THEIR PAINTINGS AND SCULPTURE.
There is no branch of Christian archæology in which the labours of De
Rossi have produced a more startling revolution than in the history of
Christian art. When the Reformers of the sixteenth century protested
against the use of pictures and images in churches, and boldly declared
that it was contrary to the practice of primitive ages, Catholics had no
monuments to appeal to in refutation of such a statement. The remains of
the Christian literature of those times were scanty, and more or less
silent upon the subject, and the paintings in the Catacombs were buried
in darkness. Even when they were brought to light, it was not easy at
once to speak positively as to their chronology. By and by, in proportion
as the Catacombs were more explored, and it became possible to compare
the paintings of one cemetery with those of another, and all of them with
the paintings of Pompeii, the baths of Titus, the tomb of the Nasones,
and other newly-recovered Pagan monuments whose ages were known, Catholic
writers began to assume a bolder tone, and to claim a greater antiquity
for the Christian use of painting than they had done before. Still it
was impossible to fix any dates with precision so long as men confined
themselves to the examination of single monuments, illustrating them
perhaps with great learning, but without reference to the place where
each monument had been found, the circumstances under which it had been
executed, its connection with the history of the period, and the internal
and external development of the Christian community at the time and place
to which it belonged.
Now the Roman Catacombs are a vast gallery of ancient Christian art.
Single specimens, indeed, may exist elsewhere, and wherever they are
found they deserve attentive examination; but it is obvious that the
largest and most valuable collection in the world is to be found in
subterranean Rome; and here, if anywhere, the subject may be thoroughly
sifted and settled. It is to the minuteness of the topographical
researches of De Rossi that we are indebted for the solid basis on which
the earliest chapters of the history of Christian art can now be made to
rest. His plan here, as well as in every other branch of his subject,
has been simply to note all he sees; and then, when he has collected
sufficient materials, to arrange and generalise, not according to any
preconceived theory of classification, but absolutely according to the
strict, stern facts before him. If these facts, arranged in their true
historical and geographical order, present a harmonious whole, and
suggest or support a theory which can otherwise be shown to be probable,
he accepts it gladly; if not, he is content to leave the facts to speak
for themselves, and to trust to further discoveries, or to the ingenuity
of future commentators, to introduce light and order where at present
there may seem to be chaos. For he never shrinks from acknowledging his
inability to explain this or that phenomenon, and he prefers to leave a
matter in doubt rather than to dogmatise on insufficient authority. Such
moderation naturally inspires confidence; and perhaps another presumption
in favour of the impartial accuracy of his statements may be found in the
fact that sometimes they militate against the theories of those who would
assign to every monument a greater antiquity than it is entitled to, and
sometimes against the theories of the opposite and more numerous school.
On the whole, however, whatever his opinion may be as to the age of any
particular monument that has been called in question, his testimony as
to the free use of painting by the early Christians is distinct and
positive, and supported by irrefragable proofs.
“It may be asked,” he says, “whether it is credible that the faithful,
in the age of the Apostles or their disciples, when the Church, fresh
from the bosom of the image-hating synagogue, was in deadly conflict
with idolatry, should have so promptly and so generally adopted and
(so to speak) baptized the fine arts?” And he replies, “I can only
say that the universal use of pictures throughout the subterranean
cemeteries, and the richness, the variety, and the freedom of the more
ancient types, when contrasted with the cycle of painting which I see
becoming more stiff in manner and poorer in conception towards the end
of the third century,—these things demonstrate the impossibility of
accepting the hypothesis of those who affirm that the use of pictures was
introduced little by little, on the sly, as it were, and in opposition
to the practice of the primitive Church.” He points out also that the
(comparatively) flourishing condition of the fine arts, and the large
number of their professors in Rome during the reigns of Trajan, of
Hadrian, and of the Antonines, materially favoured the early introduction
and development of pictorial art amongst the faithful; and that the
conversion to Christianity of wealthy personages, and even of members
of the imperial family, such as Domitilla and Flavius Clemens, told
powerfully in the same direction; “whereas, on the contrary, the decline
of the fine arts in the third and fourth centuries, the increasing cost
of the handiwork of the painter and sculptor as their numbers diminished
every day, the gradual but continuous impoverishment of public and
private fortunes, which induced even the Senate and the Emperors to make
their new monuments at the expense of others more ancient,—all this could
not facilitate the multiplication of new works of Christian art during
that period; so that, even if the faithful were gaining in the number of
converts, in power and in liberty, they lost quite as much, if I may say
so, in the conditions required for the flourishing of Christian art.”
The reader will have observed that De Rossi insists in these passages
upon the superiority of the Christian paintings of the first two
centuries over those of the third and fourth; it does not enter into
his argument in this place to speak of paintings executed at any later
period, when the Catacombs had ceased to be used as burial-places, and
were visited only from motives of piety. Neither does it form any part
of our own plan to examine these later paintings at any length. We only
mention here that, of course, there are such paintings, as it was not to
be expected that the Christians would cease to decorate the places in
which the relics of the martyrs still lay; but they are few in number as
compared with the great mass of paintings throughout the Catacombs, and
they are also so totally unlike those of the præ-Constantinian era, that
it would be impossible for any intelligent person to mistake the one for
the other. For the present, let us proceed to look more closely into the
paintings of the earlier period.
