Huskinson, J. Some Pagan Mythological Figures and Their Significance in Early Christian Art

Some Pagan Mythological Figures and Their Significance in Early Christian Art
Author(s): Janet Huskinson

Source: Papers of the British School at Rome, Vol. 42 (1974), pp. 68-97
Published by: British School at Rome
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40310729
Accessed: 22-01-2016 12:59 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
British School at Rome and Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Papers of the British School at Rome.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 132.77.150.148 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 12:59:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SOME PAGAN MYTHOLOGICAL FIGURES AND THEIR
SIGNIFICANCE IN EARLY CHRISTIAN ART
(PlatesIII-VI)
Seepages 85-91 belowfor Appendices 1 and 2; pages 91-5 for Notes,and pages 96-7
for abbreviations
usedand SelectBibliography.
Ever sincethe discussionof Orpheusin Bosio'sRomaSotterranea (1632, 627 ff)the

problemof pagan mythological in
figures early Christianart has arousedmuch
attention. Until quite recently,however,it was generallybelievedthatOrpheus
was the only such figureto appear,1so that discussionnaturallycentredon his
peculiar acceptabilityto the Christians. But the discoveryof importantnew
materialand the renewedinterestamongstscholarsin the pagan elementin early
Christianarthave recently led to theconsiderationofotherpagan godsand heroes
in this light. Some of thesecharactersappear only once or twicein Christian
settings, or may have a Christiansignificanceonlyon isolatedoccasions.2 But for
all the fivefiguresthatwill be studiedhere- Orpheus,Bellerophon,Sol, Ulysses,
and Hercules - somekindofsustainedChristianinterpretation has been proposed,
and in each case severalrepresentations are involved. The purposeof thispaper
is to collatetheclaimsmade forthesevariousmythological figures,to re-assesssome
oftheconclusions whichwerereachedin earlierstudiesand havenowbeenrendered
out-of-date by the discoveryof new examples,and to attemptsome generalcon-
clusionsabout the role of thesepagan mythological figuresin earlyChristianart
up to themid sixthcentury.
The basic evidenceis naturallyderivedfromtherepresentations themselves, and
fromtheirparticularcontexts. Most importantof the representations are those
whichhave someassociationwithChristianity throughtheirprovenanceor accom-
panyingfinds,or throughtheinclusionin themofsomespecifically Christian feature
(theseare listedin Appendix1); and perhapsmostinteresting are the scenesthat
occurbeforethePeace oftheChurchwhentheChristiancommunity wassurrounded
by a pagan, oftenhostileworld,a factwhichinvestsany pagan figuresdepictedin
Christiancontextsat that time with a particularsignificance.Furthermore,
theirpresenceseemsto raise a numberof basic problemswhichhave not as yet
been satisfactorilysolved. How, forinstance,do thesefiguresrelateto the ideas
expressedby earlyChristianwriterswho criticizepagan mythology, or even reject
thewholenotionofrepresentational art? And howweretheytoleratedby Church
authorities in Christianholyplaces?3
Variousanswershave beenproposedforsuchquestions. One tempting solution
is providedby Klauser'sconclusion(1965, 7f) that Christianart beforethe mid
fourth centurywas theworkofthelaity,unsanctioned bytheofficial Churchand not
to be explainedbyreference to thewritingsofthe Fathers,forthissuggests thatthe
earliestof thesepagan scenesmay be 'folk-art'and expresspopular ratherthan
ecclesiasticalbeliefs. But other evidence, archaeological and literary,warns
against makinggeneralisations about Christianreactionto pagan culture. On
PAGAN MYTHOLOGICAL FIGURES 69
the one hand thereare the denunciations of pagan art and mythology, legislation
by Christianemperorsagainstpagan cults,and the Christiandestruction ofpagan
shrinesand statues:4and on theother,evidenceofan awarenessofbeautyin classical
artand a respectfortheartisticheritage.5 Classicalstatuarywas re-usedto adorn
Constantinople, and in Rome measuresweretakento preserveworksof the past.6
Blatantly pagan subjects,whichmightbe thought tohavebeenoffensive to Christians,
frequently found theirway into Christiansettings, presumably because theywereat
hand to be used fordecorativepurposes,or because theywerepart of the pagan
background thatwas takenforgranted.7 In theearlyperiod,too,manyartistswho
producedsuch worksas sarcophagusreliefs,were pagans or Christianstrainedin
workshopsthat turnedout pagan, Christian,'neutral', and sometimesJewish,
designsto please all customers.8Moreover,most educated pagans had by this
time long discardeda literalbeliefin the tales oftheirmythology, preferring to
interpretthemas allegorieswithsome cosmicor moral significance, and in the
late thirdand fourthcenturiescan be tracedthe emergenceof moremonotheistic
beliefs,particularly amongstintellectualcirclesin Rome.
Such a varietyof reactionsunderlinesthe need fora greatawarenessof the
different - religious,artistic,and political
factors - that may be involvedin early
Christianart. Geographytoo may play an importantpart; and social class may
to assess,sincemanyofthe exampleswhich
also be relevant,althoughit is difficult
will be examinedmusthave been sponsoredby the relativelywell-to-do, and the
attitudesofhumblerChristians are accordingly lesswelldocumented.9By examin-
ing all theparticularinstances(knownto me) in whichpagan mythological figures
featurein Christiancontexts,I hope to identify the possiblereasonsforthe choice
(or toleration)ofsuch scenes,and to discoverwhetherthesereasonshold good for
all, or most,of theseexamples,or vary accordingto locality. In thispaper the
terms'christianus', and thelesselegant'christianised' are used
and 'christianisation'
onlytoindicatea fullassociationwithChristHimself, and not the
simply appearance
of the figurein a Christiancontext,whetherwith Christiansignificance or not.
The geographicallimitsare the boundariesof the Roman Empire at the startof
thefourthcenturya.D.
Orpheusis perhapsthebestknownofthepagan mythological figures thatoccurin

earlyChristian art. The representations of him charming the beastsinclude someofthe
mostunequivocallypagan scenesto appear in Christian and
settings, have longbeen
the subjectof scholarlydebate.10 But much of thisis now due for re-examination
because of new discoveriesof Orpheusscenesand of othercomparativematerial,
and becausein the past manyscholarshave tendedto concentrate upon thescenes
ofOrpheusin the Roman catacombs to the neglect of the laterrepresentations.
Of theOrpheussceneswithChristianassociationsthefrescoes in the Catacombs
ofS. Callixtus,Domitilla(Cubiculum III), and SS. Peter and Marcellinus (Cub.V),
the sarcophagiin Ostia (PL VI, a), Rome, and Porto Torres,and the Cacarens
relief,wouldall appear to date frombeforethe Peace ofthe Church.11Fromafter
the Peace may come the frescoesin the Catacombsof S. Priscilla,Domitilla(Cub.
IV) (PI. Ill, a), and SS. Peterand Marcellinus(Via Segniregion)(PL III, £), the
Intercisabronzereliefsand the Mactar and Jerusalempavements. In theircom-
70 JANET HUSKINSON
positionsalmostall of theserepresentations followtraditionswell establishedin

pagan art, and are closelyrelated to othercontemporary Orpheus scenes that
occur in secularcontexts(mainlyin floor-mosaics and in the minorarts).12 The
representations ofOrpheusdo notvarymuch: he is usuallyseated,oftenon a rock,
withthelyrerestingon hisleftkneeand theplectrum in hisrighthand,but scenesin
theCatacombsofS. Priscillaand SS. Peterand Marcellinus(Via Segni) (PL III, b)
showhim withboth armsoutstretched, and in theJerusalemmosaiche holdsthe
lyrein both hands and has no plectrum.The sarcophagihave a different scene:
Orpheusmovesto his left,whilethe lyrerestson a small pillar at his side.13 In
mostofthesesceneshis dressis oriental - a Phrygiancap, a long tunicor trousers,
and a mantle.
Most important,however,is the change that is made in the typeof animal
shownwithOrpheus. Althoughwildanimals- thatis tosay,thoseofthetraditional
pagan versionof the scene- continueto appear in Christianas well as in secular
contextsrightup to the sixthcenturya.D. (a facthithertolargelyignoredin dis-
cussionsofthe 'Christian'Orpheus),severaloftheearlierscenesreplacethemwith
tame creaturessuch as sheep and doves. This substitution appears to be sig-
nificant(althoughFriedman(1970, 39 f), forone, underestimates it), forit occurs
onlyin thefrescoes in theCatacombsofS. Callixtus,S. Priscilla,and SS. Peterand
Marcellinus{Cub. V), on the sarcophagi[cf PL VI, a] and on the Cacarens
relief. This suggeststhat it is a deliberatealterationintimatelyassociatedwith
early Christianfunerarythought;and as such it may providea key to under-
standingthereadyacceptanceofOrpheusintoChristianart.
Althoughthisspecifically Christian versiondoesnotexcludethetraditional pagan
'wild beast' versionfromChristianfunerary settings(as the Domitillafrescoesand
Jerusalemmosaic testify),the veryfactof its introduction formsan obvious ob-
jection to manyof the theoriesthat have been advanced in the past concerning
Orpheus' role in early Christianideas. It disproves,forinstance,the idea that
Orpheusappearsin thecatacombssimplyas a conventional typetakenfromfunerary
art withoutspecial Christiansignificance.14 Obviouslythe Christiansmusthave
had a particularreasonforselectingthisone episodefromthe manymythsthat
had funerary significancein pagan art,forlinkingit withbiblicalscenes,and for
alteringits iconography.15Moreover,catacombart rarelygave prominent place
to meaninglessdecoration,and one mightimaginethat the Church authorities
wouldbe reluctantto sanctiona pagan scenethathad no significance forChristians.
The possibilitythattheymayhave done so 'in a spiritofmissionary diplomacy'
(Eisler, 1921, 55 f) to commemorate the cult of Orpheus-Dionysus whichcertain
convertshad recently renounced,also seemsto me to be disprovedby thischanging
of the scene. In factthereis no reasonwhy the membersof such a pagan cult
would have associatedthe scene of Orpheusand the beasts- wild or tame- with
the founderof the MysteriessinceevidencefromRoman art and literatureshows
thatby thisperiodthe Orpheusofreligionand the Orpheusoflegendhad become
separated,onlythefigureofthelatter,poetand singer,occurring in art.16 Further-
more,thereis no evidenceto suggestthat the Christianconvertsfromsuch cults
were numerousenoughto demand such prominencefor representations of their
one-timehero.
Anothertheory,advancedby de Fraipont(1935, 28 ff,34), is thatthe Orpheus

sceneswereplacedin thecatacombsby pagansto commemorate a Christianspouse,
as symbolsofmaritalfidelity. But hereagain thesubstitution oftame animalsfor
wild ones is an obviousobjection-quite apartfromthefactthatno othermytho-
logicalepisodescapable ofsuch meaninghave been foundin specifically Christian
catacombs.
Finally,the alterationin the scene makes it unlikelythat syncretistic ideas
amongstthe Jewish-Christians inspiredits use,17particularlyas neitherthe de-
batable figureof 'Orpheus/David'in the Dura Europus synagogue,18 nor the
paintingof him allegedlyfoundin theJewishCatacombof Vigna Randaninijust
outsideRome19shed much lighton theJewishinterpretation of Orpheus at this
time.
On theotherhand,theintroduction oftameanimalsdoes providesomepositive
indicationsas to the significance of Orpheus in these scenes. It suggeststhat
Christianschose to portrayOrpheus,not forany pagan symbolism thathad been
attachedto his myth,but because theyrelatedhim in some way theirown re-
to
ligiousideas.
Friedman(1970, 39 ff)suggeststhatit was Orpheus'superficial resemblanceto
Christin lifeand character,as well as his reputed conversion to monotheism, that
originally for
made hima 'purifiedpagan type'suitable adoption into the Christian
artisticrepertory;and that he was at first'merelyborrowed'to representChrist
the Good Shepherdaccordingto certaindescriptions foundin theNew Testament.
is
But fora numberofreasonsthisexplanation unsatisfactory.Firstly, whileearly
Christianliterature showsthatOrpheuswas apparently well-known for his alleged
rejectionof paganismand propheciesof Christianity,20 such an interpretation does
notreallyaccountforthechangein theiconography of the scene; and as Boulanger
observes(1925, 160), thatother'pagan prophet'of Christianity, the Sibyl,is not
represented in Christianart. Secondly,Friedman'sclaim thatit was the lack of
any specificallyChristianiconographythat led the earliestChristianartiststo
adopt thefigureofOrpheusfromthepagan artisticrepertory as a representation of
Christthe Good Shepherd,begs a number of questions. For he does not explain
whythe Christians apparentlyfeltthatthekriophoros and pastoraltypeswhichthey
usedso widelyfortheirGood Shepherdwereinadequatein theseparticularcontexts,
and thata 'Good Shepherdin Phrygiandress'shouldbe introducedinstead. Nor
does he accountforthe use on the sarcophagusreliefsof anothercompositional
typeforthe Orpheusscene,thatis notimmediately reminiscent ofotherChristian
Good Shepherdscenes (cf. Friedman,1970, 77). On the other hand it could
perhapsbe arguedthatthe adoption of such a was
pagan figure-type inspiredby
some crypto-Christian purposes,such as a need to disguiserepresentations of the
Christiangod froma hostileworld; but then many of these earlyOrpheusscenes
appear in specificallyChristiansettings(such as the catacombs),wheretheywould
have been seenalmostexclusively by Christians.
There are, however,certainpassagesof earlyChristianliteraturethatlead to
a morefruitful solution. Both Clementof Alexandriaand Eusebiusof Caesarea
(thoughwritingabout a centuryand a halfapart) linkOrpheusand Christin their
powersof song. Clement(Protreptikon i, 1 ff,especially4 ff) draws an elaborate
72 JANET HUSKINSON
contrastbetweenthe two singersand theirsongs: Orpheus' is deceitfuland en-
slavesmento a lifeofvice,whilethesongofGod subduesthewildpassionsofMan
and leads him to Salvation. Eusebius,on the otherhand, comparesthe singers
(De laudibus 14) : as Orpheusis said to have charmedNatureby hissong,
Constantini,
so theSaviouroftheWorldstillsmen'ssoulsand fillstheworldwiththeharmonious
musicthatHe playsuponHis choseninstrument, humannature. Althoughone can
scarcelyassessthe numberand typeof people who would be familiarwiththese
passages,it seemslikelythatin thethirdand earlyfourthcenturyat leastOrpheus
may have been consideredas an allegory,if not as a typeof ChristWho brought
peace to men and overcamedeath by His new Gospelthatsupersedesthe songsof
Orpheusand Apollo.
This interpretation is easilyrelatedto the factthat thesechristianised scenes
occur onlyin funerary settingsand so may have a primarilyeschatological signi-
ficance. The tame animals listeningto Orpheus' song can therefore represent
the blesseddead who have submittedto the Word of God, enjoyingthe musicof
Christin a pastoralparadise. Such an interpretation is confirmedby thethemeof
deliverancethat underliesthe biblical episodes which are associatedwith the
Orpheusscenein thecatacombs,21 and by theuse ofsheepand dovesas symbolsof
Christiansoulsenjoyingimmortality on otherearlyChristianmonuments;22 while
thevisualsimilaritybetweenthesescenesofOrpheusand tamecreatures, and those
oftheGood Shepherdin thepastoralparadiseis surelynotirrelevant.23
Althoughthosesceneswhichretainthe traditionalform,with all mannerof
beasts,wild,tame,and mythological, occurin a greatervarietyofsettings(thatis to
say,in the twofrescoes in the CatacombofDomitilla (cf PI. Ill, a)> the Intercisa
bronzereliefs,and theJerusalemmosaic),a similarinterpretation maybe valid for
them: theymayrepresent thetamingofMan's passionsas a conditionforSalvation,
just as Clementdescribedin Protreptikon i, 4. The Jerusalempavement(froma
Christianfunerarychapel) illustratesthis,for Pan and the Centaur (as repre-
sentationsofuntamedNature? M) are shownlistening entrancedto Orpheus'song;
and in the Intercisareliefsthe juxtapositionof the Orpheusscene with biblical
deliverancescenesand Christiansymbols, suchas theChi-Rhomonogramand dove,
suggests the aversionofdeath and evilas a predominant theme. It is possible,too,
thatsomeoftheseOrpheusscenesmaycontainan allusionto theMessianickingdom
whereall creatureswouldlivetogether in peace underGod's rule;25and in termsof
be
compositiontheymay relatedto theparadeisos motif,particularlypopularin the
fifthand sixthcenturies,of whichsome examplesinclude a biblical figurethat
impartsa Christiansignificance to theanimals.26
The chronology ofthesedifferent typesis somewhatconfusedby the difficulties
of datingthe catacombfrescoesexactly;but it clearlyshowsthat the Christian
transformation of the pagan type began in the thirdcenturyand continuedin
Christianfunerary sculptureand paintingat leastto themidfourthcentury. This
wouldseemto confirm our interpretation ofthetwodifferent versionsofthescene:
the 'tame beast' versionbelongsin timeand spiritto the earlierperiodof Chris-
tianityand ties in withthe themeof deliveranceso prominentin the art of that
time. The traditionalpagan versioncontinuedalongsidethe Christianpastoral
type,and survivedlong afterit, partlybecauseit depicteda thememoresuitedto
the ideas of a triumphantChurch,and partlybecause it lent itselfeasilyto the

