ANCIENT CHRISTIAN ICONOGRAPHY. — Within the group of the historical philosophical sciences concerned with the scientific reconstruction of the « orbis christianus antiquus », early Christian iconography has the task of tracing, in the products of ancient Christian art, all the information that can shed light on Christian culture in the earliest times. Its activity therefore proceeds on the basis of those monuments and monumental remains that offer figurative representations, studied not as artistic creations corresponding to aesthetic ends (a standpoint reserved for the history of art), but in terms of their content.
Initially regarded as a rather analytical and descriptive science (iconography), limited to the investigation of the true meaning of iconographic themes and motifs and of the scientific method for discovering it, iconography, increasingly intent on historical ends and aided by a progressive clarification of its own laws, has in recent times been transformed into a more « penetrative » and synthetic science, for which the name iconology would be more suitable.
Indeed, it no longer limits its efforts to identifying the subject, describing figures or scenes and the successive graphic developments through which the figurative expression passed, or establishing more or less well-classified groups. Once the work of art has been considered as a manifestation of a thought and as serving higher purposes, and its figurative genre (symbolic, typological, allegorical, cyclical, or narrative) has been determined, it is not only situated within the general chain of the genetic developments of Christian art traceable in both space and time, but also studied in all its constituent elements, including the most hidden ones, until, through the various ideological interferences contributing to its elaboration, the entire underlying concept to which it owes its existence is reached. The «image» created to serve as a vehicle for ideas and feelings between its creator and the person who contemplates it becomes, conversely, for the iconologist a sign, symbol, mirror, and document rich in information about the beliefs, states of mind, ways of seeing, customs, and purposes of a given religion or civilization.
There is a certain difference between i. and the history of art, but difference does not mean, or should not mean, antagonism, since each is an aid and complement to the other. Even if in certain cases it becomes difficult to establish where the task of the iconographer ends and that of the art historian begins, or vice versa, broadly speaking one may say that for the former the formal element as such has no direct interest (even a representation devoid of beauty remains for him a valuable testimony), whereas for the latter, even if he intends to reach the creator’s inner world through artistic creation, aesthetic, stylistic, and technical quality, together with their development, are of primary importance. The two sciences cannot, however, be completely separated; rather, they must be directed toward close collaboration. The genetic study of iconographic themes is altogether impossible without clear geographical delimitations and secure chronological datings, often obtained precisely and solely through stylistic analysis, while analysis of schemes and evaluation of iconographic groups or complexes can guard stylistic research against deviations and errors in its conclusions. In short, if both sciences have figurative creations as their material object, what is an end for one almost always becomes a means for the other.
As an auxiliary science of the history of Christian art, i. is also, in certain cases, an auxiliary of theology, insofar as it succeeds in illustrating the various successive aspects of faith and popular beliefs reflected in works of art.
The material on which iconographic research is conducted is extensive. Excluding purely decorative motifs, considered only insofar as they may offer criteria for dating or provenance, the iconographic repertory includes representations of God and the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, of the good and evil angels, of the Blessed Virgin and the saints, of events from the Old and New Testaments, of the Church and its mission, of eschatological events, of liturgical rites, and of all symbolic signs or allegorical compositions of a dogmatic or moral character, or those that are in some way expressions of faith, devotion, or worship.
It is the iconologist’s task—and one of his most difficult tasks—to distinguish merely ornamental motifs from those which, although apparently serving only decorative purposes, are not entirely devoid of symbolic meaning because they still bear the final reflections of symbolisms that have passed away or are in the process of being abandoned. The various techniques employed by the figurative arts concern iconography only insofar as the requirements of the materials used may have influenced the scheme or details of iconographic compositions, and even the choice and frequency of the themes themselves.
The method employed by i. in reaching scientific results is still being perfected and cannot yet be clearly formulated. In collecting iconographic materials and subjecting them to criticism, it follows more or less the norms of the historical or archaeological sciences in general. In the final iconographic presentation or synthesis, it aims to elaborate a faithful and complete image, to provide in words the equivalent—neither more nor less—of what the artists in question intended to express through their works, understood not only as more or less skilled decorators, but also as witnesses to the culture in which they lived and as persons moved by determinate motives in the choice and elaboration of their subjects. As for the pro-
per exegesis of works of art, which is desired to be increasingly objective and soundly grounded, Christian iconography now possesses no small number of means and principles that have already made it possible to achieve noteworthy results.
