot"" A"",totic. Vatic.no. 1969), .n"i.. 49-76; ond forthcoming. Lu<)' Grlg. 'ron" il>, Pontif&..nd the DImtia""'tion of Fou rth· Ontury Rom ... P8SR 59 (2004), t " . ut ho< ...... the rou"h-.c.ntury gold .gia .. port" it> • • • co .. study to • .,mi"" the v;"".1 cultur< of Ll1< Antiqu ity ",d comp.... the ro""it> of Or''';'n .. tnt> k> the <>< ro,t .. it> i> i""luded tn D, .. id Cortlidg< 'nd Keith EllioU, ,\r, .nd ,lot: eh,;',;'" .-I1"'<'J1'o. (WOO""; Roolledg<. 2(0 1), 1).4-48. Ai", ... E Bi.· ,""ti. 'Pietro. P>olo, L'inv.nrio"" d.n. imm.gin~ b ri<><>c1Z;"'" d.ll, ,tori •• lo go ..... d.ll. tro, l-Iooio, fa "orio. il ""I,,,, .. mamorio, ",i primi ,«OJi, .d . AnS.1I Do"'ti (M ilan : £I«:tra, 2000). 4}..H )4. On the ivory bu,kk .nd the trodition of the mming of 1'<1.. ;uid P.ul . 00 its r'Pr<' ><11 .. ,100 in ioonogrophy in go"'''1, >« ~<s.I ... "11l< Mwing of Pet" ,nd l'lIul in Rom<; in hi> SI"din in PwrioJ No"""w. S29--48. 35. Tra" •. 1I« "n thi, d1K>n of f'.ul in th' of P,ul ,nd Th«lo," 1-1:: J6 (1962), 1-4;.nd Ab""'m I. M.lh1th.w. 'Nicerho"", CalIistu,' Ph)"i"" I:>.sc' iption "f 1'<1<,,, An Originol Component of the Act> of I' thot Ni«phorw', descnptK>n wu ba.ed on. mi ... "S vcnio<1 ofth< Act< ofP."". moinly b«."", h< do.rly boO«! hi> o<>cnption "'.... ',,.,>rd f.. tu" of GI'«<,· 1I0.",,, blogrophy" (140). S« • critk" ... ILUt;"n of .. rli .. ,,,,,,,,i«ofl-'<1n ... po" .. itu" in o.,tlidg<'OO ~J l iot,M' onJ ,ht eh,i""", Ai"'<'J1''"', 141 . 37. S... Hu.k;n",n. Co,ron/ia JIpo,lOlo,"m, .nd F_ D... m.nn. Paul", i, frllhchri"'i,'" Fn'lmmitk';1 ~M (Op~n: W.. tdrut.rner V.rIag. 1'!!!2 ). ].8. r.ul Zan"'r. 1'Itt M.,k of 1'Itt Image of ,'" In"llmuaJ '" A"li<j"i'y. tron" A. S".p'ro (B
,%,"m:

e",,",;..,-.

''''''8

wh".

""to

nr ....

KJ.""

Sot,.""

219

NOTES TO PAGES 191-1 98

220

39. s.. Roth W. SuU iv:m.

Itll 17 (19'<4):

~.