Pliny tells us that in the days of Vespasian, _i.e._, in the first
century of the Christian era, the art of painting was falling into decay
in Rome—that it no longer executed any great and original works, but
was well nigh confined to the decoration of apartments. Now, this is
precisely the branch of art for which there was the greatest demand—one
might almost say, the only opportunity—in the Catacombs. What kind of
chamber-decoration, then, was in fashion in Pagan houses and tombs (for
the Pagans also used to decorate their tombs) about this time? There are
not wanting numerous specimens, both in Pompeii and in the neighbourhood
of Rome itself, from which to form an opinion. But in the absence of any
copies of them here, let us read the general description of them given
by a competent and impartial critic. Müller (in his work on “Ancient
Art and its Remains”), after endorsing Pliny’s judgment, which has just
been quoted, goes on to say that “even in its degenerate state the art
exhibited inexhaustible invention and productiveness. The spaces on
the walls,” he says, “are divided and disposed in a tasteful way; then
into these spaces are introduced arabesques of admirable richness of
fancy; the roofs are often in the form of arbours hung with garlands,
interspersed with fluttering winged forms, and all this in lively
colours, clearly and agreeably arranged and executed.” Any one who is
familiar with the Catacombs knows that this is exactly what is to be
seen there over and over again, and that in those cemeteries to which we
are induced _for other reasons_ to assign the highest antiquity, we find
all these things in the highest degree of perfection, and with the least
admixture of anything distinctively Christian. This is so true, that a
Protestant controversialist has even ventured to say that, on entering
some of the most ancient chambers of the Catacombs, we hesitate for a
moment as to the Pagan or Christian character of what we see. There is
the same geometrical division of the roof, the same graceful arabesques,
the birds and flowers, just as Müller describes them; and it is only when
we recognise a figure of the Good Shepherd, or Daniel in the lions’ den,
or some similar subject, occupying the central compartment of the whole,
that our doubts are dissipated.
[Illustration: _Painting on roof of most ancient part of Cemetery of St.
Domitilla._]
Look for a moment at the most graceful specimen of decoration on the last
page; it is one of the most ancient in the Catacombs, and it comes from
that one of which we saw in a former chapter the public entrance close
to the high road, and which we said belonged to the noble Flavian family
at the end of the first century. The whole roof of the vaulted passage
is covered with the vine, trailing with all the freedom of nature, and
little winged genii are fluttering among the leaves. Certainly we might
suspect this of being Pagan, were it not that Daniel in the lions’ den,
Noe in the ark, and other undoubtedly Christian subjects, are close at
hand to disabuse us of the suspicion. Or look at the painting of another
vault on the opposite page. This is more stiff than the former, because
it was executed nearly a century later; still, there is nothing to
declare its Christian character until the eye rests on the Good Shepherd,
who appears below the principal part of the decoration.
[Illustration: _Painting on Vault of an Arcosolium in Cemetery of
Prætextatus._]
We are not saying that the artists who executed these paintings had
no Christian meaning in them; on the contrary, we believe that they
had, and that the paintings really suggested that meaning to those
who first saw them. For we know, on the authority of Tertullian, that
“the whole revolving order of the seasons” (which are represented in
the second painting) was considered by Christians to be “a witness
of the resurrection of the dead.” This, therefore, was probably
the reason why they were painted here; and no Christian needs to be
reminded that our Lord spoke of Himself under the image of a vine,
which sufficiently explains the first painting. Still the fact remains
that the representations themselves are such as might have been used
by Christian and by Pagan artists indifferently. If any of our readers
feel disappointed that the first essays of the Christian painter should
not have had a more distinctly Christian character, they must remember
that a new art cannot be created in a moment. If the Christian religion
in its infancy was to make use of art at all, it had no choice but to
appropriate to its own purposes the forms of ancient art, so far as they
were pure and innocent; by degrees it would proceed to eliminate what was
unmeaning, and substitute something Christian.
Some writers have supposed that Christians used at first Pagan subjects
as well as Pagan forms of ornamentation; and they point to the figure of
Orpheus, which appears in three or four places of the Catacombs, and to
that of Psyche also, which may be seen about as often. So insignificant
a number of exceptions, however, would scarcely suffice to establish
the general proposition, even if they were in themselves inexplicable.
But, in truth, the figure of Orpheus has no right to be considered an
exception at all, for he was taken by some of the early Fathers as a
type of our Lord; and it was even believed by some of them, that, like
the sybil, he had prophesied about Him. Clement of Alexandria calls our
Lord the Divine enchanter of souls, with evident reference to the tale of
Orpheus; and the same idea will have occurred to every classical scholar,
as often as he has heard those words of the Psalmist which speak of the
wicked as “refusing to hear the voice of the charmer, charm he never
so wisely.” When, then, we find Orpheus and his lyre, and the beasts
enchanted by his song, figured on the walls or roofs of the Catacombs,
we have a right to conclude that the artist intended a Christian
interpretation to be given to his work; and a similar explanation may
be given of any other subjects of heathen mythology which have gained
admittance there.
If we were asked to name the subject which seems to have been used most
frequently in the early decorations of the Catacombs, we should give the
palm to the Good Shepherd; nor is this preference to be wondered at.
Any one who has meditated upon the words in which our Blessed Lord took
this title to Himself, will easily understand why the first Christians,
living in the midst of heathen persecutors, should have delighted to keep
so touching an image always before them. They scratched it, therefore,
roughly on the tombstone as they laid some dear one in the grave; they
carved it on their cups, especially on the sacred chalice; they engraved
it on signet rings and wore it on their fingers; they placed it in the
centre of the paintings with which they covered the ceiling of their
subterranean chapels, or they gave it the chief place immediately over
the altar. We meet with it everywhere, and everybody can recognise it.
There are, however, one or two peculiarities in its mode of treatment
which require a word of explanation. The shepherd is generally
represented as a young man lightly clad, with his tunic girt high about
his loins, denoting thereby his unwearied activity; he is surrounded
by sheep, or he carries one on his shoulders, bearing it home to the
fold,—the most tender act of his office. And there is nothing in this
but what we might naturally have expected. But he is also sometimes
represented with a goat instead of a sheep upon his shoulders; and, in
later paintings, he has the pastoral reed or tuneful pipe either hanging
on the tree by his side or he is playing on it. Now this last particular
has no place in the gospel parable, and the former seems directly
opposed to it, since the goat is the accepted symbol of the wicked, the
sheep only of the good. Hence these points have been taken up by some
critics, either as tokens of thoughtless carelessness on the part of the
Christian artists, or as proofs that their work, whether consciously
or unconsciously, was merely copied from some Pagan original. Neither
of these remarks appears to be just. The images of a shepherd in Pagan
art, with scarcely a single exception, are of a very different kind; and
the particular details objected to are not only capable of receiving a
Christian interpretation, they even express consoling Christian truths.
