Translated from Philip Schaff's History of The Christian Church

第六章 基督教艺术

目录

§ 75. 文献

§ 76. 基督教艺术的起源

§ 77. 十字架与十字架苦像

§ 78. 其他基督教象征

§ 79. 历史性与寓意性图画

§ 80. 基督的寓意性形象

§ 81. 童贞女马利亚的画像

§ 75. 文献

参见第VII章有关地下墓窟的文献。

FR. 明特尔 (FR. Münter)：《古代基督徒的象征与艺术表现》 (Sinnbilder u. Kunstvorstellungen der alten Christen.)。阿尔托纳 (Altona)，1825年。

格吕奈森 (Grüneisen)：《论最初三个世纪憎恶艺术的原因》 (Ueber die Ursachen des Kunsthasses in den drei ersten Jahrhunderten)。斯图加特 (Stuttg.)，1831年。

赫尔姆斯德费尔 (Helmsdörfer)：《基督教艺术象征学与图像学》 (Christl. Kunstsymbolik u. Ikonographie)。法兰克福 (Frkf.)，1839年。

F. 皮珀 (F. Piper)：《基督教艺术的神话与象征》 (Mythologie u. Symbolik der christl. Kunst)。2卷，魏玛 (Weimar)，1847–51年。《论基督教图像体系》 (Ueber den christl. Bilderkreis)。柏林 (Berl.)，1852年（第3–10页）。同作者：《纪念物神学导论》 (Einleitung in die monumentale Theologie)。哥达 (Gotha)，1867年。

J. B. 德罗西 (J. B. De Rossi，罗马天主教徒)：《论呈现鱼形的基督教纪念物》 (De Christianis monumentis ἰχθύν^* exhibentibus)，载皮特拉 (Pitra) 的《索莱姆文献集》 (Spicilegium Solesmense) 第三卷。巴黎，1855年。另参其论罗马地下墓窟的巨著（《地下罗马》，Roma Sotteranea，1864–1867年），以及他的考古《通报》 (Bulletino di Archeologia cristiana，自1863年起出版)。

A. 韦尔比·普金 (A. Welby Pugin，建筑师，奥斯科特〔Oscott〕教会古物学教授，归信罗马天主教，卒于1852年)：《教会装饰与服饰词汇》 (Glossary of Ecclesiastical Ornament and Costume)。伦敦 (Lond.)，1844年，4开本。

P. 拉斐尔·加鲁奇 (P. Raffaelle Garrucci，耶稣会士)：《教会最初八个世纪的基督教艺术史》 (Storia delta Arte Cristiana nei primi otto secoli delta chiesa)。普拉托 (Prato)，1872–80年，6卷，对开本，附500幅精美图版及插图。这是一部极其重要的著作，但带有浓厚的罗马天主教色彩。同作者：《凯撒宫中的十字架受难涂画》 (Il crocifisso graffito in casa dei Cesari.)。罗马 (Rom.)，1857年。

Fr. 贝克尔 (Fr. Becker)：《地下墓窟教会纪念物上以鱼形表现耶稣基督的图像解说》 (Die Darstellung Jesu Christi unter dem Bilde des Fisches auf den Monumenten der Kirche der Katakomben, erläutert)。布雷斯劳 (Breslau)，1866年。同作者：《三世纪初罗马皇宫中的嘲讽十字架像》 (Das Spott-Crucifix der römischen Kaiserpaläste aus dem Anfang des dritten Jahrh)。布雷斯劳，1866年（44页）。同作者：《罗马地下墓窟的壁画与顶画》 (Die Wand-und Deckengemälde der röm. Katakomben)。格拉 (Gera)，1876年。

Jos. Al. 马蒂尼神父 (Abbé Jos. Al. Martigny)：《基督教古物辞典》 (Diction. des Antiquités Chrétiennes)。巴黎，1865年；第二版，1877年。（附有宝贵的插图。）

F. X. 克劳斯 (F. X. Kraus，罗马天主教徒)：《基督教艺术的最初起源》 (Die christl. Kunst in ihren frühesten Anfängen)。莱比锡，1873年（219页，53幅木刻图）。另参其《基督教古物百科全书》 (Real-Encyklop. der. christl. Alterthümer) 中的若干条目，弗赖堡 (Freiburg i. B.)，1880年及后。（插图大多取自马蒂尼。）

H. 阿赫利斯 (H. Achelis)：《鱼的象征与鱼形纪念物》 (Das Symbol d. Fisches u. d. Fischdemkmäler)。马尔堡 (Marb.)，1888年。

C. W. 贝内特 (C. W. Bennett)：《基督教考古学》 (Christian Archaeology)。纽约 (N. York)，1888年。

§ 76. 基督教艺术的起源

基督教的起源既不依靠艺术，也不依靠科学，并且完全独立于二者。然而，它以属天的本性渗入并贯穿二者，赋予它们更高尚的目标。艺术在敬拜中达到其真正的完善，以优美的形式体现虔诚，既给人纯洁的愉悦，又激发并增进虔敬的情感。诗歌与音乐是最自由、最属灵的艺术，以言语和音调呈现其理想，并直接引人从外在形式进入属灵实质；它们在犹太教中是敬拜的基本要素，又以唱诗篇的方式从那里传入基督教会。

雕塑与绘画这类造型艺术却并非如此。它们使用较为粗重的材料——石、木、颜料——作为表现的媒介；在文化程度较低的情况下，一旦与敬拜相接触，几乎总会趋于滥用。因此，一神教诸宗教严格禁止这些艺术。穆罕默德教徒在这一点上追随犹太人；他们的清真寺与犹太会堂一样，没有生物的图像，而且他们憎恶希腊和罗马基督徒的圣像崇拜，将其视为一种偶像崇拜。

尼西亚会议以前的教会承继了摩西十诫，又正与异教偶像崇拜进行殊死斗争，起初对这些艺术抱有反感。此外，她卑微的处境，她对一切虚伪炫耀和尘世虚荣的蔑视，她对殉道的热忱，以及她全神贯注地期待世界迅速毁灭、千年国度随即建立，都使她对生活的装饰部分漠不关心。严苛的孟他努派 (Montanists) 在这方面是清教徒 (Puritans) 的先驱，他们最为敌视艺术。但就连修养极高的亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria)，也将以心灵敬拜上帝与用图像表现神明截然对立起来。他说：“日日观看的习惯，降低了神明的尊严；可感的物质不能使神明得尊荣，只能使其受贬损。”

然而，这种对艺术的反感似乎并未延及单纯的象征；这样的象征甚至在旧约中也能见到，如铜蛇和圣殿里的基路伯。无论如何，在第二世纪中叶或末叶以后，我们发现在基督徒的私人生活和社交生活中，继而在公共敬拜中，基督教艺术以富有意义的象征形式有了粗朴的开端。德尔图良 (Tertullian) 和第三世纪其他作家的著作清楚表明了这一点，地下墓窟也提供了丰富的佐证，尽管其中最早绘画遗存的年代仍未确定，且有争议。

这些象征的起源，必定在于基督徒本能地渴望拥有宗教真理的可见标记，使他们不断想起自己的救赎主和神圣的呼召，同时也为他们提供异教偶像崇拜标记的最佳替代物。因为他们每天都被神话形象所包围，不仅在神庙和公共场所如此，在私人住宅里，在墙壁、地板、酒杯、印戒和墓碑上也是如此。这种努力虽属无辜而自然，在见识较浅的群众中，却很容易导致将标记与其所表之物混为一谈，并产生种种迷信。然而，在最初三个世纪，这种后果尚不十分明显，因为当时的艺术作品大多限于象征与寓意的范围。

到了第四世纪，神圣事物的艺术表现从基督徒家庭与地下墓窟的隐秘处所进入了公共教堂，但一直遭到抗议。这种抗议持续了很长时间，并引发了激烈的圣像争论，直到第二次尼西亚会议 (Council of Nicaea，787年) 才告解决，结果赞同有限度的圣像崇拜。西班牙的埃尔维拉会议 (Council of Elvira，格拉纳达〔Granada〕) 于306年首先提出这种抗议，并在第三十六条教规中禁止“教堂中的图画 (picturas in ecclessia)，以免受尊崇与敬拜的对象被描绘在墙上”。这听来几乎具有破坏圣像和清教主义的意味；然而，鉴于地下墓窟中为数众多的古代绘画与雕塑，这一禁令大概应当理解为那个过渡时期的一项临时权宜措施。¹

§ 77. 十字架与十字架苦像

“十字架的宗教啊，唯有你将谦卑与力量的两枝棕榈，同时编结在一个花冠之中。”——席勒 (Schiller)。²

参见§ 75所引诸著，以及策克勒 (Zöckler) 和富尔达 (Fulda) 所列的书目。

尤斯图斯·利普修斯 (Justus Lipsius，罗马天主教徒，卒于1606年，鲁汶〔Louvain〕教授)：《论十字架三书，有助于神圣史与世俗史的研究》 (De Cruce libri tres, ad sacram profanamque historiam utiles.)。安特卫普 (Antw.)，1595年，另有后来的版本。

Jac. 格雷策 (Jac. Gretser，耶稣会士)：《论基督的十字架及其相关事物》 (De Cruce Christi rebusque ad eam pertinentibus.)。因戈尔施塔特 (Ingolst.)，1598–1605年，3卷，4开本；第三版修订本，1608年；亦收入其《全集》 (Opera)，雷根斯堡 (Ratisb.)，1734年，第I–III卷。

