Die frühchristlichen Mosaiken in S. Maria Maggiore zu Rom by Beat BrenkReview by: Mary L. HeuserThe Art Bulletin, Vol. 61, No. 3 (Sep., 1979), pp. 473-477Published by: College Art AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3049919 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 02:38

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The ArtBulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:38:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS 473

cal, patterned folds.15 The silver krater from Leninabad and certain works in clay provide further evidence of the move- ment of Roman goods deep into the Parthian empire.16

Recent excavations at Qaleh-e Yazdigird in western Iran have uncovered a late Parthian pavillion with ornamental stucco reliefs.17 Part of the figural decoration shows small nude hunters, their backs to the viewer, attacking with lances some seated quadrupeds. This particular motive, un- known earlier in the Near East, occurs in Roman circus and hunting scenes.

The Nihavand bronzes, the Central Asian marbles and vessels, and the Qaleh-e Yazdigird stuccoes show that at least one stratum of Parthian society continued to appreci- ate classical works, and that the anti-classical tendencies seen in some areas in the second and third centuries A.D. were not as widespread as previously assumed.

The book's consideration of Parthian sculpture is divided into sculptures in the round (pp. 85f), rock reliefs (pp. 89f), and reliefs in stone, clay, and other materials (pp. 92f). The section on rock reliefs is the most substantial, presenting new observations on the Parthian reliefs at Bisotun. The weathered and mutilated "Mithradates" and "Gotarzes" re- liefs have been difficult to interpret or even date. Colledge accurately observes the differences in script between the two remaining fragments of the "Mithradates" inscription (pp. 90f), and raises the possibility that the original text was altered in some way. My own examination of the relief in 1976 confirms Colledge's suggestion. Furthermore, it is clear that the two extant portions of the "Mithradates" relief are cut at different depths into the rock face. It appears that not only the inscription, but the relief itself was amended. The adjoining "Gotarzes" relief was carved after this addition.

The description of the reliefs at Tang-e Sarvak, however, is less detailed (p.92). Colledge follows the earlier practice of

numbering the reliefs from the top of the gorge down, rather than the current system which begins at the bottom of the cliff. 18

The inventory of Parthian sculpture in the round includes the large inscribed and dated votive portraits from Hatra (2nd and 3rd centuries A.D.),19 marble portrait heads from Susa and Shami (1st century B.c.-lst century A.D.), the commanding frontal figures of the Kushan kings of India (2nd and 3rd centuries A.D.), and the ubiquitous clay figurines. Nearly all the large sculptures are of local lime- stone. Bronze figures were certainly made but only one, the Shami statue, has survived. The silver female head in the Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., is presented as a

peculiar and even suspect piece (p. 84). The emphasis of the chapter on "Art" is on diversity in both style and materials. The chapter ends with a five-page summary of the develop- ment of Parthian numismatics.

The chapter on "Iconography and Style" (pp. 128f) in- cludes a short consideration of compositional types, divid- ing them into three categories: (1) Hellenized, (2) "old near eastern 'processional,' " with profile figures arranged in a

series, and (3) "paratactic" or frontal representations (p. 128). The discussion of frontality, one of the major charac- teristics of Parthian art, is, unfortunately, quite brief; a more comprehensive survey of the various theories con- cerning frontality will be found in Deborah Thompson's re- view of R. Ghirshman's Persian Art.20 The remainder of the chapter (pp. 129f) is devoted to various Greek and Near East- ern figures, their dress, hair styles, and gestures, as well as animals and miscellaneous inanimate objects.

