Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T01:25:28.702Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Between the living and the dead: use, reuse, and imitation of painted portraits in Late Antiquity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2022

Grace Stafford*
Affiliation:
Faculty of History, University of Warsaw
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Painted portraits on wood and cloth were common in the ancient world and prized as authentic and lifelike images. Affordable, portable, and desirable, they were an important form of representation, but rarely survive in the archaeological record outside Egypt. This article approaches the study of painted portraiture in a way that does not necessitate the survival of the images themselves. It analyzes evidence for the use, reuse, and imitation of painted portraits in the catacombs of 4th-c. Rome by examining the remains of settings and attachments for portraits, the shadows left by them on walls, and portraits in other media which imitate panel paintings. The article considers why painted portraits were so effective in funerary contexts and what connection they may have had to domestic portraiture. It also explores the development of panel portrait imitation through the phenomenon of the “square nimbus.”

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

In the Crypt of Oceanus in the catacombs of S. Callixtus in Rome, there is a painted bust of a woman who is missing her head (Fig. 1). This is not because the fresco has deteriorated or been cut away, but because the head was originally attached separately, on a mobile support probably consisting of a linen canvas.Footnote 1 Only the rectangular shadow of this portrait remains, along with holes at regular intervals where it had been attached to the wall with nails. While admittedly odd-looking to the modern observer, the use of a portrait on a mobile support is not unique to this tomb. A similar fresco is found in the catacombs of Domitilla, in which a family group was depicted with the heads of the mother and children added separately (Fig. 2).Footnote 2 A cubiculum from SS. Marcellino and Pietro has a recess in the wall in which it has been argued was affixed a wooden panel, perhaps a portrait of the deceased (Fig. 3), and another cubiculum preserves evidence of a complete portrait attached on cloth (Fig. 4).Footnote 3 These “invisible” images, attested only by shadows in the spaces they occupied, the presence of recesses, and the remains of attachments, are rare reminders of a genre of portraiture common in the ancient world but rare in the archaeological record: painted portraits on perishable media like wooden panels or cloth.

Fig. 1. Composite portrait from the Crypt of Oceanus in the catacombs of S. Callixtus. (Wilpert Reference Wilpert1907, fig. 3.)

Fig. 2. Composite family group portrait from the catacombs of Domitilla. (Courtesy of the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology.)

Fig. 3. Recess for a panel painting(?), SS Marcellino and Pietro. (Courtesy of the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology.)

Fig. 4. Arcosolium painted with rectangular framed panel for attachment of a portrait on cloth, with nails preserved around the edges, SS Marcellino and Pietro. (Courtesy of the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology.)

Painted portraits on wood or cloth were a popular form of commemoration in the catacombs of 4th-c. Rome but have not received the scholarly attention they deserve. The first reason for this is that the absence of an image has been unable to compete with surviving frescoes, especially religious scenes, which dominate the study of catacomb art. Portraits in general are understudied; even those that are well preserved have only recently begun to receive detailed investigation and are still overshadowed by biblical motifs.Footnote 4 “Multi-media” funerary compositions like those described above have attracted limited attention, largely due to their peculiarity.Footnote 5 This is unfortunate, since in addition to these composite images which utilized wood or cloth, many more funerary portraits in various media imitated or referenced the use of panel portraits, thereby attesting to their desirability for funerary commemoration. This was mainly achieved through the addition of painted frames.Footnote 6 For example, the bust from S. Callixtus incorporated a facial portrait on cloth but was also depicted inside a rectangular painted frame that imitated a panel painting. Looped pieces of string were even painted protruding from either side of the frame, mimicking the cord used to hang a painting on the wall.

The second reason that these portraits have been neglected is that the perishability of wood and cloth mean such portraits rarely survive in the archaeological record and are therefore difficult to study. To date, research into ancient painted portraiture in these media has followed two main trajectories: study of the Fayum mummy portraits, and the relationship between panel portraits and icons.Footnote 7 Both early icons and mummy portraits have primarily been preserved in the dry climate of Egypt. This limited preservation context has narrowed the scope of research into painted portraiture, which is regrettable given that it was a common form of representation across the empire. The Fayum portraits in particular captivate modern viewers, but they represent only a fraction of the painted portraits that once existed and exemplify a highly specific and localized practice. It has been debated whether these portraits originally served a domestic or funerary function, but it is now generally agreed that this was a funerary practice which dovetailed with traditional mortuary procedures.Footnote 8 These portraits are beautiful and survive in relatively large numbers, but if we are to better understand ancient portraiture, we must look for a greater range of material to study, even if the evidence preserved is not ideal. While the catacombs also represent a specific and localized funerary context, many of the portraits retained their connection to the portraiture that adorned people's homes: framed and hung on the walls of the tomb rather than the house. As will be discussed below, it is possible that these paintings were originally domestic items that were reused in a secondary context. The catacomb portraits therefore also provide us with a valuable link to domestic portraiture and wider portrait practices. This is especially important given the almost complete lack of archaeological evidence for such portraits in domestic contexts.

This article examines the evidence for portraits on wood and cloth in the catacombs and asks what made this form of portraiture so effective and desirable for commemorating the dead.Footnote 9 It also considers where these portraits might have come from and analyzes the connection between the world of domestic portraiture and funerary commemoration. Through this analysis, I hope to adjust our expectations of material evidence and archaeological inquiry in a context in which physical remains are minimal. No actual portraits on wood or cloth survive from the catacombs, but that does not mean knowledge of them is lost to us forever. I begin with an overview of painted portraiture in the first four centuries CE, which will allow us to situate evidence from the catacombs within a long-standing portrait tradition. I will then turn to the catacombs themselves and what they can tell us about this understudied form of portraiture, both in 4th-c. Rome and beyond.

Painted portraits in the Roman Imperial period and Late Antiquity

In the 1st c. CE, Pliny the Elder dedicated Book 35 of his Natural History to painting, its history, techniques, and materials. In the introduction he lamented that while painting had formerly been highly honored among the visual arts, in his own day marble carving was more popular.Footnote 10 With regard to portraiture in particular, Pliny bemoaned a turn away from painted portraits and towards those produced in marble, bronze, and precious metals, a choice which he says sacrificed a true likeness for the prestige of the material.Footnote 11 A preoccupation with preserving an individual's features for posterity pervades Pliny's discussion of painted portraiture.Footnote 12 Pliny considered painted portraits more accurate than other media and therefore important for the preservation of memory. To have one's likeness preserved in this way was a sign of social esteem.Footnote 13 The wish to conserve a person's memory through an accurate representation of their physiognomy is also reflected in the aristocratic practice of creating wax portrait masks of illustrious male ancestors, the imagines maiorum.Footnote 14 These masks were worn by actors during funeral processions, at which the realism of the portraits made the dead appear to “come to life again.”Footnote 15 The imagines did not simply resemble the deceased, they acted as their doubles.Footnote 16 Painted portraits seem to have functioned in a similar, although less theatrical, fashion. They were prized for the close resemblance they represented to an individual and thus elided the barrier between image and person.

Despite Pliny's concerns, painted portraits continued to be created throughout the Imperial period.Footnote 17 They were awarded to prominent citizens alongside statues, and emperors and their families were represented in paintings displayed in public spaces, temples, and private homes.Footnote 18 The most famous surviving example is the Berlin Tondo, which depicts Septimius Severus (r.193–211), Julia Domna, Caracalla, and Geta.Footnote 19 Only a handful of paintings like this one have survived, but evidence from texts and other visual sources testifies to their ubiquity. For example, in Pompeii and Herculaneum, wooden panel paintings (pinakes) were incorporated into the decorative schemes of wall paintings, both by inserting panels into recesses in the wall and by including simulated panels in the fresco design.Footnote 20 Sometimes such simulated panels concerned portraits, such as that of Terentius Neo and his wife in their house-cum-bakery.Footnote 21 Panel portraits also appear in other decorative media. The painted interior of a late 1st-c. CE sarcophagus from Kerch shows a scene of a portrait painter in his workshop. He has paintings on his easel and completed pieces on the wall.Footnote 22 In Antioch a mosaic from ca. 200 CE depicts a young man contemplating a small, framed portrait of a woman, perhaps an image of his beloved.Footnote 23 The panel is similar to the only complete framed portrait to survive from antiquity (Fig. 5).Footnote 24 Found propped against a mummy in Hawara – presumably acting as a pseudo-mummy portrait – the painting itself is badly preserved, but the frame is in good condition with a rope for suspension. Unlike other mummy portraits, there can be little doubt that this painting originated in the home of the deceased.

Fig. 5. Framed wooden panel portrait from Hawara, Egypt, 1st c. CE? (© The Trustees of the British Museum.)

As intimated by Pliny, a painted portrait was normally cheaper than one sculpted from marble or bronze and may therefore have been a common choice outside elite circles.Footnote 25 However, we know little about how much such portraits cost, and it may have depended significantly on the caliber of the painter and the size of the piece. Diocletian's Price Edict of 301 informs us that the pictor imaginarius was paid 150 denarii per day, twice the amount received by a wall painter and three times the wage of a floor mosaicist.Footnote 26 While this indicates that portrait painters were skilled and valued artisans, it does not suggest an individual portrait's cost. In 362 a man called Zoilos arranged to pay a painter called Heraclides one artaba of wheat and two Cnidian jars of wine for a portrait.Footnote 27 Variation in the price of wheat in the 4th c. makes equating this with a cash amount difficult, however, it does not appear an astronomical sum.Footnote 28 A 2nd-c. papyrus records that a soldier named Apion stationed in Misenum sent a portrait of himself back to his family in Egypt, presumably intended as a keepsake.Footnote 29 That such a portrait was accessible on a soldier's wage suggests that commissioning a painted portrait was possible for many. Affordable, portable, and desirable, painted portraits were probably common in the homes of non-elites, but simply do not survive.

In the home, painted portraits functioned as foci for memory and contemplation. This was presumably facilitated by the fact that they were prized as accurate representations of their subject. Easily portable, they could also represent a transportable substitute for the person depicted. These features made them suitable for funerary uses, as can be seen in the case of the framed painting reused as a mummy portrait. Funerary inscriptions sometimes mention the contemplation of an image of the deceased during mourning or the creation of a portrait for commemoration and memorialization.Footnote 30 The 2nd-c. epitaph of Allia Potestas from Rome, for example, refers to a small portable image (effigiem) of the woman that was revered by those who outlived her.Footnote 31 What form this image took is unknown and often assumed to be a sculpture, but there seems no reason why it could not have been a painted portrait.Footnote 32 A 1st-c. epigraphic inventory from Apateira of a tomb's furnishings records some 13 painted portraits.Footnote 33

The suitability of painted portraits for funerary commemoration is illustrated by tomb frescoes that incorporated simulated panel paintings like those integrated into domestic decoration. A well-known example concerns the Tomb of the Three Brothers in Palmyra, where nine tondo portraits in yellow frames are supported by Victories.Footnote 34 It is not certain whether these tondi portrayed the people buried in the tomb or served a purely decorative purpose, but they nevertheless mimic tondo portrait paintings. As already mentioned, the aristocratic wax imagines also played important funerary roles.Footnote 35 The masks brought the dead back to life at funerals, animated by living actors. The perceived realism of these images gave them a strong connection to the individual they represented, allowing them to move between the worlds of the living and the dead. This may explain the interest in painted portraits in funerary contexts, whether made for that purpose or transferred from a domestic setting: the idea that painted portraits preserved a true resemblance of the individual made them potent loci for memory.