Wm. 哈斯拉姆 (Wm. Haslam)：《十字架与蛇：十字架得胜简史》 (The Cross and the Serpent: being a brief History of the Triumph of the Cross.)。牛津，1849年。

W. R. 阿尔杰 (W. R. Alger)：《十字架史》 (History of the Cross.)。波士顿，1858年。

Gabr. 德莫尔蒂耶 (Gabr. De Mortillet)：《基督教以前的十字架符号》 (Le, Signe de la Croix avant le Christianisme.)。巴黎，1866年。

A. Ch. A. 策斯特曼 (A. Ch. A. Zestermann)：《十字架与钉十字架图像表现的历史发展》 (Die bildliche Darstellung des Kreuzes und der Kreuzigung historisch entwickelt.)。莱比锡，1867及1868年。

J. 施托克鲍尔 (J. Stockbauer，罗马天主教徒)：《十字架艺术史》 (Kunstgeschichte des Kreuzes.)。沙夫豪森 (Schaffhausen)，1870年。

O. 策克勒 (O. Zöckler，格赖夫斯瓦尔德〔Greifswald〕教授)：《基督的十字架：宗教史与教会考古学研究》 (Das Kreuz Christi. Religionshistorische und kirchlich archaeologische Untersuchungen.)。居特斯洛 (Gütersloh)，1875年（484页，第xiii–xxiv页附有详尽书目）。M. G. 埃文斯 (M. G. Evans) 英译本，伦敦 (Lond.)，1878年。

恩斯特·冯·本生 (Ernst v. Bunsen)：《古代民族的十字架象征与基督教会十字架象征的起源》 (Das Symbol des Kreuzes bei alten Nationen und die Entstehung des Kreuzsymbols der christlichen Kirche.)。柏林，1876年。（充满假说。）

赫尔曼·富尔达 (Hermann Fulda)：《十字架与钉十字架：一项古物学研究》 (Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung, Eine antiquarische Untersuchung.)。布雷斯劳，1878年。针对利普修斯以来公认的观点展开论辩。完整的文献目录见富尔达，第299–328页。

E. 多贝特 (E. Dobbert)：《论十字架的起源史》 (Zur Enttehungsgeschichte des Kreuzes,)。莱比锡，1880年。

在早期基督教的象征中，最古老、最受珍爱，却也最遭滥用的，是十字架，即救赎的标记；它有时单独出现，有时与阿尔法和俄梅戛相伴，有时与盼望的锚或和平的棕榈枝相伴。由此，早在第二世纪便产生了画十字架记号的习惯³，在起床、沐浴、外出、进食时，简言之，在办理任何日常事务时，都如此行；即使在那个时代，这种习惯在许多情况下大概也伴随着对这一记号神奇效力的迷信。因此，德尔图良认为有必要为基督徒辩护，反驳异教徒指控他们崇拜十字架 (staurolatria)。⁴

居普良 (Cyprian) 和《使徒宪章》 (Apostolical Constitutions) 提到，画十字架记号是洗礼仪式的一部分；拉克坦提乌斯 (Lactantius) 则说，这记号在洗礼的驱魔仪式中有制伏邪灵的效力。普鲁登提乌斯 (Prudentius) 劝人用它防御试探和恶梦。我们同样经常发现基督之名的组合字母 X P，尤其在装饰品和墓碑上；这两个字母通常组合成十字形，或单独出现，或配以希腊字母阿尔法和俄梅戛，即“首先的和末后的”；较晚的实例还加上“在这记号中”的字样。⁵ 君士坦丁 (Constantine) 借助拉巴鲁姆军旗 (Labarum) 战胜马克森提乌斯 (Maxentius，312年) 后不久，头盔、盾牌、军旗、冠冕、权杖、钱币和印章上便出现了各种形式的十字架。⁶

异教的罗马人鄙视十字架，因为钉十字架是施于奴隶和最恶劣罪犯的羞辱性刑罚；然而，护教士提醒他们，在他们的军旗与凯旋标志的形状中，他们已经不自觉地认可了这一救恩标记；自然界也有类似形状，如伸展手臂的人、飞鸟和航行中的船只。⁷ 十字架作为象征的使用也不限于基督教会；在古代埃及人、印度佛教徒、被征服以前的墨西哥人以及其他异教民族中，也能发现它，既作为祝福的象征，也作为咒诅的象征。⁸

十字架与主祷文，可称为基督教世界中最大的殉道者。然而，迷信的滥用与清教徒式的抗议，都同样见证了十字架所使我们想起的那一伟大事实的重大意义。

十字架苦像，就是以塑像或雕像表现我们的救主被钉在十字架上，其出现要晚得多，无法明确追溯到第六世纪中叶以前。尼西亚和迦克墩时期没有任何作家提到它。现知最古老的十字架苦像之一，若非最古老的一幅，见于佛罗伦萨 (Florence) 所藏一部作于586年、装饰华美的叙利亚文福音书抄本。⁹ 图尔的格列高利 (Gregory of Tours，卒于595年) 描述过纳博讷 (Narbonne) 圣格内修斯教堂 (St. Genesius) 中的一幅十字架苦像，其中被钉者几乎全身赤裸。¹⁰ 但这引起了反感，主教便命人用帘子遮盖，只偶尔向民众展示。可敬的比德 (Venerable Bede) 记载，686年，有一件十字架苦像从罗马被带到不列颠的威尔茅斯 (Weremouth) 修道院，其一面是被钉十字架者，另一面则是摩西举起的蛇。¹¹

附注

最初表示钉十字架的象征，只有十字架本身；随后是十字架与羔羊——或是羔羊头上或肩上带着十字架，或是羔羊被钉在十字架上；再后是基督的形象与十字架相配——或是基督右手持十字架（见卒于395年的普罗布斯〔Probus〕的石棺），或是基督身后的背景中有十字架（见建于398年的圣普登提亚娜教堂〔St. Pudentiana〕）；最后才出现基督被钉在十字架上的形象。

有人试图把十字架苦像追溯到第三甚至第二世纪，起因是1857年在罗马帕拉廷山 (Palatine) 西坡的皇宫废墟墙上，发现了一幅嘲讽性的十字架苦像，现藏于基歇尔博物馆 (Museo Kircheriano)。画中是一个被钉十字架的人，长着驴头或马头，另有一人跪在他面前，旁边题着：“亚历克萨梅诺斯 (Alexamenos) 敬拜他的神。”¹² 这幅画无疑是某个敌视基督教的异教徒刻在墙上的，意在嘲弄皇室中的一名基督徒奴隶或侍童，也可能是嘲弄皇帝亚历山大·塞韦鲁 (Alexander Severus，222–235年) 本人；他因宗教上的混合主义而招致讥讽。这幅讽刺画的年代不能确定；但我们知道，第二世纪的基督徒与先前的犹太人一样，都曾被指控敬拜驴，而且当时皇宫中已经有基督徒。¹³ 第三世纪以后，这种愚蠢的指控便消失了。罗马考古学家（P. 加鲁奇〔P. Garrucci〕、P. 莫佐尼〔P. Mozzoni〕和马蒂尼〔Martigny〕）从这幅嘲讽性的十字架苦像推断，早在第二世纪末，基督徒就已使用十字架苦像，因为原型必先于讽刺画而存在。但这一推测没有任何证据支持。米努修·费利克斯 (Minucius Felix) 笔下的异教徒凯基利乌斯 (Caecilius，第10章)，明确见证基督徒并无偶像（simulacra）。据我们所知，最早的基督画像并非起源于正统基督徒，而是出自异端的、半异教化的诺斯替派 (Gnostics)；同样，现知最早的十字架苦像也是一幅出自异教徒之手的嘲讽画——这恰好说明了保罗的话：传钉十字架的基督，在希腊人看来是愚拙的。

§ 78. 其他基督教象征

以下这些取自圣经的象征，经常出现在地下墓窟中，所关涉的是基督徒生活的美德与本分：口衔或不衔橄榄枝的鸽子，象征纯朴与无邪；¹⁴ 船，有时使人想到挪亚方舟，代表教会安然航行于败坏的洪流之中，有时代表个别灵魂在平静风暴的救主引导下，航向天上的家乡；棕树枝，《启示录》的先见将它放在蒙拣选者的手中，作为得胜的标志；¹⁵ 锚，象征盼望；¹⁶ 里拉琴 (lyre)，表示节庆的喜乐与甜美的和谐；¹⁷ 公鸡，使人想起彼得的跌倒，劝人警醒；¹⁸ 渴慕清澈溪水的鹿；¹⁹ 以及葡萄树，它的枝子与累累果实，依照比喻说明基督徒与基督的联合，以及基督徒生活的丰盛与喜乐。²⁰

