Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:10:19.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Portraits, pontiffs and the Christianization of fourth-century Rome

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2013

Lucy Grig
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
Papers of the British School at Rome , Volume 72 , November 2004 , pp. 203 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © British School at Rome 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Auratum squalet Capitolium, fuligine et aranearum telis omnia Romae templa cooperta sunt, movetur urbs sedibus suis et inundans populus ante delubra semiruta currit ad martyrum tumulos: Jerome, Epistulae 107.1.

2 The letter is probably to be dated to 401–2. Jerome was writing from the Holy Land rather than from the eternal city itself. See most recently on rhetorical descriptions of Rome, Roberts, M., ‘Rome personified, Rome epitomized: representations of Rome in the poetry of the early fifth century’, American Journal of Philology 122 (2001), 533–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 For a stimulating introduction to the issue of the transformation of the fabric of the city of Rome in late antiquity, see Harris, W. (ed.), The Transformation of Urbs Roma in Late Antiquity (Portsmouth (RI), 1999)Google Scholar. See too Eisner, J. ‘Inventing Christian Rome: the role of early Christian Rome’, in Edwards, C. and Woolf, G. (eds), Rome the Cosmopolis (Cambridge, 2003), 71–99Google Scholar, the scope and themes of which are clearly relevant to this article.

4 Morey, C.R., The Gold Glass Collection of the Vatican Library with Additional Catalogues of other Gold Glass Collections (Vatican City, 1959)Google Scholar, remains the most cited catalogue, although it is not complete. The most recent catalogue is provided by Smith, S., Gold-Glass Vessels of the Late Roman Empire: Production, Context, and Function (Rutgers University, Ph.D. thesis, 2000)Google Scholar. I shall use Morey catalogue numbers (prefaced M in my text) for ease of reference.

5 For technical issues see Pillinger, R., Studien zu Römischen Zwischengoldgläsern I: Geschichte der Technik und das Problem der Authentizität (Vienna, 1984)Google Scholar; Goldstein, S. M. ‘Old glass, new glass, gold glass: some thoughts on ancient casting technology’, Kölner Jahrbuch 22 (1989), 115–20Google Scholar.

6 See Faedo, L., ‘Nuovi contributi sui vetri dorati tardoromani’, in XLII corso di cultura sull'arte ravennate e bizantina (Ravenna, 1995), 311–37Google Scholar.

7 On the Cologne glasses see Fremersdorf, F., Die Römischer Gläser mit Schliff, Bemalung und Goldauflagen aus Köln (Die Denkmäler des Römischen Köln 8) (Cologne, 1967)Google Scholar. Glasses have also been found elsewhere outside Rome and Italy, including Croatia and Hungary.

8 The arrangement, iconography and interpretation of these ‘blobs’ are discussed in Utro, U., ‘Temi biblici nella collezione di medaglioni vitrei con figure in oro del Museo Cristiano’, Monumenti Musei e Gallerie Pontificie Bollettino 20 (2000), 53–84Google Scholar.

9 It used to be argued that these glasses represented medallions rather than vessel bases. However, the jagged edges and foot-rings of the disks (as I have observed during my own handling of these objects) clearly signify that they are broken-off pieces of vessels.

10 Other objects include lamps, shells, animal teeth, bones, jewellery, figurines, coins, name pendants and decorative plaques. See, for the most recent catalogue of such finds, Salvetti, C., ‘Il catalogo degli oggetti minuti conservati presso la Pontificia Commissione di Archeologia Sacra’, Rivista dell'Archeologia Cristiana 54 (1978), 103–30Google Scholar. For discussion and interpretation see Santis, P. De, ‘Elementi di corredo nei sepolcri delle catacombe romane: l'esempio della regione di Leone e della galleria Bb nella catacomba di Domitilla’, Vetera Christianorum 31 (1994), 23–51Google Scholar.

