BOOKS.
ROMA SOTTERANEA.*
WITH this volume, Messrs. Northcote and Browlow complete their account of the Roman Catacombs for English readers.
Here we have a very full and minute discussion of early Chris- tian Art. Every phase of Christian symbolism is noted and explained. The explanations may sometimes strike us as far- fetched and questionable, but on the whole, they are based on what may be fairly described as thoroughly scientific investiga- tions. They rest almost invariably on the authority of De Rossi, whose profound archaeological learning Mommsen has frankly ackxowledged. Of course, De Rossi's official posi- tion and his close connection with the Vatican may excite suspicion in some minds, but we can hardly doubt that, on the whole, he is an honest, as well as an acute inquirer. The volume before us is compiled from his works, and gives us the substance of his views on the highly interesting subject of early Christian art. Our authors have unbounded confidence in the general accuracy of his conclusions, and have contented themselves with simply reproducing them in the present work. Like its companion volume on the history of the Catacombs, already noticed in these columns, it is furnished with beautiful illustrations and chromo-lithographs, which give the reader something like an adequate notion of the ancient Christian paintings and sculpture. We recommend it to any one who really wishes to understand what he sees when he pays a visit to this wonderful subterranean world, so rich in its records of the early phases of our Christian Faith.
The whole subject, as is well known, has been a battle-ground for Catholics and Protestants. The latter have, for the most part, questioned the antiquity of any of these frescoes, and denied that we can derive from them any genuine approxima- tion to the beliefs of the Early Church. Mr. Parker is among the sceptics. He has gone the length of declaring that De Rossi knows perfectly well that three-fourths of the paintings belong to the eighth and ninth centuries. This is imputing to him -deliberate bad faith, and our authors are naturally, reasonably, too, as we think, very angry with him. De Rossi avows his conviction that some of the paintings were coeval with the original excavations, and a few of them, as those in the crypt of Lucina and the Cemetery of Domitilla, he traces back to the end of the first or the beginning of the second century.
The reasons which lend at least some probability to this view are not far to seek. The universality of the pictures is hardly reconcilable with the hypothesis that they were introduced little by little, on the sly, as it were. The practice could not well have established itself, had it been utterly repugnant to the mind of the primitive Church. There was, no doubt, a healthy
• Roma Sotteranat Part 11.—Chriattati Art. By Iter..T. S. Northeote and Boy. W. R. }kowtow. London: Longman' and Co. hatred of idolatry and of all distinct symbols of Pagan worship, but it is hard to imagine that in such an age as that of the Flavii or of the Antonines, when Rome was swarming with professors of the fine arts, some of the high-born converts to the new faith would not have thought themselves at liberty to utilise the genius of these men, and adopt certain of those forms of ornamentation with which they had been familiar from child- hood. The impulse to do this would have been almost irre- sistible, and to it may have been due the symbolic ornaments in the earliest Catacombs. Such, at least, is Dc Rossi's view, and his researches seem to have confirmed it. A very minute comparison of the paintings has led him to certain definite conclusions as to their chronology, and lie has, in Mommsen's opinion, succeeded "in fixing the limits of the different great epochs in the history of the Catacombs." It would be impos- sible to condense the reasoning by which he arrives at his results within at all a moderate compass. Our authors have done this partially, but they admit that those who wish thoroughly to examine the evidence for themselves must consult his works. However, he has satisfied himself, not, it would seem, without very good grounds—grounds, in fact, which commend themselves to such a scholar as Mommsen—that in the Catacombs we have " a catena of specimens of Christian art during the first four or five centuries." We have, he confidently believes, monuments coeval with Apostolic times. "Some such," he says, "un- doubtedly exist ; some have still to be sought for ; but others are already known, and may be visited on the Via Appia, or its neighbour the Via Ardeatina, and on the Via Salaria." We go, for instance, to the famous Cemetery of Domitilla, associated with the family of the Flavii, on the Ardeatina. There we have the very common representation of a vine with birds pecking at the grapes, and winged boys gathering them. Of its antiquity there is no doubt, but is it Pagan or Christian work P The subject is in itself quite Pagan, and the only reason De Rossi can give for regarding it as Christian is the proximity of Scriptural subjects on the adjacent walls. The histories of Noah and Daniel are close at hand, and the vine itself, all the branches of which are seen clearly springing from one root, may, he thinks, be fairly taken to have a symbolical meaning. It is an admir- able painting, and worthy of the Augustan age, but it is un- fortunately much defaced. In attempting to decide whether it is of Pagan or Christian origin, we must be on uncertain ground, and it is in such a case as this that Do Rossi's bias shows itself. But we can hardly say that he is a more biassed witness on such a subject than M. Renan, who pronounces primi- tive Christian Art to be nothing but Pagan Art in its decay, and declares that the Good Shepherd of the Catacombs is a copy from the Aristeus or the Apollo Nomius which figure on Pagan sarcophagi. We rather think that generally De Rossi is more scrupulous in weighing evidence and comparing facts hearing on this subject than the Frenchman, who is occasionally apt to let himself be swayed by sundry foregone conclusions.