不死鸟 (phoenix) 象征返老还童与复活，取自那广为人知的异教神话。²¹

§ 79. 历史性与寓意性图画

从这些象征到图像表现，不过一步之遥。圣经为历史性、预表性和寓意性的图画提供了丰富的素材；这些图画见于地下墓窟和古代遗迹之中。其中许多可追溯至第三甚至第二世纪。

取自旧约而最受喜爱的图画，有亚当和夏娃、乐园的河流、挪亚方舟、献以撒、过红海、颁布律法、摩西击打磐石、约拿获救、赤身坐在蓖麻下的约拿、以利亚升天、狮子坑中的但以理、火窑中的三个少年。此外，还有取自福音书以及使徒时期和后使徒时期历史的场景，如博士朝拜、博士觐见希律、耶稣在约旦河受洗、医治瘫子、变水为酒、神迹般地使五千人吃饱、十个童女、拉撒路复活、进入耶路撒冷、圣餐，以及圣彼得和圣保罗的画像。²²

早期遗迹中从未直接描绘受难和钉十字架，只以十字架的象征来表示。

我们偶尔也能见到神话题材的图像，如长着翅膀、与花鸟嬉戏的普绪克 (Psyche，象征不朽)，赫拉克勒斯 (Hercules)、忒修斯 (Theseus)，尤其是俄耳甫斯 (Orpheus)，他以神奇的歌声平息风暴，驯服野兽。

诺斯替主义 (Gnosticism) 或许像在神学上一样，也对艺术起了促进作用。无论如何，卡波克拉底派 (Carpocratians)、巴西里德派 (Basilideans) 和摩尼教徒 (Manichaeans) 都珍爱艺术。民族性与生活的这一领域也有一定关系。意大利人天生富有艺术禀赋，也据此塑造了他们的基督教。因此，罗马堪称基督教艺术最重要的家园。

地下墓窟中最早的图画，在艺术上最为出色；其形体的优美雅致，显出古典范本的影响。从第四世纪起，艺术迅速衰退，变得粗糙僵硬，并逐渐转向拜占庭 (Byzantine) 风格。

有些作者²³把这种早期基督教艺术仅仅看作衰落中的异教艺术，甚至把好牧人也视为阿波罗 (Apollo) 或赫耳墨斯 (Hermes) 的翻版。然而，形式虽常有模仿，精神却截然不同；正如在《西比拉神谕书》(Sibylline books) 中一样，神话被理解为对基督教真理不自觉的预言与预表。基督教艺术与神话艺术的关系，有些类似圣经希腊文与古典希腊文的关系。基督教不能立即创造一种新艺术，正如它不能立即创造一种新语言；但它使旧艺术摆脱了为偶像崇拜和淫邪效劳的地位，赋予它更深的意义，并将它奉献于更高的目标。

古典遗风与基督教观念的融合，在好牧人和俄耳甫斯的优美象征画中体现得最为充分。²⁴

前者是最受喜爱的形象，不仅见于地下墓窟，也见于戒指、杯子和灯等日用物品。流传至今的此类图画将近一百五十幅。牧人是基督的恰当象征，通常被描绘为一位俊美、无须而温柔的青年，身穿轻便衣服，束腰带，着凉鞋，带着笛子和牧杖，肩上扛着一只羊羔，站在两只或更多的羊中间；羊都信赖地仰望着他。有时，他在青草地上牧养一大群羊。倘若这就是民众心目中的基督形象，它便与同时代神学上认为救主相貌平凡的观念形成对照，并预示了君士坦丁 (Constantine) 之后的观念。

俄耳甫斯的画像在多米蒂拉墓园 (cemetery of Domitilla) 中发现两幅，在卡利斯图斯墓园 (cemetery of Callistus) 中发现一幅。多米蒂拉墓园天花板上的一幅，看来出自第二世纪，内容尤为丰富：画中的神秘歌者坐在中央的一块岩石上，弹着里拉琴，向脚边的野兽和家畜——狮子、狼、蛇、马、公羊——以及树上的鸟儿奏出迷人的旋律；²⁵ 中央形象周围，还有几个圣经场景：摩西击打磐石、大卫以甩石的机弦瞄准歌利亚（？）、狮子群中的但以理，以及拉撒路复活。异教的俄耳甫斯，据说是一神论颂歌（《俄耳甫斯诗篇》〔Orphica〕）的作者，是众多秘仪的中心人物，也是传说中能使一切受造物陶醉的歌者；在这里，他或是基督本人的象征和预表，²⁶ 或者更确切地说，像异教的西比拉 (Sibyl) 一样，是基督的对应形象和不自觉的先知，宣告并预示基督乃一切自然力量的征服者、一切不和谐的调和者，以及生死的主宰。

§ 80. 基督的寓意性形象

随着人们对基督容貌的观念发生变化，基督画像才缓慢而逐渐地开始使用。福音书作者极为明智地对此保持深沉的缄默；人的才智所能构想出的任何理想形象，都不足以恰当地表现那位在肉身显现的上帝。

在尼西亚会议以前的时期，流行着一种奇特的观念，认为我们的救主在降卑的状态中相貌平凡；这是按字面解释弥赛亚预言的结果：“他无佳形美容。”²⁷ 殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr)、²⁸ 德尔图良 (Tertullian)，²⁹ 甚至注重属灵意义的亚历山大神学家革利免 (Clement)³⁰和奥利金 (Origen)，³¹都持这种见解。一种真实而健全的情感，反而会引人采取相反的看法；因为耶稣当然没有罪人的面貌，他灵魂中属天的纯洁与和谐，必定以某种方式透过肉身的帷幕显露出来，正如他在变像山上确实显露的那样。身体的残缺与旧约祭司职分的观念尚且不相容，何况与弥赛亚的观念呢。

然而，那些教父所着眼的，仅是降卑的状态。他们自己也认为，被高举的救赎主披戴着永不衰残的荣美与荣耀；这荣美与荣耀也将从作为元首的他传给他的教会，使教会在千禧年中达到完全的状态^.49。³² 因此，我们在这里看到的，并不是圣洁与美之间本质上的对立，而只是一时的分离。尼西亚会议以前的教父也无意否认，基督即使在降卑的日子里，也具有一种属灵的美，能吸引那些心灵敏锐的人。因此，亚历山大的革利免区分了两种美：一种是肉体外在的美，很快便会消逝；另一种是灵魂的美，在于道德上的卓越，乃是长存的。他说：“主自己的容貌并不俊美，圣灵借着以赛亚作见证说：‘我们看见他，他无佳形美容；他的形貌卑微，比世人逊色。’然而，有谁比主更令人钦佩呢？他所彰显的，不是眼睛所见的肉体之美，而是灵魂与身体的真正之美；在前者，这美是仁善；在后者——就是肉体——这美是不朽。”³³ 金口约翰 (Chrysostom) 更进了一步：他认为以赛亚的描述只指受难的情景，并从《诗篇》第四十五篇形成他对耶稣容貌的观念，那里说他“比世人更美”。哲罗姆 (Jerome) 和奥古斯丁 (Augustin) 也持同样的见解；但当时并没有可靠的基督画像，人们只能任凭想象，以其不完美的尝试，去表现那张反映无罪圣洁之美、具有神性的人类面容。

最初的基督形象纯属寓意性。他有时被表现为牧人，为羊舍命，³⁴或把失丧的羊扛在肩上；³⁵ 有时是羔羊，背负世人的罪；³⁶ 较少见的是公羊，取意于亚伯拉罕和以撒的故事中那代替献上的祭牲；³⁷ 也常被表现为渔夫。³⁸ 亚历山大的革利免在他的赞美诗中称基督为“得救之人的渔夫，以他甘美的生命，从罪恶之海的敌对洪流中，捕取纯洁的鱼儿”。

最受喜爱的象征似乎是鱼。它兼为救赎主与蒙救赎之人的象征。相应的希腊词 Ichthys 是一个含义丰富的首字母组合词，包含“耶稣基督、上帝的儿子、救主”这些词的首字母。³⁹ 有些图画中的神秘之鱼在水中游动，背上载着一盘饼和一杯酒，显然是指主的晚餐。同时，鱼也代表被那位伟大的得人渔夫及其仆人的网捕获的灵魂，所依据的是《马太福音》4:19；参13:47。德尔图良把这一象征与洗礼的水联系起来，说：⁴⁰“我们这些小鱼（pisciculi），借着我们的鱼（secundum ἸΧΘΥΣ^* nostrum）耶稣基督，在水中出生，惟有继续留在水中才能兴旺”；意思是说，我们要忠于洗礼之约，并保守在其中所领受的恩典。虔敬的想象使鱼成为基督教救恩全部奥秘的象征。希腊词 Ichthys 与拉丁词 Piscis-Christus 这种首字母组合或象形符号的用法，属于奥秘训诲制度（Disciplina Arcani），也是古代教会对基督的位格是上帝之子、他的工作是世界救主这一信仰所作的见证。这一象征的起源必定早于第二世纪中叶，或许出自亚历山大（Alexandria）；在那里，无论正统信徒还是诺斯替派（Gnostic）异端，都十分喜爱神秘的象征。⁴¹ 亚历山大的革利免、奥利金和德尔图良都熟悉并提到它；在罗马地下墓窟的古代遗存中，也可见它刻画在墓石、戒指、灯具、瓶器和壁画上。⁴²