decorativetrendsin theartofthelaterperiodwhichfavouredsuchall-overdesigns
as thosewhichcrowdedanimalgroupsproduced.
By contrastthe questionof 'Bellerophonchristianus'is only recent. It was

promptedby the discoveryin 1967 of the Hinton St. Mary mosaic,and by the
subsequentsuggestionthat the fragmentary scene in the centralroundelof the
Frampton'Neptune and Chi-Rho' pavementmightdepictBellerophonand the
Chimaera,ratherthan a genre huntsmanand his prey(PL IV, a) ; and it has been
examinedby a numberof scholarsincludingToynbee (1964, 7 ff),Simon (1966),
Brandenburg (1968), and Hiller (1970, 66 ff).
Thereare onlythreerepresentations ofBellerophonand theChimaerathathave
directassociationswith Christianity.All are mid fourthcenturyfloor-mosaics
fromRomano-British villas,namelyLullingstone, HintonSt. Mary,and Frampton27
(although this panel is too much damaged to allow any definiteidentification).
Butitwillbe usefulto examinefirst someotherinstancesofthe scenein late antique
art that have no explicitlinkswith Christianity, fortheyretain- and therefore
-
well muchofthesignificance
illustrate thathad been attachedto representations
of thescenein earlierpagan art. Mostimportant ofthese,despitetheiruncertain
dates and fragmentary condition,are the pavementsfromRavenna and Con-
stantinople.
The Ravenna mosaicdecorateda roomthatseemsto have servedas a triclinium
in theso-calledPalace ofTheodoric.28The Bellerophon sceneoccupiedthecentral
and largestof the nine panels thatcomprisedthe mosaic. It was flankedby in-
scribedtabletssupportedby Cupids,29while half-figures of the Seasons, set in
roundels,apparentlyfilledthecorners.
The contentsof thesesurrounding panels and theirvariousmeaningsformthe
basis forthe different interpretations suggestedforthe Bellerophonscene. Some
scholars,recallingthe probableimperialassociationsof the site, have identified
thefigureofBellerophon withtheemperorhimself. Hanfmann(1951,i, 168,261)
seemsto have been thefirstto suggestthisin his interpretation ofthepavementas
'theemperoras Bellerophon surrounded byrepresentations ofthe Seasons,whilethe
inscription inviteshim to take the seasonalblessings toto in orbe9;and thisidenti-
ficationis supportedby Simon(1966,892f), and by Hiller (1970,85 ff)who notes
the solarassociationsofthe sceneand infers from them some Christiantheological
significance, as well as a politicalmeaning, for the Bellerophonfigure. But the
to his
onlyevidencewhichHanfmancites support interpretation is a reference
to the
sixthcentury he
poet Corippus,although mightperhaps have added thattheBelle-
rophon-type horsemanwas used in Roman art to the
represent emperorovercoming
hisfoes.30Withoutmorepositiveproof,thereis no good reasonforassumingthat
themosaichas thekindofdirectimperialsignificance thathe proposes.31
On theotherhand bothGhiardini and Brandenburg linktheBellerophonscene
with the world of Nature. Ghiardini (1916, 793 f) identifies Bellerophonwith
'la potenza del Sole fugatrice delle tenebre, vivicatrice della natura'; while for
Brandenburg(1968, 63 ff) the Ravenna mosaic particularlyimportantas his
is
interpretation ofit providesthebasisforhiswholethesisconcerning representations
74 JANET HUSKINSON
of Bellerophonin floor-mosaics.He believesthat the inscriptionaccompanying
theBellerophon sceneis an invitationto theguestto enjoythefruits ofeveryseason,
and he seesthisas an appropriatethemeforthedecorationoftriclinia and one thatis
apparently repeated in the various motifs- all takenfrom the natural world- that
recur in other Bellerophonmosaics. Brandenburgdoubts (1968, 71 ff) that
Bellerophonhimselfhas any deep symbolismin such mosaics,but rather,as a
mythicalhunter,represents theheroicideal ofthevilla-owner and the virtusmani-
festin thehunt,and, as we shallsee later,he thenappliesthisthesisto themosaics
thatshowBellerophonin associationwithChristianmotifs.
Althoughone maycertainly agreewithmanyofthepoints,specificand general,
thatBrandenburg makesconcerningthe significance ofthe Bellerophonscenes,his
basic interpretation seems to contain certainfundamentalweaknesses. One of
theseis the greatemphasishe places on the use of the scenein the decorationof
triclinia.Accordingto his accountat leastthreeofthefifteen Bellerophonmosaics
of the Roman periodoccurin triclinia, namelythoseat Nîmes,32 Lullingstone, and
Ravenna. Butat Nîmesand Ravennasucha use has notdefinitely beenestablished
forthe rooms,33 while at Lullingstonethe scene that decoratesthe raised apsidal
sectionoftheroomwherethediners'coucheswouldhavestood,is notthatofBellero-
phon and the Chimaera,but Europa and the Bull, whichhas littleimmediate
relevanceto thehuntand acquisitionofgame.
But a moreimportant flawin Brandenburg's thesisis his apparentreadinessto
rejectthe likelihoodof any deep symbolism forthe Bellerophonscene (as in 1968,
67 ff,86), or the possibilityof otherinterpretations.For surelythe episode of
Bellerophonand the Chimaeraillustrates, not the merehunt aftergame forthe
table,but the conquestofevil by theforcesofgood,whichmay be seen in moral,
cosmic,eschatological,or prophylacticterms. These different aspects are re-
flectedin the variousmotifschosento accompanythe Bellerophonscenein these
mosaicswhich,in theirown turn,oftencontaina wide rangeofsymbolism.The
Ravenna mosaic providesa good illustration.The Seasons,forinstance,could
carry prophylactic,34 cosmic, or funerarysymbolism;the inscriptionmightbe
interpreted in a prophylactic veinas a wishforuniversalprosperity; whilethevery
arrangement ofthemosaicin threerowsofthreepanelswithcornerroundels(that
is, somewhat'old-fashioned' forits period) mightecho the patternsof circlesand
squares,so evidentin the earliermosaics,which,as symbolsof heavenand earth
would reinforcethe cosmic nature of Bellerophon'scombat.35 Admittedly,a
funerary significance seemsunlikelyforthe Ravenna scene- all the moreso since
Bellerophon and theChimaeraappearedso rarelyon Romanfunerary monuments;36
but it should be rememberedthatin pagan eschatologythe wingedhorsewas a
commonsymbolof apotheosisand the Chimaeraa creatureof the Underworld.37
Such a close intertwining of themes,funerary, cosmic,and prophylactic, therefore
showsthatone cannotfavourany one interpretation forthesceneto the complete
exclusionof others. One mustbe aware of themall (thoughat timesparticular
ideas willbe to thefore)sincethemainsignificance ofBellerophon's combatwiththe
Chimaera,thevictoryofgood overevil,also relatesto thevictoryoflifeoverdeath,
and to thecontinuedprosperity and safetyofthehousehold.
In themosaicfromthecolonnadeoftheGreatPalace oftheByzantineEmperors
at Constantinople,38 a figureoftheChimaera(whichis all thatremainsofa Bellero-

phon group) is the onlymythological subjectto occur,apart froma Bacchic pro-
cession. The otherscenesare genre, bucolic,or combatgroupswhichare arranged
in groupsto forman all-overdesign. Hiller (1970,91) seesthesepagan features in
thepavementas cdieVorbereitung des Geheiligtenund Christlichen', and suggests
thattheBellerophon scenewas chosenforthisparticularcontextbecauseas a pagan
motifit couldbe troddenuponwithoutsacrilege,and whiletraditionally linkedwith
imperialiconography, mightbe' interpreted in Christiantheologicalterms:in his
victoryoverthepowersofevil . . . konnteBellerophonals heidnisches Spiegelbild
des christlichen Gottesaufgefasst werden'. With thislast pointone may generally
agree; but in his conclusionsas a whole Hiller seemsto have overestimated the
significance ofthe Bellerophonscenein thismosaic,and does not mentionthatthe
groupoccupiesonlya subordinateplace in the total designof the pavementand
shouldtherefore be consideredin the contextof the otherfiguredgroups.39Al-
thoughno commonthemeis immediately apparentin thesediversescenes,one or
two of themcould be interpreted in an apotropaicsense,40 and a similarmeaning
mightwell have been attachedto the Bellerophonscenetoo.
Of theotherBellerophon scenesoftheperiodthathave no Christianassociations
two groupsare of particularinterestforthe typeof significance thattheyconvey.
The firstcomprisesrepresentations in variousmedia that are linkedin some way
withtheludi,and suggestthatin similarcontextsthesceneofBellerophonand the
Chimaeramightsimplyillustrate a mythological victoryovera wildbeast,or might
even depictan actual spectacleput on at the games. Contorniates seemto come
intothiscategory,as Toynbee(1945, 117ff)has convincingly shown,41and thelate
thirdor earlyfourthcenturyBellerophonmosaicfromnear Geronawas foundin
conjunctionwitha pavementshowingscenesof the CircusMaximusand episodes
froma dramaofMars and Rhea Silvia.42 The secondgroupofBellerophonscenes
occursin metalware,where they are oftenset within'medallions'as part of a
decorativefrieze.43 As thesimilarsceneson contorniates show,thismotifis derived
fromnumismaticsources,but one is surelyrightto supposethat,takenfromits
'official'contexton coins,thescenehas changeditsoriginalpoliticalsignificance for
-
a largelydecorativerole this is suggestedby the Bellerophonmedallion that
appearson the 'Capitolinetenscf below the main Achillesscenes,and by the fate
ofothersuch 'imperialmotifs'thatwereapparentlytransmitted fromone medium
to anotherin thisperiodwitha similarloss of significance44 - althoughtheremay
be some apotropaicsignificance in the scenesof Bellerophonon the Pannonian
bronzecasketreliefswheretheysharewithmanyof the othermotifsthe common
themeofvictoryoverevil.45
Having noted at lengththe typeof symbolismthat mightbe attachedto re-
presentations ofBellerophon in thisperiod,we nowturnto thethreescenesthathave
somedirectassociationwithChristianity and whichconstitute themostimportant
evidenceforanyrole that Bellerophonmay have in
played earlyChristianimagery.
In the case of Lullingstone,however, this associationwith Christianity lies
of
solelyin thefactthatthe mosaics Bellerophon and Europa,laid presumablyby
a pagan owneraround330, wereretainedafterpartofthehousewas convertedfor
Christianuse some twentyor thirty yearslater.46 As we have seen withthe later
76 JANET HUSKINSON
mosaicat Ravenna,a varietyofideas mighthave inspiredtheoriginalchoiceofthe
Bellerophonsceneto adornthe triclinium (althoughthereis insufficient evidenceto
support Hiller'spoliticalinterpretation). The dolphins and mussels introduced into
the scenesas a probableallusionto Bellerophon's voyageacrossthesea,47pointto a
parallelwithEuropa's sea-journey whichis shownin the upperpartof the room,
and thussuggestsome commonthemeforthe pavementas a whole. This could
have been funerary, relatingto the soul's journeyafterdeath to the Isles of the
Blessed,or, as seemsmorelikely,it mayhave had a prophylactic purposesincethe
Europa sceneand its inscription may also be interpreted in thissense.48 Further-
morethiselegaic couplettestifies to a knowledgeof,and enthusiasm for,classical
literatureand mythology on the partofthisfourthcenturyprovincialvilla-owner.
Whateverthe reasonforthe originalchoice of the Bellerophonscene here, one
can onlyguessas to whyit was toleratedaftertheintroduction of Christianity into
thevilla. Perhapsthevilla-owner was simplythrifty, perhapshe foundhisinterest
in classicalcultureand faithin pagan superstitions notincompatible withChristian
beliefs,or perhapshe eveninterpreted themosaicsin a Christiansenseas allegories
ofthevictoryofgood overevil,or ofthesoul'sjourneyto Heaven.
At Framptonand HintonSt. Mary thelinkbetweentheBellerophon scenesand
Christianity is much moredirect,in thatboth pavementsincorporatespecifically
Christianfeaturesalongsidetheirrepresentations ofthepagan hero. At Frampton
thisis a Chi-Rho monogram,conspicuously placed in the friezeof floralscrolls
thatseparatesthe small apse fromthe main part of the mosaicin whichare the
Bellerophonpanel and fourscenesofVenus and Adonis. At HintonSt. Maryit is
a bust of Christ,set in front49 of a Chi-Rhomonogram,whichformsthe central
featureof the largersectionof the mosaic,whilethe smallersectioncontainsthe
Bellerophonpanel flankedby twohuntingscenes. In bothcases (at leastas faras
one can tellat Frampton)theBellerophon sceneremainsunalteredin itstraditional
iconography,and its 'Christianity' derivessolelyfromthe Christianmotifswith
whichit is juxtaposed.
Brandenburgmakesa fundamentalpoint about thisrelationship betweenthe
pagan and Christianmotifs. He -
argues convincingly as it seems to me- thatin
is
both mosaicsit theseChristian features thatseem out of place, as the settingis
otherwiseconventionally pagan, and that they must therefore be explainedin the
light of the surrounding pagan motifs, not vice-versa.60 He goes on to demon-
stratethat thesepagan motifs - huntingscenes (amongstwhichhe includesthat
of Bellerophon(1968, 71 ff)), craters,personifications ofnaturalforces - are drawn
fromthe repertory of natureand fertility symbols which have prophylacticsig-
nificance;and he concludesfromthis (1969, 78 £f ) that the Christiansigns,like
the symbolsof pagan mystery cultsused in decorativesettingsmay be interpreted
simply as tokens ofgood fortune withprophylactic value.
This theoryseemsto be convincingin the case of the Framptonmosaicwhere
theChi-Rho,thoughin a prominent position,is accordedno moreimportance than
otherpagan features. Moreoverthe Neptune/Oceanus maskand dolphinsin the
borderof the main section,the huntingscenesand the crater in the apse are all
conventionalmotifsrelatedto well-beingand prosperity;the figuresof Bacchus
and Venus and Adonismay be interpreted as allegoriesoffertility and rebirthin
nature;and the Cupids,inscriptions, and the entiredesignofthepavementare all

