The Iconography of the Sarcophagus of Junius Bassus (review)Leonard Victor Rutgers

Journal of Early Christian Studies, Volume 1, Number 1, Spring 1993,pp. 94-96 (Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University PressDOI: 10.1353/earl.0.0155

For additional information about this article

Access Provided by Oxford University Library Services at 11/27/12 9:42AM GMT

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/earl/summary/v001/1.1.rutgers.html

94 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

scripture-references, references to others of Origen's works, references to the "indi-rect tradition" of using Origen-Rufinus in later commentaries, and references to arich selection of other patristic, late-Roman and rabbinic texts. The sheer volume ofcritical (and potentially exegetical) information contained on each page of thisedition is enormous and is sure to serve as an inducement to further scholarship. Arandom comparison of this edition with that of Lommatzsch detected from six totwelve differences in the text for each page, many minor but a number of substantivevalue.

One particular complexity in the production of a critical text of a patristiccommentary is the matter of constructing an apparatus for the lemmata. In thepresent volume the apparatus is simply incorporated as part of that on the full text,thereby serving the purpose of establishing the most reliable critical text. In the1985 introductory volume, however, the critical text of Rufinus' lemmata of Ro-mans is printed with a much fuller apparatus, including important comparativematerial from Ambrosiaster and Pelagius, which can serve the needs of the scholarinterested in the history of NT text-types. Further, an especially intriguing part ofBammel's presentation is the contention that the Lyons archetype preserves con-ventions and orthographic features that go back to Rufinus himself (full discussionin JTS 29 [1978] 366-39; 30 [1979] 430-462; 35 [1984] 347-393). In another ofthe earlier JTS essays she offers a reconstruction of the earliest history of Origen-Rufinus by looking at the circumstances in which Rufinus found himself during thefirst years of the fifth century. Embroiled in controversy at Rome (rather thanAquileia), and surrounded by figures like Paulinus of ola, Melania the Elder,Pinian, Jerome and even Palladius on his mission of defense for John Chrysostom,his translations played a key role in the debates about Greek asceticism and Ori-genist doctrine (cf. JTS 28 [1977] 372-429).

This edition will make a further contribution, if any is needed, to the erosion ofthe prejudice that has long existed against using Origen's commentaries as a majorsource for the exposition of his thought. Bammel echoes the view represented byHenry Chadwick, that Origen-Rufinus faithfully sets forth, when suitable al-lowances are made, a reliable rendering of Origen's own exegetical labors. Throughthis critical edition of the Romans-commentary we have another passageway alongwhich to travel back to the mind of the Alexandrian himself. In this volume Dr.Bammel has continued the process of presenting in first-class form a work whosehistorical, doctrinal and exegetical implications have only begun to be unfolded. Avital tool, whose lack has long been felt, is now beginning to be available to us.

Peter J. Gorday, Cathedral of St. Philip, Atlanta, Georgia

Elizabeth Struthers MalbonThe Iconography of the Sarcophagus of Junius Bassus.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990.Pp. xxi + 256. $47.50

The subject of this handsomely produced monograph is what is probably the singlemost famous piece of early Christian relief sculpture. It is an iconographically

BOOK REVIEWS 95

complex and stylistically exquisite sarcophagus, carved to receive the body ofJunius Bassus, a vir clarissimus whoas we learn from one of the two inscriptionsthat was incised on the front of this marble containerhad occupied the honouredposition of praefectus praetorio. He had been baptized shortly before he passedaway on the 25th of August 359 CE. (neofitus). Because this sarcophagus has beenknown since 1597, it is not surprising that it has been the focus of scholarly interestfor several centuries. Not only the older monographs by A. de Waal (1900) and Fr.Gerke (1936), but also the more recent discussions by N. Himmelmann (1973) andG. Daltrop (1978/80) testify to the continued interest in the rather complicatediconographie program that decorates the front and sidepanels as well as the recent-ly rediscovered lid of this extraordinary piece.

The purpose of Malbon's book is not merely to critically review previous schol-arship on the subject (ch. 2), but rather to come to a well-balanced or, as the author(p. 38) calls it, "holistic" interpretation of all the scenes represented on the differentparts of the sarcophagus. Such a project is no easy task. Whereas Roman art hadonly known representations of an allegorical or symbolic nature, in early Christianart a new type of figurai composition was created, known as typological. In itstories from the Old Testament (typoi) were selected because they were believed tobe allusions to events in the New Testament (antitypoi). Thus, for example, thesacrifice of Isaac could easily be seen as prfiguration of the crucifixion of Jesus,while later events in Church history were in turn regarded as postfigurations ofJesus's life and sufferings. Since this process of arriving at a concordia veteris et novitestamenti is often associative and not bound by strict exegetical rules, present-dayconclusions as to exactly what connections between various representations mayonce have existed in the eyes of Late Antique patrons must remain open-ended. It isto Malbon's credit that she remains sensitive to this important issue throughout herbook (e.g., pp. 21, 136).

Unlike some of the previous scholarship on the sarcophagus of Junius Bassus,Malbon pays great attention to all the elements of its decoration, including theintercolumnations (ch. 3), the spandrels (ch. 4), the ends (ch. 5) and lid (ch. 6) andfinally the still remaining compositional and ornamental elements (ch. 7). In a lastchapter (8) the broader question of how the sarcophagus "illuminates" otherfourth-century art is addressed. Three diagrams as well as 45 black and whitepictures at the end of the book are very useful in helping the reader follow thearguments and interpretations put forward.

Although it is impossible in this short review to address all the issues raised byMalbon, several brief observations must nevertheless be made. Those who havelong been familiar with the problems surrounding the iconography of the sarcoph-agus of Junius Bassus, may argue that much of the ideas formulated here could havebeen condensed into an article rather than presented in the form of a lengthy book.For the specialist, chapters 1 and 2 would seem superfluous, while ch. 8 stands outfor its lack in referring to German scholarship in the field (such as T. Klauser'sarticles in JbAC 1950-1967, several articles by J. Engemann, not to mention H.Brandenburg's remarks on the Junius Bassus sarcophagus in RM 86 (1979) andJbAC 24 (1981); for a short discussion of the use of the problematic word "putto,"see J. G. Deckers in id. et al., Die Katakombe Santi Marcellino e Pietro. Reper-

96 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

torium der Malereien [Citt del Vaticano-Mnster 1987] 29). Furthermore, there isalso a certain redundancy to the many literal citations of secondary literature (morethan 200 in the main body of text of 147 pp.!).

On the other hand, and more importantly, it must be observed that the centralpart of this book (chs. 37) in which the intricate, "never ending" relationshipbetween the many sculpted scenes decorating the sarcophagus of Junius Bassus isdiscussed, is convincingly presented. The importance of typological thinking for aproper understanding of its sculptural program is well argued. Therefore, archae-ologists and art historians, but also patristic scholars interested in the conceptualbackground of early Christian art in the fourth century, will find in Malbon's booka valuable source of information.

Leonard Victor Rutgers, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina

Faith Gives Fullness to Reasoning: The Five TheologicalOrations of Gregory of NazianzenTrans. Lionel Wickham and Frederick Williams,comm. Frederick W. NorrisLeiden: E. J. Brill, 1991

In the years since Gregory of Nyssa was rediscovered and rehabilitated by JeanDanilou he has become the quintessential Cappadocian, but traditionally he didnot enjoy this status. It is Gregory of Nazianzus whom the Eastern Church called"the theologian" (giving him the same honor as John the Evangelist), and in thegreat European dogmatic histories of the late 19th century it is Gregory the theo-logian who is offered as the Greek counterpoint to the Latin Augustine. Much ofGregory's reputation and influence as a theologian is due to the Orations that arethe subject of this new English translation and commentary.

Like the other two Cappadocians, Gregory was intensely concerned with refut-ing the anti-Nicene theology of Eunomius; unlike the other Cappadocians, Grego-ry of Nazianzus never wrote a Contra Eunomium. Instead, he delivered a series ofsermons, probably in Constantinople around 380, not to respond to a written textby Eunomius (as Basil and his brother did), but in response to the polemically-motivated speeches by Eunomians that faced him in the public places of the city,from the butcher shop to the imperial court. The fact that the Orations are them-selves speeches remains a source of their power, but it has also served as an obstacleto their interpretation and appropriation by scholars. The oral structure of theworks, coupled with their heavy use of the rhetorical techniques of the era, hasmade the polemical context and doctrinal content of the orations seem diffuse andobscure. The ornateness of the original Greek has been further burdened in moderntranslations by a sort of ecclessiastical English. By contrast, the English of Wick-ham and Williams emphasizes clarity and even simplicity (cf. Or. 28.9 by Wickhamand Williams and by Browne and Swallow). Perhaps the translation could havebeen more technical (like the Apostle/Gersh Aristotle series), so that, e.g., "power"did not translate both dynamis and exousia, but at least in this edition we know thatwhat opaqueness is left in a passage is Gregory's own.