Ichthys 这一象征在第四世纪中叶以前便已不再通用，此后只是偶尔出现，作为对古时的追忆。

在君士坦丁（Constantine）时代以前，除了诺斯替派中的卡尔波克拉底派（Carpocratians）⁴³以及异教皇帝亚历山大·塞韦鲁斯（Alexander Severus）的事例以外，我们找不到严格意义上的基督像的踪迹；这位皇帝用各宗教的代表人物装饰自己的家庭礼拜堂，使之成为一座融合诸教的万神殿。⁴⁴ 上述关于耶稣容貌不美的观念、福音书对此完全缄默，以及旧约禁止造像的诫命，都使教会不肯制作基督的画像或雕像，直到尼西亚时代才发生重大转变，然而这一转变仍遭到强烈而持久的反对。优西比乌（Eusebius）根据亲眼所见，向我们提供了有关基督雕像的最早记载；据说，那位患血漏的妇人为纪念自己得医治，在凯撒利亚腓立比（Caesarea Philippi，又名 Paneas）自己的住宅前，将这尊雕像与她本人的雕像一同竖立起来。⁴⁵ 但这位史家在致皇后君士坦提娅（Constantia，君士坦丁的妹妹、李锡尼〔Licinius〕的遗孀）的一封信中，却强烈反对制作基督的像，因为基督已经脱去他在地上的奴仆形像，他在天上的荣耀也超越人的构想和艺术技巧。⁴⁶

§ 81. 童贞女马利亚的画像

德罗西（De Rossi）：《童贞圣母像选》（Imagines selectae Deiparae Virginis，罗马，1863年）；马里奥特（Marriott）：《地下墓窟》（Catacombs，伦敦，1870年，第1–63页）；马蒂尼（Martigny）：《辞典》（Dict.）“Vierge”条；克劳斯（KRAUS）：《基督教艺术》（Die christl. Kunst，莱比锡，1873年，第105页）；诺思科特与布朗洛（Northcote and Brownlow）：《地下罗马》（Roma Sotter.，第2版，伦敦，1879年，第II部，第133页及后）；威思罗（Withrow）：《地下墓窟》（Catacombs，N.Y.，1874年，第30、5页及后）；舒尔策（Schultze）：《古代基督教艺术中的马利亚像》（Die Marienbilder der altchristl. Kunst），以及《地下墓窟》（Die Katacomben，莱比锡，1882年，第150页及后）；冯·莱纳（Von Lehner）：《最初三个世纪的马利亚崇敬》（Die Marienverehrung in den 3 ersten Jahrh.，斯图加特，1881年，第282页及后）。

从前人们以为，以弗所会议（Council of Ephesus，431年）以前并不存在童贞女的画像；该会议谴责了聂斯托利（Nestorius），认可了“上帝之母”（theotokos）这一称号，从而庄严地认可了马利亚崇敬，并给予它强大的推动。但如今有几幅画像，即使不能追溯到第二世纪，也极有可能属于第三世纪。迄今学者所知最初五个世纪的马利亚形象已有近五十幅，其中大多数与婴孩救主相连。

最古老的一幅是普里西拉（Priscilla）墓园中残存的壁画：马利亚身穿内袍和外衣，坐着把婴孩抱在胸前，婴孩则转脸望向观看的人。她身旁站着一位年轻无须的男子（可能是约瑟），披着长披衣（pallium），一手拿着书卷，另一手指向上方的星，面带喜悦地望着母子；人物之间的上方是伯利恒之星；整幅画表现的是一个家庭的幸福，并没有教义反思所添加的超自然装饰。⁴⁷ 在同一座普里西拉墓园中还有别的壁画，据德罗西和加鲁奇（Garrucci）的解释，分别表现天使报喜、博士来拜和在圣殿寻见主的场景。博士来拜（博士有两位或四位，后来为三位）是圣家图画中备受喜爱的题材。在圣彼得与圣马尔切利努斯（SS. Peter and Marcellinus）墓园中此类最古老的画像里，马利亚坐在椅子上，把婴孩抱在膝上，接受两位博士的敬拜；博士分立两旁，各用盘子呈上礼物。⁴⁸ 后来的图画又在这场景中添上马槽、牛、驴和神奇的星。

常见的妇女祈祷图像，画中人物双臂举起或伸展（Orans 或 Orante），尤其是与好牧人一同出现时，罗马天主教考古学家便将其解释为教会或蒙福的童贞女，或二者合一，为罪人祈祷。⁴⁹ 但地下墓窟中不仅有祈祷的女子，也有许多祈祷的男子形象，而且往往表现的是葬在邻近墓穴中的死者，有时还标明他们的姓名。那里既没有“为我们祈祷”（Ora pro nobis），也没有“万福马利亚”（Ave Maria），更没有“上帝之母”（Theotokos 或 Deipara）的字样。这些祈祷者（Orans）的画像与其他妇女画像无异，毫无崇拜马利亚的痕迹。地下墓窟中的图像几乎全都不出福音历史的范围。但第四世纪以后，随着艺术的衰落，马利亚在精工制作的镶嵌画和饰金玻璃器上，被描绘成加冕的天后，身穿缀满珠宝的紫袍，头有荣耀的光环，坐在宝座上，接受天使与圣徒的敬拜。

古今最崇高的马利亚画像，都力求表现童贞的纯洁与母性的温柔这一独特结合；正是这种结合，使这位“已婚的少女、童贞的母亲”有别于一般妇女，并对基督教世界的想象与情感产生如此强大的魅力。崇拜马利亚的种种过度行为固然有罪，却不应使我们看不见，怀着虔敬之心瞻仰下列形象所产生的约束和提升作用：

“一切女性的理想，

如此温柔，如此仁慈，如此坚强，如此善良，

如此忍耐、平和、忠贞、慈爱、纯洁。”

Original Text

CHAPTER VI. CHRISTIAN ART.

§ 75. Literature.

Comp. the Lit. on the Catacombs, ch. VII.

FR. Münter: Sinnbilder u. Kunstvorstellungen der alten Christen. Altona, 1825.

Grüneisen: Ueber die Ursachen des Kunsthasses in den drei ersten Jahrhunderten. Stuttg. 1831.

Helmsdörfer: Christl. Kunstsymbolik u. Ikonographie. Frkf. 1839.

F. Piper: Mythologie u. Symbolik der christl. Kunst. 2 vols. Weimar, 1847–51. Ueber den christl. Bilderkreis. Berl. 1852 (p. 3–10). By the same: Einleitung in die monumentale Theologie. Gotha, 1867.

J. B. De Rossi (R.C.): De Christianis monumentis ijcquvn exhibentibus, in the third volume of Pitra’s "Spicilegium Solesmense." Paris, 1855. Also his great work on the Roman Catacombs (Roma Sotteranea, 1864–1867), and his Archaeol. "Bulletin" (Bulletino di Archeologia cristiana, since 1863).

A. Welby Pugin (architect and Prof. of Ecclis. Antiquities at Oscott, a convert to the R.C. Ch., d. 1852): Glossary of Ecclesiastical Ornament and Costume. Lond. 1844, 4

P. Raffaelle Garrucci (Jesuit): Storia delta Arte Cristiana nei primi otto secoli delta chiesa. Prato, 1872–’80, 6 vols. fol., with 500 magnificent plates and illustrations. A most important work, but intensely Romish. By the same: Il crocifisso graffito in casa dei Cesari. Rom. 1857.

Fr. Becker.: Die Darstellung Jesu Christi unter dem Bilde des Fisches auf den Monumenten der Kirche der Katakomben, erläutert. Breslau, 1866. The same: Das Spott-Crucifix der römischen Kaiserpaläste aus dem Anfang des dritten Jahrh. Breslau, 1866 (44 pp.). The same: Die Wand-und Deckengemälde der röm. Katakomben. Gera, 1876.

Abbé Jos. Al. Martigny: Diction. des Antiquités Chrétiennes. Paris, 1865, second ed., 1877. (With valuable illustrations).

F. X. Kraus (R.C.): Die christl. Kunst in ihren frühesten Anfängen. Leipzig, 1873 (219 pages and 53 woodcuts). Also several articles in his "Real-Encyklop. der. christl. Alterthümer," Freiburg i. B. 1880 sqq. (The cuts mostly from Martigny).

H. Achelis: Das Symbol d. Fisches u. d. Fischdemkmäler, Marb., 1888.

C. W. Bennett: Christian Archaeology, N. York, 1888.

§ 76. Origin of Christian Art.

Christianity owed its origin neither to art nor to science, and is altogether independent of both. But it penetrates and pervades them with its heaven-like nature, and inspires them with a higher and nobler aim. Art reaches its real perfection in worship, as an embodiment of devotion in beautiful forms, which afford a pure pleasure, and at the same time excite and promote devotional feeling. Poetry and music, the most free and spiritual arts, which present their ideals in word and tone, and lead immediately from the outward form to the spiritual substance, were an essential element of worship in Judaism, and passed thence, in the singing of psalms, into the Christian church.

Not so with the plastic arts of sculpture and painting, which employ grosser material—stone, wood, color—as the medium of representation, and, with a lower grade of culture, tend almost invariably to abuse when brought in contact with worship. Hence the strict prohibition of these arts by the Monotheistic religions. The Mohammedans follow in this respect the Jews; their mosques are as bare of images of living beings as the synagogues, and they abhor the image worship of Greek and Roman Christians as a species of idolatry.