St. Gregory Nazianzen speaks of the anxious care of the shepherd as he
sits on the hillside, filling the air with the soft notes of his pipe,
calling together his scattered flock; and he observes that in like manner
the spiritual pastor, desirous to recall souls to God, should follow the
example of his Divine Master, and use his pipe more frequently than his
staff. Then, as to the substitution of the goat for the sheep, it was
probably intended as a distinct protest against the un-Christian severity
of those heretics, who in very early times refused reconciliation to
certain classes of penitent sinners.
Not many, however, of the most ancient Christian paintings are of the
same simple and obvious character as the Good Shepherd. The leading
feature which characterises most of them is this, that they suggest
religious ideas or doctrines under the guise of artistic symbols or
historic types. One doctrine specially prominent in them, and most
appropriately taught in cemeteries, is that of the resurrection and
the everlasting life of happiness which awaits the souls of the just
after death. It is in this sense that we must understand not only the
frequent repetitions of the stories of Jonas and of Lazarus—the type
and the example of a resurrection—but also of Daniel in the lions’ den,
and the three children in the fiery furnace. These last, indeed, very
probably had reference also to the persecution which the Christians were
then suffering, and were intended to inspire courage and a confident
expectation that God would deliver them, even as He had delivered His
chosen servants of old; but, as they are spoken of in very ancient
Christian documents (_e.g._, in the hymns of St. Ephrem and in the
Apostolic Constitutions) as foreshadowing the future triumph of the body
over death, whence these too had been in a manner delivered, we prefer,
in obedience to these ancient guides, to assign this interpretation to
them; at any rate, it is certain that this interpretation cannot be
excluded. Figures also of the deceased, with arms outstretched in prayer,
sometimes accompanied by their names, or standing in the midst of a
garden, or, again, figures of birds pecking at fruits and flowers, we
understand as images of the soul still living after death, received into
the garden of Paradise, and fed by immortal fruits.
Sometimes there may be a difference of opinion perhaps as to the
correctness of this or that interpretation suggested for any particular
symbolical painting; but the soundness of the principle of interpretation
in itself cannot be called in question, nor will there often be any
serious difficulty in its application, among those who study the subject
with diligence and candour. The language, both of Holy Scripture and
of the earliest Fathers, abounds in symbols, and it was only natural
that the earliest specimens of Christian art should exhibit the same
characteristic. More was meant by them than that which met at first the
outward senses; without this clue to their meaning, the paintings are
scarcely intelligible,—with it, all is plain and easy.
[Illustration: _Tombstone from the very ancient Crypt of St. Lucina, now
united with the Catacomb of St. Callixtus._]
Take, for example, the figure of an anchor, so repeatedly represented
on gravestones and other monuments of the Catacombs; so rarely, if
indeed ever, to be found on Pagan monuments. What influenced the early
Christians in the selection of such a figure? what meaning did they
attach to it? This enquiry forces itself upon our minds, if we are
intelligent students of Christian archæology, anxious to understand what
we see: and if we are also prudent and on our guard against being led
astray by mere fancy, we shall conduct the enquiry by the same laws and
principles as we should apply to the interpretation of some perplexing
riddle in heathen art. We should first examine the literature of the age
and people to whom it was supposed to belong, and see if any light could
be thrown upon it from that source. In the present instance, therefore,
we turn to the sacred literature of the Christians, and we find there
a passage which speaks of the duty of “holding fast the hope that is
set before us, which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, sure and
firm.” We assume, then, provisionally, as a basis of further enquiry,
that an anchor may perhaps have been used as an emblem of Christian
hope. Continuing our search in the same sacred books, we find that there
was a special connection in the Christian creed between hope and the
condition of the dead. It is written that Christians are not sorrowful
about those who die, “as others who have no hope.” The conclusion is
obvious, that a reference to hope is just one of those things which might
not unreasonably be looked for on a Christian’s grave-stone, since it
was something on which they prided themselves as a point of difference
between themselves and others. This greatly confirms our conjectural
interpretation of the symbol, and we proceed with some confidence to
apply it to every example of its use that we can meet with; for if it
is the right key, it cannot fail to unlock all the problems that will
come before us. In doing this, we are first struck by the fact that
in several instances the very names of the deceased persons on whose
epitaphs the anchor is engraved, themselves also meant the same thing.
They were called _Spes_, _Elpis_, _Elpidius_, _Elpizusa_; all names
coming from the Latin or Greek word for hope. Next, we observe that many
of these anchors are so fashioned as to contain a hidden yet unmistakable
representation of a cross; and, reflecting that the one only ground of
a Christian’s hope is the cross of Christ, we hail this also as lending
further support to our theory. Yet once more, we find many of the
epitaphs contain the same idea, expressed in distinct words written in
the ordinary alphabet and not in these hieroglyphics, so to call them,—we
find _Spes in Deo_, _Spes in Deo Christo_ &c. Finally, we often find the
anchor united with one or more of several other symbols, to which, by a
similar but independent process, we can assign a certain signification.
We try, then, whether our rendering of the anchor as equivalent to “hope”
will _make sense_, as a schoolboy would say who was trying to translate
a piece of Greek or Latin into English, in all these other places; and
if it does, we are satisfied that our interpretation can be no longer
disputed. A false reading of a single symbol might chance to fit one
monument, or two, or three; but to say that any false reading will fit
hundreds of separate monuments, fit all equally well, and succeed in
extracting a consistent meaning from each, is to assert what no sane man
can believe.
Those who know the way in which the interpretation of the Egyptian
hieroglyphics was first guessed at, and then triumphantly established
against all gainsayers, by a similar process of reasoning, will not
dispute the soundness of the argument by which the meaning of the anchor
has been arrived at. We cannot attempt to vindicate our interpretation of
all the other symbols used by Christian artists with the same minuteness
of detail, neither is it necessary. All will accept the dove as a fitting
symbol of the simplicity, the gentleness, purity, and innocence of a
Christian soul gone to its rest, and a sheep as fitly representing a
disciple of Christ.
