The Image of Christ in Late Antiquity

443 Pages·2012·6.53 MB·English

by  Levine, Adam

1

The Image of Christ in Late Antiquity:
A Case Study in Religious Interaction

Thesis and Abstract

Submitted to the Examination School, 12 November 2012

In consideration of the D.Phil. in the History of Art

Adam Levine
OSS ID: 415795
Corpus Christi College
2

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………..3
Abstract for the History Faculty…………………………………………………………………………….4
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………………………8

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………..10

Section I- Christ in the Material Record: History and Historiography……………………………………24
Chapter I- Ambiguity and Its Roots among Late Antique Images of Christ………….………….……….28
Chapter II- The Development of Christ’s Image in Late Antiquity………………………………………68

Section II- The Context of Interpretation: Late Antique Religion and the Second Sophistic…………...117
Chapter III- Religion in Late Antiquity………………………………………………………………….122
Chapter IV- The Second Sophistic and the Cultural Milieu of Late Antique Image Production………..172

Section III- Late Antique Interpretations of Two Images of Christ……………………………………...216
Chapter V- The Sarcophagus of Junius Bassus: A Non-Christian Interpretation………………………..218
Chapter VI- The Hinton St. Mary Mosaic: A Polemical Reading of an Ambiguous Iconography……...252

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………….283

Figures……………………………………………………………………………………………………294

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………………...392
3

Abstract
This dissertation focuses on images of Christ that date from the first half of Late
Antiquity, defined as the three centuries between AD 200 and 500. The cultural dynamics of this
period left a distinct impression on Christian art, and this dissertation traces that impact. Unlike
other studies that attempt to resolve ambiguity within the corpus of Christ images, the argument
here maintains that ambiguity was a key component in the creation and subsequent interpretation
of the Late Antique Christian iconography. The dissertation proceeds in three parts, each
comprising two chapters. In the first section, the history and historiography of the image of
Christ is explored, and a methodology capable of accommodating the diverse meanings assigned
to the Christ’s discrepant and ambiguous iconographies is developed. In order to better
understand the socio-religious environment in which the first images of Christ were produced
and interpreted, the second section of the dissertation moves away from material culture and
towards method and theory. The notion that interpretation is a group level phenomenon is
critiqued, and a model explaining how individuals in Late Antiquity could have made sense of
ambiguous images of Christ is advanced. The final section turns back to the material culture and
applies the framework developed in the second section to two artworks: (1) the sarcophagus of
Junius Bassus and (2) the floor mosaic from the Hinton St. Mary Roman Villa now in the British
Museum. By complementing the standard analyses of Christian art with interpretations
grounded in the diverse interactions viewers had with artworks, new perspectives will emerge
that provide a fuller picture of Late Antique Christianity and the iconography of its godhead
alike.
4

Abstract for the Faculty of History
This dissertation focuses on images of Christ that date from the first half of Late
Antiquity, defined as the three centuries between AD 200 and 500. The cultural dynamics of this
period left a distinct impression on Christian art, and this dissertation traces that impact. Unlike
other studies that attempt to resolve ambiguity within the corpus of Christ images, the argument
here maintains that ambiguity was a key component in the creation and subsequent interpretation
of the Late Antique Christian iconography.
The dissertation proceeds in three parts, each comprising two chapters. In the first
section, the history of the image of Christ will be explored, and a methodology capable of
accommodating the diverse meanings assigned to the image will be developed. The first chapter
surveys discussions of Christ’s image in both primary sources from Late Antiquity and
secondary scholarship to demonstrate that Christ’s ‘true image’ was at most unknown and at
least non-standardised in Late Antiquity. The uncertainty around Christ’s image lent itself to an
ambiguous and amorphous conception of Christ, and this ambiguity manifested itself in several
divergent iconographies. The second chapter picks up the thread by discussing the development
of the three iconographies for which we have evidence from Late Antiquity: (1) the image of a
bearded Christ, (2) the image of a beardless youth, and (3) the image of Christ as an infant.
Across all three image types, the figure of Christ became more easily identifiable as Christ over
time through the use of an increasingly standardised set of Christological signifiers that alluded,
each in its own way, to scripture; yet, at the same time, the variety of image types used to depict
Christ proliferated. It appears, in the terms used by the dissertation, that the ‘ontological’
consensus on what ‘Christ’ as a theological concept stood for was overlaid on continued
‘epistemological’ ambiguity. Put simply, ‘Christ’ may have meant one thing, but how this one
5