The starting point of this work is a precise chronology (relative and absolute) of the products of Christian art, no longer considered in isolation, but, wherever possible, in continual comparison with profane art and in the light of the history of civilization and religion. Once the coexistence of two traditions has been established, one literary and the other figurative, often—but not always—in agreement with one another, recourse is naturally had to the latter as the more direct source, and to the former as an aid wherever there is concordance of purpose.
Precedence is given to the figurative tradition and to the iconographic fact because every art of argumentation or edification, in which content or meaning therefore predominates, may and must be regarded as a «sui generis» language, possessing its own vocabulary and grammar, capable of being formulated, codified, and subsequently employed as means of understanding. Christian iconography therefore first of all resorts to the careful analysis of the representations themselves, down to their smallest details, examining the compositional schemes, the distribution and number of figures, their attitudes and gestures, their characteristics and attributes, their garments and the setting in which they move, the interplay of correspondences and contrasts, the purpose of the representation and its relations with the object it adorns. For greater clarity and certainty, the work under examination is compared with other works of art, first of all with those of the same family and preferably with those immediately preceding it in time or contemporary with it, and secondly with those belonging to other groups, including non-Christian ones, which offer elements of resemblance. What is perhaps not entirely clear in one work becomes so through comparison with another. The eye sensitive to interferences and discrepancies discovers meanings, nuances of thought, modifications and developments; it evaluates, separates, and groups; it acquires panoramic views of complexes and ramifications and ultimately comes to discern laws, intentions, and guiding concepts.
Secondly, without thereby falling into a petitio principi, Christian i. makes use of other sources not belonging to the domain of art, which for convenience are called literary. The inscriptions that sometimes accompany the iconographic representations themselves, epigraphic material, Holy Scripture and the apocrypha, patristic literature, liturgical texts, hagiographical and mystical sources, mythological, cosmographical, symbological traditions, etc., when used judiciously, especially where they reveal conceptions or beliefs generally widespread in a given period, lend Christian iconography the support of their confirmation, or even the means of understanding what the examination of art alone could not clarify.
Since Christian i. has existed, it has been customary to divide treatises and, consequently, iconographic research as well, according to subjects arranged in order of their dogmatic or religious importance. This is a convenient division both for authors and for those seeking information of an objective nature. The future will reveal whether it would not be preferable to replace this system, or at least to adopt alongside it, a genuine organic history of iconographic themes that would make it possible to follow, period by period, the reflections of Christian thought in figurative art. Certainly the «historical» method, precisely because it highlights the numerous intersections of the various themes in a given period and opens a broader view of what might be called iconographic complexes, not only ensures a more accurate evaluation of them but also leads to a more coherent vision of the life of Christian thought throughout the centuries.
Two particular questions are of a certain importance for Christian c. a. i.; one concerns the intimate nature of early Christian art, the other the earliest origins of this art.
Everyone agrees in recognizing that ancient Christian art, like medieval art as well, was principally directed toward communicating Christian thought. To put it inelegantly, it is to a large extent an art of content. It therefore assigns to the forms it employs a certain value as signs and symbols. But not everyone has accepted that, in its intimate nature, it goes beyond this apparent symbolism, communicating to the spectator, through these same signs, ideas or sentiments not directly expressed by them. Setting aside representations in which the form itself assumes a symbolic or allegorical character (IXØYC = Christ; the Last Judgment with the faithful represented by lambs), the principal question is whether Christian art, beyond the purpose of simply portraying a biblical, ritual, or other event (Noah in the ark, a banquet, etc.), also intends to suggest, by typological, symbolic, or allegorical means, a more hidden spiritual concept intelligible only to those initiated into the Christian faith or mysteries (salvation, the Eucharist, etc.). It is also asked whether this symbolism is funerary or eschatological in character (in cemetery decorations), or instead follows a more general, dogmatic-moral orientation.
After the exaggerations of the early iconographic schools, which pressed symbolic-dogmatic interpretation to the point of arriving at as many as ten different interpretations of the same subject, a strong reaction appeared (Hasenclever, Styger). Driven by the desire to find a unitary principle of exegesis, it rejected, one might say, every symbolic value in early Christian art, attributing to it a merely illustrative function. One exaggeration gave way to the other. Today the symbolic character of this art is generally admitted; opinions differ only in specifying which concept, within this symbolism, is fundamental and capable of giving it a certain unity of direction. It is probable that, as particular research progresses and the method is perfected, the definitive solution will impose itself.