conventionalfeatures. Althoughmost of them occur in other unequivocally
Christiancontexts, theydo so individually and cannotjustifyan explicitinterpretatio
Christiana forthe pavementas a whole.51 And Brandenburg's interpretation of the
Framptonmosaicmayfindfurther supportfrom thefactthatamongstsomeChristians
at leasttheChi-Rhomonogramacquiredan almostmagicalroleaftertheconversion
of Constantine.52Here, perhapswe mighthave an owner,pagan or Christian,
trying to secureforhishouseholdthebestprotection ofbothworlds.
The HintonSt. Mary mosaic,however,presentsa morecomplexseriesofpro-
blems which Brandenburg'stheorydoes not seem to solve very satisfactorily.
Acceptingthe bustas a representation of Christ(1968, 81 ff),he nevertheless seeks
to reconcilethe uniquenessof such a religiousfeaturewiththe secularthemeof
the wholepavementby explainingthe bustas a productof a vague syncretism, a
prophylactic symbolratherthanan orthodoxreligiousportrait(1968,85; cf 1969,
76 f). But thejuxtapositionof the bust withthe scene of Bellerophon seemstoo
deliberateand conspicuousto be explainedsimplyas the combinationof related
fertility motifswhich have no other deep significance.53 Nor is Hiller's inter-
pretationof the mosaic any more convincing. Althoughboth the Chi-Rho and
figure ofBellerophonare certainlyknownelsewhere as symbolsofvictory in religious,
moral,and politicalterms,it seemsto be beggingtoo manyquestionsto see in this
sceneof Bellerophon' ... ein mythisches Bild des kaiserlichen Triumphes',and to
identify thebustnotas Christbut as an emperoror evensomelocal military leader
(1970, 82). The basic problemof the reasonsforthe portrayalof a pagan hero
side by side withChrist(or evenwithsome Christianbeliever)remainsuntackled.
It is more temptingto accept the opinionexpressedby Toynbee (1964, 14;
1968,184ff)and Simon (1966,889 ff) thatBellerophonis used hereas a Christian
allegoryof the victoryoverdeath and evil,as thiswould explainquite neatlythe
juxtapositionof Bellerophonand Christ(theformeras a pagan typeofthe latter),
and the possibleChristianinterpretation of subsidiaryfeaturesof the mosaic,
suchas thehuntingscenes,tree,and busts. It also lendssupportto the possibility
thattheroomwithitstwodistinct partsmightperhapshave beenusedforChristian
worship,whenthecatachumens wouldhave waitedin thesmallerpartoftheroom
containingthe Bellerophonscene,whilethe baptisedChristians, who alone would
have been admittedto the actual Eucharist,stood in the largerpart of the room,
facingthebustofChristthatwas setbeforethealtar.54
Unfortunately thereis no real evidence(fromtheseChristianexamples,as well
as fromthepagan background)to shownwhyBellerophon, as opposedto anyother
pagan herowho overcameevil,was chosenhere as a pagan forerunner of Christ.
Unlike Hercules,Bellerophondoes not seem to have received pagan cult at this
time as a saviourfromdeath; in fact,as Brandenburg shows 60
(1968, f), con-
temporary refers
literature moreto his hubristhan to hisvictory over theChimaera,
whilein specificallyfunerary contextsin Roman artthe number of representations of
as
theepisodeis limited. Furthermore, Simon observes (1966, 895 f), it is unlikely
that at thisperiod Christianswould have directlylinkedBellerophonwith'rider
saints',or withJoseph,temptedby Potiphar'swife,while thereis no passage in
earlyChristianliteraturethat could suggestsome otherspecifically Christianin-
78 JANET HUSKINSON
of the myth. Because of this,and the factthatthe HintonSt. Mary
terpretation
mosaicis the only certaininstanceof an intimatelink betweenBellerophonand
it seemsimpossiblethatone can speak of a 'Bellerophonchristianus*
Christianity,
in thesenseofBellerophonbeingexplicitly consideredas a pagan typeofChrist.
Three representations oftheSun-God,Sol, are knownfromChristiansettings.66

These are in themosaicin theTomb oftheJuliiin theVatican Cemetery(PI. V),
in the sarcophagusrelieffromLa Gayolle in southernFrance, which are both
dated to the thirdcentury,and in the earlyfourthcenturyfrescoin theCatacomb
ofSS. Peterand Marcellinusat Rome (PL VI, c). Otherrepresentations whichare
connectedwithChristianity (butlessdirectly, throughtheirinclusionwithChristian
material) are to be foundin the 'Calendar of 354', and in a mid-fourth century
bronzecasket-covering fromCsâszâr in Hungary. One should also mentionthe
continuedappearanceof Sol typeson coinageas late as a.D. 325, sincethereasons
fortheirretentionby Constantineafterthe Peace of the Church,and fortheir
subsequentdisappearancehave been muchdebated.68
However,the firstthreescenes(thosefromChristianfunerary settings)are the
mostimportant forthepurposeofthisstudy. Theyhave beendiscussedas a group
by Perler,and the coherentand developedsymbolism thathe proposesforthem
seemsto me, at least,to be mostconvincing.
In the Tomb of theJuliithe figureof Sol ridingto the leftin his quadriga (the
two horsesthat were presumablyon the leftof the scene are lost) occupies an
octagonalspace in thecentreofthevault (PL V). It is framedby a vinescrollthat
coversthe restof the ceilingand the upper portionsof the walls, leavingfreea
lunette-shaped panel in each wall. The panel on theeastwall containeda sceneof
Jonah beingswallowedby the whale,thaton the west,a Good Shepherdwitha
sheep,and thaton thenorthwall, a fisherman withone fishcaughton hisline and
anotherswimming away. These sceneswouldalone testify to the Christiannature
of the decorationof the tomb (whichwas in factbuiltin the late secondcentury
fora pagan family,and re-decoratedforChristianownerssometimebeforethe
mid thirdcentury),57 and wouldsuggestthatthefigureofSol mightbe givensome
Christianinterpretation here. But the figureitselfseemsto incorporatea speci-
ficallyChristianfeaturethatreinforces thissignificance.For althoughthe figure
is clearlybased on the Sol invictus
typeofRoman imperialart,witha globein the
lefthand and the righthand (now lost) apparentlyraisedin salute,the raysof
lightemanatingfromthenimbusare so arrangedthatthedoublehorizontalbeam
suggeststhe armsof a cross. As Toynbeeobserves(1956, 124), 'ifthisimpression
is not deceptive,we have herea remarkableand, it appears,unparalleledinstance
of the associationof a cross,or at least a hintof a cross,withChristin mid-third-
centuryart5; but evidencefromearlyChristianliterature showsthat fromquite an
earlydate the Crossof Christand the Crucifixion weregivena cosmicsignificance
thatcould be easilyrelatedto such a representation ofChristas theSun.68
Here, therefore,it would seem that Christ is portrayedby the figureof Sol.
His orb and gestureof salute,directlytakenfromimperialart,signify the power
and majestyof His eternalkingdom;whilethe centralpositionof thescenein the
vault emphasisesthe themeof apotheosis. The image of the Sun risingagain in
gloryafterits descentbelow the earthwas, as Perlerexpounds(1953, 13 ff),fre-

quentlyused in early Christianliturgyto expressthe Easter message; and this
themeof resurrection is reinforced here by the obvious baptismalsymbolismof
the sceneson the threewalls, and by the possibleinterpretation of the vine that
linksand enfoldsall thefiguredscenesas a Eucharistiesymbol.
Klauser (JbACx, 102), who in any case prefersto date the mosaicsas late as
possible,raisesthe objectionthat such an interpretation would be too advanced
fortheperiod,and suggests thattheSol mosaicmightperhapsbe a survivalfroman
earlier,'nichtorthodox-christlichen' phase of the Tomb's decoration. But even
if one pays littleattentionto the testimony of 'spekulativeTheologenaus dem
Osten', to whichKlauser objects,otherevidenceshowsthat alreadyby the mid
thirdcenturyimagesof illuminationand resurrection were frequently employed
in baptismalcontexts, so thatthisrepresentation ofChrist,theRisingSun shouldnot
seemunfitting here.59
Butfurther indicationthattheVatican scenesdo reflecta sustainedprogramme
of ideas concerningresurrection and rebirththroughbaptismis providedby the
sarcophagusfromLa Gayolleand the frescofromthe Catacombof SS. Peterand
Marcellinus(PI. VI, c); forhere too Sol is depictedalongsideChristianfigures
thatrepresent the hope ofimmortality throughbaptism. On the sarcophagusthe
frontalbustofSol, drapedand radiate,appearson theleft,above thefigureof an
anglerholdinga basket,and to the rightof it are scenesof an orartsbetweentwo
trees(by one of whichare severalsheepand an anchor,and in which'soul-birds'
perch),a philosopher and tinyfemalefigure,a Good Shepherdbetweentrees,and,
in the righthand corner,an unidentified male deityor personification.In the
fresco(PL VI, c) the representation of Sol is closerto thatof the Vatican mosaic.
He is shownnimbedand dressed in a long robe,drivinga bigafromrightto left
withthe reinsin his lefthand. As in the Tomb of theJuliithe figuredecorates
the centreof a vault (thistime of the arcosolium) ; and behindthiscentralroundel
a
are fourpanelslike cross, two arms of which link theroundelwithlunette-shaped
panels at the sides. These enclose two scenes from the storyofJonah- his de-
liverancefromthewhale, and restbeneath the gourd-tree;whileon the back wall
is
ofthearcosoliumdepicted a celestialbanquet.
To sum up, the same Christianscenesrecuron thesemonuments in close asso-
ciationwith the of
figure Sol, and this would seem to indicate the existence of a
fullydeveloped and coherent symbolism. Christ is shown hererising as the Easter
Sun at the Resurrection, givingnew lifeto the soulswhichHe has saved through
baptism (signifiedby the fishermanand Jonah scenes) and led to Paradise
(indicated by the Orans and Good Shepherd figuresand by the banquet
scene).
To appreciatein its properperspectivethisuse of the pagan Sol-typeto re-
presentChrist,one need simplyrecall the greatimportanceascribedto the god
Sol in pagan religiousand politicalthoughtof this period.60 Obviouslythese
examplesfromChristianfunerary art reflectsomething of thecosmicand funerary
symbolism attached to pagan representations of the god,but theyshowthatChrist-
ians were not afraid to use the figure of one of the most prominent ofpagan deities
to expresstheirown religiousideas, and they would seem to providea visualparallel
80 JANET HUSKINSON
to similarcases of 'christianisation' in Christianliterature
of Sol and his attributes
and liturgy.61
Literaryreferences are evenmoreimportant forour understanding ofthescenes

of Ulyssesand the Sirensin earlyChristianart,as theyprovidethe onlyreal clue
as to possibleChristianinterpretations of the episode. Unlike most of the re-
presentations discussedso far,all but one of the Ulyssesscenesthatmay be linked
with Christianity are pagan in origin;of theseone is in a floor-mosaic at Ostia,
whiletherestoccuron sarcophaguslidsdatingfromthethirdcentury{cf.PI. VI, b).
The only Christianexample (knownto me) is a bronzelamp of the fifth or sixth
centuryin the formof a ship containingthe figuresof Ulyssesand a seaman (PI.
IV, b) ; the dove whichoriginally surmounted themastprovidestheonlyapparent
linkwithChristianity,62 but thismaybe somewhattenuoussinceonlya fragment of
the birdsurvives.
The sarcophaguslids with scenesof Ulyssesand the Sirenswere re-usedby
Christians in thedecorationofa chapeloutsideRome (PL VI, i), and in theRoman
catacombswheretheyprobablycoveredloculi;theybelongto a seriesoflids dated
to thethirdcentury whichincludesotherexamplesthatwerenotfoundin Christian
sites.63The floor-mosaic in theBathsofMithrasat Ostia belongsto theHadrianic
period,whenthe Bathswereconstructed, and was apparentlyretainedinsitueven
afterthe northernpart of thefrigidarium, which it decorated,was convertedto
Christianuse, probablyas a smallchurchin the mid-fourth century. In none of
thesecases did the Christiansmake any iconographicalalterationsto the scene,
nor did theyadd or juxtaposeany specifically Christianfeatures;and so it seems
reasonableto conclude that theyfoundsome religioussignificance in the scene
itself,and that thissignificance may be relatedin some way to the pagan inter-
pretationofthemyth.
In factthedifferent theoriesproposedbymodernscholarsindicatethattheremay
have beena varietyofpagan interpretations, which,supportedbythegeneralloveof
a well-knownstory,could have accountedforthe popularityof this episode in
Romanart. Manyofthesetheories(whichare summarised and collatedbyKlauser
in JbACvi, 71 f, 89 ff) suggesta philosophicalinterpretation, forsome of these
sarcophaguslids (includingtwofromChristiansites64) have a secondscenedepicting
a philosophers' debate. Courcelle(1944,87) findstheinspiration ofthetwoscenes
in Neo-Platonicfunerary thought,withUlysses'rejectionofthe Sirenssymbolising
'le triomphesur la morte',and the philosophers' conversationThéroïsationpar la
culture'; Cumont (1942, 329 ff) interpretsthem in a Neo-Pythagoreansense,
seeingtheSirens,withtheircelestialsinging,as helpersratherthanobstacleson the
soul'sjourneyto heaven; while Marrou (1937, 252 f) seeksa moregeneralphilo-
sophicalsignificance in thejuxtapositionof the scenes,describingthe philosophers
as disciplesof the Muses,and Ulyssesas the disciplepar excellence who abjuredthe
carnal temptations of the Sirens. Klauser {JbACvi, 93 f), on the otherhand,
believesthat the scenes were the productof popular ratherthan philosophical
thought,as the relatively poor people who probablysponsoredsomeof the cruder
sarcophagus reliefswere unlikelyto have appreciatedcomplexNeo-Platonicor
Neo-Pythagorean ideas. But this argumentis not particularlyconvincingin
viewofthefrequentand deliberatejuxtapositionofthe twoscenes;and unlessone