thing manifested itself differed substantially from person to person. The typical narrative of
Christ’s image has dealt primarily with the image as a reflection of ontological consensus. While
theology is undeniably important to any discussion of Christ’s iconography, this dissertation
attempts to complement this focus by turning to epistemological ambiguity to better understand
the variety of Christ’s representations. Instead of understanding Christ’s image exclusively as a
reflection of Christology, the image of Christ is analysed as part of a Late Antique cultural
conversation in which different individuals were trying to make sense, in visual form, of the
concept of ‘Christ.’
In order to better understand the socio-religious environment in which the first images of
Christ were produced and interpreted, the second section of the dissertation moves away from
material culture and towards method and theory. The third chapter provides an overview and
critique of the scholarship on Roman religion, the purpose of which is to complicate the normal
elision of individuals into religious ‘groups.’ However modulated by group affiliations, each
individual had different religious views, something that would have been especially true in the
syncretic religious culture of Late Antiquity. The model of a ‘network’—a fluctuating and
complicated matrix of interconnections—is suggested as framework for understanding religious
interaction in Late Antiquity. The fourth chapter continues the discussion of Late Antique
interactivity by expanding the view from the religious to the cultural landscape. The chapter
argues that the period between AD 200 and 500 was coterminous with a phenomenon known as
the ‘Second Sophistic,’ an intellectual movement with a profound influence on modes of
interpretation among the elite. The effect of the Second Sophistic and its educational regime,
paideia, on interpretation, religious and otherwise, is outlined in some detail. The second
6

section, therefore, develops a model for understanding how certain individuals in Late Antiquity
would have made sense of an ambiguous religious image.
With this methodology developed, the final section turns back to the material culture to
apply the new framework. Whereas the first section of the dissertation deals with images
spanning the entire period considered here, the third section dedicates each of its chapters to a
specific artwork. The purpose of each of these chapters is to understand the likely viewers for
the two artworks and, once the likely audiences are established, to disentangle the multiple
interpretations that may have been possible for each object. The detailed focus on a single object
and its multiple interpretations may seem hyper-specific and unrepresentative, but this type of
focus is the only way to capture the complicated and individualised responses to an object that a
viewer may have had. Although an exploration of only two objects may seem myopic, the
detailed and nuanced interpretation of a limited sample of objects allows for a depth of analysis
that standard, diachronic narratives cannot capture.
The fifth chapter looks at the sarcophagus of Junius Bassus, perhaps the iconic artwork of
Late Antiquity. The marble relief sculpture from Rome was commissioned for the prefect of the
city and was without question intended to be understood as a Christian artwork. Even so, there
are good reasons to suspect that non-Christians would have viewed the sarcophagus. Through
the application of the framework developed in the second section, a non-Christian interpretation
of the sarcophagus is provided and an important corrective is added to the typically
Christianising discourse on this famous sarcophagus.
The sixth chapter discusses the mosaic from Hinton St. Mary now in the British Museum.
The central figure of the mosaic, laid on a floor in Dorset, England, is often interpreted as an
image of Christ, but, unlike the case of Junius Bassus’ sarcophagus, this designation cannot be
7

made with absolute certainty. Most studies of the floor have focused on the admittedly puzzling
iconography of the figure normally understood to be Christ; however, by focusing on the
archaeological context of the mosaic, this dissertation derives some more certain conclusions
about the composition of the viewing audience. With this viewing audience established, the
chapter concludes with a novel interpretation of the image that embeds it within
contemporaneous Christological debates.
While each successive section of the dissertation builds on those that precede it, each
section can also be thought of as a discrete argument. The first argues for a Late Antique art
history of Christ’s image that focuses on signification—the process by which an image obtains
its meaning—in addition to iconography. The second section argues for the importance of
signification to individual interpretation, art historical or otherwise, between AD 200 and 500.
The third section acknowledges the inherent dynamism of signification and explores how that
affects the ways in which Late Antique viewers understood and related to artworks. By
complementing the standard analyses of Christian art with interpretations grounded in the diverse
interactions viewers had with artworks, new perspectives emerge that provide a fuller picture of
Late Antique Christianity and the iconography of its godhead alike.
8

Acknowledgements
This is a dissertation about the image of Christ in Late Antiquity. The topic has been a
fascination of mine since my time as an undergraduate, and I owe my sincerest thanks to
Kathleen Corrigan at Dartmouth College for helping to foster and develop my ideas on the
subject. It was this interest and my passionate pursuit of it that allowed me to receive funding
from the Rhodes Trust for my studies at Oxford. I am in debt to the Trust for its generous
support and its provision of a fantastic opportunity for study and self-growth. A special thanks is
reserved fot the previous Warden of the Trust, Don Markwell, for his insights, observations, and
(though he may decry the word) some of the best advice I have ever received.
At Oxford I have been fortunate to be associated both with Department of the History of
Art and Corpus Christi College. The History of Art is a small department, and I have had the
luck to have had as an examiner, taken a course with, or been supervised by each member of the
faculty. All of my experiences with the department’s lecturers, staff, and students have
contributed substantially to my thinking, and I am truly grateful for their time and efforts.
Similar thanks are in order to Corpus Christi College for providing the best imaginable
intellectual environment in which to develop my ideas. The fellows of the College and members
of the MCR, many of whom are experts in areas closely related to mine, helped to sharpen my
arguments and broaden my approach. The staffs of Corpus Christi and the History Faculty
deserve special mention for helping me navigate the Oxford system.
Appreciation is also due to the Greek and Roman Department at the Metropolitan
Museum of Art. Although it has been difficult to juggle my full-time responsibilities to the
department and the completion of my dissertation, the curators and staff have been
9