The ante-Nicene church, inheriting the Mosaic decalogue, and engaged in deadly conflict with heathen idolatry, was at first averse to those arts. Moreover her humble condition, her contempt for all hypocritical show and earthly vanity, her enthusiasm for martyrdom, and her absorbing expectation of the speedy destruction of the world and establishment of the millennial kingdom, made her indifferent to the ornamental part of life. The rigorous Montanists, in this respect the forerunners of the Puritans, were most hostile to art. But even the highly cultivated Clement of Alexandria put the spiritual worship of God in sharp contrast to the pictorial representation of the divine. "The habit of daily view," he says, "lowers the dignity of the divine, which cannot be honored, but is only degraded, by sensible material."

Yet this aversion to art seems not to have extended to mere symbols such as we find even in the Old Testament, as the brazen serpent and the cherubim in the temple. At all events, after the middle or close of the second century we find the rude beginnings of Christian art in the form of significant symbols in the private and social life of the Christians, and afterwards in public worship. This is evident from Tertullian and other writers of the third century, and is abundantly confirmed by the Catacombs, although the age of their earliest pictorial remains is a matter of uncertainty and dispute.

The origin of these symbols must be found in the instinctive desire of the Christians to have visible tokens of religious truth, which might remind them continually of their Redeemer and their holy calling, and which would at the same time furnish them the best substitute for the signs of heathen idolatry. For every day they were surrounded by mythological figures, not only in temples and public places, but in private houses, on the walls, floors, goblets, seal-rings, and grave-stones. Innocent and natural as, this effort was, it could easily lead, in the less intelligent multitude, to confusion of the sign with the thing signified, and to many a superstition. Yet this result was the less apparent in the first three centuries, because in that period artistic works were mostly confined to the province of symbol and allegory.

From the private recesses of Christian homes and catacombs artistic representations of holy things passed into public churches ill the fourth century, but under protest which continued for a long time and gave rise to the violent image controversies which were not settled until the second Council of Nicaea (787), in favor of a limited image worship. The Spanish Council of Elvira (Granada) in 306 first raised such a protest, and prohibited (in the thirty-sixth canon) "pictures in the church (picturas in ecclessia), lest the objects of veneration and worship should be depicted on the walls." This sounds almost iconoclastic and puritanic; but in view of the numerous ancient pictures and sculptures in the catacombs, the prohibition must be probably understood as a temporary measure of expediency in that transition period.(1)

§ 77. The Cross and the Crucifix.

"Religion des Kreuzes, nur du verknüpfest in Einem Kranze Der Demuth und Kraft doppelte Palme zugleich."—(Schiller.).(2)

Comp. the works quoted in § 75, and the lists in Zöckler and Fulda.

Justus Lipsius (R.C., d. 1606, is Prof. at Louvain): De Cruce libri tres, ad sacram profanamque historiam utiles. Antw., 1595, and later editions.

Jac. Gretser (Jesuit): De Cruce Christi rebusque ad eam pertinentibus. Ingolst., 1598–1605, 3 vols. 4to; 3^rd ed. revised, 1608; also in his Opera, Ratisb., 1734, Tom. I.-III.

Wm. Haslam: The Cross and the Serpent: being a brief History of the Triumph of the Cross. Oxford, 1849.

W. R. Alger: History of the Cross. Boston, 1858.

Gabr. De Mortillet: Le, Signe de la Croix avant le Christianisme. Paris, 1866.

A. Ch. A. Zestermann: Die bildliche Darstellung des Kreuzes und der Kreuzigung historisch entwickelt. Leipzig, 1867 and 1868.

J. Stockbauer (R.C.): Kunstgeschichte des Kreuzes. Schaffhausen, 1870.

O. Zöckler (Prof. in Greifswald): Das Kreuz Christi. Religionshistorische und kirchlich archaeologische Untersuchungen. Gütersloh, 1875 (484 pages, with a large list of works, pp. xiii.-xxiv.). English translation by M. G. Evans, Lond., 1878.

Ernst v. Bunsen: Das Symbol des Kreuzes bei alten Nationen und die Entstehung des Kreuzsymbols der christlichen Kirche. Berlin, 1876. (Full of hypotheses.)

Hermann Fulda: Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung, Eine antiquarische Untersuchung. Breslau, 1878. Polemical against the received views since Lipsius,. See a full list of literature in Fulda, pp. 299–328.

E. Dobbert: Zur Enttehungsgeschichte des Kreuzes, Leipzig, 1880.

The oldest and dearest, but also the, most abused, of the primitive Christian symbols is the cross, the sign of redemption, sometimes alone, sometimes with the Alpha and Omega, sometimes with the anchor of hope or the palm of peace. Upon this arose, as early as the second century, the custom of making the sign of the cross(3) on rising, bathing, going out, eating, in short, on engaging in any affairs of every-day life; a custom probably attended in many cases even in that age, with superstitious confidence in the magical virtue of this sign; hence Tertullian found it necessary to defend the Christians against the heathen charge of worshipping the cross (staurolatria).(4)

Cyprian and the Apostolical Constitutions mention the sign of the cross as a part of the baptismal rite, and Lactantius speaks of it as effective against the demons in the baptismal exorcism. Prudentius recommends it as a preservative against temptations and bad dreams. We find as frequently, particularly upon ornaments and tombs, the monogram of the name of Christ, X P, usually combined in the cruciform character, either alone, or with the Greek letters Alpha and Omega, "the first and the last;" in later cases with the addition "In the sign."(5) Soon after Constantine’s victory over Maxentius by the aid of the Labarum (312), crosses were seen on helmets, bucklers, standards, crowns, sceptres, coins and seals, in various forms.(6)

The cross was despised by the heathen Romans on account of the crucifixion, the disgraceful punishment of slaves and the worst criminals; but the Apologists reminded them of the unconscious recognition of the salutary sign in the form of their standards and triumphal symbols, and of the analogies in nature, as the form of man with the outstretched arm, the flying bird, and the sailing ship.(7) Nor was the symbolical use of the cross confined to the Christian church, but is found among the ancient Egyptians, the Buddhists in India, and the Mexicans before the conquest, and other heathen nations, both as a symbol of blessing and a symbol of curse.(8)

The cross and the Lord’s Prayer may be called the greatest martyrs in Christendom. Yet both the superstitious abuse and the puritanic protest bear a like testimony to the significance of the great fact of which it reminds us.

The crucifix, that is the sculptured or carved representation of our Saviour attached to the cross, is of much later date, and cannot be clearly traced beyond the middle of the sixth century. It is not mentioned by any writer of the Nicene and Chalcedonian age. One of the oldest known crucifixes, if not the very oldest, is found in a richly illuminated Syrian copy of the Gospels in Florence from the year 586.(9) Gregory of Tours (d. 595) describes a crucifix in the church of St. Genesius, in Narbonne, which presented the crucified One almost entirely naked.(10) But this gave offence, and was veiled, by order of the bishop, with a curtain, and only at times exposed to the people. The Venerable Bede relates that a crucifix, bearing on one side the Crucified, on the other the serpent lifted up by Moses, was brought from Rome to the British cloister of Weremouth in 686.(11)

Note.

The first symbol of the crucifixion was the cross alone; then followed the cross and the lamb—either the lamb with the cross on the head or shoulder, or the lamb fastened on the cross; then the figure of Christ in connection with the cross—either Christ holding it in his right hand (on the sarcophagus of Probus, d. 395), or Christ with the cross in the background (in the church of St. Pudentiana, built 398); at last Christ nailed to the cross.

An attempt has been made to trace the crucifixes back to the third or second century, in consequence of the discovery, in 1857, of a mock-crucifix on the wall in the ruins of the imperial palaces on the western declivity of the Palatine hill in Rome, which is preserved in the Museo Kircheriano. It shows the figure of a crucified man with the head of an ass or a horse, and a human figure kneeling before it, with the inscription: "Alexamenos worships his God."(12) This figure was no doubt scratched on the wall by some heathen enemy to ridicule a Christian slave or page of the imperial household, or possibly even the emperor Alexander Severus (222–235), who, by his religious syncretism, exposed himself to sarcastic criticism. The date of the caricature is uncertain; but we know that in the second century the Christians, like the Jews before them, were charged with the worship of an ass, and that at that time there were already Christians in the imperial palace.(13) After the third Century this silly charge disappears. Roman archaeologists (P. Garrucci, P. Mozzoni, and Martigny) infer from this mock-crucifix that crucifixes were in use among Christians already at the close of the second century, since the original precedes the caricature. But this conjecture is not supported by any evidence. The heathen Caecilius in Minucius Felix (ch. 10) expressly testifies the absence of Christian simulacra. As the oldest pictures of Christ, so far as we know, originated not among the orthodox Christians, but among the heretical and half heathenish Gnostics, so also the oldest known representation of the crucifix was a mock-picture from the hand of a heathen—an excellent illustration of the word of Paul that the preaching of Christ crucified is foolishness to the Greeks.

§ 78. Other Christian Symbols.

The following symbols, borrowed from the Scriptures, were frequently represented in the catacombs, and relate to the virtues and duties of the Christian life: The dove, with or without the olive branch, the type of simplicity and innocence;(14) the ship, representing sometimes the church, as safely sailing through the flood of corruption, with reference to Noah’s ark, sometimes the individual soul on its voyage to the heavenly home under the conduct of the storm-controlling Saviour; the palm-branch, which the seer of the Apocalypse puts into the hands of the elect, as the sign of victory;(15) the anchor, the figure of hope;(16) the lyre, denoting festal joy and sweet harmony;(17) the cock, an admonition to watchfulness, with reference to Peter’s fall;(18) the hart which pants for the fresh water-brooks;(19) and the vine which, with its branches and clusters, illustrates the union of the Christians with Christ according to the parable, and the richness and joyfulness of Christian life.(20)’

The phoenix, the symbol of rejuvenation and of the resurrection, is derived from the well-known heathen myth.(21)

§ 79 Historical and Allegorical Pictures

From these emblems there was but one step to iconographic representations. The Bible furnished rich material for historical, typical, and allegorical pictures, which are found in the catacombs and ancient monuments. Many of them (late from the third or even the second century.