11 On gold glasses as new year gifts see Noll, R., ‘An instance of motif identity in two gold glasses’, Journal of Glass Studies 15 (1973), 31–4Google Scholar, and Baudy, D., ‘Strenarum Commercio: über Geschenke und Glückwünsche zum römischen Neujahrsfest’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 130 (1987), 1–28Google Scholar, although see also the criticisms of Cameron, A., ‘Orfitus and Constantius: a note on Roman gold-glasses’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 9 (1996), 295–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The idea that glasses were produced for martyr feasts will be discussed below.

12 See Février, P.-A., ‘À propos du repas funéraire: culte et sociabilité’, Cahier Archéologique 27 (1977), 29–45Google Scholar. On the archaeological evidence from the catacombs, see Alchermes, J.D., Cura pro mortuis and Cultus martyrum: Commemoration in Rome from the Second Through the Sixth Century (NYU Institute of Fine Arts, Ph.D. thesis, 1989), ch. 4Google Scholar.

13 But see Engemann, J., ‘Anmerkungen zu spätantiken Geräten des Alltagslebens mit christlichen Bildern, Symbolen und Inschriften’, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 15 (1972), 154–73Google Scholar; cf. Fremersdorf, Die Römischer Gläser (above, n. 7), 205.

14 Smith, Gold-Glass Vessels (above, n. 4), 179.

15 For this reason, studies of gold glass such as Roppo, F. Zanchi, Vetri paleocristiani a figure d'oro conservati in Italia (Bologna, 1969)Google Scholar, which only focus on ‘Christian’ glass, risk distorting our perspective, as stressed in a crushing review by Deichmann, F.W. in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 64 (1971), 127–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 As clearly established by Ward-Perkins, J.B., ‘The role of craftsmanship in the formation of early Christian art’, in Atti del IX congresso internazionale di archeologia cristiana (Vatican City, 1978), 637–52Google Scholar; see also Rutgers, L.V., The Jews in Late Ancient Rome: Evidence of Cultural Interaction in the Roman Diaspora (Leiden/Boston/Cologne, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ch. 2 and Eisner, J., ‘Archaeologies and agendas: reflections on late ancient Jewish art and early Christian art’, Journal of Roman Studies 93 (2003), 114–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Workshop identification remains highly speculative for the most part. Morey identified four broad groups in his incomplete catalogue; Faedo, L., ‘Per una classificazione preliminare dei vetri dorati tardo romani’, Annali delta Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Classe di Lettere e Filosofia s. III, VIII (1978), 1,025–70Google Scholar, identified ten much smaller workshop groups, but ignored non-Christian glasses; Engemann, J., ‘Bemerkungen zu römischen Gläsern mit Goldfoliendekor’, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 11–12 (1968–1969), 7–25Google Scholar, especially pp. 16–22, argued, not entirely convincingly, for the common workshop identity of a number of Christian and Jewish glasses.

18 Smith, Gold-Glass Vessels (above, n. 4), provides a comprehensive catalogue, arranged by iconographic type.

19 The ‘medallion’ vessel blobs break down rather differently; on this class of material see Utro, ‘Temi biblici’ (above, n. 8).

20 For late antique portrait rings from Italy, see Dalton, O.M., Catalogue of Early Christian Antiquities and Objects from the Christian East, British Museum (London, 1901), nos. 55–7Google Scholar; on late third-century jet portrait pendants, see Hagen, J. ‘Kaiserzeitliche Gagatarbeiten aus dem rheinischen Germanien’, Bonner Jarhbücher 142 (1937), 77–144, pl. 30–1Google Scholar.

21 Eisner, J., Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph: the Art of the Roman Empire AD 100–450 (Oxford, 1998), 97Google Scholar.

22 Chaereas and Callirhoe 1.14, 2.11.

23 M237. See von Heintze, H., ‘Das Goldglasmedallion in Brescia’, in Festchrift Eugen von Mercklin (Waldsassen, 1964), 41–52Google Scholar, and Pillinger, Studien (above, n. 5), 31–3.

24 Other striking examples include a portrait of a young man with a standard in the British Museum (Harden, D.B., Glass of the Caesars (Milan, 1987)Google Scholar, no. 152) and the portrait of another young man, named Gennadios, in the Metropolitan Museum (M454).

25 See Smith's catalogue on these portraits; and for two interesting family portrait glasses unknown to Smith, see Barocki, L., Pannonische Glasfunde in Ungarn (Budapest, 1988), 216–17, nos. 550–1Google Scholar.

26 For example, M41 (male portrait); M9 2 (couple).

27 For example, M89 (family group).

28 For example, M447.

29 For example, M379 (couple).

30 M311.

31 M316.

32 For example, M310. See here Walker, C., ‘Marriage crowns in Byzantine iconography’, Zograf 10 (1979), 83–91, esp. p. 84Google Scholar.

33 Across the gold-glass corpus more than 60 names are given in inscriptions, of Latin, Greek and foreign origin.

34 Cameron, ‘Orfitus and Constantius’ (above, n. 11); Orfitus was made historiographically notorious as the propaganda mastermind of the ‘pagan revival’: see Alföldi, A., Die Kontorniaten. Ein Verkanntes Propagandamittel der Stadtrömischen Heidnischen Aristokratie in ihrem Kampf gegen das Christliche Kaisertum (Budapest, 1943)Google Scholar.

35 M106, M107, M250, M340.

36 There is a copious bibliography relating to Damasus, but see especially Saecularia Damasiana. Atti del convegno internazionale per il XVI centenario della morte di papa Damaso I (Vatican City, 1986)Google Scholar.

37 M106 and M107. The fragmentary glass M340 is similar again, the remaining subjects being [SIM]ON DAMAS and SVS[TVS]. Its condition makes a clear identification impossible, but it is likely to be related to M106 and M107.

38 Iustus, depicted on M364 with Florus and Simon (as well as Timotheus and Sistus), might well be another of the martyrs from Caesaraugusta (Saragossa), also recorded by Prudentius: Peristephanon 4.40.

39 Damasus evokes the grieving of Florus for his daughter: Epigrammata 51.8: ‘Erepta ex oculis Flori genitoris abiit’. On the supposed connection with the Esquiline casket, see Shelton, K.J., The Esquiline Treasure (London, 1981), 37–40Google Scholar.

40 Diehl, , ILCV I, nos. 56–7Google Scholar.

41 M340.

42 M364.

43 As suggested over a century ago by Vopel, H., Die Altchristlichen Goldgläser. Ein Beitrag zur Altchristlichen Kunst- und Kulturgeschichte (Freiburg, 1899), 87Google Scholar.

44 Cameron, ‘Orfitus and Constantius’ (above, n. 11), 299.

45 M129.

46 For the text see Mommsen, T., ‘Depositories Episcoporum Romanorum’, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Auctorum Antiquissorum, part 9: Chronica Minora Saec. IV–VII vol. 1 ([Berlin, 1892] Munich, 1981), 70; the earliest extant list of bishops is also recorded in the Calendar of 354: Mommsen, pp. 73–6.Google Scholar

47 A number of Greek epitaphs for these bishops survives, including those for Anteros, Fabian, Lucius and Eutychianus. In addition to popes, the crypt also commemorated several African bishops including Saint Cyprian (although his remains were in Carthage), as well as some celebrity lesser clerics, for example the ‘comites Xysti’, apprehended during the Decian persecution in 258.

48 See Wilpert, G., La cripta dei papi e la capella di Santa Cecilia nel cimitero di Callisto (Rome, 1910)Google Scholar, which includes inscriptions and plans.

49 Epigrammata 16 (‘Hie congesta iacet’), and Epigrammata 17 (Sixtus II).

50 Damasus was buried in a funerary basilica together with his mother and sister somewhere between the Via Appia and the Via Ardeatina: the location of his tomb has never been identified convincingly; see here P. Saint-Roch, ‘Sur la tombe du Pape Damase’, Saecularia Damasiana (above, n. 36), 285–90.

51 A similar tactic is used in many of his epigrams, most strikingly in Epigrammata 47. Damasus's own epitaph is Epigrammata 12.