-So,"" Pet.. and ('.ill: Som. h"nK A.!r«" of T1l
"I' .. 7--11: .M C.rtlidg< ",d

ElIio1~

A..."a rOc 0."'-,,1." !op«"pAA

1l~.l6 ,

to. S« C. PiclT~ "Gunooroi. Ap<>k>rum ">10/0,""" .00 "" .... " "Th" M«tin& of Pt,« .00 Pou] in Rom<_" A ,••:tnt « ;';que of tru •• i"w " off... d by Gri8, ·Po",..its, Pon,iff.. . nd tn, ,h. e",j,,;"" AP() H . On t.;' .ubj«t "'" V"'-iimir Louky, "Th, H<.>pen!ld. N.Y.: S•. IlI.Jimir'. S<min>ry Pr= 19$9), W-SI, on Ih< kgrnd of SI. Luk< I"inling. p<>rlroit of M>fY ,ho, . 00 the child I..., .... ""U os. limil" leg..... tho th..., " .. gi produ'«l 01>< • ..., Il«11 on pilgr im.g<. rom« from Throdorw Lmor. H;"• .,. c<. mdonn. wil, < night into "'y!", «""bi"ing Go",, 1'"""n18 with the .poc,yph. 1"<>tin. 44. s... diKus>ion (dup, 4 ) ofth. MoryiS .... tyrologies in this program .. "SUM by Sunil'" Spain, ·'Th. Promised Bi<Wng': Th. leonography of the Mosaic> of S. Mori> Mag_ gio«: AB 61 (1979): 51s-40, !< Silion . nd ,he Ar,h Moo.i<> ofS, M.,i, M.ggio«," 26 (191!7): 8:1-91, d i""S""" bow...-r,. 11<1 b.><> h" "S"mrnts on 'h, ,ent,alily of Ih • • nnun,iOlion ill Leo', ><,mon, on Ih, n.tivily, On S,"I, ~b,u M.ggio",', d="li .. P"'Il"m in g<"".I, >« It.in,ich K"pp.I>i< frllhm Illld.n · Hodom< bibfiogr.phy on 'his obj''''Ilot< of th.;, ineluoon in the JIo,iklium of the ioonocb," ,,:>d " tl>< Synod of Hi<,;' ;11 754, ,I>«< writings ... .., doubtful . uthlj'---both 'hi< lOJ other f"sm< .it< oflkthd, How<¥Cf, ,in«, ",,,ion of ' hi< g;"'Uy oon'<mro'-'ry 1«[<, of I,rom< (Ep. 51.9). , ... , docum< . nd th< qU<}IM >00"", h."" ""'" I><'n grly Ou"h; ITS 1~2 (1977),)(lHS, "1'- ))6-)9: .nd (mo", 't«r1I~) Pie,,,, M"",;tJ, ·fp;ph' n<, doc,.." d .. i"""",,!w ..- in NW< II, 7~7_ 1987. dou" ,ikl" d'i_g" ,d;li",,,,, lIoe'pHug ...d Nicol .. Lo .... y (Po,io; On, 191!n ~1-62, 49, Ari>toIi<, 1«" 145b. llili t<xt is dixuooed by ALoin Beo..",OIl. Tht Nrlojdllttr I"",g<: An 'n"/kc,,,,,ll1i,"''r : Univ, ofo,ias<> P.-- 2000), il. SO, PloIiIlu>, £Om, S,II, I" I,.n'. S, M,K«l in Ileo.ln<;on. Tht I'<>rbidllttr [",as<. Sioll of Arollon iu, on Ih< god<, du" 1, p. <10. 52. Augu";",,, I'a. srlll) . I-I-~ . 53, 8;"il, Ep. 2,3, 54, Th«>dim ir', S<millll'y Pr-no, 19I!1I,i9. """,, Ir."" t,", G<;". Mon.""" T","_", 221 NOTES TO PAGES 198-199 \\. s.., th. 'I«>,k 01 Hrn'}' M,~oir•• Th, /(011' ojThn, Bod"", Sai"" a"ti Th<j, I""'gts i" B)'<M"ium (Pri11«1on; Prin«1on Un;v. Pr_ 1996). <sp. ch' p' di> to mud. of ,h •• bo¥< .•..J i. <»loJy of .. int" imoW" ;n I!yJ. nti "" ,,,. 56. s... M.tui". 1"IIL o[1'htj"lod~ 7-11. lo"hi . ."" "'h." OOP (1'191), U _33. hm 31_31 . sa. 'Th< >!oryof. young monk from Sin.i. wOo r«:<>gniz«l on hi. 'pr0 in !>bng<>. Art oj '''/ly.:'""Ii", Emf;". 40. 59. Augustin<. Ih ... 8 .• .7. '''n~ Edmund lIiJ l. TI« Worl, o[S!. A..gu"'n<. pt. 1. "<01. 5. Th< Trinity. ".I. j. E. R""U. (II"""'-lyn; N.... City. 1'191). 2464 7. ffl"" 4, ""''''pl«. Glossary ankonie. HOYi ng 1>0 v;.",1 imas", ,,]>« " lIy no fig ... ' i•• im.g.. or 1'0"")'11. of living beings (animal. or numana). ap ... II ",micif. oo""rcd by. Gom< or ..... 11 • ..J """"Uyat tho end of ,ho: ,11;,,,,,,,1 "" of. ngubr building d<s;g.>«I to hou .. &< ;"'< rnd. b ..,if", vi,ion. Th< vi • .," of God thot i. uitirno .. ly g.. nt«l to tho .. vt"d JOU~ or the di,«=! kn"""~g< or vision of God, wbj,h off... ,""",.ion to too.. who rre.;...., it. <>""" mb. Unci",!;""'''''! bur;.1 pl. ", oomprikd of tunn d . and ,1I'mb of "'mM, ind..ding narrow <>plkry .... U.. or group buri,1> i n kp>r>" "",.11 room~ 'I«> ,hri"ogram. Th. fir.' G"",k ].ttmofth. name a.,;., «lIi..,d rho). form«l into , m.ono · gram. of"n within . d",1< or . w... th. Coundl of. a.aI« of a.mt Wtootinc. (I",. oonfu><"ll). oot or tho .. m. t im< ","'parol>!