The favorite pictures from the Old Testament are Adam and Eve, the rivers of Paradise, the ark of Noah, the sacrifice of Isaac, the passage through the Red Sea, the giving of the law, Moses smiting the rock, the deliverance of Jonah, Jonah naked under the gourd the translation of Elijah, Daniel in the lions’ den, the three children in the fiery furnace. Then we have scenes from the Gospels, and from apostolic and post-apostolic history, such as the adoration of the Magi, their meeting with Herod, the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, the healing of the paralytic, the changing water into wine, the miraculous feeding of five thousand, the ten virgins, the resurrection of Lazarus, the entry into Jerusalem, the Holy Supper, the portraits of St. Peter and St. Paul.(22)

The passion and crucifixion were never represented in the early monuments, except by the symbol of the cross.

Occasionally we find also mythological representations, as Psyche with wings, and playing with birds and flowers (an emblem of immortality), Hercules, Theseus, and especially Orpheus, who with his magic song quieted the storm and tamed the wild beasts.

Perhaps Gnosticism had a stimulating effect in art, as it had in theology. At all events the sects of the Carpocratians, the Basilideans, and the Manichaeans cherished art. Nationality also had something to do with this branch of life. The Italians are by nature art artistic people, and shaped their Christianity accordingly. Therefore Rome is preëminently the home of Christian art.

The earliest pictures in the catacombs are artistically the best, and show the influence of classic models in the beauty and grace of form. From the fourth century there is a rapid decline to rudeness and stiffness, and a transition to the Byzantine type.

Some writers(23) have represented this primitive Christian art merely as pagan art in its decay, and even the Good Shepherd as a copy of Apollo or Hermes. But while the form is often an imitation, the spirit is altogether different, and the myths are understood as unconscious prophecies and types of Christian verities, as in the Sibylline books. The relation of Christian art to mythological art somewhat resembles the relation of biblical Greek to classical Greek. Christianity could not at once invent a new art any more than a new language, but it emancipated the old from the service of idolatry and immorality, filled it with a deeper meaning, and consecrated it to a higher aim.

The blending of classical reminiscences and Christian ideas is best embodied in the beautiful symbolic pictures of the Good Shepherd and of Orpheus.(24)

The former was the most favorite figure, not only in the Catacombs, but on articles of daily use, as rings, cups, and lamps. Nearly one hundred and fifty such pictures have come down to us. The Shepherd, an appropriate symbol of Christ, is usually represented as a handsome, beardless, gentle youth, in light costume, with a girdle and sandals, with the flute and pastoral staff, carrying a lamb on his shoulder, standing between two or more sheep that look confidently up to him. Sometimes he feeds a large flock on green pastures. If this was the popular conception of Christ, it stood in contrast with the contemporaneous theological idea of the homely appearance of the Saviour, and anticipated the post-Constantinian conception.

The picture of Orpheus is twice found in the cemetery of Domitilla, and once in that of Callistus. One on the ceiling in Domitilla, apparently from the second century, is especially rich: it represents the mysterious singer, seated in the centre on a piece of rock, playing on the lyre his enchanting melodies to wild and tame animals—the lion, the wolf, the serpent, the horse, the ram—at his feet—and the birds in the trees;(25) around the central figure are several biblical scenes, Moses smiting the rock, David aiming the sling at Goliath (?), Daniel among the lions, the raising of Lazarus. The heathen Orpheus, the reputed author of monotheistic hymns (the Orphica), the centre of so many mysteries, the fabulous charmer of all creation, appears here either as a symbol and type of Christ Himself,(26) or rather, like the heathen Sibyl, an antitype and unconscious prophet of Christ, announcing and foreshadowing Him as the conqueror of all the forces of nature, as the harmonizer of all discords, and as ruler over life and death.

§ 80. Allegorical Representations of Christ.

Pictures of Christ came into use slowly and gradually, as the conceptions concerning his personal appearance changed. The Evangelists very wisely keep profound silence on the subject, and no ideal which human genius may devise, can do justice to Him who was God manifest in the flesh.

In the ante-Nicene age the strange notion prevailed that our Saviour, in the state of his humiliation, was homely, according to a literal interpretation of the Messianic prophecy: "He hath no form nor comeliness."(27) This was the opinion of Justin Martyr,(28) Tertullian,(29) and even of the spiritualistic Alexandrian divines Clement,(30) and Origen.(31) A true and healthy feeling leads rather to the opposite view; for Jesus certainly had not the physiognomy of a sinner, and the heavenly purity and harmony of his soul must in some way have shone, through the veil of his flesh, as it certainly did on the Mount of Transfiguration. Physical deformity is incompatible with the Old Testament idea of the priesthood, how much more with the idea of the Messiah.

Those fathers, however, had the state of humiliation alone in their eye. The exalted Redeemer they themselves viewed as clothed with unfading beauty and glory, which was to pass from Him, the Head, to his church also, in her perfect millennial state^.49(32) We have here, therefore, not an essential opposition made between holiness and beauty, but only a temporary separation. Nor did the ante-Nicene fathers mean to deny that Christ, even in the days of his humiliation, had a spiritual beauty which captivated susceptible souls. Thus Clement of Alexandria distinguishes between two kinds of beauty, the outward beauty of the flesh, which soon fades away, and the beauty of the soul, which consists in moral excellence and is permanent. "That the Lord Himself," he says, "was uncomely in aspect, the Spirit testifies by Isaiah: ’And we saw Him, and he had no form nor comeliness; but his form was mean, inferior to men.’ Yet who was more admirable than the Lord? But it was not the beauty of the flesh visible to the eye, but the true beauty of both soul and body, which He exhibited, which in the former is beneficence; in the latter—that is, the flesh—immortality."(33) Chrysostom went further: he understood Isaiah’s description to refer merely to the scenes of the passion, and took his idea of the personal appearance of Jesus from the forty-fifth Psalm, where he is represented as "fairer than the children of men." Jerome and Augustin had the same view, but there was at that time no authentic picture of Christ, and the imagination was left to its own imperfect attempts to set forth that human face divine which reflected the beauty of sinless holiness.

The first representations of Christ were purely allegorical. He appears now as a shepherd, who lays down his life for the sheep,(34) or carries the lost sheep on his shoulders;(35) as a lamb, who bears the sin of the world;(36) more rarely as a ram, with reference to the substituted victim in the history of Abraham and Isaac;(37) frequently as a fisher.(38) Clement of Alexandria, in his hymn, calls Christ the "Fisher of men that are saved, who with his sweet life catches the pure fish out of the hostile flood in the sea of iniquity."

The most favorite symbol seems to have been that of the fish. It was the double symbol of the Redeemer and the redeemed. The corresponding Greek Ichthys is a pregnant anagram, containing the initials of the words: "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour."(39) In some pictures the mysterious fish is swimming in the water with a plate of bread and a cup of wine on his back, with evident allusion to the Lord’s Supper. At the same time the fish represented the soul caught in the net of the great Fisher of men and his servants, with reference to Matt. 4:19; comp. 13:47. Tertullian connects the symbol with the water of baptism, saying:(40) "We little fishes (pisciculi) are born by our Fish (secundum jICqUS nostrum), Jesus Christ in water, and can thrive only by continuing in the water;" that is if we are faithful to our baptismal covenant, and preserve the grace there received. The pious fancy made the fish a symbol of the whole mystery of the Christian salvation. The anagrammatic or hieroglyphic use of the Greek Ichthys and the Latin Piscis-Christus belonged to the Disciplina Arcani, and was a testimony of the ancient church to the faith in Christ’s person as the Son of God, and his work as the Saviour of the world. The origin of this symbol must be traced beyond the middle of the second century, perhaps to Alexandria, where there was a strong love for mystic symbolism, both among the orthodox and the Gnostic heretics.(41) It is familiarly mentioned by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian, and is found on ancient remains in the Roman catacombs, marked on the grave-stones, rings, lamps, vases, and wall-pictures(42)

The Ichthys-symbol went out of use before the middle of the fourth century, after which it is only found occasionally as a reminiscence of olden times.

Previous to the time of Constantine, we find no trace of an image of Christ, properly speaking, except among the Gnostic Carpocratians,(43) and in the case of the heathen emperor Alexander Severus, who adorned his domestic chapel, as a sort of syncretistic Pantheon, with representatives of all religions.(44) The above-mentioned idea of the uncomely personal appearance of Jesus, the entire silence of the Gospels about it, and the Old Testament prohibition of images, restrained the church from making either pictures or statues of Christ, until in the Nicene age a great change took place, though not without energetic and long-continued opposition. Eusebius gives us, from his own observation, the oldest report of a statue of Christ, which was said to have been erected by the woman with the issue of blood, together with her own statue, in memory of her cure, before her dwelling at Caesarea Philippi (Paneas).(45) But the same historian, in a letter to the empress Constantia (the sister of Constantine and widow of Licinius), strongly protested against images of Christ, who had laid aside his earthly servant form, and whose heavenly glory transcends the conception and artistic skill of man.(46)

§ 81. Pictures of the Virgin Mary.