52 For a bishop who had achieved the episcopal throne only through the violent overthrow of a rival, the need to stress legitimate succession through illustrious forebears was, of course, particularly pressing.

53 See here Dagens, C., ‘Autour du Pape Libère: l'iconographie de Suzanne et des martyrs romains sur l'arcosolium de Celerina’, Mélanges de l'Ecole Française de Rome. Antiquité 78 (1966), 327–81Google Scholar; in my own (brief) examination of the area I was unable to identify everything described by Dagens.

54 See Mackie, G., ‘Symbolism and purpose in an early Christian martyr chapel: the case of San Vittore in Ciel d'Oro’, Gesta 34 (1995), 91–101 on the mosaicsCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 See Fasola, U.M., Le catacombe di San Gennaro a Capodimonte (Rome, 1975), 133–46Google Scholar.

56 John Chrysostom, Homilis Encomiastica in Meletium 1 (Patrologia Graeca 50, 516).

57 Paulinus of Nola, Epistulae 32.2, written in 404. Even Sulpicius's original request for a portrait of his friend had troubled Paulinus, whose response contrasted heavenly and mental images with mere earthly portraits on tablets and wax: Epistulae 30.6.

58 See for the text Mommsen, ‘Depositiones’ (above, n. 46), 71–2, and Lieztmann, H. (ed.), Die Drei Ältesten Martyrologen (Bonn, 1905)Google Scholar.

59 See now on this subject Grig, L., Making Martyrs in Late Antiquity (London, 2004)Google Scholar, ch. 6, and Saghy, M., ‘Scinditur in partes populus: Pope Damasus and the martyrs of Rome ’, Early Medieval Europe 9 (2000), 273–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar

60 See, for instance, Nicolai, V. Fiocchi, “Itinera ad Sanctos”. Testimonianze monumentali del passaggio dei pellegrini nei santuari del suburbio Romano’, in Dassmann, E., Thraede, K. and Engemann, J. (eds), Akten des XII. Internationalen Kongresses für Christliche Archäologie, Bonn 22–28. September 1991, 2 vols (Bonn, 1995), II, 763–5Google Scholar.

61 Epigrammata 7.

62 Saint Cyprian of Carthage, who appears in M36 and M240, is an obvious exception: however, Cyprian was commemorated in Rome in the Catacomb of Callistus, and appears as such in the Calendar of 354: ‘Cypriani, Africae. Romae celebratur in Callisti’. Pastor and Iustus glasses, on the other hand, are quite likely to commemorate two of the eighteen martyrs of Caesaraugusta (Saragossa), memorialized by Prudentius: Peristephanon 4.40.

63 Sixtus II (Epigrammata 17), Eusebius I (Epigrammata 18), Cornelius I (Epigrammata 19) and Marcellus I (Epigrammata 40).

64 The martyrs commemorated by Damasus who appear in gold glass, such as Hippolytus and Agnes, are among the most popular saints. Several saints and bishops commemorated by the bishop do not appear in extant glasses, and the same applies in reverse: for instance, the martyrs Nereus and Achilleus (Epigrammata 8) are not depicted on glass and there is no extant epitaph for Callistus I (M401).

65 As pointed out more than 100 years ago by Vopel, Die Altchristlichen Goldgläser (above, n. 43), 90–2.

66 M126 and M177; M204 and M209 are also collections of ‘August’ saints.

67 For these artefacts, see Testini, P., ‘L'iconografia degli apostoli Pietro e Paolo nelle cosiddette ‘arti minori”, in Saecularia Pietro e Paolo (Vatican City, 1969), 241–323Google Scholar, and the recent exhibition catalogue, Donati, A. (ed.), Pietro e Paolo. La storia, il culto, la memoria nei primi secoli (Milan, 2000), esp. pp. 85–90Google Scholar.

68 Pietri, C., ‘Concordia Apostolorum et Renovatio Urbis’, Mélanges de l'École Française de Rome 73 (1961), 275–322Google Scholar; Huskinson, J., Concordia Apostolorum: Christian Propaganda at Rome in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries: a Study of Early Christian Iconography and Iconology (Oxford, 1982)Google Scholar.

69 Damasus, Epigrammata 7 (Felix and Adauctus), 8 (Nereus and Achilleus), 25 (Felicissimus and Agapitus), 28 (Marcellinus and Peter), 39 (Felix and Philip), 47 (Protus and Hyacinth).

70 Damasus often uses pariter when writing of his two martyrs (for example, 7.5, 8.3); he also suggests comradeship: comites pariterque (25.3), stresses the equality of virtues (39.7) and plays on the brotherhood of his martyrs: ‘germani fratres animis ingentibus ambo’ (47.5).

71 M36 and M55.

72 For example, M79 and M288.

73 For example, M74 and M258.

74 M74.

75 M313.

76 Watsham, A., The Importance of Peter and Paul in Late-fourth Century Rome: a Re-evaluation of the Idea of Concordia Apostolorum (University of Reading, MA thesis, 2000)Google Scholar came to a complementary conclusion, albeit from a different angle.

77 M28, M55, M74, M258, M313, M344, M452, M364.

78 See Amore, A., I martiri di Roma (Rome, 1975), 212–13Google Scholar.

79 M79. For discussion of his hagiographic tradition, see Weismann, W., ‘Gelasinos von Heliopolis, ein Schauspieler Märtyrer’, Analecta Bollandiana 93 (1975), 39–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80 M38, M240, M278, M344. The archaeological evidence from the Catacomb of Hippolytus shows considerable development and monumentalization in the course of the fourth century. See Pergola, P., Le catacombe Romane (Rome, 1997), 153–7Google Scholar.

81 On the problem of the historical Hippolytus, see Brent, A., Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century (Leiden/New York/Cologne, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82 Hippolytus is commemorated in both the Depositio Martyrum and the Catalogus Episcoporum (as presbyter) of 354.

83 Damasus, Epigrammata 35; Prudentius, Peristephanon 11.

84 See Ladner, G.B., I ritratti dei papi nell'antichità e nello medioevo I (Monumenti di antichità cristiana pubblicati dal Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, II s., IV) (Vatican City, 1941), 16–37Google Scholar, although Ladner's catalogue of 24 papal gold glasses (featuring seven popes) is problematic.

85 M401.

86 Definitely: M55, M74, M102, M240, M250, M250, M258, M278, M313, M344, M360, M361, M363; possibly: M291.

87 Epigrammata 17.

88 M102, M105, M291, M360.

89 M278 and M358 and a more recently discovered glass from the Catacomb of Sant'Agnese: see Fasola, U.M., ‘La regio IV del cimitero di S. Agnese’, Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 50 (1974), 35–54Google Scholar.

90 M87.

91 See Frutaz, A.P., Il complesso monumentale di Sant'Agnese (Rome, 1969)Google Scholar.

92 Damasus, Epigrammata 37.

93 Damasus, Epigrammata 33.

94 On representations of both saints (and fourth-century martyrs in general), see Grig, Making Martyrs (above, n. 59), ‘Agnes’, ‘Laurence’ and passim.

95 Other female portraits include an unlabelled female orant (M38), MARA/MARIA (M33, M265), and the otherwise unknown PEREGRINA (M449).

96 See here for images and discussion, Belting, H., Likeness and Presence: a History of Images before the Era of Art (trans. Jephcott, E.) (London, 1994)Google Scholar, ch. 5.

97 The depictions of Susanna in roughly contemporary engraved glass from the Rhineland provide interesting comparison pieces; see here Harden, D.B., ‘The Wint Hill hunting bowl and related glasses’, Journal of Glass Studies 2 (1960), 45–82Google Scholar, esp. nos. 15 and 20.

98 M85.

99 Prudentius, , Peristephanon 14.7Google Scholar; 127. See further on this theme Grig, L., ‘The paradoxical body of St. Agnes’, forthcoming in Hopkins, A. and Wyke, M. (eds), Roman Bodies (London, 2005)Google Scholar.

100 Passio Agnetis 13.

101 In combination: M36, M240, M283, M344; alone: M40, M460.

102 M40.

103 M460.

104 Most of the controversy over the interpretation of the mosaic is neatly outlined by Deichmann, F.W., Ravenna, Haupstadt des Spätantiken Abendlandes, 3 vols (Wiesbaden, 1974), I, 75–9Google Scholar; a recent attempt to identify the figure with Saint Victor, by Mackie, G., ‘New light on the so-called Saint Lawrence panel in the mausoleum of Galla Placidia, Ravenna’, Gesta 29 (1990), 54–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar, is, to my mind, unconvincing.

105 See, most recently, on this medallion, Bisconti, F., ‘Dentro e intorno all'iconografia martiriale Romana: dal ‘vuoto figurativo’ all'‘immaginario devozionale’’, in Lamberigts, M. and Van Deun, P. (eds), Martyrium in Multidisciplinary Perspective: Memorial Louis Reekmans (Leuven, 1995), 247–92, esp. pp. 252–3Google Scholar, arguing that it is a fake; and Maffioli, N., ‘Nuove scoperte sulla medaglia di Sucessa Vivas nella Collezione Durazzo’, Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 75 (1999), 551–70Google Scholar, arguing for its authenticity.

106 As does a recently discovered fresco, dated to the late fifth century, in the Catacomb of San Senatore in Albano Laziale, on which see Marinone, M., ‘La decorazione pittorica della catacomba di Albano’, Rivista dell'Istituto Nazionale d'Archeologia e Storia dell'Arte n.s. 20 (1973), 103–38Google Scholar.

107 Pillinger, Studien (above, n. 5), 39 suggested a fifth-century date for the New York glass.

108 Garrucci, R., Vetri ornati di figure in oro (Rome, 1858), 44–5Google Scholar.

109 M298: PETRVS PROTEG.

110 M449.

111 See Brown, P., The Cult of the Saints: its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (London, 1981), esp. pp. 54–6Google Scholar.

112 The saints appear throughout the cubiculum in the same acclamatory poses. See Deckers, D.G., Die Katakombe ‘Commodilla’. Repetorium der Malereien, 2 vols (Vatican City, 1993), I, 89–104Google Scholar.

113 For instance, Prudentius's ‘descriptions’ of paintings ofthe martyrdoms ofCassian and Hippolytus: Peristephanon 9.9–98, 11.125–44.

114 See most recently, Hahn, C., ‘Seeing and believing: the construction of sanctity in early medieval saints' shrines’, Speculum 72 (1997), 1,079–106, esp. pp. 1,093–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

115 See, most recently, Giuliani, R., ‘Il restauro dell'arcosolio di Veneranda nelle catacombe di Domitilla sulla Via Ardeatina’, Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 72 (1994), 61–87Google Scholar.

116 Achelis, H., Die Katakomben von Neapel (Leipzig, 1936), Taf. 33–4Google Scholar.

117 See Donati, Pietro e Paolo (above, n. 67), nos. 60–3, including bibliography.

118 These objects lack reliable modern biography, and the authenticity of many of them may well be doubtful. For an introduction, see de Rossi, G.B., ‘Le medaglie di devozione dei primi sei o sette secoli della chiesa’, Bolletino di Archeologia Cristiana 6 (1869), 33–45, 49–64Google Scholar.

119 Asterius of Amaseia, Homiliae 1 (Patrologia Graeca 82, 1872)Google Scholar.

120 As depicted in Donati, Pietro e Paolo (above, n. 67), no. 68.

121 Asterius is the author of a justifiably famous (though probably fictitious) ekphrasis of a painting of the martyrdom of Saint Euphemia: In laudem S. Euphemiae.

122 Augustine, , De Consensu Evangelistarum 1.10Google Scholar.

123 M37, M49, M50, M51, M58, M66, M70, M78, M241, M286, M314, M364, M450.

124 Augustine, , De Trinitate 8.4–6Google Scholar; see also for discussion Dagron, G., ‘Holy images and likeness’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 45 (1991), 23–33, esp. p. 24CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. also Paulinus of Nola's thoughts on the relationship between the mental and painted image: Epistulae 30.6.