<. Council of FJ.ir>. I.o«! i"»go. on ""II, of clturdl.~ Cou",il <Jf ~ pft ... " •. E .h. (God ·bo.«,) . 0\.., tho «nt .m. ",,,;,,,/0. Small cbomber within an underground burial .~< 0' .. t ..om!>, probably used by • • ingk f. mily or g""' p. dormiti"n . from tho Lotin do ...,;,;., m•• ning"to s!«p".nd .... f."i ng to tho death .nd . .... mpl ion of the Vi"in M. ry. often .hown .. m:umbent on • bi" whik ChriM T<etic writings, in pa rticular tho docu· nltn" of tho ... Iy 'hW"Ch, w;ual ly u><"ll to pm"o"i.d. t<"uaI .upport on 01>< or . noth .. , id. of . th 223 CLQIIARY 224 fl'<'1<<>' A type of wall pointing. ""'.Uf rapidly don< with wet paint into fr .. h p""'" in order to produc<. p<' !Nnrnt mural. h.gK>gnophy. The writing< of .. in'. Iiv<. md ",,,,on" of thri< mi,.d",.... well ... d<> ,ion ofth ""0;,.",1... from th. (jr«k word for ·p«p .... '"'";.n imago of .n <ml"Y tnro .... on wh;"h • lIi"",,;o"_long. 1000< tuni"""rn by both mlTlfn in tho .."er" Rom." I'.mpi ... Hoa. mild, btributod. ioon_ Any im'g<. but ",,,,,lIy u"'! '" ",f" '" ",,,II P'"" p<>rl"i" of. hvly per.,,", including the Virgin M>ry, Of tn ... in'~ prod ....,,! f<x d""",;o". 1pUTJ'<>'<'$- Sum. i o.ri,'. 1<'1'"' ' '"' par1;""I" 1""", of lho: ;"oood. ,,". Th. act of t.r..k.ing or d.ilKI)'ing irons, usually by ,t.oo< who , OCU>< Gr«k 101"s<mrnl of im,· mOlTing to • p<15OIl who offrrs Y.oo P"'f<' to II>< .. int> "'pr<><m , Kor.ogr.ophy.11" >ludyof m.. ning in vi>ual . rt, <'p.d.Uy by loot.ing for l<'CUlling .,.mbol>. molif.. 01 ",mpo>ilion•• nd trying 10 inl"p' et lhe mcon ing in II>< im' g"y, dlh" in"nd«ll»' I~' . "i$l 0< p< vi",,'''_ in p4«. T",J;rional <1' ;"]'>11 in ,I>< • .,Iy o.';"i.n "a, m<>"in3 .;" p<"'_. I."",u"," " R",,,,,,, m;lil"y ." oJ.,d .d:.Iplod by eo.."",'i"e '0 ;nd..,Je . eh""OS"'m pio«10<1< '" poIlof Ih, Virgin M.. y. martyrium. ShIm. t..oil l 10 home the "Ii<> of. Chri>,i.n .. int or ",,,tyr. or" • holy . ir ••• "'. lly luving a =t" li,.«I pi," (for ..ampl., d"'."r. ",ragonal, or uuciform)_ "Y<. from Ihe ..atin ""'"" ..."iI. "",.ning >hip. ,~, ,,,,tor ,;<1. of a Iu.ili", 0< main ",,. of . churd> t..o ilding. u...J fo.. Ih. gath"i"& of tl>< I' ;' f .. oppoo«! to ,h .......... ,;':,«1 '0 clelgy. "imb«!. lI.ving • halo 01 .ulan<1ity or power, ., ;n the "pr<>rl (<>r pr.)'!:r <J, d.""Kon.1p"lung over tho .. rn . ....ooplugu~ From tho G"",k woods lor "1I;' of a body) .00 of"n .labo""iycarvM with ,,1><£ Kulptu". S. ... ",h hum.ni",1 Couno known a, lhe Sewnd Coon< known Iof .ffirming the orthodoxy of ir demrion>l !'utp<»<$- Overtum«l hy the Sev",th fAUon.n ;", 1Coo,,· ei l (t;"i",call) in 7~7 c _. _ ,".-roo. Combi".,,,,,, of the t"", G, ... I." .... '00 thb in'o • &ign migh' b< in of Eph""" (t l1).oo o..kC'don (45,), lil.,-,'Uy me.ni"!!·God IIc>m," 001 ...... Uy tr""lalod "Mother of God." """'gr. Summoning t~. Divinc or djyinc power I»' m.. n. of m'SK:, i"""n"tion>. or fil",l .. <>p«i>.lly in .HI of i"dividual .. I,~'io,, _ l",dj,;~ l-'lj~ L"in tll ... UUy$hown in ", by (lorist I"""'g • ",rol l '0 , itb ""'fir"';'" t". T"_ok"" '"ot Select Bibliography Mh'li>, IUns. Di< K,o,a/;;ombrn "'" Nci<> lmagp<>Ii>; For1r<>S p"", 1990. Borber, a."k~ Fi!"" OM V*"'=: Or! ,II< U",;N <1 p,p,,,,,,,,,,,,," ;" 8Y'amj"" l=vxl.",,,, Priowon: Prj"""'on Un ... P.. .., :1002. Il..,ci, Morr, John Norlh. . oo Simcm Pri«. 