The final chapter begins with the question "How far were the arts truly Parthian?" (p. 138). After a short discussion of some of the regional aspects of the arts, the question is an- swered: Parthian art does not have any uniformly distin- guishing attributes, and " 'Parthian' art was not truly Parthian at all, even from the viewpoint of patronage" (pp. 143f). A less discouraging conclusion is possible, if one con- siders the social and political structures of the complex soci- ety that produced the art analyzed in the preceding chap- ters. Although the Parthians were the politically dominant ethnic group in the Near East, their ruling dynasty, the feudal Arsacids, did not maintain uniform control over their vassals. Parthian art echoes this political diversity. Arsacid art is characterized by strong classical influences. Examples range from the buildings and sculptures at Nisa, the Arsacid capital, to the Greek inscriptions on their coins. In contrast, regional art continues indigenous plans and themes, as in the terrace sanctuaries of Elymais, and the limestone masonry of Hatra. Parthian art, both Arsacid and regional, is a symbolic art. Styles and images are used for their as- sociative values, and formal logic is often ignored. Greco- Roman and Near Eastern traditions continued side by side, occasionally merging to create a new form. In contrast to Sasanian art, Parthian art was not the product of a strongly centralized monarchy. Rather, it reflects the social and polit- ical complexity of the time.

It will be clear from the above that this reviewer disagrees with some of the assumptions and conclusions found in Parthian Art. Nonetheless, the sheer effort that was required to assemble such disparate material and to present it with adequate illustrations, a useful index, and a very com- prehensive bibliography must be gratefully acknowledged. Colledge's volume will be a useful tool for anyone concerned with the period.

TRUDY S. KAWAMI

Columbia University

is G. Koshelenko, Kultura Parfii, Moscow, 1966, 35f. 16 B. A. Litvinskiy and N. O. Tursunov, "The Leninabad Krater and the Louvre Sosibios Vase (Neo-Attic Art and Central Asia)," East and West, xxrv, 1974, 89f. 17 E. Keall, "Qal'eh-e Yazdigird: A Question of Its Date," Iran, xv, 1977, if.

18 For the most recent discussion of Tang-e Sarvak, see E. de Waele,

"La Sculpture rupestre d'Elymaide. 1. Deux fragments in6dits d'6poque parthe," Revue d'Assyriologie, LXIX, 1975, 67f. 19 For a technical examination of these works, see M.A.R. Colledge, "Some Observations on Sculptors' Stone Carving Techniques at Hatra," Sumer, xxxIII, 1977, 135f. 20 Art Bulletin, xLvI, 1964, 95f.

BEAT BRENK, Die friihchristlichen Mosaiken in S. Maria Mag- giore zu Rom, Wiesbaden, Franz Steiner Verlag, 1975. Pp. 188; 77 ills., 7 in color. DM. 180

This is certainly the most important monograph on an Early Christian monument to appear in recent years, and is the product of nearly ten years of research. The plan to reexam- ine the 5th-century mosaics of S. Maria Maggiore in Rome

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:38:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

474 THE ART BULLETIN

was inititated by the German Archaeological Institute in Rome and by the University of Bonn. New photographs of all the mosaics were taken by W. Schiele during 1964-65. The volume of plates, edited by Heinrich Karpp, appeared in 1966,1 and in that same year Beat Brenk was asked to prepare the explanatory text. Known for the wide range of his schol-

arship, Brenk is one of the few experts with the requisite knowledge of theology, Patristic literature, and art history to undertake the project single-handedly. And, in fact, he has produced an exemplary monograph in all respects, one which clarifies the many problems of artistic origin and in-

terpretation that have for so long befogged the study of this monument.

The literature on the mosaics of S. Maria Maggiore is vol- uminous. Brenk surveys in his preface the major contrib- utions, beginning with the early monograph of J. P. Richter and A. C. Taylor (1904),2 which, as he says, has been unjustly neglected by subsequent writers. It was the publication of J. Wilpert's monumental corpus of Roman Christian mosaics

(1916)3 with its superb color plates that facilitated scholarly study. The restoration of the mosaics, begun in 1928, stimu- lated a reexamination of the two cycles and a number of important articles followed, scattered in journals and specialized studies. The results of this scholarly activity re- mained fragmentary, and C. Cecchelli's monograph of 1957 offered few new insights.4 Thus, the time was ripe for a

synthesis and reassessment of the mosaic decoration as a whole.