favoursone ofthemorespecificand exclusivephilosophicaltheories, a moregeneral
interpretationof the scene- whichcould allow forthe morespecifictheories - as
thesuperiority ofthetruephilosophicallifeoverthespeciousattractions ofphysical
pleasuresseemsmostacceptable.
But althoughChristianity is unlikelyto have providedthe originalinspiration
forthisseriesas Wilpertimplied(S i, 14 ff;iii, 5 ff), earlyChristianliteratureshows
how the mythwas givena varietyof Christianinterpretations.These have been
discussedby Rahner(1963,328 ff). In thebasicinterpretation Ulysses'homeward
voyageis identifiedwiththe Christian's journeyto heaven,and theSirenswiththe
temptations to whichhis faithis exposed; unlikehis companions,whoseears are
stoppedwithwax, Ulyssesrunsthe riskof yielding,but is saved by his abilityto
distinguishgood fromevil. In morecomplexinterpretations Ulyssesis identified
withthe Church,or withthe individualChristiansoul,or the ship oflifecrossing
dangerousseas to the heaven-haven. The ship's mast representsthe Cross of
Christto whichtheChristianis boundby thebondsoftheSpirit,wherehe decides
betweenlifeand death; elsewhere,however,ChristHimselfis the 'heavenlyOdy-
are His companionswhoseearsHe has stoppedagainstworldly
sseus',and Christians
temptations.
InterpretationsoftheSirensare evenmorevaried,and changewiththechanging
concernsof the Church. At first(and even in the sixthcentury65) theyare con-
sideredto be the embodiment of classicallearning,whichthe Christianmusttake
into accountforits meritsor shun accordingto the strength of his faithand his
In
abilityto discernthe good fromthe specious.66 anotherinterpretation, first
foundin Hippolytus, theSirenssymbolise of and
thefalseattractions heresy, Ulysses
thematureChristianwho hearsbut does notfollow;again,weakerChristians must
be prevented to
fromhearinglesttheyyield.67 The last interpretation givento be
the mythis thisperiodwas based on Hellenisticideas: the Sirenssymbolisedom-
niscienceand carnalpleasure,the two dangersof GreekGnosticism, and a signof
worldlinessin the Churchherself.68
These, therefore,werethe typesofChristianinterpretation thatwereprobably
given to the pagan representations of the episode re-usedin the decorationof
Christianchurches,and thatinspiredthe one specifically Christian versionof the
sceneknownto us, thaton the bronzelamp (PL IV, b). Ulyssesmay well have
been identifiedwithChrist,but the varietyofpossibleinterpretations preventsany
definiteor generalconclusions.
It is occasionallyimplied by scholarsthat there are representations in this

periodof'Herculeschristianus', although hithertono definite example has come to
light. References givenoftenshowthat an innocentcause ofthis misunderstanding
is Simon'sHercule (1955), whichdescribesthe development
etle Christianisme ofthe
of
cult of Herculesand its points similarity and interactionwith Christianitythat
would indeedhave provided an ideal background forsuch a but
figure; nowhere
does Simonmentiona representation ofHerculesin theChristianartofthisperiod.
A fewyearsafterthepublicationofthisbook,thediscovery oftheVia Latina Cata-
comb at Rome revealedan outstanding instanceofthedepictionofHerculesin an
82 JANET HUSKINSON
apparentlyChristiansetting. These frescoes,which show various exploits of

Hercules(the Hydra,the Applesof the Hesperides,the conquestofAntaeus(?),69
the returnof Alcestis,and Minerva'sgreeting),decoratea singlecubiculum which
containsno Christianscenes; and apartfroma fewminorexamplesassociatedwith
Christianityonlythroughthe circumstances theyare the only
of theirdiscovery,70
representations ofHerculesto occurin anykindofChristian context. The common
themeof thesescenesis Hercules' conquestof the forcesof death and evil, but
whetherhe appears hereas 'christianus'dependsupon the relationship between
paganismand Christianity in the Catacomb.
This particularproblemhas been much discussed,notablyby Ferrua (1960),
Simon (1964), and Schumacher(1971); and wide acceptancehas been given to
Ferrua'stheorythatthe Catacombwas used as a privateburialplace by a family
or groupof families,and thatthe pagan scenesreflectthe different religiousper-
suasionsoftheirmembers.71On theotherhand Goodenough(1962, 133) suggests
thatthe Catacombwas exclusively Christianand thatChristiansdepictedepisodes
fromthe mythof Hercules - as theyused biblicalfigureselsewhere- to symbolise
theirown religiousideas about the conquestof death. In this case one might
speakof 'Herculeschristianus'. But as Ferrua(1960, 94) rightlyobserves,thereis
insufficient
evidenceto supportthistheory, whileparticulardetails,notedbySimon
(1964, 333f), and the generalspiritof the Herculesscenesrathersuggesta pagan
origin. The conclusionsof Simon seem to me to be the mostconvincing. He
tooconsiders it mostlikelythattheCatacombwas sharedbya family(orfamilies)of
differentreligions,and believesthatthe scenesof Herculeswereprobablypainted
forpagans,and thattheydepicthimas a mysticsaviourin termswhichhave their
Christianparallelin the biblicalscenesof deliverancein otherroomsof the Cata-
comb,and whichreflecttheimportanceattachedto Herculesas a saviourfigurein
laterpaganism.72
What conclusionsmay,then,be drawnabout the roleofthesepagan mytholo-

gical figures in earlyChristianart?
it
Firstly, emergesthatfiguresofOrpheus,Sol, and Ulyssesmayall, to varying
degrees,be associatedwithChristHimself, and so meritthe description'christianus'
in thesensedefinedabove. Bellerophon, however,doesnot,forhe is neveractually
identified withChrist,but merelylinked(and, at the most,compared)withHim
a
through juxtapositionofimages. In thecase ofHerculesall dependson whether
thefrescoes in theVia Latina Catacombsare consideredto be pagan or Christianin
origin; but even iftheywerepaintedforChristians, it wouldseemthattheysimply
compareHercules,the Saviourfromdeath,withChrist,and do notintenda more
intimateassociation.
Althoughpracticallyall the representations of these'christianised'figuresare
fromfunerarycontexts - the exceptionsbeing the figureof Sol in the 'Calendar
of354', theUlysseslamp (PI. IV, b), thepagan mosaicofUlyssesretainedat Ostia,
and, significantly, all the Bellerophonexamples - the natureand extentof their
identification withChristvaryfromcase to case. The threefunerary monuments
depicting Sol show the pagan figure-typeapparently identified
fullywith Christ,
the Sol Salutisiand playinga key part in the programmeof baptismalimagery
thattheyall display. So directan incorporation into Christianart was probably

largelydue to thegreatwealthofsolarimageryto be foundin theBible and early
Christianliterature,73In contrast,the Christianinterpretations of Orpheus and
Ulyssesappear more indirectand allegorical. With Orpheus it is difficult to
determinehow closelythe pagan singeris meantto be identified withChrist - all
the moreso as thesignificance ofthesceneapparentlyaltersin the courseoftime.
But one may perhapsconcludethatin the earlierperiod,thatis to say up to the
mid-fourth century, ChristianrepresentationsofOrpheusstoodin thesamerelation-
shipto Christas did scenesoftheGood Shepherd,and that,liketheGood Shepherd,
theyalluded to Christ'srole as psychopompand peacefulguardianof a pastoral
paradise. In the later examples,however,the allusionseems to be to Christ's
rulein theMessianicKingdom. In thescenesofUlyssesand theSirens,thepagan
hero mighthave been interpretedas Christ,rejectingwith heavenlyguidance
wordlytemptations ; but again we cannotbe certainthatthiswas the actual signi-
ficanceintendedforeveryscene, as Christianliteratureshowsthat a varietyof
meaningswas attachedto thismyththroughout theperiod.
Secondly,the reasonsfor the selectionof these particularpagan figuresto
decorateChristiansettingsappear to be equally varied. On the mostpractical
leveltheretention oftheBellerophonmosaicat Lullingstone aftertheintroduction
of Christianityto the villa may well be explainedby the owner'sthrift, or simple
failureto findanything in it incompatiblewithhis Christianbeliefs. And thefact
that the mosaics at Hinton St. Mary and Frampton - which provide the only
of Bellerophonalongsideof Christianmotifs - may be attributed
representations
to the same mosaicworkshop74 suggeststhatthe Bellerophonscenesin thesepave-
mentsmay merelyhave been a copy-book(?) specialityof the local craftsmen,
thatwas combinedwiththe Christianfeaturesto ensureadditionalprosperity and
good fortuneforthe households. But thiscannotbe the total picture,and, as I
have triedto show,anydeepersignificance to be foundin thefigures in thesepave-
mentsmustsurelybe based on theconceptofvictoryoverdeath and evil,common
to both pagan hero and ChristianGod. Practicalreasonsmay also accountfor
manyofthescenesofUlyssesand theSirens,forall but one (ofthoseknownto me)
occurin re-used,probablypagan material,mainlyin the area of Rome and Ostia.
Obviouslya Christianmeaningwas projectedback into thesepagan scenes,re-
used forconvenience,and did not providetheiroriginalinspiration. In factit
wouldseemthattheepisodeofUlyssesand theSirensinspiredveryfewillustrations
in earlyChristianart,althoughit was the subjectof muchcommentand analysis
in Christianliterature throughout thisperiod.75
On theotherhand,thefigures ofSol and Orpheusweresurelyselectedeachforits
value as an expressionof a Christiantruthand activelydepictedas such. Para-
doxicallyin the case of Sol the figurewithits pagan religiousand politicalconno-
tationswas closelyassociatedwithforceshostileto Christianity, but, as we have
seen,was actuallyconvertedinto an image of ChristHimself. Orpheusprovides
perhapsthe greatestpuzzle as regardsthe reasonsfor his selection. For early
Christianart musthave had manyothermoresuitablesymbols,such as the Good
Shepherdand Orans figures,that were derivedfromcontemporary secular art
(and could therefore be used,ifnecessary, forcrypto-Christian purposes),and that
84 JANET HUSKINSON
expressedbeliefsabout Christand theAfterlife similarto thosethatOrpheuswould

appear to represent. We must therefore suppose that the Christianstook the
Orpheus scene as the unique symbolof some specificidea that theywishedto
stress- suchas the 'Song' ofChrist. Or theymayhave attachedgreatimportance
to someaspectoftheOrpheusmyththatwe nowtendto overlook,suchas thestory
of his conversionto monotheism and his propheciesof the True God, or the sub-
jection of Nature to the divineharmony. Perhaps,too, artisticfactors,such as
the workshoptradition,may have been importantforthe appearanceof Orpheus
in Christiancontexts, sincethe Orpheusscenesseemto be restricted to onlya few
branchesof Christianart (not occurringin gold-glass,forinstance); thisis par-
ticularlynoticeablein comparisonwithotherapparentlysimilarsymbols,such as
the Good Shepherd.
Thirdly,chronologyprovidesa usefulindicationas to the role of thesemyth-
ological figuresin early Christianart. For of the threefiguresdistinguished as
'christianus',the greatmajorityof representations date frombeforethe Peace of
the Churchor the mid-fourth centuryat the latest(exceptionsbeingOrpheuson
the Intercisarelief,and on theJerusalemmosaic,and Ulysseson the bronzelamp
(PL IV, #)),and thusbelongto a periodin whichChristians borrowedmanymotifs
fromcontemporary pagan art to symbolisetheirbeliefsaboutsalvation. As new
imagesdevelopedafterthatto expressthenewsituationofthetriumphant Church,
so mostoftheseoldermotifswerenaturallyreplaced,and the 'christianised' myth-
ologicalfiguresdisappear,or, in the case of Orpheus,receivea new significance.
There is no evidenceto suggestthat theywere deliberatelybanishedbecause of
theirpagan nature. The factthatthetwomostimportant examplesofBellerophon
withChristianassociations - Hinton St. Mary and Frampton - both occur in the
mid-fourth century,and have no precedentsin the earliestChristianart, is yet
anotherindicationthat Bellerophondoes not perhapsfitinto the generalpicture
ofthesepagan mythological in earlyChristianart.
figures
Finally,passages from early Christianliteraturemay be intimatelylinkedwith
the representationsin art ofOrpheus,Ulysses,and Sol. Althoughsuchreferences
can sometimesprovidemisleadingevidence(since one can onlyspeculateon the
extentoftheirinfluence),theyare invaluablein thecases ofOrpheusand Ulysses,
since theyare the only real indicationsas to why thesesceneswere acceptedin
Christiansettings. Here too Bellerophonis the odd man out, as Christianlitera-
tureseemsto offernothingto supporthisportrayalin Christianart.
On the otherhand, the use of thesefiguresas Christianimagescannoteasily
be reconciledwith the fulminations against pagan mythologyfound amongst
certainChristianwriters. But it givesa moreaccuratereflection than do theyof
the contemporary pagan attitudeto myths. Whereasmanyofthetiradesare pre-
judiced and ofteninaccuratein factsand in the impression whichtheygive that
pagans still believedliterallyin all the absurd and immoraltales of mythology,
thesescenesexemplifythe type of allegoricalinterpretation that many thinking
pagans had longsincegivento themyths.
Althoughone cannotspeakofa processof 'christianisation' sharedby Orpheus,
Ulysses,and Sol, certaincommonfactorsemerge. Most examplesofthese'christi-
anised' figurescome fromreligioussites,manyfromfunerary and many
settings,
fromthe area of Rome and Ostia (as is shownin Appendix2). Furthermore,

mostbelongto the earlyperiodof Christianart when Christianswere borrowing
othermotifsfromcontemporary pagan art to expresstheirown religiousbeliefs.
The figure-types, and in some cases the objects themselves, were derivedquite
naturallyfromtheirpagan surroundings.But it would be wrongto attributethe
use of thesemythological figuressimplyto creativeinadequacyin earlyChristian
art,foras literaryreferences show theycould be interpreted in different
ways as
Christianparables. This surelyexplainsthe tolerationby Churchauthoritiesof
thesefiguresin the catacombsand otherreligioussites. The scenesmusthave
receivedofficialapproval,and cannotmerelyhave been introducedthroughthe
isolatedwhimof some individual(whetherpagan or Christian),or throughthe
independentinitiativeor misunderstanding of particularcraftsmen;76
nor,forthe
same reason,can theyreallybe worksof 'folk-art'as Klauser (1965, 7 f) suggests.
The two Bellerophonmosaics,however,fromapparentlysecularsitesat Hinton
St. Mary and Framptonwereinspiredby the tastesof privatepatrons,or wereat
least acceptedby them. But, as we have seen,Bellerophondoes not fitour des-
althoughhe is closelylinkedwithChristand His symbols
criptionof 'christianus',
in thesepavements. Only Orpheus,Ulysses,and Sol would seem to meritthis
title.
Janet Huskinson
APPENDIX 1. REPRESENTATIONS OF BELLEROPHON, HERCULES,

ORPHEUS, SOL AND ULYSSES WITH SPECIFICALLY CHRISTIAN
ASSOCIATIONS
to themostimportantor mostrecentpublications,and otherrelevantdetails.