Another emblem, the fish, requires more words of explanation, because it
is capable of receiving a double meaning. At first sight, our thoughts
at once recur to the words of our Blessed Lord to St. Peter and his
brother, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men,” and no
doubt this will sufficiently explain many old Christian paintings or
sculptures in which the fish appears. Taking this idea for our guide,
we can understand why a man angling and catching a fish should find a
place on the walls of a church, whether above ground or below. Such a
representation in these sacred places was inspired by the same doctrinal
teaching, and suggested the same ideas, as were present to the old
Christian preachers when they spoke of men being caught by the bait of
charity and the hook of preaching, and being drawn out of the bitter
waters of this world, not to have their life taken from them, which is
the fate that awaits the natural fish when it is caught, but that they
may be made partakers of a new and heavenly life. This, however, will
not enable us to decypher other symbolical paintings into which the fish
enters, and which are found with equal frequency among the decorations of
the Christian cemeteries. It is necessary that we should learn another,
and, as it would seem, a still more common use of the fish. Just as the
dove might stand for the Holy Ghost, and also for a soul sanctified by
the Holy Ghost—just as the lamb or sheep might stand either for the Lamb
of God, or for those who are “the people of His pasture and the sheep of
His hand”—so the fish, too, was used not only to represent a Christian,
but also, still more frequently perhaps, Christ Himself. To understand
how this could be, we must study a little Greek, which may be easily
apprehended, however, even by those who are not scholars, if they will
fix their attention for a few moments on the accompanying plan:—
Ι ΗϹΟΥϹ = JESUS
Χ ΡΙϹΤΟϹ = CHRIST
Θ ΕΟΥ = OF GOD
Υ ΙΟϹ = SON
Ϲ ΩΤΗΡ = SAVIOUR
The Greek for fish is here written perpendicularly, one letter above
another, ΙΧΘΥϹ; and it is seen that these five letters are the initial
letters of five words, which, together, contain a tolerably complete
account of what Christ is. He is JESUS CHRIST, SON OF GOD, SAVIOUR. Thus,
this one word, ιχθυς, or fish, read in this way, tells a great deal about
our Lord’s name and titles; it is almost a miniature creed, or, as one
of the Fathers expresses it, “it contains in one name a whole multitude
of holy names.” It would take us too long to enquire into the origin of
this device for expressing our Lord’s name and titles in so compendious
and secret a form. Clearly, whoever may have invented it, it was very
ingenious, and specially convenient at those times and places where men
dared not speak of Him freely and openly. We cannot say when it began,
but it was in universal use throughout the Church during the first three
hundred years of her life, and then, when she was in the enjoyment of
peace and liberty, it gradually dropped, first out of sight in Christian
monuments, and then out of mind also in Christian literature. But,
during the ages of persecution, it had sunk deep into the habits of
Christian thought and language; it became, as it were, a part of the
very Catechism,—every baptized Christian seems to have been familiar
with it, whether he lived on the banks of the Tiber or of the Po, of
the Loire, of the Euphrates, or of the Nile. In all these parts of the
world, writers in books, poets in hymns, preachers in sermons, artists
in painting, the very masons themselves on gravestones, made use of it
without a word of explanation, in a way that would utterly mystify any
modern Christian community. Who would now dream of carving or painting a
fish upon a gravestone in a Christian churchyard? yet scores of graves in
the Catacombs were so marked, and some of them with hardly a word or an
emblem upon them besides. Or what meaning could we attach to the picture
of a dove or a lamb standing on a fish’s back, if we did not understand
that the fish represented Christ, and the dove or the lamb a Christian,
so that the whole symbol stood for a Christian soul supported by Christ
through the waves and storms of life? Or again, only imagine a Christian
in these days having buried with him, or wearing round his neck during
life, a little figure of a fish cut in ivory, or crystal, or mother of
pearl, or some still more costly material? Yet a number of those who were
buried in the Catacombs did this; and some of these fish even bear an
inscription, calling upon the fish to be a Saviour!
It was necessary to give this explanation of certain symbols, and to
justify it by sufficient examples, before we proceed to study any of the
more complex paintings in the Catacombs. But now, with these thoughts
in our minds, let us enter the Cemetery of St. Callixtus, and look on
a figure represented two or three times on a wall of one of its most
ancient chambers: a fish swimming and carrying on its back a basket
of bread, and in the midst of the loaves of bread, a glass vessel
containing a red liquid. What is this but bread and wine, the elements
of the Sacrament of Love, and Jesus Christ Its reality? St. Jerome, when
speaking of a holy bishop of Toulouse who had sold the gold and silver
vessels of his church to relieve the poor, uses these words, “What can
be more rich than a man who carries the body of Christ in a basket of
wicker-work, and the blood of Christ in a vessel of glass?” Here are
undeniably the basket of wicker-work and the vessel of glass; and who can
doubt that we have the other also, veiled under the figure of the fish?
[Illustration: _Consecration of the Holy Eucharist._]
Let us go to another part of the same cemetery, and consider a painting
which with some variations is repeated in three or four successive
chambers, all opening out of one of the primitive galleries. Bread and
fish lie on a three-legged table, and several baskets of bread are
arranged along the floor in front of it, or a man and woman stand by
the side of the table. The woman has her arms outstretched in the form
of a cross, the ancient attitude of Christian prayer; the man, too, is
stretching forth his hands, but in another way: he holds them forward,
and especially his right hand, over the bread and fish, in such a way as
to press upon every Catholic intelligence the idea that he is blessing
or consecrating what is before him. To modern eyes, indeed, his vestment
does not look worthy of one engaged in the highest act of Christian
worship; perhaps, at first sight, it almost strikes us as hardly decent.
Nevertheless, to the Christian archæologist, this very vestment is a
strong confirmation of the view we are taking of the real sense of the
painting. For it is the Greek _pallium_, or philosophers’ cloak; and we
know that at the time to which this painting belongs (the end of the
second or beginning of the third century) it was a common practice to
preach the Word of God in this particular costume. Tertullian, who was
living at the same time, wrote a treatise _De Pallio_, in which, in his
own peculiar style, he defended its use, and congratulated the _pallium_
on its promotion to be a Christian vestment. It was not until fifty years
later that St. Cyprian objected to it, both as not sufficiently modest in
itself and as vainglorious in its signification.