De Rossi: Imagines selectae Deiparae Virginis (Rome, 1863); Marriott: Catacombs (Lond. 1870, pp. 1–63); Martigny: Dict. sub "Vierge;" KRAUS: Die christl. Kunst (Leipz. 1873, p. 105); Northcote and Brownlow: Roma Sotter. (2^nd ed. Lond. 1879, Pt. II. p. 133 sqq.); Withrow: Catacombs (N.Y. 1874, p. 30, 5 sqq.); Schultze: Die Marienbilder der altchristl. Kunst, and Die Katacomben (Leipz. 1882, p. 150 sqq.); Von Lehner: Die Marienverehrung in den 3 ersten Jahrh. (Stuttgart, 1881, p. 282 sqq.).

It was formerly supposed that no picture of the Virgin existed before the Council of Ephesus (431), which condemned Nestorius and sanctioned the theotokos, thereby giving solemn sanction and a strong impetus to the cultus of Mary. But several pictures are now traced, with a high degree of probability, to the third, if not the second century. From the first five centuries nearly fifty representations of Mary have so far been brought to the notice of scholars, most of them in connection with the infant Saviour.

The oldest is a fragmentary wall-picture in the cemetery of Priscilla: it presents Mary wearing a tunic and cloak, in sitting posture, and holding at her breast the child, who turns his face round to the beholder. Near her stands a young and beardless man (probably Joseph) clothed in the pallium, holding a book-roll in one hand, pointing to the star above with the other, and looking upon the mother and child with the expression of joy; between and above the figures is the star of Bethlehem; the whole represents the happiness of a family without the supernatural adornments of dogmatic reflection.(47) In the same cemetery of Priscilla there are other frescos, representing (according to De Rossi and Garrucci) the annunciation by the angel, the adoration of the Magi, and the finding of the Lord in the temple. The adoration of the Magi (two or four, afterwards three) is a favorite part of the pictures of the holy family. In the oldest picture of that kind in the cemetery of SS. Peter and Marcellinus, Mary sits on a chair, holding the babe in her lap, and receiving the homage of two Magi, one on each side, presenting their gifts on a plate.(48) In later pictures the manger, the ox and the ass, and the miraculous star are added to the scene.

The frequent pictures of a lady in praying attitude, with uplifted or outstretched arms (Orans or Orante), especially when found in company with the Good Shepherd, are explained by Roman Catholic archaeologists to mean the church or the blessed Virgin, or both combined, praying for sinners.(49) But figures of praying men as well as women are abundant in the catacombs, and often represent the person buried in the adjacent tomb, whose names are sometimes given. No Ora pro nobis, no Ave Maria, no Theotokos or Deipara appears there. The pictures of the Orans are like those of other women, and show no traces of Mariolatry. Nearly all the representations in the catacombs keep within the limits of the gospel history. But after the fourth century, and in the degeneracy of art, Mary was pictured in elaborate mosaics, and on gilded glasses, as the crowned queen of heaven, seated on a throne, in bejewelled purple robes, and with a nimbus of glory, worshipped by angels and saints.

The noblest pictures of Mary, in ancient and modern times, endeavor to set forth that peculiar union of virgin purity and motherly tenderness which distinguish "the Wedded Maid and Virgin Mother" from ordinary women, and exert such a powerful charm upon the imagination and feelings of Christendom. No excesses of Mariolatry, sinful as they are, should blind us to the restraining and elevating effect of contemplating, with devout reverence,

"The ideal of all womanhood,

So mild, so merciful, so strong, so good,

So patient, peaceful, loyal, loving, pure."

Original Footnotes

(1; original 467): See above, p. 180.

(2; original 468): "Der deutscheit Muse schönstes Distichon."

(3; original 469): Signaculum or signum crucis.

(4; original 470): Apol. c.16; Ad Nat. I. 12. Julian the Apostate raised the same charge against the Christians of his day.

(5; original 471): "in signo,"i.e. "In hoc signo vinces," the motto of Constantine.

(6; original 472): Archaeologists distinguish seven or more forms of the cross:

1. crux decussata (St. Andrew’s cross), X

2. crux commissa (the Egyptian cross), T

3. crux immima or ordinaria (the upright Latin cross), –|–

4. The inverted Latin cross of St. Peter, who considered himself unworthy to suffer in the upright position like his Lord, –|–

5. The Greek cross, consisting of four equally long arms, +

6. The double cross, –|–

––|––

7. The triple cross (used by the Pope), –|–

––|––

–––|–––

The chief forms of the monogram are:

The story of the miraculous invention and raising of the true cross of Christ by Helena, the mother of Constantine, belongs to the Nicene age. The connection of the cross with the a and w arose from the Apocalyptic designation of Christ (Rev. 1:8; 21:6; 22:13), which is thus explained by Prudentius (Cathem. hymn. IX. 10-12):

"Alpha et Omega cognominatus; ipse fons et clausula,

Omnia quae sunt, fuerunt, quaeque postfutura sunt."

(7; original 473): Minut. Felix, Octav. c. 29: "Tropaea vestra victricia non tantum simplicis crucisfaciem, verum etiam adfixi hominis imituntuR. Signum sane crucis naturaliter visimus in navi, cum velis tumentibus vehitur, cum expansis palmulis labitur; et cum ergitur jugum, crucis signum est; et cum homo porrectis manibus Deum pura mente veneratoR. Ita signo crucis aut ratio naturalis innititur, aut vestra religio formatur." Comp. a very similar passage in Tertul., Apol. c.16; and Ad Nat. I. 12; also Justin M., Apol. I. 55.

(8; original 474): When the temple of Serapis was destroyed (a.d. 390), signs of the cross were found beneath the hieroglyphics, and heathen and Christians referred it to their religion. Socrates, H. E. V. 17; Sozomenus, VI[. 15; Theodoret, V. 22. On the Buddhist cross see Medhurst, China, p. 217. At the discovery of Mexico the Spaniards found the sign of the cross as an object of worship in the idol temples at Anahuac. Prescott, Conquest of Mexico, III. 338-340. See on the heathen use of the Cross, Haslam, Mortillet, Zöckler (l.c., 7 sqq.), and Brinton, Myths of the New World; also an article on "The pre-Christian Cross," in the "Edinburgh Review," Jan. 1870. Zöckler says (p. 95): "Alter FIuch und Segen, alles Todeselend und alle Lebensherrlichkeit, die durch dir vorchristliche Menschheit ausgebreitet gewesen, erscheinen in dem Kreuze auf Golgatha conrentrirt zum wundervollsten Gebilde, der religiös sittlichen Entwicklung unseres Geschlechtes."

(9; original 475): See Becker, l. c., p. 38, Westwood’s Palaeographia Sacra, and Smith and Cheetbam, I. 515.

(10; original 476): "Pictura, quae Dominum nostrum quasi praecinctum linteo indicat crucifixum."De Gloria. Martyrum, lib. l.c. 28.

(11; original 477): Opera, ed. Giles, iv. p. 376. A crucifix is found in an Irish MS. Written about 800. See Westwood, as quoted in Smith and Cheetham, I. 516.

(12; original 478): jAlexavmeno" sevbet[ai]qeovn. The monument was first published by the Jesuit Garrucci, and is fully discussed by Becker in the essay quoted. A woodcut is also given in Smith and Cheetham, I. 516.

(13; original 479): Comp. on the supposed ojnolatreiva of the Christians, Tertullian, Apol. c.16 ("Nam et somniastis caput asininum esse Deum nostrum" etc.); Ad nationes I. 11, 14; Minut. Felix, Octav. 9. Tertullian traces this absurdity to Cornelius Tacitus, who charges it upon the Jews (Hist. V. 4).

(14; original 480): Comp. Matt. 3:16; 10:16; Gen. 8:11; Cant. 6:9.

(15; original 481): Rev. 7:9. The palm had a similar significance with the heathen, Homace writes (Od. I. 1): "Palmaque nobilis Terrarum dominos evehit ad deos."

(16; original 482): Heb. 6:19. Likewise among the heathen.

(17; original 483): Comp. Eph. 5:19.

(18; original 484): Matt. 26:34, and parallel passages.

(19; original 485): Ps. 42:1.

(20; original 486): John 15:1-6. The parables of the Good Shepherd, and of the Vine and the Branches, both recorded only by St. John, seem to have been the most prominent in the mind of the primitive Christians, as they are in the catacombs. "What they valued" (says Stanley, Christ. Inst., p. 288), "what they felt, was new moral Influence, a new life stealing through their veins, a new health imparted to their frames, a new courage breathing in their faces, like wine to a weary laborer, like sap in the hundred branches of a spreading tree, like juice in thousand clusters of a spreading vine." But more important than this was the idea of vital union of the believers with Christ and among each other, symbolized by the vine and its branches.

(21; original 487): The fabulous phoenix is nowhere mentioned in the Bible, and is first used by Clement of Rome, Ad Cor. c. 25, and by Tertiillian, De Resur. c. 13. Comp. Pliny Hist. Nat. XIII. 4.