By coincidence, simultaneously with the publication of Brenk's text, there appeared in print the lecture by Ernst

Kitzinger, given at a symposium in Princeton, April, 1973, on "The Role of Miniature Painting in Mural Decoration,"'5 in which the mosaics of S. Maria Maggiore figure promi- nently. Happily, both writers came to the same conclusion, that the cycles were original and unique creations of the first half of the 5th century, and were made with their specific location in the basilica in mind and for a specific patron, Sixtus III (A.D. 432-440), with multiple layers of meaning, both theological and political. What Kitzinger compresses into a relatively few pages of tightly reasoned arguments, Brenk develops step by step to create a unified picture of the

program as a whole. Brenk has examined afresh all the available evidence rel-

evant to the history of the basilica and its decoration. He had the additional advantage of having been able to view many of the mosaics at close range during the photographic campaign of 1964-65 and again during repairs on the roof in 1973-74. In chapter 1, he discusses the history of the build- ing and the results of new excavations under the apse, which give further support to a dating of the basilica in the 5th century. A description of the interior with an analysis of

the original arrangement of the mosaics follows. Particularly interesting are the account of the various restorations, the observations on the physical surfaces of the mosaics, and the suggestions as to the likely working procedures of the mosaicists.

The second chapter provides a detailed analysis of the mosaics on the triumphal arch, with reference to the condi- tion, description, iconography, and textual source of each scene. This is followed by the theological interpretation, a consideration of the role of the Council of Ephesus of 431, and, last, an excursus on the theological meaning of Maria

Regina. The same procedure is followed in the third chapter for the Old Testament scenes in the nave. This is by far the

longest chapter and the one in which considerable new ma- terial has been introduced, particularly with regard to the choice of scenes and their interpretation. In chapter 4, Brenk turns to the stylistic analysis of the mosaics as a whole, to the variations within the series, the possible sources, ques- tions of different "hands," and a comparison of the style with that of other Italian mosaics of the first half of the 5th

century. A final chapter deals with antiquarian details such as civil and military costumes, architectural forms, and other accessories. The conclusion, brief and to the point, summarizes the author's findings in a few pages. Although there is a full index and a convenient concordance between the plates of Karpp and Wilpert, there is no summary of the

bibliography, which is regrettable. The illustrations in the text volume are, on the whole, adequate for the comparable material Brenk introduces, but in order to follow the stylistic analysis of individual scenes in the Marian basilica, one must have at hand the plate volume of Karpp.

The reader is immediately aware of the logic and objectiv- ity of Brenk's approach. Interpretations of individual scenes are always based on biblical and other religious texts and on the known pictorial tradition available to the artists. The connections between religious dogma and the visual image are made with caution, and are derived from the commen- taries of contemporary Christian writers. Brenk admits that

theological interpretations must remain hypothetical. The care with which he marshalls his evidence inspires confi- dence; and it is reassuring that he retains, in the main, the traditional readings of the scenes on the arch and in the nave.

It is in his exposition of the religious thought of the time that Brenk is able to bring out the underlying unity of the decorative program. For the significance of the Infancy cycle on the arch, he relies largely on A. Grabar and G. A. Wellen6 but carries their arguments considerably further. Although he does not ignore the Imperial Roman background, he in- terprets the scenes within a Christian context. His starting point is the inscription at the summit of the arch, Xystus

1 H. Karpp, Die friihchristlichen und mittelalterlichen Mosaiken in Santa Maria Maggiore zu Rom, Baden-Baden, 1966, with 210 illustrations. The majority are excellent black-and-white details. Each individual scene is also reproduced in color, which is fairly accurate. 2 J. P. Richter and A. C. Taylor, The Golden Age of Classic Christian Art, London, 1904.