If there were any lingering uncertainty as to whether these figures were
really intended to have reference to the Holy Eucharist, or whether our
interpretation of them may not have been fanciful and arbitrary, an
examination of the other decorations of the same chambers will suffice to
remove it. For it will be seen that, whilst in closest connection with
them are other suitable emblems or figures of the same Divine Sacrament,
they are also uniformly preceded by representations of the initiatory
Sacrament of the Christian covenant, without which no man can be admitted
to partake of the Eucharist; and they are followed by a figure of the
Resurrection, which our Lord Himself most emphatically connected with
the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood, saying, “He that
eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life, and I will
raise him up at the last day.” These three subjects, Baptism, the Holy
Eucharist, and the Resurrection occupy the three perfect sides of the
chamber, the fourth side being, of course, broken by the entrance; and,
taken in their right order, they faithfully depict the new life of a
Christian; the life of divine grace, first imparted by baptism, then fed
by the Holy Eucharist, and finally exchanged for an everlasting life of
glory.
[Illustration: _The Smitten Rock._]
Let us look at the figures of these subjects in detail, and see how
they are represented here. First, we have Moses striking the rock, a
scene which occurs over and over again in the Catacombs, and which in
these chambers commences the series of paintings we are examining; it
is to be seen on the left-hand wall as we enter. St. Paul tells us that
“the rock was Christ;” the water, then, which flowed from it must be
those streams of Divine grace whereby His disciples are refreshed and
sustained during their pilgrimage through the wilderness of this world,
and this grace is first given in the waters of baptism. Next we have
a man fishing, which has been already explained; and (in one instance
at least) this is followed by another man performing the very act of
baptism on a youth who stands before him; the youth stands in the water,
and the man is pouring water over his head. Lastly, on the same wall, is
the paralytic carrying his bed on his shoulders—the same, doubtless, who
was miraculously cured at the pool of Bethsaida, which pool the fathers
of the Church uniformly interpret as typical of the healing waters of the
Christian sacrament.
[Illustration: _The Sacrament of Baptism._]
[Illustration: _Eucharistic Feast._]
On the wall opposite the doorway, the central scene is a feast wherein
seven men are seated at a table, partaking of fish and bread; and there
is a history in the last chapter of St. John’s Gospel, of which it
may be taken as a literal representation. It was when our Lord “showed
Himself to His disciples at the Sea of Tiberias, and He showed Himself,
after this manner. There were together Simon Peter and Thomas who is
called Didymus, and Nathanael who was of Cana of Galilee, and the sons of
Zebedee, and two others of His disciples”—seven in all. “And they went
a-fishing, but caught nothing. Jesus appeared to them on the shore.”
Then there follows the miraculous draught of fishes; and as soon as they
came to land, they saw “hot coals lying, and a fish laid thereon, and
bread. Jesus saith to them, Bring hither of the fishes which you have
now caught. And Jesus cometh and taketh bread and giveth them, and fish
in like manner.” Such is the letter of the gospel narrative; but this
narrative is in fact a mystical and prophetic representation of the
Church gathered together out of the waters of the world, and fed by the
Holy Eucharist. The hundred and fifty-three great fishes that were caught
represent the large numbers of the faithful that were drawn into the
Church by apostolic preaching; the fish laid on the hot coals is Jesus
Christ in His Passion, His Body “delivered for us” on Mount Calvary,
given to us also to be our food in the Blessed Sacrament whereby “we show
the death of the Lord until He come.” The faithful caught in the net of
the Church must be brought to that broiled fish (_Piscis assus, Christus
passus_, says St. Augustine), that crucified Lord, and they must be
incorporated with Him by partaking of the living Bread which came down
from Heaven.
[Illustration: _Sacrifice of Isaac._]
[Illustration: _Resurrection of Lazarus._]
Such is the full meaning of the scene at the Sea of Tiberias, as
interpreted according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; and the
adjuncts of this picture show that it was intended to be so understood
here also; for on one side is the figure of the consecration already
described; and on the other, the sacrifice of Isaac by his father, which
was surely a most lively type of the sacrifice of Christ upon the altar;
wherein blood is not really shed, but the Lamb is only “_as it were_
slain,” just as Isaac was not really slain, but was received back from
the dead, “for a parable.” Lastly, as has been mentioned before, there
follows on the third wall of the same chamber the natural complement of
the rest; the doctrine of the Resurrection, as contained in the fact
of the rising again of Lazarus. Thus, this whole series of paintings,
executed at the end of the second century, or within the first twenty or
thirty years of the third, and repeated (as has been said) in several
successive chambers, was a continual homily, as it were, set before the
eyes of the faithful, in which they were reminded of the beginning,
progress, and consummation of their new and supernatural life.
We do not say that every modern Christian who looks at these paintings
will thus read their meaning at once; but we believe that all ancient
Christians did so, because it is clear from the writings of the Apostles
themselves and their successors, that nothing was more familiar to the
Christian mind of those days than the symbolical and prophetical meaning
of the facts both of the Old and of the New Testaments. They believed
the facts themselves to have taken place just as they are recorded, but
they believed also that they had a mysterious signification, whereby
the truths of the Christian faith were insinuated or expressed, and
that this was their highest and truest meaning. “Perhaps there is no one
recorded miracle of our Lord,” says St. Gregory, “which is not therefore
selected for recording because it was the type of something to happen
in the Church;” and precisely the same was felt to be true also of the
histories of the patriarchal and Jewish dispensations. “All these things
had happened to them in figure, and they were written for our correction,
upon whom the ends of the world are come.”
It may not be often possible to trace as clearly as we have just done
in a single instance, the logical order and dependence of the several
subjects that were selected for representation in each chamber of the
Catacombs; they may not always have been so admirably arranged as
to be in fact equivalent, as these were, to a well-ordered dogmatic
discourse. Nevertheless it is only when read in this way, that the
decoration of the Catacombs can be made thoroughly intelligible; and
it is certain that some such meaning must have been intended from the
first. The extremely limited number of Biblical subjects selected for
representation, while such an immense variety is really contained in the
Bible (and so many of those that are neglected might have seemed equally
suitable for the purpose), and then again, the thoroughly unhistorical
way in which these few subjects are dealt with, shows clearly that the
principle of selection was theological rather than artistic. The artists
were not left to indulge their own unfettered fancy, but worked under
ecclesiastical supervision; and the Bible stories which they depicted
were not represented according to their historical verity, because they
were not intended to be a souvenir of past facts, but to symbolise and
suggest something beyond themselves. In order, therefore, to understand
them, it is necessary to bring them face to face with the Christian
doctrines which they foreshadow.
[Illustration: _Noe in the Ark._]
Look, for example, at the numerous pictures of Noe in the ark which
appear in the Catacombs, all resembling one another, but none resembling
the reality. Instead of a vessel, three stories high, containing eight
human beings and specimens of every kind of animal, we see only a narrow
box, barely large enough to hold one person, and that person sometimes a
lady, whose name is also inscribed upon it perhaps, being the same lady
(as we learn from the inscription) who lies buried in the adjacent tomb.
If all ancient Christian literature had perished, we should have been at
a loss to comprehend this enigma; but as soon as we know that the Fathers
of the Church speak of it as an acknowledged fact, which “nobody doubts”
(to use St. Augustine’s words), that the Church was typified by the ark,
a ray of light begins to dawn upon us; and when we call to mind that
St. Peter himself speaks of the waters of baptism as saving men’s souls,
“even as Noe and his family were saved by the waters of the flood,” all
is at once made clear. We see plainly that the friends of the deceased
have intended to signify that he had been received into the ark of the
Church and made a Christian by baptism. And if they had added to the
composition, as they often did, the figure of a dove bringing an olive
branch to the person standing in the ark, this also enters into the same
interpretation; it was symbolical of that Divine peace which comes to the
soul in this world by faith, and which is a pledge of the peace given by
everlasting happiness in the next.
[Illustration: _Scenes from the History of Jonas._]
The frequent repetition of the story of Jonas in a Christian cemetery
needs no explanation, our Lord himself having put it forward as a type of
His own resurrection, and so a pledge of ours also. The particular form,
however, under which this story appears, was not suggested, as Noe’s ark
was, by the place which it held in the cycle of Christian doctrine, but
rather by a certain Pagan model with which the Romans of that day were
very familiar. The mythological tale of Andromeda, and the sea-monster
to which she was exposed on the coast near Joppa (for so the story ran),
was a favourite subject for the decoration of the walls in Roman villas,
temples, and other public buildings. It may be seen in Pompeii, and,
much nearer to the Catacombs, in Rome itself—_e.g._, in the barracks of
one of the cohorts of the imperial police, discovered a few years ago in
Trastevere; and in both places the monster is the precise counterpart
of that which is always represented as swallowing or casting up Jonas;
a kind of dragon, with large head and ears, a long slender neck, and a
very tortuous body. Of course, in the infancy of Christian art, it was
convenient to have a model at hand to represent an unknown monster, and,
as we have said, we do not doubt that this is the true history of its
origin. Still this was not the only reason which recommended the adoption
of so grotesque a form; it offered the further advantage of creating as
strong a contrast as possible between this “great fish,” which was a
type of death, and the ordinary fish, which, as we have seen, was the
recognised symbol of the Author of life.
Another incident in the life of Jonas, which was often painted in the
Catacombs, was his resting on the east side of the city of Nineve,
under the shade of a certain plant which God caused to grow up for his
protection, and which He again caused as suddenly to wither away. In the
days of St. Jerome and St. Augustine there was a dispute between those
learned doctors as to the precise nature of this plant; and in the course
of it St. Jerome appealed to these paintings as bearing testimony in
favour of his own rendering of the Hebrew word. We need not enter into
the merits of the dispute, but it is important to note the fact of the
appeal, as it peremptorily refutes the ridiculous assertions of certain
authors of the present day, who would assign very recent dates to these
and similar paintings in the Catacombs. We know that St. Jerome was very
fond, when a boy, of visiting these places, and it is interesting to
hear him appealing to the paintings he had seen in them as to “ancient
witnesses.” It would be still more interesting, if we could say with
certainty what were the motives which led the ancient Christians to
choose this subject for such frequent contemplation; whether they read
in it only a very striking lesson as to the watchfulness of Divine
Providence, or whether it had a more subtle meaning, as a type of the
mercy of God which overshadows the souls of the faithful in the long
sleep of death which goes before the Sun of the Resurrection. But where
no clue is supplied by the writings of cotemporary, or nearly cotemporary
authors, we prefer to keep silence rather than to insist on any doubtful
interpretation. All that need be said is that such a painting was
certainly not out of place in a Christian Church or cemetery, any more
than the story of Adam and Eve, or any other Biblical narrative which
has reference to the doctrines or promises announced by Christianity to
the world.
We do not pretend to enumerate here all the subjects from the Old and
New Testaments that were painted in the Catacombs. We are but naming
those that were used most frequently, that seem most interesting, or
whose signification can be most precisely determined. Those who have seen
the Catacombs themselves will call to mind others of which we have not
spoken, but we think their meaning is generally obvious so as to need no
explanation. We will name one class only of these paintings; those in
which our Lord and His Blessed Mother appear. Our readers will hardly
expect to find anything that pretends to be a portrait of either one or
the other. We have seen that the disposition in primitive Christian art
was to represent facts rather than persons, and the mystery which the
facts signified rather than the facts themselves. Christ, therefore,
appears most commonly in the typical character of the Good Shepherd, and
as such is represented in appropriate form and with suitable accessories,
or He sits in the midst of His Apostles, with a chest of volumes at His
feet, as the Great Teacher of the world. Once, indeed, His head and bust
form a medallion occupying the centre of a roof in a chamber of the
Cemetery of St. Domitilla, the same in which appear Orpheus and his lyre.