(22; original 488): For details the reader is referred to the great illustrated works of Perre. De Rossi, Garrucci, Parker, Roller, Northcote and Brownlow, etc.

(23; original 489): Raoul-Rochette (Mémoires sur les antiquités chrétiennes; and Tableau des Catacombes), and Renan (Marc-Aurele, p. 542 sqq.).

(24; original 490): See the illustrations at the end of the volume.

(25; original 491): Comp. Horace, De Arte Poët., 391 sqq.

Silvestres homines sacer interpresque deorum

Caedibus et victufaedo delerruit Orpheus,

Dictus ob hoc lenire tigres rabidosque leones.

(26; original 492): This is the explanation of nearly all archaeologists since Bosio, except Schultze (Die Katak., p. 105).

(27; original 493): Isa. 53:2, 3; 52:14; Comp. Ps. 22.

(28; original 494): Dial. c. Tryphone Judaeo c. 14 (eij" th;n prwvthn parousivan tou' Cristou', ejn h/ kai; a[timo" kai; ajeidh;" kai; qnhto;" fanhvsesqai kekhrugmevno" ejstivn)c. 49 (paqhto;" kai; a[timo" kai; ajeidhv"); 85, 88, 100, 110, 121.

(29; original 495): Adv. Jud. c. 14: "ne aspectu quidem honestus," and then he quotes Isa. 53:2 sqq.; 8:14; Ps. 22. De carne Christi, c. 9: "nec humanae honestatis corpus fuit, nedum calestis claritatis."

(30; original 496): Paedag. III. 1, p. 252; Strom. lib. II. c. 5, p. 440; III. c. 17, p. 559; VI. 17, p. 818 (ed. Potter).

(31; original 497): Contr. Cels. VI. c. 75, where Origen quotes from Celsus that Christ’s person did not differ from others in grandeur or beauty or strength, but was, as the Christians report, "little, ill favored and ignoble" (*To; sw'ma mikro;n kai; duseide;" kai; ajgene;" h). He admits the "ill-favored," but denies the "ignoble," and doubts the "little," of which there is no certain evidence. He then quotes the language of Isaiah 53, but adds the description of Ps. 45:3, 4 (Sept.), which represents the Messiah as a king arrayed in beauty. Celsus used this false tradition of the supposed uncomeliness of Jesus as an argument against his divinity, and an objection to the Christian religion.

(32; original 498): Comp. Tertullian, Adv. Jud. c. 14 (Opera, ed. Oehler II. 740), where he quotes Dan. 7:13 sq., and Ps. 45:3, 4, for the heavenly beauty and glory of the exalted Saviour, and says: "Primo sordibus indutus est, id est carnis passibilis et mortalis indignitate ... dehinc spoliatus pristina sorde, exornatus podere, et mitra et cidari munda, id est secundi adventus; quoniam gloriam et honorent adeptus demonstrator." Justin Martyr makes the same distinction between the humility of the first and the glory of the second appearance. Dial.c.Tryph. Jud. c. 14 and c. 49, etc. So does Origen in the passage just quoted.

(33; original 499): Paedag. lib. III.c. 1, which treats of true beauty. Compare also the last chapter in the second book, which is directed against the extravagant fondness of females for dress and jewels ornaments the true beauty of the soul, which "blossoms out in the flesh, exhibiting the amiable comeliness of self-control, whenever the character, like a beam of light, gleams in the form."

(34; original 500): John 10:11. Comp. above, p. 276

(35; original 501): Luke 15:3-7; Comp. Isa. 40:11; Ez. 34:11-15; Ps. 23.

(36; original 502): John 1:29; 1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 5:12.

(37; original 503): Gen. 22:13.

(38; original 504): Christ calls the apostles "fishers of men," Matt. 4:19.

(39; original 505): = ’jI-hsou'" C-risto;" Q-eou' U-iJo;" S-wthvr.* Comp. Augustin, De Civit. Dei xviii. 23 (Jesus Christus Dei Filius Salvator), The acrostic in the Sibyline Books (lib. viii. vs. 217 sqq.) adds to this word staurov", the Schultza (Katak., p. 129), not satisfied with this explanation, goes back to Matt. 7:10, where fish (ijcquv") and serpent (o[fi") are contrasted, and suggested a contrast between Christ and the devil (comp. Apoc. 12:14, 1. 2 Cor. 11:3) Rather artificial. Merz derives the symbol from o[yon(hence ojyavrionin John 21:9) in the sense of "fish, flesh." In Palestine fish was, next to bread, the principal food, and a savory accompaniment of bread. It figures prominently in the miraculous; feeding of the multitude (John 6:9, 11), and in the meal of the risen Saviour on the shares of the Lake of Tiberias (John 21:9, ojyavrion kai; a[rton). By an allegorical stretch, the fish might thus; become to the mind of the early church a symbol of Christ’s body, as the heavenly food which he gave for the salvation of men (John 6:51).

(40; original 506): De Baptismo, c. 1.

(41; original 507): So Pitra, De Pisce symbolico, in "Spicil. Solesm.," III. 524. Comp. Marriott, The Testimony of the Catacombs, p. 120 sqq.

(42; original 508): The oldest Ichthys-monument known so far was discovered in 1865 in the Cœmeterium Domitillae, a hitherto inaccessible part of the Roman catacombs, and is traced by Cavalier De Rossi to the first century, by Becker to the first half of the second. It is in a wall picture, representing three persons with three loaves of bread and a fish. In other pictures we find fish, bread, and wine, with evident allusion to the miraculous feeding (Matt. 15:17), and the meals of the risen Saviour with his disciples (Luke, ch. 3; John, ch. 21). Paulinus calls Christ "panis ipse verus et aquae vivae piscis." See the interesting illustrators in Garrucci, Martigny, Kraus, and other archaeological works.

(43; original 509): Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 25. The Carpocratians asserted that even Pilate ordered a portrait of Christ to be made. Comp. Hippolytus, Philos, VII.c. 32; Epiphanius, Adv. Haer. XXVI. 6; Augustin, De Haer, c. 7.

(44; original 510): Apollonius, Orpheus, Abraham, and Christ. See Lampridius, Vita Alex Sev. c. 29.

(45; original 511): H. E. VII. 18. Comp. Matt. 9:20. Probably that alleged statue of Christ was a monument of Hadrian, or some other emperor to whom the Phoenicians did obeisance, in the form of a kneeling woman. Similar representations are seen on coins, particularly from the age of Hadrian. Julian the Apostate destroyed the two statues, and substituted his own, which was riven by lightning (Sozom. V. 21).

(46; original 512): A fragment of this letter is preserved in the acts of the iconoclastic Council of 754, and in the sixth act of the Second Council of Nicaea, 787. See Euseb. Opp. ed. Migne, II.col. 1545, and Harduin, Conc. IV. 406.

(47; original 513): See the picture in De Rossi, Plate iv., Northcote and Brownlow, Plate xx (II. 140), and in Schultze, Katak., p. 151. De Rossi (" Bulletino, " 1865, 23, as quoted by N. and B.) declares it either coëval with the first Christian art, or little removed from it, either of the age of the Flavii or of Trajan and Hadrian, or at the very latest, of the first Antonines. "On the roof of this tomb there was figured in fine stucco the Good Shepherd between two sheep, and some other subject, now nearly defaced." De Rossi supports his view of the high antiquity of this Madonna by the superior, almost classical style of art, and by the fact that the catacomb of Priscilla, the mother of Pudens, is one of the oldest. But J. H. Parker, an experienced antiquary, assigns this picture to a.d. 523. The young man is, according to De Rossi, Isaiah or some other prophet; but Marriott and Schultze refer him to Joseph, which is more probable, although the later tradition of the Greek church derived from the Apocryphal Gospels and strengthened by the idea of the perpetual virginity, represents him as an old man with several children from a previous marriage (the brethren of Jesus, changed into cousins by Jerome and the Latin church). Northcote and Brownlow (II. 141) remark: "St. Joseph certainly appears in some of the sarcophagi; and in the most ancient of them as a young and beardless man, generally clad in a tunic. In the mosaics of St. Mary Major’s, which are of the fifth century, and in which he appears four or five times, he is shown of nature age, if not old; and from that time forward this became the more common mode of representing him."

(48; original 514): See Plate xx. in N. and B. II 140. Schultze (p. 153) traces this picture to the beginning of the third century.

(49; original 515): According to the usual Roman Catholic interpretation of the apocalyptic vision of the woman clothed with the sun, and bringing forth a man-child (12:1, 5). Cardinal Newman reasons inconclusively in a letter to Dr. Pusey on his Eirenicon (p. 62): "I do not deny that, under the image of the woman, the church is signified; but ... the holy apostle would not have spoken of the church under this particular image unless there had existed a blessed Virgin Mary, who was exalted on high, and the object of veneration of all the faithful." When accompanied by the Good Shepherd the Orans is supposed by Northcote and Brownlow (II. 137) to represent Mar y a., ; the new Eve, as the Shepherd is the new Adam. It must be admitted that the parallel between Mary and Eve is as old as Irenaeus, and contains the fruitful germ of Mariolatry, but in those pictures no such contrast is presented.

脚注

Best guess 对照表

正文及中文脚注中带上标 * 的外文为 best guess，尚未逐项核实；原始字串保留如下。