3 J. Wilpert, Die r6mischen Mosaiken und Malereien der kirchlichen Bauten vom IV. bis zum XIII. Jahrhundert, Freiburg i/Br., 1916, III, pls. 8f. and 53f. The Herder Verlag has recently reprinted a one-volume edition of Wilpert, limited to the mosaics, Die r6mischen Mosaiken der kirch- lichen Bauten von IV. bis zum XIII. Jahrhundert, ed. W. Schumacher,

Freiburg-Basel-Wien, 1976, pls. 28-67. The plates are the same as in the original volume of Wilpert but darker in tone. Schumacher has written an introduction and new comments on the plates, with an up-to-date bibliography. 4 C. Cecchelli, I mosaici della basilica di S. Maria Maggiore, Turin, 1956.

s E. Kitzinger, "The Role of Miniature Painting in Mural Decora- tion," The Place of Book Illumination in Byzantine Art, Princeton, 1975, 122f. See also his Byzantine Art in the Making, Cambridge, 1977, 66f. 6 A. Grabar, L'Empereur dans l'art byzantin, Paris, 1936, 211f., and G. A. Wellen, Theotokos, Utrecht, 1961, 93f.

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:38:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS 475

episcopus plebi dei, with the figures of Peter and Paul flanking the empty throne. Analyzing the term, plebs dei, in all its

implications and drawing upon an impressive array of Christian writers (particularly Ambrose and Leo I), Brenk construes the main theme of the arch as the Universal Church, consisting of the Church of the Jews and the Church of the Gentiles under the peaceful rule of Christ. In the

Infancy scenes, the divinity of Christ is recognized by be-

lieving Jews and Gentiles and denied by unbelieving Jews. This expansion of Grabar's and Wellen's ideas, developed with extraordinary detail and acumen, provides a more con- sistent view than the explanation recently proposed by Ur- sula Schubert.7

Of the textual sources quoted, the sermons of Leo I (440- 461) most closely parallel the theme of the arch mosaics, as Wellen had been the first to point out. This fact raises the

problem of chronology. Since Leo was an advisor of the Curia from 430 on, Brenk believes that Leo may have

planned the program together with Sixtus (pp. 39, 46). Brenk hesitates, however, to relate the inscription to the doctrine of the Primacy of Rome, particularly furthered by Leo. The formula, plebs dei, applies less to the Roman congregation than it does to the city of Rome, which in the words of Leo was still caput orbis (p. 37). One could add, as Ursula Schubert has remarked, that Leo's praise of Roma Aeterna contrasts strongly with Augustine's totally different view of the city as expressed in his City of God.s It is at this point that Brenk considers the question of the often posited influence of the Council of Ephesus in 431 (pp. 47-49). Although he denies that the orthodox position finds visual expression on the arch, he would allow that some connection may exist in the second register, where the Christ Child is enthroned and his imperial role is emphasized. And if the author denies on

theological grounds that the regal attire of the Virgin can

give her divine status as the Theotokos, he seems to admit that the combination of imperial iconography and popular piety could make the transference (p.52).

From his interpretation of the program of the arch, Brenk

proceeds to an examination of the mosaics of the nave. Here the history of salvation begins with the promise of God to Abraham and his descendants: on the left side of the nave, to the Patriarchs ante legem, in the persons of Abraham and

Jacob; and on the right side, to the priests and rulers sub lege, in the persons of Moses and Joshua. Although a typological explanation has been often applied, Brenk is the first to have found a contemporary textual source to explain the particu- lar divisions of these stages in the history of salvation. In Ambrose's five stages of history, his last three coincide with the plan of the mosaic cycles. Stage three is the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; stage four, the time of Moses; and stage five, the time of the Gospel (Evangelium). Augus- tine, on the other hand, spread his history over the seven days of Creation without the emphasis that Ambrose gave to Abraham and Moses (pp. 112-13). The theology of Ambrose becomes the key to the program in his concept of the two