Pliny would have been delighted to see interest in three-dimensional art forms begin to wane in Late Antiquity, replaced by two-dimensional painting and mosaic.Footnote 36 In reality, a taste for painting had probably never disappeared and has simply been obscured by the better survival of sculpture. In the early 3rd c., Philostratus the Elder praised painting over sculpture for its ability to accurately capture details and emotions through the use of color.Footnote 37 Color is also hailed in Late Antique and Byzantine sources as integral to a lifelike and engaging image.Footnote 38 It has been suggested that a preference for the emotional engagement that could be elicited from paintings or mosaics contributed to the decline in the so-called statue habit.Footnote 39 Elucidating the reasons for this decline in Late Antiquity is beyond the scope of this article, however, it is evident that paintings had always played important roles alongside sculpture and would ultimately persist long after statue production dwindled.Footnote 40 Two-dimensional media would dominate the visual culture of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, especially when it came to portraiture.Footnote 41

In Late Antiquity there was significant continuity concerning the use of painted portraits and the ideas with which they were associated.Footnote 42 Emperors continued to be depicted in paintings and the portraits of high-ranking ecclesiastical figures were displayed in churches and public places.Footnote 43 The imperial image was hung in lawcourts as a stand-in for the man himself, attesting to the continued intimate association between painted images and their subjects.Footnote 44 Like Pliny centuries earlier, 4th-c. authors demonstrated a clear attachment to painted portraits for their perceived accuracy, and by extension their ability to provoke personal and emotional interactions.Footnote 45 For example, a letter written by the orator Libanius conveyed his delight over a portrait he received of the famous Aelius Aristides.Footnote 46 The picture was apparently so lifelike that Libanius considered it the next best thing to having the man himself beside him and recounted how he talked to the painting as he read Aristides's work. In his Lives of the Philosophers, Eunapius praised the work of the painter Hilarius, who had mastered the art so completely that, like Libanius's portrait of Aristides, his subjects too seemed to come to life.Footnote 47 Ausonius played with these ideas in a poem addressed to a painter concerning a portrait of an enslaved girl called Bissula.Footnote 48 The poem expressed concern that the painter could not capture her beauty with conventional paints and suggested the use of roses and lilies to approximate her features.

The famous case of the portraits made for the baptistery at Primuliacum in Gaul presents the exception that proves the rule. In 403, Sulpicius Severus wrote to his friend Paulinus of Nola, asking him to send a portrait of himself to Gaul for his baptistery.Footnote 49 Paulinus refused, instructing Sulpicius to get a local painter to make a portrait based on existing paintings and descriptions. In his letter, Paulinus made it clear that the physical accuracy of the portrait was unimportant, as the true “portrait” of a person was in their words and deeds, not appearance.Footnote 50 Paulinus contrasted the perishable materials of wax and wood with the immortality of the internal, spiritual image written on the heart.Footnote 51 However, this exchange does not indicate that people were no longer invested in painted portraits by the early 5th c., or that their relationships to such images had changed significantly. In his resistance to the portrait, Paulinus made a rhetorical point about his Christian identity, a point illustrated through opposition to the apparently popular view of portraiture seen in other sources. Paulinus was arguing that investment in earthly, bodily images was shallow, whether expressed in paint or in flesh. Painted portraits were thus the vehicle for his argument, not its target, and his rhetorical use of them confirms their continued social relevance.

From Pliny to Libanius, painted portraits were prized for their perceived accuracy, and painters were praised for their ability to make the image of a person seem to come alive. Painted portraits were cheaper and more widely accessible than sculpted portraits, but the perishable nature of their materials skews the archaeological evidence. Beyond this difference in cost, painted portraits also seem to have played to subtly different desires on the part of the purchaser. While sculpture could be lifelike, paintings were valued as accurate likenesses of specific people, images with which one could interact on a personal level. This interaction formed part of the rhythms of daily life, whether it concerned a portrait of a family member far from home, an object of romantic desire, or an admired figure from the past.

This understanding of painted portraits would be influential for the development of icons, which were prized as true depictions of holy figures.Footnote 52 Their status as portraits meant they were also capable of acting as “stand-ins” for the person they represented: interaction with an icon could trigger a spiritual connection between the viewer and the person portrayed.Footnote 53 At times, these interactions even mirrored experiences with secular portraits discussed above. In the 7th c., George of Alexandria described how John Chrysostom conversed with a portrait of the apostle Paul in much the same fashion that Libanius talked with his portrait of Aristides.Footnote 54 The “iconization” of portraiture, in which portrait features were understood to be spiritual rather than strictly physical, also spoke to Paulinus's concerns about flesh being prioritized over spirit.Footnote 55 The evidence from the catacombs, to which we will now turn, sits squarely in the middle of this long tradition, connecting a Christian future with ideas that reach far back into antiquity.

Painted portraits in the Roman catacombs

The actual remains of portraits painted on wood and cloth have not survived from the catacombs, but there is substantial evidence that such portraits were highly desirable for funerary commemoration. As already mentioned in the introduction, two paintings survive which incorporate mobile media into fresco portraits, one in the Crypt of Oceanus in the catacombs of S. Callixtus and the other in arcosolium 12 in the catacombs of Domitilla. Lesser known and more complex a composition, the latter depicts a family group of a mother, father, and at least one child, probably two (Fig. 2).Footnote 56 The bust of the father is depicted entirely in fresco on the viewer's right, wearing a tunic and cloak. His wife, however, is shown in fresco from the shoulders down, her yellow tunic with dark clavi painted directly onto the wall of the arcosolium. Where her head should be is a rectangular space where her portrait was affixed, perhaps on a wooden panel painting.Footnote 57 Between the parents one can just make out the shoulders of a small figure painted in fresco, above which is a rectangular shadow bordered with nail holes. This indicates where the portrait of a child was added, probably on cloth. To the viewer's far left Norbert Zimmermann has also noted evidence of adhesive for the addition of a fourth portrait, probably another child.Footnote 58

Zimmermann has suggested that the portrait of the second child added to the group's far left may have been an unexpected addition, and that therefore affixing the cloth image was a matter of convenience.Footnote 59 Yet the original group was clearly a planned composition.Footnote 60 The patrons of the tomb evidently saw value in attaching separate facial portraits of the mother and child, but it remains unclear why the father was executed solely in fresco. Perhaps portraits of the mother and child already existed and were transferred to the tomb because they were prized for the close connection they represented to their subjects. If no such portrait of the father existed, it would have to be executed in fresco. As we have seen, painted portraits were thought to bear a close likeness to individuals and could even be perceived to act as stand-ins for them – whether physically absent or deceased. Alternatively, the fresco portrait may indicate the father was still alive when the tomb was executed, whereas his wife and children had died.Footnote 61 Whatever the reason, it is likely that the portraits of the mother and children originated in the home and were transferred to the catacomb for secondary use. This is because they concern only facial portraits positioned on frescoed busts. If they were commissioned specifically for the tomb, why only paint the head? The same is true of the portrait from S. Callixtus (Fig. 1). It seems logical that a facial portrait was already in existence but that a different composition was desired for the funerary image, in this case a bust holding a scroll and a group portrait in the case of the family. Both formulations were popular choices for funerary commemoration. This was especially true of family groups, which are rare in 4th-c. visual culture outside tombs.Footnote 62 These funerary compositions referenced qualities like intellectual cultivation and family harmony in a way that small domestic portraits did not. In both cases, a composite painting achieved the desired effect while sacrificing neither the mimetic powers of the facial portraits nor the wider context of the preferred compositions.

In the catacombs of SS. Marcellino and Pietro there is potential evidence for a panel painting incorporated into a recess in the wall of a tomb.Footnote 63 In cubiculum 49, the back wall of the arcosolium preserves a rectangular recess surrounded by a stucco frame (Fig. 3).Footnote 64 Two metal attachments are visible in the upper corners of the recess, which Claudia Corneli argues were used to affix a wooden panel.Footnote 65 The recess is large, 90 cm x 67 cm with a depth of 2.08 cm, meaning the panel it once contained was sizeable, certainly large enough to depict the bust of an individual or several figures. Under the arch of the arcosolium is a painted portrait of a woman in a tondo frame; perhaps the panel depicted the same individual.Footnote 66 It is also possible, however, that the recess contained an inscribed marble slab. Two inscribed slabs were found positioned in recesses in and around an arcosolium in the cripta di Ampliato in the catacombs of Domitilla.Footnote 67 These recesses were both framed with red paint, but neither had a stucco frame, perhaps lending credence to the interpretation that the example from SS. Marcellino and Pietro contained a painted portrait. The rear wall of an arcosolium was also the standard location for portraits painted in fresco.Footnote 68 As Corneli suggests, if the recess in cubiculum 49 of SS. Marcellino and Pietro contained a panel portrait, it may have been a domestic object moved to the tomb because it was valued as a painted “double” of the deceased.Footnote 69

In cubiculum 41, also in the catacombs of SS. Marcellino and Pietro, we find a similar situation, but the portrait here was most likely attached on cloth. The back wall of the lunette has a red ground, in the center of which a white rectangle was painted, bordered in black.Footnote 70 Johannes Deckers recorded that around the edges were the rusted remains of 19 iron pins or nails, which he interpreted as attaching a separate portrait or inscription on brick, wood, or fabric (Fig. 4).Footnote 71 From the published photograph, it appears that the nails ran along the edge of the white rectangle; the black border was perhaps intended to provide a frame for the attached image. Given the framed recess from cubiculum 49 of the same catacombs discussed in the previous paragraph and the entirely painted examples discussed below, it seems most likely that a portrait on cloth was attached to the back wall in the white rectangular field.

In addition to tombs that preserve evidence of portraits on wood or cloth, probably transferred from domestic settings, there are numerous portraits in other media which imitate them. Perhaps the most ambitious imitation of a panel portrait is the “orante nel trittico” painting from the cover of loculus 51 in the catacombs of Domitilla. It depicts a bust of a woman in the orans position on a wooden panel with side leaves imitating folding doors.Footnote 72 A simpler composition is found in the Coemeterium Maius, where a woman in bust form is depicted on the back wall of an arcosolium with a thick rectangular painted frame around her, flanked by two orants (Fig. 6).Footnote 73 This may imitate panels like the one perhaps inserted into the recess at SS. Marcellino and Pietro. Two other arcosolia from the catacombs of Domitilla preserve similar compositions, one with the central panel flanked by Peter and Paul, the other by Cupids (Figs. 7–8). In the former, there are traces of the depiction of a single orant individual and in the latter, a couple can still clearly be seen.Footnote 74 Several other portraits were executed within round frames imitating tondi, the best preserved of which is the bust portrait of a young boy from arcosolium 67 in the catacombs of Domitilla.Footnote 75 A beautiful pair of tondi representing a couple from the cimitero di Ciriaca also belong to this group, but were executed in mosaic.Footnote 76

Fig. 6. Bust portrait of a woman with a painted frame, Coemeterium Maius. (Wilpert Reference Wilpert1903, pl. 223.)