As regards the earliest origins of early Christian art—a question that primarily concerns the history of art—it cannot be denied that the solution of certain iconographic problems would be easier if this question were more fully clarified, although its importance should not be exaggerated. It has not yet been possible to determine a center that developed and disseminated the first works of Christian art. While Rome was long recognized as having this privilege, a reaction subsequently arose here as well on the part of the «orientalists». The name of Strzygowski is now famous: at first he gave precedence to the important eastern Hellenistic centers (Alexandria, Asia Minor, Antioch), then to the more remote East (Edessa, Mesopotamia, Iran), and finally attributed great importance to north Asian and northern European influences that had come through India toward western Asia. He was followed, in varying degrees and with differing preferences, by Wulff, Baumstark, Diehl, Dalton, Kaufmann, Toesca, Morey, and others. The so-called «romanists» instead (Wilpert, von Sybel, Schultze, Sauer, Rodenwaldt, etc.) regard early Christian art as a branch of Roman Hellenistic art. It is not always easy to distinguish whether the arguments of individual authors concern precisely the beginnings of ancient Christian art or instead the origins of post-Constantinian art (for there is also a «Byzantine question»).
In all probability Christian art was conceived almost simultaneously in the various important Christian centers, making use of universally widespread artistic forms marked by local influences. The question of exchanges is of a «secondary» order. Yet numerous further discoveries and careful particular studies of the characteristics of each region and of their reciprocal influences, based on chronologically well-dated monuments, will be necessary before it can be more precisely defined and one can pass from hypothesis to established fact.
In the literary history of Christian i. four salient phases may be distinguished.
The first significant attempt to restore importance to Christian iconographic monuments was made by Molanus (Jan Vermeulen), in De picturis et imaginibus sacris (1570), a work entirely permeated by the spirit of the Counter-Reformation.
After the discovery of the catacombs, in 1578, an immense debt is owed to Bosio (Roma sotterranea, published posthumously in 1632), around whom Macario (Jean L'Heureux), Ciacconio, and Van Winghe gathered. There followed Reiske, De imaginibus Jesu Christi (1685), Ciampini, Vetera monumenta (1690), and Arnold, Wahre Abbildungen der ersten Christen im Glauben u. Leben (1700).
While the period of the philosophers is not of particular importance, the French Romantics, under the influence of Chateaubriand, laid the first foundations of an iconographic science; in the following generation, the first comprehensive works appeared.
The names are: Seroux d'Agincourt, Histoire de l'art par les monuments (6 vols., 1811–23); R. Raoul Rochette, Discours sur les types imitatifs (1834); A. Didron, Iconographie chrétienne: Histoire de Dieu (1843); id., Annales archéologiques (1844–67); Ch. Cahier and A. Martin, Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire (1847–56) and Nouveaux mélanges (1874–77); A. Crosnier, Iconographie chrétienne (1848–76). In Germany there followed: V. Wessenberg, Die christlichen Bilder (1827); Müller, Die bildlichen Darstellungen im Sanctuarium (1835); J. V. Radowitz, Iconographie (1834); Helmsdörfer, Christl. Kunstsymbolik u. Iconographie (1839); F. Piper, Mythologie u. Symbolik der christl. Kunst (1847); W. Menzel, Christl. Symbolik (1854); A. Springer, Iconographische Studien (1860); Quellen der Kunstdarstellungen im Mittelalter (1879), in which considerable scientific exactitude is already evident.
The true historical method, directed toward placing the nature of early Christian art in its proper light, is due to G. B. De Rossi (d. 1894). His immense scholarly activity opened a period in which, alongside monumental collections of materials, encyclopedias, manuals, periodicals, and general chapters in the great histories of art, particular studies (monographs) multiplied in every direction; the value to be assigned to the various literary sources and to the history of religion was increasingly clarified; comparison between Christianity and other ancient cultures was exploited more effectively; the chronology of the monuments was progressively elucidated; and research was extended to Eastern monuments. Among the numerous scholars, let the following simply be recalled: in Rome: R. Garrucci, M. Armellini, O. Marucchi, A. De Waal, Hartmann Grisar, G. Wilpert, A. Venturi, G. P. Kirsch, P. Toesca, G. de Jerphanion, F. Grossi Gondi; in France: E. Le Blant, Ch. Bayet, E. Müntz, J. Martigny, C. Rohault de Fleury, H. Barbier de Montault, G. Millet, Ch. Diehl, L. Bréhier, H. Leclercq; in Germany: H. Detzel, F. X. Kraus, V. Schultze, J. Ficker, G. Stuhlfauth, L. V. Sybel, O. Wulff, J. Sauer, W. Neuss, K. Künste, F. J. Dölger; in England: A. Jameson, O. Dalton, W. E. Crum; finally, the following should be mentioned: J. Strzygowski, N. Kondakov, D. V. Ainalov, P. Styger.
The Pont. Institute of Christian Archaeology, founded by Pius XI in 1925 and devoted to collecting the results already achieved and coordinating further research, equipped with rich collections and a specialized library, has already made a notable contribution to early Christian iconography through its courses of study and publications.
Principal collections of materials: G. B. De Rossi, Musaici cristiani e saggi dei pavimenti delle chiese di Roma anteriori al sec. XV, Rome 1872–99; E. Le Blant, Etude sur les sarcophages chrétiens de la ville d'Arles, Paris 1878; id., Les sarcophages chrétiens de la Gaule, ibid. 1886; G. Wilpert, Le pitture delle catacombe romane, Rome 1903; id., Die römischen Mosaikens. Malereien der kirchlichen Bauten, 4 vols., Freiburg im Breisgau 1916; id., I sarcofagi cristiani antichi, Rome 1929–36; H. Achelis, Die Katahomben von Neapel, Leipzig 1936; in addition to numerous specialized collections of minor-art objects. On questions of method: J. Wilpert, Prinzipienfragen der christlichen Archäologie, Freiburg im Breisgau 1889; P. Styger, Der heutige Stand und die künftige Aufgabe der christl. Archäologie, in Schweizer Rundschau, 1923; id., Die altchristl. Kunst. Grundlegende Erörterungen über die Methode der Datierung u. Auslegung, in Zeitschr. f. kath. Theologie, 53 (1929), pp. 245 ff. The intimate character of early Christian art: M. Dvořák, Kunstgeschichte als Geistesgeschichte, 2nd ed., Munich 1924; J. Sauer, Wesen u. Wallen der christlichen Kunst, Freiburg im Breisgau 1926; P. Styger, Die altchristl. Grabeskunst, Munich 1927; G. P. Kirsch, Sull'origine dei motivi iconografici nella pittura cimiteriale di Roma, in Rivista di archeologia crist., 4 (1927), p. 259 ff.; id., Der Ideengelt der ältesten sepulchralen Darstellungen in den römischen Katahomben, in Römische Quartalschrift, 36 (1928), p. 1 ff.; J. Herwegen, Christliche Kunst und Mysterium, Münster in Westphalia 1929; H. Lother, Realismus u. Symbolismus in der altchristl. Kunst, Tübingen 1931; B. Knippen, Symbol en allegorie in de beeldende Kunst, Nijmegen–Utrecht 1941; R. Gillis, Le symbolisme de l'art religieux, Paris 1942. Origins of Christian art: A. Riegl, Stiftragen. Grundlegungen zu einer Geschichte der Ornamentik, Berlin 1893; D. Ainalov, I fondamenti ellentistici dell'arte bizantina (in Russian), St Petersburg 1900; A. Riegl, Die spätromische Kunstindustrie, 2 vols., Vienna 1901–33; 2nd ed. ibid. 1927; J. Strzygowski, Orient oder Rom, Leipzig 1901; Ch. Diehl, Manuel de l'art byzantin, Paris 1910; 3rd ed. ibid. 1925; O. M. Dalton, Byzantine art and archaeology, Oxford 1911; F. Wickhoff, Römische Kunst, Berlin 1912; O. Wulff, Altchristl. und byzantinische Kunst, Berlin 1914; 2nd ed. 1936; E. Baldwin Smith, op. cit.; J. Strzygowski, Ursprung der christlichen Kirchenkunst, Leipzig 1920; J. Wilpert, Die altchristl. Kunst. Rom und des Orients, in Zeitschr. f. kath. Theologie, 45 (1921), pp. 337–69; id., Roma fondatrice dell'arte monumentale paleocristiana e medievale, in Atti del X Congresso internaz. di storia dell'arte, Rome 1922, pp. 63–71; M. Dvořák, Die Entstehung der christl. Kunst, in Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, 2, 14 (1923), pp. 1–13; E. Weigand, Die Orient- oder Romfrage in der fröhchristl. Kunst, in Zeitschr. f. neutest. Wissenschaft, 1923, p. 233 ff.; O. M. Dalton, East christian art, Oxford 1925; Kömstedt, Vormittelalterliche Malereien, Augsburg 1929; H. Peirce and R. Tyler, L'art byzantin, 2 vols., Paris 1932. For further references V. C. Cecchelli, Il problema dell'Oriente a Roma - alla luce delle scoperte ecc., in Atti del I Congresso naz. di studi romani, I, Rome 1929, p. 669 ff.; G. Galassi, Roma a Bisanzio, ibid. 1930.
Luciano De Bruyne