Testaments and his exposition on the two churches that are foreshadowed in many of the Old Testament figures in the nave mosaics. Herein is a thread that connects with the pro- gram of the arch. It is impossible to do justice to the de-

velopment of this thesis in the confines of a review. Not all

figures lend themselves to such a contrast, and not all events received such an exegesis by the Church Fathers. But what is

important for the art historian is that the cycle of S. Maria

Maggiore represents an early stage of church decoration. There is no direct connection between the two cycles, that

is, no scene from the Old Testament is found with its

typological parallel in the Infancy scenes on the arch. As Grabar pointed out, the first such "antithetical cycle" that has been preserved is on the doors of S. Sabina in Rome,9 contemporary with the mosaics of S. Maria Maggiore.

The theological program has revealed a unifying theme. The following section introduces material that leads into the

question of the possible models for the Old Testament cycle. It is here that Brenk's arguments join with Kitzinger's pre- sentation in his recent article.'0 The reader will be well ad- vised to start with Kitzinger. Both writers stress the close

similarity of a number of the nave mosaic panels with illus- trations in the Quedlinburg Itala and the Vatican Virgil, closely contemporary in time. Kitzinger concentrates on the

stylistic parallels, Brenk on the resemblances of the methods used to illustrate a text. In the nave mosaics the artists make use of two approaches: one, the selection of a significant moment; the other a correspondence "verse by verse." When translated into visual form, this "verse by verse" pro- cedure is expressed by a dialogue. The illustration becomes a Dialogbild. Since Dialogbilder are also frequently found in the

Quedlinburg Itala and Vatican Virgil, a connection between the manuscripts and the nave mosaics can be demonstrated.

Although this conclusion can be reached as easily by means of a stylistic comparison, the isolation of this particular trait has important consequences. As a formula that is indepen- dent of the content of the text and one that can also be found in contemporary belles-lettres, it is thus not bound up with the practice of manuscript illustration, although it may have

originated in a scriptorium. It follows that however close certain mosaic panels are to the manuscripts, one cannot conclude thereby that the mosaics are enlarged miniatures. Like the Quedlinburg Itala and Vatican Virgil, which Brenk

accepts as original productions, the nave cycle appears to be an ad hoc creation (p. 128). The iconographic analysis sup- ports this contention. After pursuing every possible lead, Brenk has been able to find sources for a few of the Old Testament scenes, but none that demonstrates a close simi-

larity with known manuscript recensions (pp. 129-131). Furthermore, the cycle had no influence on later illustra- tions in either manuscripts or monumental painting. Yet it is strange that Hadrian I, in his letter to Charlemagne support- ing the instructional value of pictures against the Icono- clasts, should have singled out as an example the sacred images in "diversis historiis" of S. Maria Maggiore."

7 U. Schubert, "Der politische Primatanspruch des Papstes darge- stellt am Triumphbogen von Santa Maria Maggiore in Rom," Kairos, n.s., xIII, 1971, 194f. Using many of the same texts, she deduced a related theme that emphasizes the priestly and kingly nature of Christ. The idea cannot be fully sustained in all parts of the arch, as can be seen from her summary on p. 220.

8 Ibid., 212. Grabar, L'Empereur, 220, makes the same observation.

9 A. Grabar, Christian Iconography, Princeton, 1968, 142. 10 See note 5.

11 C. Bertelli, "Un antico restauro nei mosaici di Santa Maria Mag- giore," Paragone, vi, 63, 42. The passage is quoted in full by Richter and Taylor, The Golden Age, 389f.

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:38:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

476 THE ART BULLETIN

Brenk's stylistic analysis enlarges the scope of the discus- sion and brings out from another point of view the unique- ness not only of the nave mosaics but also of those on the arch. In this chapter as well as in the following chapter on antiquarian motifs, Brenk makes acute observations on style and provides a wealth of valuable information in gen- eral. The implications of his precise and detailed remarks are not always immediately apparent; their significance comes out only in the last pages of the conclusion.