Fig. 7. Framed portrait in an arcosolium in the catacombs of Domitilla, flanked by Peter and Paul. (Wilpert Reference Wilpert1903, pl. 154.1.)

Fig. 8. Framed painted portrait of a couple in an arcosolium in the catacombs of Domitilla, flanked by Cupids (white sections are in the image as provided). (Courtesy of the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology.)

Returning to the catacombs of S. Callixtus, a fragmentary marble slab from gallery E8, cubiculum C – probably part of the closure of a loculus – preserves the incised portrait of a woman (Fig. 9).Footnote 77 She is shown in bust form and is surrounded by a square frame. For an image incised into marble, the portrait is rendered in a highly sensitive manner and with a painterly quality, with particular attention paid to her facial features. The woman has a pointed chin, a pronounced cupid's bow with her mouth held slightly open, somewhat gaunt cheeks and high cheekbones. Shallow lines around her eyes and nose give her a mature appearance, and care has been taken to render the strands of hair that make up the thick braid winding over the top of her head. Her portrait is in sharp contrast to other incised images from the catacombs, which often appear hasty and naïve.Footnote 78 The elegant details of her face and the frame that surrounds her bust both indicate that this image was intended to imitate a painted portrait panel, just like those we find in fresco.Footnote 79

Fig. 9. Incised portrait in imitation of a painted panel portrait, from a fragmentary loculus cover in the catacombs of S. Callixtus. (Courtesy of the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology.)

The form of this incised portrait is unusual, but it reminds us of another intersection between painted and sculpted portraits in funerary contexts. Many sarcophagi included portraits of the deceased, and a popular composition in the 4th c. was to position the bust of an individual or couple in a tondo or a rectangular frame.Footnote 80 While this naturally recalls sculptural tondi portraits, the relatively low relief of most depictions also connects them to painted panels. This seems especially true for those with rectangular frames, although these are less common than tondi. Once painted, such low-relief portrait images resembled framed panel paintings as much as sculptures and perhaps owe their popularity on sarcophagi to the taste for painted portraits rather than statuary. The potential for intermediality between panel paintings, sarcophagi, and fresco portraits is illustrated by a ceiling painting from the cubiculum of Lazarus in the catacombs of Priscilla.Footnote 81 Above three loculi in the right-hand wall is a long, narrow painted panel that bears a striking resemblance to the front of a sarcophagus. In the center is a portrait of an orans woman in a tondo, flanked symmetrically on either side by three figures, each separated by painted pilasters. The similarities with columnar sarcophagi are remarkable and highly unlikely to be accidental.

A final example, from the catacombs of S. Agnese, attests to the sheer variety of media used to imitate panel paintings. Now lost, a small, framed portrait of a woman in an opus sectile-style panel was embedded in a loculus cover next to the funerary inscription (Fig. 10).Footnote 82 Only a 19th-c. illustration survives, so the portrait's details cannot be properly examined, but the piece may represent a domestic trinket that depicted the woman now deceased.

Fig. 10. “Opus sectile”-style portrait of a woman imitating a framed panel painting, from a loculus cover in the catacombs of S. Agnes. (Armellini Reference Armellini1880, pl. VIII.)

Whether executed on wood, cloth, or directly onto the surface of the tomb, the portraits discussed above demonstrate that painted portraiture was a desirable form of commemoration. Painted portraits were closely associated with their subjects and therefore may have been particularly valuable in funerary contexts for preserving the memory of the deceased. The ability of color to evoke emotions, as described by Philostratus, could have been an especially valuable characteristic when remembering a loved one. For those who owned painted portraits of family members, incorporating them into the tomb enabled them to preserve their memory as effectively as possible through the precise representation of their features.Footnote 83 As seen in the context of the imagines, this desire had a long pedigree in the Roman world. Even as the practice faded among the aristocracy, Kelsey Madden has shown that death masks became popular among non-aristocratic families, who deposited plaster masks into graves or used them to make busts of the deceased.Footnote 84 Death masks were also part of Romano-Egyptian funerary culture connected to pharaonic traditions.Footnote 85 The remains of some Egyptian portrait shrouds indicate that the head was added on a separate piece of cloth, perhaps a similar practice to that observed in the catacombs.Footnote 86 For those who did not possess a painted portrait or did not want to remove it from the home, imitating one was apparently also an effective choice. A funerary portrait might be copied from a domestic one, created from a verbal description, or even executed in advance as part of planning for a funerary monument.Footnote 87 In whichever case, by imitating a medium prized for its accuracy the portrait was declared a truthful representation and by extension claimed the power to effectively memorialize the individual.

The so-called square nimbus

The enduring appeal of using portrait panels to commemorate individuals and their likenesses is illustrated by the phenomenon of the “square nimbus.” The square nimbus is perhaps best known from early medieval Italy, when donors and important figures depicted in churches were often shown with a distinctive rectangular blue panel framing their head.Footnote 88 The connection between the square nimbus and panel portraits was first made by Josef Wilpert in 1905. In an article examining paintings from Santa Maria Antiqua in Rome, Wilpert stated that the facial portrait of the 8th-c. donor Theodotus had been added to his depiction separately on a piece of cloth.Footnote 89 He compared this to the composite portrait from S. Callixtus discussed above. Over a series of publications, Wilpert argued that the square nimbus derived from this practice of attaching separate facial portraits when a true likeness was desired. Since it would be difficult to affix a portrait of just the head or face without damaging the features, the portrait was attached in the form that it normally took, that is, as a rectangular panel. A colored background, normally light blue or sea green, was included to bring the image into harmony with the rest of the painting. Wilpert considered that eventually this form became so common that the rectangular blue panel was incorporated around the head even if the whole figure was executed in fresco or even mosaic.Footnote 90 The shape alone was able to attest to the status of the depiction as a true portrait and emphasized the individual's importance.

Wilpert supported his argument with an extract from the 9th-c. author John the Deacon. In a passage describing a portrait of Gregory the Great in Rome, John stated that around Gregory's head was not a round nimbus, but the likeness of a picture panel.Footnote 91 This appears to be a direct description of the square nimbus and its perceived connection to panel portraits. John also commented on the relationship between the square panel and the subject, conventionally understood to indicate the subject was alive when it was produced. This interpretation of John's words may be questioned,Footnote 92 and in any case the square nimbus was not always used for living people: several scholars have demonstrated that it was used in funerary portraits and depictions of biblical figures.Footnote 93 Indeed, the usage of the square nimbus in the funerary sphere far predates that for donors: the placement of a blue square or rectangle behind the head of the deceased is found on Romano-Egyptian portrait shrouds and on a handful of mummy portraits.Footnote 94

The origin of the square nimbus is therefore to be found in Roman funerary art, an association it retained into Late Antiquity.Footnote 95 In this early period, it was not commonly conceived of as a nimbus in the sense of the round version worn by holy figures. Instead, the resemblance of the square nimbus to a panel painting appears to have qualified the portrait as faithful to its subject, rather than an imagined or idealized depiction.Footnote 96 Portraits with a square nimbus are thus related to the portraits discussed in the previous section, as they essentially “imitate” a panel painting or, more correctly, associate themselves with the virtues of accuracy and fidelity traditionally accorded to painted portraits. In the 4th c., the square nimbus in this early incarnation as a simple blue rectangle is attested in the Roman catacombs and a tomb from modern Serbia, which will be discussed further below. Its subsequent trajectory in the West, however, remains unclear owing to a lack of evidence. In the East, especially in Egypt, the square nimbus is much better attested, particularly from the 6th c. By this point, its usage seems to have broadened to incorporate donors and other important individuals, including religious figures. For example, donors appear with square nimbi in the 6th-c. apse mosaic of the church of St Catherine on Mt Sinai.Footnote 97 Perhaps as the square nimbus grew in popularity in Egypt it was “reintroduced” to the West in the Early Middle Ages along with its expanded significance, in time for its reappearance in Italy around the 8th c.Footnote 98

Scholarship on the square nimbus consistently takes its rectangular shape to be its defining feature: a direct reference to panel portraits and in geometric contrast to the round nimbus of Christ and the saints. I submit, however, that the blue color may also have been a significant characteristic that connected it to panel portraits. When panel portraits are depicted in other visual media, they are often shown with a distinctive blue background. In frescoes from Pompeii and Herculaneum, panel paintings incorporated into wall decoration are often shown with a blue ground. The famous frescoes depicting a woman painter from Pompeii, for example, show her painting a human figure on a framed panel with a light blue ground.Footnote 99 The painted tondi portraits from the Tomb of the Three Brothers in Palmyra are also all shown with blue backgrounds.Footnote 100 In a particularly distinctive example, the scenes of Christ before Pilate from the 6th-c. Rossano Gospels include portraits of emperors with striking bright blue grounds (Fig. 11).Footnote 101

Fig. 11. Christ before Pilate, with framed portraits of emperors in the background, Rossano Gospels, 6th c. (Album / Alamy Stock Photo.)

Blue grounds are also found in imitation panel portraits from the catacombs. The painted portrait from Domitilla flanked by Cupids mentioned above has a distinctive blue background, as may the one flanked by Peter and Paul.Footnote 102 Blue grounds are also found on a tondo portrait from the catacombs of Praetextatus and the mosaic tondi of a couple from the cimitero di Ciriaca.Footnote 103 This may further support the argument that these images were intended to mimic panel portraits, distinguished not only by a painted frame but perhaps also by a blue background.Footnote 104 In the recently restored catacombs of S. Tecla a portrait in an arcosolium represents a woman and her small daughter with Peter and Paul.Footnote 105 The heads and shoulders of the three adults are framed by rectangular blue panels, which have been noted as an early form of square nimbus (Fig. 12).Footnote 106 This suggests that in addition to affixing separate painted portraits or imitating them with painted frames, it was also acceptable to simply include a blue panel behind the subject to indicate a portrait. This practice was apparently widespread: as well as appearing in Rome and Egypt, we also find it in an early 4th-c. tomb from Viminacium in Serbia, in which a young woman is shown with a conspicuous blue panel framing her head (Fig. 13).Footnote 107 The use of the panel behind the heads of Peter and Paul may be connected to the idea of preserving an accurate representation of a holy individual that would later contribute to the development of the icon.Footnote 108

Fig. 12. Detail of the arcosolium tomb painting of a woman and her daughter from the catacombs of S. Tecla, with blue panels framing the adult figures. (Courtesy of the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology.)