extraordinarily supportive. I am expecially grateful to Dr. Carlos Picón, Curator in Charge, for
the opportunity to be in such a tremendous environment and for his support throughout.
My deepest thanks and most effusive praise, however, is reserved for my supervisors Dr.
Jaś Elsner and Dr. Gervase Rosser. Both were more than generous with their time, and their
patience with me knew no bounds. One can never be sure whether great scholars will be great
supervisors, and I was fortunate to find two whose excellence in both arenas cannot be
overstated. My thinking has transformed dramatically under their tutelage, and I am a better
scholar for it. Thanks also to my examiners, Tim Whitmarsh and Thomas Mathews, to whom I
am extremely grateful for their time, efforts, and insights. They and many others have edited and
commented on drafts of this thesis, and the end product is far better as a result. Of course, any
remaining errors are entirely my own.
A dissertation is at least as large an emotional undertaking as anything else, and I owe a
huge debt of gratitude to dozens of friends and family members who have supported me. The
number of people who have kept me going through the at times daunting process are too
numerous to list individually, but several in particular deserve special mention. Sebastian Liebau
and Simon Neil kept me laughing throughout any number of frustrations. Robert Knox was an
adoptive parent to me in a strange land; his encouragement and lightheartedness have meant the
world to me. George Olive and Lev Sviridov also deserve special praise: They have become
dear friends, and without them this dissertation very well may never have been finished. My
most consistent supporters have been my family. My mother, Cindy, has kept me grounded; my
father, Bruce, has kept me engaged; and my brother, Max, has kept me smiling. My wife, Gina,
has done all of the above and more. This dissertation is for her and for all that she and we have
been through on account of this dissertation’s being written.
10

Introduction
The history of Christian art begins with a mystery. According to one of the foremost
Early Christian iconographers, André Grabar, ‘The earliest Christian images appeared
somewhere about the year 200.’1 Grabar’s contention has been so widely accepted that one
scholar writes without even a footnote that ‘Christian art as such cannot be dated any earlier than
the end of the second century or beginning of the third century.’2 Of course, there is nothing in
itself wrong with the idea that Christian art appeared ca. AD 200, but the acceptance of the
position means, as Grabar puts it, ‘that during roughly a century and a half the Christians did
without any figurative representations of a religious character.’3 This is a strange conclusion to
reach and there are a number of reasons to question its accuracy. First, as Grabar himself notes,
the dating for the earliest Christian images is ‘rather insecure’ since it is based almost
exclusively on stylistic analyses.4 Second, the century and a half in question coincided with a
period characterised by the wide production of religious art, even among supposedly aniconic
religions, like Judaism.5 But the most important critique of Grabar’s dating—and by extension
the dating that has been rather uncritically accepted by Late Antique and Early Christian art
historians—is that Grabar’s statement is simply inaccurate. What Grabar meant to say is that the

1 André Grabar, Christian Iconography: A Study of Its Origins (Princeton, 1968), 7.
2 Robin Margaret Jensen, Understanding Early Christian Art (London, 2002[2000]), 9.
3 Grabar, Christian Iconography, 7.
4 Grabar, Christian Iconography, 7. For some problems and pitfalls of stylistic analyses, see especially: Ernst H.
Gombrich, Norm and Form: Studies in the Art of the Renaissance (London, 1966). For a reflection on the necessity
of style to the art historical enterprise, see: Jaś Elsner, ‘Style’, in Robert S. Nelson and Richard Shiff (eds.), Critical
Terms for Art History (Chicago, 2003[1996]), 98 ff.
5 On Jewish artistic production, see especially: Lee I. Levine and Zeev Weiss (eds.), From Dura to Sepphoris:
Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity (Portsmouth, 2000); Guntram Koch, ‘Jüdische Sarkophage der
Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike’, in Leonard V. Rutgers (ed.), What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem: Essays on
Classical, Jewish, and Early Christian Art and Archaeology in Honor of Gideon Foerster (Leuven, 2002), 189 ff.;
Jodi Magness, ‘Helios and the zodiac cycle in ancient Palestinian synagogues’, in William G. Dever and Sy Gitin
(eds.), Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel and Their Neighbors from the Late
Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina (Winona Lake, 2003), 363 ff.