Includedare references
Bellerophon
1. Floor-mosaic,Lullingstone,Kent; in situ. About a.d. 330.
G. W. Meates, LullingstoneRomanVilla, 1955, 19 ff;pls. 3,5,6,and 7; Toynbee, 1962, no.
193,pl. 228; Hiller, 1970,66 ff,fig.25.
The parts of the villa convertedfor Christianuse were made quite self-contained(Toynbee,
withthesemosaics.
1968, 186f), and did notincludethe triclinium
2. Floor-mosaicfromHintonSt. Mary, Dorset; BritishMuseum (Registerno. 1965 4-9 1). Mid

fourthcentury.
Toynbee, 1964,7 ff,pls. I ffand Frontispiece;1968, 180 ff;Smith,1965,99 ff,pl. 5; Simon,
1966,889 ff;Brandenburg,1968,49 ff;Hiller, 1970,79 ff,fig.29.
For the Christiansignificanceof othermotifsin the pavementsee Toynbee, 1964, 10 ff,14.
For theproblemofthefunctionof the building,see Painter,1971, 164 ff.
9
3. 'Neptuneand Chi-RhoMosaic', Frampton,Dorset; insitu(?) Mid fourthcentury. (PL IV, a)

Toynbee,1962,no. 199,pl. 234; 1968, 181 ff;Brandenburg,1968,58, note 14, 78 ff.
The mosaicis knownonlyfroma drawingby Lysons,who reconstructed the damaged scene in
the centralroundelto show a mountedhunterspearingan animal runningbelow. However,this
in thatthefiguresappear unnecessarily
seemsunsatisfactory crampedin the upper part of the field,
and no explanationis givenforthe long narrowobject divided obliquelyinto foursections,that
hangsin frontof the rider'sknee. More acceptableis the recentreconstructionby David Neal of
theDepartmentoftheEnvironment(to whomI am gratefulforpermissionto reproducehisdrawing
86 JANETHUSKINSON
as PL IV, a), which makes Bellerophonand the Chimaera the subjectof the scene. This solves
both of the problemsraised by Lysons'version,forthe emptyspace whichhe leftin frontof the
animal's head is now occupied by the lion's head of the Chimaera,and the object in frontof the
rider'sleg becomesthe end of Pegasus' wing.
Hercules
4. Frescoes;Via Latina Catacomb,Rome; Cubiculum N. Mid (?) fourthcentury.
Ferma, 1960,78 f,pls. LXXVI, 1; LXXX, 1; LXXXI, 1; CXI ff.
For otherscenesdecoratingthiscubiculum
see Ferma, 1960,76 ff.
5. 'The Oceanus Dish' fromthe MildenhallTreasure; BritishMuseum (Reg. no. BM 1946 10-7
1). Early fourthcentury.
Toynbee, 1962,no. 106,pl. 117.
The drunkenHercules,supportedby two satyrs,appears in the outerband of figureswho form
a Bacchic thiasos.
The Christianspoons included in this Treasure simplyindicate possible Christianownership
forthesilverwareat one time,and do not necessarilyimplythatthe pagan sceneson thisand other
plates mustbe interpretedin a Christiansense. Cf K. Painter,'The MildenhallTreasure: a Re-
ÄM&xxxvii, 1973, 166 ff.
consideration',
6. Fragmentsofa statuefromthe Gymnasiumsite,Salamis,Cyprus.Second centuryA.D.

V. Karageorghis,Sculptures
fromSalamisi, 1964, no. 7, pl. XV.
The head and torsoof a statueof Herculeswhichhad presumablyadorned the Roman gym-
nasium (withotherclassical statues),and which was retainedin the later Christianrebuildingof
the site.
7. Gold-glassmedallions,allegedlyfromthe Roman catacombs. Late fourthcentury(?).

(a) Herculeswitha marriedcouple; BritishMuseum.
Volbach, 1961,no. 11.
Inscribed ORFITUS ET COSTANTIA IN NOMINE HERCULIS ACERENTINO
FELICES BIBATIS.
(b) Herculesand the Erymanthianboar (?); Vatican, Museo Sacro (no. 198).
R. Garrucci,Vetriornatidifigurein oro,(firstedition),1858, 71, pl. XXXV, no. 6.
InscribedZHCATO.
(c) HerculesgraspingMinervaby the hand; whereaboutsunknown.
GarrucciVetri71 f,pl. XXXV, no. 8.
InscribedTICI ABEAS HERCULE ATENENTINO PROPITE
(d) Herculeswiththe Ceryneianhind; PuseyHouse Collection,AshmoleanMuseum,Oxford.
C. R. Morey, The Gold-glass collection
of theVaticanLibrary(editedby G. Ferrari),1959,no.
369, pl. XXXII.
(e) HerculeswithPasiphae's bull (?); BritishMuseum.
O. M. Dalton, Catalogue of theearlyChristian in theBritishMuseum,1901, no. 602,
antiquities
pl. XXXI; MoreyGold-glass collection
no. 324, pl. XXX.
Orpheus
Contraryto suggestionsmade elsewhereno specificChristianassociationsmay be establishedfor
the ivorypyxidesin Bobbio and Florence (Volbach, 1961, no. 84; cf. H. Graeven,'Pyxide en os',
Mon. Piotvi, 1899, 160- thoughlegend describedthe Bobbio pyxisas a giftfromS. Gregoryto S.
Columbanus); nor for the Romano-BritishOrpheus pavements(Toynbee, 1968, 188 f; Smith,
1969,88 ff;Painter,1971, 166); norfortheAnnasfigure,once thoughtto have come froma church
(E. Naville,Ahnasel Medinah,1894,pl. XIV, 32 ff; cf.E. Kitzinger,'Noteson earlyCopticsculpture',
Arckaeologialxxxvii,1937, 192).
8. Fresco; Catacomb of S. Callixtus,Rome. About a.d. 230.

Wilpert,1903,223, pl. 37.
Orpheusplaysto two (?) sheep. In thecentreofthevaultofthecubiculum.
9. Fresco; Catacomb of Domitilla, Rome, Cubiculum III. Lost. Late third or early fourth
century(?).
Bosio, 1632,239 (thoughhe mistakenly assignsit to the Catacomb of S. Callixtus); Wilpert,
1903,224, pl. 55 (afterthe removalof the Orpheusscene).
Orpheusplays to wild and tame beasts; two treesindicatethe landscape. The scene occupied
the centreofthe vault,and the eightsurrounding panels containedbiblicalscenesalternatingwith
landscapeswitha bull or ram.
10. Fresco; Catacomb of SS. Peter and Marcellinus,Rome, Cubiculum

V. Late thirdor early
fourthcentury(?).
Wilpert,1903,224, pl. 98.
Orpheusplaysto foursheepon therightand two on theleft(accordingto Wilpert,as thefresco

is badly damaged). Above a doorway,on eitherside ofwhichare biblicalscenes.
11. Fresco; Catacomb of S. Priscilla,Rome. Mid fourthcentury.

Wilpert,1903,224; DACL xii, 2, 2739, fig.9239.
Orpheus sits,holdingout the lyreand plectrum hands, with a ram, sheep (?),
in outstretched
dog (?), and othersmallanimalson eitherside. In thevault ofan arcosolium,
but theuppersection
is now lost.
12. Fresco; Catacomb of Domitilla,Cubiculum IV. Second halfoffourthcentury(PL III a).

Bosio, 1632,255; Wilpert,1903,224, pl. 229.
Orpheusis surroundedby wild and domesticcreatures(includinga camel and a dromedary).
In the lunetteof an arcosolium.Wilpertsuggeststhat the scene may have been copied fromthe
earlierOrpheusfrescoin thiscatacomb (no. 9 above).
13. Fresco; Catacomb of SS. Peter and Marcellinus; Via Segni region, I, 6. Second half of
fourthcentury(?) (PL III b).
Ferma, 1958,55, pl. XVIb; 1968,72; Friedman,1970,47 ff,fig.5.
Orpheussits,holdingthe lyreand plectrum hands,betweentwo largetreeswhich
in outstretched
containa dove and an eagle (?). In the lunetteof an arcosolium
, but the lowerpart (whichmay
have includedsome animals) is lost.
14. Fragmentof a strigillatedsarcophagusfromOstia; Vatican, Museo Pio Cristiano(no. 156).

About a.D. 230.
WilpertS i, pl. VII, 3; ii, 351; Calza, 1964,217 f,XXXVIII, fig.40; RS i, no. 70, pl. 22.
This fragment comprisesthe leftcornerpanel, the left-handstrigillated panel, and mostof the
centralpanel of the sarcophagusfront. The head and rightarm of the fisherman in the leftpanel
are restorations,and the inscriptionFIRMI DULCIS ANIMA SANCTI which runs along the
upper border,is mostprobablya lateraddition.
The other'quite similar'sarcophaguswhich Eisler, 1921, pl. XXXIV cites in O. Wulff,Alt-
undbyzantinische
christliche Kunsti, 1914, 107, fig.87 is surelyone and the same as this.
15. SarcophagusfromOstia; Ostia Museum (no. 1202). About a.d. 230 (PL VI, a).
D. Vaglieli, Notiziedegliscavi,1910,96 ff,figs.3 and 4, 137 ff;WilpertS ii, 351, pl. CCLVI,
6; Calza, 1964,220 ff,XL, figs.42 and 42a; RS i, no. 1022,pl. 164.
A strigillatedsarcophaguswith a centralscene verysimilarto that of the Vatican fragment
(no. 14 above). The cornerpanels showa man (right)and a woman (left)beforelooped curtains.
In thepast thissarcophagushas been describedwithoutquestionas Christianon accountofthe
88 JANETHUSKINSON
circumstances ofitsdiscovery. It was foundin the ruinsofa smallapsed buildingnear the theatre
at Ostia where,accordingto tradition,several early Christianshad been martyred. They were
commemoratedby a small shrineerectedin the earlymiddle ages, whichlater became knownas
theChurchofS. Cyriacus(Ostiai, 162; R. Meiggs,RomanOstia,secondedition,1973,563; cfFévrier,
1958,303) ; and servingas a lid to thissarcophaguswas a fragmentary marbleslab inscribedHIC/
QUIRIACUS/DORMIT IN PACE (Vaglieri,op.cit.,137 f,fig.4) . Whetherthisrefers to Cyriacus,
bishopof Ostia martyredin the thirdcentury,or to a namesake,cannotat presentbe settled. For
neitherthe inscriptionnor the shrinecan be dated withany accuracy; and it is also possiblethat
the slab may have been moved at a later date fromthe tomb of Quiriacus,which it origianally
covered,to the Orpheussarcophaguswhereit was later found(cf.Vaglieri,op. cit.,138; and also
Février,1958,297 ff).
One cannottherefore be certainthatthissarcophaguswas intendedfor,or used by, a Christian
named Quiriacus (whetherthe bishop himselfor a follower),but its presencein the later shrine
suggeststhatit was used by Christians, at any ratein theperiodafterthePeace ofthe Church.
16. Fragmentof a sarcophagusfromOstia; Ostia Museum (no. 101). About a.d. 230.
G. Pesce, Sarcofagiromanidi Sardegna,1957, 103, note 4.
The Orpheussceneis similarto thosecitedabove.
17. Sarcophagus fromPorto Torres, Sardinia; Basilica di San Gavino, Porto Torres. About
a.D. 230.
G. Pesce, Sarco/agi
romanidi Sardegna,1957,no. 57, figs.113 ff;Calza, 1964,218, XXXIX,
figs.41 and 41a.
Very similarto Ostia no. 1202 (no. 15 above), althoughPesce, op. cit.,103 exaggeratesthe re-
semblance;perhapsit originatedin the same Ostian workshop.
18. Two fragments ofa sarcophagusfromthe Catacomb of S. Callixtus.

WilpertS ii, 351, pl. CCLVI, 2.
No animals or subsidiaryscenessurvivein thesefragmentswhich makes it impossibleto say
whetherthe sarcophagus- or sarcophagi- wereintendedforChristianuse.
19. Fragmentofa sarcophagusfromthe Catacomb of S. Praetextatus.

WilpertS ii, 351, pl. CCLVI, 3.
20. Fragmentof a sarcophagusfromthe Catacomb of S. Priscilla.

F. Matz, AntikeBildwerkein Rom, ii, 1881, 263, no. 2907; J. Ficker, Die altchristlichen
Bildwerke
im christlichen
Museumdes Laterans,1891, 102.
These appear to be theonlyreferences describedby Matz as showingtheupper
to thisfragment,
part of a gryphon,and the leg and footof a man dressedin trousers. This may not even have
been Orpheus,althoughMatz comparesit with a similarfragmentfrom'Roma Vecchia' in the
Museo TorloniashowingOrpheuswithsheepat hisfeet(butI have beenunable to tracethisfurther).
21. FragmentaryrelieffromCacarens (Gers), France. Late thirdor earlyfourthcentury(?).

E. Le Blant,CRAI xxii,1894,118 f,pl. 1; DACL xii,2, 2746 f,no. 7, fig.9241; E. Ésperandieu,
Recueildes bas-reliefs,
statues,et bustesde la Gaule romaine,ix, 1925, no. 6926.
This has a different
compositionforthe Orpheusscene to that on the Roman and Ostian sar-
cophagus reliefs. Orpheus plays to two rams in a landscape with rocksand a palm-tree. (A
roughcrosshas been cut on the back of the reliefat an unknowndate.)
22. Floor-mosaicfroma cave-tomb,Edessa. a.d. 227/228.

J. B. Segal, Edessa,1970,52, pl. 44.
Orpheus plays to birds,a goat, and a lion. (Edessa was officially
convertedto Christianity
underAbgar IX, a.d. 179-216.)
23. Floor-mosaicin Room I of the porticoofthe ScholaJuuenum, Mactar, Tunisia.

viii, 1957, 107 f,fig.9c; pl. XXXVII e and f.
G. C-Picard, 'Civitas Mactaritana',Karthago
Possiblyan Orpheus scene (mainlydestroyedin the fifthcenturybarbarian raids). It was
retainedeven aftertheconversionofthescholato Christianuse in the mid fourthcentury.
24. Floor-mosaicfromJerusalem; ArchaeologicalMuseum, Istanbul. First half of the sixth

century.
P. B. Bagatti,'II musaicodell' Orfeoa Gerusalemme',RACrxxviii,1952, 145 ff;Friedman,
1970,73 ff.
Orpheussitsfacingthe spectatorand holdingout his lyre. Below Pan (right)and a centaur
(left)listen;and in the surrounding fieldare variousbirdsand beasts,tame and wild. The whole
pavementcovereda burial chamber;Bagatti,146, 152, and 156 f has convincingly establishedthe
funerary purposeofthe building(cfLevi, 1942,53 f).
25. Bronze casket-coverings fromIntercisa; Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Müzeum (nos. 64/1903
20 and 21 ; 67/1261). Second halfof the fourthcentury.
G. Supka, 'Frühchristliche Kästenbeschlägeaus Ungarn', ÄQ, xxvii, 1913, 178 ff,no. 2,
fig. II; A. Radnoti, 'Möbel-und Kästenbeschläge',Intercisaii (Archaeologia
Hungaricaxxxvi)
1957, 324 ff,no. 10, fig.60; E. B. Vagò, 'Ausgrabungenin Intercisa1957-1969', Alba Regia
xi, 1970, 117,pl. XLVII, 2.
The arrangementof the scenescan be reconstructed fromseveralfragments. Orpheus plays,
surroundedby wild and tame creatures.
26. Oval cornelian;once in Berlin.

DACL ii, 786, no. 17; xii, 2, 2752 f,no. 20, fig.9248.
Orpheusplaying,encircledby animals. Allegedlyfoundin a catacomb. Gould thisperhaps
et antiquitates
be the gem cited by Raoul-Rochette,1838, 118, and by T. M. Mamachi, Origines
iii, 1846,56, note 2 (DACL xii, 2, 2753, no. 21)?
christianae,
27. Hematitegem; once in Berlin. Third or fourthcentury?

DACL xii, 2, 2753 f,no. 22, fig.9249; Friedman,1970,59, fig.8.
This showsa naked figurecrucified;the crossis surmountedby an upturnedcrescentmoon,
and above are sevenstarsin a semi-circle. InscribedOPOEOC BAKKIKOG.
Sol
28. Vault-mosaic;Tomb of theJulii (Tomb M), Vatican Cemetery. Mid or late thirdcentury
(PL V).
Toynbee,1956,72 ff,pl. 32; Perler,1953,5 ff.
29. SarcophagusfromLa Gayolle; Brignoles(Var), Churchof Saint-Sauveur. Third century.

WilpertS i, pl. I, 3; Perler,1953,36 ff,pl. V.
Klauser (JbACi, 47, II, 2; iii, 112 ff;viii/ix,155, no. 1) doubtsthatthissarcophagusis speci-
ficallyChristian,but mostofits featuresappear elsewhereon contemporary Christianmonuments:
e.g. sarcophagifromVia Lungara (forOrans, Good Shepherd,and angler: Testini,1966,fig.206),
and fromS. Maria antica al Foro Romano (forphilosopherfigure:Testini,1966, fig.203). The
small figuremay be a catachumenreceivinginstructionbeforebaptism (cf. sarcophagusscenes:
Testini,1966,figs.203 and 205a).
30. Fresco; Catacomb of SS. Peter and Marcellinus,Cubiculum of the Tricliniarch. Firsthalf of
fourthcentury(PL VI, c).
Wilpert,1903,30, 2, pl. 160,2; Perler,1953,38 f,pl. VI.
31. 'Calendar of 354'.

Stern,1953, 181,pl. V, 2.
For the Christianfeaturesofthe 'Calendar', see Stern,1953, 113, 117 ff.
90 JANETHUSKINSON
32. Bronzecasket-coveringfromCsâszâr,Hungary. Fourthcentury.
Kästenbeschlägeaus Ungarn', ÄQ, xxvii, 1913, 168 ff,no. 1,
G. Supka, 'Frühchristliche
fig.1.
on one reliefalongsidethe otherGods of the Week. Also fromthe

The figureis represented
same tomb- and apparentlyused to decoratethe same casket- were reliefswithpersonifications
of
Springand Autumn,and medallionswith Christianbiblical and religiousscenesand symbolsof
magic and superstition.
andtheSirens
Ulysses
33. Fragmentof the lid of a child's sarcophagus:Museum of the Catacomb of Saint Callixtus.
Mid thirdcentury.
Klauser JbACvi, 77 f,no. 3, fig.5, pl. Ila.
34. Fragmentofa sarcophaguslid; Museum ofthe Catacomb ofS. Callixtus. Mid thirdcentury.
Klauser JbACvi, 79 f,no. 4, fig.6, pl. 1lb.
35. Fragmentofa sarcophaguslid; Museumofthe Catacomb ofS. Callixtus. Mid thirdcentury.

Klauser JbACvi, 81 f,no. 9, pl. 12b.
36. Fragmentsofa sarcophaguslid (or lids); Museum ofthe Catacomb of S. Priscilla. Mid third
century.
Klauser JbACvi, 82, no. 10, pl. 12c.
See Klauser forthe problemofrestoring thesefragments.
37. Lid of the sarcophagusof AureliusfromAguzzano; Rome, Museo Nazionale delle Terme
(no. 113227). a.d. 230-240 (PL VI, b).
G. Mancini, 'Recenti ritrovamenti di antichitàcristianea Roma', Attidel III Congresso
di
1934, 198 f; Klauser JbACvi, 83 f,no. 12, pls. 13 and 14b.
cristiana,
archeologia
38. Fragmentsofa floor-mosaic; Ostia, Frigidarium of the Bathsof Mithras. Hadrianic.
Ostiai, 160,219; ii, 32 f, 139; iv, 32, no. 56, pl. CVI; Février,1958,311, fig.4, plan B.
These two fragments of a black-and-white pavementwere apparentlyretainedafterthe con-
versionof thispart of thefrigidarium intoa Christianchapel in the late fourthor earlyfifth century
(cfCalza, 1964,241, figs.50 and 50a; R. Meiggs RomanOstia,(secondedition),1973,396 f). It is
possiblethat the Christiansthemselvesdamaged the mosaic (just as theyapparentlydestroyedthe
statuarygroupof Mithrasin the Mithraeumbelow thefrigidarium), but it seemsunlikelythatthey
would have leftthesefragments in the chapel floor.
39. Bronzelamp, reputedlyfromAsia Minor; VirginiaMuseum,Richmond,Virginia(no. 67-20).
Fifthor sixthcentury(PL IV, b).
M. C. Ross 'Byzantinebronzes',Artsin Virginia,
x, 2, 1970,32 f,no. 1.
APPENDIX 2. LIST OF SITES AND FIND-SPOTS

The numbersreferto the cataloguenumbersofthe representations givenin Appendix1. Material
of pagan originis markedby an asteriskin the followinglists.
Rome
Catacomb of S. Callixtus:8, 18, 33*, 34*, 35*.
Catacomb of Domitilla: 9, 12.
Catacomb of SS. Peterand Marcellinus:10, 13, 30.
Catacomb of S. Praetextatus : 19.
Catacomb of S. Priscilla: 11, 20, 36*.
Catacomb ofVia Latina: 4*.
Catacombs (exact find-spotunknown): 7*, 26.

Vatican Cemetery:Tomb ofJulii (Tomb M) : 28.
'Calendar of 354': 31.
Aguzzano (Via Tiburtina): 37*.
Ostia
Bathsof Mithras:38*.
Near San Ercolano (?) (cf G. Calza, 'Nuove testimonianzedel cristianesimoa Ostia', RPARA
XXVI, 1949-51, 136): 14.
Near theatre:15.
unknown:16.
Exact find-spot
Sardinia, Porto Torres: 17 (but probablymade in Ostia).

France
Cacarens (Gers): 21.
La Gayolle (Var): 29.
Britain
Frampton(Dorset): 3.
HintonSt. Mary (Dorset): 2.
Lullingstone(Kent): 1.
MildenhallTreasure(Suffolk) : 5*.
Hungary
Csâszàr: 32.
Intercisa:25.
Tunisia
Mactar: 23*.
Cyprus
Salamis: 6.
Asia Minori?): 39.
Syria
Edessa: 22*.
Israel
Jerusalem:24.
Unknown 27*.
provenance:
Notes
I am verygratefulto Professor on this
J. M. C. Toynbeeforherkindnessin readingand commenting
D. Bulloughforreadingit priorto publication.
paper,and to Professor
Abbreviationsusedand SelectBibliographyare givenon pages96-7.
1. E.g. Boulanger,1925,156; cf.Stern,1955,63.
2. E.g. Venus(as on theTrojectaCasket':Toynbee,1968,190),Neptune(on theSanta Maria Antica
sarcophagus:AS"i, no. 747),andJunoPronuba(in marriagesceneson Christiansarcophagi:Wilpert,
1938,251f).
Alsoomittedhereare thepaganfrescoes in theHypogaeumofVibia in Rome (see Ferma,1971,
in the Hypogaeumof the
56 ffforpagan and Christianburialsthere);and thegnostic(?) frescoes
92 JANETHUSKINSON
Aurelii, Rome (J. Carcopino, De Pythagore aux apôtres,1956, ii, 83 ff,pls. 2-15a). As I have not been
able to verifyfor myselfthe identificationof the figurein the Catacomb of S. Sebastian, Rome,
described by Wilpert (1903, 217, pl. 158, 1) as 'figuravirile ornamentale', and by Klauser (JbAC x,
93, no. 13; 97 f) as 'Hermes Psychopompus* , I cannot comment on Klauser's suggestionthat 'muss
das Bild wohl Jesus als Seelengeleiterwiedergebenwollen*.
3. The catacombs in Rome must have been subject to some degree of officialecclesiastical control in
view of the appointmentof S. Callixtus circaa.d. 200 by Pope Zephyrinusto organize the Christian
'cemetery': Testini, 1966, 226.
4. For attitudesto pagan mythologysee M. Carena, 'La critica della mitologia pagana negli apologeti
greci del II secolo', DidaskaleionNS i, 1923, 2, 23 ff; 3, 3 ff. For legislation: Alföldi, 1937, 31 ff
(cf. Stern, 1953, Ulf, and 98 ffforcontinuationof certainpagan festivals). For cases ofdestruction:
E. Mâle, La findu paganismeen Gaule, 1950, 36 ff,46 f; Ostia ii, 139; C. Mango, 'Antique statuary
and the Byzantinebeholder', Dumbarton Oaks Papersxvii, 1963, 55 f.
5. See F. A. Norwood, 'The attitude of the ante-Nicene Fathers toward Greek artisticachievement'.
Journalof theHistoryof Ideas viii, 1947, 443 ff; A. Prandi, 'L' arte nel pensiero dei primi scrittori
cristiani',Attidel convengo - tardoanticoe alto medioevo
sul tema
internazionale 1967, 1968, 114.
6. Mango, op. cit., 55 ff(Constantinople); P. H. Grisar, Roma alla finedel mondoantico(second edition),
i, 1943, 108 ff. Also D. Brinkerhoff, A Collection in Classical and earlyChristianAntioch,
of Sculpture
1970, 54 ffforcollectionsof classical statuaryin this period.
7. E.g. opussedile decoration (including a scene of the Rape of Hylas) retained in the Basilica ofJunius
Bassus, Rome afterits conversion into a church: T. Ashby and G. Lugli, 'La basilica di Giunio
Basso', RACr ix, 1932, 224, 248 ff; the Christian inscriptionadded to the bust of Venus on 'The
Vyne ring': Toynbee, 1968, 189 f; the use of the formulaD M S on Christianfuneraryreliefs:DACL
i, 1, 165 ff.
8. E.g. Hanfmann, 1951, i, 34 f,49 f, 58, 60 f (forsarcophagus workshops;r/also Van der Meer, 1958,
fig. 559 for the funeraryrelief of the Christian sculptor Eutropos, shown working on a 'neutral'
design); H. d'Escurac-Doisy, 'Verrerie chrétienne de Timgad', Libycavii, 1959, 72 (glassware);
Salomonson, 1969, 29 (pottery).
9. For the social standing of some known sponsorsof early Christiansarcophagi see Hanfmann, 1951,
ii, 26 f, note 3.
10. Notably Bosio, 1632, 627 ff; M. Boldetti, Osservazioni de9santimartiri
soprai cimiteri ed antichicristiani
di Roma, i, 1720, 27 ff; Raoul-Rochette, 1838, 117 ff; G. B. De Rossi, Roma Sotterranea ii, 2, 1867,
355 f; Wilpert, 1903, 36, 222; Wilpert S ii, 351; Boulanger, 1925; de Fraipont, 1935; P. Trempela,
'Orpheus in early Christian art' (in Greek), Byzantinisch- Jahrbuchxi, 1935, 270 ff;
Neugriechische
Friedman, 1970, especially 38 ff.
11. Appendix 1,8-10, 14-2 1. Also ofthisperiod, but omittedfromthisdiscussionas being too peripheral
are the Edessa mosaic (Appendix 1, 22), and the gems in Berlin (Appendix 1, 26 and 27). In the
case of the hematite (27), Friedman (1970, 59 ff) clearly describes the background to this type of
representation,but seems to me to stresstoo much the association between Christand Orpheus here
(especially given that the Crucifixionof Christ was not regularlyshown in orthodox Christian art
beforethe early fifthcenturya.D.).
12. For these monumentssee Appendix 1, 11-13, 23-25. For the general compositional types see G.
Guidi, 'Orfeo, Liber Pater, e Oceano in mosaici della Tripolitania', AfricaItaliana vi, 1935, 120 ff;
and Stern, 1955, 49 ff. Contemporarymosaics include: Piazza Armerina (G. V. Gentili, La villa
erculiadi Piazza Armerina:i mosaicifigurati,1959, 26 ff,fig. 10); Tolmeita, Libya (Harrison, 1962,
13 ff,pls. Iff); Brading, I.O.W. (Toynbee, 1962, no. 195). Minor objects include: sculptural
del
reliefsfromseveral sites (M. Squarciapino, 'Un gruppo di Orfeo', Bull. Comm.lxix, 1941, Bullettino
Museo dell9imperoromanoxii, 70 ff; cf Toynbee, 1973, 291 ff-just possiblyChristian ?); textile(H.
Peirce and R. Tyler, Uart byzantinii, 1934, 122, pl. 159a); North Africanterracottaware (Salomon-
son, 1969, 60, 87, figs.88, 122).
13. H. Leclercq, Manuel d'archéologie i, 1907, 127; O. Kern, Orphicorum
chrétienne, fragmenta,1922, 45,
no. 149; and Boulanger, 1925, 153 compare the figureof Orpheus on the sarcophagi with that of
Mithras tauroktonos; but despite the superficialsimilarity,the pose of Orpheus is that adopted by
other lyre players,such as Apollo (Reinach RR iii, 338, 4), while the popular type of Mithras;may
derive froma figureof the sacrificingNike (Cumont, 1899, i, 179f). Friedman (1970, 77) describes
the figure as 'Christ in the pose of Mithras Tauroctonus but wearing the Phyrgian costume of
Orpheus', but does not explain whythe figureshould be identifiedas Christ at all. In fact the only
featuresthatlink thesesarcophagusreliefswith Christianityare the sheep that accompany Orpheus
(as in the catacombfrescoes),thefishermanin thecornerpaneloftheVaticansarcophagus (Appen-