125 See, on this theme, Kazhdan, A. and Maguire, H., ‘Byzantine hagiographical texts as sources on art’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 45 (1991), 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

126 I owe this reference to Kristina Sessa.

127 Actus Sylvestri 7. It is unfortunate that the Actus Silvestri is so rife with textual problems that it is very difficult to date this episode and even to be sure that its source was originally Latin rather than Greek. For a clear summary of some of the issues relating to this text, see Fowden, G., ‘The last days of Constantine: oppositional versions and their influence’, Journal of Roman Studies 84 (1994), 146–70, esp. pp. 154–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

128 Historia Augusta, Divus Aurelianus 24.2.9. In many ways ancient images of the gods were seen very closely to ‘re-present’ the deities, so that a slippage between cult image and deity often seems present.

129 Belting, Likeness and Presence (above, n. 96), passim.

130 M116, a fragment depicting the Temple of Jerusalem with a Greek inscription (on which see St. Clair, A., ‘God's house of peace in paradise: the feast of tabernacles on a Jewish gold glass’, Journal of Jewish Art 11 (1985): 6–15Google Scholar) was found in the Catacomb of Santi Pietro e Marcellino; see also, on this discovery, Eisner, ‘Archaeologies and agendas’ (above, n. 16), 116–17. For a description of the gold-glass fragments found in situ in the Catacomb of Monteverde, see Müller, N., Die Jüdische Katakombe am Monteverde zu Rom (Leipzig, 1912), 59–61Google Scholar.

131 Natalie Kampen let me see an unpublished paper on family imagery (which includes goldglass material) in late antiquity, which comes to a complementary conclusion.

132 As clearly demonstrated by Belting, Likeness and Presence (above, n. 96), ch. 5; see also here Cormack, R., Painting the Soul: Icons, Death Masks, and Shrouds (London, 1997)Google Scholar, passim.

133 Brown, P., Augustine of Hippo (revised edition) (London, 2000 [1967]), 491Google Scholar: ‘I have lost nothing, over the years, of my original fascination with the rise of Christianity in the late Roman world. But, on looking back, I would say that I was unduly fascinated by the role played in that development by the Christian bishops. They were not the only agents in the process’.

134 Huskinson, Concordia Apostolorum (above, n. 68), 51.

135 On preliminary findings of fifth- and sixth-century ecclesiastically-organized artisanal production at Canosa, see Volpe, G. et al. , ‘Il complesso episcopale paleocristiano di San Pietro a Canosa. Prima relazione preliminare (campagna di scavi 2001)’, Vetera Christianorum 39 (2002), 188–90Google Scholar, esp. pp. 162–3, 177–8, 181–2; see also Martorelli, R., ‘Riflessioni sulle attività produttive nell'età tardoantica ed altomedievale: esiste un artigianato ‘ecclesiastico’?’, Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 75 (1999), 571–96Google Scholar.

136 I would like to thank staff at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, the British Museum, London, the Metropolitan Museum, New York, and the Musei Vaticani for allowing me to examine gold glasses in their collections, with special thanks to Helen Evans and Umberto Utro. I am also very grateful for the generosity of those museums that waived reproduction rights for the publication of their glasses. The research for this article was carried out during my tenure of a Rome Scholarship in 2001–2, and I would like to thank the staff of the British School at Rome and my fellow scholars and residents for making such a congenial environment. Earlier versions of this article were presented in Rome (at the Associazione di Archeologia Classica and the British School) and in London (as part of the ‘Who Made Late Roman Art?’ seminar at the Institute of Classical Studies), where some useful suggestions and criticisms were made. Natalie Kampen shared with me her unpublished work. Sophie Lunn-Rockliffe kindly provided the drawing of the medallion. I am also grateful to Jaś Elsner, Peter Garnsey and Kristina Sessa, as well as the editor and the anonymous readers, for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.