It is barely possible, in the nature of the case, to define with anything like precision the boundaries of Pagan and Christian Art. But it may be possible to prove that the latter was not a mere copy of the former, and that a set of new ideas had forced f themselves into society, which were sufficiently powerful to ap- propriate to themselves new and original artistic types. This is throughout the contention of De Rossi and of our authors. Protestants, perhaps, in their dislike of art and symbolism, have been rather too ready to see a dangerous Pagan influence working in the early days of the Church, and urging the Christian mind in a wrong direction. Consequently, these paintings in the Catacombs have been always regarded by them with suspicion and distrust. Either they were originally Pagan, or they were the work of a later and a corrupt age. So an average Protestant is apt to think, and he is pleased when a scholar or an archa3ologist confirms his view. He is, we believe, mistaken, but helms some excuse, when he sees how persistently De Rossi applies one uniform system of interpretation to early Christian art. Everything is to be explained as pointing to the Sacrament of Baptism or to the Eucharist, and in this our authors most obediently follow him. Representations of the Ark and of the Flood must be typical of the first, and the sacrifice of Isaac of the latter. The paralytic carrying his bed is a type of baptism, perhaps of penance. These are a few instances, out of a multitude. De Rossi has not, in- deed, come to these conclusions without careful and conscien- tious investigation, and we are well aware that it is no answer to say that to the modern English mind they seem very fanci-
ful. We are inclined to think that sacramentalism, and all that is akin to it, largely leavened the thoughts and ideas of the Early Church ; but we rather agree with those who maintain that this was in part due to foreign, and even Pagan influence, and that some of the best of the Fathers were not quite in har- mony with Apostolic teaching. Our authors quote with approval a passage from St. Cyril, which will illustrate our meaning. A female figure in prayer, and in the presence of the sacramental elements, reminds them of his words, "That those prayers are most prevailing which are made with the consecrated gifts lying open to view." We feel constrained to say that, to our mind, this sentiment savours of something unspiritual, or even pagan. The author of it seems to be living in a different atmosphere to that of St. Paul or St. John.
It is important to note how extremely narrow is the range of Biblical subjects represented in the Catacombs. From the Old Testament we have chiefly Noah, the sacrifice of Isaac, Moses striking the rock, the Three Children in the furnace, Daniel in the lions' den, Jonah and the whale. In the last case, the whale is a sort of fearful sea-serpent, modelled, it would seem, in part, on the dragon of Pagan mytho- logy. From the New Testament we have the adoration of the Wise Men, the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, the paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda, and the raising of Lazarus. If we add to these the Good Shepherd, which meets us far more frequently than any other figure, we have the chief subjects on which the Christian artist most delighted to exercise himself. They were selected, according to De Rossi, as specially lending themselves to symbolical treatment. Histori- cal truth was often utterly disregarded, as in a representation of the Ark we see Noah emerging from a tiny box. In fact, Christian art was nothing if .not symbolical, and the meaning is often so obscure as to require much patient study. There is, for instance, that strange and perplexing symbol of the fish, which represents sometimes our Lord himself, sometimes his followers. Its use seems to have been mainly confined to the first three centuries, and to have almost ceased when the age of per- secution came to an end. Of all Christian symbols, it was for a time the special favourite, but what was its precise origin is still doubtful. Clement of Alexandria is the first witness to its use, and it is possible that it may have originated in the schools of his city, in which every sort of mysticism found a congenial home. It is almost always found in juxtaposition with other symbols, and was undoubtedly one of the most ancient and universal emblems of the Christian faith. As applied to Christians, it may have pointed to the waters of baptism ; as applied to Christ, it is hardly possible to say what could have been the leading idea. The fact that multitudes of little fishes, in crystal, ivory, and mother-of-pearl, have been discovered in the Catacombs, shows how thoroughly its sym- bolical character had established itself.
There would seem to be a possibility that the well known portrait of Christ in the Cemetery of Domitilla may have been faithful to the original. De Rossi assigns it to the third cen- tury, but it is too much defaced to enable us to distinguish the features at all clearly, though we believe that one art critic has expressed his conviction that it was painted by one who had himself seen Christ. It is reproduced for us in this volume on opposite pages, according to the notions of an Italian and an English student. Our authors truly remark that a comparison of the two drawings is enough to satisfy us that they cannot be depended upon as faithful reproductions of the original, and they add that after a careful examination of the fresco they were quite unable to gain any clear view of the features. There is another representation of our Lord in sculpture on the end of a sarcophagus of the fourth century in the Christian Museum at the Lateran. Of this, too, a copy is given us. The features are very marked, and answer to one of the traditional descriptions furnished us by Nicephorns Callixtus. Christ is represented with his hand.on the head of the woman afflicted with the issue of blood, concerning whom Eusebius tells us that she set up a statue of our Lord at the door of her house in Ctesarea Philippi. Of this statue, the sculpture of which we are now speaking has been supposed to be a copy, executed by some Roman artist who may have seen the original.
Our authors devote a chapter to the subject of Christian sarcophagi. Some Christians in the Apostolic age used the sarcophagus, and the Cemetery of Domitilla seems to have been designed for such burials. The sarcophagus had not been unknown among the Romans themselves, and it was thus that the Scipios and some other noble families buried their dead. The early Christians naturally preferred it to the urn and funeral fire. But it was far too costly for the majority of their community, and such a mode of burial would have drawn more attention to the Christian cemeteries than would have been safe or desirable. It was not till the time of Constantine, when persecution had ceased, that they dared to ornament their sarcophagi with symbolical sculpture, and thus this art was developed in the Christian Church much later than that of painting. Our authors take the opportunity of observing that this was not due to a dislike of any form of symbolism, but to the risks to which the sculptor would have necessarily exposed himself. The painter pursued his labours in the bowels of the earth ; the sculptor in his workshop could not have escaped observation. A Christian sculptor had to work under peculiar difficulties. After his conversion, he must not take commis- sions which would, in the opinion of the Christian community, have implicated him in the sin of idolatry. Some works of a Pagan character he might execute, but there was a line which. he must not transgress. A story is told which illustrates this. Four Christian sculptors were ordered to make basins. for fountains, ornamented with Cupids and figures of Victory.. This they did, and also made an image of the Suu, with a chariot and four horses. But when ordered to make an image of Aesculapius, they refused, and suffered martyrdom.
This volume is full of interesting matter, and, we may add, it is agreeably written. The researches of De Rossi well deserve- to be popularised, and here we have some of the most striking results. We may think some of his -interpretations of the paintings too subtle and ingenious, but we must remember- that if anything is certain, it is that a great system of symbolism had a recognised place in the Early Church. The Christians could no more detach themselves wholly from Pagan art and its influences, than they could invent new forms of speecl... There were certain things which they were obliged to accept_ Artwas one of these, and it seems to have been destined to play as powerful a part in the Christian as it did in the Pagan world. It may be perverted to wrong and base ends, just as language has been perverted in controversy. But it has a lawful use, and the Protestant, while he may freely condemn some of its applications, must not shut his eyes to the fact,. plainly attested by the Catacombs, that the Early Church felt that it could not dispense with it on the most solemn and sacred occasions.
Previous page