dix 1, 14), forwhichparallelsmaybe foundin theVia della Lungarasarcophagus(Testini,1966,
fig.206), and in the mosaic of the Tomb of the Julii (see below), and also the topographical
evidenceassociatedwithOstia 1202(see Appendix1, 15).
14. See Boulanger,1925,157ff,and forhisobjectionsto theidea.
15. Romanartalso showedOrpheusin theUnderworld withCerberus(ReinachRP 203,9), or Eurydice
(RP 200,2) ; and in funerary contextsshowedhimwithBacchanals(RP 200, 1), or withtheanimals
and Eurydice(P. Berger,'Le mausoléed'El Amrouni',Revuearchéologique
xxvi,1895,71 ff,figs.1f),
or playingthelyre(Gumont,1942,304). CfCalza, 1964,223 forthesuggestion thattheOrpheus
sarcophagus in theParkoftheBathsofTitusand Trajan in Rome mayhave comefromthesame
Ostianworkshop as did the ChristianOrpheussarcophagi(Appendix1, 14-17); but the lionsde-
vouringrams(?) in thecornerpanels,and thelion in thecentralscenesuggestthatthisreliefwas
probablynotChristian in inspiration.
The paganfunerary ofOrpheuswas thatbyhisskilful
significance playinghe subduedtheforces
ofdeath;and thescenewiththebeastsmayalso alludeto thepleasuresand teeming lifeofParadise.
16. Cf. I. Linforth,TheArtsof Orpheus, 1941,276 forthe difficultyin findingany sectthatmightbe
describedas unequivocallyOrphicdespitethe increasein esotericcultsin the secondand third
centuries A.D.
One mightperhapsrecallherethatOrpheusand Christaresaid tohavebeenrepresented together
HistoriaeAugustae:Alexander
with other heroes in the larariumof Alexander Severus (Scriptores Severus
xxix,2) ; but not too muchcredenceshouldbe givento thisin viewof whatwe now knowabout
theAugustanHistory.
17. See Boulanger,1925,157.
18. Stern,1958,1 ff;E. R. Goodenough, 'The Orpheusin theSynagogueofDura Europos. A correc-
tion*,JWCIxxii,1959,372; Jewish Symbols in theGraeco-RomanPeriodv, 1956,105ff;ix, 1964,89 ff.
19. GoodenoughJewish Symbolsii, 1953,19; iii, 1953,figs.755 and 762a.
20. See Friedman,1970,13 ff. (Cf Bosio,1632,626 ff;Raoul-Rochette, 1838,122).
21. E.g. scenesofDaniel,theRaisingofLazarus,and David withhisslingin Dominila(Cub.Ill); the
HealingoftheParalytic, Noah and theArkin SS. Peterand Marcellinus(Cub.V). Cf also Fried-
man,1970,49 ffforthefunerary significanceofthedoveand eaglein theSS. Peterand Marcellinus
dismisses
(Via Segniregion)fresco(PI. I lib) ; buthe apparently thatotheranimalswere
thepossibility
presentin thescenebeforeit was damaged:48).
originally
22. E.g. funerary Testini,1966,fig.56.
inscription:
23. E.g. Wilpert,1903,121; Testini,1966,fig.118.
24. Cf Friedman,1970,83 ff(and 223, note74 forotherOrpheussceneswiththesemythological crea-
tures).
Friedman(84f) is surelyrightto emphasisethevariousstrandsofsymbolism in themosaic,but
his expositionofitswholeallegoryseems,to me at least,rathertoo specificin detail,and does not
necessarilyprovide'striking evidenceforthe blendingat thistimeof Neoplatonicand Christian
thought concerning deathand theafterlife*(79).
25. Orpheusin factappearswithimperial in the Tolmeitamosaic (Harrison,1962, 17f);
attributes
cf representations of Christas Rulerof the World,clad in imperialpurpleat S. Costanza,Rome
and S. Vitale,Ravenna(Volbach,1961,pls. 35, and 158),and David in theGaza Synagoguemosaic
(Toynbee,1973,290). For'Messianic'scenesin Palestinianmosaicsofthesixthto eighthcenturies
see Levi, 1947,i, 318f.
26. For examplessee Toynbee,1973,284 ff,especially294 ff.
27. Painter,1971,165notesthattheFramptonsitemayhave beenreligiousratherthandomestic.See
ofthescene.
Appendix1, 3 forreconstructions
824
28. Ghiardini,1916,794 ff, ff(evidencethatthisroomwas a triclinium),
and I. Lavin,'The Hunting
mosaicsof Antioch',Dumbarton OaksPapersxvii,1963,260 ff(fora summary of the problemscon-
cerningthedate and functionofthebuilding).
onlythelettersIS remain;therightreads:
29. Of theleftinscription
SUME QUOD AUTUMNUS QUOD
VER QUOD BRUMA QUOD ESTAS
ALTERNIS REPARANT ET
TOTO GREANTUR IN ORBE
G
94 JANET HUSKINSON
1969, 39 f for Constantine and his
30. Cf. Levi, 1947, i, 243 f. Also A. Grabar, ChristianIconography,
sons shown overcominga dragon; and E. Piot, 'Sur un missorium' xi, 1886, 185
', Gazettearchéologique
for Constantine shown as Bellerophon (but the missorium is now lost, and the identificationseems
ratherunlikely).
31. See also Brandenburg,1968, 62 f (and 1971, 167 forcriticismof Hiller's interpretation).
32. Third century. J. Aymard,'La mosaïque de Bellérophonà Nîmes', Gallia xi, 1953, 249 ff.
33. See note 28; Aymard,op. cit.,262. Cf. Brandenburg,1968, 66, note 37.
34. Aymard, op. cit., 264 ff; A. Merlin and L. Poinssot, 'Deux mosaïques de Tunisie à sujets prophy-
lactiques', Mon. Piot,xxxiv, 1934, 129 ff.
35. Aymard,op. cit.,267.
36. For examples see Hiller, 1970, 41 ff*
37. E.g. Gumont, 1942, 466, note 5; J. Bayet, 'Hercule funéraire,MEFR xi, 1923, 52 ff.
38. Probably late sixthcentury(but included here as the last in a long seriesof representationsof Bellero-
phon and the Ghimaera in mosaic): cf. Brandenburg,1968, 58, note 15.
39. The removal of a mythologicalscene froma central to a lateral position,or to a place subordinateto
the whole design is found in other instancesin late antique art and may be a stylisticdevelopment,
ratherthan an indicationof the diminishedsignificanceof the mythologicalscene; cf.also Orpheus in
the Woodchestermosaic (Smith, 1969, pl. 3, 13; cf. 86, note 1 ; perhaps a small movable fountainor
tank of lead may have covered the central octagon, providing a good reason for the removal of
Orpheus), and the Carthage Venus mosaic (G. C.-Picard, La Carthagede Saint Augustin,1965, pl.
on 101).
40. G. Brett,'The mosaic of the Great Palace', JWCI v, 1942, 40 f.
41. For Bellerophonon contorniates: Hiller, 1970, Kat. F 2, 3, 4.
42. Brandenburg, 1968, figs. I and 2. Cf. the earlier mosaic in the Villa Borghese showing the victor
in a gladiatorial contestnamed Bellerofons
(Hiller, 1970, 64 ff,fig.24).
43. Hiller, 1970, Kat. D VI formetalware examples.
44. For 'Capitoline tensa*see Reinach RR i, 378, IV. Cf. motifsof Sol in a frontalquadrigaand imperial
busts that occur in 'medallion friezes'on some North Africanterracottaplates, and which may be
traced back to Pannonian bronze reliefs,and thence to a numismaticsource: Salomonson, 1962,
83 ff; and A. J. B. Wace, 'Late potteryand plate', Bulletinde la sociétéroyaled'archéologie
d'Alexandrie
xxxvii, 1948, 51.
45. But Hiller's interpretation(1970, 73 ff) is coloured by his conviction that the officialnumismatic
'
originof the scene . . . den Kästchen einen gewissenoffiziellenCharakterverleiht'.
46. For dating see G. W. Meates, Lullingstone
RomanVilla, 1955, 45, 146.
47. For thisvoyage see Aymard,op. cit.,267.
48. W. H. C. Frend, 'Religion in Roman Britain in the fourthcenturya.d.', Journalof theBritishArch-

xviii, 1955, 14 f. Smith, 1969, 118 suggestsa literaryinspirationforthe mosaic,
aeologicalAssociation
and Toynbee, 1968, 188 a possible interpretationof the Europa scene in a moral sense which would
make it acceptable to Christians.
49. Now generallyaccepted as such (see Toynbee, 1964, 11 ffforthe evidence), but cf. Hiller, 1970, 82.
50. Brandenburg, 1968, 53 ff; 1969, 76; Simon, 1966, 894. Cf. Toynbee, 1968, 181 ff.
51. Nor forthe Frampton 'Grid mosaic'; cf. Toynbee, 1968, 182 ff(also Smith, 1969, 118).
52. Alföldi, 1969, 22.
53. Cf. mid fourthcenturymosaics in the mausoleum at Centcelles,Spain fora similarassociationof the
Seasons and huntingscenes withspecificallyChristianbiblical and funeraryscenes,that is apparently
meaningfulin an orthodox sense:EAAii,475 f. AlsoSimon,1966,895forliterary

Christian passages
linkingChristwiththeSeasons.
54. Toynbee,1968,184fgivesa moredetailedexplanation.
oftheactual Sun (as opposedto Sol,
of Sol, thepersonification
55. Excludedare thoserepresentations
theSun-God),suchas the(ratherdubious)caseofthemosaicin S. Aquilino,Milan: M. Van Berchem
and E. Clouzot,Mosaïques 1924,60 ff,figs.61 and 63.
chrétiennes,
56. Theyappearin theissuesofmostmintsup to a.D. 319,remaining intothe320sat Aries,and also on
intermittentissuesofgoldup to a.d. 325: P. Bruun,TheRoman Imperial vii,1966,48, notes5
Coinage
and 6; and M. R. Alföldi,'Die Sol Comes Münze vomJahre325', Mullus:FestschriftTheodorKlauser
\jbACErgänzungsband i), 1964,10 ff(and Toynbee,1965,176). For a discussion
ofthebackground
see Alfoldi,1969,55 ff;P. Bruun,'The disappearanceofSol fromthecoinsofConstantine',Arctosii,
1958,15 ff.
in
For a statueof the Sun-God Constantinople, known as see
Gonstantine, L'Orange, 1935,
113f; and T. Preger,'Konstantinos-Helios',Hermesxxxvi,1901,457 ff.
57. Toynbee,1956,72 ff.
i, 34; Adversus
58. E.g. IrenaeusEpideixis v, 18, 3; cf.Rahner,1963,49 ff.
Haereses
59. For illuminationas a baptismalimage: E. G. Selwyn,TheFirstEpistleofS. Peter,1946,375 ff;J.
Ysebaert,Greekbaptismal 1962, 173fF. For the baptismalsignificance
terminology, of the chariot:
Christian
J. Daniélou,Primitive 1964,71 ff. Cf.also thescenesdecorating
Symbols, the Dura Europos
Van der Meer,1958,fig.72.
baptistery:
60. See Simon,1955,135ff;Rahner,1963,93 f.
61. Secularart providesanotherparallel,sinceChristianemperors seemto have retainedthefigureof
Sol as a symbolof theirown powerand majesty:e.g. Constantine's of Sol on coinage,
retention
mainlyit wouldseem,becauseitspoliticalconnotations weretoo far-reachingforit to be jettisoned
werealso retainedin imperialiconography
at once; solargestures (see L'Orange,1935,109).
62. Appendix1, no. 39. Cf.bronzelampin theformofa shipwithrowers, decoratedwithsmallcrosses
and doves: O. Wulff,KöniglicheMuseenzu Berlin: Altchristliche
undmitteraltliche
Bildwerke
i, 1909, 174,
no. 780,pl. 37; and panelshowinga boat containingtwo vases (symbolising souls?),witha dove
'Vestigesdu cultesolaireparmiles chrétiens
on thesail: G. Michaïlides, dela société
d'Egypte',Bulletin
xiii,1948-49,58 f,fig.17.
copte,
d'archéologie
I can findnofurther referencestothetwofrescoes ofUlyssesand theSirensin theCryptsofLucina
and Eusebius(CatacombofS. Callixtus)citedby de Fraipont,1935,33 f.
63. Listedby KlauserJbACvi, 73 ff. As no sarcophagustroughshave beenfoundin associationwith