In skillfully distinguishing the various elements of the artistic language used in the two cycles, Brenk provides a means by which comparisons can be made with works in other media and with other preserved wall mosaics of the 4th and 5th centuries. What emerges is that, although cer- tain elements are common property of the art of the early 5th century, the particular characteristics of the mosaic in S. Maria Maggiore, their coloristic and expressive effects, find no parallel in preserved monuments. Some similarities exist with the mosaics of S. Aquilino, Milan, and S. Giovanni in Fonte, Naples, but color and technique are so different as to

preclude any close connection. The same can be said for the remaining examples in Rome. And the mosaics of S. Maria Maggiore have nothing in common with Ravenna. To be sure, these negative results are not surprising, since com- parisons can be made only with surviving apsidal or domi- cal decorations. In spite of the few portrait types that reflect Theodosian art of the East (pp. 139-140), Brenk concludes that major general characteristics of the mosaics in S. Maria Maggiore are closer to Western, and specifically Italian ten- dencies than to any known trends in the East (p. 178). How- ever convincing his argument, one misses in this discussion reference to the floor mosaics at Antioch, where certain parallels with the wall series in S. Maria Maggiore have been pointed out.'12

There are still other elements of the style of the mosaics of S. Maria Maggiore that permit comparisons with other monuments. These are the attitudes of the figures, the Gebiirdefiguren, which recall motives in those monuments of the 2nd and 3rd centuries representing the narrative trend of Roman Imperial art (pp. 147-49). Such retrospective bor- rowings appear also in both pagan and Christian manu- scripts, such as the Vatican Virgil and the Quedlinburg Itala, connected with Rome, as well as in the Ambrosian Iliad, made somewhere in the East. The phenomenon, as far as we know, is limited to the mosaics of the Marian basilica and to these manuscripts. To account for such parallels, Brenk pos- tulates the existence of pattern books, by which these stock figures and other accessories could be transmitted through- out the Empire. What connects the mosaics of S. Maria Mag- giore with the two Roman manuscripts is the introduction of stage props, Versatzelemente, from other sources, namely the mythological paintings of the 1st century (p. 179). The mosaicists use their models more freely and include more contemporary references than do the artists of the two man- uscripts. The mosaics are by comparison of much higher quality.

Although the two mosaic cycles are clearly the product of a

single workshop, the differences in approach between them have long been noted: a formal ceremonial style in the scenes on the arch; a "realistic" narrative style in the panels of the nave. As R. Koemstedt was the first to observe in 1929, the more formal ceremonial style appears also in those panels of the nave nearest the arch. The choice of a particular approach was therefore dictated by theme and by location (pp. 152, 180). The two cycles must have been planned for the particular conditions of the basilica. No manuscript cycle could have anticipated these specific requirements. Brenk postulates a group of five artists working under the supervi- sion of a head master. This supervisor interpreted the theological program freely and with originality, and by pro- viding his workshop with hypothetical pattern books, en- sured the homogeneity of the whole. The person responsi- ble for formulating the religious content was, without doubt, a Roman theologian (p. 181).

As a result of this definitive study, the mosaics of S. Maria Maggiore have become less puzzling but more surprising. That they must be considered original and unique creations of the 5th century seems assured, the same conclusion that was reached by Kitzinger. It also is logical to deduce the use of pattern books, which must have been a fairly common workshop accessory in Roman times. Whether one can exclude the existence of a lost Old Testament manuscript cycle still remains in open question, but certainly the evi- dence for one is meager. The ideas expressed in the theolog- ical program point to an origin within the context of Chris- tian Rome. With such a comprehensive coverage, it is perhaps presumptuous to regret that some points are not expanded more fully. One could wish that we had been given a separate analysis of the ceremonial style of the mosaics on the arch. Although Brenk does bring out the general differences between the two cycles, he could have elaborated on the significance of the more abstract elements within the ceremonial cycle. To be sure, the descriptions of the individual scenes of the arch do reveal their expressive qualities.