1"'. ~~ioo, <1 ~o_ . 1 voI~ C. mbrKig<: ('.om _ bridg' Un i •• p,..., 1'19!!. Br< 'Ot E", ofIt", T"",Io,ed by Edmund ! rr.... T<>8<.oo Uni" of Chicogo Pr. woo",,, Gror-g< AlJ. 200-f0Q. T"n,blrd by 1'<,.. Gr""n. N<w York: S",zilk,. 197 J. ,i E ·Pl1",;,. 10 g,,...i d,li.,,,,,f. n;'" In ,,"010: "' "or;'" H ""hI), ., "",m<>ria, "n pn·.,; > Bisron t ~ Pin"" n""". Bm:i«n,HIg,. 1",,<> D, L;b",,.· ... eoo< "'<.,.,;a" N"' .. and Mn""S,..ph, 144. N,w Yo,k: Nu",; ,mot;< So<:i<1y. 1959. H",,,1o. il<". In. frokhri"liublic '" em"",,,,;",. 1.00000: PhooKlon, 1974. Co"",,,,,,, AV< Tolling of. Sto,y." In 0 ...,.,,, War> Preu,u,d '" I. ,,,,,,",,,"" !!O-94. 11.",,0:1 Ukrai,,;'" Studi .. 7. C... " ,!>ridV II..-,,:ard Un;v. 1'lS3. _-,-_. "Th, & p,..., eon';"";'Y oltd 0"'"1' i" 5",',1.0",,,'1 Byz-antiu", 1.0000": Variorum R<print .. 1931. Cortlidg<, D• ..-id R., . 00 K<~h I. Iilliott. An "nd ,'" 0.,;,,;'," Apocrypha. loooon: Routl 225 ! ELE(T BIB LIOG I\APHY 226 ChazeO •• 01;'. ·Pk ,~ ...... IIo:>t~.oo tho lUi, ... ,,: fup< Gr D... monn, furua. fuu/u, in frulKil,j"ji,hnn, Fri«iri'h. b"fiih'""g i" dit ch.~,I;,h. A"'~it_ D."",,;Jt: Wiss Bumge.. U>d1.ft,I98), Ro","""; 11""p"a;l< a", 'I"',".,;k>o . . ~I."d<~ J ",1._ W,i,boJ,n: SI.i""r, 1'I6~1989. e/tri,,", "oJ A.a/q>iIJ, zum Chn'"u,'YP"' d lJinkl i• .If..... Dobo-9. Orrw., _n.ln Srd Or;g i"~ Tot."... 1"·1·: Rowm'" ~ ", II 'o'dd, 1 9l!~. !;uIltm",",n of"'n fro'" ,lot P'W"n lfutid '" 0.,;,. '","iJy. Omh.;Jg<: Omb,KiS' Un;v. I'r<.., 199~ . Ittrpn1ini.n Syn'8"'SUn." In From D"", '0 MrPhc"" S,ud;« i" /",,;,h ,I" ond Soci, 0";"",,,, 0" "''', 1",,,, York, o.fo,J Uni'. PI.... 1994. • , "The R.bbi '00 Ih< Coin I'o<'",il (M .. k U . I 51>, 16): Rigori.m M.nquo." /BL 112 ( 1'193): 629-44. ['innpm'nt of P"",ineiol Ruk , WOr5hip in 'h, W<>I'," Rom.n Empi",."ln M'RW 2. 16.2 (1978), 1201 - 53. -,-,-. 1M''''p;,/, /WtJ<, of o..-;,,,,Iogi
37. N..... York: Pm,i>oo", 1951o_ 196II. G.-..b.r. A.ndr'. 0.,;,,"," 'CO"Of'"Phy: A S'"drDfl" ~;",. Prine""", Prin«Ion Uni • . p""" V'"""" --:cc. "'rt ,.,,,,,,,mo. Rom," m ,~. :==. Gronl. Roberl M .." Th< D<,;p'ion of »." 1in ,I>< Act< of I-'.ul ,00 Th<-cl • ." 1-1:: }6 (1982): 1-4 . . C.o.b ""d ,IN! On. C,od. Phi l.odtlphi.: ""<SIminst"" 1986. G, ig, IllC)'. M.ki"g Mo,,,.,., hi I.. " A"';q";'r. IDndon: lJug< ""d ,IN! 1\'0"/. EJitoJ by J. Golm.nn, 5---25. Mi""", I., Moo'-' S ,i"" IHE ;n fn<j,h A" fro'" Itnriqu;'Y ,. ,lit Middle Ag<>. NortItoml"on: V"io",m Rq>rin". 1113~. - - -. "Th< Sc, S",J· i<> in An ""d ,II< H, ....... Bible. Edi,ed by J. Gutm.nn. ~ 1~. Now Yorl; "t.v. 1971. Ilogogu.. "S«ing.nd 8lil->n M"""'m of Arl, 1'I8(l. H. nt""ud Ni,1s. /W""," Ar, aHd lmpf .... 19M. 11"'lin8o I.Lldwig, . nd Engoll>rlliu, of ea.",,,,,', Com""""'.,,. "" I..iah: o,ri"i". ~i, i" ,II< As< ofC",,,'""'in<. Oxklrd: a.r. 1991. 1Iusi:;nson, J. M. ~nI" "'p""aJo'""" r,hri"",,, 1'r-op>.;","Ja", 110_ in 'Oe f,,""h and fifth c:...IUti.t~ a",R in"''''''ion> i ~'i .. 1 ~8. o,fon!: a. ....R., 19!!2. 1<."", RoI);n . "I"" ~" So""';'y,.nd T""h, The Pioc, of 'he Po" ... ;, i" O""i." 1l'>d;'''' n.· ... RTS 1 J ,l (1001 ): 16-JI. :::::. "Th< Trilli,y.nd tho Economy of Solva,ion," lECS 7 (1 999): 5n-46 . : . Und",,"nding £OIly o,ri"i"n ... ". london: Roolledg<, 1000. . "\,,,,.1 Me Pogon Rive, God, Do;ng.t su"" of I"",. B'pti,m!" Bf! 9, I (199)): ) H I, 5+--SS . ."i,,,,,,,,,"ing 'he D i.i",." BR 17.6 (2001): 24- ) 1, S9. J""""''', M. J. "'Ibwards • lli,""Y of'fhf.,i~ Tilt Ma,b"! of." lmag<. Cambridge: H.rva,d Vn;v, rr..... 1977. K...ln, He-rbm L Spiri'ual S«ing: /'Xtu,i"g God', In>i,ibili'y i" Mfd"",) "'''. ('hibdolpru.; Univ. of Pni. 1'r i" ~';"II'\m-a , i",. London : Pindor, 1m. K,,,I<1', H"tx:rI 1".oJ G"h.,d wolf. T~ I/oly F" .. ""J 'h, /'a,aden"f Rtp",,"'"'i,," , BoI<Jgno: Noo'" .oJf" 1'I9l!. K~zingl. 