theselids,we cannotbe absolutelycertainthatthesesarcophagiwerepagan. However,it seems
mostprobablethattheywere,and thatthe Christians had no use forthe troughsand the pagan
scenesthattheydisplayed.
64. Fragment fromthe Catacombof S. Callixtus,and thelid fromAguzzano(Appendix1, 33 and 37
and PI. VI, b). See C. Robert,Die antiken
respectively, ii, 1890,no. 140fortheonly
Sarkophag-reliefs
knownpagan examplewitha different secondscene.
65. See Rahner,1963,362.
vi, 11,89, 1.
66. Cf.ClementofAlexandriaStromata
67. Rahner,1963,363 ff.
68. Rahner,1963,365 ff.
identification.
1971,131forthisconvincing
69. See Schumacher,
70. Appendix1,5, 6, and 7. N.B. alsothefrescoofHerculesand theNemeanLion in thefourth century
hypogaeum at San Salvatoredi Cabras,Sardinia,whichwas apparently usedas a shrineofa pagan
and laterhad a
water-cult, Christianshrinebuilt above it. Herculesthen may have come to be
withtheChristian
identified 'Salvatore':EAA vi, 1114f.
thepossibility
71. Ferma, 1960,93 f eliminates belongedto a syncretistic
thatthefrescoes or heretical
sect.
96 JANET HUSKINSON
72. Simon, 1964, 334 f; cf. Simon, 1955, 130 ffforHercules in late antiquity.
73. E.g. Rahner, 1963, 89 ff.
74. Smith, 1965, 100 ff.
75. Secular art also provides few examples in this period: e.g. fragmentof a terracottadish, Sabratha
(Salomonson, 1969, 45, fig. 53; 108, E 3); mosaic, Gherchel (early fourthcentury? G. Poinssot,
'Mosaïques de la Maison de Dionysus et d'Ulysse à Thugga', Actesdu colloqueinternational sur 'La
t Paris, 1963, 1965, 222 f, no. f, fig.8). The two major series of monuments-
mosaïquegréco-romaine*
sarcophagus lids and mosaics in Italy and North Africa) seem to have finished,for the most part,
beforethe Peace of the Church.
76. Cf. Friedman, 1970, 40, 56, 58.
Select
bibliography
The followingabbreviationshave been used:
BMQ BritishMuseumQuarterly.
Bull. Comm. Bullettinodella commissione archeologica comunale di Roma.
CRAI Comètesrendusde l'AcadémiedesInscriptions et desBelles-Lettres.
DACL Dictionnaire d' archéologie chrétienne et de liturgiei ff, 1907 ff (edited by F. Cabrol and H.
Leclercq).
EAA Enciclobedia deWarteantica,classica,e orientale, i ff,1958 ff.
JbAC JahrbuchfürAntikeundChristentum.
JHS Journalof HellenicStudies.
JRS Journalof RomanStudies.
JWCI Journalof theWarbureand Courtauld Institutes.
Klauser JbAC T. Klauser, 'Studien zur Entstehungsgeschicte der christlichen',JbAC,i ff.1958.
MEFR Mélangesd' archéologie (Ecolefrançaisede Rome).
et d'histoire
Mon. Piot FondationEugènePiot. Monuments et mémoires.
Ostia i G. Calza and others,Scavi di Ostia: i Topografia, 1953.
Ostia ii G. Becatti Scavi di Ostia: ii I Mitrei,1954.
Ostia iv G. Becatti,Scavi di Ostia: iv Mosaici e pavimenti marmorei, 1961.
RACr Rivistadi archeologia cristiana.
Reinach RR S. Reinach, Réòetoire desreliefsgrecset romains,i ff,1909 ff.
Reinach RP S. Reinach, Répetoire despeintures grecqueset romaines, 1922.
Rend.Pont. Rendiconti dellaPontificiaAccademiaromanadi Archeologia.
RO Römische Quartalschrift.
RS Reòertorium derchristlich-antiken Sarkophage:i RomundOstia, 1967.
Wüpert S J. Wilpert,/ sarcofagicristiani antichi,i ff,1929 ff.
Alföldi, A. (1937). A Festivalof Isis in RomeundertheChristianEmperorsof thefourth

century,
(Dissertations
Pannonicae ii. 7).
Alföldi,A. (1969). The Conversion of Constatineand Pagan Rome(2nd edition).
Bosio, A. (1632). RomaSotterranea (abridged edition, 1710).
Boulanger, A. (1925). Orphée.
Brandenburg.H. (1968). 'Bellerophon christianus?',RO lxiu, 49 ff.
Brandenburg,H. (1969). 'Christussymbolein frühchristlichen Bodenmosaiken',ÄQ,lxiv, 74 ff.
Brandenburg,H. (1971). Review of Hiller, 1970, in JbAC xiv, 163 ff.
Calza, R. (1964). 'Le sculturee la probabile zona cristiana di Ostia e di Porto , Rend. Pont, xxxvn,
155ff.
Courcelle, P. (1944). 'Quelques symbolesfunérairesdu Néo-Platonisme latin', Revuedes étudesanciennes,
xlvi,65ff.
Cumont, F. (1896, 1899). Texteset monuments figurés de Mitra,i, u.
relatifsaux mystères
Cumont, F. (1942). Recherches surle symbolismefunérairedesromains.
Eisler, R. (1921). OrpheustheFisher. , __
Ferma, A. 1958). 'Lavori e scopertenelle catacombe', Tripliceomaggioa òò. fio XI 1, u, Va ti.
Ferma, A. 1960). Le pitture della nuovacatacomba di Via Latina.
Ferma, A. 1968). 'Una nuova regione della catacomba dei bb. Marcellmo e Jfietro7, KALr xliv, zy tt.
Ferma, A. 1971). 'La catacomba di Vibia', RACr xlvu, 7 tt.
Février,P. A. (1958). 'Ostie et Porto à la finde l'antiquité' MEtR lxx, 295 tt.
de Fraipont, M. (1935). Orphéeaux catacombes.
Friedman,J. B. (1970). Orpheusin theMiddle Ages.
Ghiardini, G. (1916). 'Gli scavi del Palazzo di Teodorico a Ravenna7, Monumenti antichixxiv, 7^4 n,
824 ff.
Goodenoueh, E. R. (1962). 'Catacomb Art', JournalofBiblicalLiterature, lxxxi, 2, 113 ff.
Hanfmann, G. M. A. (1951). The SeasonSarcophagus at Dumbarton Oaks, i and ii.
Harrison, R. M. (1962). 'An Orpheus mosaic at Ptolemais\ JRS lii, 13 ff.
Hiller, S. (1970) . Bellerophon : eingriechischen Mythosin derrömischen Kunst{Münchener A rchäologisckeStudieni) .
Klauser, T. (1965). 'Erwägungen zur Enstehungder altchistlichenKunst', Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte
xiv, 1 ff.
Levi. D. (1942). 'Mors voluntaria:mvstervcults on mosaics fromAntioch*.Bervtusvi. 46 ff.
Levi, D. (1947). Antioch Mosaic Pavements i and ii.
Oranee. H. P. 1' (1935). 'Sol Invictus Imperator', SymbolaeOsloensesxiv, 86 ff.
Marrou. H. (1937). MousikosAner.
Painter, K. (1971). 'Villas and Christianityin Roman Britain', BMQxxxv, 156 ff.
Perler. O. H 953). Die MosaikenderJuliereruft im Vatikan.
Rahner, H. (1963). GreekMythsand Christian Mysteries.
Raoul-Rochettc, M. (1838). 'Mémoires sur les antiquités chrétiennes, Mémoiresde VAcadémiedes In'
scriôtions xiii, 92 ff.
et desBelles-Lettres,
Salomonson, J. (1962). 'Late Roman Earthenware with reliefdecoration', Oudheidkundige Mededelingen
uithetRiiksmuseum van Oudheden to Leiden,xliii. 53 ff.
Salomonson,J. (1969). 'Spätrömische rote Tonware mit Reliefverzierungaus nordafrikanischen Werk-
stätten',Bulletinvan de Vereeniging totBevordering derKennisvan de AntiekeBeschaving te's Gravenhage,xliv,
4 ff.
Schumacher. W. N. (1971). 'Reparatio vitae', RO lxvi, 125 ff.
M. Simon, (1955). Herculeet le christianisme.
Simon, M. (1964). 'Remarques sur la catacombe de Via Latina', Mullus: Festschrift TheodorKlauser
(JbAC Ergänzungsband î), 327 ff.
Simon, M. (1966). 'Bellérophon chrétien',MélangesJ. Carcopino, 889 ff.
Smith, D. J. (1965). 'Three fourthcenturyschools of mosaic in Roman Britain', Actesdu colloqueinter-
nationalsur'La mosaïquegréco-romaine', Paris, 1963, 95 ff.
Smith. D. T. (1969). 'The mosaic pavements', The RomanVilla (edited by A. L. F. Rivet), 71 ff.
Stern, H. (1953). 'Le Calendrier de 354', Bibliothèque de VInstitut
et historique
archéologique françaisd'Arch-
éologiede Beyruth lv.
Stern, H. (1955). 'La Mosaïque d'Orphée de Blanzy-lès-Fismes',Gallia xiii, 41 ff.
Stern. H. (1958). 'The Orpheus in the Synagogue of Dura Europos', JWCI xxi, 1 ff.
Testini, P. (1966). Le catacombe e gli antichicimitericristianiin Roma.
Toynbee, T. M. G. (1945). Review of A. Alföldi,Die Kontorniaten 1943, in JRS xxxv, 115 ff.
Toynbee, T. M. G. and Ward-Perkins,J. B. (1956). The ShrineofS. Peterand theVaticanExcavations.
Toynbee, T. M. C. (1962). Artin RomanBritain.
Toynbee, T. M. G. (1964). 'A new Roman mosaic pavement found in Dorset', JRS hv, 7 ff.
Toynbee, T. M. C. (1965). Review of Mullus in Journalof TheologicalStudiesxvi, 175 ff.
Toynbee, J. M. C. (1968). 'Pagan motifsand practices in Christian art and ritual m Roman Britain,
Christianity in Britain300-700 (edited by M. Barley and R. Hanson), 177 ff.
Toynbee, J. M. G. (1973). Animalsin RomanLife and Art.
Van der Meer. F. (1958). Atlas of theEarly ChristianWorld.
Volbach, W. F. (1961). Early Christian Art.
Wilpert,T. (1903). Romasotterranea: Le pitturedellecatacombe romane.
Wilpert,J. (1938). La fededella chiesanascente.
PLATE III
(Photo:F. Kenworthy)
a The Orpheus Fresco, catacomb of domitilla, rome, cubiculum iv
(Bosio, 1710,plate facing310)
(Photo.Pont.Comm.di ArchSacra)
b The Orpheus Fresco, catacomb of SS. Peter and Marcellinus (Via Segni region)
Pagan MythologicalFiguresbyJanetHuskinson
PLATE IV
a Reconstruction of the central roundel of the frampton 'neptune and chi-rho' mosaic
(Drawingby D. Neal)
(Photo:VirginiaMuseumofFine Arts)
b Ulysses bronze lamp
PLATE V
(Photo:Pont.Cotnm.di Arch.Sacra)
The Sol Mosaic, tomb of the julii, Vatican cemetery
PLATE VI
ï (
I
I
!
I (M
CM •
-H
1 co cl
1-1 (
I
4s -H
I
o
CM
Ì liI
c
s
S
II 8 1
i.<
Iê' I
O
ti
ü
en
S
<
W
u
i
à
SS e/5
1
g
I «I
êg 8
sü
ü
OU
§'o
-Ci
-H

Huskinson, J. Some Pagan Mythological Figures and Their Significance in Early Christian Art

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Huskinson, J. Some Pagan Mythological Figures and Their Significance in Early Christian Art

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Some Pagan Mythological Figures and Their Significance in Early Christian Art

Author(s): Janet Huskinson

Ever sincethe discussionof Orpheusin Bosio'sRomaSotterranea (1632, 627 ff)the

Orpheusis perhapsthebestknownofthepagan mythological figures thatoccurin

positionsalmostall of theserepresentations followtraditionswell establishedin

Anothertheory,advancedby de Fraipont(1935, 28 ff,34), is thatthe Orpheus

the ideas of a triumphantChurch,and partlybecause it lent itselfeasilyto the

By contrastthe questionof 'Bellerophonchristianus'is only recent. It was

at Constantinople,38 a figureoftheChimaera(whichis all thatremainsofa Bellero-

nature;and the Cupids,inscriptions, and the entiredesignofthepavementare all

Three representations oftheSun-God,Sol, are knownfromChristiansettings.66

gloryafterits descentbelow the earthwas, as Perlerexpounds(1953, 13 ff),fre-

Literaryreferences are evenmoreimportant forour understanding ofthescenes

viewofthefrequentand deliberatejuxtapositionofthe twoscenes;and unlessone

It is occasionallyimplied by scholarsthat there are representations in this

apparentlyChristiansetting. These frescoes,which show various exploits of

What conclusionsmay,then,be drawnabout the roleofthesepagan mytholo-

thattheyall display. So directan incorporation into Christianart was probably

expressedbeliefsabout Christand theAfterlife similarto thosethatOrpheuswould

fromthe area of Rome and Ostia (as is shownin Appendix2). Furthermore,

APPENDIX 1. REPRESENTATIONS OF BELLEROPHON, HERCULES,

to themostimportantor mostrecentpublications,and otherrelevantdetails.

2. Floor-mosaicfromHintonSt. Mary, Dorset; BritishMuseum (Registerno. 1965 4-9 1). Mid

3. 'Neptuneand Chi-RhoMosaic', Frampton,Dorset; insitu(?) Mid fourthcentury. (PL IV, a)

6. Fragmentsofa statuefromthe Gymnasiumsite,Salamis,Cyprus.Second centuryA.D.

7. Gold-glassmedallions,allegedlyfromthe Roman catacombs. Late fourthcentury(?).

8. Fresco; Catacomb of S. Callixtus,Rome. About a.d. 230.

10. Fresco; Catacomb of SS. Peter and Marcellinus,Rome, Cubiculum

Orpheusplaysto foursheepon therightand two on theleft(accordingto Wilpert,as thefresco

11. Fresco; Catacomb of S. Priscilla,Rome. Mid fourthcentury.

12. Fresco; Catacomb of Domitilla,Cubiculum IV. Second halfoffourthcentury(PL III a).

14. Fragmentof a strigillatedsarcophagusfromOstia; Vatican, Museo Pio Cristiano(no. 156).

18. Two fragments ofa sarcophagusfromthe Catacomb of S. Callixtus.

19. Fragmentofa sarcophagusfromthe Catacomb of S. Praetextatus.

20. Fragmentof a sarcophagusfromthe Catacomb of S. Priscilla.

21. FragmentaryrelieffromCacarens (Gers), France. Late thirdor earlyfourthcentury(?).

22. Floor-mosaicfroma cave-tomb,Edessa. a.d. 227/228.

23. Floor-mosaicin Room I of the porticoofthe ScholaJuuenum, Mactar, Tunisia.

24. Floor-mosaicfromJerusalem; ArchaeologicalMuseum, Istanbul. First half of the sixth

26. Oval cornelian;once in Berlin.

27. Hematitegem; once in Berlin. Third or fourthcentury?

29. SarcophagusfromLa Gayolle; Brignoles(Var), Churchof Saint-Sauveur. Third century.

31. 'Calendar of 354'.

on one reliefalongsidethe otherGods of the Week. Also fromthe

35. Fragmentofa sarcophaguslid; Museumofthe Catacomb ofS. Callixtus. Mid thirdcentury.

APPENDIX 2. LIST OF SITES AND FIND-SPOTS

Catacombs (exact find-spotunknown): 7*, 26.

Sardinia, Porto Torres: 17 (but probablymade in Ostia).

Asia Minori?): 39.

(as in the catacombfrescoes),thefishermanin thecornerpaneloftheVaticansarcophagus (Appen-

41. For Bellerophonon contorniates: Hiller, 1970, Kat. F 2, 3, 4.

43. Hiller, 1970, Kat. D VI formetalware examples.

48. W. H. C. Frend, 'Religion in Roman Britain in the fourthcenturya.d.', Journalof theBritishArch-

meaningfulin an orthodox sense:EAAii,475 f. AlsoSimon,1966,895forliterary

63. Listedby KlauserJbACvi, 73 ff. As no sarcophagustroughshave beenfoundin associationwith

Alföldi, A. (1937). A Festivalof Isis in RomeundertheChristianEmperorsof thefourth

S-ar putea să vă placă și