It is a work of the third century; there is more evidence of an intention
to give a definite individual type of countenance, neither is the type
altogether unlike that which the practice of later ages has consecrated
by traditional usage. Nevertheless others of the fourth century are
evidently not copies of the same model, so that it is clear that in those
early days there was no uniform agreement upon the subject.
[Illustration: _The B. Virgin and Isaias, from Cemetery of St.
Priscilla._]
Our Blessed Lady appears principally in the scene of the Adoration of the
Magi. Two, three, or four of these men (according to the arrangement of
the group and the space at the artist’s disposal) stand in their Oriental
dress, presenting their gifts to Christ who sits on Mary’s knee. Once or
twice also the Holy Child appears in His Mother’s arms, or before her
breast, without reference apparently to any particular event in their
lives, but either absolutely alone, or standing opposite to Isaias, as
though presenting in themselves the fulfilment of his prophecies. One
of these paintings in the Catacomb on the Via Nomentana belongs to the
fourth century; but for another of far higher artistic merit, to be
seen in the Catacomb of St. Priscilla, the most competent judges do not
hesitate to claim almost apostolic antiquity; and the claim is supported
by many and weighty arguments. We cannot, however, discuss them here, for
we have already exceeded the limits we had proposed to ourselves.
[Illustration: _The B. Virgin and Magi._]
[Illustration: _The B. Virgin, from the Cemetery on Via Nomentana._]
In conclusion, we will give a slight sketch of the successive phases in
the development of Christian art within the limits of the first three
centuries; for, thanks to De Rossi’s almost microscopic examination of
every accessible corner of subterranean Rome, even this is now possible.
As each of these phases was derived from its predecessor by a natural
sequence of ideas, it is not pretended that they are separated from one
another by strict chronological boundaries which are never transgressed;
yet the characteristics of the several periods are, in the main,
sufficiently distinct to allow of their being followed as safe guides in
determining, at least approximately, the age of any particular class, or
even individual specimen of ornamentation.
We have already seen that primitive Christian art sprung out of an
alliance of ancient forms with new ideas; in its outward physiognomy it
proceeded directly, in point of style and method of execution, from the
school of Pagan decorative art, but it was animated by a new life; and
therefore it began at once to create a pictorial cycle for itself, taken
partly from historical and partly from allegorical materials. At first
the allegorical element greatly predominated. The fish and the anchor,
the lamb and the dove, the shepherd and the fisherman, may be named as
the most prominent examples; and all these during the first, or, as it
has been styled, the hieroglyphic or ideographic period of Christian
art, were characterised by the utmost simplicity. The principal figure
usually stood alone; the fisherman is catching a fish, or the shepherd is
carrying a sheep upon his shoulders, and nothing more.
In the second period—_i.e._, from the middle of the second to the middle
of the third century—the Good Shepherd occurs less frequently, and
is represented less simply; he carries a goat, or he plays his pipe;
he stands amid trees in a garden, or in the midst of his flock, and
the several members of his flock stand in different attitudes towards
him, marking a difference of internal disposition. Other figures
also undergo similar changes; different emblems or different typical
histories are blended together, and the result is more artistic; a
more brilliant translation, so to speak, is thus given of the same
thoughts and ideas with which we have been familiar in a more elementary
form from the beginning. This change, or rather this growth, was in
truth only the natural result of time and of the pious meditation of
successive generations of Christians exercised upon the history of their
faith and upon the outward representations of its mysteries, in which
their forefathers had always delighted. The bud had expanded, and
the full-blown flower displayed new beauties—beauties which had been
there indeed before, but unseen. Thus we meet again with the apostolic
fisherman, but the river in which he fishes is now a mystical river,
formed by the waters which have flowed from the rock struck by Moses.
More Bible histories are made use of; or, if not now introduced for the
first time, are used more frequently—the history of Daniel and of Jonas,
the sacrifice of Abraham, the resurrection of Lazarus, the healing of
the paralytic at Bethsaida, and others. And as all these histories have
been illustrated in the writings of cotemporary Fathers, the monuments
which represent them are of the highest value as an historical expression
of what Christians in those days believed and taught. Both the writings
and the paintings are evidently the faithful echo of the same doctrinal
teaching and tradition.
[Illustration: _Glass from the Catacombs, now in Vatican Library._]
Then follows a third period in the history of Christian art, which, if
the first two have been justly compared to its spring and summer, may
itself be certainly called its autumn. It extends from the middle of the
third century to the age of Constantine; and during this period there is
a certain falling off of leaves, accompanied by a further development of
the flower, without, however, any addition to its beauty. The symbolical
element is sensibly diminished; what we have ventured to call Christian
hieroglyphics are almost or quite abandoned; the parables also are less
used, and even the historical types are represented in a more hard and
literal form. If Moses is still seen striking the mystical rock, the
literal or historical Moses is at his side, taking off his shoes before
drawing near to the burning bush; or the Jews are there, in their low
round caps, drinking of the waters; or if it is desired to keep the
mystical sense of the history before the people, it is deemed necessary
to inscribe the name of PETRUS over the head of Moses, as we see in
two or three specimens of the gilded glasses found in the Catacombs,
and belonging probably to the fourth century. Christ no longer appears
as the Good Shepherd, but sits or stands in the midst of His Apostles,
or, still more frequently, miraculously multiplies the loaves and
fishes. The fish is no longer the mystical monogram, “containing a
multitude of mysteries,” but appears only as a necessary feature in the
representation of this same miracle. Lazarus appears swathed like a
mummy, in accordance, as we know, with the fact; but earlier artists had
idealised him, and made him rise from the tomb young, free, and active.
The three children refusing to adore the image set up by Nabuchodonosor
are brought forward, and placed in juxtaposition with the three wise men
adoring the Infant Jesus, suggesting a comparison, or rather a contrast,
very suitable to the altered circumstances of the times.
