THE problem with which Herr Jean Paul Richter and Miss

A. Cameron Taylor deal in this magnificent volume may be thus stated. There are certain mosaics in the Church of S. Maria Maggiore in Rome, occupying the arch above the High Altar and a large space in the roof of the nave. To what age do these mosaics belong ? The commonly accepted opinion, naturally suggested by the inscription on the arch, " Xystus Episcoptus Plebi Dei," is that they are the work of the fifth century of our era, executed by the order of Pope Xystns (Sixtus) Ill., who occupied the Chair of St. Peter from 432 to 440, and was succeeded by Leo III.—An alternative theory, not, however, extensively supported, attributes them to Liberius (352-366).—Another inscription no longer in situ—it was destroyed piecemeal by a succession of restorers, of whom the latest was Cardinal Pinelli—but recorded by a writer of

• The Golden Age of Classic Christian Art. By Jean Paul Richter and 4. Cameron Taylor. London : Duckworth and Co. [45 5e. net.] the eighth century, declared that the church had been dedi- cated anew to the Virgin, the occasion being that the Council of Ephesus had decreed the adoption of the term TheoIckes (Mother of God). It is this traditional assignment of the mosaics to the fifth century that our authors oppose. This they do for two sets of reasons, which may be briefly described as respectively artistic and theological. The age to which they would attribute these remarkable creations is the latter part of the second or the earlier part of the third century. This, they say, is the period indicated by the characteristics of their art, and by the incidental revelations of the theological con- ceptions which were present in the minds of those who

designed them.

The arguments drawn from artistic considerations we shall pass by with a brief notice. Herr Jean Paul Richter is an authority of acknowledged weight on matters of this kind, and any conclusions at which he arrives have claims which may not be lightly set aside. His contention is that the fifth century was, in art, as indeed it was in most things, an age of decadence, while the earlier period to which he would refer the mosaics was one in which much vigour and originality were shown. He and his collaborator distinguish three periods in Roman art. Of the first the Arch of Titus and the Column of Trajan are well-known examples ; to the second belong the Column of Marcus Aurelius and the Arch of Septimius Severus, and a number of minor works with which, whether in the originals or in copies, most people are familiar, the fine portrait statues and busts of the seventy years or so beginning with 150 A.D.; the third is the Constantine period. It is to the second of these that our authors assign the Maria Maggiore mosaics. They have been much disfigured and mutilated, "restored," in fact, to put much in one word, but they still show artistic genius, such as the Constantine period, and still less the century of decadence which succeeded it, cannot be credited with. We must be con- tent with referring our readers directly to the arguments by which this thesis is defended, as they are set forth in the text and splendid illustrations of this volume.

The theological argument, on the other hand, admits of being stated and estimated, though we must necessarily confine ourselves to some leading points. The mosaics are of two kinds in respect of the scenes which they represent,- i.e., typical and antitypicaL The latter are obviously, for our present purpose, the more important. These are to be seen on the Altar Arch, picturing the Advent of the Divine Logos and His Reception on earth. If they were intended by their traditional originator to do especial honour to the

Virgin Mother, we should expect to find her figure made prominent in all of them. But, say our authors,—

" This has not been done. On the contrary, she is represented three times only, and that in a subordinate role, in a series of nine pictures, in one of which, the Annunciation, her absence is unthinkable. In the representation of an incident which occurred during the flight into Egypt, she does not carry the little child in her arms but walks behind Him. Not only does He not sit on her knees in the Adoration of the Magi, but she is not even represented as present."

It is difficult to see how this last argument can be disposed of. Again, the scene of the Nativity would scarcely have been omitted, as it is, by one who had a special desire to promote the callus of the Virgin Mother. Another notable fact is

that some of the incidents represented in the mosaics are taken from apocryphal writings, the pseudo-Matthew and the Gospel of James. This might very easily have happened in the second century before the Canon bad been definitely fixed, but hardly in the fifth, when the distinction between the Canonical and the non-Canonical books had become a recog- nised thing. The ignoring of such a distinction would have been especially unlikely in Rome, where, at the instance of Damasus (367-385), a Council of Bishops had drawn up a list of books which, and which only, were to be read by the faithful. From the typical, or Old Testament, mosaics one instance may be selected. It is that of the visit of the three angels to Abraham. The chapter relating this incident is read as appropriate to the Feast of Trinity, a significance which has doubtless been attributed to it since the definition of

Trinitarian doctrine by the Nicene and post-Nicene theo- logians. But this is not the intention of the picture :— "The centre angel is distinguished from his fellows by an oval 'glory' enveloping his entire pers94 all the angels

wear sandals ; the feet of those to the right and left tread the earth, but those of the central figure rest on a bank of fiery clouds ; He does not walk, but is carried forward by the force of His volition ; the clouds beneath Him announce that it is God enthroned from eternity above the clouds, Who is here borne upon them over the earth He is the spokesman; more, He is the Word, the Logos : to Him the two angels on either side bear witness."

It is certainly difficult to believe that such a representation should have originated in a time when orthodox dogma was so strictly defined, the time of whose spirit the Athanasian Creed, though doubtless later in actual date, was a typical expression.

The difficulty we feel in accepting the hypothesis of origin is of another kind. The Church of S. Maria Maggiore is

substantially, however much renovated and decorated, an old Roman Basilica, known, there is no reason to doubt, as the Basilica Sicinini. Can we suppose that, say in 200 A.D., the Roman noble who owned this splendid palace is likely to have decorated it in this fashion? The Christian Church had, it is true, a time of peace, interrupted, but not often or seriously, by outbursts of persecuting violence. Still, it

always felt itself to be resting on a volcano, and the under- taking of so magnificent a scheme of decoration by even an exceptionally wealthy and devoted adherent seems unlikely.

Even less probable is the suggestion that it may have been used as a public place of worship. Such an act would have been a most dangerous provocation to the authorities ; and the Roman authorities were, we know, even after the old religion had become a lost cause, enthusiastic pagans. It is true that the Rome of the fifth century, always in terror of the barbarians, and often actually suffering from them, was not likely to be the scene of so magnificent an enter- prise. But the second difficulty is obviously less than the first. Whatever the reader's conclusion may be, he cannot but appreciate the industry and learning which have been expended on this work.

THACKERAY IN AMERICA.*