8y",,"'in, A" in 'N Makint, Camb,id&<: Il,rvon! Vniv. V",., 1980, _ _ _. " Th, Cuk of tho Im >go 1><[0" Iconoclasm." 001-' 8 (1 '154): 116-1 8, Kk;n. ... E. E. . nd Su"" B. Mathe>on, ed •. I Claudi. II: Wo""" i" Roma" An and Soxi· "y. Au"in: Uniy, ofT""" P..... 1000, Kodt. G. Ro ...n Fun,,"?, x.lp'u", c..,aI"8'" of IN CoUro","" M.tibu. Calif., J, Poul GIlwi", "PrOOJ<",.J" llu,.-.do~.n i >. P..... 1995 , Kope<ek. 'Thorn... A Hi,""Y of N",·.-\ru,"j",1. Cambridge: Phillldelphi. i'atri>'k Fo.mdl1ion, 1979. Koo<> "'0'1'. j<>II.",.... WaI"""',, --:c'. 227 ! ELE(T BIB LIOG I\APHY 22' Louth, And,.,.. 1M Or;! ;", of ,/0, Oo,jJtUln My";,,,1 Trod,.,."" F""" Pia", t. v.-.". O,JO.:d: 0,,,,,,1 Un ;v, Pr=, 19*1. I.owd1wn ). "" ~h)'>iClI D<s< of lW_ 000 ,iI< Or;,;., of c/o,;""'"'ty. Tran.I,,«I by Carol W.."rman. Flo .. " , ,, Sea .. , I'll! 1_. M.gui,,_ IIm,y. Tht /""", of 110<'" &oJ;"; S<"""," '~ Th",n«): Un iv. of Toronto p,.,., 19M. Mllh<w., loom .. E TI" Clo,h of God" A. IIn"'''I''·' '.'io" of &"1)' Ch,;,,;"" A". il<:'iption of Pr1 7 (19%): 14HS. 1.1."" FriNlrieh. Dic d;""y';«"m Sa'kn/"'W 4, Ikrlin: Monn. 1rlnId flir ""mP11«1"," 94. S...,...~ 1.>10"'"", R<"", d'lIuJ<. b'i .... I '167. ~h l bur", Rob<0", 19I\S. M;«hIWtWn of ,10< \-~tKO" [iIKory, f.ditfd by G. F... " i, V";",n City: !I;bl""ca Apo;Oo li'" ""',ana. 19S9, MU'HY, Muy a..rk>, "Art .00 tbo hrly o,urch." 28 ( 1977): ~HS, . Rebirth "nd A{t<,fifo: A S'udy of ,m, T,"",,,,u'a';"" of So .•" Paga. Imagu, An: f.>;ami"in! Modem Di"""",, "n ko'i>h M'. lincoln: Un;v. of Nft. 1l<,lin: M.nn. 19I\S. Pi""i. ClLoM. ·ConroN ;' A"""toIorum '" R, •• nd To.m'" Talbot R;nJon: Th.",.,.nd Hud&o>n, 1976. Rol:>" Uni •. of Michig:on P1 .... 1'1\13. Ror<m, Po uL " The Uplifting Spiri'''' li'y of P>",." In Ch ,i,,;"" Spiri'"llIiry: Origi'" '0 rlu- T_/fth 0",",)" F.d i,«I by B, Mct;inn'" . 1.. 132_S L N.w York: Croo.uoad, 1'187. Roo<. a..rl« BT;'n. D"","i, Com"""""",,,,,, and i..",lwooJ. N.Y.: SI. Vlodimi,', g.,n in.,), r ..... 19l! L Ro,h, <:""",1 3 (l9JI ): 233-S2. Soba5, o. n; = '. Uo.::""u, rrs Sto.,. Com,"",in,. IHE 229 S< #nJ tN Gods: I""'l" from ,'" n"" ofTrajon, HDR 1S, Min· rt<.p<>Iio: Fort,... Pre>., 1993. SirgC'f, lc.nn< 0<.11<, "Vi,u.1 M<1.phor OS Thrology: Lro 'hc G",,,'. Sm,..,.,. on thc I",,,n.· tion ",d 11K Arch M"",i<>of S. M.. i. M.ggior<,· Gr,,# 26 (1987): 8)-~ 1 . Simp""', Ono \'On ..';daM furl"", /Iyzon,jn, A." "nJ S"""""ji ;n ~"""''''' . P,;",""'n, pn oc<· ton Un;v. 1'1"<.., 19117. Snyd. M , Macon, Go ,: M,,«, Un;". 20OJ, Spain. s.. ... n ..... "Th< r",m;..ro Bl<»ing': n.. lronoguphy of tho Mo.. k" of S. Mar;' M.g. g.ior<.·AB6 1 (1979) : 51s-1O. Stcm, Hcnri . "t.<s ,.,.,..iq..... ,<nson, l.m ... r", CO' .... mbt ~<Jj"""".-.d, 1.1"""",... ,, of [".Iy O"i,,;,,";ty. lc>nJo,,, Th.m«.nJ HuJ.,n, 1'f/3. Stuart. Md Vou~ Som< lronk Ast>«"of'lb rr.... W." ~. Romo,...· Taylor, Lily R.;,o,. "Ani""ni< I _ip '11IODI! tb< E,o'ly In a"" ..01 Stud;« i" ,*,,,,,, , lOS-No phil.ddph;..: Univ.ofP Un;". pr.... 1971. TUlC>n. Itobill. l.ondon; Routledgc. 2001 , . I~, S.:rroph"lJ<' roma;,,, , in 'h. s..:ooo 000 'Ib;rd C.r, !'.ti<, ro .. Fro", Glligu/o 10 Gln".",i"" Tyr••"1.od r",mform.rio" i. Remo" lIm",i· ,u",. Atl.n" : Mid>.<1 C eo""" M"><1; .nJ ~Q"." I\>",.j~. I.onJ"", Ilri 'i.h Mu>. 1990. 