This last remark, however, must not be allowed to mislead us. We must
not imagine that the chronological sketch which has been here attempted
of the development of Christian art has been in any way suggested by a
consideration of what was likely to have been its course in consequence
of the history of the Christian society. The sketch is really the result
of a very careful induction from the laborious researches which De Rossi
has made into the chronology of the several parts of the Catacombs; and
if there proves to be a correspondence between the successive variations
of character in the works of art that are found there, and the natural
progress of the Christian mind or the outward condition of the Christian
Church, these are purely “undesigned coincidences,” which may justly be
urged in confirmation of our conclusion, though they formed no part of
the premisses. We may venture also to add, that the conclusions were
as contrary to the preconceived opinion of their discoverer as of the
Christian world in general. Nothing but the overwhelming evidence of
facts has forced their acceptance; but from these there is no escape.
When it was found that the oldest _areæ_ in the cemeteries are precisely
those that are richest in paintings, and those in the best style, whereas
in the more modern _areæ_ the paintings are less in number, poorer in
conception, and inferior in point of execution, it was impossible not
to suspect the justice of the popular belief, that the infant Church,
engaged in deadly conflict with idolatry, had rejected all use of the
fine arts, and that it was only in a later and less prudent age that they
had crept, as it were, unobservedly into her service; and as fresh and
fresh evidence of the same kind has been multiplied in the course of the
excavations, a complete revolution has at length been effected in public
opinion on this matter. Even Protestant writers no longer deny that,
from the very first, Christians ornamented their subterranean cemeteries
with painting; only they insist that this was done, “not because it was
congenial to the mind of Christianity so to illustrate the faith, but
because it was the heathen custom so to honour the dead.” If by this it
is only meant that Christians, though renewed interiorly by the grace of
baptism, yet continued, in everything where conscience was not directly
engaged, to live conformably to the usages of their former life, and
that to ornament the tombs of the dead had been one of those usages—it
is, of course, quite true. Nevertheless it is plain from the history that
has here been given, that the earliest essays of Christian art were much
more concerned with illustrating the mysteries of the faith than with
doing honour to the dead.
Our space will not allow, neither is it necessary, that we should enter
at any length into the history of Christian sculpture, since the same
general laws of growth presided over this as over painting. It must be
remembered, however, that sculpture was used much more sparingly, and did
not attain its full Christian development nearly so soon as the sister
art. There was no room for it in the Catacombs except on the faces and
sides of the sarcophagi, which were sometimes used there for the burial
of the dead; neither was it possible to execute it with the same freedom
as painting. The painter, buried in the bowels of the earth, prosecuted
his labours in secret, and, therefore, in comparative security, without
fear of any intrusion from the profane; but the work of the sculptor was
necessarily more public; it could not even be conveyed from the city to
the cemetery without the help of many hands, and it must always have run
the risk of attracting a dangerous degree of general attention. We are
not surprised, therefore, at hearing that some of those sarcophagi which
are found in the most ancient parts of the Catacombs seem rather to have
been purchased from Pagan workshops than executed by Christians; those,
for instance, on which are figured scenes of pastoral life, of farming,
of the vintage, or of the chase, genii, dolphins, or other subjects
equally harmless. Sometimes it might almost seem as though the subjects
had been suggested by a Christian, but their Christian character blurred
in the execution by some Pagan hand, which added a doubtful or unmeaning
accessory,—_e.g._, a dog at the side of the shepherd. On some others
there are real Pagan subjects, but these were either carefully defaced
by the chisel, or covered up with plaster, or hidden from sight by being
turned towards the wall.
[Illustration: _Sarcophagus still to be seen in the Cemetery of San
Callisto._]
[Illustration: _Very ancient Sarcophagus, found in Crypt of St. Lucina._]
When, however, in progress of time, all fear of danger was past, the
same series of sacred subjects as are seen in the fresco-paintings of
the second and third centuries is reproduced in the marble monuments
of the fourth and fifth; only they appear, of course, in their later,
and not in their earlier form; often even in a still more developed and
literally historical form than in any of the subterranean paintings. Thus
Adam and Eve no longer stand alone, one on either side of the fatal tree,
but the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity are introduced in the work of
creation and the promise of redemption. Adam receives a wheat sheaf, in
token that as a punishment for his sin he shall till the ground, and to
Eve a lamb is presented, the spinning of whose wool is to be part of
her labour. Daniel does not stand alone in the lions’ den, but Habacuc
is there also, bearing in his hand bread, and sometimes fish, for the
prophet’s sustenance. To the resurrection of Lazarus the figure of one of
his sisters is added, kneeling at our Lord’s feet, as though petitioning
for the miracle. Our Lord stands between St. Peter and St. Paul, and He
gives to one of them a volume, roll, or tablet, representing the new law
of the Gospel. On the gilded glasses which belong to the same period
the legend is added, _Lex Domini_, or _Dominus legem dat_. The Apostles
are distinguished, the one as the Apostle of the Jews, the other of the
Gentiles; and even two small temples or churches are added, out of which
sheep are coming forth; and over one is written Jerusalem, and over the
other Bethlehem. This is a scene with which we are familiar in the grand
old mosaics of the Roman Basilicas, a further development of Christian
art, to which, as far as the choice of subjects is concerned and the mode
of executing them, the sculpture may be considered a sort of intermediate
step after the decline of painting.
[Illustration: _Glass in the Vatican Library._
Representing Christ between SS. Peter and Paul; also Christ as the Lamb,
and the faithful as Lambs—Jews and Gentiles coming from Jerusalem and
Bethlehem (_Becle_) to Mount Sion, whence flow the four Evangelical
Streams, united in the Mystical Jordan.]
We may still further add, that the cycle of scriptural subjects was
somewhat enlarged by the sculptors; at least, we do not know of any
paintings in the Catacombs which represent our Lord giving sight to
the blind, or raising the dead child to life, or healing the woman who
touched the hem of His garment; or His nativity, His triumphant entry
into Jerusalem, or certain scenes of His Passion; yet all these, and
some others besides, may be seen carved on the old Christian monuments
collected in the Lateran Museum at Rome and elsewhere. The sarcophagus
which has the representation of the Nativity, and with the traditional ox
and ass by the manger, has its own date upon it, A.D. 343; but, as we are
not here writing a complete history of Christian art, it must suffice to
have given this general idea of its earliest efforts both in painting and
sculpture.