It is in his interpretation of some of the details in the Infancy scenes that Brenk can be challenged. A case in point occurs in the Presentation in the Temple. On the basis of theological and historical accuracy, the author refutes Grabar's identification of the temple containing the figure of Roma in the pediment (the latter explained it as Hadrian's Temple of Venus and Roma in the Forum, known as the Templum Urbis, a symbol of Roma Aeterna), as well as Grabar's interpretation of the central triad of Joseph, an angel, and Anna as standing for an allegorical paraphrase of Concordia. 13 It is well to have the misleading theory that this triad illus- trates a dextrarum iunctio finally discarded, for there is no joining of hands. The scene cannot, in any case, represent the concord between the Old and New Testament, as Wellen had already recognized. To explain the presence ofRoma on a Jewish temple in a Christian context, Brenk turns to the historian, Orosius, who mentions that Christ became a Roman citizen when he was inscribed in the census at Bethlehem (pp. 21-23). But surely the reference to the city of

12 D. Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements, Princeton, 1947, 323f., 576 and 581f. Doro Levi compares figure types found in the topographical border of the Yakto complex (pl. 79) to figures in the nave panels of S. Maria Maggiore, and also the head of Megalopsychia (pl. 75) to

the Virgin in the Meeting with Aphrodisius. See also Kitzinger, Byzan- tine Art, 75. 13 Grabar, L'Empereur, 216f.

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:38:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS 477

Rome was intentional. Kantorowicz has given an equally Christian explanation that preserves the idea of Roma Aeterna. 14 The reference to Orosius is, however, worthy of note, as the historian also served Ursula Schubert as a guide in her interpretation of the scene traditionally described as the Meeting with Aphrodisius. 15 She proposed that the emperor is Augustus, who, according to Orosius, entered Rome on January 6, the date of Epiphany, the scene represented in the same register. Although Brenk speculates on an Augustan theme, he dismisses the idea as undemonstrable. One does wonder whether further exploration of Augustan references in the Christian context might be fruitful. Another question concerns the identity of the matron flanking the Christ Child in the Adoration of the Magi. That she represents the Church of the Gentiles, as Brenk deduces and as has been often proposed, is the most likely explanation but it does not account for her attitude of deep thought. Undoubtedly, there is still room for speculation on the meaning of many details in the mosaics on the arch, in spite of the wealth of

supporting evidence that Brenk has introduced. Brenk's achievement is to have woven a coherent pattern

from the various threads that make up this complex ensem- ble. His approach is consistent throughout. Without ne- glecting the importance of imperial imagery, he emphasizes the Christian content. He views the borrowings from the past in a practical light, however, as providing the mosai- cists with an artistic vocabulary. It is on this point that he differs from Kitzinger, who finds a conscious process of selection at work, by which both the official ceremonial and the epic style were deliberately chosen to recall the greatness of Rome's past. And, furthermore, Kitzinger believes that the "impressionist" style, used in many of the nave panels, was meant to emulate the manuscripts and to "evoke associ- ations . . . primarily with the great epics."16 Brenk remains unconvinced, as he has reiterated in a recent comment on Kitzinger's article.17 Kitzinger's theory has the merit, how- ever, of referring to the historical situation in Rome at the time and of explaining why a style so ill-suited for wall mosaics was chosen.

Since Brenk of necessity has limited himself to the evi- dence of the mosaics of S. Maria Maggiore, he does not explore the larger implications of the role of pattern books for both monumental and manuscript painting. But his monograph will certainly stimulate further discussion in re-

gard to the origin of Old Testament recensions and to the

development of narrative cycles. In conclusion, one can only stress that this book is rich in insights and original observa- tions, supported with impressive scholarship, and that it makes a major contribution to Early Christian studies. It will be a long time before it is superseded. We can be grateful to the author for this comprehensive and stimulat- ing study.