1\,,1$,,", "0. 11« Sluuud : Vi,"," "nd Imogi ... ,;.,. m M,di,,,,,J /<Wi,h MY";';''"' Prin«ton' Pri",,",on Univ. 1'<<14, 1'1'1-1. Wood, Suson. "Ale,,,is on !loman Sarroph. gi." ..1./1182 (1 978): 499-510. ::-::-_. Rom". 1'1",,.;, Sodp'un' 21 7_l6O A.l>. I.. KI< I_go o/,I>< [n"l/!..! by Aian Shopiro. Ann "-,ho" Univ. of M;chigo" P...... 1985. _-::-_. "'Th< Po""" of hn.g<~" In Po"J _nd Emp;"" Jl<1'gw" and ~""'" ;~ /1o",". Impi>nfXJ"'dtl. Zu, IIn<;hm Altod<mi< --c-' 1<"., ."J :==. "f"'"h'",,,,w,,, Ga"'. rr.... 110. M""",,,,], af'''' Index At>g;or, king of Ed.,..., 135, 1)6, 192, ,~ Abrah. m, ... M.m", 72_73. 78-79. 93. %-97. ll ~, 116. 111. ojf M"ajJoh",I40 Ac" of Paul a"d Th«/<>, 1'10, I"" .'.<"a/I' ....... od" So"",.., 28 ....... 0><1., th' C .... t, 4243 s..Ibin"" W !l>rl.. m, 132 lla>il of Ca ........ 5&-59, I04-S, 130. 182. 183,197. I'I!! IIori ..... I S9 BowOCl. C,W.• S8 Br«I<noog<. lam<>, 7 I\rilliant, lIith • ..!...., c.... ". Pn ilipp;,)(1 Ambro« of Milan, Ill. II, ""', iOOll>' 39,65 An,ioch.,.IV f.piph>noo, 16 AI11oninu. P i"" 39, 43 Caligub.. 51, 55 c.JIUtu., cata.comb of, 1,1 (fig. 1). 3 (figs. 3--1). 4 (figs. 5-6). 5 (fig. 7). ,o,pouyph<m of 101m. H C. ...... U•• 40.41 (fill-H) c.rpo I ApoUoJSoI, 62--{j), 65, 67 Ap"Uon iu. o(1)'> .... , 60, 197 Ari." Il.apli<1.ry (R.",,,,,.). 12l. I U (figA9), 159, 16.J-6.1 (. 00 fig _81 ), '" Amooi"" IQ3 _kpius, 61. M. 88, IS4 ....I 1)0,1",170,171 Ath'tugoras. ~.J....8.I Augu"i .... , 34, "",1>I-li5, 85, 87-&. 10'1-15.138-)9,158, 171, 184, 186, 187.197.19\1 Augu"u~ <mp0 fig. 16), 40. S I- S2, 6l, 6S /lul<>iy.:uo, 91 176,178 231 232 INDEX Co". .. nt;". •• mpero<. 20, 22.11 • .lO, 31. il. 4), S7- S'!, 67, III Coom • •• oo D. mi Dogron. Gilbert, 1 _ o.Jna>W.,l'op<. m Dio a"J"O',um. 60 DiM),>",176 Dion)'> .... the Ar«>p' Sit,. 107--8 Diony>U$, p>g.n god, P, 6' lJorn;,;'n, 52. 66 [)om;';I .. , catacomb of (Rom<). 168. 175.177 DIl,. Eu ropo~ 6, 17. 19--20, 22 (fig. 10).121 E«b""bisbop.1M Ebg.>b.>lu~ 67 !J;j.oh, at tr."sf'gut>h"", 76 Uio::> 169,170,17 1, I. nu"iu .. 5 'w<'" Cypri.n, 14,56, 176 Cyril of ) Euoom iU5, lOS. 106 Euphemia, 182--.8), 185 E'-uo, n - /5, F,.lO, J. cob, .. "'";'1, 73. 79. SO. 93, 94 ~7. Ill. 131, I~ E....gtiw ofPontw, 107, los, 135 Finn ' ''''"''' l H-I5 •• , p.gan god<, 149. I 53. 156, as h"],,, 151 Iohn Orrys<>otom, 106-7, I 34. 166. 171.1 8 1. 182,185 John vl'Do.rn. O Ki lrlnger, E,nst, 7 rOrange. H. P.. 40 La'".n llapl i"ery (Rome), 30 Leo 1.172 Li,ia, 65, 66 !'ud. ",6J !'udus C ", Luciu. V"u .. 39, 44 Ludolph eaTlhusian. I J.4 Lyrom ...... 17_1S, 17 ~, 185 .h. hunto, M",u. Corneli"" ~) G.I.,iw, 182 G.I .. P!ocid;', 159 G. lli, 4() G.nnadh.. of eon.untinopl<. 157_58 Giooorr<>CoIonna.1l4 Gn.,.tiu, 8, 2S. 74, 76. 9a. 1n Grrgory of "'"zi.nz .... IOS-6, l ~ Gtrgory <>f Nys.i'I. IO~, I06, I07, 12 I , 1 ~ 2, 18$ Gtrgo'y<>f-!bu .... IM G,rgory'" G,eaU l_ll, 1M Hadrian. 39, 65 H.gi.Sophia,117 H",oub, 63, _ 7 Hin' on SI. M.. y, 32 II i P I"'lytu<. I, 55. I$-4 1I0,"",'i1l<,159 11"';00 Ihv'.d CTh< .... m i Inoou"' 11 1, f'op<, 136 I«",rus. 8. 25, 91, %-\>9. Ill. 11-1, I.II! u_n, Mar«l lim", p<>p<, 176 Maroon, 78, 79 Mlrrus .oJ M.r«llinwr. ","comb of (k on",).56 Mli.rrus Au«liu. I. J 9. 4)' 5)' 66, 159 Minu,iu. F, I ~ . $4, 69-7(), 71.n,8 1, S) Mm., 62 M."in ofTh\l,.., Saint, ISO, 181, 1M Math."... F_. 15 ~ , 157 M.. irni.n, 159. 165 Maximinu. D. ia, 181 Mnim ino. Thru. 40 M n..-.m.. '",» Mmw Pio Cri"i.no (Rom.). 114, I N DEX N...... ;,u. 176 N""",IS9 N.ro,S2,6S Ni",I;oo" 17~ NOc.., Co".dl of, S7. 170 NOcq>horu. Ca lli"us, 190 No"'ti.". 9J-.9.4, 95 NUrJ\ll, 84, 109 Origen 11_13. 1S. 28, '10. 94-99, 1()1_3. 108---9, j J(l, IH- Ji, Iii - H. ,~ OrlbuJox B'pli"ory (R .... nn.), In, I S9, 163--64, 163 (fig. 83). 191 233 San Aj>OIli ..... in CIa ... , B",ilico of, 121,123, 12S, IS'), 167 San Aj>OIlin ... Nuo,"" lJ,;"ili1' (I!.a ..nllll), IS'H;S, 19) Son Aquila"". ClI'p<1 of (Mib. ), 1~4 Son G.n""ro, ""t>oombof (Noj>l ..) . '>0 (fig. 33), 51. 174 San Gioy.umi in Fonl<. l\op';'I1' (N.p"') III San Lo .. nzo. Basil"" 0>1' ( Milan). JH- SS So" M"tin, jS9 Son Vit.k, ~ili<> 0>1' ( R.""n",,), 120 (.Iso fig. (5). In (I lso fi~. 411), 11~, 1M 165, 190 Son .. MOl;' """iqu •• S..ili" of (1Wm<), ISS San,. M, n. Ln Co.m, 164 San,. ~bn. M.ggiorc, 1\,,,"",,, 0>1' (1Wm<), li e (ol5o fig, 44). 119. 120, 123,19) SIn .. ?>do", .. "", B.. ; Ii", of (Ro,,,. J, 1,7,11ll! San,i Giov.nni < Paulo. QlUrrn of 1~9, J>.nunlchius.176 parowi.,6 Paul. apo .. k. on I Cor. 12- 1), 3Q, a2, on Am. 70, 32. a7--.88. on CoL ~ ,., Pauli"", 0>1' So",- 21, 121 - 22, 17')..31, "''''' Ir>d M.ralh""" ",,",,,,onb 0>1', '" Petronilla, Ill, In Petronius, 55 Ph il ip ,~. Ar. b, 40 Philo, 17,9(>-91, 92, 107 Ph il"'I.. lu~ 1>0 POotinu~ lOll, 112 Plato, on doc!rin ,n ( 1Wm< ) , 1 7~ ,I W San,i N".u •• Achilku>, l\oo.ilj", of (Rom<),17S,ln S,uri... 8' s.N5Ii. nm,176 S1' Mar>1' Gol. b.. 5J s",o Piolorclo, )7, 42, 61, M, 87 S Pt>lybiu., 45 Pt>tycomus, 176 I't>,174 Prud<"liu~ 13) I\ol>li ... l;enluhu, I J-I, ])~ I\old.. ri>,l91 Pythoogor... S I, 84 ShrouJo>I'Turin, j~ Sixtu. Ill, I'op<, 193 81, U8-, 154, 190 Sl"in.SUun ..... 119-1O SI<j>h Quirinus, 176 R<mono Go>p', Ar>dr M'. Soint Cath«i,,". of Sinai, Monaslfryof. 1J.8. 167 Soint Prt m>rtyrium,18l Soc,,,... Toeit"" 89 I,,<1ul lil", 7..../1,"On 1.!oI' lry;9, 1 I, 14, 1" , 4, 5S, ll-8 I, M, 91,9),94, 95, W4, II J, 114 Theoct;'t us, 176 TheOOo .. of Syi1' C )TII>, 107 Throdoric, IS'), 160 lbeOOoru, ILeIOr, I ~7 lbr, 191; Th1' Al 234 INDEX T,,)an. 41. 52 Vk tor 1. 1Ii5hop. I Vis"" Codin~ 4<> Voito $onto of lu=. 1)9 V,.,n,;n"n III , 159 V.",nt;nu~ Wolr." .. , ~J J "" R.• 91 2\0-3(1, 74 V,."i:.In.40 V. rro, 8S X,nov""n,81 V"""ie., 136-39 Zank-44. 154. 1'!O V"I"' ... ",}II, J9 (fig. 18) 7..,.." 82. 116 Vi> An,!",> "",."""b uf ( ~om.l, 15i Via utin>, "",""""bof (Romt), 117 (fig. .3), 115 Zq>/Iyrinu" I, 2 Z«,176 HOW EAIUY (HRISTIAN! ENVI!IONED THE DIVINE -n".... bnJJo,.i.. bool 01 pr.........1 ....J ........,"" ..,..,........, , .... nrh- " ..."h Wf<'>lI<J ... oth Iht probItm.'II ,.t ................. 1ft 1bM....n..- "'I'f<>"" ~.Iht _ .. 0I1h11 ""'AIr. II> I............., ........ 0.1 .......... ''''~ ....to .......... d. _ "-'I. _ IAn .. _ Iht IW;o f i n u/:O, ""' ...... """'" -0. ... _ '" "'-" ,toe-... _ t -.. .............. ,Jw..IlIdI{'iIIL· HITER WENOY BE • r,.' • .~t,,, "" 'H' PB' ""'" ... W. ,.' " p" "",' "rh" 0001. It''''' "'"' V'"'r> (If ,..><>", ","" 1>",,11'" I,~ • ~'"'r'" ,n'" ,I>< ",I> (1),,,,,.,, m,.,) '""1"''''''''''' ,1>"", woo "",J, ,,, """" .. ",J ,10< """ I>o<1.F""nd ,,, '''I\y>.II'' ... Ioo<>oI"" of I h...,,," .n. Inu f,~.II,', .nd r<,h.1" ""'" <>f'<' .. U•• ,ho ...J , . . "" . " ,,' , . . 1<" ......., I"''''''''*""..u. ,I>.o,.".l ," "'It "w" ....Iol ,.., 1« m,.,rJ '" ..!~ ROIERTA 10NOI I' .. 'n..... 011 '" .u' It " W"h _ . ,1>.0" ..... ".0.1..-.1 ",,",,<>v.ph. '0 ...10...... hr "'* ,10< R081N MAR<:AllEl JEN5lN •• 1»<.u,,1',I. l'"''''''''r lh"not. ~boolll .. 1""''''''' "",,", ,,,,hod< ('~,.,.'''' f.,,," C~"" ... An llOOOl Mol 1Iw ~ .. < .,n.... :.-'::ooI', FORTRESS PRESS

Face

Read more

Face

Read more

European Cinema: Face to Face with Hollywood

Read more

Doorstep Democracy: Face-to-Face Politics in the Heartland

Read more

Muslims and Christians Face to Face

Read more

The Face

Read more

The Face

Read more

The Face

Read more

The Face

Read more

The Face

Read more

The Face

Read more

The Face

Read more

Face, The

Read more

The Face

Read more

The Face

Read more

The Face

Read more

The Face

Read more

The Face

Read more

The Face

Read more

The Face

Read more

Face to Face MAQRUR of Paradise & MASRUR of Fire

Read more

The Face

Read more

The Face

Read more

The Face

Read more

The Face

Read more

The Face

Read more

The Face

Read more

The Face

Read more

The Face

Read more

The Face

Read more

Recommend Documents

Face

Face

LEISURE BOOKS $6.99 US $8.99 CAN i Rave Reviews for Tim Lebbon! "Lebbon is quite simply the most exciting new name in ho...

European Cinema: Face to Face with Hollywood

FILM CULTURE IN TRANSITION EUROPEAN CINEMA FACE TO FACE WITH HOLLYWOOD THOMAS ELSAESSER Amsterdam University Press Eu...

Doorstep Democracy: Face-to-Face Politics in the Heartland

Doorstep Democracy This page intentionally left blank Doorstep Democracy face- to- face politics in the heartland ...

Muslims and Christians Face to Face

...

The Face

The Face

The Face

The Face

The Face