Fig. 13. Portrait of the deceased lady, western wall of the Pagan tomb (G2624) from Viminacium, documentation of the Institute of Archaeology. (Belgrade, Project Viminacium.)

A passage from a homily of John Chrysostom mentions blue backgrounds in relation to portrait paintings. He writes: “Come, let us consider the images that painters delineate. You have often seen an imperial image covered with blue color. Then the painter traces white lines and makes an emperor…”.Footnote 109 While Chrysostom is talking specifically about imperial portraits, the visual evidence suggests that blue was a common ground color, perhaps so common that a simple blue rectangle could come to stand for a portrait panel and carry its symbolic connotations. It is unclear why blue was popular, but it may be related to its technical qualities.Footnote 110 Blue and green were regularly included in paint mixtures for flesh colors, used to impart realistic ‘cool’ tones to skin. The widely used Egyptian blue, for example, has been identified in flesh areas on panel portraits, free-standing sculpture, and sarcophagi.Footnote 111 Once thought to have been forgotten by Late Antiquity, imaging techniques now show that Egyptian blue was used well into the Middle Ages.Footnote 112 Blues and greens were also common components of underpaint for flesh tones for the same reasons that they were mixed into flesh-colored paint.Footnote 113 A portrait required large areas of the composition to be painted with flesh tones, and a blue ground may have provided an appropriate base color. Blue pigments derived from rare minerals like lapis lazuli were probably prohibitively expensive for such use, but the ubiquity of synthetic Egyptian blue suggests it was not costly. Analysis of mummy portraits from the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology has proved the use of Egyptian blue as a toning agent in backgrounds that appear grey to the naked eye.Footnote 114 Light grey to greyish-blue are common backgrounds on surviving mummy portraits and other panel paintings, and may represent a more toned-down version of what we see in representations of paintings in other visual media.Footnote 115

Elizabeth Jastrzebowska has also commented on the color of the square nimbus, hypothesizing that different colors signified different meanings. Jastrzebowska suggested that black denoted night, blue the sky, and green the earth, the latter two representing the mortal world in contrast to the golden round nimbus which indicated the heavens.Footnote 116 However, as Paolo Liverani warns us, we should be careful before reading modern color associations into ancient evidence. When blue indicates the sky in mosaics, distinctive features such as clouds or stars are added, suggesting color alone was not sufficient.Footnote 117 This makes Jastrzebowska's color spectrum concept unlikely. In Italy in particular, most square nimbi were blue. When other colors were used, it may have been for a specific reason now obscure: that the rectangular shape was considered sufficient, that it referred to a particular portrait with a different ground color, or that blue was not as strongly associated with panel painting in that region.Footnote 118

The square nimbus seems to have represented the taste for painted portraits taken to its most abstract extreme. A blue square or rectangle behind the head of an individual could stake a claim to authenticity for the image by associating it with a painted panel portrait simply through shape and color. This development appears to have occurred early and is witnessed in the Roman catacombs alongside portraits that made use of actual painted panels. The popularity of the square nimbus in later centuries is an echo of this desire to preserve the likeness of individuals and by extension their memory. The portraits from the catacombs thus look backwards to ancient ideas of painted portraiture epitomized by Pliny and forwards towards the visual world of the Middle Ages.

Between the living and the dead

The catacomb portraits speak not only to ideas about commemoration and memory, but also to the close connection between the worlds of the living and the dead. Part of the appeal of painted portraits was that they were often created from life, with color, light, and shade used to capture a person's features for posterity. When the person passed away, their image represented a connection between two worlds, a site for memory and continued interaction with the person depicted.Footnote 119 Yet when portraits are discovered in funerary contexts, their connection to the dead is emphasized over the living and they are commonly classified as “funerary art” as though this were a discrete category of visual culture. However, as mentioned above, it is probable that at least some of the portraits used or imitated in the catacombs were originally domestic images that were transferred or copied to symbolically move an individual from their earthly home to their eternal one.

The distinction between the visual culture of the home and the tomb was often blurred.Footnote 120 There is ongoing discussion, for example, about whether gold glasses had a domestic function before being deposited in tombs or whether they were commissioned for funerary meals and commemoration.Footnote 121 It seems likely that there was no fixed practice: some gold glass was used in the home and some was commissioned specifically for the tomb.Footnote 122 One argument made for the funerary nature of gold glass is the close relationship between the iconography of couples on the glasses and that found on sarcophagi.Footnote 123 The similarities are undeniable, but such compositions are also found on domestic silver and jewelry.Footnote 124 The connection here is not a matter of funerary context, but rather the wider social importance of the marriage bond and conjugal harmony. A similar pattern can be observed for the orans pose, common in funerary images but also prevalent in Late Antique donor portraits.Footnote 125 An expression of prayer or piety was relevant to both these contexts, as donor portraits are exclusively found in connection with religious benefactions. The living and the dead were bound together within the same social system and its visual traditions. While specific funerary motifs were sometimes necessary, the virtues associated with living people largely continued to have relevance after their death.

When commissioning a portrait, whether on a painted panel or gold-glass vessel, there may have been an awareness that it could eventually take on funerary connotations.Footnote 126 This dual potential may help us understand the context of portraits which appear to stray between genres. For example, near the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem was discovered the 6th-c. “Orpheus chapel”, which was decorated with a mosaic carpet containing the portraits of two women, Theodosia and Georgia, along with a representation of Orpheus and hunters fighting wild animals.Footnote 127 The function of the space and identity of the women has been debated. The room was originally identified as a tomb chamber and has since been labelled a funerary chapel. Yet no burials were found, and therefore the funerary significance of the space and the mosaic have been questioned.Footnote 128 Was this Theodosia and Georgia's intended tomb, or were they donors who constructed a chapel or other communal space? A third option is that it was both. The women may have patronized the structure while recognizing that after death their donor portraits would carry further funerary meanings even if they were not buried there. Donor portraits in general were probably intended to commemorate benefactors beyond their lifetime, and the same may be true of other types of portraiture. There is no need to make rigid distinctions between the public, the domestic, and the funerary: just as people could move through these worlds, so could their images.

Conclusions

The popularity of painted portraiture was on the rise in Late Antiquity, fueled by far-reaching changes in visual culture and long-held ideas about the authenticity of the medium. The perishable nature of portraits on wood and cloth means that to study this phenomenon beyond the exceptional preservation conditions of Egypt, we need to adjust our methods and our expectations of the material evidence. When we do so, we can identify traces of a rich tradition of portraiture in both the domestic and funerary spheres, a tradition embedded in ideas about memory, commemoration, and the emotional connections between people and images that stretched from this life to the next.

Acknowledgments

This publication arises from research funded by the John Fell Oxford University Press Research Fund. It was written under the auspices of the project “Buried Practices: Material Religion and Daily Life in Late Antique Aphrodisias (4th – 7th centuries)”, held at the University of Oxford (2020–2021) by Dr Ine Jacobs. I am grateful to both Ine and Dr Hugh Jeffery for reading several versions of this article and providing thoughtful and critical feedback. I would also like to thank Prof. Jaś Elsner, Prof. Bert Smith, and Prof. John Osborne for their comments, queries, and corrections, which much improved the article. Prof. Paolo Liverani also kindly provided many copies of relevant articles. A version of this paper was presented at the Oxford Byzantine Graduate Seminar in Trinity Term 2021, and I am grateful to the enthusiastic audience for their thought-provoking feedback. Thanks are also due to the anonymous reviewers for their detailed comments. All remaining errors, of course, are my own.

Supplementary Materials

The Supplementary Materials constitute an appendix cataloguing portraits from the catacombs with evidence for images on perishable media or that imitate such images. Descriptions and bibliographic information are provided. To view the Supplementary Materials for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047759422000319.

Competing interests

The author declares none.

Footnotes

1 Appendix no. 1. (The appendix can be found in the Supplementary Materials.) An inscription records that the cubiculum was commissioned by Aurelia Domnula for herself and her husband (ICUR IV, 9668; Caillaud Reference Caillaud, Brodbeck and Poilpré2015, 105). The portrait is in the lucernario (skylight). Nestori (Reference Nestori1993, 126, no. 39) records three people depicted in the lucernario from a cubiculum in the catacombs of Domitilla, and the lucernario in the crypt of S. Cecilia in S. Callixtus had a complex three-tiered decorative scheme (Bisconti Reference Bisconti2011, 287–300).

2 Appendix no. 2.

3 Appendix nos. 4a, 3.

4 Attention to portraits is uneven, some are praised for perceived individualization, while others in schematized forms, especially orantes, are often dismissed as barely portraits at all (Corneli Reference Corneli2010, 115–26; Caillaud Reference Caillaud, Brodbeck and Poilpré2015, 98–109; Braconi Reference Braconi and Bisconti2017). For an overview of catacomb portraits, see Zimmermann Reference Zimmermann2007 and Zimmermann Reference Zimmermann, Tsamakda and Zimmermann2020, in particular, 70–71, 74–77.

5 Zimmermann (Reference Zimmermann2007, 164–66) collected “Brustbilder” from the catacombs, with some discussion of the mixed-media examples. Another brief discussion can be found in Braconi Reference Braconi and Bisconti2017, 38–40 and Liverani Reference Liverani, Greub and Roussel2018a, 317–19, and a more detailed treatment in Caillaud Reference Caillaud, Brodbeck and Poilpré2015, 100–9. The most detailed assessment of panels inserted into recesses is Corneli Reference Corneli2010, 154–72 and Corneli Reference Corneli and Foletti2013. The work of Wilpert is discussed below.

6 Also noted by Caillaud (Reference Caillaud, Brodbeck and Poilpré2015, 103) and Braconi (Reference Braconi and Bisconti2017, 39–40).

7 See Nowicka Reference Nowicka1993 for an overview of painted portraits in antiquity. Mummy portraits: Parlasca Reference Parlasca1966; Borg Reference Borg1996; Walker Reference Walker1997; Hallett Reference Hallett, Blömer and Raja2019. Icons: Marsengill argues that icons developed from secular portraiture (Reference Marsengill2013, esp. 183–258), while Mathews and Muller (Reference Mathews and Muller2016) argue that they developed from earlier religious panel paintings. On Roman panel paintings of deities see also Rondot Reference Rondot2013, with two that may be portraits of “défunts divinisés” (258–60).

8 The main proponent of domestic origins for mummy portraits was Klaus Parlasca (Reference Parlasca1966, 59–90), but a funerary purpose has been argued by others, primarily Barbara Borg (Reference Borg1996, 191ff.). See also Walker Reference Walker1997, 15. Funerary usage is now accepted by most scholars; for an excellent recent overview, see Hallett Reference Hallett, Blömer and Raja2019. Religious panel paintings, by contrast, probably do have domestic origins (see Mathews and Muller Reference Mathews and Muller2016, 29–55).

9 The evidence collected is presented fully in the Appendix, which can be accessed in the Supplementary Materials. I have only selected examples which include evidence for portraits on wood or cloth, or which actively appear to imitate panel paintings. There are of course other catacomb paintings with painted frames, but it can be unclear whether these imitate other media or simply represent a compositional framing device. My selection is therefore somewhat subjective, but I believe representative of the evidence available.

10 Plin. HN 35.1.

11 Plin. HN 35.2.

12 Pollitt (Reference Pollitt and Pollitt2014, 289) identifies “Truth to Life” as one of the three critical traditions in the history of classical painting.

13 Plin. HN 35.2.

14 Plin. HN 35.2. See Flower Reference Flower1996. Wax portraits were often accompanied by painted portraits forming a family tree (Flower Reference Flower1996, 40–41). On other types of ancestral images, see 40–46.

15 Flower Reference Flower1996, 35, 276–77. On the imitation of the dead during funerary processions using imagines and effigies, see Bettini Reference Bettini, Mustakallio, Hanska, Sainio and Vuolanto2006.

17 Fejfer comments that wooden panel portraits were probably as significant as those in marble or bronze (Reference Fejfer2008, 153). Pliny's discussion was themed around moral criticism of changing fashions and did not reflect a precise observation of the state of portraiture (Flower Reference Flower1996, 39).

18 Nowicka Reference Nowicka1993. An Augustan inscription from Sardis honored a man with a bronze and a marble statue, and six portraits painted on gilded shields; another from the first century BCE was honored with various portraits including four painted images (Fejfer Reference Fejfer2008, 153). Pliny mentions a colossal portrait of Nero painted on cloth that was destroyed by lightning (HN 35.33; Ortiz-García Reference Ortiz-García2017, 37). A funerary inscription for a man called Aurelius Felicianus describes him as a painter of emperors and bonorum virorum (CIL XI 7126; Fejfer Reference Fejfer2008, 153).

19 Diameter 31 cm. On the tondo, see Mathews and Muller Reference Mathews and Muller2016, 74–83. It was probably not originally a tondo, but later cut down, perhaps when it appeared on the art market (Mathews and Muller Reference Mathews and Muller2016, 78). See also P.Oxy. XII 1449 (213–217 CE) on imperial portrait paintings dedicated in Egyptian temples (Rowlandson Reference Rowlandson1998, 67–68; Matthews and Muller Reference Mathews and Muller2016, 80–82). Mathews and Muller note that the papyrus records nine portraits of Caracalla dedicated at minor village temples, attesting to the ubiquity of such paintings.

20 On picturae inclusae, see Corneli Reference Corneli2010, 145–53. On simulated panel paintings, see Ling Reference Ling1991, 112–35.

21 Pompeii VII.2.6, after 62/3 CE. The portrait is executed within a painted frame imitating wood and is often remarked upon for its “realism” (Nowicka Reference Nowicka1993, 130–31; Clarke Reference Clarke2003, 261–67; Roberts Reference Roberts2013, 107–8, fig. 112). See also a mosaic portrait of a woman from House VI.15.14 (found in a tavern but probably originating in a wealthy home, ca. 100 BCE), framed with dark tesserae. Clarke comments that the tiny tesserae imitate brushstrokes (Clarke Reference Clarke2003, 264, fig. 154). See also Nowicka Reference Nowicka1993, 129–33.

22 Goldman Reference Goldman1999. The completed pieces include one in an eight-pointed frame like the Antiochene and Egyptian examples discussed below; the others are tondi.

23 Princeton University Art Museum, 1937–264; Jones Reference Jones1981, 3.

24 BM 1889.10-18.1. Total height 45.7 cm, size of panel 25.9 cm x 20.4 cm. Walker Reference Walker1997, no. 117, 121–22. The dating is uncertain, Walker suggests 50–70 CE.

25 Fejfer suggests that large-scale paintings could have been used as economical alternatives to marble friezes (Reference Fejfer2008, 154).

26 Diocl. VII (wages) 7, 8, 9; Ling Reference Ling and Pollitt2014, 372.

27 PSI 7.784.

28 On the difficulties in tracing wheat prices in Late Antiquity, see Harper Reference Harper2016, 814–20 and Jones Reference Jones1964, 445–46. Harper notes that the “canonical figure” of 10–12 artabai per solidus obscures diversity over time (Reference Harper2016, 815).

29 BGU 2.423, 2nd c. CE.

30 Madden Reference Madden2017, 26. Hope (Reference Hope, Hope and Huskinson2011, 183–84) discusses literary attestations of portraits used to trigger memories of the deceased.

31 CIL VI 37965 = CLE 1988. Hope Reference Hope, Hope and Huskinson2011.

34 Ca. 160–90 CE. Colledge Reference Colledge1976, 84–87; Kraeling Reference Kraeling1961–1962. Fejfer suggests the yellow mimics gilding (Reference Fejfer2008, 156, pl. 12).

35 Flower Reference Flower1996, 2, 4, 272–73.

36 On the decline of the “statue habit,” see Smith and Ward-Perkins Reference Smith and Ward-Perkins2016. For an overview of potential reasons for this decline, such as changing tastes and fashions, economic and technical reasons, and religious responses to images, see Liverani Reference Liverani, Kristensen and Stirling2016, 310–11.

37 Philostr. Imag. 1.1: Introduction. While marble statues incorporated color, the implication is that more complex and subtle effects could be achieved through paintings.

38 James Reference James1996, 128–38.

40 Nowicka Reference Nowicka1993, 61–62 on paintings as cheap and portable Imperial propaganda that became more attractive from the 3rd c. in the context of the tetrarchy. See 44–61 on Late Antique imperial painted portraits in general.

41 See Liverani Reference Liverani, Kristensen and Stirling2016 for an overview of some important contexts in which painted portraits were used, particularly in relation to religious figures and icons. See also Elsner Reference Elsner and Elsner2020 on the “death of the figurine” in Late Antiquity.

42 On painted portraits in Late Antiquity, see Liverani Reference Liverani, Greub and Roussel2018a.

43 Marsengill Reference Marsengill2013, 188–89; Liverani Reference Liverani, Greub and Roussel2018a, 300–9. The declamations of Choricius of Gaza frequently mention commemorative portraits, in particular Declamation II (XL) on the creation of a portrait of a war hero (transl. Penella Reference Penella2009, 222–40).

44 Loerke Reference Loerke1961, 179–80; Liverani Reference Liverani, Kristensen and Stirling2016, 313–16. See, for example, the trial of Christ before Pilate in the Rossano Gospels, discussed in Nowicka Reference Nowicka1993, 57–59. In Imperial times, statues of the emperor were erected in law courts (Fejfer Reference Fejfer2008, 426). See also the adventus for the image of the emperor (Lavan Reference Lavan2020, 155–56).

45 See Liverani Reference Liverani, Greub and Roussel2018a, 309–15 for several other examples of Late Antique authors describing the care taken by painters to produce lifelike portraits.

46 Libanius, Letter 143 to Theodorus.

47 Eunap. VS 482.

48 Ausonius, Bissula V, To a Painter: On Bissula's Portrait.

49 The story plays out over two letters from Paulinus, nos. 30 and 32. On this episode, see Bock Reference Bock and Foletti2013 with further references. For translations of the letters see Walsh Reference Walsh1967, 119–24, 134–59.

50 Paulinus of Nola, Letter 30 in general, 30.6 in particular; Bock Reference Bock and Foletti2013, 13–14.

51 Paulinus of Nola, Letter 30.6; Bock Reference Bock and Foletti2013, 14. The primacy of words and deeds over images and physiognomy has significant precedent: see Marsengill Reference Marsengill, Tsamakda and Zimmermann2020 on Late Antiquity and earlier periods. For example, Tacitus urged people to remember Agricola's words and actions rather than physical appearance (Tac. Agr. 46).

52 Icons of Christ and saints were commonly believed to have been painted during their lifetimes or copied from original portraits (Marsengill Reference Marsengill2013, 1–2). See also Bacci Reference Bacci2014, 17–94.

53 Marsengill Reference Marsengill2013, 96–104.

54 Marsengill Reference Marsengill2013, 100; George of Alexandria, Vita Chrysostomi 27; Halkin Reference Halkin1977, 142–48. Mitchell suggests the tradition surrounding Chrysostom was directly influenced by Libanius, who had been his teacher (Reference Mitchell2002, 35, n. 7). See also Holloway Reference Holloway2007 on this episode and its relationship to what he calls the “beloved portrait” topos, which is also relevant to other examples discussed above.

55 Marsengill Reference Marsengill2013, 103–4.

56 Appendix no. 2.

57 Caillaud (Reference Caillaud, Brodbeck and Poilpré2015, 106) and Braconi (Reference Braconi and Bisconti2017, 39–40) prefer a wooden panel, Zimmerman (Reference Zimmermann2007, 165) does not speculate.

58 Zimmerman Reference Zimmermann2007, 166.

59 Zimmerman Reference Zimmermann2007, 166.

60 Most other family groups in the catacombs also show busts of parents flanking children. See, for example, the arcosolium of Primerius and Severa from the catacombs of S. Sebastian (Proverbio Reference Proverbio and Andaloro2006) or Nonnosa, Ilaritas, and Theotecnus from the catacombs of S. Gennaro in Naples (Fasola Reference Fasola1975, 73, 96; Bisconti Reference Bisconti2015).

61 I am grateful to Bert Smith for suggesting this interpretation.

62 Primarily on tomb frescoes and gold glass. On gold glass, see Ferrari and Morey Reference Ferrari and Morey1959; Howells Reference Howells, Entwistle and James2015.

63 Appendix no. 4a. Appendix no. 5 may be another example of a recess for a panel painting, perhaps a tondo.

64 Appendix no. 4a. The recess increases to 2.8 cm–3.0 cm with the addition of the frame. Deckers sees this as a secondary phase of decoration, the first perhaps being a funerary banquet scene (Reference Deckers1987, 277).

66 Appendix no. 4b.

67 Testini Reference Testini1952; Testini Reference Testini1978. Probably 3rd c. One of the inscriptions was fitted in the rear wall of the arcosolium, a similar position, size, and shape to the recess in consideration here. The other was inserted above the arcosolium and records the name of the family on an elongated rectangular slab. Corneli has suggested that a recess in a similar position in cubiculum 8 in the catacombs of SS. Marcellino and Pietro may have contained a portrait (Corneli Reference Corneli2010, 155–58, see also Deckers Reference Deckers1987, 206–7). Given the elongated shape and the comparison with the inscription from the catacombs of Domitilla, it seems more likely that this recess contained an inscription.

68 Corneli Reference Corneli2010, 169–70.

70 Appendix no. 3.

71 Deckers Reference Deckers1987, 260.

72 Appendix no. 6. Similar portraits from loculi are evidenced elsewhere in Italy, such as two bust portraits of women in elaborate frames from the catacombs of S. Cristina in Bolsena (Fiocchi Nicolai Reference Fiocchi Nicolai1988, 157–59, figs. 120–22). These portraits have suffered significant damage, but they illustrate that this trend was not limited to Rome.

73 Appendix no. 7.

74 Appendix nos. 8–9.

75 Appendix no. 10. See also Appendix nos. 4b, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. For surviving tondi portraits from Egypt, see Nowicka Reference Nowicka1993, 171–72.

76 Appendix no. 15.

77 Appendix no. 16. The fragment measures 39 cm x 30 cm x 1.7 cm (Ferrua Reference Ferrua1976, 216).

78 See, for example, the incised funerary image of Bessula from the cemetery of Ciriaca (Bonacasa Reference Bonacasa, Bisconti and Braconi2013).

79 For an imitation of another medium in an incised image, see the busts of athletes from the pool wall at Aphrodisias (Aphrodisias 2016, 2, fig. 7).

80 Studer-Karlen Reference Studer-Karlen2012, 63–73; Birk Reference Birk2013, 44. For examples in tondi frames see Birk Reference Birk2013, cat. nos. 281 (fig. 90), 323 (fig. 18), 446 (fig. 86), 461 (fig. 52), 470 (fig. 85); for rectangular or square frames see cat. nos. 7 (fig. 71), 304 (fig. 7).

81 Bisconti Reference Bisconti2014, esp. 124, fig. 19. I have excluded this from the Appendix because its immediate reference is to a sarcophagus, with only secondary reference to a tondo panel portrait.

82 Appendix no. 17.

83 We have little evidence for people sitting for portraits, however, Choricius of Gaza's Declamation II (XL) “The War Hero” (6th c. CE), mentions the relationship between sitting for a painting and its reliability: “I am certainly ashamed in front of the painting itself and before the painter, sitting for him in garb completely inappropriate for me so he can best capture my likeness.” (Declamation II (XL), 104; transl. Penella Reference Penella2009, 239).

85 Madden Reference Madden2017, 25.

86 Ladner Reference Ladner1941, 29.

87 Wills indicate it was common for those with money and foresight to leave detailed instructions for their funerary monument (Carroll Reference Carroll2006, 40–44; Hope Reference Hope2007, 63–70).

88 On the “square nimbus” see Grüneisen Reference Grüneisen1906a; Grüneisen Reference Grüneisen1906b; Wilpert Reference Wilpert1905; Wilpert Reference Wilpert1906; Wilpert Reference Wilpert1907; Wilpert Reference Wilpert1917, 107–13; Ladner Reference Ladner1941; Osborne Reference Osborne1979; Jastrzebowska Reference Jastrzebowska1994, with further references.

89 Wilpert Reference Wilpert1905, 578–79. Modern interventions show that the portrait was likely not attached on cloth but an extra plaster layer, breaking the direct link between Theodotus and the S. Callixtus portrait (Valentini Reference Valentini, Morganti, Andaloro and Bordi2016, 273–74). This suggestion had already been made by Grüneisen (Reference Grüneisen1906b, 91). However, Wilpert's thesis placing the origin of the square nimbus in panel paintings remains sound.

90 Wilpert Reference Wilpert1905, 578–79; Wilpert Reference Wilpert1906; Wilpert Reference Wilpert1907; Wilpert Reference Wilpert1917, 107–13.

91 Johannes Diaconus, Vita Gregorii Magni IV 84 (Migne, Patrologia Latina 75, col. 231). Discussed in most detail in Ladner Reference Ladner1941, 20–21, but noted as early as Wilpert Reference Wilpert1906, 4.

92 I am grateful to John Osborne for pointing out that the phrase quod viventis insigne est may refer to the image as a true portrait of how the person looked in life, rather than that they were alive when it was made.

93 Discussed in detail in Ladner Reference Ladner1941, also noted in Wilpert Reference Wilpert1906. Ladner argued unconvincingly that the square nimbus was introduced to Rome from the East in the early medieval period and that the square symbolized perfection, not a panel portrait.

94 The connection with Egyptian funerary culture was first made in Wilpert Reference Wilpert1906. Wilpert discusses a mummy portrait, but Ladner notes the connection is stronger with shrouds (Reference Ladner1941, 28–29). Grüneisen saw the square panels on shrouds as representing sepulchral pylons (Reference Grüneisen1906a), however, Ladner points out that the square nimbus often occurs on shrouds where there is no suggestion of a pylon (Reference Ladner1941, 28–29).

95 However, there is an early example of the square nimbus on a biblical figure (perhaps Joshua or Moses) from the 3rd-c. Dura Europos Synagogue (Ladner Reference Ladner1941, 26–27).

97 Forsyth and Weitzmann Reference Forsyth and Weitzmann1973, pl. cxx, cxxi; Osborne Reference Osborne1979, 63.

98 Early medieval introduction from the East is argued in Osborne Reference Osborne1979.

99 Goldman Reference Goldman1999, figs. 12–13, House of the Surgeon, House of the Empress of Russia. See also a votive panel painting in a fresco from the Casa del Fabbro (Mathews and Muller Reference Mathews and Muller2016, fig. 2.11) and another in a mosaic from Tivoli (fig. 2.10).

101 Loerke Reference Loerke1961, esp. 179–82, on the standards bearing the portraits. Paolo Liverani has noted that blue backgrounds were common during the Classical period and popular throughout antiquity, particularly for vegetal friezes. He argues that the blue helped the viewer understand the piece's genre and lent an air of “classical” authority and monumentality (Liverani Reference Liverani, Liverani and Santamaria2014, 14–20; Liverani Reference Liverani and Jockey2018b, 379–85).

102 Appendix nos. 8–9. Photographs seem to show a blue ground, but Giuliani refers to it as black (Giuliani Reference Giuliani2010, 74).

103 Appendix nos. 11, 15. Note, however, that the mosaics have undergone significant restoration.

104 Liverani also suggests that the blue backgrounds of the portraits flanked by Cupids and by Peter and Paul may reference painted panels, as blue was a common background for “i ritratti più solenni” (Reference Liverani, Greub and Roussel2018a, 319). See also n. 101 above.

105 Appendix no. 18.

109 John Chrysostom, In dictum Pauli, Nolo vos ignorare 4 (Migne, Patrologia Graeca 51, col. 247), transl. Mango Reference Mango1986, 47.

110 On blue pigments in antiquity and the Byzantine period, see James Reference James1996, 29–33; Skovmøller et al. Reference Skovmøller, Brøns and Sargent2016, 371–73. Blue could be achieved using minerals like azurite and lapis lazuli, or synthetically generated, like Egyptian blue. Synthetic pigments based on cobalt are also known, mainly the Egyptian “Amarna-blue.”

112 The development of Visible Induced Luminescence (VIL) photographic analysis has allowed the identification of Egyptian blue through the 10th c., and even one very late usage in 1524 CE (Skovmøller et al. Reference Skovmøller, Brøns and Sargent2016, 378–86). Sometimes called near-infrared (NIR) luminescence imaging (Ganio et al. Reference Ganio, Salvant, Williams, Lee, Cossairt and Walton2015).

113 See Mathews and Muller Reference Mathews and Muller2016, 90–92 on a panel painting of Harpocrates-Dionysus from the first century CE, and p. 228 on the blue-grey undertones eventually replaced with green. Medieval and early modern painting manuals often recommended adding blue or green for underpainting flesh tones, e.g., Theophilus, The Various Arts (12th c., Book 1.1–13, 15; Dodwell Reference Dodwell1961, 5–9, 13), and the Painter's Manual of Dionysius of Fourna (18th c., 71[27]; Hetherington Reference Hetherington1974, 8).

115 Examples that tend towards blue include BM 1994,0521.4 and BM 1890,0921.1. Mathews and Muller note that the background for the Berlin tondo is blue-grey (Reference Mathews and Muller2016, 228).

116 Jastrzebowska Reference Jastrzebowska1994, 355–56.

118 Jastrzebowska notes donors from the church of S. Demetrius at Thessaloniki shown standing in front of a background similar to a crenelated wall, the crenelations behind their heads giving the appearance of white square nimbi (Reference Jastrzebowska1994, 354–56). A similar motif is also found in paintings from the Dura Europos Synagogue (interior west wall) and in fragmentary mosaics from S. Lorenzo in Milan. However, they do not always line up correctly with the head and it is unclear what relationship they bear to the square nimbus. I am grateful to Barbara Crostini for bringing these latter two examples to my attention.

119 Augustine's De moribus ecclesiae catholicae condemns rowdy celebrations at tombs and mentions the veneration of images (34.75). The precise practice remains unclear, but Marsengill suggests it involved the adoration of images of deceased friends and family, perhaps functioning as intermediaries between the living and the dead (Reference Marsengill2013, 11).

120 On a practical level, decorative paintings from tomb vaults were similar to those on domestic ceilings, probably because of similarities in shape and form (Ling Reference Ling and Pollitt2014, 381–412).

121 Walker (Reference Walker and Walker2017, 75–77), for example, argues the glasses were commissioned for funerary contexts, in particular, funerary meals (also Leatherbury Reference Leatherbury and Walker2017). Croci (Reference Croci and Foletti2013, 51) thinks that gold glasses with couples were made for nuptial banquets, while others with explicitly funerary inscriptions may have been for the tomb.

123 Leatherbury Reference Leatherbury and Walker2017, 113–16.

124 For example, the couple on the 4th-c. Projecta Casket (BM 1866,1229.1; Shelton Reference Shelton1981, 72–75), the gold pendant of a necklace from the early 5th-c. Capitoline hoard (Metropolitan Museum of Art, 58.12; Ross and Weitzmann Reference Ross and Weitzmann1965, 2; Vikan Reference Vikan1990, 155–56), or the numerous “marriage rings” (Kantorowicz Reference Kantorowicz1960; Vikan Reference Vikan1990).

125 For example, two orans donors in a 6th-c. fresco from a chapel under the Lateran in Rome (Scrinari Reference Scrinari and Duval1989, 2213–17; Scrinari Reference Scrinari1995, 215–41; Brenk Reference Brenk2003, 121–28), the donor portrait of Georgia and her husband from the church of SS. Cosmas and Damian in Gerasa (533 CE, Piccirillo Reference Piccirillo1993, 288–89, fig. 509), or Elizabeth and her daughter from a 7th- or 8th-c. chapel of S. Menas in Jeme, Egypt (Wilber Reference Wilber1940, fig. 1).

126 Suggested by Croci (Reference Croci and Foletti2013, 51) in relation to gold glass.

128 See in particular Elsner Reference Elsner2009.

References

Aphrodisias 2016. A Report on the Archaeological Field Season. http://aphrodisias.classics.ox.ac.uk/Aphrodisias-2016-report-c.pdf.Google Scholar
Armellini, M. 1880. Il cimitero di S. Agnese sulla via Nomentana. Rome: Tipografia Poliglotta.Google Scholar
Bacci, M. 2014. The Many Faces of Christ: Portraying the Holy in the East and West, 300 to 1300. London: Reaktion Books.Google Scholar
Bagatti, B. 1952. “Il mosaico dell'Orfeo a Gerusalemme.” RACrist 28: 145–60.Google Scholar
Bettini, M. 2006. “Death and its double. Imagines, ridiculum and honos in the Roman aristocratic funeral.” In Hoping for Continuity: Childhood, Education and Death in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, ed. Mustakallio, K., Hanska, J., Sainio, H.-L., and Vuolanto, V., 191202. Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae.Google Scholar
Birk, S. 2013. Depicting the Dead. Self-Representation and Commemoration on Roman Sarcophagi with Portraits. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisconti, F. 2010. “Il cubicolo degli apostoli in S. Tecla: un complesso iconografico tra arte funeraria e decorazione monumentale.” In Il cubicolo degli apostoli nelle catacombe romane di Santa Tecla. Cronaca di una scoperta, ed. Mazzei, B, 185230. Vatican City: Pontificia Commissione di Archeologia Sacra.Google Scholar
Bisconti, F. 2011. Le pitture delle catacombe romane: restauri e interpretazioni. Todi: Tau.Google Scholar
Bisconti, F. 2014. “Ritorno a Priscilla. Ultimi pensieri sul cubicolo di Lazzaro.” RACrist 90: 95147.Google Scholar
Bisconti, F. 2015. “Napoli. Catacombe di S. Gennaro. Cripta dei vescovi. Restauri ultimi.” RACrist 91: 734.Google Scholar
Bock, N. 2013. “Making a silent painting speak: Paulinus of Nola, poetic competition, and early Christian portraiture.” In The Face of the Dead and the Early Christian World, ed. Foletti, I., 1128. Rome: Viella.Google Scholar
Bonacasa, R. M. C. 2013. “Ritratto femminile su una lastra incisa da S. Callisto e l'iconografia del defunto nell'arte funeraria paleocristiana.” In Incisioni figurate della tarda antichità. Atti del convegno di studi, Roma, Palazzo Massimo, 22-23 marzo 2012, ed. Bisconti, F. and Braconi, M., 115–28. Vatican City: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana.Google Scholar
Borg, B. 1996. Mumienporträts: Chronologie und kultureller Kontext. Mainz: von Zabern.Google Scholar
Braconi, M. 2017. “L'immaginario figurativo dei defunti nelle catacombe di Domitilla a Roma: sagome, bozzetti e ritratti = Figurative imagery of the deceased in the catacombs of Domitilla in Rome: Silhouettes, sketches and portraits.” In Catacombe di Domitilla. Restauri nel tempo = Catacombs of Domitilla. Conservation in its Making, ed. Bisconti, F., 3345. Vatican City: Pontificia Commissione di Archeologia Sacra.Google Scholar
Brenk, B. 2003. Die Christianisierung der spätrömischen Welt. Stadt, Land, Haus, Kirche und Kloster in frühchristlicher Zeit. Wiesbaden: Reichert.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caillaud, A. 2015. “La figure du commanditaire dans l'art funéraire des catacombes de Rome (IIIe-Vie siècles).” In La culture des commanditaires. L’œuvre et l'empreinte. Actes de la journée d’étude organisée à Paris le 15 novembre 2013, ed. Brodbeck, S. and Poilpré, A.-O, 66121. Paris.Google Scholar
Carroll, M. 2006. Spirits of the Dead. Roman Funerary Commemoration in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, J. R. 2003. Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans: Visual Representation and Non-Elite Viewers in Italy, 100 BC – AD 315. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Colledge, M. A. R. 1976. The Art of Palmyra. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Corneli, C. 2010. “Dalle imagines maiorum al ‘ritratto’ nelle catacombe di Roma.” PhD diss., Università degli Studi della Tuscia di Viterbo.Google Scholar
Corneli, C. 2013. “Studies on the painting of Rome's Christian catacombs. On the trail of a portrait included in the wall of the arcosolium.” In The Face of the Dead and the Early Christian World, ed. Foletti, I., 2941. Rome: Viella.Google Scholar
Croci, C. 2013. “Portraiture on early Christian gold glass: Some observations.” In The Face of the Dead and the Early Christian World, ed. Foletti, I., 4359. Rome: Viella.Google Scholar
Deckers, J. 1987. Die Katakombe “Santi Marcellino e Pietro”: Repertorium der Malerein = La catacomba dei Santi Marcellino e Pietro: repertorio delle pitture. Vatican City; Münster: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana; Aschendorff.Google Scholar
Dodwell, C. R. 1961. Theophilus. The Various Arts. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Elsner, J. 2009. “Double identity. Orpheus as David. Orpheus as Christ?” Biblical Archaeology Review 35, no. 2: 3445.Google Scholar
Elsner, J. 2020. “The death of the figurine: Reflections on an Abrahamic abstention.” In Figurines: Figuration and the Sense of Scale, ed. Elsner, J., 130–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fasola, U. M. 1975. Le Catacombe di S. Gennaro a Capodimonte. Rome: Editalia.Google Scholar
Fejfer, J. 2008. Roman Portraits in Context. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrari, G., and Morey, C. F.. 1959. The Gold-Glass Collection of the Vatican Library. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.Google Scholar
Ferrua, A. 1976. “Ultime scoperte a S. Callisto.” RACrist 52: 195219.Google Scholar
Fiocchi Nicolai, V. 1988. I cimiteri paleocristiani del Lazio. I. Etruria meridionale. Vatican City: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana.Google Scholar
Flower, H. I. 1996. Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsyth, G. H., and Weitzmann, K.. 1973. The Monastery of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai. The Church and Fortress of Justinian. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Ganio, M., Salvant, J., Williams, J.., Lee, L., Cossairt, O., and Walton, M.. 2015. “Investigating the use of Egyptian blue in Roman Egyptian portraits and panels from Tebtunis, Egypt.” Applied Physics A 121: 813–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giuliani, R. 2010. “Il restaurato cubicolo detto degli apostoli piccoli nelle catacombe di Domitilla e alcune note a margine della sua iconografia.” RACrist 86: 5380.Google Scholar
Goldman, B. 1999. “The Kerch Easel Painter.” ZfK 62, no. 1, 2844.Google Scholar
Grašar, J. A. 2015. “Funerary images of women in tomb frescoes of the Late Antique and Early Byzantine period from the Central Balkans.” In The Danubian Lands Between the Black, Aegean and Adriatic Seas (7th Century BC - 10th Century AD): Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress on Black Sea Antiquities (Belgrade - 17-21 September 2013), ed. Tsetskhladze, G. R., Avram, A., and Hargrave, J., 269–75. Oxford: Archaeopress.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grašar, J. A., and Tapavički-Ilić, M.. 2015. “Mural painting of a Roman lady from Viminacium: From Roman matron to the modern icon.” Open Archaeology 2015.2. https://exarc.net/issue-2015-2/int/mural-painting-roman-lady-viminacium-roman-matron-modern-icon.Google Scholar
Grüneisen, W. 1906a. “Intorno all'antico uso egiziano di raffigurare i defunti collocati avanti al loro sepolcro.” Archivio della R. Società Romana di storia patria 29: 229–39.Google Scholar
Grüneisen, W. 1906b. “Studi iconografici in Santa Maria Antiqua.” Archivio della R. Società Romana di storia patria 29: 8595.Google Scholar
Halkin, F. 1977. Douze récits byzantins sur Saint Jean Chrysostom. Subsidia hagiographica 60. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes.Google Scholar
Hallett, C. H. 2019. “Mummies with painted portraits from Roman Egypt and personal commemoration at the tomb.” In Funerary Portraiture in Greater Roman Syria, ed. Blömer, M. and Raja, R., 197212. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
Harper, K. 2016. “People, plagues, and prices in the Roman world: The evidence from Egypt.” The Journal of Economic History 76, no. 3: 803–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, P. 1974. The Painter's Manual of Dionysius of Fourna. London: Sagittarius Press.Google Scholar
Holloway, P. 2007. “Portrait and presence: A note on the Visio Procli (George of Alexandria, Vita Chrysostomi 27).” ByzZeit 100, no. 1: 7183.Google Scholar
Hope, V. M. 2007. Death in Ancient Rome. A Source Book. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hope, V. 2011. “Remembering to mourn: Personal mementos of the dead in ancient Rome.” In Memory and Mourning. Studies on Roman Death, ed. Hope, V. M. and Huskinson, J., 176–95. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Howells, D. 2015. A Catalogue of the Late Antique Gold Glass in the British Museum. Edited by Entwistle, C. and James, L.. London: British Museum.Google Scholar
James, L. 1996. Light and Colour in Byzantine Art. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Jastrzebowska, E. 1994. “Encore sur la quadrature du nimbe.” In Historiam pictura refert. Miscellanea in onore di Padre Alejandro Recio Veganzones, 347–59. Vatican City: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana.Google Scholar
Jones, A. H. M. 1964. The Later Roman Empire, 284602: A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey, Vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jones, F. F. 1981. “Antioch mosaics in Princeton.” Record of the Art Museum, Princeton University 40, no. 2: 226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kantorowicz, E. H. 1960. “On the golden marriage belt and the marriage rings of the Dumbarton Oaks Collection.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 14: 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korać, M. 1991. “Late Roman tomb with frescoes from Viminacium.” Starinar 42: 107–22.Google Scholar
Kraeling, C. H. 1961–1962. “Color photographs of the paintings in the Tomb of the Three Brothers at Palmyra.” Annales Archéologiques de Syrie 11–12: 1318.Google Scholar
Kubińska, J. 1968. Les monuments funéraires dans les inscriptions grecques de l'Asie Mineure. Warsaw: PWN-Editions scientifiques de Pologne.Google Scholar
Ladner, G. B. 1941. “The so-called square nimbus.” Mediaeval Studies 3: 1545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavan, L. 2020. Public Space in the Late Antique City, Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leatherbury, S. 2017. “Picturing prayers: The iconography of the Wilshere gold-glasses.” In Saints and Salvation. The Wilshere Collection of Gold-Glass, Sarcophagi and Inscriptions from Rome and Southern Italy, ed. Walker, S., 113–26. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum.Google Scholar
Ling, R. 1991. Roman Painting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ling, R. 2014. “Roman painting of the middle and late Empire.” In The Cambridge History of Painting in the Classical World, ed. Pollitt, J. J., 370427. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Liverani, P. 2014. “Per una ‘Storia del colore’. La scultura policroma romana, un bilancio e qualche prospettiva.” In Diversamente bianco. La policromia della scultura romana, ed. Liverani, P. and Santamaria, U., 932. Rome: Edizioni Quasar.Google Scholar
Liverani, P. 2016. “The Sunset of 3D.” In The Afterlife of Greek and Roman Sculpture: Late Antique Responses and Practices, ed. Kristensen, T. M. and Stirling, L., 310–29. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Liverani, P. 2018a. “Il ritratto dipinto in età tardoantica.” In Figurationen des Porträts, ed. Greub, T. and Roussel, M., 295328. Leiden: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
Liverani, P. 2018b. “Reflections on colour coding in Roman art.” In Les arts de la couleur en Grèce ancienne… et ailleurs. Approches interdisciplinaires, ed. Jockey, P., 367–85. Athens: École française d'Athènes.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loerke, W. C. 1961. “The miniatures of the trial in the Rossano Gospels.” ArtB 43, no. 3: 171–95.Google Scholar
Madden, K. 2017. “‘Breaking the mould’ Roman non-elite plaster death masks: Identifying a new form of funerary commemoration and memory.” Assemblage 16: 1331.Google Scholar
Mango, C. 1986. The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312–1453: Sources and Documents. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Marsengill, K. 2013. Portraits and Icons: Between Reality and Spirituality in Byzantine Art. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
Marsengill, K. 2020. “Painting icons from icons: The theological significance of portraits in Late Antiquity.” In Privatporträt. Die Darstellung realer Personen in der spätantiken und byzantinischen Kunst, ed. Tsamakda, V. and Zimmermann, N., 121–35. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Mathews, T., and Muller, E.. 2016. The Dawn of Christian Art in Panel Paintings and Icons. Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum.Google Scholar
Mazzei, B. 2010. “La decorazione del cubicolo degli apostoli.” In Il cubicolo degli apostoli nelle catacombe romane di Santa Tecla. Cronaca di una scoperta, ed. Mazzei, B., 3388. Vatican City: Pontificia Commissione di Archeologia Sacra.Google Scholar
Mitchell, M. 2002. The Heavenly Trumpet. John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.Google Scholar
Muth, S. 2007. “Das Manko der Statuen – oder: Zum Wettstreit der bildlichen Ausstattung im spätantiken Wohnraum.” In Statuen und Statuensammlungen in der Spätantike. Funktion und Kontext, ed. Bauer, F. A. and Witschel, C., 341–55. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.Google Scholar
Nestori, A. 1993. Repertorio topografico delle pitture delle catacombe romane. Vatican City: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana.Google Scholar
Nowicka, M. 1993. Le portrait dans la peinture antique. Warsaw: Institut d'archéologie et d'ethnologie.Google Scholar
Olszewski, M. T. 2011. “The Orpheus funerary mosaic from Jerusalem in the Archaeological Museum at Istanbul.” In 11th International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics, October 16th-20th 2009, Bursa, Turkey: Mosaics of Turkey and Parallel Developments in the Rest of the Ancient and Medieval World, ed. Şahin, M., 655–64. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.Google Scholar
Osborne, J. 1979. “The portrait of Pope Leo IV in San Clemente, Rome: A re-examination of the so-called ‘square’ nimbus in medieval art.” PBSR 47: 5865.Google Scholar
Ortiz-García, J. 2017. “Painting on linen cloth in antiquity: Shrouds from Roman Egypt as a source for research.” TEXTILE 15, no. 1: 3447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ovadiah, A., and Mucznik, S. 1981. “Orpheus from Jerusalem – Pagan or Christian image?” In The Jerusalem Cathedra: Studies in the History, Archaeology, Geography and Ethnography of the Land of Israel, ed. Levine, L. I., 152–67. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Institute.Google Scholar
Parlasca, K. 1966. Mumienporträts und verwandte Denkmäler. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Penella, R. J. 2009. Rhetorical Exercises from Late Antiquity. A Translation of Choricius of Gaza's Preliminary Talks and Declamations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Piccirillo, M. 1993. The Mosaics of Jordan. Amman: American Center of Oriental Research.Google Scholar
Pollitt, J. J. 2014. “Painting in Greek and Graeco-Roman art criticism.” In The Cambridge History of Painting in the Classical World, ed. Pollitt, J. J., 288301. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Proverbio, C. 2006. “L'arcosolio di Primerius et Severa sulla parete ovest della galleria F12.” In L'orizzonte tardoantico e le nuove immagini (312–468), ed. Andaloro, M., 196–99. Corpus, vol. 1. Milano: Jaca Book.Google Scholar
Roberts, P. 2013. Life and Death in Pompeii and Herculaneum. London: British Museum Press.Google Scholar
Rondot, V. 2013. Derniers visages des dieux d’Égypte: Iconographies, panthéons et cultes dans le Fayoum hellénisé des IIe-IIIe siècles de notre ère. Paris: Presses de l'Université Paris-Sorbonne.Google Scholar
Ross, M. C., and Weitzmann, K.. 1965. Catalogue of Byzantine and Early Mediaeval Antiquities in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection: Jewelry, Enamels and Art of the Migration Period, Vol. 2. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.Google Scholar
Rowlandson, J. 1998. Women and Society in Greek and Roman Egypt: A Sourcebook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scrinari, V. S. M. 1989. “Contributo all'urbanistica tardo antica sul Campo Laterano.” In Actes du XIe congrès international d'archéologie chrétienne, ed. Duval, N., in collaboration with Fr. Baritel and Ph. Pergola, 2201–20. Rome: École française de Rome.Google Scholar
Scrinari, V. S. M. 1995. Il Laterano Imperiale. Vol. 2. Dagli “horti Domitiae” alla Cappella cristiana. Vatican City: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana.Google Scholar
Shelton, K. J. 1981. The Esquiline Treasure. London: British Museum.Google Scholar
Skovmøller, A., Brøns, C., and Sargent, M. L.. 2016. “Egyptian blue: Modern myths, ancient realities.” JRA 29: 371–87.Google Scholar
Smith, R. R. R., and Ward-Perkins, B., eds. 2016. The Last Statues of Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stryzgowski, J. 1901. “Das neuaufgefundene Orpheus-Mosaik in Jerusalem.” ZDPV 24: 139–71.Google Scholar
Studer-Karlen, M. 2012. Verstorbenendarstellungen auf frühchristlichen Sarkophagen. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
Testini, P. 1952. “La cripta di Ampliato nel cimitero di Domitilla sull'Ardeatina.” RACrist 28: 77117.Google Scholar
Testini, P. 1978. “Nuove osservazioni sul cubicolo di Ampliato in Domitilla.” Atti del IX Congresso Internazionale di Archeologia Cristiana, Roma 21-27 Settembre 1975, Vol. 1, 141–57. Vatican City: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana.Google Scholar
Valentini, V. 2016. “Il cantiere pittorico della cappella di Teodoto.” In Santa Maria Antiqua. Tra Roma e Bisanzio, ed. Morganti, G., Andaloro, M., and Bordi, G., 270–77. Milan: Electa.Google Scholar
Verri, G. 2014. “‘In picturae modum variata circumlitio’? The reconstruction of the polychromy of a Roman ideal female head (Treu Head).” In Diversamente bianco. La policromia della scultura romana, ed. Liverani, P. and Santamaria, U., 149–83. Rome: Edizioni Quasar.Google Scholar
Vikan, G. 1990. “Art and marriage in early Byzantium.” DOP 44: 145–63.Google Scholar
Vincent, P. H. 1901. “Une mosaïque byzantine à Jérusalem.” RBibl 10: 436–44.Google Scholar
Vincent, P. H. 1902. “La mosaïque d'Orphée.” RBibl 11: 100–3.Google Scholar
Walker, S. 2017. “Honouring the dead in Late Antique Rome.” In Saints and Salvation. The Wilshere Collection of Gold-Glass, Sarcophagi and Inscriptions from Rome and Southern Italy, ed. Walker, S., 7390. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum.Google Scholar
Walker, S., ed. 1997. Ancient Faces: Mummy Portraits from Roman Egypt. London: British Museum.Google Scholar
Walsh, P. G. 1967. Letters of St. Paulinus of Nola, Vol. 2. New York: Newman Press for the Paulist Press.Google Scholar
Wilber, D. N. 1940. “The Coptic frescoes of Saint Menas at Medinet Habu.” ArtB 22, no. 2: 86103.Google Scholar
Wilpert, J. 1903. Die Malereien der Katakomben Roms. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herdersche Verlagshandlung.Google Scholar
Wilpert, J. 1905. “Appunti sulle pitture della chiesa di S. Maria Antiqua.” ByzZeit 14, no. 2: 578–83.Google Scholar
Wilpert, J. 1906. “Le nimbe carré. A propos d'une momie peinte du musée égyptien au Vatican.” MÉFR 26: 313.Google Scholar
Wilpert, J. 1907. “Beiträge zur christlichen Archäologie: VI. Zum quadratischen Nimbus.” RömQSchr 21: 93116.Google Scholar
Wilpert, J. 1917. Die römischen Mosaiken und Malereien der kirchlichen Bauten vom IV.-XIII. Jahrhundert. Freiburg: Herder.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, N. 2007. “Verstorbene im Bild. Zur Intention römischer Katakombenmalerei.” JAC 50: 154–79.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, N. 2020. “Vom Verstorbenen-Porträt zum Stifterbild. Zum Ende des Grabporträts in der Spätantike.” In Privatporträt. Die Darstellung realer Personen in der spätantiken und byzantinischen Kunst, ed. Tsamakda, V. and Zimmermann, N., 6984. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Composite portrait from the Crypt of Oceanus in the catacombs of S. Callixtus. (Wilpert 1907, fig. 3.)

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Composite family group portrait from the catacombs of Domitilla. (Courtesy of the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology.)

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Recess for a panel painting(?), SS Marcellino and Pietro. (Courtesy of the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology.)

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Arcosolium painted with rectangular framed panel for attachment of a portrait on cloth, with nails preserved around the edges, SS Marcellino and Pietro. (Courtesy of the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology.)

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Framed wooden panel portrait from Hawara, Egypt, 1st c. CE? (© The Trustees of the British Museum.)

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Bust portrait of a woman with a painted frame, Coemeterium Maius. (Wilpert 1903, pl. 223.)

Figure 6

Fig. 7. Framed portrait in an arcosolium in the catacombs of Domitilla, flanked by Peter and Paul. (Wilpert 1903, pl. 154.1.)

Figure 7

Fig. 8. Framed painted portrait of a couple in an arcosolium in the catacombs of Domitilla, flanked by Cupids (white sections are in the image as provided). (Courtesy of the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology.)

Figure 8

Fig. 9. Incised portrait in imitation of a painted panel portrait, from a fragmentary loculus cover in the catacombs of S. Callixtus. (Courtesy of the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology.)

Figure 9

Fig. 10. “Opus sectile”-style portrait of a woman imitating a framed panel painting, from a loculus cover in the catacombs of S. Agnes. (Armellini 1880, pl. VIII.)

Figure 10

Fig. 11. Christ before Pilate, with framed portraits of emperors in the background, Rossano Gospels, 6th c. (Album / Alamy Stock Photo.)

Figure 11

Fig. 12. Detail of the arcosolium tomb painting of a woman and her daughter from the catacombs of S. Tecla, with blue panels framing the adult figures. (Courtesy of the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology.)

Figure 12

Fig. 13. Portrait of the deceased lady, western wall of the Pagan tomb (G2624) from Viminacium, documentation of the Institute of Archaeology. (Belgrade, Project Viminacium.)

Supplementary material: PDF

Stafford supplementary material

Stafford supplementary material

Download Stafford supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 139.2 KB