MARY L. HEUSER

Wheaton College

14 E. H. Kantorowicz, "Puer Exoriens: On the Hypapante in the Mosaics of S. Maria Maggiore," Perennitas (Festschrift Thomas Michels), Miinster, 1963, 118f., repr. in his Selected Studies, New York, 1965, 25f. 15 Schubert, Kairos, 1971, 213. 16 Kitzinger, Place of Book Illumination, 130f.

17 B. Brenk, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, LXIX, 1976, 643.

ERNST KITZINGER, Byzantine Art in the Making, Main Lines

of Stylistic Development in Mediterranean Art, 3rd-7th Century, London, Faber and Faber; Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1977. Pp. xi + 175, 8 color pls., 223 black-and-white ills. on 125 pls. $25

Written by a master scholar and teacher, these carefully wrought chapters, based on the Slade Lectures of 1974 at

Cambridge, provide a thoughtful, penetrating, and per- sonal interpretation of half a millennium of early medieval art, East and West. By turns analytical and synthetic, Kit- zinger moves easily and lucidly from close examination of

major monuments, where he is unsurpassed in finding the exact terms for visual characteristics, to broad conclusions about stylistic development and its meaning, where he is daring, without ignoring the difficulties that dog the path of anyone taking up the challenge of this period. If his title is a touch proleptic, his subtitle plainly states his aim, which is "to trace, on the basis of a representative series of monu- ments, the main lines in the evolution of artistic forms dur- ing a particularly critical and complex period in the history of Western art."

This period lies between the times of "the taboo against religious images which obtained in the Early Church until about A.D. 200, and the new ban on such images in eighth century Byzantium." Excluding architecture and manu- script illumination from consideration, Kitzinger believes that the pictorial arts of this period, with respect to form and style, can show "an intrinsic pattern." This pattern is not a simple sequence of different styles, or successive

phases in the life cycle of one style, but rather a "dialectical

process" of bold innovation followed by "retrospective movements" with several "extraordinary attempts at syn- thesis." Not content simply to identify and describe funda- mental stylistic trends, he presses on to what he recognizes as the art historian's most difficult task: "to identify the forces that set these trends into motion," "to grasp the in- tent behind changes in form," and thereby to write an art history that is intelligible and meaningful to the historian because it relates stylistic phenomena to larger and deeper historical trends and attitudes. A decade ago, in an article, "On the Interpretation of Stylistic Changes in Late Antique Art,"' Kitzinger had observed that art had been "correlated with social history, the history of ideas, with contem-

poraneous trends in philosophy, literature and sciences." But this had been done chiefly with respect to "content, subject matter, iconographic program." In the book under review, he seeks to do for style what had been done for content, that is, to identify an intrinsic stylistic pattern, of the 3rd through 7th centuries, and to relate this to a coherent historical understanding of the period.

The titles of Kitzinger's seven chapters are severely abstract and, for the most part, keyed to centuries: "Ancient Art in Crisis," 3rd century (15 pp.); "Regeneration," 4th century (23 pp.); "Fifth Century Conflicts-i" (21 pp.) and "2" (15 pp.); "The Justinianic Synthesis," ca. 526-ca. 550 (19 pp.); and "Polarization and Another Synthesis-i" (14 pp.) and "2" (10 pp.); concluding with an Epilogue (4 pp.). Im- plicit in these titles, which suggest an ideal, Wb1fflinian art history, is the centrality of the classical tradition in the pic-

1 Bucknell Review, xv, 1967, iii, 1; repr. The Art of Byzantium and the Medieval West, ed. E. Kleinbauer, Bloomington, 1976, 32.

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:38:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions