The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic: An exploration of the figure of Orpheus in Graeco-Roman art and culture with special reference to its expression in the medium of mosaic in late antiquity 9780860548621, 9781407349824

Citation preview

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic An exploration of the figure of Orpheus in Graeco-Roman art and culture with special reference to its expression in the medium of mosaic in late antiquity

Ilona Julia

Jesnick

BAR International Series 671

1997

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic An exploration of the figure of Orpheus in Graeco-Roman art and culture with special reference to its expression in the medium of mosaic in late antiquity

Ilona Julia

Jesnick

BAR International Series 671 1997

ISBN 9780860548621 paperback ISBN 9781407349824 e-format DOL https://doi.org/10.30861/9780860548621 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR PUBLISHING

Preface

What follows was originally a dissertation entitled 'The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic' completed after part-time research in association with Goldsmiths' College, University of London and submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in April 1992. It was examined in October 1992 by Dr Mary Beard of Newnham College, Cambridge, Dr Martin Henig of the Institute of Archaeology, Oxford and Dr Betty Watson-Al Hamdani of Goldsmiths’ College, who was also my supervisor. I would like to thank Drs. Mary Beard and Martin Henig for their critical comments and valuable suggestions which were incorporated into the corrected text which became the final presentation of 1993. I would like to thank again Dr Betty Al-Hamdani for her kind and thoughtful assistance during the long period of research which began in 1982. Responsibility for the views expressed and for any errors remains my own.

Since completion certain new information has come to my notice which has been incorporated into this revised version, but no further research as such has been undertaken. Some texts published in 1990-91 were not then available to me since between publication date and appearance on library shelves a substantial time could elapse, usually due to the need for ‘binding’. Perhaps things have changed now. Thanks anyway are due to the staff of the library of the Institute of Classical Studies, London. For many years now the volumes of the estimable and helpful Lexicon /conographicum Mythologiae Classicae have been tantalisingly 'in progress'. Only at the time of writing has the volume containing Orpheus become available. The chapters on art were, therefore, constructed without benefit of its information, nor

is the section referenced in the notes.

The original text of 1993 has been redrafted for the sake of greater clarity. To this same end several tables have been created for easier access to the material, since I have been unable to provide an index. Further thought has been given to the analysis and interpretation of the evidence, expanding the text a little. Otherwise the substance of the present work is essentially the same, retaining the same structure. The number of illustrations has been cut by a third and I must thank Martin Henig not only for reviewing the pictures, but for advice on the subject of gems, and for always being most generous with his support and encouragement. I would also like to thank all those friends who, since I gained my doctorate, have continually urged that I go on to prepare the work for publication and have given their support for the project. The original, with colour illustrations, can be consulted on microfiche DX172292 at the British Library Thesis service, and in actuality Collection 729.7, two volumes.

at the

library

of Goldsmiths'

College,

New

Cross,

For help in unravelling and organising the complexities of numerical data my deepest gratitude to Andrew Colski, who also gave editorial advice.

London 1996.

Thesis

Acknowledgements

For support, advice and faith over a long period, thanks are due to my supervisors, Dr Betty Al-Hamdani of Goldsmiths’ College, University of London and David Johnston of Southampton University — whose editorial skills were of inestimable help in structuring the material. Thank you, librarians of the Millard Library and Pauline Ryall of Goldsmiths’ Library.

For unstinting help in obtaining pictures and sharing information, my special thanks to the intrepid Pat for texts an Germ type and late trans to es studi c poeti his from time ble valua took tt Gille t Rober . Witts me, with no return but my present gratitude; Angelika Ratz translated with a promise of sharing Rilke's Sonnets to Orpheus. Dr. Demetrios Michaelides, Director of the Cyprus Museum, Nicosia kindly for res pictu ned obtai and s, Papho of that ially espec cs, mosai eus Orph on work his corresponded about me. Thanks to M.Louis Foucher who kindly alerted me to the discovery of the Rougga Orpheus, and sh Briti the At trail. its on me put who Djem El at um muse the of tor erva Cons , ouni Hamr Mabrouk Museum Dr Catherine Johns of the Department of Romano-British Antiquities not only made access to ern West of rsity Unive the of s Moye h Judit with touch in me put but easy, ic mosa on the Withingt Australia, Perth, who shared the fruits of a visit to Volubilis; the Department of Graeco-Roman Antiquities allowed me to examine gems. Jennifer Stewart and Gail Boyle of the Department of um, Muse nium Cori the of Viner d Davi and ol, Brist um, Muse and ry Galle Art the Archaeology, Cirencester were most helpful in making their mosaics available to me and supplying material. s ctor dire to and rial mate of s slide and phs ogra phot ion, rmat info sent ly rous gene who Many thanks to all n, N.Ni s; Arle tu, Réat e Musé , ntes C.Si ng; R.Li Prof. and e vagn H.La to ums: muse of tors erva cons and ar Magy i, ncze Keme r Tibo Dr n; Berli en, Muse he tlic Staa t, selei I.Kri nce; rove en-P AixMusée Granet, la de e Musé ues, farg J.La ; over Hann um, Muse nerKest the of ctor Dire ; Nemzeti Muzeum, Budapest Dr da; Meri no, Roma Arte de onal Naci o Muse , inez Mart rez— Alva J.M. ; Lyon e, main o-ro gall civilisation nce. Vale de e Musé , ulin H.Mo rmo; Pale , gico eolo Arch o Muse ano, Stef Di .A. Dr.C a; Padu , goni M.Ri sh Briti s, nder G.Sa : arly icul part ons, trati illus lied supp h whic ums muse of staff the to Thanks are due d Davi nce; Scie ral Natu of eum Mus ton Hous ; Oaks n arto Dumb s, urce Reso School at Athens; Visual e Stev to , Field rt Robe and on Bees ony Anth to to also ks Than ton. Taun , eum Mus le Cast the of Bromwich Cosh for drawings, and thanks for the kind help offered by members of ASPROM.

Finally, thank you Andrew Colski, and starring Howard Davis, without whom........

Contents

Preface Acknowledgements

ii

Contents

ili

Resumé

Introduction | Orpheus in Graeco—Roman Culture.

Chapter 1 - The Story of Orpheus Chapter 2 — Orpheus in Art

Chapter 3 — The Scene of Orpheus Charming the Animals in Literature

Oo

N Lb BW CONA

Chapter 4 — Orpheus in the Antique Imagination 1. The Musician: a) The Song; b) Lyre Music . The Chthonian Figure . Telestae, Prophet . The Magus . Poet, Patron of Culture . Guardian of Nature . The Protector . The Weakling, the Failure . Orpheus and Philosophy 0. The Popular Image —

Chapter 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Part II:

5 — Orpheus and the Gods Apollo Dionysus Hercules Mithras Syncretic Imagery Christian Orpheus David/Orpheus

The Mosaics.

Chapter 6 — Design and Composition

Chapter 7 — Compartmental Mosaics Chapter 8 — Repertories and Style Chapter 9 — The Iconography of Orpheus in Mosaic . Posture . The Greek Orpheus . The Thracian Orpheus . The Phrygian Orpheus Headwear Shoes . The Rock Seat . The Musical Instrument

OWAAKNAWNE

PartI:

ill

77 88

Chapter 10 — The Animals Table:

Location of unusual creatures

Chapter 11 — Pendent and Associated Scenes

91

Chapter 12 — Inscriptions and Location

103

Chapter 13 — Definition and Interpretation

106

Conclusion

117

Appendix One — The Cataloguing of Mosaics

120

Appendix Two — Catalogue of Orpheus Mosaics

124

Tables:

124 125 126

1. Alphabetical list of mosaics catalogued

2. Status of mosaic 3. Regions and numbering The catalogue

128

Table: Distribution of mosaic types

148

List of Illustrations

149

Abbreviations

153

Bibliography

155

Index of mosaics

164

Illustrations

167

1V

CHAPTER FOUR. Orpheus in the Antique Imagination.

Resumé INTRODUCTION

Inspiration and perspective subject; methods of analysis.

Part I:

of the research.

Scope

of the

ORPHEUS IN GRAECO-ROMAN CULTURE

CHAPTER ONE. The Story of Orpheus.

The story known in antiquity; later history and significance of myth up to present day.

CHAPTER Orpheus.

TWO.

Themes

in

the

Visual

depiction

of

Review of the several scenes of the myth in art. Relationship between chronology and media. Previous surveys. Earliest images. Attic vases. Inscriptions. Relationship with Apollo. Bronze mirror. Death of O. Combination of violence and peace. First appearance of O performing. Nature of audience. The Berlin Vase. Apulian Underworld vases. Eurydice appears. O, E and Hermes on Athenian memorial. Subject suitable for funerary art. Late Hellenistic and Roman examples. Difference between art and texts. Sculpture. Origin of O and animals motif c.200BC. Poetic images rather than visual c.300-200BC. Development of O's audience, conventional characteristics. Martial's fountain, Rome. O and water. Theatre of O. Pose of O as dating evidence: a gold ring. Iconography of salvationary O and relationship to Civil Wars. Imagery in late Republican, early Imperial period. O and animals gains popularity. Fresco, ceramic. Earliest O mosaic. Antonine coins: propagandist use of image of O and animals. Popularity of in 1st—3rd C's. Dress can indicate religious imagery. Catacombs, Christian O paintings, Philostratus reflects current, stereotypical imagery. The mosaics. Mithraic imagery. Eastern marble fountains 3rd C. Function related to costume. Late antique depictions, ivory, textiles, mosaics. Late audience. Coptic orbiculi. Gems. The snake-in-tree motif. The lost magical amulet. Function of image of O as protective. Summary.

CHAPTER

THREE.

The Scene of Orpheus Charming the

Animals in Greek and Roman Literature.

Earliest mentions, Simonides c.500BC, O's power over natural world. Aeschylus. O the Argonaut always popular. Apollonius Rhodios c.250BC. The Greek Anthology, pathetic fallacy. Hellenistic origin of Virgil's version in Georgics. Ovidian Virgil. His narrative depends on audience knowledge of account reflects Roman sensibility, relationship to arena spectacle. Feeling fo natural world paralleled in visual arts (garden scenes). Seneca's Hercules tragedies, the latest poetic treatment of theme. Literary image not the same as visual. Philostratus Jun. c.300, a real picture? Claudian c.400, literary image now derived from pictures; image a metaphor for current concerns. The Orphic Argonautika, 2nd—4th AD: O the magician. Summary. Story of O allegorises Man's relationship to Nature. Story of O and E exploits O's human frailty. Loss of human qualities in late antique O.

A number of coexistant concepts over a long period, changing emphasis. Stern's interpretation. A multivalent image, from sublime to banal. 1. The Musician: textual evidence. Significance of Song: a cosmogony, bestowed order, rationality. An embodiment of culture. Orphic hymns. Lyre music: harmony of spheres, the soul's route to astral plane. Lyre music acceptable to Christians. Susceptibility of animals to music. Lyre connects O to Apollo.

2. The Chthonian Figure: Underworld the conquered realm of O, he guides dead souls. O a figure of religion, he might raise the dead. Shamanistic origins of figure.

3. Telestae, Prophet: gave oracles, a seer, had knowledge of afterlife, reformed rites of Dionysus. The Orphica, rituals and initiations ascribed to O. The difficult question of the 'Orphics’, Orphism. A shadowy definition. O connected with cult ritual by Christian writers up to 5th AD. 4. The Magus: O and popular magic. denigration by Plato, Strabo. Evidence for popular non-intellectual beliefs? Apotropaic function of O, he knows healing spells. Association with eastern Magi — astral and magical knowledge. Involved in superstitious thought. Effect of O's music on animals like magic, likewise the luring of dead souls. Alexander Severus’ lararium. Association with magic 5thBC—4thAD. 5. Poet, Patron of Culture: brings civilization through poetry. Poetry of a religious type ascribed to O, Orphic hymns. O gave teletae, rites of Dionysus to mankind. Propagator of cultural values. Ars Poetica. O brings culture through agriculture, Themistius. O on Antonine coins = Concordia. O a culture hero in late antiquity.

6. Guardian of Nature: Relationship of O and natural world. O as metaphor for the antique perception of Nature. O and cycle of Nature. O neither a shepherd nor hunter. The terrestrial mediator between heaven and Underworld. 7. The Protector. Role of O in Underworld to guide dead souls. The Orphic Gold leaves. O and superstition. 8. The Weakling, the Failure: Legendary weakness of lyrists. g Kin h wit n iso par Com h. ngt tre tes bru h wit d ste tra Art con David. Story of O and E a late addition to legend.

9. Orpheus and Philosophy: O in Neoplatonic thought. Diverging appreciation of O by elite and lesser minds noted in antiquity. O seen as philosopher in late antique period. 10. The Popular Image: O in popular legend and folklore. O the poet differs from the O the religious figure. Denigration of r ula pop and pt tem con e elit both als reve ers low fol O's superstition in Athenian society. O popular from 6th BC to 6th AD, shows power of figure in imagination. O as figure of fun, parodies: Varro's game park, Martial's cruel arena display.

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

Lucian's stories. O as popular model for musicianship.

CHAPTER EIGHT. Repertories and Style.

CHAPTER FIVE. Orpheus and the Gods.

Model-book sources questioned. Longevity of genre motifs, reciprocal influence of other media. The craftsman's capability: his mental repertory, craft practice, sources, sketchbooks. Parallels in medieval, Renaissance art. Evidence of models in O mosaics. Problems posed by mixed repertories in each mosaic. The skills of copying. Artisans: practices, titles, division of work. Degrees of competence. Woodchester workmen. Dissemination of imagery. Travelling mosaicists. Motifs from other media. Provenance of motifs. The patron's role in image choice. His access to imagery, level of knowledge. Graeco-Roman repertory: orders of imagery: popular and genre scenes; esoteric, didactic. Mixed imagery difficult to read. O a popular image, a stereotypical core. How rendered reveals choice of craftsman or patron? Choice of image of O not random, related to societal demands. Figure styles. The animals a) naturalistic, from Mediterranean and N.Africa. Alexandrian derivation. The arena a model. Distortion of unfamiliar beasts. b) stylised, from east, decorative and artificial, but vigorous. Two distinct repertories revealed. Gestural Repertory, Later Eastern repertory, characteristics listed. Style designated "Mannerism'. Western mosaics show its influence. Repertorial links between Paphos, Cos, Miletus, Palermo; Paphos and Sparta; Sparta and Chahba; Chahba and Camuntum. Difference in meaning deduced from two styles of depiction. Problems of Palermo. Origins of eastern mosaic repertory. Influences from other media. Linking motifs in eastern mosaics and other media late. Nilotic imagery. Mithraic imagery. Inept draughtsmanship a factor in modern reading of image. Summary.

Apollo and Dionysus closely linked with O in triangular relationship, profound. O a human mediator between their contrasting characters and demands. An antithetical bond. The contrasts explored.

1.

Apollo. Gave O his music. A and O compared. ecstasy:asceticism; Chaos:calm; Dionysus. feminine:masculine; _—_ dark: ight. Nature:Culture; Dionysus the Fox. Hercules. H and beasts contrasted with O and beasts. Apotropaic qualities of both tragic heroes. Seneca. Mithras: Imagery of M in depictions of O, but not meaning. Syncretic Imagery: mingling of visual imagery of O, Mithras, Christianity, Apollo. Artistic trend or merging of meaning? The Gnostic amulet. Syncretism in Macrobius. Christian Orpheus: O in Christian writing. Clement denigrates O. Song of O and New song of Christ. O in Christian funerary art; the catacombs. O later accepted in Christian thought, even by Clement. Difference between O in text and in Christian art. Eusebius. Stern on non-influence of Christian thought in catacomb pictures. O as generally held symbol for immortality. The lyre as Christian symbol. David/Orpheus: Paradisal evocation in Psalms. Gaza mosaic. Dura—Europos.

CHAPTER NINE. The Iconography of Orpheus in Mosaic.

Part II: THE MOSAICS

Three types of O recognised: Apolline or Greek, Thracian, Phrygian or Oriental. Philostratus' description.

CHAPTER SIX. Design and Composition. Definition of terms. Comparison of classification by design types: Guidi, Stern, Ovadiah, Smith. Type II unified panel scenes: distribution. Composition reflects Hellenistic painting, changes to accomodate location in floor. O scene belongs to landscape genre. Pictorial success of: Chahba, Tarsus, related Hellenistic space. deny mosaics depictions. Bichrome Footings: sources, models, copy—books? Spatial composition — an origin in popular art? Narrative and symbolic space. Perspectives and viewpoints — the arena model. Placing of pictorial elements: animals, O. Scale, spatial mismanagement. Diagram. Organisation around a centre: Cagliari, Volubilis. Illusionistic and conceptual space.

d— war out The e. pos l nta fro to iew e—v sid m Fro e. tur Pos 1. flung arm, examples. Propagandist use on Severan coins. O always seated. Mithraic victory pose. O stands on certain vases. Aix musician not O. The Littlecote O. 2. The Greek Orpheus: semi-nude, Phrygian cap. O in early in oc. Ass r. late n see o als e typ but ek, Gre y all usu s mosaic mosaic, other media with aquatic contexts. Second Greek type, of ion cat evo An ts. tex con e sam ed, ath wre and robed classicism. Pausanias surprised at Greek O in Underworld picture. Implies priestly figure with knowledge of Underworld d ive der ge ima s. t.' los Phi s hap Per AD. 2nd in O an aci Thr the from contemporary mosaic. 3. The Thracian Orpheus: Long-robed, Phrygian cap. Called Thracian in texts. Refers here to Pythian stola, Thracian and r late In es. typ e tum cos of on pti cri Des ts. men gar an Rom mosaics O in contemporary fashions. Orbiculi, striped and embroidered material. Colours depend on local fashion and/or k, dar er, Lat . east in ed our fav ens gre and es Blu . nes sto local heavy court costume seen. Pose and costume reflect Imperial iconography. 4. The Phrygian Orpheus: short tunic, cloak, leggings, Phrygian cap. Combines Phrygian and Persian costume. Shepherd costume. Attis, Paris. Phrygian O seen on vases. Associated with funerary art, all media. The western O in

CHAPTER SEVEN. Compartmental Mosaics.

Geometric mosaics. Types Ia and Ib defined and listed. Regional distribution of types extending Stern's list. Eastern influence. Type Ia mosaics, design schemes described. Type Ib mosaics compared. Type III circular mosaics mostly British. Merida, Volubilis, Withington. Central scene derived from Type II panel. Orientation of outer compartments. O not at centre, examples. Decorative and symbolic force of design centrality.

vi

Resumé

CHAPTER ELEVEN. Pendent and Associated Scenes.

mosaic dressed thus. Seen at Chahba, Sparta; influence of relief? Garb of Persian Magi. Wor by Mithras and O of catacombs. Brading O wears eastern dress. 5. Headwear: Phrygian cap or tiara, types of. Thracian fox—fur hat, denotes O's origin, not seen on mosaics. Local headwear depicted in east. Phrygian bonnet denotes eastern origin, later a priestly or semi—divine status. Gold tesserae show status. 6. Shoes: sandals usual on late mosaics with Thracian O. Apolline figure barefoot. Thracian fawn-skin high boots, Sparta, Palermo and British O. Heavy eastern boots wom with trousers. Red shoes, symbol of authority. 7. The Rock Seat: O on Mt. Rhodope; landscape background. The sheltering tree. The rocks. 8. The Musical Instrument: most diverse aspect of imagery. Two recognised: lyre and cithara. Lyre less well known to local cithara; Classical familiar. cithara mosaicists, instruments. Sign of professional musicians. Confused, hybrid depictions. The plectrum. O the performer; depictions of musicianship. Lyre and cithara portrayed equally in mosaic. In all media cithara more frequent. Instrument differs every time. Iconographic groupings and provenance of repertories revealed in details. As combination of elements produce so many diverse images hard to conceive of copy—book origin. CHAPTER

Images depicted with O cohere into consistent patterns. Conventions of floor mosaic contrasted with mural painting. Antique appreciation of imagery. Definitions: ‘pendent’ and ‘associated’. Architectural contexts. Categories and definitions of imagery: Aquatic, Agriculture, Strife. Personages and personifications. Abstract qualities. How shown in ‘associated’ positions.

Aquatic: the marine harvest, fishing; O the Fisher. La Chebba, Djemila, marine industry and dangers, sea divinities; Palaemon, not Arion. Blanzy. O protective in marine context. Dolphins in N.Western mosaics. Fresh Water. real, evoked. Pools, baths. Littlecote, Oudna. Transcendent connotations. Woodchester. Fish and circular

designs. Nilotic scenes. Brading, ‘Abraxas’ panel reinterpreted. Agriculture: the land harvest. Seasons. Fruit. Xenia motifs. of plenty. Themistius. Cornucopiae and personifications at Personifications aspirations. salvationary Vintaging, s, der bor l eta veg nd, dla woo s, tree n, tio eta Veg . lem Jerusa laurel.

TEN. The Animals.

Strife: Animal combats, hunts. Cagliari, Orbe, genre hunt scenes. Running beasts in O mosaics. Personifications of strife, Hercules. Piazza Armerina. Arena scenes with O, Miletus, Cos, Brading. Chariot race, Horkstow, play of fortune, Rottweil. Victory theme. Eros and Pan.

Prime attraction of scene. Choice of beast accords with ‘character’. Literary and visual scene differ. Hellenistic and Roman appreciation of the natural world embodied. O mosaics belong to broader animal scene genre: western and eastern types. Symbolic interpretation. Attribution of character to animals, analogous to human traits. Decorative value. Scene of animal power reflects on patrons’ status. Rarely depicted species. No domestic beasts. Number of species shown. Common animals well drawn. Hard to identify and erroneously identified creatures. Character types: fierce or timid. Birds well displayed, perhaps local fauna, in N.African sphere. Few in eastern mosaics. How typological analysis undertaken. Felines: distinguishing types of spotted cat. Most common of

on

eastern

mosaics.

Bulls.

Bears.

Elephant,

Scylla,

Divinities. Bacchus prominent. Zeus: Palermo, imagery, Orphic theogonies. Horkstow, Bacchic Brading room 12. All evocations of classical Littlecote's four goddesses. Oceanus, Neptune.

esoteric scenes. culture.

Funerary images. Bacchic imagery, masks, theatre. Literary references. Motifs of Luck, Good Fortune, prophylactic. O image itself promotes fortune for patrons.

all: lion, leopard, tiger. Animals male except if female fiercest (tiger). Reptiles: symbolism and character of snake, often benign, evokes Underworld. Frequently depicted animals. Birds: peacock most common. Character, kinds. Raptors: symbolism of eagle; crow. Eagle and dove a pairing. Small birds. Sheep and goats. Equids: deer, wild asses. Horses the choice

females.

Personages: Hercules; marine. Negative Cirencester. Maenads, Bassarides.

CHAPTER TWELVE. Inscriptions and Locations.

of ns tio ira asp eal rev se The . ons pti cri ins h wit s aic Ten mos patrons for status, but also good fortune in life and afterlife. Image of O used as more than symbol of music.

its

reticulated hide. Animals wearing collars exceptional. Small creatures: mongoose, mouse. Fabulous creatures. The griffin,

associated with the hunt. Popularity on Romano-British mosaics. Pan, the Centaur: symbolism of. Popularity in late antique imagery. The sphinx, O and the feminine. The fox: significance and symbolism of. Fox not dog with O. Evokes Dionysus, denotes Thracian origin, distinguishes O from Apollo. Fox and peacock at Woodchester: earth and heaven. The peacock. The monkey: species, model types on eastern mosaics. Symbolism. Exotic species. Theories of animal character: Clement, Plato, Pythagorean, Egyptian, Aristotle. Metaphoric power of animal imagery. Place of animal scenes in N.African art. Context of eastern depiction. Function of O scene as animal display. Table: Location of unusual creatures.

Locations: Not usually triclinia, but reception rooms with dual function. Often near pools. Woodchester. O mosaics from bath suites. In public settings, Seleucia. Palermo, Horkstow, official function. Littlecote a religious edifice. Christian buildings. Funerary mosaics. CHAPTER THIRTEEN. Definition and Interpretation.

Genre: pictorial rules, O's place in Graeco-Roman art, seeking significance and function. Uses of animal scene in late antiquity. Images not O: Keynsham, Frampton, Thruxton. Difficulties of identification. Pictorial attributes of O. Italica.

Vii

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic Attributes reveal identities. Caerwent, Stolac. Apollo at Italica. Aix a female lyrist, Erato. Djemila, not Arion. Table: conventions of O image. Possible meanings of image. Does O as an image of Culture represent patrons’ real or pretended cultural status? Theatricality in eastern depiction. O in funerary and religious contexts. O emblematic of allegiance to State. Political background. O an eirenic image. How did it relate to social disharmony? Hidden Christian imagery? O mosaics not Christian. O mosaics from Tetrarchy denote pagan orthodoxy. No overt Christian imagery in Constantinian O. Christian artisans? Claudius the stonecutter. O image changes in Christian art, emphasis on victory theme. Character of O in Christian art. O an image of salvation both pagan and Christian. Late images pagan. O and Orphic cult. Problematic definition of 'Orphic’. O identified with orthodoxy in ritual, late antiquity. Evidence for sects sparse. Orphic Gold leaves. O not mentioned. No evidence for Orphic cult. No Orphic sect from Sacerdotal imagery. unconventional Littlecote: Empire. function for edifice. Dionysus/Zagreus. Orphic imagery here? Expressive of aristocratic pagan orthodoxy. Patrons show allegiance to Julian. Palermo. Imagery of transcendence, salvation. A cult room? 'Orphic’ Orpheus? Dionysus’ presence pervades Orphean imagery, but O embodies Apollonian rationale. He mediates the polarities. Image acts as prophylactic. Circular format of mosiacs. Symbolism of other images so contained. Circle as reflection of architecture, as symbol of harmony. Political background to Romano-British mosaics. Popularity of design, decorative values. The patrons, how revealed by choice of image. Range of possible interpretations contemporary observer might have made. Woodchester. O's popularity in Britain.

CONCLUSION. No ultimate interpretation of image of O; a complex of meanings derived from study of genre, style, repertory, texts. Place of mosaic image within corpus of imagery, all media. Reconstructing the codes of antique art. What the Roman observer might have perceived. His access to visual repertory. Roman art adaptive rather than innovative. Images which transcend the stereotype. Decline of skills in late antiquity. A new non-classical style. What did O mean? Music or Good Luck? Importance of O in religion and philosophy, elite and popular. Visual imagery one of many systems reflecting society's self-image. Pendent imagery qualifies and donates meaning to whole. Review of interpretations of Part I. Review of Part II, the pictorial effect. What qualified as a successful picture to the Roman observer. Relation of text to imagery. Subject of O vast, defies fully encompassing. Universality of appeal.

APPENDIX ONE. The Cataloguing of Mosaics History of; reasons for. A convenient resource. Format imposes viewpoint, stress on similarities. Earlier catalogues and cataloguers. Drawbacks of categorisation by design typology. Differences disguised. Mosaics showing close similarities few. Linked repertories. Modern categories too vague. Useful for description and collation.

APPENDIX TWO. Catalogue of Orpheus Mosaics. Vili

Introduction

A glimpse of Orpheus began the search. The Great Pavement of the Roman villa at Woodchester was unearthed for the first time in ten years in 1973. The huge mosaic provided an impressive spectacle with its subtle colours, its magical parade of animals and birds circling a tantalizingly empty centre. From the midst of the acanthus scroll swirling around the central scene emerged the commanding head of Oceanus. At the margins of this circular island, naiads, floating in the blue of their weed-strewn pools, trickled water from overturned vases. All around the figured area spread intricate, geometrically patterned panels carpeting the room to its edges. Only low walls and a column base remained its in the imagination, which to reconstruct, from architecture, the feel of inhabiting its space, and its light. What was the purpose of the room? What was the meaning of the imagery on the mosaic? It was as entrancing visually as Orpheus' legendary song was to its listeners of myth. The pavement had a tremendous impact. Could it have had such an effect on the Roman observer? The question lingered in the mind from that moment until research began almost ten years later.

commissioned and designed, presumably involving some considerable expense for the patron, its subject chosen as suitable to represent his cultural aspirations in this great The imagery, like similar prestigious public chamber. schemes where Orpheus appears, must respond to certain cultural values, on which it might be informative. Would it be possible to divine anything of the function of the Woodchester room, the people who used it or the character of the society in which they lived from the imagery of its mosaic? Other questions raised at the outset were: what would have been the significance of this image in the mind of the antique observer? Was the mosaic image, that of the lyric poet charming animals, related to or reflective of the Orpheus of religion, who seemed equally pervasive of Graeco-Roman society? Did the imagery display any esoteric symbolism? Could the room have been the venue for meetings of an Orphic sect? As the research progressed, some questions proved of value, others not. For example, the Orphic sects posited by certain scholars were dismissed in the arguments of others, so that the notion of a venue needed to be reconsidered. The nature of Orpheus’ cultural appeal emerged as the area of the most complexity.

A search for pictural traditions, for visual and symbolic structures would be involved. Since the medium brings mosaic pictures into the category of decorative, rather than fine art, the concepts of decorative imagery in Roman art would need to be explored.

The publication to hand in 1973 was the informative booklet by D.J.Smith, who answered some questions and prompted more. Woodchester, he said, was ‘in size and degree of elaboration ... unmatched by any Roman mosaic north of the Alps’ and ‘the largest and most elaborate Orpheus mosaic so far discovered anywhere'.' He summarised the significance and popularity of the theme of Orpheus in Graeco-Roman art, accepting Henri Stern's conclusion that ‘the poetry inherent in the subject led to the adoption of the image for the decoration of places of relaxation and rest'.* This interpretation seemed at odds with an image which appeared far from restful. The figuration, by turns disturbing and startling, was vigorously drawn and surrounded by dazzling surface patterns. Surely so impressive a mosaic would have decorated a room with an important function and, surely so important a room would have merited a pavement full of meaning? Such were the questions which prompted research.

Henri Stern's formative work in which he described the introduced a design mosaic of Blanzy—lés—Fismes,* typology and presented a catalogue, afforded the next impetus. Noting that the Orpheus mosaics of Britain were of a different design to others from the Empire, and that Britain provided more examples than anywhere else, he considered them deserving of a special investigation (p.68). Smith was later to treat the British Orpheus mosaics separately, but at the end of his definitive, descriptive work, invited further study of the iconography, which he had deliberately left for others.* The assumptions of Stern and Smith, that British Orpheus mosaics differ from others, raises the question as to what extent are the others the same.

W.K.C. Guthrie's Orpheus and Greek Religion introduced new possibilities. A figure quite different from the charming mythical singer emerged from this reading — the founder of religions and teacher of mysteries. It seemed impossible for the antique observer not to have noted some symbolic significance in the scene before him at Woodchester, as well as its decorative qualities.

For this writer the starting points would have to be the design of Orpheus mosaics, with an exploration of the popularity of Orpheus in Graeco-Roman art. The approach was not to be That archaeological or classicist, but art—historical. discipline lays stress on the importance of genre as a governing factor of form, function and signification and seeks information from medium as well as style.

With the opportunity to research the subject in depth, an objective approach was required. The character of the enquiry was to be art-historical. This discipline would impose the questions and give form to the answers. The major emphasis would be on iconography, the structure of the image, and its relationship to the broader frame of Greek was pavement The society. art and and Roman

In order to create a background against which to discern differences of imagery and style, Romano—British Orpheus mosaics were compared with other Orpheus mosaics of the Empire, and with Orpheus in other media. The conventional patterns for the display of animals on their own were investigated. The search for an understanding of the Romano-British mosaics would entail laying wider and 3

'

D.J.Smith,

The

Great

Pavement

and Roman

Gloucestershire (1973), 1, 7. * Smith (1973), 7, quoting Stern, Gallia XIII (1955).

Villa at Woodchester

H.Stern, 'La Mosaique

d'Orphée

de Blanzy—lés—Fismes',

Gallia XIII

ie 955), 41-77. D.J.Smith ‘Orpheus Mosaics in Britain’, Mosaique. Recueil d‘hommages a Henri Stern (1983), 315.

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic wider nets of reference to place them in a context. It soon proved that the ‘unique’ concentric circle design of Orpheus mosaics was paralleled elsewhere, though not often. The apparent pictorial invention of a circular zone with a parade of animals could be seen to mirror a pervasive convention of antique design on decorative items, which carried borders of animals circulating around the rims of bowls or the body of vessels. Whilst the concentric circle design was new to Orpheus mosaics, these bands of animals would have been familiar to patron and designer alike, even appearing in mosaic without Orpheus. Other circular designs were related to the decoration of ceiling vaults. Far from being radically different, as Stern's comment had led one to believe, in many respects the British mosaics exhibited stylistic affinities with those from the rest of the Empire and were located within existing iconographic traditions.

The interesting point was the extent to which designers of Orpheus mosaics in Britain and elsewhere, appeared to be influenced by the pictorial conventions of other media and of related subjects. The popular, almost banal image was subtly changed from first to latest appearance, from one end of the Empire to the other by the importation of such imagery, but it remained instantly recognisable whilst each depiction presented an individual face. That each mosaic differs from the others in so many respects speaks of the inventiveness of the makers. Executed with varying degrees of artistic capability, they avoid repetition whilst remaining within the bounds of artistic conventions. A commonplace of Graeco-Roman art is the flooding of the ancient world with copies of celebrated prototypes made for

collectors. Another is that the illustration of the essential scene of a myth would occur time and again in many media. In historical, that is, political, biographical and propagandist representations, the archetype was essential to support the clothing of transient prestige, the visual formulae of affairs of state. The image of Orpheus in mosaic shares in this reliance on understood patterns.

None of the Orpheus mosaics falls quite so neatly into the groupings proposed by Stern and others to categorise them, which have provided the mainstay of comment on their visual character. Stylistically the corpus of Romano-British mosaics, like the rest, were marked more by their differences than their similarities. Stern's typological system has been taken as standard for some thirty years, and provides a pattern for others. These, together with catalogues, present Orpheus mosaics as a group, colouring the modem perception of their iconography, promoting the idea of ‘likeness’. The problem will be aired in Appendix I. To find a fresh perception (one which side-stepped the existing conception determined by such presentation) it was necessary to re-evaluate these mosaic groupings, opening the way to a new view of the subject in its genre context.

Orpheus mosaics comprise a set of images similar without being the same, dissimilar but not different. Artisans were evidently working from models, though not adhering to a rigidly regulated scheme. In the course of research it became necessary to understand the pictorial and conceptual rules

which constrained the depictions, seeking a definition of the genre ‘Orpheus and the animals in mosaic’. Such a definition calls for an investigation of visual sources, mechanisms involved in the diffusion of imagery, the adaptation of real and conceptual model to circumstance. Visual and symbolic imagery was shaped by many factors. For an overview, Orpheus in media other than mosaic would also need to be studied to discern the various repertories in use and the styles in which they were presented. Stylistic and repertorial affinities would prove a more compelling and precise indicator of provenance and pictorial relationships than the broad categorisations of the standard 'Types' up to now in use.

The range of topics forming a background to the visual expression included animal scenes in art and literature, pagan and Judaeo—Christian philosophy and iconography. No one influence could be considered without reference to several other balancing or affecting factors, each contextual frame relating to the next. One of the most important is the portrayal of Orpheus’ animal audience, an integral part of the conceptual image and not merely a decorative adjunct in mosaic. Animals were of considerable significance in the Graeco-Roman world, both real and symbolic. The fauna, in mosaic and other media, are accorded a study of their own. Comparisons have been drawn with other animal scenes in art, and thought given to the important place of animal spectacle in antiquity, to which all such scenes relate.

The meaning of the image of Orpheus in mosaic is dependent on its being the animal—charming scene, apparently the only episode of his story depicted in this medium. This scene is the exclusive concern of Hellenistic and Roman art, a series of images in part inspired by poetry, where pleasure was taken in relating the details of a romantic tragedy in its sylvan surrounds. The image of the lyrist in the midst of animals encapsulated the whole myth. That single scene also exemplified the moral and salvationary character of the figure of Orpheus, pervasive of Graeco-Roman society in both pagan and Christian circles.

It will be possible here to give only an intimation of the many meanings accruing to the figure in the Graeco-Roman world, and associated with it in the contemporary mind. Literary evidence for the value accorded the figure of Orpheus by the Greek and Roman observer is second hand, writers commonly reporting popular notions or expectations of the image filtered through their own bias. As a popular religious figure of many centuries he was denigrated by Plato and Christian writers alike. Cicero says that Orpheus often came into his mind, while Fronto commends Orpheus to the young Marcus Aurelius as an example of concord. Claudian in AD 400 was still able to call upon Orpheus as a simile for the pax romana. Orpheus was involved in late antique magic, even as he was being hailed as a prefiguration of Christ. Just as Cicero was able to discern several gods under the same name, so Orpheus appeared in many guises which were different from each other, yet all belonged together.

Commenting on the legend and its popular appeal, classical writers would begin with the formula ‘Men say that...’ Did

Introduction

any of those 'Men' ever write a testimony to the significance of the figure in the visual arts? Such an exercise would involve concepts unknown to the antique mind. The descriptions of the Philostrati serve more as evidence for popular expectations of appearance and the rhetorical exercise ekphrasis than as records of personal response.

The aim of the introductory chapters of Part I of this work is to clarify the concept of Orpheus in Graeco-Roman thought and to trace the visual tradition. The sheer volume of texts and artefacts relative to Orpheus in antiquity testifies to his popularity and significance. The remaining chapters explore his manifestation in Graeco-Roman culture from the earliest appearance in classical Greece to the latest in the later Roman Empire. The visual material, comprising all artefacts with a depiction of Orpheus, has been reviewed by various scholars whose work informs the argument of Chapter Two. To their catalogues, which begin with the earliest depiction of the seventh century BC, were added Christian items and artefacts from as late as the sixth century AD, early Byzantine. No other such work stretches so far, setting the within an _ enlightening of the imagery development continuum. More than a review, in a new approach this

chapter on developed.

art

reveals

the

iconographic

themes

which

The mass of texts has been approached here in a novel manner. In Chapter Three only those recording the particular scene of the animal—charming are examined, noting the changing description and perception of the theme revealed by the texts themselves. The capability of the figure to appeal at many levels in the Graeco-Roman world, to symbolise several concepts at once (which now appear at variance with one another), lends it an importance which supercedes the banality of its imagery. Orpheus was of consequence in both pagan and Christian philosophies, the Christian concern reflecting to some extent the eminent position held by the figure in Greek religion. Orpheus could appear as the paradigm of the lyric poet, the singer, the romantic lover, a man with access to the hearts of the gods, a civilizing force, the founder of mysteries offering salvation. Or, the charlatan magus weaving spells and providing potions of doubtful efficacy. For others still he was a power to evoke against the evil eye, protective of health and fecundity. Chapter Four analyses the multiple perceptions of the image. The texts are examined under several headings which describe the various characteristics which make up the richly mutable composite known as Orpheus, of which the particular focus of this work, the picture in mosaic, is one expression. Part II examines the image of Orpheus in mosaic relative to the contexts revealed in Part I, how it was composed, how it appears to us. This has been effected by means of a detailed study of the imagery of Orpheus mosaics, including stylistic developments, figurative and decorative repertories and conventions. The study in depth involving a search for meaning in the minutiae of pictorial structure and iconography, which forms the main body of this work is not one that has been attempted before.

A comparison of the mosaics with others exhibiting iconographic relationships proved more productive than basing critique on the superficial affinities of broad of regional identification The types. compositional repertories, eastern and western, revealed stylistic and iconographic analogies, corresponding with routes of communication, which may have been a means of diffusion of imagery. Figures and scenes accompanying Orpheus, either within the same visual field or in adjacent areas, were a valuable proving investigation, the into drawn interpretative tool. It appears that Orpheus and the imagery which appears alongside him came as a package, responding to a programmatic reading. Reading across from image to image was, it has been suggested, a process familiar in antiquity, though this idea is disputed.* Associated imagery gave clues to the particular message of each depiction where the central image was the stereotypical figure capable of embodying any one of several philosophies. The distinction between pagan and Christian Orpheus in art is clarified by this mode of study.

Uniquely, these and other iconographic features are included as data in the catalogue, Appendix II. The total number of entries is 103. Of these 85 are certainly or probably Orpheus mosaics. Another 6 possibly depicted Orpheus and a further 12 are erroneous citations given elsewhere. Each has extensive bibliography and comment. This work cannot be an exhaustive examination of every mosaic. Light will be thrown on structure, design and composition of the picture of Orpheus in mosaic, offering a means of grasping the iconographic patterns, which can be further applied elsewhere. Individual mosaics are not discussed in full in one place, but in part where particular aspects of each pavement become relevant to the argument at that point. Some mosaics may therefore appear in several places, some only once. ok 2k ok 2k 2 Ae

So much has been written about Orpheus mosaics, much of it

since this research began in 1982, it might be assumed virtually everything had been said. What more need be added? Despite the availability of a large body of unanswered, remained questions many information, importantly many were unasked, principally about mosaics as works of Graeco-Roman art. Floor mosaics come into the category of decorative art. However finely executed, to whatever extent they replicate or are derived from works of high art, context ensured that they functioned unlike fine art work. Few were executed with any high degree of artistic skill, yet the expense and time vested in them must have been considerable. An inquiry into the context and location of the mosaic and the place of the figure of Orpheus in Graeco— Roman society pictured on it is pertinent to the interpretation of these functional objects. We are far removed from the Roman period eye, our culture is not theirs. We should be aware that the modem view needs to be set aside to appreciate the antique manner of perception. >

Cf. R.Ling, Roman Painting, (1991),

135-40, though he is talking of

fresco painting on walls, to be considered as fine rather than decorative art,

with its own pictorial conventions.

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

The study is based on two premises: first, that imagery in Roman mosaic would have been as receptive to a reading by contemporary observers, that is to say, would have held a ‘meaning’, as would the art of any era. Meaning is not to be confused with 'meaningful’ in the moder sense of the term. The meaning of the image might be mundane, rather than esoteric, but the depiction would not be empty of content. Second, our narrow concept of ‘decoration’ no longer allows us to comprehend the richness and ambiguity of symbolic language inherent in the imagery of the decorative schemes of ancient art. Whether the imagery was related to Orphic of expression the superstition, common doctrines, aristocratic polytheism or the arts and luxurious relaxation, it would have had some value for its observers, and that value is the object of the search. We cannot know how an individual patron or observer in late antiquity responded to the imagery of any particular Orpheus mosaic, whether he just saw colourful decoration or divined arcane knowledge in it. To exclude either response would be an extreme view. It is only possible to suggest what was available in the imagery

in relation to the codes of Graeco-Roman picture making, what is known of the antique response, what the figure of Orpheus offered to the imagination. The Orpheus mosaics are primarily a phenomenon of Late Antiquity. Only a few surviving examples date before AD 200. Most Orpheus mosaics, in form and content, can be seen to respond to the changed atmosphere of the Later Roman Empire in all its manifestations. They may be interpreted as emblems of the integrity of a culture whose foundations were shifting, nostalgically evocative of Golden Age harmony.

—00000=-

PART I: ORPHEUS INGRAECO-ROMAN CULTURE

Chapter 1 The Story of Orpheus ‘C'est le privilége des legendes d’étre sans age.’ Jean Cocteau.

The Head Goes on Singing Orpheus, a figure of great antiquity, is a complex archetype. The lyric poet who descends and returns from the Underworld, who dies and is reborn, bears a value and potency different for each individual, group, society and culture which encounters him. Yet Orpheus embodies a single, eternal truth, that the process of artistic creativity is the well—spring of culture.

Orpheus first appears in the record in the seventh century BC. His origins are obscure, but it is now generally accepted that they lie outside the mainstream of Greek religion with

ancient shamanism, and that he was not a historical figure." What is known for certain is that Orpheus does not appear in the Homeric epics, but that tradition in antiquity placed him as living in the time before the Trojan War and being the predecessor of Homer and Hesiod. Two cities claimed to

have discovered his bones. Even in antiquity opinion was divided as to whether he was a real or mythical personality. The myth found a principal expression in literature and music, the arts of which he was the master and patron. As the hero of epic poems, the Argonautic voyager, or of poetry in romantic vein, as the focus for philosophical speculation on literature, religion and culture, as a moral exemplar, as the supposed author of numerous ancient texts and religious poems, as the tragic poet—musician, losing his love, losing his life — Orpheus the mythological figure has been the inspiration for a vast body of work created over twenty— seven centuries. Much of the antique output is lost, leaving only remnants, scattered references and indications of lost works. Numerous art works depicting Orpheus were the creation of the Graeco-Roman world. In antiquity the Orpheus of religion, whose Underworld journey taught him the mysteries of the Afterlife, was generally more important than the tragic lover.

This is not the place for a complete account of the subsequent

history of Orpheus in the arts,* but a brief resumé may be attempted. The figure lost the authority it had as an emblem of Greek religion, although Christ was referred to as ‘latter— day Orpheus’ as late as the twelfth century.* The story of Orpheus and Eurydice became the focus of attention. As related by Virgil and Ovid, it was used by the Roman philosopher Boethius, fifth-sixth century, as a principal example in his Consolation of Philosophy. This work was of such popularity and standing in the Middle Ages that it ' Shamanism: E.R.Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational, (1951), 140-7. M.Eliade, Shamanism, Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy (1964) 387ff. M.L.West,

The

oT

Poems,

4-7,

146-7.

Orpheus

as a

historical

personality, W.K.C.Guthrie, Orpheus and Greek Religion (1935) passim.

2 Ancient texts collected in O.Kern, Orphicorum fragmenta (1922). J.B.Friedman, Orpheus in the Middle Ages (1970). W.A.Strauss, Descent and Return: The Orphic Theme in Modern Literature (1971) J-Warden (ed.)

Orpheus: Metamorphoses of a Myth (1982). J.Culik, Orpheus Through the Ages (1985). E.Henry, Orpheus with his Lute (1992).

? In the Easter sequence morte Christi celebrata. Henry, 5.

provided the principal source for the story and a means of keeping it alive. By the fourteenth century Orpheus emerged as a troubadour with magical powers in, for example, the anonymous French Ovide Moralisé, in which the love story of Orpheus and Eurydice becomes the enactment of a chivalric morality tale. An illustrated version of 1493 achieved a wide circulation. In the Neoplatonic circles of the Renaissance Orpheus appeared once again as the theologian with access to secrets hidden from men, which it was hoped newly composed Orphic 'music of the spheres’ would reveal. At this time copies of the ancient Orphic Hymns first came to light, and were brought to Italy. He exemplified Music and later, the cultural heritage of Antiquity, the imposition of order and civilisation. As a general symbol for the arts he was popular with painters and sculptors as a decorative and optimistic subject providing the chance to depict both animals and the favourite theme of music. A profusion of pictures of Orpheus appeared in the decorative arts in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

In Tudor England, Renaissance ideas of the poet's role as social teacher, still combined with that of prophet, were popular and can be found in the work of Spenser, Chapman and Bacon. Orphean themes can be traced in Milton's work.* The Florentine poet and humanist Poliziano wrote a tragic drama with music on the theme of Orpheus, La Favola di for ten writ ns sio Ver a. oper y earl of sor cur pre a , 1480 o, Orfe a Medici wedding had happy endings. Venetian artists saw the melancholy aspects of the story, an almost modem of a emm dil the of y ged tra the ng isi has emp on interpretati creativity, man's weakness and mortality. In the opera, or favola in musica of the Venetian Monteverdi, L’Orfeo, 1607, the first tragic ending, based on Poliziano, had to be exchanged for one more optimistic. Gluck's Orfeo ed Euridice, 1762 was the only work to retain its popularity into of vals revi nt rece l unti s urie cent 20th and 19th the Monteverdi. It too had an enforced happy ending. Mozart's The Magic Flute, 1791, can be seen, amongst other things, as a sophisticated reworking of the myth. There were many opera comic Offenbach’s offerings. musical more ic trag the that us s ind rem , 1858 d, orl erw Und the in s Orpheu subject has always been parodied.

To the Theosophists of the 19th century Orpheus had the of ry ego all pal nci pri the as nce ica nif sig ly us mo enor harmony of art and nature. He was the essential artist of f sel him te ica ded to er ord in e lov ed ect rej o wh m, is ic nt Roma to his work. He fascinated artists and poets of the Symbolist s ne an av Ch de is Puv , au re Mo ing lud inc , nce Fra in nt me ve mo hic Orp The d. hea d ere sev the ed ict dep all o wh n do Re and theme of death and renewal was of profound importance to poets. Mallarmé defined the principle duty of the poet as ‘explication Orphique de la terre’. Apollinaire the Cubist his for art and try poe ng ini def , ion ect dir his ed low fol t poe

own time. A number of artists in France, in 1912-13, were dubbed Orphists by Apollinaire, Orpheus was their patron. They were dedicated to ‘pure painting’, the expression of inward feelings, drawn from the Underworld, what we would

* J.Warden in Orpheus: Metamorphoses of a Myth (1982), examines the myth in literature up to Milton. Henry covers the same ground in a different way and follows Orphean themes in literature to the present.

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic now call the unconscious, representational means.

by

abstract

rather

than

The German poet Rilke wrote his influential Sonnets to Orpheus in the early 20th century. In mid century Jean Anouilh's play Eurydice focussed on purity and integrity, represented by the heroine. Stravinsky wrote a ballet score Orpheus in 1948, a foil to his Apollo. The films of Jean Cocteau, the autobiographical Orphée, 1950 inspired by Rilke, Testament d’Orpheé, an epitaph, 1960, and others, explore the mystical qualities of the myth which was to influence Cocteau most of his life. Tennessee Williams’ play Orpheus Descending, 1955 was later filmed. In the film Black Orpheus by Marcel Camus, 1958, Greek myth is excitingly transposed to Brazilian folklore. Sir Michael Tippet set lines from Rilke's Sonnets in his cantata The Mask of Time, 1983. The Mask of Orpheus by Sir Harrison Birtwhistle, 1986, is the most recent musical working of the myth, in which Apollo triumphs over the dead Orpheus. Musical ensembles naturally take the name of Orpheus. Novelists use the theme of the journey down into the unconscious as a metaphor for the creative process. The French philosopher Maurice Blanchot reflected on The Gaze of Orpheus as the point of creativity in art. The descent, the backward glance, the impatience of the artist for the riches of the unconscious, and the inevitable sense of loss, has become the fascination for modern artists, writers, poets and musicians, a source of creative imagination. *

KK

KK

KK

The legend which engendered this stream of creativity is one of the oldest, most beautiful and intriguing of Greek myths and, familiar as it is, still delights in repetition. It is recounted here, to set the scene, in a version which blends

ancient accounts.” Orpheus

Orpheus was the son of Oeagrus, a river god, and Calliope, the Muse of lyric poetry. Thracian in origin, he lived for some time in Pieria, near Olympus and died in Thrace. He was a singer, musician and poet, divinely inspired. Apollo had presented him with the lyre and the Muses taught him to play. So entrancing was his music that the most barbaric of men became enthralled, wild beasts would follow him, the trees would bow down to him and even uproot themselves to listen as he wandered through the forests. He could make rocks and mountains move and stay the course of rushing rivers with his wondrous song of the creation of the gods and the world. Because of his power over supernatural forces he was called to join Jason and the heroes on the voyage of the Argo, giving * The

story has many

variants. Amongst

ancient texts are: The Greek

Anthology, ed. and tr. W.R.Paton, Loeb, (1919). Virgil, Georgics, IV, 453— 527; Ovid, Metamorphoses X, 1-107, XI, 1-66. All references in:

O.Gruppe in Roscher's Lexicon III (1898), cols. 1058-1207; P-Monceaux in Daremberg-Saglio, DA. (1873-1919) ‘Orpheus’; K.Zeigler in Pauly—

Wissowa, RE. XVIII, I (1939), col.1200-1316; W.K.C.Guthrie, Orpheus and Greek Religion (1935); I.M.Linforth, The Arts of Orpheus (1941);

P.Grimal,

Dictionary

of Classical

Mythology

(1951),

331-333; Robert Graves, The Greek Myths, (1955) I, 28.

Eng.

tr.

(1986)

the time to the oarsmen with his playing. His music caused fish to leap from the water or to follow the boat like sheep, while birds stopped in mid flight and hovered overhead. He did not fight in the adventures, being a weakling, but sang to calm the quarrels of men and to overcome the malevolence of divine powers. He stilled the waves in a great storm, parted the Clashing Rocks, and when the Sirens sang to lure the sailors, his melody was so exquisite that the Argonauts listened to him, not them. During the expedition he instituted sacred rites, initiating his companions into the Mysteries. On his return he married Eurydice, but she died when a snake bit her ankle as she fled from the advances of Aristaeus. Orpheus was so grief stricken that he determined to descend

to the Underworld, even at the cost of his own life, and bring her out. By means of his music he was able to persuade the ferryman Charon to take him across the Styx, tame the fierce dog Cerberus, and evade every hazard of the valleys of Avernus on his approach to the gods, while the dreadful

tortures of the damned were suspended as he passed through. At the sound of his plaintive lament the savage heart of the god Hades relented and Eurydice was restored to Orpheus on the one condition, set by Persephone, that he must not look back until they had both ascended into the light. Orpheus went ahead and Eurydice limped slowly behind him along the dark, steep track. But on the very brink of success, suddenly doubting, impatient, Orpheus turned to look at his beloved wife. In that fatal glance Eurydice died a second time. She held out her hands to him and he reached to touch them, but she was already smoke. He tried to descend again, but in vain, he could not defeat Death twice. He had failed and was mortified over his loss.

He moumed a long while for Eurydice. He sang, more beautifully than ever before, of his lost love. As he wandered over many lands legends sprang up about his deeds and the circumstances of his death. He shunned women from that time, though many desired him. Some said he turned away from the world to live an ascetic life, instituting mysteries founded on his experiences in the Underworld which excluded women, others that he spurned women only because he wished to remain faithful to the memory of Eurydice, others still that he assuaged his longing by tuming to young men.

Orpheus was murdered by women, but whether it was by the scorned women of Thrace in the manic possession of their Bacchic rites or by Dionysus’ maenads, sent by the jealous god to avenge Orpheus’ worship of Apollo, no one can tell. In a crazed and savage attack, the women rushed at the gentle singer, hurling spears and rocks. At first his music was able to divert their weapons, which dropped harmlessly, but as their screeching and howling increased combining with the clangour of the Bacchic music, Orpheus’ song was drowned and lost its effect. The women rushed in and, seizing him with their bare hands, tore the youth apart, limb from limb, in a bloody scene of carnage. Then all Nature moumed for Orpheus. Birds and wild creatures, rocks and woods, that had once been held spellbound by his music, wept. The trees shed their leaves

The Story of Orpheus

and rivers swelled with their own tears and all the spirits of Nature mourned too. The Muses collected the scattered limbs and buried them at Liebethra where the nightingales now sing most sweetly. Orpheus’ severed head had been thrown into the river Hebrus, but miraculously, floating on his lyre, it still sang, calling out ‘Eurydice, ah! Eurydice' as the current bore it down to the sea. It was said by some that the head and the lyre arrived at the island of Lesbos, where the head was honoured with funerary rites, which is why the inhabitants excelled in lyric poetry. Others thought the head rested in a cave sacred to Dionysus where it prophesied day and night. The lyre was bore up to heaven to become a constellation. Orpheus’ ghost went beneath the earth to the Elysian Fields where he was joyously reunited with Eurydice forever. —00000=-

Chapter Two Themes in the Visual Depiction of Orpheus This review of the several scenes of Orpheus’ myth as depicted in Graeco-Roman and early Byzantine art reveals themes in the evolution of his iconography. It defines the context for mosaic within the overall development of the depiction in all media from the sixth century BC to the sixth century AD. The artefacts showing Orpheus have been collated and discussed in the works used as sources for most of the material.’ None includes all the Greek, Roman, early Christian and early Byzantine depictions within the same argument. To do so reveals the patterns of an imagery which continued to evolve. The latest Orpheus mosaic is dated in the fifth to sixth century AD, so we follow the development of his iconography to that point.

The mythical career of Orpheus divides into episodes, some of which appear in art. In order of their appearance in the myth they are: the Argonaut adventure; Orpheus singing to Thracian men and to satyrs; Orpheus in the Underworld; Orpheus rescuing Eurydice; Orpheus singing to the animals; the death of Orpheus; the oracular head. In the history of art these episodes found favour in a different order. Chronologically, starting with the art of classical Greece, these were: Orpheus as the Argonaut, singer to Greek men and heroes; Orpheus murdered by Thracian women; the oracular head; Orpheus singing to Thracians and exotic creatures; Orpheus in the Underworld; rescuing Eurydice; Orpheus singing to animals. This last was the preferred image in the later Roman Empire.*

These divisions are not exclusive, but the pattern is distinct. Virtually every medium, from gems to mosaics is represented in a survey totalling over 300 items. Work in some materials is found with frequency: Attic and Apulian vases, mosaics; whilst in others it is less commonly preserved: wall painting, especially of a late date, metal relief. Still more has perished: panel and textile painting. Therefore the picture is distorted by accidents of survival. Analysis of the data is necessarily complex with such an abundance of material, offering many organisational problems. Panyagua deals with the visual material by placing it in chronological order, grouping media. Schdeller employs a presentation which follows the path of Orpheus’ career,

dividing work by medium. These scholars were obliged to make such divisions, or found they could, because only one, or at most two episodes would be in vogue at any one time. Similarly, at any one period depictions appear on a limited choice of media, in part because only durable materials survive. For this work the evidence was collated and mapped

to reveal distinct patterns of representation, the distribution of imagery and medium relative to each period, which will be presented here.* The function of the objects on which Orpheus appeared had some bearing on the choice of episode and the manner in which it was depicted. For example, Orpheus pleading for his wife in the Underworld is painted on Apulian funerary vases of the fourth century BC, to be placed in the earth. The convention was still observed in first century BC, when on an Ostian fresco decorating inside of a Roman tomb Orpheus pleads for Eurydice. funerary reliefs, of this and a later Imperial date, to

the the On be

placed above ground, he is shown bringing her to the light.* The marked preference for a particular episode at any one time is consistent with a legend which was not formed into the completed version we know from Virgil and Ovid, at the date of its earliest depictions. It was growing, accreting episodes and characters, reflecting in its changing emphases a changing culture. Rarely were more than two episodes seen at the same time. In the Roman Imperial period the favoured image was the animal—charming Orpheus.

In this review the emphasis is placed on those iconographic themes which illuminate the development and meaning of the animal—charming scene. ak Ae 2c oe ie ok

We first see Orpheus as a musician for the Greek heroes. The h wit o Arg the on lyre his h wit him ws sho yal tra por st earlie to , AS PH OR ed, nam is s heu Orp y Onl an. ici mus r anothe distinguish this singer from the several others in Greek myth with whom he might have been confused, being presented black-figure vase depicts a simply as a lyrist. A musician stepping up on stage to sing, in a manner akin to contemporary depictions of Hercules. The form of inscription, XAIRE ORPHEU, "Hail, Orpheus!’, is such as to lead P.-L.Rinuy to believe that this figure is not Orpheus himself, but a concert singer perhaps, with an acknowledgment of Orpheus as patron of musical arts.* On the oldest Italiote vase to show him, Orpheus appears seminude, in laurel wreath, a Thracian horseman as his audience, and the inscription ORPHEUS. Much later his attributes A working model made: index cards laid out in media groups showed how

; ead in Roscher's Lexicon III, (1898) cols.1058-1207. 'Orphée' in DACL XII (1934-36) cols. 2735-2755. E.R.Panyagua, ‘La Figura de Orfeo

each of the two variables, medium and episode, came into prominence or

idem, ‘Catalogo de representacgiones de Orfeo’, Helmantica XXIII (1972)

*

en el arte griego y romano’ Helmantica XVIII (1967)

173-239, figs 1-7;

87-135, figs.1-16, 393-416; ibid XXIV (1973) 433-498, figs.17—-44. F.M.Schéeller Darstellungen des Orpheus in der Antike, Diss. Frieburg (1969). H.Stern, ‘La Mosaique d'Orphée de Blanzy—les—Fismes' Gallia XIII (1955) 41-77; idem, 'Orphée dans l'art paléo—chrétien', CArch XXIII (1974) 1-16, figs.1-19; idem ‘Les débuts de l'iconographie d'Orphée charmant

les animaux',

Mélanges

de Numismatique

de

l'archéologie

et

d'histoire offérts a Jean Lafaurie (1980) 157-164, pls.XII—XIV. P.Prigent ‘Orphée dans l'iconographie chrétienne', Revue d'histoire et de philologie réligieuse 64 (1984) 205-221, figs.1—4.

? Chronology of episodes: I.M.Linforth The Arts of Orpheus (1941) 16ff. On the character of episodes: P.-L.Rinuy, ‘L'imagerie d'Orphée dans l'antiquité’, Revue d'archéologie moderne et d'archéologie generale (RAMAGE) 4 (1986) 297 and n.2.

>

were eclipsed over time.

Apulian crater, Armento c.330 BC. Fresco from tomb, Ostia, c.100 BC:

Orpheus with pedum leads Eurydice towards Ianitor and Cerberus, Pluto watches. Gruppe

1176-7,

fig.1. Reinach RPGR

200, 2. Schédeller 48, 83,

and us Orphe : 0AD C—4 40B ief, -rel Alto . 191 no. 73) (19 ua yag Pan 3. V, L_XI urydice hand in hand as they exit together. Gruppe 1198, fig.15. Reinach RSGR II, 512, 2. Schéeller 48, pl.XIV, 2. Panyagua (1972) no.92.

> Metope of the Treasury of the Syconians, Delphi, c.560 BC: A bearded

Orpheus on the Argo, inscribed ORPHAS. Another lyrist stands next to him, Philammon? W.K.C.Guthrie, Orpheus and Greek Religion (1935) 21, fig.2.

Schéeller 7, 12, pl.I,1. Panyagua (1967) 184-5; idem (1972), 2. Black—fig. oenoche, Villa Giulia, Rome, c.520-510 BC, ABV 432: Singer steps up on the bema. Reinach RVP 451, 2. Guthrie 21, fig.1; Schdeller 14, 77, pl.1, 3.

Panyagua (1967) 186-7; idem (1972) no.3, fig.6 — disallows this image as Orpheus.

fig.1. Rinuy (1986), 299 and

Themes in the Visual Depiction of Orpheus would be so familiar that the name would seem to be unnecessary. However, the name appears on ceramic dishes of Antonine date from the Rhineland where Orpheus, named ORFEVM and O/RFFEV, appears with all his animals. On a Constantinian mosaic from Ulpiana (Poljanice) inscribes his name in Greek, not so much to identify him, nor as an affectation, as it was a Greek-speaking region, but perhaps to increase the numinous power of the image for hederae were interspersed with the letters. On a manuscript illumination of the same period showing the Underworld visited by Aeneas, the name ORFEUS denotes the singer in such familiar guise he could hardly be mistaken.® His first audience to appear in the visual arts was human and Greek, but not for some while was he to be depicted in the act of singing. A Boetian cup (fig.1) shows a musician enthroned on a seat which is perhaps an attribute of status. He is accompanied by birds and a hind wearing a leash,’ but his identity is not certain. He may be Apollo, long associated with attracting animals by his music, as in the famous lines from Euripides (Alcestis, c.438 BC, older legend), often depicted in art with birds and a hind. The iconography of the best known scene of the Orpheus myth was not the invention of classical Greece, but seems to have grown from the infusion of cultures which fuelled Hellenistic art.

The much cited passage from Alcestis, in which Apollo influences animal behaviour by his music is quoted in full: Under your roof Apollo chose to live The prophet, the musician; And as a member of your household Was content to graze your sheep, Piping a tune of shepherd's love Over the steep winding pastures. Spotted lynxes loved his music and came To feed beside his flock And a tawny herd of lions Came from the glen of Othrys; And around your lyre, Apollo, Dappled fawns stepping out Slender—footed from the high shady fir—trees, Danced for joy to your enchanting notes. Thus through divine protection Admetus' hearth and lands surpass in wealth all others....' (570ff.)*

The artefact called to mind is a fifth century BC bronze mirror showing a seated lyrist of disputed identity, accompanied by birds, a hind and a lynx (fig.3), perhaps

dated c.420-390 BC.° © Campaniform Apulian crater, red—figure, 430—420BC, Egnazia, Latium: heus, Gruppe 1180, 1-7. Inscribed ORPHEUS. Oldest Italian vase with

Schéeller 53, pl-XVI, 1. Panyagua (1967) 189; idem (1972) no.65. Ceramic dishes: Panyagua (1972) nos.135, 136, inscribed ORFEVM and O/RFFEV,

cf. n.57 below. Miniature in Vergilianus Vaticanus: Vat.lat. 3225, fol.52, recto; Panyagua

(1973) 256c; T.B.Stevenson,

Miniature Decoration in the

Vatican Virgil (1983) 72. 7 Boetian oe 600 BC.

O.Kem Gnomon 11 (1935) 476-7, more refs. Panyagua (1967) 186-7, fig. 2; idem (1972) no.4. Schéeller 25f., pl.VI, 1. Stern (1980) 158, fig.1. * Euripides, Alcestis, 57Off. tr. P.Vellacott, Penguin (1953) 1974 ed.

hisch—-dionysische Mysterien— ° Bronze mirror: c.420-390BC. R Eisler, gedanken in der christlichen Antike (1925) fig.34, 97, n.2. Guthrie 66, fig.9;

According to Eisler the basket of scrolls next to the singer identifies him positively as Orpheus in his persona of prophet, poet, maker of sacred texts, as described in Plato (Rep. 364E-365A). The image on the mirror seems to relate

to the passage from Alcestis. Like the Boetian cup, the figure sits on a chair rather than the rock which is particular to

Orpheus'’® except for a few Apulian vases where he is depicted in the Underworld. There is no inscription on the mirror, so no clear intention to depict Orpheus. Both hind and raven are attributes of Apollo. The collar and bell worn by the hind indicates it is not wild, as it should be for Orpheus, but the tame animal of the god (cf. the leashed animal of the Boetian cup). The scrolls, the birds, the laurel wreath behind the singer's head and the laurel omamenting the edge of the mirror, may allude to the god's oracular powers. These attributes suggest that the figure is Apollo and although it remains ambiguous, pictorially comparable with later

images supposedly of Orpheus,’’

I am inclined to see

Apollo here, given the date assigned to the mirror. The parallel iconography of Orpheus and Apollo, expressive of their close association, continues in the Roman Imperial era when a comparison of context and attributes is adequate for identification. Meanwhile, spellbinding

as is described Orpheus in literature, more than simply humans with his music.

Simonides of Chios, c.500, described fish and birds following Orpheus as he sang on board the ship Argo. On the expedition Orpheus overpowered supernatural forces with his song, but only one work of art of the period remains which depicts these exploits, a black-figure vase showing a lyrist between two sirens on a ship, perhaps Orpheus on the

Argo.’*

The

terracotta

group

in the

Getty

Museum,

identified as Orpheus seated between two Sirens, is dated late fourth century BC. The iconography of Orpheus is unlike any other extant depiction dating before or after, though of the same time and location of the Apulian Underworld vases. A useful suggestion is to see in this an imitation of Orpheus where a mortal figure invokes the powers of the divine singer in the Underworld, to ensure his own safe passage beyond the fatal song of the Sirens. They often appeared during the fourth century in funerary contexts as mourners or

muses of the Underworld. ** On the series of Attic red—figure vases, c.480-430 BC and on South Italian vases from c.430-350 BC, the myth of Orpheus suddenly leapt into artistic prominence, when his violent death at the hands of Thracian women was depicted. This episode was exclusive to these vases, never seen in any other medium. In view of a personage notable for his pacific character this portrayal of savagery seems surprising, but for a thousand years, carnage and bloodshed were never far from the paradisal scene. Iconographic change corresponds with the type and provenance of the vases, chronologically: Attic Panyagua (1967) 187-8; idem (1972) no.94, 420-10BC. Schéeller 24, pl.V, 4. Stern (1980) 158-9, fig.2. Another: Panyagua (1972) no.96. The spotted lynx of the poem appears on both.

© Gruppe figs. 5, 6, 9.

"* Stern (1980), figs. 6, 9. '2 BA, XII (1956) 3861. '? Sculpture group in the Getty Museum, Malibu, California: 76.AD.11.

Handbook of the Collections (J.Paul Getty Museum), (1986), 33. Cf. Chapter

IV.2: Chthonian Orpheus.

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic the Etruscan myth of Tages,’” but one mirror is inscribed to distinguish Orpheus from the Etruscan hero. A Hellenistic gem'* shows an oracle of Orpheus resembling these images. If the older mirror (n.9, fig.3) in fact depicts Apollo the prophet, they may all belong to the one tradition, since all are concerned with oracle and prophecy. These motifs would be suitable for objects used in mantic ritual as mirrors sometimes were into the Imperial period.

from Greece, Attic from Magna Graecia, Etruscan and then Apulian. Artists from each area added to the content of the depiction, possibly in response to variants in the oral and changes iconographic but perhaps tradition, literary influenced the story itself. The entire development of the Orphean depiction is contained in the evolving iconography of the vases, save the animal—charming scene. However, that is prefigured in the expressive content of imagery conveying the same message about the effects of Orpheus' song. Themes developed in the vases provided source material for Greek, Roman and Byzantine artists.

Aeschylus’ lost play Bassarides,

The painting by Polygnotus at Delphi,’® (c.460-55 BQ), depicted Orpheus in the Underworld. It was described by Pausanias (X, 30, 6) who reported the pose of Orpheus who was dressed as a Greek. He does not play the lyre but, sitting on a hillock by a willow, holds the lyre in his left hand while touching the branches with the other. One of a group of

which apparently treated

the death of Orpheus,'* could not be the inspiration for the vase series, for its date is almost certainly too late (466— 459?BC) and more likely both are expressions of the same cultural stimulus. Guthrie (49, 54-5) points out that Orpheus is not shown taking the part of a victim in a Bacchic orgy. The women brandish their domestic implements as weapons. Later vases show Orpheus being stoned or speared (fig.42), no picture shows him tom to death by the Bassarides. Guthrie relates the vase scene to the popular story that the Thracian women, acting on their own account (not at the instigation of Dionysus) were angered by the indifference or active hostility which Orpheus showed towards them and by his success at enticing their men away from them. The version of the story later used by Virgil and Ovid has an Orpheus who is more an activator of cultural change than a protagonist in cult. In the literary version of the myth Orpheus is dismembered, as befits one who refuses to follow Dionysus, emphasising his allegiance to Apollo. Possibly he represented a vein of societal purity and steadfastness in the face of the demands of the disturbing Dionysian ethos. Even at this date text and pictures do not match.

small bronzes known mainly in later copies*° shows a singer

semi-nude, holding the lyre down by his side, a picture of dejection which may represent this same theme. The statue of Orpheus, with Dionysus and Zeus, placed near to that of ‘Struggle’ (Paus. V, 26, 3) dated to the same period, c.460, may also have derived from the focus on the circumstances around Orpheus' violent death. The association with Dionysus and with ‘struggle’ will always be strong. So far Orpheus is not seen singing. Few large scale statues of Orpheus have survived, others are known only from texts. Of the mysterious xoana of cypress wood, again noted by Pausanias, one in Liebethran Olympus, the other in a temple of Demeter, little is known. They may have had religious connotations relating to a very old stratum

of belief.7' No mention is made of animals accompanying the singer, indeed, none of the depictions so far is of the animal—charming scene. That image had yet to develop in the visual arts. From about 450 BC a notable iconographic change occurs with vases showing Orpheus in the act of singing and playing to barbaric Thracians. Increasing emphasis is placed on the wildness of his audience, beginning to assume its well known character. Only the Thracian women fail to become entranced. This Thracian audience appeared for the first time c.480-470 BC. Two bearded men and a boy wearing Phrygian caps and enveloping mantles were intended, says or mountain folk country to represent Panyagua,

Other objects of the fifth century relate to the theme of

Orpheus’ death. A head on a coin of Lesbos, c.479"* perhaps commemorates Orpheus prophesying, as the myth tells us, when after death the severed head floated to that island. Later coins similarly commemorate the traditional locations of the myth. He wears the Phrygian bonnet, which would become a distinguishing feature, and its earliest appearance as such, if Orpheus is firmly identified here. The oracular head appears just after the 'death of Orpheus’ series on Attic vases from Greece, c.420. Apollo appears perhaps to

oversee the process, perhaps

shepherds.?* This introduces the ‘wild’ or ‘of the mountain’

to intercede (fig.5).’° On

two bronze mirrors a ritual oracular scene corresponds with

‘7 Oracular head of Orhess at the feet of a youth transcribing his answers,

2 men, 3 women listen. End fifth C. BC. Schéeller 69, pl. XXIV, 5, (Louvre). Almost identical example from tomb, Chiusi (Sienna), inscribed VRPHE.

Guthrie 36, fig.6. Panyagua (1967) 199;idem (1972) no.95, fig.16. See n.9, above.

'* Aeschylus, Bassarides. Pseudo—Eratosthenes, Catasterismoi, 24, Lyra = Kern test.113. I.M. Linforth "Two Notes on the Legend of Orpheus’ TAPA LXTI (1931) 5-17, II.

'® Guthrie 39, fig.8.

'® Painting in Nekyia of the Lesche of the Cnidians, Delos, 460-455 BC,

described by Pausanias, X, 30, 6, c.180AD. Ancient Greece, Sources and Documents,

Coin of Lesbos: After c.479 BC. Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, 'S S.W.Grose, Catalogue of the MacClean Collection of Greek Coins, Fitzwilliam Mus. III (Cambridge 1929), Lesbos, no.7964, pl.275, 9.

Panyagua (1972) no.93.

'© Hydria: oracular head of

eus, Apollo stands holding lyre and laurel

branch, 2 women listen. 475's

BC. Guthrie 36, pl.5. Schéeller 69, pl. XXIV,

3. Panyagua

(1972)

no.75.

Attic cup:

head of Orpheus,

J-J.Pollitt, (1965) The Art of C.U.Press (1990), 133-140,

figs.6a—c., esp.139 and 6b. Panyagua (1967) 191ff., fig.5, reconstruction by K.Robert.

2° Small bronze statuette, lyre held by side. Panyagua (1973) no.146, fig.18. 3rd.C. BC. Others: Apolline Orpheus citharoedos, lyre lost. Schéeller

16ff., plL.IV, 1-3. Panyagua (1972) no.89 and 145 (identical), fig.17. Three heads perhaps from statues of the same model, basalt or marble. Panyagua

seated youth

transcribes the oracle, Apollo holding a laurel branch holds out his hand, palm down, c.420's. Gruppe 1177, fig.3. Reinach RVP I, 493, 2. Eisler 6,

(1972) no.86, (Schéeller 15f., pl.II, 1-4) 87, 88. Schéeller 15ff. pl.III, 1-2. Hellenistic copies, original c.460BC.

n.5, fig.4. Guthrie 36 and fig.7. Schéeller 69, pl.XXIV, 4. Panyagua (1967) 199, n.133; idem (1972) no.76. Philostratus: Apollo was jealous because his

'

Xoana:

Callisthenes,

own oracle at Delphi had lost supremacy. Phil. Heroica, V.704; Life of Apollonius of Tyana, IV.4. F.Graf, ‘Orpheus: A Poet Among Men’, in

Alex.

14. Pseudo—

1, 42, 6.7 = Kern test.144. Temple

of Eleusinian

Pierian Liebethra,

(Aesopus)

Olympus.

Plutarch,

Ceres, Taygetos, Pausanias III, 20, 5 = Kern test. 145. Guthrie 24, n.8.

22 Attic pelike c.480-470 BC: bearded Orpheus in Phrygian cap plays,

Interpretations of Greek Mythology, J.Bremmer ed. (1987) 80-106. Graf,

youth

94, does not believe Apollo intercedes as Guthrie, 35, does, but as a healer

and

two

men

in

Thracian

clothes,

mountain

shepherds,

Panyagua (1972) no.6. Cf. idem (1967) 185, n.68 on bearded Prpheni.

god supervises the writing of healing verses uttered by the head.

10

listen.

Themes in the Visual Depiction of Orpheus sits half—draped, laurel-wreathed, head thrown back, singing exultantly to the sound of the lyre, surrounded by Thracian warriors whose differing attitudes express degrees of enchantment and attachment. The warrior on the right, the fiercest, with beard and moustache, turns his head towards the singer, but his body and feet tum away, ready to flee as he draws his Thracian cloak tight around him, protectively. Others, close-shaven, younger?, with relaxed stance, their cloaks thrown back, listen entranced to the song. The attitude of the bearded warrior is repeated later in the iconography of the fierce animals which are often shown in just such a pose, resistant, but drawn (mosaics of Paphos, Sparta, Saragossa).

character of Orpheus’ audience, the pattern from which the later image is to evolve: uncouth, barbarous, perhaps dangerous creatures from the wild places are entranced by the civilizing qualities of art. Several more elements are introduced into the scene on vases from Southern Italy. Orpheus is seen playing not only to Thracians in their long, rich mantles, but to satyrs, members of Dionysus’ cortege who also represent the forces of

nature.** Dionysus, a maenad and a satyr appear on the reverse of an Attic vase c.440 BC, showing the death of Orpheus, a natural juxtaposition in view of the account of the Thracian women's furiously aroused state of mind, so it is interesting that even here the dismemberment is not portrayed. They hover at the edge of the scene ready to

Orpheus usually appeared as a young Greek, but exceptionally, was seen dressed as a Thracian for the first time as early as the mid fifth century on an Attic skyphos

attack.** The Bacchic ambience increases from this time,

from Piraeus** at the same time as Thracian warriors were

mainly on Etruscan vases and those from Magna Graecia, with satyrs appearing in the audience. They represent the increasingly important theme of his attraction of otherwise

making their appearance on South Italian vases. The first literary mention of his Thracian connections appears in the roughly contemporary Alcestis (Eur. Alc. 967), but otherwise on the vases he remains for a little while a Greek amidst his audience of barbarians.

uncontrollable forces*” and the natural passions of man, a principal aspect of his power which determines the iconography through into late antiquity (fig.41). Bacchic figures are frequent elements of the latest representations, including funerary art, the Jerusalem mosaic and Coptic textiles.

The depiction on an Apulian

far. The Phrygian Orpheus has made his appearance. Orpheus is dressed in short, richly decorated Asian costume and Phrygian cap, playing to Thracians and Muses. A young

hind sits at his feet, listening to the music which drew it from the woods. It is an attribute of Apollo, taken from his imagery and reminds us of the association of Orpheus and Apollo. On the reverse are Dionysus, Ariadne and a satyr, emphasising the link between Orpheus and the Dionysian cult. All reference to the death scene has gone and the pacific ambience of the singer amidst his enthralled, civilized and rational audience is contrasted with the abandoned, uncontrolled world of Dionysus.

from tombs.*® Ultimately the musical powers assume visual importance, the death scene is dropped and Orpheus is shown amid entranced, pacified warriors. The most telling example is on the Berlin Vase*’ from Gela, Sicily (fig.4). Orpheus = Column crater, Naples: Orpheus in richly omamented mantle. Thracian in alopexis and satyr with thyrsus. More Thracians on reverse. c.450 BC. Panyagua (1972) no.57; cf.Gruppe 1182, fig.6, robe. °4 “Attic campaniform crater. c.440BC. Panyagua (1972) no.42. Orpheus subsidiary subject on side B. Thracians and a satyr listen, armed woman (1972)

no.54,

The series of Apulian Underworld Vases was created at the

opening of the Hellenistic period in art.*° Their radical

1180-1,

Nola, c.430 = Gruppe

fig.5; Reinach RVP I, 403, 4-5; Guthrie 64, i; Schédeller 52, pl-XV, 2,3.

Panyagua

(1972)

no.56,

fig.11;

idem,

(1967)

197,

n.121.

iconographic changes record the shifting emphases of the myth. Recalling Polygnotus' painting, Orpheus, wearing Thracian sacerdotal robes, is seen among Underworld deities and tortured souls, outside the hall of Hades and his queen. In one instance an unnamed group of child, woman and nude man crowning himself with a wreath accompany him and may be initiates whom Orpheus is guiding in the Afterlife. Usually he stands playing, but once he sits, lyre down by his side, a wreath raised in his right hand. Only once does he appear as a supplicant to Hades for his wife, who appears

Schéeller's

pls. XVII-XXIII amply illustrate the genre of the death of Orpheus. Cf. Guthrie 64-5, n.8; Panyagua (1972) nos.8-51. 25 Etruscan and Magna Graecia: column crater, Orpheus, Thracian and horse, a satyr. Panyagua (1972) no.62. Italiote campaniform crater, Tarentum c.390: Orpheus and female centaur. Panyagua (1972) no.71. Italiote volute crater, Orpheus, satyr, female figure and hind (from iconography of Apollo, Panyagua (1967) 188). Idem (1972) no.72b. South Etruscan oenochoe, Vulci, Orpheus in Bacchic ambience: Gruppe

1182-3,

fig.6 (Orpheus only). Reinach RVP I, 271, 4. Panyagua (1967 194; idem (1972) no.74. British Museum F.100. See also n.23 above, Panyagua no.57, and [24] no.54.

© Thracian women in background, campaniform crater, c.440BC. Orpheus

Orpheus singing to warriors: who turns to and a Thracian

remonstrate? with a woman who raises a sickle, Panyagua (1967) fig.6; idem

with him (fig.25).*' The implication of the imagery in these

(1972) no.52. Attic calyx crater, Paestum, 460-430BC-. In registers, upper: Orpheus sings to Thracian warrors, lower: Thracian women, (one, a maenad? wearing spotted skin), rush to the attack, chased off by a warrior. Guthrie 65,

iv, fig.5, drawing, inverting registers. Schéeller 52, pl.XV, 4. Panyagua (1972) no.53, fig.10. From an Etruscan tomb near Arezzo. Hydria, c.460.

wreath, rather than usual laurel. ** Death of Orpheus. Wears Thracian, richly embroidered,

2° Hind cf. n.25. Gruppe 1180, 51-64. Reinach RVP I, 176, 1. Panyagua

(1967) 188, 191, 195; idem (1972) no.69. Stern (1980) 159, pe

warrior rushes to his aid as two Thracian women, one in nebris, batter him with rocks: Attic stamnos from Chiusi. Gruppe 1165, 1184 D, 1188, figs 11-12. Reinach RVP I, 3327, 1. Guthrie 64-5, iii, fig.4. Panyagua (1972)

vied

A,

fig.8.

Guthrie

64,

ii.

Panyagua

°° Apulian Underworld vases. Produced S.Italy c.340 BC

no.29.

From

ulci. *7 From Gela, Sicily. c.460-450. Attic column crater. Berlin, Museum of Antiquities no.3172. awe pl.XV, 1. Panyagua (19

e 1179, 191-2;

fig.5.

to early 3rd

century. Employed for funerary purposes. Orpheus appears in Hades amongst many figures to plead for his wife; the scene influenced by Orphico— Pythagorean cults (Panyagua 205 and n.168). Gruppe 1188. Schéeller 43-5, pls.XI, 3,4, XII, 1-4. Panyagua (1967) 204-6, fig.9; idem, (1972) nos.77— 85b.

Orpheus: add Gruppe

(1972)

long-sleeved

tunic for the first time on vases. Bare—headed. Panyagua (1972) no.43, fig.7. Schéeller 60, pl-XXII, 4, cf.plXXII 1, 2, 3.

One warrior looks on helpless, the other protects himself under tree as Orpheus killed by 5 women. Inscription ORPHEUS. Gruppe 1185 G. 3, 4. Panyagua (1972) no.27. Mounted Thracian Schéeller 56, pl-XX

no.44. Etruscan vases with Thracians and death of

c.350

BC,?° summarises the developments in the iconography thus

The scene of Orpheus’ death was not discarded all at once, but overlapped at first with that of his singing to Thracian warriors, who sometimes look on as Orpheus is killed, helpless in the face of the womens’ fury. In one instance a warrior rushes to his defence. Some vases of this type come

about to attack: Panyagua

crater from Naples

Orpheus with initiates, Munich, Guthrie 187-91, fig.16, cf. fig.17; *" Panyagua (1967) fig.9. F.Graf, (1991) 32, and fig.4. LIMC IV, s.v. Hades,

1, fig.4. Guthrie pl.6. Schéeller 51f, idem (1972) no.61. Orpheus has ivy

11

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

of the period on which the bereaved is seen bidding a tender farewell to the beloved, lost to death. Orpheus’ ultimate

funerary vases is the successful release of the soul from that realm to be transported to the astral plane.

failure is commemorated here.*° Hellenistic reliefs have ambiguous imagery, one showing a lyrist playing to young satyrs another to a Thracian and satyrs, both audiences appropriate to Orpheus. The Ince Blundell relief may show Apollo with satyrs drawn to the newly invented lyre, as in the /chneutae. A figure in the presence of a poet and what is called an ‘initiate’ is dubious. It is proposed that this last may have belonged to an

The literary version of the myth which shares this ethos came down through Hellenistic poems and the Augustan poets who drew from them, Virgil and Ovid. It depends on failure and loss as the prime material of dramatic tragedy, offering many opportunities for the expression of the pathos

beloved by Alexandrian poets.*” However, there had always been two possible outcomes to Orpheus’ rescue of his wife. It remains ambiguous whether the allusion in Alcestis was to success or not. Plato (Symp.179D) talks of the failure of Orpheus, a weakling because he was a lyre player, who had not the courage to die for love's sake, like Alcestis. But the happy ending is well attested and probably represents the

Orphic edifice or sepulchre, but the hypothesis is flimsy.*” These reliefs are difficult to place as regards iconography, and are tentatively dated, perhaps Roman copies of Hellenistic originals, possibly paintings. A fresco of Orpheus with Hercules and the Muses from Pompeii is the earliest extant mural painting, with Orpheus in Phrygian cap and the

popular perception of the myth.** Funerary art was later to

long stola of Apollo Citharoedos.** Orpheus in his role of

depict the salvationary, positive theme, Orpheus rescuing his wife from the clutches of Hades. The poems of Virgil and Ovid were themselves widely celebrated so it would seem both versions were appreciated concurrently.

teacher to Hercules was a symbol of culture. The Muses present here recall scenes in the type of Hellenistic poetry from which this painting may derive.

The episode of Orpheus and Eurydice seems to have

been a

The theme of Orpheus successfully rescuing Eurydice is seen in a number of frescos and reliefs from tombs or with a funerary connection, clustering around the end of the Republican period and opening of the Imperial era, mid first century BC to mid-—first century AD. An alto-relief from Rome shows Orpheus holding Eurydice's hand as he leads her from Hades. The same salvationary motif has eschatological connotations in the Pythagorean basilica of the Porta Maggiore, Rome. The scene of Orpheus in the Underworld asking for Eurydice’s release is pictured on a

late addition to the legend.** The relief showing a group of Orpheus, Eurydice and Hermes, perhaps an Athenian funerary stele or possibly from the altar of the twelve Gods in the Agora, is known in five copies. The original is

putatively

dated

perhaps

but

BC,**

c.420-410

is

contemporary with Alcestis which alludes to Orpheus’ rescue of his wife (357-362). Orpheus wears short Phrygian dress, Thracian fox-skin cap and high boots. Names inscribed above the figures may be later additions on the copies. Orpheus' wife was at first anonymous, then it became customary to name her — Agriope or Argiope at first, Eurydice perhaps later than the date of the original stele. Heurgon interprets the scene as illustrating the moment when Eurydice is taken back from Orpheus by Hermes. The identification of this as the moment of Orpheus’ fatal look back may be anachronistic, since this does not seem to have entered the story until the first century BC. The work seemingly belongs in the tradition of Attic memorial stelae

fresco from Ostia.*° Orpheus leading Eurydice out was the

subject first employed to express a salvationary theme (fig.44). Orpheus playing to the animals, with its visual promise of a paradise, takes over later and is sometimes

juxtaposed to it on certain late monuments.*° Orpheus in the 3© Orpheus’ wife was Argiope (or Agriope), Heurgon 13-15, as late as the

3rd C. BC, eg. in Hermesianax (ap.Athenaeus, XII, 597B). First literary mention of ‘Eurydice’ in Lament for Bion, attr. Moschus, (Moschus 11.124)

2nd C. BC. However the name EURYDIKE appears on a fragment of an prea vase of the 4th-3rd C. Panyagua (1972) no.77. Idem (1967) 213. Cf. n.31 above.

385 no.132, pl.220. Orpheus seated, Panyagua (1972) no.82, fig.14. Orpheus

?7 Pathos in Alexandrian poets: T.B.L.Webster, Hellenistic Poetry and Art,

rescues his wife, Apulian volute crater, Naples, from Armento, c.330. Gruppe 1188, 105 D, fig.13. Reinach RVP I, 455, 1. Heurgon MEFRA 49 (1932) 22-3, fig.3. Schdeller 44, pl.XII, 1, 2. Panyagua (1972) no.81, also no.77, Karlsruhe, inscription EURYDIKE, cf. no.83. This is not now thought

(1964) Ch.VII, Alexandrian Art and Alexandrian Poetry’. B.Hughes Fowler, The Hellenistic Aesthetic, (1989), Ch. VII, ‘Pathos’.

3% Hermesianax states that Orpheus successfully brought his wife back from

Hades. Herm. Leontion III = test. 61. ap.Athen. XIII. 597B. In the Lament for Bion, the poet hopes win back Bion as Orpheus did Eurydice, 122-5.

to refer to the wife of Orpheus. J.Bremmer, Orphisme et Orphée 14. LIMC I, i,

32°

(1984) s.v. Antigone n.16, I. Krauskopf.

Isocrates, Busiris II.8, 4th BC; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl.IV.25.4, 1st. BC also

Hellenistic reliefs. Ince Blundell relief, Liverpool Museum. Lyrist

.

imply a successful rescue.

paying to young satyrs in woods, divinities watch. Environs Rome? Ashmole, Catalogue of the Ancient marbles at Ince Blundell Hall (1929). Panyagua (1967) 194-5, fig.4; idem (1972) no.151. In Phrygian cap Orpheus plays to Thracian and satyr, Rome. Panyagua (1967) 195; idem,

29° Alto-relief, Rome. Orphen brings Eurydice into the light. Hands as in

lyrist in

dextrarum iunctio. See n.2. Fragment of Tarentine relief, Eurydice with Cerberus. Panyagua (1967) 217; idem (1973) no.162. Bas-relief. Mantua. Orpheus in Hades pleads for Eurydice who stands veiled. Gruppe 1198, 17-

Panyagua (1967) 190-1, fig.3; idem (1972) no.153. Henry (1992) 78-9, and

(1973) no.163 also no.164. Stucco, Orpheus leads Eurydice out of Hades.

(1972)

no.152,

fig.21. From

Sparta,

end

3rd. BC.

or

Ist AD?:

landscape with animals, presence of poet, and initiate or warrior on

51, fig.15. Eisler 15, n.2, pl. Il, fig.9. Panyagua (1967) 216-7, fig. 11; idem

pedestal.

Underground basilica Rome. 41-54 AD. pythagoricienne de la Porte Majeure (1943)

n.29. Orpheus enticing satyrs: Lucan, fragment of lost poem Orpheus: Liber monstrorum I, 6, Lucan, Astr.

= Kern, test.67. '..fauni silvicolae were among

(1967) 216-7; idem, (1973) no.161, fig.23. Mural paintings from tombs Ostia and Rome, see above n.3 and Underworld scenes: Panyagua (1973)

his listeners. Horace Ars Poetica 391-3: ‘silvestris homines..' painting, Orpheus with Hercules and Muses. Guthrie, fig.3. Wall 33 Panyagua (1967) 195-6; idem, (1972) no.185, fig.27. 60 J.Heurgon, 'Orphée et Eurydice avant Virgil’, MEFRA, xlix, (1932) 6?5

nos.184, 190 C, 191-3. Schéeller p1-XI, 3. All 1st BC—1st AD.

4° Pannonian sepulchral steles: Intercisa, Orpheus rescues Eurydice, Reinach RRGR

Likewise:

Orphisme

et Orphée

113-126,

animals

14, and n.1.

Graf,

(1987)

102,

(Ptuj): above,

231;

Orpheus

idem,

(1973) no.168.

and animals;

below,

Tomb

of

Orpheus

in

above,

lower missing. Reinach

RRGR

II, 132,

1. Schoeller 28,

pl.VIII, 1. Panyagua (1967) 231; idem (1973) no.170. Also no.171, from

esp.

Pettau (Ptuj); no.172, Lorch, fig.18, Orpheus and animals; no.173. Tunisian mausoleum of El-Amrouni, 3rd-4th C. AD. Orpheus and animals, birds;

121. Schéeller pl.XIII, 1-4, XIV, 1. Panyagua (1967) 201-4; idem, (1972) no.91, A-E. P.-L.Rinuy, RAMAGE 4 (1986) 299 and fig.3. J.Bremmer (1991)

(1967)

Hades pleads for Eurydice. Reinach RRGR II, 130, 2. Schéeller 25, pl. Vil, 1. Panyagua (1967) 231; idem (1973) no.169. Tomb, Noricum: Orpheus and

c.430-400, known in 5 Roman copies, that from Naples inscribed with the names of Orpheus, Eurydice, Hermes. Heurgon 34ff. fig.4, argues it shows Hermes taking Eurydice back to Hades after Orpheus’ fatal look back. The Classical Quarterly 46 (1952)

II, 122. Panyagua

decurion, Pettau

Relief showing Eurydice between Orpheus and Hermes. Greek original

C.M.Bowra,

J.Carcopino, La Basilique esp.331-3 + pl. Panyagua

heus and Eurydice in Hades; Hercules and Alcestis in Hades. Gruppe 1198, 51-66, 1200, 22-41. P.Berger Rev-Arch. XXVI (1895) II, 71-81.

n.5, recent

bibliography. Henry (1992) 11-15, 17. LIMCIV, I, (1988) s.v. Eurydice.

12

Themes in the Visual Depiction of Orpheus

perhaps embellished with colour. Artists of the period took pleasure in exotic features, Orpheus was dressed in long robe and Phrygian cap in Callistratus' description.** Hellenistic artists of the second to first centuries BC delighted in all manner of natural forms, in bucolic and idyllic motifs and in animal groups perhaps made for landscape settings. The Orpheus group may be placed in this milieu and dated to the second century BC.

pose of a Greek animal-slaying Victory, akin to that of Mithras, expresses the certainty of salvation after death on

third century AD Christian sarcophagi from Rome*’ (figs.7, 45, 46). In all cases he wears Thracian or Phrygian robes, and is never semi—draped in the Greek style. For the private patron a funerary relief was an appropriate location for biography, where Orpheus might act as a figure expressive both of personal salvation and affinity with Greek culture, the hallmark of the cultivated man.

A Hellenistic engraved sardonyx with Orpheus and the animals (fig.2) is likewise among the earliest instances of the image. The gem shows a nude, Greek, musician in ‘pathetique’ pose with an animal audience. The number and variety of animals distinguishes it from Apollo, although the repertory certainly borrows from like images of the god.*° An Italic cornelian showing a long—robed musician with a crow and stag is unlikely to be other than Orpheus. Stern (1980, fig.4) dates it 135-80 BC, when it would fit, but the dating cannot be certain.

It is important to consider the extent to which the visual depiction is illustrative or independent of surviving texts.

Christian writers were energetic in their proscription or championing of certain imagery, but what effect they had on the artisans and patrons of the catacombs, sarcophagi and mosaics, if any, cannot be judged. The Christian Orpheus employed in a funerary context will be discussed later. Chapters dealing with the texts will reveal a gap between the character of Orpheus in literature and philosophy and the Orpheus depicted in traditional artistic practice. My guess is that by the Roman period strong and persistent visual traditions, expressing popular notions of the figure, had an independent existence. These would provide more powerful models for the depiction of Orpheus in various contexts than could be imposed by the tracts of the apologists.

If accidents of survival have not distorted the picture, there appears to have been a fascinating hiatus in the visual record between c.300 to c.200 BC, with a dearth of extant images of any of the episodes. Concentration on Orpheus had not diminished, but took literary form. This is the period of and Alexandrian poetry, of odes and explanations elaborations of the legend, of the epic poem by Apollonios the iod per the of end the s ard Tow ca. uti ona Arg the s, dio Rho new iconographic motif, Orpheus and the animals, bursts out as if to illustrate the literary blooming in which Orpheus was a tragic—pathetic hero of Hellenistic poetry with its focus on nature. The origin of the motif must be around 200 BC when the Helicon group may be dated. The entry of the animal audience into the repertory may be coincident with an expansion of the animal industry, trade and spectacle, in the Hellenistic kingdoms, allowing greater availability of exotic

To move now to statuary, a life size votive statue from Memphis, in the Hemicycle of the Poets in the Serapaeion c.300 BC, which shows a standing, Greek musician accompanied only by two raptors, presents what may be Orpheus as a revered artist among his peers. Perhaps it relates in concept to the location of a statue of Orpheus in the sanctuary of the Muses on Mount Helicon. Formally the Memphis statue seems outside the developing iconography

of Orpheus among the animals. It is reminiscent of the ancient fresco from the throne room at Pilos, which Panyagua does not see as Orpheus,** showing a lyrist in long robe, seated on a rock and watching a large bird rise up before

in ion ict dep r thei e anc adv ld wou ty bili visi h Suc .*® beasts art. The character of the Hellenistic Orpheus was similarly expanded and descriptive of the natural world where the the human mediator between the forces of

him.

Finally Orpheus and the animals appear in a sculptural group on Mount Helicon described by both Pausanias and Callistratus. The group, made of stone and bronze, was juxtaposed with the figure of Telete: ‘Mystery’. The scene of the animal—charming was presumably well known by the time the statue was erected. From its description it seems to compare with narrative sculptural groups in so-called Hellenistic rococo style of the second century BC. The statue of Nile in the Vatican, a Roman copy of a Hellenistic original, illustrates well the love of sentimental detail of the

time.**

The depiction of the audience for Orpheus’ magical music changed. It had included the Muses and Underworld deities of the classical myth; the satyrs, Thracian warriors, Hercules,*” were all half human, half beast. The satyrs were half goat; Thracian horsemen, barbaric by nature, were equivalent to centaurs, inseparable from their mounts; Hercules was bestial man, potentially able to mount to the spiritual plane. The audience came to consist only of wild animals. Then in late antiquity came fabulous creatures which exemplified the same powerful inhuman forces first represented by the listeners of the vases.

The river god is almost submerged by putti and

animals and we may imagine the figure of Orpheus likewise in the midst of an array of elaborately detailed creatures. The Helicon group, in stone and bronze, was

ee

idem (1973) no.147, fig.19. Pilos fresco, c.

BC, P.de Jong, AJA 60, (1956) pl.41,3; Panyagua

(1967)

#5

Stern (1980)

160 and fis, dates it 163-123 BC, temp. Mithridates of

Pontus. Martin Henig (pers. comm.) dates it 150—-SOBC. In the Renaissance collection of the British Museum. Dalton, Cat. no.804, engraved sardonyx, 13 x 10.7mm.

177-81,

ae Pausanias [X, 30, 4. Callistratus stat.7 = Kern test.142. Sanctuary of the

© Cf, Jennison (1937) Introduction.

Muses, Mount Helicon. Was this the same group? Statue of Nile, Vatican,

Chiaramonti 2300: LIMC VI, 1, 720, VI, 2, 424,

+4

86) (19 Age tic enis Hell the in Art it, Poll J.J. e: styl ’ oco Roc tic enis Hell

Ch.6. The elaborate statue with its accompanying figures in stone and cy fan and s mal ani ing lud inc k, wor of type the with es par com , nze bro subjects, designated Rococo, 2nd—1st C. BC, though the celabrations may owe more to Callistratus’ descriptive style.

Schéeller pl.XI, 1. Panyagua (1967) 231, fig.20; idem (1973) no. 166. *" See n.69. Cf. pose of Mithras Tauroctonos, fig.45. heus standing with 2 large birds. c.300 42 Life size statue, Memphis. BC. Panyagua (1967) 209-10;

literary image of elaborated, highly singer was seen as Nature and man.

+7 Mural painting. See n.33.

Neilos 1.

13

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

the Civil Wars, the importance of its appearance at that time, expressing aspirations of salvation and peace. Many scholars, however, are sceptical of dating gems so closely, but if the successful rescue of Eurydice from the Underworld, current in painting and relief first century BC to first AD, also served as a metaphor for the rescue of the Roman people from the horrors of the Civil Wars into the light of the Augustan age, then some of the popularity of that image would perhaps be explained. The subject of Orpheus with animals continued to be depicted on gems into the fourth century AD, its iconography gradually evolving. In the Imperial era the conventions of the animal scene were distinct, no longer reliant on association with Apollo.

confidently identified as sculpture The earliest extant Orpheus is the peperino figure now in the Capitoline

museum, Rome, probably of first century BC date.** A nude, frontal figure sits on a rock with fragments of an animal audience, a feline at his feet, an owl on his knee, traces of the feet of another bird on its back, the ensemble contiguously carved. As it was found in a cemetery region Guthrie suggests that it was a sepulchral monument, Stern likewise considers it as such. Guthrie (13) suggests the statue was dedicated by a guild of flute players, which seems odd in view of the antique idea that the lyre was antithetical to wind instruments. Additionally, the scene of Orpheus with Eurydice seems to have been the favoured episode for funerary purposes at that time. A further speculative proposal is that the peperino figure and the fountain in Rome described by Martial were one and the same, though that is probably not the case. Martial describes a monument he knew, a public fountain to be seen near Suburra, a district in first century AD Imperial Rome. He tells how Orpheus ‘sprinkled with water droplets commands a trickling theatre of entranced savage beasts..'*° The passage is a reminder of the important relationship of Orpheus to water and watery contexts. The idea of the 'theatrum', a word already found in Ovid (Met. XI, 22) for the audience of animals, which Martial himself uses elsewhere (De Spect.21) to make just such an allusion, seems to have something to do here with the shape of the fountain, with the placing of animals, the circle of spectators. On third century AD marble fountain omaments from the east which resemble akroteria it was given physical expression by having the animals contiguously carved all around the singer in a framing device. Picard associates 'theatrum' with the frons scaenae of elaborate nymphea such as Byblos, in which the akroterion was set, a theatre of water”® (cf.Trevi, Rome). He assumes Martial's fountain to have been of this type. The contiguous carving of both the peperino group and the late antique marbles demonstrates the longevity of the design. The iconographic relationship between these sculptural groups suggests that the presentation of an Apolline Orpheus was a convention in the watery context, while funerary Orpheus appears as the Phrygian shepherd or Thracian magus.

The story of Orpheus ceased to be a subject of tragic and pastoral poetry from the mid first century AD though Orpheus retained his popularity. Varro described (36BC) a comedic presentation in a park; 120 years later Martial described a more grisly one in the arena, informing us of the widespread popularity of the figure and the nature of its perception among all levels of society.** Orpheus appears as the hero of two epic poems on the subject of the Argonautic voyage.** He was much discussed by historians, commentators and religious apologists. Depictions of Orpheus among the animals appear with increasing frequency. The focus for the early Imperial examples appears to have been Rome, connected perhaps with aristocratic circles. Orpheus was a favourite image of court art, the figure signifying the qualities of a cultivated society and the classical age, as in Horace (Ars Poetica (391). Mural paintings adorned the royal palaces. One of Orpheus and a stag came from the Domus Aurea, and Orpheus playing to Cerberus from the Villa Adriana, c.130 AD, a return to classic Underworld imagery.** Pompeian mural paintings reflect the popular imagery of Orpheus which by 69-79 AD

had assumed the familiar configuration.** Both examples

are on walls fronting gardens, a location common to some late mosaics, the well known depiction from the ‘Maison d'Orphée' opens an illusionistic vista of its own onto an idyllic park. These paintings express the perception of landscape and gardens as having mystical value, the lost

paradise.*°

An important development in Orphean iconography appears on a gold ring, which Stern dates to the first century BC, where Orpheus in Thracian robes, with animals, is turned to

Terra sigillata trays from the Domus Aurea showing Orpheus in familiar manner, may derive directly from silverware. Fourth century examples, in the form of moulds, from Germany, also appear to have taken their developed The (fig.10). originals®’ metal from compositions

three-quarter view.”’ Ultimately in late antiquity a frontal pose is assumed. Stern points out the eirenic function of the image and, believing the date of the ring to be coincident with **

>? Cf. Chapter 4.10. 53 Valerius Flaccus c.AD 80, and anonymous Argonautica, 3rd C. AD.

Peperino statue. Rome. From outside Porta Tiburtina. Guthrie 42, pl.7

showing

guild

monument

found

in

same

place.

D.Mustilli,

I1 Museo

Guthrie 27. heus and stag. Rome. Ist.C. AD. Reinach RPGR 122, 11. Orpheus o4

Mussolini (1938) 10-11, no.20, pl-XTII, 44-6. Panyagua (1967) 213;idem

(1973) no.148. Schéeller pl.V, 2. Stern CRAI (1970) 77-8, fig.2; idem, (1980) 161-2, 2nd—1st C. BC. ° Martial Epigrams X, 20, 6ff. = Kern test. 146, quoted Ch.Picard "Lacus Orphei', Revue des Etudes Latines 25 (1947) 80-85. 5° Fountain omaments from Byblos, Sabratha, Aegina, Istanbul, Aquilea. Marble. Orpheus semi-nude in Phrygian cap, surrounded by many animals carved contiguously. Squarciapino, 'Un gruppo di Orfeo tra le fiere del Museo

di

Sabratha’,

Bolletino

della

Commissione

archeologia

and Cerberus, c.130 AD. Reinach RPGR 203, 9. Panyagua (1967) 216; idem

1973) nos.188, 189. °5 Pompeian murals. Casa d'Orfeo: Gruppe romains (1943) 365 no.186, fig.28. Stern (1990)

del

152, fig.160. From another house, Casa de M.Loreius Tiburtinus:

Orpheus next to Venus on shell, hunting scene: Panyagua (1973) no.187.

Governatorio di Roma LXIX (1941) 61-79. Ch.Picard ‘Sur l'Orphée de la fontaine monumentale de Byblos’, Orientalia christiana

pens and animals, with gardens, dancing satyrs. 1177, 22-30, fig.2. Guthrie pl.1. P.Grimal, Les jardins idem, (1973) pl.III, 1. Panyagua (1967) 211-12. (1980) 163, pl.XIV, fig.21. R.Ling Roman Painting

> Grimal, Les jardins romains 353ff.

periodica XIII, 1-2

57 Terra sigillata: J.M.C.Toynbee,

84. Schéeller 26-7, (1947) 266-81, fig.2. Discussed: Picard, REL (1947) pl.VI, 2, 3, 4. Panyagua (1967) 214-6; idem, (1973) nos.179—183, figs.25, 26. Sister C.Murray, ‘Rebirth and Afterlife' BAR $100 (1981) figs.11—13. Byblos found in a nymphaeum, Istanbul later inscribed with a cross. Four more fragmentary examples. AD 275-350, probably near 300.

from

the

'Domus

Aurea’

Rome’,

‘Fragments of Italian Red-Gloss Ware Latomus

16

(1957)

18-22,

pls.II-V.

Panyagua (1973) nos.132, 133. France, Hadrianic: Panyagua (1972) no. 134.

Antonine from the Rhineland: Panyagua (1972) nos.135—139. Nos.135, 136 inscribed ORFEVM and O/RFFEV. 4th.C. elaborated plates from Trier and Cologne: Panyagua (1967) 234-6; idem, (1972) nos.140, 141: R.Forrer

*" According to Stern 1980) 162. pl-XIV, fig.16, Republican, 47-6 BC.

14

Themes in the Visual Depiction of Orpheus

circumstances commemoration of a monument may have been the least urgent reason for placing the image of Orpheus on a coin, though the Hadrianic relief, or its originating monument, may have provided the pattern. The famous scene of Orpheus charming the animals, which had its origins in the Hellenistic cultures, found special favour with the Imperial court of the late second century. The Egyptian connection and the extent to which the scene was expressive of the ideal of a Roman culture rooted in Greek origins, may already have made it attractive in Hadrianic circles. On the marble plaque and the coin copies, we see the semi—draped Greek Orpheus. It is fair to see this figure as evocative of classical culture, distinguished from the Orpheus who appeared in Phrygian or Thracian robes and evidently of barbarian origin. A Greek Orpheus appears in the peperino sculpture (1st century), the marble fountain sculptures (3rd century) and a number of mosaics. Severan coins issued from Thrace, his legendary home, show him in Thracian dress. On a coin of Caracalla issued from Philippopolis c.211, where Orpheus is depicted

intricate techniques and fine detail practiced by gold and silversmiths usually expressed an elaborated, scholarly iconography, which is the case here. The variety in the types of creatures and features of the setting seen on plates from Germany are not equalled elsewhere. In one all the figures otherwise scattered across late third to fourth century artefacts are collated. The leaping fox and griffin of British mosaics appear with the sphinx and centaur of eastern depictions.

An intriguing work whose original model has proved difficult to date is a marble relief showing an Apolline Orpheus on a rock, surrounded by animals. One side was restored in the 18th century. A number of coins and gems apparently derived from the same model help to fill the gaps caused by the inventions of the restorer. The relief itself, says Stern, is Hadrianic, perhaps of patrician ambience, but two gems which copy the scene he dates c.70-50 BC. The original therefore, he states, must have been a lost Hellenistic monument, a celebrated work created c.150—75BC, probably in Rome, giving rise to many copies. Antonine coins displaying the image are the only items with a fixed date. These are of Antoninus Pius, Lucius Verus, Marcus

Aurelius,

the

original

model

probably

c.142-3

with arm outstretched (see above and cf. Chapter Nine), the for used are e imag the of ties quali ing heal aps perh or ic eiren Severan propaganda. The image also appears on coins of

Julia Domna. Gordian III issued coins in Thrace showing Orpheus with Eurydice and Hermes, perhaps intended to carry a message of salvation dependent on the emperor.°~

AD.**

However the copies, assigned dates by Stern over a 300 year period, show remarkable visual consistency. It is perhaps more likely then that they are all of the same period. As Stern himself remarked (336), there is no trace of this iconography in painting or mosaics, which one would expect if the work was an influential public monument. In particular, the earliest Orpheus mosaic (Perugia), dated to 150 AD bears no resemblance to the relief or the coins. I am inclined to believe that the depiction on the Louvre relief originated in the second century, consonant with the classicising trends of Hadrianic art.

depicting Orpheus were minted in areas associated with his myth or with aspects of Orphean iconography. The five Antonine coins duplicating the marble relief (above) were issued in Alexandria. They would allude to the associations of Orpheus with the city, to the influential poetry on the subject of Orpheus which issued from it, to the tradition of

Orpheus dressed in long Thracian or short Phrygian robe may be presenting his religious persona. The Phrygian figure appears in the Christian catacombs of Rome. Orpheus on his , tus lix Cal of mb aco Cat the in e, ther e anc ear app st earlie c.220AD, plays to sheep. In Peter and Marcellinus I, c.300, who s ure fig n tai con all s heu Orp ng ndi rou sur nes sce al lic bib are leaders of flocks, either animal or human: Noah, Moses, mb, aco cat that m fro ge ima ond sec the In f. sel him Christ dated 325 AD, Orpheus wears richly omamented oriental robes and has the outstretched arm seen on certain mosaics: Palermo I, Miletus, Cos I, Paphos, Poljanice, Djemila, Avenches I and the coin of Caracalla. His audience is lost, only a dove and an eagle remain (fig.6). Meanwhile, in the Catacombs of Domitilla on the Via Appia (Domitilla I c.330, ceiling; Domitilla II c.360), Orpheus has the appearance familiar from mosaic and other images. He is surrounded by the crowd of wild animals common in Orphean iconography a sits m the t ngs Amo el. cam and se mou rd, liza a ing includ ram and a ewe, a mixture of fierce and timid beasts calmed by the music. Only the juxtaposition of biblical images m fro ng eri cov ket cas al met A . Joci ian ist Chr the ks mar Intercisa, Hungary, combines the standard image of Orpheus

animal parades in Ptolemaic Egypt,°° to Orpheus’ sojourn in

with

A case where iconography to be found on coins and mosaics may indeed be responding to the influence of a monument is that where Orpheus displays the notable feature of an outstretched playing arm. The statue may have been erected in Philipopolis, according to Stern. The inscribed base of a

statue of Orpheus was found north of the city.°° Coins

biblical

images

in the

same

way.

The

Chi—Rho

confirms the Christian imagery.°*

Egypt and, not least to the worship of animal deities in Egyptian religion. The philosophical and moral character of the image was appropriately expressive of Antonine sentiments. Fronto recommended Orpheus as an exemplar of Concordia to the young Marcus Aurelius.°’ In these

Egypt ... and became foremost of the Greeks in theology, cult ceremonies,

etry and music (tr. Guthrie 61). Eusebius Praep-Evang. i, 6, p.18A = test 8; ibid x, 4, p.469B = test 99a. Orpheus brought many matters of religious us in import to Greece modelled on Egyptian practice. J.B.Friedman,

the Middle Ages (1970), Ch.II 'Moses' Pupil’. On the 'Testament'’ of Diathekai. M.Cornelius Fronto, Loeb, vol.1, 71-3, letter c. 140-3 AD.

©2

Strasbourg—Argentorate (1927) I, 48-51, II, 736-8, fig.535. Panyagua ( lon no.142. V.H.Elbern, Das erste Jahrtausend, Kultur u. Kunst (1962)

Orpheus,

Coin of Caracalla early 3rd.C.: Philipopolis, Thrace. Outstretched arm,

, idem -9; 218 67) (19 ua yag Pan 16. fig. , n.28 and 58 55) (19 n Ster no animals. . mes Her ce, ydi Eur s, heu Orp AD: 4 -24 238 Pius nus dia Gor . 125 no. (1972) Guthrie 21, fig.2c. Panyagua (1967) 217; idem, (1972) no.128, also 129.

Bs HStern 'Un Relief d'Orphée au Musée du Louvre’, BSNAF (1973) 330“al, pl._XXX-XXXII, includes associated coins; 1980, 161, plL.XIIl, figs.9— 2.

Julia Domna early 3rd.C: Trajanopolis, Thrace. Orpheus and animals. Panyagua (1972) no.127. Geta, 209-12 AD Philipopolis, Thrace. Orpheus

5° Guthrie (1935) 42, n.16; Stern (1955) 58-9 and n.30; Murray, (1981) 45 and n.65. ©° Jennison (1937) ag aid 1. Poetry, eg. Apollonius Rhodios, Argonautica. ©" Orpheus in Egypt: Herodotus 2, 81. Diod.Sic. 4. 25. '..he went to live in

and animals. Guthrie 21, fig.2a.

©3 DACL XII, 2738-2740, figs.9236—9. Stern CArch XXIII (1974) 1-16, figs.1-6, with earlier bibliography. Murray, (1981) 38-40, figs 7, 9. Friedman (1970) 38-49, figs.1, 3-5. Prigent (1984) 202-221.

15

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

quality. The mosaic sequence began in the mid—second century. 85 mosaics are now known to me which are either certainly or probably Orpheus, coming from all provinces of the Roman Empire. The earliest is Italian black—and—white, of Antonine date. Orpheus soon became a subject for polychrome tesselation in the provinces, employing the pictorial conventions of that medium. Most mosaics can be dated after 200AD. Many of the iconographic features of even the earliest depictions of Orpheus are echoed in the mosaics, such as the combination of Orpheus with images of struggle. The sequence ends with the Jerusalem Orpheus of the sixth century AD. Being such a durable medium, this is the only series of images of Orpheus extant in any numbers, other than vases.

Philostratus the Younger, writing c.300 AD, gives us a description of a contemporary secular painting in the Imagines and reflects some of the tastes and attitudes to art in late antiquity. Whether he described a real painting or was involved in an oratorical exercise is not certain. K.Lehmann has demonstrated that the series of paintings described by the Elder Philostratus c. 240 AD, might have existed by reconstructing their setting in a gallery, assuming that they would have been displayed thematically. Orpheus was not

included.** The elaborated word—picture of Orpheus given by the younger Philostratus (in full, Chapter Nine), though broadly descriptive of the well known scene, includes details of dress, landscape setting and fauna not represented in the same way in visual art which remains, mosaics for the most part. Many features to be found in mosaics of Orpheus correspond with the supposed Campanian painting in a generalised way, but no mosaic exactly matches. Often quoted in relation to the mosaics, Philostratus' description is more probably evidence for the iconography of the secular painted image of the time, which has not survived. In many respects it is the literary conception of the visual image, its conventions literary, rather than visual.

Orpheus singing to the animals remained the principal scene in all media. Orpheus rescuing Eurydice, exclusively employed for sepulchral decoration up to the mid first century, was superceded by the animal—charming scene both in catacombs and on objects destined for funerary use. A number of ceramic bowls and bronze patera handles have been recovered from tombs in Cologne and Trier,®’ while some mosaics were associated with cavern tombs (Edessa,

Cherchel, Constantine). With the increasing interest in personal religion and salvationary themes, the animal scene was combined with the rescue of Eurydice, for example on the mausoleum of El Amrouni and the group of funerary stelae from Noricum and Pannonia of the fourth century AD. The image of Eurydice had a long history on funerary stelae stretching back to the Attic memorial of the fifth century BC.

Of panel paintings hanging in pinacoteka or other public venues and in private houses, which might have passed through the art markets, nothing remains. Only a few references remain to hint at more public and ephemeral painting in the popular tradition, such as appeared in amphitheatres and fora, to aggrandise triumphs, on vexillae, or inn signs, where Orpheus might have been one of the subjects.°* A possible echo of this tradition may be seen in the Mosaic of Horses from Carthage where the names of race horses are given allusively by the many mythological scenes and personages, including Orpheus, represented in a ‘shorthand’ form which must have been readable to its audience.°° While a more elaborated and recherché imagery is associated with such patrician images as remain

A purely pictorial influence of Mithraic iconography, in the manner of animal depiction and, on mosaic, in Orpheus' costume, is seen on mosaics from the Norther provinces and Severan gems.°* It is evident in a group of strigillated sarcophagi from Rome, Ostia and Sardinia where the animal

audience is much reduced and has a symbolic charge. An Orpheus in the victorious pose of Mithras Tauroctonos (fig.7), places one raised foot on the base of the cippus which holds the lyre, almost on the back of a sheep or a lion. Where Mithras goes to plunge the knife into the bull, Orpheus strikes the lyre with his plectrum. Some of these sarcophagi, apparently all originating from the same workshop, were employed for Christian interment. Examples from Rome and Ostia have accompanying scenes which designate them Christian (fig.43, 45, 46). An example from Sardinia includes the Apollonian griffin as the animal attribute, some see this as an allusion to Orpheus as the new

(fresco,

relief, silverware, gems, ivories) and more detail would be demanded of painting (Philostratus), the stereotypical model, pared to the essentials of diagnosis, would prevail outside this ambience. Orpheus, like other well known subjects, could be represented with minimum imagery, but maximum effect. Attention paid to the natural world and the increasing availability and visibility of animals could have played a part in forming the populist depiction. Mosaics tend to the stereotypical representation, with a few refined versions. Interest in the image of Orpheus grew from the mid—second century. After AD 200 depictions proliferated. The famous animal—charming scene, originating in Hellenistic cultures, found favour and gradually assumed predominance in the Empire. It is the only scene on mosaics, which provide most examples, though these are rarely of the highest artistic ©4

Christ/Apollo.°? Later than these and displaying an eastern repertory, are the group of marble fountain omaments already mentioned, provisionally dated c.275-350 (see n.50), which may be a ua yag Pan gne: Colo s, tomb from les, hand ra pate and s ique appl nze Bro ©? (1972) nos.114—117. * Stern (1980) 161. Fig.14, Sardonyx, Severan. Nude Orpheus, frontal

Philostratus the Elder, Imagines. Philostratus the Younger. Imagines.

Loeb ed. Amphion: Philost. Eld. I, 10. Orpheus: Philost. Jun. 6. J.J.Pollit, The Art of Rome (1966) 1983 ed., 219, n.46, 224 on ekphrasis. K.Lehmann "The apes of the Elder Philostratus', The Art Bulletin XXIII, 23, (1941) 16-

pose, nine animals around, anticlockwise: snake, dog jumping up, lion, fox, cockerel, bird, hare, eagle and scorpion. Fig.15. Cornelian, Severan. Nude

Orpheus, flying birds, dog jumping up at his feet.

“> P H.von Blankenhagen, "Narration in Hellenistic and Roman Art’, AJA 61 (1957) 78-83,

elephant—drawn

chariot.

Metal

casket

decoration,

National Museum, Inv. no.64.1903.19-24, 67.126.1.

©©

©" Sarcophagi c.275—300AD: Stern CArch XXIII (1974) 1-16, figs.7-11,

esp. 82. Shop sign Via Abbondanza, Pompeii: Venus with

J.W.Salamonson,

Carthage, (1965).

La Mosaique aux Chevaux

Intercisa:

with earlier bibliography. Murray,

Hungarian

(1981) 40-1, figs.3—-6. Prigent (1984)

202-221. Sardinia: G Pesce, Sarcofagi romani di Sarde:

de |'Antiquarium de

no.57, figs.113,

114; Toynbee ARLA

290. Panyagua (1973) nos.176 (=

Stern fig.11), 177, 178 — may not be Christian.

16

1957, 102, 103,

Themes in the Visual Depiction of Orpheus

possible that though Orpheus was a popular figure of literature and religion at every level, his visual depiction really did relate to the elite. That thought will be helpful in elucidating the meaning of the image. We are told that Alexander Severus kept an image of Orpheus in his /ararium. What material would it have been? Was it there as the object of devotion, or to remind the Emperor of certain moral

group clustering together somewhere early in that period, so close in kind are they. They are descendents of the same sculptural tradition of which the Hellenistic statue from the Capitoline Museum is an early example. An Apolline Orpheus wears sandles, a mantle over his knees and a Phrygian bonnet. A number of animals are carved all around him and beneath his feet (figs.8, 9). The origin of the marbles was probably Asia Minor. The school of Aphrodisias has

qualities?’*

been proposed’®, but perhaps the sculptors of Ephesus, the Mosaics, numerous in the first quarter of the fourth century are found in large rich villas, more often than not at this period decorating public rooms giving access to gardens, evoking a classical, ‘Golden Age’ ambience. Figures and scenes accompanying Orpheus in late antiquity suggest a renewed interest in classical sources. Satyrs, maenads, centaurs, members of the Bacchic train appear, recalling the earliest Attic vases. Two ivory pyxides show Pan, satyrs and centaurs beside Orpheus, with hunting scenes on the reverse’* (figs.11-16). One was destined for central France, now in the Bargello, Florence and the other for the monastery at Bobbio, North Italy, but they are considered to be of eastern workmanship. On a casket from Hungary, Orpheus is juxtaposed with Seasons and bacchic vintagers (fig.99) and, on a ceremonial bucket from Caesaria, with conscious classicism, Orpheus is shown three times: with Thracians,

point of manufacture for a large number of sarcophagi, were

involved. The work bears more resemblance to their somewhat stylised manner and little to the lucidity of the Aphrodisian marbles as we now know them.

Mosaics from this area show Orpheus in long Greek or Thracian robes. Apollo wore the Phrygian bonnet on sarcophagi, but his griffin attribute and related figures,

Muses

and

Marsyas,

distinguish

him.’"

Squarciopino

suggests that these marbles were candelabra, while Picard connects them with nymphaea, where the example from Byblos was found. Given the established connection of Orpheus with watery contexts in literature, in statuary, and bome out in the iconography of many mosaics (Chapter convincing. more seems theory Picard's Eleven) Squarciopino places them in a religious context, one example now in Istanbul having been consecrated with a scratched cross. I would argue against a nude, Greek Orpheus having a had _ religious clearly Orpheus function. sacerdotal connotations in some circumstances, but wherever this is evident he wears Thracian or Phrygian robes. The extent to which he was seen as having more a numinous than a decorative function by later owners of the marble is attested by their inscribing the cross. That later event would not mitigate against the object having originally served a decorative purpose.

with Eurydice and with animals.”* Coptic orbiculi of the fourth to sixth centuries show members of the Bacchic cortege, exotic beasts and fantastic creatures, such as the sphinx, incorporated into the traditional repertory, a feature of the fourth century German ceramic. ’© As far as I am aware, Orpheus has not been found as a subject of the large woven textiles, of which a number depicting Bacchic scenes have been recovered, but only on the small medallions. These were sewn on to garments, or , life ing dur ect eff c pai tro apo an e hav to ed end int s hap per during the afterlife, for they have been preserved in Egyptian and Syrian tombs. I am inclined to believe in their use during the lifetime of the wearer on the analogy of textiles with apotropaic images wom by Christians, although of course Orpheus was intimately connected with funerary rites in

In late antiquity depictions of Orpheus appear in such rich materials as ivories, gems, metal relief and textiles, suggesting it had been taken up by the aristocracy and into the fine court style, though perhaps this is just an accident of survival, leaving depictions commissioned by people wealthy enough to pay for durable art works. There is little evidence in the visual record at any time to express the eminent place he held in the ordinary world, in popular culture, witnessed in the texts. There are one or two small

North

providing

possibility

an

interesting

motif.

decorative

Mosaics

s soul ed sacr ery '..v 2. X, XXI s eru Sev der xan Ale a, ust Aug oria Hist 73 a of rs othe and s, heu Orp m, aha Abr st, Chri ... s niu llo Apo e wer m who ng amo

terracottas of deities survive in great numbers, for example those of Venus from London. But Orpheus was never the object of worship. He was the agent of religious practice, not the focus of it. He was the repository of knowledge about the afterlife. As such he might be invoked. His commemoration was in the poems and hymns he supposedly wrote. It is just

similar character..'

74 Pyxides: Bargello, Florence: M.L.Brehier, Ivoires chrétiens de la région de Brioude (1939) 10. Bobbio: DACL XII, 2751, no.15, fig.9247. Eisler, 14. Guthrie 264, pl.15. W.F.Volbach Early Christian Art, (1961) pl.84; idem

(1976) 70, no.91, pl.50, no.92, pl.51 Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spatantike (Bargello). Murray (1981), 148, n.8, fig.8. Gough, The Origins of Christian Art (1973) 107—8, suggests Syrian provenance. Ovadiah (1981) 164.

4th to

Sth century AD. 75 Bronze relief on wooden casket, Hungary c.400AD: Orpheus with Bacchic figures and male Seasons: Budapest, Hungarian National Museum, Oaks inv. 31.1885.34. G.Hanfmann, The Season Sarcophagus in

7° Squarciapino, (1941) 66-8, re Sabratha. 7" LIMC II, 1 and 2, Apollo. II, 1, 276, II, 2, 246-7, Apollon nos.745—-49:

II, no.362. Bronze bucket, Caesaria, 4th—Sth.C.:

Greek vases, Apollo with hind. II, 1, 346 C, II, 2, 291-93, Aplu nos.65—80:

Orpheus pleads for Eurydice Panyagua (1972) no.113.

Apollo and swan, esp. no.80, bronze mirror, Louvre Br.1731, Campania 3rd

BC - Apollo with swan, hind, crow and Muse? Euterpe (called Artemis, but carrying flutes). II, 1, 416, II, 2, 329-331, Apollo nos.373—-400: sarcophagi, Apollo and Muses, esp. 378, Brit.Mus.2306, Apollo and griffin, Muses. II, 1, 427, II, 2, 339-41, Apollo nos.462a—477: sarcophagi, Apollo, griffin and

in Hades;

Orpheus

heus, Eurydice, Hermes;

sings, Thracian listens.

7 “ Coptic textiles: 1: J.Szygowski (below n.78) fig.17 with refs. 2: H.Dalton Cat. of Byzantine Art and Architecture (1911) 579, fig.363. c.400—

450AD. With sphinx. V&A

Museum,

no.1290—1888.

3: H.Pierce, R.Tyler

L'Art Byzantine II, (1932-4) 120-2, pl.159a, with giraffe. 4 A.V.Bank, M.A.Bissanova, Cat.: The Art of Byzantium in Collections of the USSR, I (1977) no.341, ill. p.173; 5: ibid no.342 + pl. Murray (1981), 148, n.8 — another in Ontario? 1, 5: Orpheus sits on lion—footed throne with footstool.

a Figurines: Athens, Orpheus and animals, c.250AD. Panyagua (1967)

219, idem (1973) nos.154a, b, fig.22. Sousse, standing Orpheus holds pedum

and pleco, ie. Underworld figure, probably (1967) 217-8; idem (1973) no.149. fig.20.

The

records.””

as Augustine

remains that these were seen simply as mythological subjects

terracotta figurines from earlier times,’ while everyday

72

Africa,

from lararium. Panyagua

77 Apotropaic images: Grabar (1969) 99. Augustine, Civ.Dei XVII, 14.

17

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

ambiguous like many late depictions such as the Jerusalem mosaic. A gold ring from Scutari showing Orpheus with a snake around a tree, bears an enigmatic inscription, ‘Seal of John, the sainted crown’. The strangest item is the amulet (fig.19), now lost, showing a crucified figure beneath seven stars and a crescent moon. The inscription reads: ORPHEOS BAKKIKOS. Often cited, this object may have been a seventeenth or eighteenth century fake. The iconography bears no relation to any other antique image of Orpheus, and does not seem to derive from any known convention.** Items worn close to the person such as finger rings had obvious protective qualities as well as proclaiming personal beliefs.

themselves provide a useful record of the use of orbiculi as decorative embellishment, particularly those of Sicily and North Africa, where they are shown on the clothes of aristocratic huntsmen and dominus. Orpheus himself wears robes decorated with orbiculi in later mosaics.

On one of the few surviving examples an Apolline Orpheus, in tiara, is surrounded by animals including exotic subjects, such as appear in eastern church and synagogue mosaics, like the giraffe and centaur. Stryzgowski notes, referring to the Jerusalem mosaic, that the centaur was typical of late, eastern artefacts, Syrian and especially Antiochene.’* The animal imagery of the marble fountain omaments similarly includes the exotics. Late antique art may have derived from or shared much imagery disseminated through the textile

Many items come from funerary contexts, distorting the picture, since much secular evidence has been lost: painting, textiles, frescos, bronzes, tapestries, and so forth, but it seems that Orpheus was always deemed suitable both for values Contemporary funerary and secular purposes. influenced the choice of episode expressing eschatological aspirations. In late antiquity this was the animal scene, but the animal audience dwindled as Orpheus the musician came to exemplify the spirituality of the period. The myth of Orpheus pointed not only to salvation and a blessed afterlife, but to a fruitful and a felicitous life on earth. Many artefacts were located where the image could bestow its fortuitous properties: on rings interred with the defunct, on food dishes, wine jars with their reference to Bacchus, on terracotta statuettes, on thresholds (Brading). This suggests that simple, pleasurable decoration, was only one of several reasons for choosing the subject of Orpheus.

trade.”? Similarly fragile objects which survive are rolls and codices. Miniatures in the famous codex the Vergilianus Vaticanus,

c.400 AD®° illustrate scenes from the Georgics, Eurydice's death by snakebite and the fatal look back. From the Aeneid comes Orpheus in the Elysian Fields. At this date these texts had assumed the prestige of holy books, in pagan aristocratic society the equivalent of a ‘bible’. The emperor Julian proscribed their teaching by Christians, whom he considered had abused Greek culture and blasphemed the gods by

calling on these texts to sustain their arguments.*" Gems (fig.17) which have been recovered from centres along the routes of communication between Eastern and Western

empires (Scutari, Belgrade, Aquilea)** share certain motifs, *

for example the snake-in-tree, with late mosaics from eastern provinces and with the London Bacchus from the

temple

of Mithras,**

of the third century.

The

KKK

KKK

Over the long period from the sixth century BC to the sixth AD different episodes of the myth came to the fore as the focus of attention. The animal charming scene developed last, becoming the one which crystallised all aspects of the myth. During this time, although the imagery evolved, some aspects remained constant while others recurred in changed guise. These traditional patterns underlie the iconography of Orpheus with the animals. The negative character of earlier depictions, showing the death of Orpheus, was replaced by a which emphasised the salvationary positive imagery message of the myth, the fortuitous and fruitful properties of Orpheus. However, scenes of struggle and violence were frequently placed nearby. The evolving iconography records developments in the perception of Orpheus’ character, shifts of emphasis which reflect his place within Graeco-Roman society. The mosaic series is next in importance to the Greek vases as visual evidence for the developing concepts of Orpheus, taking the story on until the pagan figure was subsumed by Christianity.

same

motif is found on the pyxides (figs.11-16) of the fourth to fifth century. One gem from Belgrade shows a sheep and a centaur, symbolically a representation of opposing forces. The centaur is the wild uncontrollable force of nature, the sheep is the human soul, the flock, in a harmony effected by the presence of Orpheus. Such oppositions might be capable of a Christian or a pagan interpretation, J.Strzygowski, 'Das neugefundene Orpheus—mosaik in Jerusalem’, Zeitschrift des deutsches Palaestina—Verein XXIV (1901) 139-165, on 78

centaur and orbiculi, 147-9, fig.17. Murray (1981), 148-9, n.8. Nos.1,2,3,5

(above n.75) have centaur and Pan. ° Comparisons between textiles and mosaics. D.E.Johnston, Mosaic, 14 (1987) 12 and pls.2 and 4, cf. Mercury in the border of the Venus mosaic at Rudston, derived from tapestry. Strzygowski, above, 152, fig.21, compares design of long vertical sides of Pettau (Ptuj) stele, n.34, with length of Coptic decorative weaving, fig.22. Cf. footstool of 1,5, above n.75, with mosaic El

Orpheus. Pesquero. Cf. design of orbiculi with Brading *° Codex: Vergilianus Vaticanus. cod. F) Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat.Lat. 3225. c.420AD. Death of Eurydice, Virgil Georgics IV, 475-8, ill.8; Orpheus in Avernus, 471-503, ill.9; Orpheus playing cithara in Elysium, Aeneid VI, 635-59, ill.36. J.de Wit Die Miniaturen des Vergilianus Vaticanus (1959). Panyagua (1973) no.256 A-C. M.Henig ‘Late Antique Book Illustration and the Gallic Prefecture’ in De Rebus Bellicis, BAR S63

The iconography of a single medium cannot be examined in isolation, so many cross currents affected the development of imagery, and, with so much information lost, it is only

(1979), 17-28. ' P. Brown The World of Late Antiquity (1971) 93. *2 Belgrade: Stern (1980) 163, fig.17; Aquilea: 3 gems, ibid, 162, fig.19 a,b,c. Berlin: 3 gems perhaps same provenance, ibid, 162, 18a,b,c. *3 London Bacchus, J.M.C.Toynbee, The Roman Art Treasures from the

Temple of Mithras (1986) 39-42, no.15, pl.XII. Balkan manufacture c.250AD. Marble fountain ornaments, above n.50, 275—300AD. Mosaics, Chabha,

Seleucia,

Ptolemais,

Tobruk

—- Orpheus. Adam

— Huarte,

Syria:

P.Canivet CArch, 24 (1975) fig.3. Rings: British Museum, Smith, Cat. of Gems in the British Museum

1371-4,

*4 ORPHEOS BAKKIKOS, seal—cylinder: DACL XII, 2753, no.22, fig. 9249. Eisler, 338-9, fig.121. Friedman, (1970) 59, fig.8. According to Martin Henig in a personal communication, probably an 18th century fake.

158-9, 104; H.B.Walters, Cat. 3129.

Stern (1980) 162; ibid, fig.17, Belgrade. Scutari: DACL XII, 2753-4, no.23, fig.9250. Stem CArch, XXIII (1974) 16. Pyxides: above n.73. Reciprocal influence along routes of communication.

18

Themes in the Visual Depiction of Orpheus

possible to understand the individual story from the stand point of the wider perspective. The mosaic image reflects the development of the whole.

—=00000=-—

19

Alexandria, brought together in epic form most of the material then available to the ancients concerning the legend of Orpheus. The musician's attraction of the fish is likened to the benign power of the shepherd over his flock, an image persisting in the popular imagination to late antiquity:

Chapter Three

The Scene of Orpheus and the Animals in Greek and Roman Literature

'.and the fishes came darting through the deep sea, great mixed with small and followed gambolling along the watery paths. And as when in the track of sheep countless their master, shepherd the follow...so the fishes followed...’ (Ap.Rh. Arg. I, 569ff.)

It appears that in the visual arts, only one scene from the life and career of Orpheus was in vogue at any time. It was as if at each period the imagination of society was exercised by one aspect of the legend that held a particular meaning for it. In this exploration of literature the animal charming scene is isolated to pick up any correspondence with its portrayal in art. The study does not encompass all texts, his name was a byword for musical excellence and the calming of natural forces, so was called upon by many authors. In literature the power of the singer's entrancing music is one of the first things we are told. The scene enjoyed many elaborations, from a simple tale of the spell—binder of animals to an allegory where the cosmogonic song could alter the hearts of men and effect cultural changes. Most descriptions in poetry come from the late Hellenistic era, when emphasisis was upon the communion of the poet with Nature, of which the animals were but one form, and from the poets of the Augustan ‘Silver Age’. These form the literary background to the picture of Orpheus in the art of the later Roman Empire.

Trees followed Orpheus (I, 28) and fish, but animals were the preserve of the wild Mistress of Beasts, Rhea, Phrygian

Artemis. They became docile once she was propitiated (1, 1138-1152). Orpheus was not yet pictured with animals. Three examples from the Greek Anthology* use imagery by perfected ‘pathetic’ form in the another way, The BC. third century of the poets Alexandrian concentration, as on Attic vases, is on the tragic death of the singer and the cessation of his power. From Damagetos, the epitaph written for...

‘Orpheus.. whom the trees disobeyed not and the lifeless rock followed and the herds of forest beasts...who charmed with his lyre even the heavy sense of the implacable Lord of Hell and his

In the fifth century BC in Agamemnon the croaking of the Chorus was compared to the rapturous voice of Orpheus which ‘drew all things by its sweetness’ (Aesch. Ag. 1629ff.). It must have been a commonly known tale. The earliest literary allusion to Orpheus’ powers over the animal kingdom is a verse of the lyric poet Simonides of Chios, about 500 BC. A member of the crew of the Argo with Jason and the Heroes searching for the Golden Fleece, his music works as a charm on the fish which follow the sound of his lyre like sheep. The effect is accidental, his musical powers are reserved for other purposes, but the love of fishes for music is a fact still known to fishermen. When Orpheus sang aboard ship, overhead '...hovered birds innumerable, and the fishes leapt clean from the blue water because of his music...'." The beautiful image contains the first intimation of the power of the song to put nature at peace with itself. Normally the birds

unyielding wrath.'* And from Antipater of Sidon the following beautiful poem: 'No more, Orpheus shalt thou lead the charmed oaks and rocks and the shepherdless herds of wild beasts. No more shalt thou will to sleep the howling winds and the hail, and the drifting snow, and the roaring sea. For dead thou art; and the daughters of Mnemosyne bewail thee much, and before all thy mother Calliope. Why sigh we for our dead sons, when not even the gods have power to protect their

children from death?"” Echoing the sentiments of the last piece, an anonymous epitaph tells how the Muses and the same Thracian women who killed Orpheus, mourned for his death:

would eat the fish, but here they mingle in the air.” Few works of art survive depicting him in a marine setting. For the most part his characteristic qualities are terrestrial, though he was frequently associated in art with aquatic imagery, marine scenes playing an important part in the iconography of mosaics. Once he is juxtaposed with Jason, Medea and the Golden Fleece (Trinquetaille). Although Ovid in the first century BC, chose to drop the adventure, stories of the Argonauts remained popular. Doubtless the vernacular tradition played its part. The expedition appears as a literary subject in a first century AD version, where Orpheus sings the story of Phrixus and Helle to the sailors before they embark (Val.Flac. I, 276-293) and in the third to fourth, in the anonymous Orphic Argonautica. The Argonautika of Apollonios Rhodios, written in mid-third century BC

'The very Muses of Pieria...burst into tears mourning for the singer, and the rocks moaned, and the trees that erst he charmed with his lovely lyre’.°

Poems such as these and, doubtless, others now lost, form the basis for a tradition which conceived the singing Orpheus as allegorising the mystical communion with nature enjoyed by the Poet and his audience through the medium of poetry itself.

> The Greek Anthology, ed. and trans. W.R.Paton, Loeb (1919). *

Damagetos,

AnthPal.

VII,

9

=

Kem,

test.126.

Translation,

Greek

Anthology.

2 Antipater of Sidon, Anth-Pal. VII, 7,8. Kern, test.127. Translation, Greek

' Simonides fr.40 = Kern, test 47. Victory Songs 51 in Lyra Graeca’, ed. and trans. J.M.Edmonds, Loeb (1952).

Anth ology.

* E.Schwarz, Aspects of Orpheus in Classical Literature and Mythology.

©

Anonymous.

Anthology.

Dissertation, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1984), 71.

20

Anth.Pal.

VII

10

= Kem,

test.

128.

Translation,

Greek

Orpheus and the Animals in Literature

So suddenly and completely are the various episodes drawn together into a complete and continuous poetic narrative, in a form which was to become definitive, as if from nowhere, that a ‘lost poem' of late Hellenistic date has been posited as a model for this work by a number of scholars, though this

By Virgil's time, late first century BC, the story of Orpheus and Eurydice, the descent to the Underworld and the piteous tragedy of her second loss had become the focus of attention for poets. The episode may have been commemorated on the Attic relief of the fifth century BC and seems to have appeared on Apulian vases of c.330 BC, though Eurydice had not yet been named. Virgil inserts the episode into the fourth book of the Georgics, on bee—keeping. The Orpheus story (IV, 281-558) resides within that of Aristaeus' recovery of his bee-swarm. Aristaeus, the son of Apollo and a nymph, was a protector of shepherds, olives and vines, who taught farmers agricultural skills. The Georgics is an ostensibly didactic poem on the subject of farming, but the farmer is seen to stand for Man in general and Orpheus is shown as a type of the creative man who nevertheless fails in his endeavour. The opposition of Aristaeus and Orpheus presents the complex relations between ‘man's power over nature and nature's power over man'.” In Hellenistic poetic convention the story is subjective and full of pathos, differentiated from the style of the containing poetic episode. The animal—charming is not the principal scene of this narrative, but is used metaphorically to bring out the emotive qualities at that point, to heighten the tragic tone and move the story onwards. We see Orpheus after his second, devastating loss of Eurydice, weeping alone at the foot of a great mountain, in the cold, starry night; he...

has been doubted.'* The various episodes of the fable which

Virgil brought together may well have been known already as a continuous narrative in the vernacular traditions of storytellers. In the Virgilian tale, following immediately on the katabasis, the loss of | Eurydice, and Orpheus’ death, comes an image of abundance, with Aristaeus' bees restored by miraculous generation from the bodies of the animals he sacrificed to propitiate Orpheus, life springing from death. This is the end of the poem. This association of Orpheus with harvest follows into late antiquity and is manifest in the iconography of the mosaics in particular. The poetic image of Orpheus appears in the Odes of Horace, Virgil's contemporary: ',,..upon cool Haemus' or Pindus' summit (whence a forest mazedly followed Orpheus singing, who by his mother's art held back the flowing of streams and rushing winds; whose eloquent songs and lyre drew away the spell—bound oaks)...’ (Odes I, 12, 5f.)'*

',..sang his tale of woe, entrancing tigers And drawing oak-trees; as the nightingale Mourning beneath the shade of a poplar—tree Laments lost young ones.....She Weeps all night long and....... Fills all the air with grief.’ (11s.510-514)

Horace points to the mother of Orpheus, Calliope, Muse of and h ric his for rce sou the as , try poe c epi and nce que elo it rly ila Sim . llo Apo cal ssi cla the n tha her rat s gift ul powerf was she rather than the god who appeared in Antipater's poem. This Orpheus is the epitome of poetry, invoked as we and d, war for e tim this m fro ans ici mus and ts poe by h suc are made to see that eternal pair, the Poet and his Muse.

The song he sings now is no longer cosmological, but personal. More species are named here than in earlier works. Jupiter's tree, the oak, the most immovable, belongs to the ancient Orphean tradition. The poplar has its own pertaining to Hercules and the multiple symbolism Underworld.* Details of landscape and surroundings enter the account. Animals are represented by the one considered the fiercest, the tiger, and birds by the nightingale, a bird of

Ovid brings a different tone to his rendition of the story in the Metamorphoses, one dependent for its impact upon his

audience's aquaintance with the earlier Virgilian narrative. '*

Ovid's long poem seems profoundly to have influenced the subsequent vision of the myths he recounted, it was so one the as s heu Orp of ion vis his see to not d har is It r. popula lying behind the pictorial concepts of the mosaics, his account is so pictural. There are echoes of Hellenistic poetry and s heu Orp of ing nit reu the as ies elt nov h suc as l wel as Eurydice in Elysium and an evocation of the arena. Ovid presents the myth inserted into his seamless text at two points separated by the interpolation of other stories (Met. X, 1-100, XI, 1-66. c.l-8 AD). Most of the previously

sadness and lament associated with Orpheus' own death.°

The empathetic feeling for the natural world pervading all of Virgil's poem is true of much late Hellenistic and Augustan art where silverware, fresco, reliefs and mosaics are covered with a display of beautifully observed and exquisitely executed natural detail of animals, plants and landscape." 7

ics, translation, notes and preface, L.P.Wilkinson The Georgics of

Virgil, (1969). Idem, (1982) 11. Argues meaning of story and its placing, 40-2. C.Segal, ‘Orpheus and the Fourth Georgic: Vergil on Nature and

'' Wilamowitz 'Der Glaube der Hellenen’, 244, n.2; Gruppe: Roscher Lex.

Civilization’, American Journal of Philology 87 (1966) 307-25. cf. M.Detienne 'The Myth of Honeyed Orpheus’ in R.L. Gordon ed. Myth, Religion and Society (1981) 95-109, a structuralist approach. Note

3. 1159; C.M.Bowra, ‘Orpheus and Eurydice’, Classical Quarterly 46, (1952)

113-126, reconstructs what he considers to have been the Greek story used

heus' music. Poplar: a tree of

by Virgil and Ovid; J.Heurgon, 'Orphée et Eurydice avant Virgile' MEFRA XLIX, 1932, discusses the two variants of the ending, a happy outcome known from earliest times, 27-34. Also: Bowra, 119 with reference to

Encyclopaedia of Traditional Symbols. (1978). Hades, J Oe X, 30, 4, records the legend that nightingales at Orpheus’ own ° Pausanias,

‘allusive manner’, sometimes taken as evidence of Alexandrian sources, may well be a literary device offering no proof that there was anything to which

association of Orpheus with the invention of agriculture in Themistius, Orat.

30, 349b. Mid—4thC. AD.

* Ap.Rh. I, 28, the oaks of Zone moved to

life, of waters; a crown of poplar was wom by Hercules on

Alcestis 357-62. Contra: Wilkinson (1969) 117, who points out that Virgil's

his descent to

ave sang sweetest of all. In fact, only the male bird sings. © Silver: Boscoreale cups (Louvre); fresco: garden scene, Villa Livia (Roman Nat. Mus.); relief: Ara Pacis Rome, Farnesina House, stucco, Museo

to

allude.

F.Graf,

‘Orpheus:

A

Poet

among

Men’

in

J.Bremmer,

ed.

Interpretations of Greek Mythology (1987) 80-105.

12 Horace, Odes I, 12, Sf. Trans. W.G.Shepherd. Penguin (1983). '3 CSegal, ‘Ovid's Orpheus and Augustan Ideology' TAPA, 103 (1972)

Nazionale, Rome; birds in nest, marble relief, Vatican, Lateran Mus. cf. Zliten, mosaic of volutes; asaroton mosaic floor (Hellenistic orig.), Lateran.

473-494; W.S.Anderson ‘The Orpheus of Virgil and Ovid’ in J.Warden ed,

Orpheus: The Metamorphosis of a Myth (1982) 25-50.

All first century BC.

21

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

followed his songs, all wept for Orpheus. The trees shed their leaves and, with bared heads, mourned his loss. Men say that the rivers, too, were swollen with their own tears’ (XI, 44-66)."”

recorded episodes are related, save the Argo's voyage. The story begins at the point of Orpheus’ marriage to Eurydice. After the fruitless venture to Avernus to regain the life of his beloved wife, Orpheus is described playing the lyre on the top of a sun—drenched hill. As the divinely born poet strikes up a melody all manner of trees and shrubs move in around to shade him, constructing the type of pastoral idyll envisioned in Hellenistic poetry, and depicted in Campanian sacral—idyllic landscapes, a scene evoking pleasure, health

This lovely, sad image is not the one depicted by Roman artists who preferred the earlier scene with the gathering of birds and beasts in the magical glade, the trees leaning in to shade Orpheus bending to listen to the song, which Martial and later Philostratus repeat; the rock on which he sits is a notable iconographic feature recorded in Polygnotus' painting and seen on vases.’* Virgil saw Orpheus singing lone and still, beneath a crag by the river in the cold night-time, far in feeling from the verdant grove of Ovid, who, perhaps, was elaborating on performances in the theatre or arena, with their painted scenery. A multitude of naturalistic garden paintings from Pompeii show the popularity of such themes at the time. All manner of trees and flowers can be identified in their rich plantings. The picture from the Casa di Orfeo perhaps represents the image of the singer Ovid knew. Works such as these may have been in his mind as starting points for

and fecundity.** With botanical exactitude, Ovid enumerates the precise varieties which are brought to the hill top. from the mightiest trees to shrubs, herbaceous plants, vines and the lowliest creeper, a veritable plantsman's catalogue (Met. X, 86-105). There is a reflection here of the Roman love of the garden, while the desire for extended detail is evident in Roman visual art of the period. A taste for idealised nature reflected in poetry, as expressed for example in the elegies of Propertius and equally in the visual arts, was an element

of Roman

sensibility.'*

Ovid uses

the word

nemus

to

his poetic treatment."

describe the trees, a planted or consecrated grove, a sacred enclosure. It fills with wild creatures and birds spellbound by the music. These gathered animals are called a concilium, a

The singer is surrounded by an audience in number markedly increased over any previous depiction, countless birds and a

council (X, 143-4). This is the very image that we see in so many later visual depictions. Here also is an echo of the Alexandrian poets and the pathetic fallacy, for the trees are not commanded to move by magical incantations, but are '‘moved' by pity for his sad loss, which he has expressed in the sheer musicality of the sound, by the metaphorical magic of music, to care enough to shade him. Later Nature joins in the sorrow and mourning.’® Ovid interposes several stories, the subjects of Orpheus' songs, before relating the manner of his death at the hands of the Thracian women (XI. 1-43). They in their frenzy turn first upon his audience:

throng of wild inventoried the

animals, but they are not named. Ovid plant world, his poetry steeped in the

Hellenistic love of nature, while visual artists were starting to represent a new variety of fauna. Animals were flooding into the markets of Rome to satisfy the appetite for

to s lve mse the d cte tri res ger lon no ers mak e tur Pic . cle cta spe representative species — a fierce feline, a timid doe — but depicted an entire menagerie. Ovid pictures Orpheus closely in ant ort imp a ide an l, nci cou or ce, ien aud his by d surrounde relation to the composition of mosaic pictures. We see there all h wit , ity ill nqu tra and ess lln sti t fec per of nt that mome nature held in thrall by the song, just before the Thracian women burst in upon the scene to wreak havoc and death. Scenes shown in association with Orpheus similarly illuminate the contrast between joyous life and violent death integral to Ovid's narration. (Cf. Chapter Eleven, Pendent scenes.)

‘the first victims were the countless birds ... the snakes and the throng of wild animals, the audience

which had brought Orpheus such renown.’ The ensuing carnage is likened to a bloodthirsty morning in the arena ‘matutina ... harena' (XI, 26). Orpheus is the human victim among the animal dead. In marked contrast to the careful description of vegetation the animal audience is generalised, mere arena—fodder. The delight taken at once in nature and in the vicarious pleasure of brutal bloodletting, is the same as that exhibited on African mosaics. After he died:

Seneca's Hercules tragedies were written c.50AD. His and g lin fee in r ila sim is ry sto s heu Orp the of treatment d. Ovi and gil Vir , ace Hor of se tho by d nce lue inf ly bab pro Seneca combines the animal—charming with the Underworld at ... art e "Th . ger sin the d ise ter rac cha ch whi nts eve , ure advent whose sound the beasts had stopped to listen, soothes

‘the grief—stricken birds, the host of wild creatures, the flinty rocks and the woods that had so often

the Underworld with unaccustomed strains'.*° Orpheus had

powers over all forces which ruled human lives on earth as h wit ger sin ine div the y ead Alr d. orl erw Und the in as well human frailties, with whom poets could identify, was es cul Her om Fr . ers pow s les end h wit us mag the to ng yieldi Oetaeus comes the following passage, perhaps the latest is y ger ima ar ili fam the ne; sce the of ent atm tre poetic

'* The idyllic grove: cf. T.B.L.Webster, Hellenistic Art (1966), 64-67, pastoral landscape, the Symposion tent of Ptolemy II at Alexandria. Sacral— idyllic paintings, Grimal Les jardins romains (1935), R.Ling, 'Studius and the Beginnings of Roman Landscape Painting’, JRS 67 (1977) 1-16. S.Silberberg—Peirce ‘Politics and Private Imagery: The Sacral—Idyllic

Landscapes in Augustan Art’, Art History 3/3 (1980), 241-51. 'S DJoly, ‘A propos de mosaique: quelques réfléxions de poétes’, Mosaique:..hommages H.Stern (1982) 231-37. ‘© The term ‘Pathetic fallacy’ was coined by John Ruskin in the 19th century to describe the correspondence supposed to exist between the feelings of men and the actions of Nature, exemplified in art of that period. The concept perfectly fits the mood of Hellenistic art when it is concerned to depict Nature. Apparently it was an invention of Hellenistic times. Bowra (loc.cit. 117) points out the world of difference between ‘nature ... stirred to ecstatic movement by a god’ and this ‘spontaneous demonstration of grief by

"7 Cf. Alexandrian epitaphs supra; Virgil. '®

Martial De spect. 21; Philost. Jun. Imagin. 6, 10-15; Paus. X, 30, 6;

Gruppe figs. 5, 6, 7. '2 Orpheus fresco, Pompeii VI 14, 20, Casa di Orfeo, Stern (1980) fig.21;

, fig.1 ins, roma ins jard Les al, Grim 160; fig. 1) (199 ting Pain an Rom ng R.Li

ardens passim. 2© Seneca, Herc.furiosus 572 = test 55. Tr. F.J.Miller, Loeb, (1917).

mountains, trees, rivers ... animals’.

22

Orpheus and the Animals in Literature

the disposition and appearance of the animals as they were actually portrayed in art. But then come the birds, which are quotations drawn from Pindar and Hesiod. At the end of the passage we see the wolves and lambs of literary convention who rarely appear in depictions of Orpheus, never together. Is he looking at a real picture at all? (Cf. Chapter Ten, where the description of Orpheus,too, is ambiguously related to the extant visual depiction.)

considerably embroidered: "True sang the bard beneath the heights of Thracian Rhodope, fitting the words to his Pierian lyre, Orpheus, Calliope's blessed son, that naught for endless life is made. At his sweet strains the rushing torrent's roar was stilled, and, forgetful of their eager flight, the waters ceased their flow; and because the rivers stayed to hear, the far Bistonians thought their Hebrus had failed ... The woods came with their birds to him, perched among the trees they came, or, if in the high air soaring, some wandering bird caught the sound of the charming song, his drooping wings sank earthward. Athos broke off his crags, bringing the Centaurs as he came and next to Rhodope he stood, his snows melted by the music; the Dryad, leaving her oaken haunts, sped to the singer's side. To hear your song, with their very lairs the wild beasts came and close to the fearless herds the Marmaric lion crouched; does felt no fear of wolves and the serpent fled her gloomy den, her venom at last forgot.’ (Seneca, Herc. oet. 1036ff. trans. F.J.Millar).

A late poetic treatment, from c. 400 AD, that of Claudian, gives us an elaborate word picture filled with natural details, of the wind dropping, the weather calming, rivers slowing and mountains moving to hear the singer, as the train of pines, oaks, poplars and laurels streams towards him. The animals, including the traditional wolf and lamb, are pictured as pairs of traditional antagonists peacefully frolicking together: 'The hare submitted fearlessly to the caresses of the Molossian hound. Does sported in amity with the striped tiger, and Massylian stags had no fear of the lion's mane’.*' It reiterates the form first used in the Metamorphoses of Ovid and variously treated by, for example Seneca, but the animals, as in Philostratus' work, relate closely to the visual depiction, the author obviously influenced by the commonly depicted scene. Genre pairings belonging to the hunt, common in animal scenes in art, appeared in the depiction of

Seneca goes on to describe events in the Underworld in the same elaborated manner. The picture of lions near fearless herds harks back to one of the oldest and most abiding Golden Age traditions. However, such a pastoral scene is not pictured on the mosaics. Orpheus is not shown with obedient herds, but single animals, usually the male of the species, a choice determined by characteristic behaviours which make them elusive to the hunter, ferocious to capture. Literary and pictorial conventions are not the same. The creative blooming of written and visual depictions of Orpheus were not, for the most part, coincident.

Orpheus

The

text of Philostratus

the Younger

AD)

the

third

late

century.**

Here

they

are

described as at peace, in art they continued their fight.

The unfinished Argonautica by Valerius Flaccus, was written later in the first century AD. It follows Apollonius, but leaves the picture of Orpheus thin, he appears as a musician and religious leader. When he sings on board ‘the seals delight

(c.300

from

in

the

(V,

chant’

Odrysian

439)

an

unusual

combination of the animal tradition with a marine context. The anonymous Orphic Argonautika, perhaps of the late second to third century AD (its extant version is of the fourth century), in which Orpheus speaks in the first person, is a mystical narrative in epic metre. Orpheus relates how his honeyed song charmed beasts, birds and reptiles as he sang to Apollo in Thrace (OA. 72-4). The reptiles, so frequently depicted with Orpheus in art after the mid third century, have entered the literary picture. Most attention is paid to his religious and magical powers, reflecting his current appeal.

differs

somewhat in that it is not a poetic treatment of the myth, but apparently the description of a picture in a gallery. Precise details of flora and fauna are given: "..a lion and a boar nearby Orpheus are listening to him, and also a deer and a hare who do not leap away from the lion's onrush, and all the wild creatures to whom the lion is a terror in the chase now herd with him, both they and he unconcemed. And pray do not fail to note carefully the birds also, not merely the sweet singers whose music is wont to fill the groves, but also note, please, the "chattering daw", the "cawing crow", and the eagle of Zeus. The eagle, poised aloft on both his wings, gazes intently at Orpheus and pays no heed to the hare nearby, while the animals, keeping their jaws closed — both wolves yonder and the lambs are mingled together — are wholly under the spell of the enchanter, as though dazed.’ (Philost. Jun. /magines 6, trans. A.Fairbanks.)

*

KK

KK

KK

Once, Apollo had soothed startled animals, quelled the ferocity of carnivores and commanded the unbiddable deer to dance. He lent his talent for divine music to Orpheus. The essence of Orphean power was its influence over the wildest heart, in literature portrayed as a contrast of natural with entranced behaviour, as if cruel or intractable beasts had 2" Claudian, The Abduction M.Platnauer, Loeb, (1972).

of

Proserpina,

Book

II,

17-21.

Trans.

22 Mosaics: Cagliari; Horkstow, hare and hounds; Newton St.Loe, lion and

All the traditional elements of the scene are there, including animal foes at peace. At first we can recognise something of

doe; Orbe; Thina, Sakiet, mongoose and cobra; Withington. Lion savaging deer on marble sculpture groups from Athens and Sabratha, Panyagua (1973) nos.180, 181, figs. 25, 26.

23

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

In late antiquity the literary Orpheus lost much of his human quality, to be followed by a turn back to the figure associated with ritual, purification and prophylaxis, one who had continued to live in the popular imagination and _ the vernacular tradition. In the late antique epic poem, Orpheus controls the elements and is involved in spirit—invoking rituals, employing magical formulae from the sorcerer's repertoire (OA. 941-1015).

become sheep. Orpheus drew animals, plants, objects, men, out of their natural element, controlling and subduing natural instincts. Fish were drawn from water, birds caused to halt in their flight, beasts were drawn from their mountain lairs, trees uprooted, rocks and even whole mountains were moved. The English pun allows the dual sense of physical movement and the emotional movement of the senses and the soul brought about by music. The apparition of the musician god had given protection and fertility to the lands of the saintly Admetus. The image of Orpheus came to be similarly invoked, to the same end.

The ability to calm the participants of a quarrel, first exercised by Orpheus as an Argonaut, was perceived in its wider sense as the capability of music to transmute the atavistic passions of man, the ferocity of beasts and the powers of natural forces. The amelioration of such instincts in savage and warlike men, taking them to a higher plane of conduct, was thought to have led directly to the formation of civilization. On mid-—fifth century BC Attic vases Orpheus was shown singing to barbarians, characteristically the Thracians of his native land, to soothe their savage breasts, about the same time as his Thracian connection first enters

A development in the imagery can be traced in the texts. Orpheus the animal charmer who allegorises man's relationship with Nature is first glimpsed at a distance, flitting through mountain groves, a stream of animals and trees in his train, as befits the wandering musician of early popular myth. Later the image becomes stilled, we find him seated in a grove surrounded by a congregation of wild beasts. The Hellenistic poets of the third and second centuries BC elaborated the tale, introducing details of landscape, wind—blown trees, rocks, rushing rivers, creating an atmospheric setting. Their delight in depicting nature, their landscape peopled with mythical and elemental beings, found eloquent expression in the tragic story of Orpheus, so full of pathos. The poet at the centre of the forces of Nature accorded with their love of such dramatic scenarios and a newfound empathy with the natural world.

the literary record.7° This image of Orpheus the peace—

maker and civilising force was integral to the figure's import in Graeco-Roman society, one which persisted to late antiquity. Only later the animals of the poetic account entered the visual record, supplanting savage Thracians and perceived as metaphors for the savage or uneducated instincts of such men and of humankind in general. The animal—charming scene symbolised the proper action of the superior man to effect harmony in society.

In the late second century BC Orpheus among the animals

appeared certainly in art for the first time.** The Latin

Writers gradually shifted in their beliefs, at first accepting the historical truth of the legend, later moving to a position more and more removed from and increasingly sceptical ty ani hum the As ic. mus the of s tie per pro l ica mag the ut abo of the figure came to the fore, his artistry, spell—binding in its own way, with which poets were bound to identify, was emphasised. Wizardry was then held to be an unnecessary concomitant to this highest achievement of the human intellect and emotions. The ancient and continually popular legends crediting Orpheus with supra-natural powers required an explanation in a later climate of increasing scientific exploration of natural phenomena, to which end various theories were advanced to account for the fable. It was considered that Orpheus' superlative art gave rise to the lful skil a h suc was he y: stor ng rmi cha mal ani t uen seq sub artist that men came to believe that his music had the power to draw animals and birds to him. Without denying the one time existence of Orpheus, it was said that the taming and civilizing of beast—like early men had been allegorized into the story of animal taming. The historical validity of the fable of animal charming no longer applied, but such were its poetic, philosophic and symbolic qualities that it continued to flourish. The power of the divinely inspired, human Orpheus over Nature, the gods and the hearts of men was crystallised in the one telling scene. Orpheus was seen as a patron of culture and creator of civilization, founder of religious ritual, l. frai y anl hum st, arti ing fer suf ic, ant rom the of e tom epi the

poets, heirs to the Hellenistic discovery of nature, introduced an almost scientific specificity to the romantic account, anachronistically naming the fiercest beasts as tigers, not imported from India till it stood at the edge of their Empire, ‘you have the power to draw tigers and the woods in your train and stay the rushing brooks’ said Horace (Odes III, 11, 12). Once the lynx, still native to Greece, had filled that place.** To the oak trees of folklore ((Ap.Rh. I, 28) were added poplars, laurels and garden plants, reflecting the popularity of garden themes in decorative art.

The potential of Orpheus’ humanity began to be exploited towards the end of the third century BC. when Orpheus aquired a wife.*° The story of her loss was the most eloquent vehicle of his human qualities. Virgil expressed the profound tragedy of Orpheus’ human frailty through his depiction of Nature, whose elements are seen as metaphors for the feelings evoked by the moving story. For the first time he sings a human song, of loss, rather than of the cosmos. Virgil's treatment marks the highpoint of poetic interpretation of the myth. After the Silver Age poets, Orpheus' powers were extolled in works which repeated the poetic formulae of earlier times, evoking the ambience of a Golden Age.

23 Statue in the sanctuary of the Muses on Mount Helicon, a bronze and marble group of Orpheus surrounded by animals with Telete, Pausanias IX, 30.4. Callistr. 7. Kern test 142. Sardonyx, c.150—50 BC, Stern (1980) fig.6, nude singer, ‘pathetique' pose, cf. Orpheus of Perugia mosaic. *4 Eurip.Alc. 570ff. Bronze mirror, Stern (1980) fig.2.

—=00000== Eurip.Ale. 967. c.438 BC.

=5 Bowra, CQ, 46, (1952) 122.

24

Chapter Four

PO KMNAMAWN SD

. Singer, Musician — a. The Song; b. Lyre Music. . Chthonian figure. . Telestai, Prophet. Magus. Poet, Patron of Culture.

Orpheus in the Antique Imagination Orpheus is an archetype upon which a society's expressions of ‘culture’ can be projected, mirroring its image of itself as a civilized state, according to its needs at any epoch. He now personifies creativity, his deeds embody the creative process.’ This chapter introduces the conceptions held in Graeco-Roman culture of the figure of Orpheus, literary, philosophic and religious. The perception of this figure drawn from textual sources I call the ‘image’, its significance in imagination. Certain characteristics originated with the earliest existence of Orpheus, others accreted as the myth evolved. The first record in classical Greek literature presumably postdated vernacular traditions. As is true of any powerful archetype, the image of Orpheus does not appear to have had a fixed or limited meaning, but generated a number of coexistant concepts, emblematic of the variety of ideas held by different groups within society. The potency of this multidimensional image allowed for all perceptions to be equally valued and valid. Everyone who saw a picture of Orpheus would have some notion already in mind, while the character and context of the object might colour the meaning.

Guardian of Nature.

—

Protector. Weakling. . Orpheus and Philosophy.

The Popular Image.

1. The Singer and Musician. The foremost designation of Orpheus is as a musician and poet. Every story reflects his unique musical gifts, every power ascribed to him depends on his exquisitely beautiful and melodious music. It produced calm and noble aspirations in its hearers because it was harmonious and formally perfect. The earliest visual and literary depictions display and extol Orpheus’ prowess in the art. This he learnt or inherited, from Apollo. One of the earliest references, c.460 BC, calls him ‘the father of melodious song’ (Pindar, Pyth.IV. 176), in the first century BC he was ‘the most famous and foremost musician and poet’ (Diod.Sic. 4.25). In the fourth century AD Eusebius talks of Orpheus striking the strings with 'master—hand’, presenting a musician of virtuoso he ve, deri only d coul it nt pote so was c musi se who , skill thought, from a divine source, though now Christian (In Praise of Constantine 14).

It is worth reiterating the interpretation of the image made by Henri Stern, taken as a guide to the meaning of Orpheus by many subsequent writers, especially on mosaics. As he saw it the image of Orpheus with the animals in Graeco-Roman art always kept its first significance, springing from the Greek myths: the concretising of the power of Apollonian

Orpheus sang to the Argonauts to entertain them, and to give r. (Eu a har cit an aci Thr his h wit s oar ir the for t bea the Hypsipyle fr.I = test.78). So powerful was the charm of this rt ave , ena nom phe l ura nat nd rma nte cou ld cou it nd sou ine div a storm, calm the sea (Philost. Eld. II, 15, 3) and call up the winds (Val.Flac. 4, 422), he could outplay the Sirens (Ap.Rh. 4, 891-921; OA 1270-91) and quell the rage of the human protagonists of an argument. The effect of order and tranquillity which proceeded from the music reconciled the ty, ivi uls imp and e enc ati imp ir the ing ish ban , nts ipa partic making them meek as lambs. (Ap.Rh. I, 492-515).

music, the music of the spheres, over beings without reason, animals and barbarians, even inanimate objects. Certain Greek and Roman authors had seen in him a symbol of the light of Graeco-Roman civilization, prefiguring the Christian interpretation of the myth. As a musician he was the representative ‘par excellence’ of the superior qualities of the art, created an ideal, peaceful world around himself. This is a valid observation, but the statement was written some time ago. In subsequent papers Stern acknowledged different functions for the visual image of Orpheus according to its

presentation and context.*

His musicianship drew all nature animate and inanimate, changing its character so that uncontrollable powers were calmed and rendered harmless in a manner unattainable by d. cte ffe una e wer n me wo an aci Thr the y Onl . man on mm co the They came upon him as he was singing. He tried to defend himself physically with his lyre, as depicted on Attic vases, at ch whi s, pon wea ir the t lec def to ic mus his ng usi and by of e tur pic The . 25) X, t. (Me s ate rel d Ovi as , ked wor t, firs Orpheus singing came to be invested with the same power to avert the harmful barbs thrown at humans by jealous divinities. Just as in myth, his music affected natural phenomena, so might the icon work in the real world.*

The multivalent figure was capable of meaning all things to all men, so that at the apogee of the Roman Empire Orpheus was called upon to embody ideas from the sublime to the banal. The testimony of antique commentators on beliefs about Orpheus prove the image not to have been a fixed entity. In antiquity not only was Orpheus the figure of classical myth, but he represented all the store of poetry and literature written about the legendary personality, which reinterpreted and added to its substance, as well as everything ascribed to his authorship. The principal concepts may be summed up under the headings:

, der mur s’ heu Orp on ed uss foc t firs at es vas the of Artists then his singing. The audience, Thracians, savage opponents of Greek civilization, satyrs, wild forest dwellers of

' W.A.Strauss, Descent and Return: The Orphic Theme in Moder Literature

(1971), Intro., 1-19. J. Warden, ed. Orpheus: The metamorphosis of a Myth, (1 982). E.Henry Orpheus with his Lute, 1992.

‘La mosaique d'Orphée de Blanzy—les—Fismes’, Gallia = HStem, XII1(1955), 41-77; idem ‘Orphée dans l'art paleo—chrétien’. CArch. XXIII, (1974) 1-16; idem, "Les débuts de l'iconographie d'Orphée charmant les Mélanges ... Jean Lafaurie, (MEFRA) (1980), 157-164, pl. XIIsera

cf. ; culi orbi tic Cop s; ring er fing ; aic mos d shol thre g din Bra on s heu Orp * Medusa in mosaic: an image with a prophylactic function. Cf. J.Thirion

MEFRA 67, (1955).

23

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

are cited by earlier writers. The hymns praise various gods, calling upon them to appear to the worshippers.”

Dionysus’ cortege, all came under the sway of the music. Orpheus in the act of singing represented Apollonian reason overpowering dark, Dionysian irrationality.

The severed head sang oracles which were written down and proved to be healing charms (Eur. Alc. 965ff.), echoing the

The various effects of music upon its listeners was discussed by the Greek philosophers. They were aware of the calming, healing effect of music as a medicine, effective in the real world. The biblical story of David and Saul (I Sam. 16:33) is an example mirroring an ancient belief in the association of mental health with harmony. Plato frequently referred to a ‘harmony in the soul’ which could be realised by familiarisation with harmonious music. Aristotle knew that ‘the soul is a harmony, or that it has harmony.’ He distinguished a further effect on some persons of ‘a calming and restorative effect ... a release of emotion accompanied by pleasure’. He also considered music to be a useful educational tool, leading to character development in the young, since ‘virtue has to do with feeling delight and love and hate rightly.’ All could be correctly roused by music, for ‘music has the power of producing a certain effect on the moral character of the soul’. Since it had an intellectual structure, it allowed emotional impulses of every kind, evoked by its expressive powers, to be trained to accept the

belief in the healing powers of music. Virgil makes Orpheus sing of his own woes once he loses Eurydice, but this human loss has the same universal quality that the cosmogonic song

once had. Ovid has him sing several of the metamorphic tales concerning the mythical adventures of the gods and heroes, where all is flux and change. b. Lyre music

The lyre had profound cultural significance, a cosmic symbol equivalent to the song. The sound of the ancient seven— stringed lyre, queen of instruments, was thought of as the terrestrial echo of the harmony of the heavenly spheres.® The beautiful coincidence of musical intervals and harmonics, the musical scale, with a mathematical progression which could be rendered precisely on the rigidly tuned strings of the lyre, made music the most highly valued art form of the Greeks (Plato Tim. 35b-36b; Rep. VII 530c-531c). It was thought to reflect the pattems of order of the world, which philosophers greatly desired to exist and eagerly sought.” Lyre music, with its Pythagorean mystical number system, represented an antithesis to Dionysiac frenzy. The tradition of a musical the of ic ‘mus the res, sphe y etar plan the by med for e scal spheres’, was ancient. That it equated with the strings of the lyre and that the soul might ascend to heaven by way of the scale was a concept invented in Pythagorean circles of the Hellenistic period. The harmonious music of this cosmic instrument could influence the natural order to bring all into

desired subordinate position (Politics VIII, 5, 1340b).* Thus the most accomplished and harmonious music, which Orpheus played, was understood to be capable of effecting profound cultural change. Music held an important place in

Roman society, with the virtuoso qualities of the musician highly esteemed.

a. The Song. The substance of this wonderful song, according to Apollonius Rhodios, c.250 BC, was a cosmogony, ‘the gods and their relationships and the origin of all things’.

harmony.* The use of lyre music to help the ascending soul is apparently alluded to by Cicero in the Somnium Scipionis, (1st C. AD) where Africanus, after explaining the music of the spheres says:

"He sang how the earth the heaven and the sea, once mingled together in one form, after deadly strife were separated from each other; and how the stars and the moon and the paths of the sun ever keep their fixed place in the sky; and how the mountains rose and how the resounding rivers with their nymphs came into being and all creeping things' (I, 494).

ed ing str on y mon har this ing tat imi by , men ed arn ‘le instruments and in song have gained for themselves a return to this region [heaven].."

Macrobius, in his Commentary on

the Somnium Scipionis (Sth C. AD) said:

"every soul in this world is allured by musical sounds...for the soul carries with it into the body a memory of the music which it knew in the sky and is so captivated by its charm that there is no breast so

This song had the power of ordering, of forming the rational from the chaotic, the incidental effect of which was the pacification of Nature and men. The oaks of Zone, in Apollonius’ tale, are left, not haphazardly, but in serried ranks on the shore (Ap.Rh. I, 28). For Orpheus to sing of the creation of the universe, the conception and birth of the gods, was in itself a magical act. The song was an embodiment of culture. Orpheus the singer was a ‘theologos', his singing was a religious event with numinous power. The ‘sacred words' ascribed to Orpheus, poems and theogonies are cosmological of his supposedly in content. Hymns, or mystical

cruel or savage as not to be gripped by the spell of such an appeal. This I believe was the origin of the

stories of Orpheus and Amphion...'’®

; -61 257 35) (19 e hri Gut ns: Hym 3). (198 ms. Poe hic Orp The t Wes ML. >

Linforth, 179-89; Henry, 5. © E.Cumont, Recherches sur le symbolism funeraire des romains, (1942),

composition, were used in cultic rites, one collection from

17-18.

7 J.Onians, Art and Thought in the Hellenistic Age (1979), 67-8.

the Imperial period survives. The language of all these extant compositions, intense and obscure, indicates a late antique

* The Pythagorean writer Panaceas: West, 31, n.94.

.

° Cicero, Somnium Scipionis in C.W.Keyes, ed. and tr. De re publica, Loeb

(1959) 6. 18, cited J.B.Friedman, Orpheus in the Middle Ages (1970), 80,

date, but they perhaps echo older, lost works, some of which

and n.77.

'©

“Macrobius In somn. Scip. IV, 7-8.

W.H.Stahl, (1952), 195.

* Henry, chapter III, 44-6.

26

Fourth century AD. Trans.

Orpheus in the Antique Imagination attached to his musical dialogue with the beasts. Another reason for their attraction to the ethereal sounds might be that animals were considered in some circles to have been transmigrated souls.

Lyra is the name of a lost poem ascribed to Orpheus, possibly of neo—Pythagorean origin. A scholium on Virgil reads: ‘But some say that Orpheus’ lyre had seven strings corresponding to the seven circles of heaven. Varro says there was an Orphic book about summoning the soul, called Lyra. It is said that souls need the cithara in order to ascend.

The lyre connects Orpheus with Apollo. The belief that it was more civilised than wind instruments was crystallised in the contest between Apollo and the flute—playing Marsyas. Pan, too was defeated by the god. Only the lyrist can both sing and play at the same time, expressing Greek respect for

articulate speech and the beauty of the human face."* The

It has been suggested that the context implies that the book concerned the conjuring of souls of the dead by lyre music

distinction between lyre and flute is that characteristic opposition of Apollonian stringed instruments and Dionysian wind and percussion. On mosaics the heavy concert cithara is just as frequently depicted as the lyre.

which was so applied to save Eurydice.'" The lyre, effective in raising Orpheus from the world of the dead to the world of the living, could take the dead soul to the heavens. It became a Christian symbol.

2. The Chthonian Figure. Orpheus personified the morally sound musician. Part of his claim to repectability in the eyes of Christians rested upon the acceptability of pagan lyre music. Clement of Alexandria

Apollo, with whom Orpheus was associated by the lyric art, possibly his father, was a solar divinity. Dionysus, whose mysteries and initiation rites Orpheus was said to have reformed, was a god worshipped annually as ‘Chthonic

(150-215 AD) said the instrument for the Christian was the lyre (Paedagogus III, xi) and that he should avoid the flute and pipe, instruments of idolators,appealing to animals and

the irrational part of man (II. iv). A pagan voice

Dionysus’, also ‘Pan and ... even Plouton’, who stirred nature

from beneath (Orphic Hymns 53). The Underworld was the conquered realm of Orpheus: he was enabled to enter and

belongs to

the musical theorist Aristides Quintilianus (4th C. AD), who explained that:

‘instruments made

retum by virtue of his art, unlike those heroes who made the journey by strength and warrior skills. He alone was able to

soften the hearts of the Hadean gods. All his knowledge of sacred rites, of mysteries and the attainment of immortality,

of tuned strings are somewhat

similar to the ethereal, dry and simple part of the cosmos and to the soul itself.’

he learned on his journey through the Underworld. He could

aid the defunct there, both by their uttering the formulae he had revealed to them in the teletae and by his presence in that realm, when he could guide the soul of the dead person

The lyre was an enemy of the lower realms of earth and water, where humidity would cause the strings to lose their tension, just as material concerns would weigh the soul and impede its journey to the One.’ Strings supposedly had power over the rational part of the soul, while wind instruments, the martial trumpet or lascivious flute, were characterised by their power over the irascible, concupiscient passions which held the soul to earth. Many antique sources testify to the celestial qualities of lyre music and its primacy

through its dangers.'® He is seen by Aeneas residing in the

Elysian fields among other dead souls. So familiar is his presence there that Virgil does not explicitly name ‘the long— robed Thracian priest’ (VI 645). The belief that Orpheus was able to raise the dead by singing and playing the lyre, was given narrative and pictorial form in the myth of the descent

with a successful outcome,’” the picture of Eurydice led

back to life being placed on tombstones. Although there is no certain etymology for the name Orpheus, one suggestion is back and ord erw Oth the to ng neyi jour His .’* one’ dark ‘the again through ritual music and chant reveals the shamanistic origin of the figure.

as the desired music in the afterlife.'* The sensibility of animals to music, especially the higher frequencies of wind instruments was well known. Whistling

summoned fish or dogs.’* Both the shepherd piping to his flock and trained animals responding to the pipe are depicted on late, eastern mosaics. When, in Varro's anecdote, the mock—Orpheus, carrying a cithara, called the wild herds of deer, he actually used a hom. In terms of everyday experience, Orpheus’ ability to lure animals with lyre music put his powers onto a higher plane than those of animal trainers. Only divine art could change their nature so that their response was no longer on the bestial level, something beyond the skills of ordinary mortals, though some would aspire to such heights. Moreover something semi—magical

3. Prophet and Telestae

Orpheus had the gift for prophecy, receiving inspiration from Apollo (Plato, Phaedrus 265B). The myth tells how his dismembered head survived his cruel death and gave oracles. In this capacity he is represented in art before he is shown in the act of singing. Vases where Apollo gestures towards the oracular head of Orpheus on Lesbos (fig.5) have been '> Onians, 66.

'" First published: J.J.Savage TAPA,

Review 41, (1927), 170. Trans. and commentary: West, 30, n.84, Classical 85. 29-33, Lyra. '2 Aristides, De Musica 11, 18, cited Friedman, 81, and n.79.

'?

On the moral

superiority of strings over wind, Friedman,

sources. More antique sources: Cumont (1942) 294ff. '+ J.Aymard, Essai sur les chasses romaines (1951),

335-7;

(1977)

71, no.53.

Invocations:

the

Hymns:

Museum F

270, later 4th C., West. 25, pl.3. Orpheus and the defunct at

ORPHNOS

=

Orphic

56, (1925). Interpreted: A.D.Nock,

A.N.Athanassakis

'© Orphic

Leaves

Gold

see

below.

Vase:

Apulian

calyx

British

crater,

boundary of Hades. '? Cf. Chapter 3. Add: Guthrie 31; the suggestion of a successful descent made in Eur. Alc. 357, confirmed by Hermesianax = test.61. '® Etymology, perhaps: ‘the dark one’ from the Greek root ORPH in Greek

88, with

especially

‘obscure’.

S.Reinach,

Cultes,

Mythes,

ORPHOS: an underworld deity in Thracian mythology.

sensitive: elephants, dolphins, horses, 336 n.3.

27

Religions

II,

122.

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic interpreted either as Apollo overseeing and approving Orpheus’ oracle or forbidding the oracle. The second implies ‘rivalry which is evidence of very closely related functions’ or signifies incompatibility between two oracular techniques,

show him antiquity, Guthrie's particular,

in agreement with the Christian apologists of late that Orpheus was the forerunner of Christ. account now seems distinctly biased towards a Christian viewpoint.

Pythian and shamanic.'® The gifts of poet and seer were Despite frequent references, from Herodotus in the fifth century BC (II, 75ff.) to Neoplatonist writers of the third

near allies in the classical world, the Latin word vates covers both. Ovid says ‘vatis Apollinei', Martial ‘supra vatem' (Met. XI, 8; de Spect. 21).

century

telling

AD,7?

of explicit

Orphic

beliefs

and

practices, nowhere do we find anything to help us to know exactly what the writers understood by the term ‘Orphic’. What we learn of the Orphic life, beliefs and rites is sometimes coloured by derogatory overtones, sometimes merely hearsay. We do not know what the members of the groups so designated understood as ‘Orphic’ nor how they behaved. None of these references help distinguish how ‘Orphic' rites differed from other kinds of religious practices

Orpheus as founder of Mysteries played a leading role in

Graeco-Roman culture.*° The cults of both Dionysus and Apollo involved initiations and ‘ecstasy’. By virtue of the katabasis (descent) Orpheus was imbued with a knowledge of the afterworld and survival beyond death which he could pass on to other men in the form of salvationary mysteries. The statue on Mount Helicon of Orpheus with Telete, Mystery, illustrates the close association of the animal— charming singer with ritual. He was said to have instituted cult rites and formulated the rules of the art of Greek mysteries, teletae, and orgia, which recur in a great many texts. These for the most part are connected with Dionysus, but there is considerable variety in the kinds of Dionysiac

offering a hope of personal immortality.7* So complex a

web of meaning, so indistinctly seen at this distance might lead one to agree with Linforth that 'Orphic’ was simply a term for any kind of personal faith or discipline which offered immortality. He declared, in perhaps too rigorously exclusive a fashion, that there was no such thing as

rites with which he is associated.’ He is also supposed to

Orphism,7~ that the assumption made by Guthrie and others

have demonstrated the torch-light processions of the mysteries to the Athenians (Eur. Rhes 962-73), presumably the Eleusinian mysteries, the greatest and oldest in the antique world.

of the widespread existence of an Orphic religion with its body of followers, with Orpheus as its high priest, was erroneous, not substantiated by any evidence nor borne out by close reading of the texts. "The things associated with ... Orpheus are so miscellaneous and so disparate that we cannot recognise a comprehensive and unified institution ... They form not a unity, but an aggregation’ (291).

The specific forms of the rituals, initiations and ritual formulae which were ascribed to Orpheus, were known to the ancients as ‘Orphic' or 'the Orphica'. These are now generally held to have consisted first of a Theogony, the creation of the gods and all matter from Chaos; a body of literature, poems, the including hymns, metaphysical and esoteric formation of an acceptable liturgy from the excesses of the myth and ancient mysteries of Dionysus, the establishment of regular practices and principles; purificatory rituals. The practitioners were known as Orphici, and Orpheotelestae. There is no evidence for a cult of Orpheus himself. All discussion of Orphic groups is hedged about with difficulties. The supplicants of the Orphic Hymns speak of themselves as ‘mystai', initiates. The Hymns are dedicated to several gods and were found in a temple of Demeter, which takes us back to the Eleusinian mysteries.

Other scholars have doubted the validity of an exclusive, esoteric cult, questioning the definition of Orphic and Orphism, by—passing the intricacies of what West calls ‘the

of the supposed Orphic religion’ (1).*°

pseudo—problem

However, while many scholars have devoted their energies to resolving the question, the terms ‘Orphic', ‘Orphics' and ‘Orphism' defy easy definition and remain shadowy.”° Only two sects have been identified which might be called Orphic (West, 3), one from Olbia on the Black sea (near Odessa) in the fifth century BC. Another from Tarentum, S.Italy, in the second half of the fourth century BC, might well have included the users of Apulian Underworld vases. These appear to be the only works of art which can be associated with a sect. What the term ‘Orphic' meant in, for

Guthrie was of the opinion that the Orphics were a very distinct group ‘a small band of religious devotees with what was to most Greeks ... an unusual and original message to deliver’. This, he considered, was ‘a gospel for which the age was not yet ready' (238). Of the supplicants of the Orphic Hymns he says ‘the society was Dionysiac and Orpheus was

example, Sicily or the provinces of Britain in the fourth century AD remains unknown.

Whatever was orthodox in the performance of mysteries was

its saint’ (259), although elsewhere he is called an Apolline missionary. He thought Orpheus was a historical personality

22 Kem, test 173-209.

*3 Henry, 67-73.

24 A D.Nock, Classical Weekly XXXV, no.14, Feb 1942, 161-3.

and that the sect maintained its exclusivity by the transmission of doctrines deriving from this historical founder. The tone of his argument, all the words he uses,

25 E.R.Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (1951) 147ff. West, 1-3. Eliade, 185, distinguished a movement at once initiatory and popular, in which sacred texts played a large part.

2° On

Orphism:

A.Boulanger,

Orphée:

de l'orphisme et du

christianisme (1925) esp.17-67; M.P.Nilsson, ‘Early Orphism and Kindred Religious Movements’, HarThR. 28, (1935) 181-231; A.J.Festugiere ‘Les '°

Apollo approving:

Mysteres de Dionysus’ Rev.bibl., 44, (1935) 372ff; idem, REG 49 (1936) 306-310; W.K.Guthrie, Orpheus and Greek Religion (1935); I.M.Linforth,

Graf, 94; rivalry: Guthrie, 42; incompatibility:

M.Eliade, A History of Religious Ideas, II,

(1982) 183, n.11.

The Arts of Orpheus (1941) H.Jeanmaire, Dionysus, histoire du culte de ie classique Bacchus (1951); L.Moulinier, Orphée et I'Orphisme a I'é

*° Kern test.90-105, Eliade 182ff. Diod.Sic. 3.65. Orpheus reformed the rites of Dionysus. Setting up of images, incantations, hymns and chants, Eusebius: Linforth, 243. Mystes of Dionysus, Guthrie, 41, 253.

(1955); M.Eliade, A History of Religious Ideas II, (1982) 180-202 and 482ff for critical bibliography. M.L. West, The Orphic Poems (1983).

=" Variety of rites: Linforth 264-7.

28

Orpheus in the Antique Imagination Plato denigrated the effect on society of a cult in which a type of vulgar wandering spell—monger or evangelist, as he called practitioners private them, characterised Orpheotelestai, performed initiations and rites in Orpheus’ name, open to all, which procured remission of sins and happiness after death. Books by Orpheus were in some way authoritative in these rites (Rep. 364b—365a). Strabo in the first century BC (7.330. fr.18 = test.40) calls Orpheus himself a peddler of initiation rites, a magician and soothsayer. He envisages a historical personage with followers who bear some relation to those decried by Plato. Here the line between a peripatetic ‘religious’ and a peddlar of commonplace magic becomes thin. Perhaps only the attitude of the writer distinguishes between them. One of the characteristic features of popular religions is the throng of ecstatics, diviners and healers who invoke for themselves the name and prestige of the divinity or prophet of a reputed

ascribed to Orpheus, who was seen as both poet and organiser of religious institutions. This dual identity was explicitly asserted by Clement of Alexandria when he called Orpheus ‘at once hierophant and poet’ and elsewhere the ‘poet of the rite’. Quoting two lines from an Orphic poem in which the myth of the Eleusinia was told, he attributed it to Orpheus the mystagogus,”” that is, the one who sponsored and led the novice through the rituals and trials of the initiation ceremony. The figure of Orpheus retained a close association with ritual at all levels of society into the late Empire. In fifth century North Africa he was connected with funerary rites. The city of the ungodly, said Augustine, generally put Orpheus in charge of the sacred rites (to the saint they were sacreligious) of the pagan Underworld,

performed in his name.** By the late fourth century AD a highly syncretic pagan religious system had developed, of which, according to Macrobius, Orpheus was the principal poet and main authority on the rites (Macrob. Saturnalia I,

religion.*'

The

association

of

Orpheus

with

such

practices

should

be

dismissed

scorfully as worthless, misses the point of their impetus. While far from the higher spirituality of revelatory initiations, the cures, purifications and comforts offered by these magicians were, nevertheless, the other side of the same coin. Medieval purveyors of ‘indulgences’, satirised by Chaucer in the character of the Pardoner, and against whom Luther later railed, served the same needs, surely as profound in their way, as the more refined spiritual and permitted by established experiences nominated Not everyone using their services was a Christianity. hypocrite or a fool.

18, 12-22). By the same time, the figure had been adopted into Christian iconography and thought. Such was his primacy as the prophet of Greek religion that he was proclaimed by the pagan philosophers of late antiquity as its founder and the potent representative of a spirituality to rival

Christianity.7°

That

the

performance of cult ritual was pervasive. 4. The Magus.

A system of belief existing alongside organised religion, or

somewhat intertwined, was magic and superstition.*° The Specific forms of ritual said to have been instituted by Orpheus which might belong in this category were: lustral sprinklings, purifications for unholy deeds, cures for diseases

gods were implacable, their concerns too rarified to include the ordinary ills and misfortunes of everyday life, but magic could have an immediate and perceptible effect in the experiential world. Earliest references to Orpheus’ magic skills are found in the Greek dramas. In Euripides' Cyclops (646) one of the lazy and frightened Satyrs, unwilling to help Odysseus in the task of driving the burning stake into the eye of the giant, exclaims:

and apotropaic rites for averting divine wrath.*” Pausanias

(c.AD 150-70), is sceptical about the popular legend of Orpheus rescuing Eurydice and his power over wild beasts. This he dismisses in favour of another notion, which he ties to the assumed historicity of the figure, that Orpheus had magical powers (IX, 30, 4). Presumably the idea was equally valid in popular thought. This concept was what gave the figure of Orpheus its currency in the greater society where esoteric notions of culture and poetry might not sustain. It is exemplified in the late antique Argonautica, where Orpheus, the narrator, participates in the gathering of the Golden Fleece, an action which he does not join in the Hellenistic epic. With Medea's aid he concocts a magical spell involving herbs, chemicals and the sacrifice of puppies and images. He invokes the various gods of magic to appear and open the way to the sanctuary where the terrible dragon guards the Fleece. He plays and sings a special song bringing Sleep to calm the dragon, allowing Medea to gather the Fleece (941-1006). Later, Medea is advised by Circe, the sorceress, that Orpheus knows the purificatory rites which will ameliorate the guilt of her crimes (1230-34).

‘But I know a spell of Orpheus, a fine one, which will make the brand step up of its own accord to burn this one-eyed son of Earth." Compare the effect of Orpheus’ song in Ovid's description of his death, where the music is at first capable of diverting the flung spears of the murderous women. In Alcestis the chorus lament that they have found no remedy for the blows of fate; nothing avails:

‘no charm on Thracian tablets which tuneful Orpheus carved out'(which Orpheus wrote with his sung words). (965ff.)

The extensive use of protective charms and amulets of all kinds is well attested up to and beyond the Roman Imperial period. Orpheus’ words or his image seem to have been considered particularly efficacious.

Apollonius of Tyana in the first century AD says: '... you think that the philosophers who are followers of Pythagoras should be called magi and the followers of Orpheus, too, I dare say.' Marinus in his life of Proclus says that Proclus

2? Clement of Alexandria, Protr. vii, 74, 3; ibid, ii, 21.

** Augustine: City of God XVIII, 14. 2° Cf. Linforth, 306.

2° A.A.Barb 'The Survival of the Magic Arts’ in A.Momigliano, Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, (1963) 100-25.

ed.

3" Eliade (1982), 186.

32 Texts collated Linforth 264: Paus. IX, 30, 4.

29

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

the has become musician Apollonian ‘the magician who bewitches all Nature ... dressed in the richly embroidered robe and Phrygian cap of the

made constant use of rites of purification, sometimes Orphic

rites,

sometimes

Chaldaean.**

Evidently

these

writers

associated rituals of some kind, called Orphic, with eastern magical practices employed for the same purpose.

magician—priest’.7° Literary references testify to the longevity of this equation of magical powers with Orpheus, even when he was presented in Apolline guise. Guthrie notes a fascinating reference to magic in an early fourth century Christian writer which of the orpheotelestai. denunciation parallels Plato's Tempting even Christians, the trade in spells and charms had

Clement of Alexandria derides Orpheus, Amphion and Arion saying that under the guise of music these men had done much to degrade life, practising a kind of methodical sorcery disastrous in its results. He appears to be thinking of the Dionysiac mysteries, rituals he denigrated as mere magic

because of his hatred of paganism. He links Orpheus with the

continued unabated. Old women would:

other singers supposed to have magic powers and may also have had the commonplace magical practices associated with Orpheus in mind (Protr. i, 3). On this mundane level Orpheus was similarly decried in the fourth century AD: ‘they say that he was the most superstitious of men’. This is perhaps a back reference because his name was involved in various

‘for twenty obols or a glass of wine ... disgorge a

spell of Orpheus at you.'*" 5.

Poet and Patron of Culture.

superstitions of the day.** Poets were considered to be propagators of cultural values. Orpheus was the most famous of the legendary poets of antiquity. Genealogists made him the ancestor of Homer and Hesiod, so his utterances as a poet were semi—divine. Since poetry encompassed art, oratory, cosmogonies, religious ritual, it formed and informed the treasured civilisation of the antique world. In the third century BC Orpheus’ statue was placed in the Serapieion at Memphis with those of other poets and thinkers including Homer, around a figure of, perhaps, Dionysus. Another similar group existed in Alexandria.** The Helicon group too, was placed near statues of famous poets and distinguished musicians in the

The effect of Orpheus’ music on animals was like a magic spell. There was something magical and even divine in the capture of animals by music, in the submission of their wild bestial nature to the force which summoned and possessed

it.** The image recalls the fascination exerted by the sorceress Circe whose victims were metamorphosed into animals. The invocation or luring of dead souls by the lyre might have been thought of as a magical act.

In the much cited passage in the Historia Augusta (Alexander Severus 29, 2), it is stated that the emperor had placed in his /ararium beside images of Abraham, Christ, Apollonius of Tyana, and others of a similar character, that of Orpheus. They were all, says the author of the History, very sacred souls. Macmullen*® does not consider that they were syncretically combined, but were all equated. Rather than cancelling each other out, each would be credited his own powers. There is some doubt as to the authenticity of

sanctuary

of the Muses

customarily numbered servant of the Muses, Calliope.

(Paus.

IX, 30, 3).

Orpheus

was

among legendary Thracian poets, son of the Muse of Lyric poetry,

An important type of ritual poem associated with the Mysteries was naturally thought to have been composed by the greatest poet of the rites, Orpheus, such work sometimes called Orphic. It became traditional to ascribe any such poetic work to Orpheus’ authorship, even when, newly composed, it could not have been. Such literature was a vast production. In antiquity men of insight, sceptics, found it impossible to believe that all the Orphic poems were written by the Orpheus of legend, even doubting the historical existence of the poet. Orphic poetry was not confined to cult circles and was freely accessible, commanding as much respect as the classics. Pausanias mentions that the hymns of Orpheus he heard sung in the mysteries were beautiful and second only to the hymns of Homer (IX, 30, 5-6). However, extant fragments, written in the Imperial period, are hieratic in character and subject matter, and are notable for their pedestrian quality.

this particular report, nevertheless the passage testifies to the equating of Orpheus by the author, if not the emperor, with at least one other mage, Apollonius, and with other prophets. In similar vein we learn from Firmicus Maternus, Christian apologist of the fourth century, that Abraham, Orpheus and Critodermus discovered astrology.*” Terracotta images which might have served for a domestic lararium, have been found in Greece and Tunisia, though the latter, the Underworld Orpheus with pedum, is probably a funerary

object.** The mosaics have been interpreted as exerting a magical effect by J.Thirion who sees them as serving a prophylactic

function*? which he extends to the realm of magic. Stern notes the marked change of emphasis in the dress and pose of the figure:

Orpheus the poet, as the founder of mysteries, was a benefactor of humanity. The teletae were the first of the gifts that he gave to mankind: ‘First Orpheus taught you religious rites, and from bloody murder to stay your hand’ (Aristoph. Frogs, 1032). The speaker is Aeschylus, defining what a

*° Apollonius, Ep. 16, ed. C.L.Kayser, Philostratus, Linforth, 280. Marinus, Life of Proclus = test 239, Linforth 257. *4 Cyril against Julian on Orpheus, I, 25 = Kern OF 245. ** Magical capture of animals: R.Eisler, Orpheus the Fisher (1921), 16-18. © R.Macmullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire (1981) 92-4. ‘Not syncretism, but discrete beings were on display’.

4° Stern, (1980) 158, 163.

Friedman, 23. sag (1973), no.149, Bardo, Orpheus with pedum;

4" Athanasius, cod.Reg.

A 154a, b. Orpheus and animals. 9 J.Thirion, 'Orphée magicien...' MEFRA 67, (1955), 149ff. pl I-V.

n.7, Henry, 59-60. 42 Onions, 159.

30

1993 £317 = test. 154: cited Guthrie,

19-20,

Orpheus in the Antique Imagination

associating Orpheus, here in his role as founder of rites, with another legendary poet, Amphion, founder of cities, who by his music made stones move and so built the walls of Greek Thebes. Together the two poets account for major forces in the origins of civilization, religion and cities, which they effected by means of their poetry. Thus poetry could be seen to have had a profound role in the establishment of civilization and the maintainance of its values:

poet's work should be. Orpheus stands in first place in the list of great poets and the teletae is first among the gifts that they brought to men. He is followed by Musaeus, Hesiod, Homer. All four revealed precious knowledge and skills, healing and oracles, agriculture, glory and battle. The Greeks were fond of enumerating the culture heroes from whom, they liked to believe, they had obtained the elements of civilization. Plato includes Orpheus in a list of six, without specifying his contribution, but perhaps his gift of the teletae was so well known it went without saying. Plato evidently distinguished this reverenced personage and his rites from the wandering priests uttering spells in his name.

"Men lived in the woods when a sacred person, an interpreter of the god, Orpheus, turned them away from murder and an infamous nourishment and that is why it is said that he tamed tigers and ferocious

lions. (391ff.)**

Perceptions of the myth current c.250 BC are revealed by Callisthenes (17 1. 42, 6. 7 = test. 144), when he notes a cypress—wood image of Orpheus found at Leibethra in the foothills of mount Olympus, perhaps the same as that described by Pausanias:

Primitive man is credited with the cruel bmutality of carnivores. The animals roam in the darkness of woods just as men remain in the brutish darkness of ignorance until the enlightenment of Orpheus’ sacred poetry reaches them. Orpheus expunged animal nature from the hearts of primitive men. As he drew away animals, so he took men from the forests, making them cultured, teaching them the arts of agriculture and inclining their natures towards peace and gentleness. The changed emphasis enters the visual record when vases no longer show the bloodshed of Orpheus’ death, but depict calmed warriors. They desist not only from battle, but presumably also from the horrid customs in which,

'_.by his playing and singing (Orpheus) won over the Greeks, changed the hearts of barbarians and tamed wild beasts...

An important concept is found in the description where the taming of wild beasts has been relegated to a place behind the song's civilizing effect on the hearts of men. What the civilized Greeks were won over to must have been the rites and teletae of Dionysus, known as Orphic. Orpheus is perceived as refining the culture of the Greeks and bringing the barbarians to a degree of civilization. The concept must have been common currency for some time, it had already been pictured on vases of the fourth-third centuries BC.

according to the Greeks, barbarians indulged. Horace took the elements of an ancient tradition, combined them anew for his apologetic purposes, relegating the animal charming scene to the realms of fable, disassociating it from the actions of Orpheus the founder of rites in the social sphere. Agriculture was also a basis for civilisation, which Orpheus was given the credit for inventing in an interpretation of the legend by Themistius in the fourth century AD.:

In one epigram** Orpheus is credited not only with the invention of poetry, a vocal art, but with writing, that is, literature, permanence. He is the teacher of Hercules, Man who conquered nature by brute force. Made learned by Orpheus he becomes cultured. In the Odes of Horace (I, 12, 8; III, 11, 8) Orpheus is the quintessential lyric poet set against an ‘Alexandrian’ landscape. In the Ars Poetica, however, Orpheus is projected as a tutelary figure of culture. Horace, like earlier writers tells of Orpheus' powers to change savages to humans, but presents a different idea of the model cultivated man. In the Odes such a man is equated with the artist, Art itself seen as a prerequisite of humanity. Here the gift Orpheus gave was the poetic art, not ritual, nor the poetry connected with it. Orpheus was a culture hero

‘similarly even the rites and ceremonies of Orpheus bear some relationship to the business of the farmer. The legend which tells how all things were affected by his enchantment really means how he tamed all nature and wild animals by means of the cultivated crops which farming produces and that he tamed and eradicated the animal nature in the soul. Animals were believed to have been charmed by his song because for all sacrifice and divine worship he used the good things that are provided by the farmer. At all events his fame spread far and wide and farming was everywhere

because lyre music was the reflection of cosmic order and the spoken or sung word accompanying it was an enactment

adopted’ (Orat. 30, 394b, trans. Linforth 255-6).

of the construction of classical civilization. In the Ars Poetica 391-407, the myth of Orpheus is employed to build a convincing argument for presenting poetry as the most estimable of arts, rather than being merely a rich man's pastime, true poetry, according to Horace, being social in origin. The Poet would then be a vital member of society.

The

passage

reiterates

the

ancient

antagonism

between

hunter and farmer. The civilised farmer, who led the mild and peaceful life introduced by Orpheus the patron of culture, is victorious, his offerings the most acceptable. Virgil's use of the story in the Georgics touches on the relationship of the mythic tamer of nature and the farmer who must do the same.

Horace goes as far as to say that the legend of Orpheus charming the animals was an allegory signifying the education of men by music. He rationalises the myth,

C.O.Brink, Horace on Poetry, (1971). Commentary 384-89. Some +4 commentators saw in the form of words 'caedibus et victu foedo deterruit’,

the implication of cannibalism. Brink assesses arguments of scholars on this

*? Preserved by Ps—Alcidamas, Ulixes 24, ed. Blass, Antipho = test 123:

suggestion: 387. Cf. test 144, Callisthenes.

cited, Linforth, 15.

oe

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

scene of Nature mourning, sad and pitious. It was placed firmly in the past, and it was contained within an ethos of contemporary confidence. Although Orpheus, savagely murdered had stopped playing, his legacy of art and culture lived on in contemporary society. By the end of the fourth century AD fears that the forces of barbarism were poised to overrun classical civilization and bring it to an end went, If Orpheus were insistent and well-founded. civilisation would end. Claudian tells how Orpheus tiring, put down his instrument and for a long while ceased to play:

Orpheus was employed on the Alexandrian coins of the Antonines to represent the desirable qualities of civilisation as exemplified by the Emperor. The message inherent in the image of Orpheus had been interpreted by Fronto for his pupil Marcus Aurelius. Orpheus, he said, knew how to tame the human passions of his numerous followers to create peace and unity. This was to be the task of the Antonine prince, which would be far more difficult to attain than simply charming fierce beasts with the lyre. The Emperor should unite first his friends and followers and then the

diverse peoples of the Empire.*” Later, on the Emperor's "Nature's savagery returned and the heifer in terror of the lion looked in vain for help from the now 147 voiceless lyre’.

coins the image signified ‘Concordia’, the self-image of Roman rule in the Empire. The Antonine's choice of Greek mythologies and their classicising tendencies witness to the importance of the heritage of Greek culture, of which Orpheus was seen as a potent emblem. Coins of Severan date from Thrace, legendary home of Orpheus, may also allude to the values of Greek culture. In a similar vein, at the end of the fourth century AD, Claudian could still call upon the classical image of Orpheus when he wished to extol the political skill and eloquence of the consul Manlius, whose effect on the peoples of the Empire was the same as the effect of Orpheus’ song on the wild animals and barbarous Thracians of the remote past:

6. Guardian of Nature.

The term ‘Guardian of Nature’, is not meant to invoke the Good Shepherd, which came to be the Christian idealised figure of the late Empire, incorporating ancient eastem imagery, but the relationship of Orpheus with Nature developed in the Hellenistic period. The scene of Orpheus and the animals encapsulated a fascination for the natural world which had been growing from the fourth century BC, exemplified, perhaps in Aristotle's treatises on animals. Artists delighted in portraying the minutiae of the natural © world with as much realistic detail as possible. Besides the growing desire for knowledge, came the opportunity for empirical discoveries with the increasing flow of goods and animals through the markets of the ancient world. It came within man's capability to understand and harness some natural forces for his own benefit. Orpheus charming the animals seems to represent a profound desire of the men of antiquity, in the face of potentially harmful natural phenomena, for control. It was the same world, inhabited by the pagan gods and immortals, which could exhibit its inherent destructive capabilities as could provide all that was bountiful and life enhancing. Orpheus and the animals embodied the vital relationship of Man with the rest of creation, the evil bound up in harmony with the good. Whilst full humanity was to be achieved by overcoming animal instincts, it was acknowledged that the changed heart could return to its former condition if the spell of Orpheus’ art ceased, if classical culture and all that was deemed civilized was withdrawn. The most profound good came from the balanced structure of the forces of nature held in thrall by Orpheus' cosmogonic song, ordering chaos. The two went forward together. Christianity sought simply to ban what it

"What sedition, what madness of the crowd, could What see thee and not sink down appeased? country so barbarous, so foreign in its customs, as not to bow in reverence before thy meditation? Who that desires the honeyed charm of polished eloquence would not desert the lyre—~accompanied song of tuneful Orpheus?’ (Claudian, xvii, 248-52). In art the image of Orpheus evoked the desirable qualities of authentic classical civilization, with all the cultural values which the image embodied, especially Greek religion. In late antiquity amongst the common themes of classical imagery which pervaded art were hunting and circus scenes. Depictions of these events expressed triumph and good living, the pomp and circumstance of the wealthy, the play of fortune and success, the vigorous life of Emperor and city. Circus and theatre assumed more importance than simple entertainment in the late Empire. On one level the imagery, and indeed, the events themselves, had a symbolic dimension, where the greatest good fortune was associated with their enactment.** The imagery expressed the inevitability of death, the possibility of outwitting that savage foe, or of triumph in the life to come. The figure of Orpheus was, as we shall see (Chapter Eleven), frequently found in association with such imagery as the central calming, fortuitous focus and a repository of cultural values.

saw as evil, sacrificing balance.

The form of the myth where Orpheus brought his wife safely back to the light echoed the cycle of Dionysus’ death and rebirth, the cycles of plant growth and animal life engendered and embodied by the god. Orpheus’ association with the seasons and agriculture continued into late antiquity. The Seasons appear frequently with Orpheus on mosaics and

The importance of Orpheus as a symbol of culture is brought to the fore in a text of c.395 AD. The author pictures what would happen if Orpheus were to cease playing. Long before, in the third century BC the Greek epitaphs which told of the reaction to Orpheus’ death had presented a picturesque

many other artefacts.** It was thought proper that farmers

pray to Dionysus

as well as Demeter

and Kore

(Armian,

+* The Correspondence of M. Comelius Fronto, letter of 140-143 AD,

Loeb, 73-4. 4° PR.L.Brown, 'Art and Society in Late Antiquity’ in K.Weitzmann ed. Age of Spirituality (1980) 23-4. Even under Christianity the forms in which society mirrored its norms and aspirations remained classical.

*7 Claudian, De raptu Proserpinae Book II, 1-8. Trans. M. Platnauer, Loeb, (1972).

4* Seasons and Orpheus: see Ch.2 and Ch.11, Pendents.

32

Orpheus in the Antique Imagination

Orpheus would give them guidance for the encounter with deities. In some circles, evidencing the belief in reincarnation which is ascribed by the writers of antiquity not only to Orphic, but to other similar groups, poetic formulae, written by Orpheus, were to be repeated by the dead soul on entry to the Underworld. The initiate is instructed to announce his or her status and to take certain actions and avoid others which would set them again on the endless cycle of reincarnation. Thus they can be released and gain access to the Blessed Isles, to the company of the gods, eternal peace and immortality. Such formulae appear engraved on amulets, known as the Orphic Gold Leaves, placed in the grave, sometimes clutched in the hand of the deceased. The graves themselves are very simple. The leaves date from the sixth century BC to the third century AD, mostly from Southern

Cyneg. XXXV, 2). The safeguarding of the production of flesh, wheat and vine was of profound importance: this Orpheus could effect. Orpheus in his role as founder of the Eleusianian mysteries, in which all three divinities were worshipped, provides the link. Orpheus as he appears in Roman art amid an array of wild life echoing arena spectacles, processions and the zoological collections of metropolis and estate, recalls the idyllic motif of the teeming paradise. He appears with wild beasts, just as the shepherd was pictured among his flocks. These images, sometimes similarly composed, were iconographically distinct, until, influenced by Christian art, sheep might appear in pagan pictures of Orpheus. The Christian Orpheus of the catacombs in Phrygian shepherd's dress, sometimes plays to sheep alone. Orpheus and the Saviour who feeds his flock like a shepherd are almost inextricably mixed in this instance. On ivories of the fifth to sixth centuries AD Orpheus is juxtaposed with the hunt and pastoral scenes (figs.11-16).

Italy.*° They are all written in Greek hexameters, including

the example from Rome. One rolled up leaf was in a gold case with a chain, perhaps worn as a necklace and amulet in life. Some of the same phrases on the earlier leaves can be found on those from seven centuries later. The name Orpheus does not come up on any of them, though those of deities associated with Orphic thought appear, in particular Persephone and Eukles (Pluto), gods of the Underworld.

The coincident concepts of the tamer of animals and the shepherd were in place early in the development of Orphean themes. The shoal of fish following the sound of Orpheus’ music on the Argo (Ap.Rh. 569ff.) was likened to a shepherd with his flock, the marine picture compared with a pastoral scene. The idea must always have been evoked by the animal—charming scene that the wild animals were being made to behave like domestic herds. But Orpheus was not a shepherd guarding flocks from outside attack, rather, he drew the fierce powers towards him, making them act like sheep, containing their force. The literary vision of lambs lying with lions does not belong to the greater visual tradition of Orpheus. The ‘Guardian’ is a terrestrial image, rooted in the earthly world of natural phenomena, midway between chthonian forces and the astral and cosmological symbolism of Apollo's lyre and song. Orpheus is the human mediator between the heavens and the Underworld, guarding the balance vital for civilization.

In life, through participation in the teletae, using Orpheus’ sacred songs, the hymns, and following the rituals he formulated, the believer might hope for safe passage on the journey through successive incarnations to the divine life beyond. Evidently the dead buried with their protective gold leaves would be considered to have achieved their final incarnation, provided they repeated their words correctly.

To superstitious people Orpheus acted as protector against the evils surrounding them, his image, like that of Medusa, drew fierce spirits, defusing their power and sweetening them. The Brading mosaic is situated to protect the vulnerable threshold. Stern, remarking that a number of finger rings bore representations of Orpheus, supposed that the ancients credited the image with an apotropaic power. This, perhaps, is an explanation for the popularity of the subject in the late Empire. Coptic orbiculi worn on clothes performed the same function in protecting the person and we find Orpheus on a number of examples. We might compare

7. The Protector.

Orpheus leads Eurydice from Hades at the successful outcome of the katabasis. The image was used in funerary art. On tombstones Orpheus and Eurydice hold hands, as though in marriage, perhaps embodying the idea of a future reunion. Often, and especially in frescos from inside tombs, Orpheus appears without his customary lyre, but carrying a pedum, not only to signify his journey, but as the mark of the protector. This image was in vogue from the first century BC to the first AD (cf. Ch.2). The Christian Orpheus appears in the catacombs from c.220 AD. The image of Orpheus and the animals in a funerary context, pagan or Christian, might be interpreted as Orpheus creating the paradisal state, the enchanted place where it was hoped the soul of the dead person would arrive ultimately, with Orpheus ensuring an island of peace after death.

this with the use of Christian imagery on clothing.*° 8. The Weakling, the Failure.

Orpheus players.

shared

the

characteristic

weakness

of all

lyre

"he seemed to be a weakling, being a lyre—player and not having the courage to die for love's sake..' (Plato Symp. 179D). He

could not be a hero of the Argonaut

*° Orphic Gold Leaves, J.Harrison

Prolegomena,

discussion: G.Zuntz,

Sometimes Orpheus is shown at the entrance to the Underworld ready to guide the dead person. They would be protected from the horrors of that realm. The words of

adventure,

but,

texts engraved on slips of gold: G.Murray 659-73,

gives

Persephone (1971)

text

in

277-393.

full

with

in

translation;

West 22f., 25f. Henry,

73-5. 5© Stern (1980) 164. On Christian protective images on textiles, cf. Grabar, (1969) 99, and H.Maguire ‘Garments Pleasing to God: the Significance of Domestic Textile Designs in the Early Byzantine Period’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44, (1990) 218-224, pl.1—36.

33

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

nature of this divergence of appreciation is given by Rufinus, a Christian apologist of the fourth century AD. Talking of the cosmogonic poetry:

Cheiron told Jason (test. 5), only with his help could they escape the Sirens. Still he could not defend himself against the attacking women. His brutal murder is a contrast of reason and fury; the song was the music of the spheres, the women represented the inhuman forces of the depths, personified as feminine. The precious civilisation, which Orpheus represents, is always in danger from outside, untamed forces.

"attributed to many authors..two names stand out, Orpheus and Hesiod. Now the writings of these fall into two parts, divided according to the way they are interpreted, literally or allegorically. The parts that are taken literally have attracted the low minds of the vulgar, but those whose value lies in their allegory have ever called forth the admiring scholarship.’ and_ philosophy of comments (Recognit. X, 30 = OF. 133).

Orpheus represents the power of art over brute strength, animal brutality vanquished by culture. Hercules who also descended to Hades, returning with Alcestis, by virtue of having been initiated into the Mysteries, ultimately achieves divinity, but Orpheus the frail man, dies. His personality is never heroic, though he braves the infernal powers under the protection of art. King David is a parallel, the weak lyre player with an enchanting, healing song, who conquered, but

remained humanly fallible.

According to Stern®* the image of Orpheus on Antonine coins was used to promote a moral philosophy. Orpheus was a moral model conforming to expressions of the notion of Pietas under Antoninus Pius. In his opinion the moral sense of the image in the court was very near to that generalized private numerous the in expressed philanthropy representations of Orpheus of the time and a little later, providing fo him an explanation for the current vogue of the subject. The Perugia Orpheus mosaic belongs to the start of this period.

A synagogue mosaic in Gaza*’

presents the saviour king of Israel in the guise of an Imperial Orpheus, surely not wishing to evoke the frailty of either.

Plato talks of the form of the myth where the descent had an unsuccessful outcome: because of his cowardice the gods only showed Orpheus a phasma of his wife. But while Plato ridicules Orpheus here, the doctrines of rebirth and spiritual purification are acknowledged as Orphic and never treated ironically by him. In the sphere of religion Orpheus is always seen as 'strong'. The story of Orpheus and Eurydice, a tragic image of failure and loss, was a late addition to the legend, which suited the ‘pathetique’ literary style of the Hellenistic poets, who may have invented it. Virgil makes Orpheus' human passion his weakness, it occasioned his transgression of the inexorable laws of nature and the gods and so he was punished.

In the Roman Imperial era Orpheus seems to have passed as a philosopher by virtue of the perception of the doctrines ascribed to him. Writers of late antiquity speak of followers of Orpheus as though of a school of philosophy. A Christian writer (Ps—Justinus) quotes a passage from the composition Diathykai, in which Orpheus is made to recant his paganism and hold to monotheism, where the readers or hearers of Orphic poems are called by a name, akroatai, commonly

used of the followers or disciples of a philosopher.** As

Guthrie says (14) ‘It was the fashion among Neoplatonist philosophers, active from the third century AD onwards, to quote copiously from the poems of Orpheus and thus lend to their doctrines the dignity which derives from hoary antiquity’.

9. Orpheus and Philosophy. Through the lyre Orpheus was connected with the body of Neoplatonic thought concerning the harmonies of the universe and the soul's origin in the heavens, current in pagan

philosophical circles into late antiquity.** Macrobius (late

10. The Popular Image.

fourth to early fifth century AD) tells us:

"Famous Orpheus' — the earliest mention, of the sixth century BC, already designates a celebrated personage (Ibycus = test.2). His image, a construct of multiple characteristics, pervaded Graeco-Roman society. A perceptible difference exists between the Orpheus who appears in the texts of poets, and the alternative and commentators, philosophers perception of Orpheus by the public and artists, clues to which are second hand and allusive. They are garnered from texts and the character of the visual depiction. This is a passage from Apollonius Rhodios telling how Orpheus’ music could make trees and rocks move:

‘Orphici understand Liber to be NOUS HILIKOS indivisible and yet divided throughout the universe and their rites, in which they represent his dismemberment by the Titans, carry this meaning’; (In somn. Scip.i, 12, 11 = OF 240.) It is not known what form such rites took, but they evidence the continued functioning of Greek religion. There was a gap between the esoteric philosophy reported by Macrobius and others and the near superstitious activities of the many followers of the rites prescribed by Orpheus, but how wide that was cannot be known. A contemporary testimony to the

"Men say that he, by the music of his songs, charmed the stubborn rocks upon the mountains and stayed

the course of rivers. And the wild oak trees to this

*" Stem, 'Un nouvel Orphée—David dans une mosaique du C6', CRAI fe! 970) 63-82.

day, tokens of that magic strain, that grow at Zone on the Thracian shore stand in ordered ranks close

** The exposition of Orphic thought and writings in Graeco-Roman society, especially in the Neoplatonic circles of the later Roman Empire, which has been extensively discussed elsewhere, is beyond the scope of this work. See oyography: A.Boulanger (1925); W.K.C. Guthrie (1935); I.M. Linforth (1941); L. Moulinier (1955); J.B. Friedman (1971); Murray (1981);

*3 Stern (1973) 337-8.

54 Akroatai: Linforth 280-1: test.168. Also ‘discipuli Orphici’.

M.Eliade (1982) with full bibliography; M.L.West (1983).

34

Orpheus in the Antique Imagination together, the same which under the charm of his lyre he led down from Pieria.' (I, 26-31)

came to be seen as synonymous with magic, and to Orpheus were attributed many magic spells. One such is related in the Orphic Argonautica of the fourth century AD (OA 941-

Its opening ‘Men say that..’, a conventional beginning to stories, denotes perhaps a commonly held idea. Legends of stones or trees that were once alive and danced, abound in the world's folklore and doubtless a report of one such from that area underlies this story.

1006)** This thaumaturgic Orpheus is a figure of popular imagination, but not necessarily the same as the Orpheus of the popular teletae attended by Theophrastus’ ‘character’ and his like some five centuries earlier.

The Orpheus of religion kept his popularity from the sixth century BC to the sixth AD, of such power in late antiquity that Christian thinkers seemed obliged to absorb it. Orpheus could neither be ignored nor dismissed.

A scepticism began to appear in the accounts of the historians of last years of the Hellenistic era, which was suspended in the poetical narrations, for example in Horace. The idea of Orpheus singing to the animals served as a rich source of artistic inspiration. It was as if two poets had appeared, with Orpheus the artist distinguished from the Orpheus of ritual, religion and magic. Diodorus Siculus (late

Thus far Orpheus has been treated with seriousness, but another view appears in the many parodies and performances in which he figured. The earliest record is the name of a Greek comedy by Antiphanis (Kem: test. 254). The appearance of satyrs in Orpheus’ audience on several vases of the fifth century BC from Magna Graecia might reflect an influence from the stage. Orphic rites are not the subject of this thesis, but mention can be made of the parody in Aristophanes' The Clouds, which reveals that even if such esoteric activities were not commonly appreciated, some of

first century BC) in his History of the World (4.25) recounted

Orpheus’ abilities thus: "in culture, music and poetry easily first of those whose memory has been preserved; he composed poetry of a merit which astonishes, distinguished by its exceptionally melodious quality. And his fame grew to such a degree that men believed that with his music he held a spell over both the wild beasts and the trees’. (trans. Guthrie 61)

their constituents were common knowledge.*° A passage in Varro, De Re Rustica (III.13), c.36 BC. is instructive. In the anecdote a parody performance is combined with discussion of the management of an estate park. One of a number of speakers reports that wild boars and deer would gather to be fed at the sound of a horn on one estate where they had been so trained, another remarks in reply that he had seen it carried out...

Diodorus brought together all the speculative theories advanced in the previous three centuries to explain the myth. The superlative quality of Orpheus’ artistry lay at the centre of his importance, the erroneous belief in his power to charm animals arose from the fame that accrued to the great talent. Additionally perhaps, fame came from appreciation in the public imagination of the power of sorcery rather than art.

"more

in

the

Thracian

fashion

at

Quintus

Hortensius's place near Laurentum when I was there. For there was a forest which covered ... more than fifty iugera ... it was enclosed within a wall and he called it ... a game-preserve. In it was a high spot where was spread the table at which we were dining, to which he bade Orpheus to be called. When he appeared with his long robe and cithara, and was bidden to sing, he blew a horn; whereupon there poured around us such a crowd of stags, boars and other animals that it seemed to me no less attractive a sight than when the hunts of the aediles take place in the Circus Maximus without the African beasts’.

of Orpheus talks contemporary, Diodorus' Strabo, disapprovingly, without mention of the animal—charming scene. He calls him a magician, a wandering musician and soothsayer, a peddler of initiation rites. Strabo thought Orpheus had a historical existence, describing followers resembling those similarly decried by Plato. Orpheus, Strabo says, had no magical powers, but his reputation made him big headed, he aimed for power and an unruly following and was murdered for his presumption (7.330, fr.18 = test. 40). Plato's denigration of the wandering priests and his scorn of the singer's weakling and cowardly character speak of the contempt in which some sections of Athenian society held that form of religion (Rep. II, 364). Clearly Orpheus in some guise held an important place in the lives of his followers, pictured by non-believers virtually as a mob. The description might apply to the common people, but believers in the simpler forms of ritual, while not the intellectual elite, might belong to any stratum of society. Theophrastus in the third century BC makes his character of the superstitious man go every month with his wife and children to recieve ritual purification from the Orpheotelestae (Charact. XV1.11). He is aS weak—minded as women and children, it is implied.

Several ideas help to identify the popular image of the time. This entertainent was linked in the mind of the Roman viewer with circus spectacles; the animals perform at the command of ‘Orpheus’, crowding around him. There are no mystical connotations here, quite the opposite, it is a jest at the expense of the tragic hero, the poets’ divinely inspired singer, whose abilities are gently parodied. Although carrying a cithara, the gamekeeper had in fact to call the animals with the blast of a hor, for real animals respond to wind instruments, not strings. This also alludes to the legendary

The association of Orpheus with magic, already familiar to Euripides (Cycl. 646-8) is pervasive in Graeco-Roman thought. (Cf. 4. The Magus, above). Orpheus and Orphism

*5

Cf. The Magus, 4. above. Magic and Orpheus: Abel, Orphica, 221, fr.

172-181.

>© Influence of stage: Schoeller, 53, Graf, 103, n.20. Aristophanes Clouds, 223¢f. In full with commentary, J.Harrison, op.cit. 511-16.

35

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

‘softness’ of Orpheus, the horn being a martial instrument.*”

He relates a story that happened on Lesbos. When the lyre and head of Orpheus floated across the Aegean sea, the head sang a threnody over Orpheus, while the lyre itself played sweetly as the winds struck the strings, so they came ashore on the island to the sound of music. The head was buried where the temple of Dionysus stands and the lyre hung in the temple of Apollo as a holy temple relic. Centuries later the son of Pittacus the tyrant heard how the lyre had charmed animals, plants and stones and made music even after Orpheus’ death without the touch of human hand, so he fell in love with the thing. He bribed Apollo's priest to bring it to him and put another in its place. Thinking it might be unsafe to play it in the city in the daytime, he went to the suburbs at night with the lyre under his cloak. Taking it up he struck and jangled the strings, untrained and unmusical as he was. He had expected to inherit Orpheus' musical genius and that the lyre would make wonderful music. He imagined he would be able to enchant everyone and even become immortal. However, the only creatures drawn to the sounds were the packs of dogs thronging the area who gathered around him and tore him to pieces, so at least in death he was like Orpheus. It was not the lyre that had the power to charm, but the skill and voice of Orpheus, ‘while the lyre was just a piece of property no better than any other stringed instrument’. Once again the engendering of a fine stream of art and a tearing death are only a hair apart. The lyre itself, although believed to have magical properties, proved to be mere material in the hands of a barbaric man. Perhaps we see a reflection of popular ideas of the superhuman capabilities of Orpheus.

Another example of a mocking impersonation comes at the height of the Empire, nearly a century later, transferred from sylvan surroundings to the arena in Rome, where Martial was witness to the event. As a means of public execution a victim dressed as Orpheus was torn to pieces by a she—bear sent up from the cages below as the finale of an elaborate charade.** A complex recreation of the trees, birds and beasts which might have been seen at the original setting of the famous scene, was now presented to the emperor, said Martial. Mountains and forests moved, as in the myth, but, comically, the stage—hands, not the wondrous music of Orpheus, caused them to shift. Artificial sets created for the venatio brought to life, for an audience which would comprise all sections of society, as well as 'Caesar' (Titus), the idyllic landscapes of wall paintings and stage backdrops. It was a commonplace that Orpheus should be coupled with such animal-—tfilled landscapes. Martial likens the arena scene to pictures of Orpheus with which the audience would be familiar, but now it had happened where formally it had only been painted.*° In contrast to the paradisal state brought about by the mythical Orpheus, the cruelty of the parody event, witnessed and condoned by the general public, speaks of a dismissal of the higher cultural values associated with the figure. The weakness of the artist was ridiculed and punished, the poetic figure denigrated. Orpheus was known as the tamer of wild beasts: had the poor victim been able to produce the magical sounds, he might have charmed the bear, sent by Eurydice who wanted Orpheus back (De Spect. 21B), and saved his own life. Quite possibly he was tied down in some way, unable to evade the charge of a frightened and angry bear. We can imagine the laughter that this grisly sight engendered

The story which precedes that one in Lucian (8-9) concerns one Evangelus, who, desiring to win the musical competition of the Pythian games, dressed himself in purple and gold, carried a golden lyre encrusted with jewels and engraved with figures of the Muses, Apollo and Orpheus and made a fine spectacle of himself. The judges rewarded the presumption of his dreadful singing with a scourging. The winner dressed simply and played a wooden instrument. Magic resided in the person, not the object. Orpheus was the ideal of perfect musicianship, a model for emulation for both Greeks and Romans. The pleasures of music and the skills of its practitioners were always widely appreciated. Nero dressed as Orpheus when he played in public.

as the well known scene of enchantment was contrasted with the vulgar events enacted in the arena below. Martial conjures up Ovid's famous narration, using words

that would be familiar to his readers.°° Ovid had already likened

the

carnage

at Orpheus’

death

to a day

at the

venationes in the arena (Met. XI, 26). In a reversal of the fable this Orpheus was to become a victim of the beasts, with

the un-enthralled she-—bear a reminder that the legendary Orpheus met his own death at the hands of the ferocious, blood-thirsty Thracian women, similarly evading his spell. It is evident that from the first century BC at least, the gentle image of Orpheus and the animals was bound up in the imagination with the spectacle and cruelty of the arena and continued to be so until the fourth century AD, an association displayed amply in the visual arts.

Orpheus was once thought to have existed before Homer in the furthest reaches of a Greek world still thronged with supernatural beings. Later historians questioning that supposition, placed him in the real world, explaining the myths as growing from real events. Such writers are the elite, intellectuals, historians, poets, theologians. Their repudiation of the popular legends of Orpheus and the potency of his eponymous rites, throws into relief the beliefs of ordinary people. Considered by Christians to be a forerunner of Christ, equally honoured by pagan philosophical writers, Orpheus was simultaneously a presiding figure in more prosaic systems of belief. Many people believed in the Orpheus whose image and ritual utterances could avert the evils of nature and the jealous gods, cure illness, sustain good health and bring fortune and prosperity in the present world. His rituals and poetry could obtain for the defunct an avoidance

Another parody, or echo of Orpheus is found in Lucian, mid second century AD (On the Ignorant Book Collector 11-12). *7 Musician of the Knole relief, Panyagua (1973) no.156, has been called

Orpheus, but carries a horn. He is either a huntsman or an Orpheus parody of a similar kind. For genre scenes of entertainers and herdsmen using flutes on inhabited scrolls of eastern mosaics of the sixth century: C.Dauphin, Art aaaery t no.4 (1978), figs.9, 12. is 21, 21B. Epigrams I, Loeb (1961) trans. W.C.A.Ker. De S K.M.Coleman, ‘Fatal Charades: Roman Executions Staged as Mythological Epona, JRS LXXX (1990), 44-73, pl. II-III. Spect. 21, line 8, a new reading: ‘haec tamen res es facta, pictor Lax yan to Dr Mary Beard for making this known to me. Trans. Mey aye

oopF. della Corte, Gli Spettacoli di Marziale (1986) 57: Martial's scene is that set by Ovid, echoing his very words, which connote the arena.

36

Orpheus in the Antique Imagination of the terrible punishments of Hades, sustenance in the afterlife, and hope of salvation. His image was a powerful apotropaic symbol and as such played a part in the superstitious faith endemic in the ancient world. 8 3 2s OK 6 2

This exploration of the many manifestations of Orpheus in Graeco—Roman culture has revealed that his was one of the most complex and ubiquitous mythical images. It is almost impossible to grasp the entirety of it, for the span in time and geography of the Greek and Roman world was so great, and Orpheus was able to fulfill almost every need always and everywhere. Cicero mused upon the problem:

‘Aristotle says that the poet Orpheus never existed..' He goes on to ask how could he form a mental picture of someone who never existed: "But Orpheus (that is, the image of Orpheus, as you would say) is often in my mind. Again, why do you and I have in our minds different images of the same person?'*' —=00000=-

©" De natura deorum, Cicero in the person of Cotta addressing Velleius, i, 38. 108 = test 13. Trans. H.C.P.McGregor, (1984).

37

Chapter Five

Through his art: song, poetry, lyre music, music of the spheres, Orpheus was perceived as a patron and benefactor of culture, ‘child’ of Apollo, mirroring his creation of a divine order. He is thus a scion of Apollo, whose gift of Reason was effected by Orpheus in his role as animal tamer, when he transmuted their bestial natures, and as the inventor and formulator of the tamed rites of Dionysus. The place he occupies in the terrestrial sphere as guardian of nature (cf. Ch. Four, 6) and as a figure often associated with the seasons and fertility, locates him with Dionysus, god of fecundity, lord of the beasts, the wilds, the growth and rebirth of

Orpheus and the Gods Orpheus was closely bound in art and thought to the gods in whose cults he mediated. Much conflated imagery occurs, so it is convenient here to examine the association between Orpheus and the gods and other numinous figures. The principle concerns are iconography and the symbolic structure of the relationships.

plants.* However, by virtue of being a model of Apolline

Apollo and Dionysus were the deities closest to Orpheus. The triangular relationship of the two gods and their human counterpart is convoluted and profound. Orpheus appears to be the earthly mirror of both these antithetical gods; all his activities and the substance of his mythic persona depended on his mediating between their polarities, between rationale and madness, making humane their counterposed demands. Outside of Greek religion, Orpheus was perceived as a figure symbolic of values close to both Christian and Judaic philosophy. The picture of the divine singer was adopted as a model for both David and Christ. Mithraism and the tendency to syncretism, sharing in the process of reciprocal influence in the late Roman Empire, helped modify iconography and ideas. In late antiquity Orpheus came to represent, not only Greek polytheism, but the heritage of Hellenic culture, the ideal of a civilized society.

resraint, he was, if not the enemy of Dionysus, always in danger from the unbridled passions symbolised by his frenzied followers, who murdered him in one version of the myth. By ordering and modulating the orgiastic cult he brought it into the civilized world where the barbarism and frenzy of the myth could be re-enacted safely within the metaphors of ritual. 1. Apollo.

Some said Apollo was the father of Orpheus, or if not, he was responsible for endowing Orpheus with the great talent which made him famous, the more common view in the classical age. He was said to be ‘sent by Apollo’.* In the familiar passage from Euripides the capabilities attributed to the god and the beneficent results of his presence are just those things which later attach to the figure of Orpheus (Eur. Alc. 579). The apparition of the god and his music protected Admetus' land and endowed it with fertility. The image of Orpheus came to be invoked in a similar fashion. Orpheus was the terrestrial equivalent of Apollo, a divine or divinely inspired singer, child of a Muse, bringer of bountiful peace, patron figure of the arts. As a prophet of Apollo, with oracular powers, he was a figure of the celestial plane. It was thought that he at first scorned Dionysus and worshipped

Orpheus’ relationship to Apollo, in Guthrie's opinion, represents the classical, Greek figure, perhaps the oldest stratum of his development. His close association with the Hellenic cult of Apollo perhaps led in his early days to conflict with the pre-eminently Thracian worship of Dionysus, an essentially different type of religion. This contact with Dionysian cults is possibly reflected in the vases showing a Greek Orpheus amid Thracian warriors.’

Helios—Apollo.* This divinity assumed importance in late

The relationship between Orpheus and Dionysus is manifest in art and texts. Orpheus continued in his role as hierophant to the Bacchic cults for as long as they persisted. The association of pacific Orpheus with the rites of an orgiastic cult with a violent and disturbing god whom his career reflects, yet contradicts, presents a central paradox.

antiquity in Orphic thought, when he was identified as the monotheistic

conflation of all powers

(Macr. Sat. I, 18).

Even while formulating the rites of Dionysus, Orpheus retained his Apolline characteristics. In the earliest representations he is dressed as a Greek, though living in

Thrace. He looks like the god he worships.° This Apolline figure was to persist into the late Roman period.

The events of Orpheus’ legend are inextricably linked with both gods, he manifested characteristics both of Apollo and Dionysus. Guthrie's designation ‘priest of Dionysus’, therefore, is not enough to explain Orpheus’ role in that regard nor his continuing association with Apollo where the two gods had appeared to be enemies. His place between these forces is precisely the strongest point, the reconciliation of two antithetical modes of existence, two sensibilities, characterised as polarised gods. Despite their antagonism, nevertheless they were not always separated in the minds of worshippers, as the texts witness, especially in late antiquity.* Orpheus becomes the channel of Apollonian rationale and Dionysian intoxication fused in the service of humanity.

Visual confusion surrounds the earliest depictions of Orpheus. An Apolline figure appears on Hellenistic gems, nude and muscular, surrounded by animals (fig.2), but we must hesitate about naming the image Orpheus. Apollo was first associated with taming animals by music, an image offering the same protective function as Orpheus at a later period. Apollo appears with particular animals, his swan,

* A Bruhl, Liber Pater (1953), 3.

+

Pindar Pyth. IV 177, 467BC. Son of Apollo = test 22; Gruppe, 1156;

Guthrie, Ch.3 and notes; Linforth, 22; probably older tradition than Oeagros (test.23), who is more often named as his father. Apollo was always

a powerful tutelary influence. Mother, Calliope, Muse of epic poetry. =" Aeschylus, Bassarides in Ps.Eratosthenes Catasterismi 24 = test.57. I.M.Linforth 'Two Notes on the Legend of Orpheus’ TAPA 62, (1931), 5-17

esp. 11-17. Apollo with swan, hind, crow and Muse: LIMC Il, 2, 293, Aplu no.80: bronze mirror, Campanian 3rd BC, Louvre Br.1731.

" Guthrie (1935), 45ff.

© W.K.C.Guthrie, The Greeks and their Gods, (1950), 315-6. Ker, test. 45.

* Text examples: Guthrie, 43.

38

Orpheus and the Gods

raven and hind. On

the gems

illustrated by Stern’

songs.

the

butterfly, Psyche, the Soul, may be the clue to their being depictions of the salvationary Orpheus. When on a vase of the fourth century BC, Orpheus wearing Phrygian dress

The important antithetical structure of the bond reveals itself in the visual image, in the animal audience and the imagery accompanying the figure of Orpheus. The underlying antitheses are: chaos and calm, ecstasy and asceticism, Nature and Culture, feminine and masculine, dark and light. That is: calm, asceticism, Culture, masculine, light associated with Orpheus; chaos, ecstasy, Nature, feminine, dark associated with Dionysus.

plays, the hind of Apollo listens.* In late antiquity Orpheus and Apollo may be similarly attired, either semi—draped with Phrygian cap, or in Pythian stola, but the god is

accompanied by his griffin and Marsyas flayed. A griffin accompanies (fig.7), but

Orpheus on the Porto Torres sarcophagus here the ram underfoot his victory stance

confirms Orpheus.”

Visual overlap of the figures occurs Orpheus' every attribute is dependent upon his opposing relationship to the nature and deeds of Dionysus, a wild god of wine who released uncontrollable forces and stirred up the blackness of the depths, who brought frenzy and mania, unbalancing the natural order. At the centre of this whirling chaos Orpheus created calm, bringing all into a harmony which accorded with that of the heavens themselves. The form of his music imitated the vibrations of the unifying patterns of order of the universe.

here, but pictorial conventions clarify the reading. Like Apollo, Orpheus was credited with healing powers. His continuing close association with Apollo is evidenced in a metrical inscription from the base of a statue, probably Orpheus and the animals, seen in Thrace, dated second—third

century AD, which makes Orpheus ‘companion of Apollo'.'° 2. Dionysus/Bacchus. Orpheus descended to the Underworld and returned, he suffered a violent death, he was ‘alive’ again afterwards, his severed head sang and gave oracles. The historian Diodorus observed (4.25.4) that Dionysus brought his mother Semele up from Hades in the same way that Orpheus descended in quest of Eurydice. Through the sparagmos human Orpheus underwent the same experience as his god who was

dismembered

12

by the Titans, but was revived.’’

Dionysus enthused his followers to commit deeds they would otherwise find abominable. He was the secret fire of the intoxicating wine which brought pleasure and prosperity and

could transform its drinkers to madness as well as mirth. Orpheus taught men to abstain from murders, to respect human life. Some Orphic doctrines prescribed asceticism, abjuring all that was central to the myth of Dionysus. Followers were to forego meat and, in particular, wine because it aroused extremes of emotion disallowed as dangerous. The regulation of ecstatic cults by Orpheus brought them to cultural acceptability. Orpheus mediated the uncontrolled, impassioned energy of the god, filtering it to the benefit of humanity.

All the

depictions show Orpheus bludgeoned, cut or hacked to death furious women, not, Guthrie notes (33), tom — an by analogous, not identical death. Dionysus, in some versions of the myth, was the instigator of the death of Orpheus. Various reasons are advanced for this, perhaps as a punishment for

worshipping Apollo, although the overwhelming number of texts retail his institution of Dionysus' rites.

Despite his inherent danger, Dionysus was himself a bringer of benefactions, as was Orpheus who, through the medium of the rites, was connected with the cycles of death, rebirth and growth. At Delphi Dionysus was second in importance to Apollo where both were regarded as seasonal gods. Ceremonies took place in early spring for Apollo and November for Dionysus.'* Dionysus was associated in rites

The episode of the furious attack by women warns how frail the enchantment can be, allowing the dark forces to break through: Orpheus cannot weave his spell over the women. The cult of Dionysus was exclusively feminine early on, though not in the Roman Imperial period. The episode of the murderous women perhaps allegorises some deeply felt fears of the feminine, synonymous for irrationality. The release of female power is inherent in the mysteries, their effect on the behaviour of women, characterised as hysteria, was unsettling. A male-female opposition is apparent in the myths of both Orpheus and Dionysus, each of whom, however, is notably androgynous, in keeping with their shamanistic origins. As J.Harrison says ‘Orpheus reflects Dionysus, yet at almost every point seems to contradict him’. Orpheus, the priest-teacher of Bacchic rites imposed Apolline rationale on the ecstatic cult. He was a catalytic force in the cult of Dionysus, regulating his mysteries, providing the liturgical forms, composing the sacred

at Eleusis, said to have been founded by Orpheus,'* with

Demeter, the wheat. He was considered an agricultural deity prayed to along with Demeter for crops. He was worshipped annually as ‘the spirit that wakes up nature and gives fruit’ (Orphic Hymns 53); the spirit of growth; the undying god of the evergreen ivy and the springing god of the rapidly growing vine. He was a god of many forms, sometimes a bear, a panther, a snake, sometimes a tree, fire, water." Lord of beasts and animal fertility, his was a beneficent presence. Orpheus was the epitome of the cultivated man whose legend was perceived as allegorising the development of early man from bestiality to the civilized state. In mythic terms his actions brought nature, Dionysus, under Man's

7 Stern (1980) figs. 1, 2, 5, 6, 8. * Ibid g.3.fig.3

"2 Cf. E.R.Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (1951), Appendix I, "Maenadism'. J.Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (1903), 1980 edition, 455.

° Stern, CArch, XXIII (1974), fig.9. Apollo and Marsyas: LIMC II, 2 339341, Apollo 462a—477, Roman sarcophagi. "© Guthrie (1935) 42 and n.16. Roman Imperial date, 2nd.— 3rd. AD, seen in

* W.F.Otto, Dionysus, Myth and Cult (1956), 1981 edition, 103.

'* Theodoretus (383-456 AD) = test. 103. Cf. Kern test. 102-4. Linforth, 189-197 on texts associating Orpheus with Eleusinian Mysteries. ‘> Orphic Hymns: A.N. Athanassakis (1977) 71, no.53. Nonnus, Dionysiaca, 36, 291ff; 40, 38ff. Otto, 110.

Thrace, now lost. Murray BAR S100, (1981) 45 and n.65. Guthrie, 42—8 on relations of Orpheus with Apollo and Dionysus. '' Linforth analyses all the texts: Ch. V, 307-364.

39

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic control so that all plants and animals engendered and controlled by the god were made available for the furtherance of human culture. Orpheus invented civilized institutions which included rites, poetry, eloquent rhetoric, agriculture. On mosaic we see Orpheus the virtuoso musician at the centre of a display of animals, birds and vegetation which he commands to stay or move.

and reason, culture, everything characterised as ‘light’. Orpheus singing embodied the power of Apollonian reason chthonic Orpheus’ irrationality. over dark Dionysiac association, the katabasis, was paradoxically virtually the most important aspect of the myth in antiquity. His own name, like the Dionysian epithets, possibly meant ‘the obscure’, 'the dark one’. (Cf. Chapter Four, 2)

Both the god and Orpheus were androgynous. Dionysus was depicted in art languorous and somewhat effeminate, but clearly male. His effect on men and women was to arouse the characteristics of the opposite sex in them. Being enthused with the power of Dionysus made his women followers leave their domestic place and take on manly strengths to become warrior-like, savage killers. When wine, Bacchus, drove men mad they behaved in a hysterical fashion like the women and lost their rationality; when wine was tempered Bacchus bestowed the gifts of inspiration, poetry, eloquence, and rhetoric, the hallmarks of the cultivated man (Horace Carm, I, 18). Orpheus was a weak lyre player lacking in manly courage said Plato. Rather than die for love he schemed his way alive into Hades, for which he was doomed to die at the hands of women (Sympos. 179d). He was said to have originated the practice of homosexuality. The poet and his followers were customarily characterised as effeminate.

Dionysus drove his women followers wild, drew them away from their natural place in the home to wander in the hills committing acts of bestial savagery. Orpheus' contrasting act was to draw the wild beasts out of their natural place, the forest, and to tame them. He sweetened the souls of the barbaric Thracian warriors, turning them away from quarrelling and war, making them amenable to the higher spiritual values of Greek civilization. He took them from their natural place, the battle front, which angered the women who killed him. In his myth Dionysus in animal form was pursued by the Titans, caught and dismembered. In this way he was a divine analogue for the animals of the hunt and amphitheatre, of which he was a patron anyway. He was a

god ‘powerful in wild places where wild things live’."”

Orpheus too, was powerful in such places, the pacific nature of the charmed circle he created was a contrast. The pictorial relationship in mosaic between amphitheatre scenes and Orpheus charming the animals, all of which belong to the ‘animal scene’ genre of Roman art, is self-evident. Orpheus appeared in the midst of a cruel savagery which Dionysus/Bacchus might have instigated. The god who controlled the ferocious animals, took their form. They were the embodiments of his wild passions. He also lived in the vegetation which Orpheus made to move. The paradisiac ambience suggested as the harmonious resolution of this savage chaos, effected by Orpheus’ music, is also that which Bacchic initiates could hope to find in the afterlife, the Isles of the Blessed: music, feasting, harmony.

One way of interpreting these apparent weaknesses is to see them as potential strengths. They must have been necessary to the myth, or it would not have survived. As an artist Orpheus could control his intractible feminine nature, metaphorically led wild by the god. He was able to act in the world to harness the potential madness. He had no need to be overtly virile, warlike, for despite his weakness he was creative and conquered all the forces of the world through his art. He exerted his masculinity by being calm, rational, the roused the irrationality who of Dionysus, opposite characterised as feminine.

3. Hercules.

Dionysus was a god of the dark side of the human spirit, a cruel god who sent a terrible vengeance, a dangerous presence. Although the followers of his mysteries were promised immortality he was not a god of the Underworld. Amongst his many epithets, the description of a dark god of the night commonly occurs. He was called the ‘night wanderer’, nuktipolos (Ovid Met. IV.15); ‘he who wanders in

Hercules was a hero who attained divinity. He was a member of the crew of the Argo with Orpheus and was once his pupil. Orpheus instructed him in the cultural skills of writing, poetry, the mysteries. Hercules, the master of beasts, exemplifies the brute force manner of vanquishing animals to which pacific Orpheus is the antithesis. He also displays the intelligence and cunning which supercedes brutality, which he uses with his great strength to accomplish the Labours, metaphors for the obstacles which fate places before the human spirit on its journey through life. He is animal-like, his ferocious passions reined in by the educative powers of Orpheus, and thus an exemplar for one kind of the perfected man. He presents a contrasting version of the mastery of animals and is an ultimate provider of plenty, a parallel to Orpheus.

the night’ (Eur. Cretans fr.472); Dionysos Nuktelios (Plut. De

E.

9,

389A).

The

duality

of

the

god's

nature

was

acknowledged. Plutarch speaks of Dionysus as the ‘friendly god who lavishes blessings’ even though he was for the most part ‘the bestial and wild one'.’° Horace calls the god ‘candide bassareu', ‘the shining dark one’, 'the clear—speaking foxy one’ (Carm. I, 18). Bassareus, the fox, or fox—skin Dionysus, was an epithet twice used in the Orphic Hymns, of the third century (OH. 45, 52), and still used by the Greeks for the god in the late fourth century (Macr. Sat. I, 18, 9). The night—-wandering Thracian fox appears close to Orpheus on

mosaics from the Greek east and is his special attribute on the fourth century Romano-British mosaics. Orpheus was an opposing force, his whole nature Apolline, a man of rationale

Hercules belongs with an ancient model of the "Master of Beasts’ deriving ultimately from near eastern myth, the hero Gilgamesh, depicted flanked by vanquished lions, an image which provided a model for the Judaeo-Christian motif of

"© Otto, 110-111.

'7 A.H.Rose, Nonnus, Loeb, Intro. xii—xiii.

40

Orpheus and the Gods

Mithraic in type, including the cockerel and scorpion. In a few mosaics from Britain, one or two elsewhere and on a ceramic dish from the Rhineland, the animal looks like the Mithraic dog leaping up, not at the bull, but at Orpheus: it is clearly a fox, not a dog, distinguished by its build. The clothing wor by Orpheus in many northern images is the Persian dress of Mithras. On sarcophagi from Rome and Ostia the pose of Orpheus is similar to that of Mithras Tauroctonus, victorious over the celestial bull, itself derived from the Greek bull—slaying Nike. Orpheus stands with an animal beneath his raised right foot. Usually it is a sheep, once a lion, more appropriate to the victory stance (figs.45, 46).

Daniel. Orphean iconography developed separately, deriving from such Greek figures as are seen on the Boetian cup and

bronze

mirror.'*

Finally

Hercules

wins

the battle with

Death itself, sharing with Orpheus the capacity to descend to the Underworld and retrieve dead souls. When he rescues Alcestis from the Underworld, Hercules has battled with and defeated Necessity, ananke, against which not even Orpheus had a magical verse nor Asclepius a medicinal remedy (Eur. Alc. 960-5). The combination of these two powerful conquerers of the Underworld must have increased the apotropaic properties of any floor they graced.

Orpheus

and Hercules

are directly compared

in Seneca's

Hercules Furens (c.54—68 AD). Hercules descends to Hades on his last Labour, undertaking a task he sees as an opportunity for glory. Awaiting his return, the Chorus of

5. Syncretic Imagery.

Thebans relate Orpheus’ story, with its tragic end. Hercules

Strigillated sarcophagi with Orpheus exhibit an iconography

retums successfully, bringing from Hades Theseus and Cerberus, and boasts of his feat (606-13), but he, too, is to suffer a tragedy subsequently. Orpheus went to the

associated with Apollo and Mithras, but in two cases the inscriptions are Christian. This combined imagery might be significant for religious belief, but may just as well, if not more likely, denote a mixture of imagery purely pictorial in origin. Orpheus in victory stance, victorious over death, could be Christian or pagan, the context denotes the intention. On Christian sarcophagi the wording of the inscription, the iconography of the end scene, which is sometimes the defunct or on the Vatican sarcophagus a fisherman (fig.43), reveal the religion. However, the Christian "Fisher of Men’ was already an Orphic symbol, as a fisherman, appearing on the Afterworld scene of the Famesina stucco reliefs. He is common on North African marine mosaics (cf.La Chebba) in the person of The Old Man of the Sea, as a lucky symbol. The Porto Torres sarcophagus (fig.7) shows Orpheus with Apollo's griffin and laurel and a ram underfoot, which to Toynbee suggested that Orpheus—Christos was the new

Underworld for love, but failed in his task because he was overcome with furor (Virg. Geo. IV 495) and so looked back and lost Eurydice. Hercules ascends with Alcestis, but is then overcome with an illusion which puts him into a passionate frenzy and causes him to slaughter his family. In both instances the heroic endeavour proves to be futile and love. most they what lose both deluded, Ultimately the hero Hercules attains divinity. He is associated with Bacchus in a cult brought from the East, protective of the Severan dynasty.'? Drunken Hercules appears frequently with Bacchus. At Chahba Bacchus and Hercules appear together on a floor near that of Orpheus. The association perhaps represents the divine intoxication of initiation, where Orpheus stands for the intellectual route towards the mysteries. Hercules is depicted near Orpheus several times in mosaic. The two figures can be thought of as a pair representing the virtues of the active and the contemplative life.

Apollo,

lord of music

and the sun.*?

If the Christian

sarcophagi were unknown so this could be seen afresh, certain features would mark this one as a pagan object. For example the defunct shown as a classical philosopher, the cithara, with the oracular raven perching on top, resting on a

cippus in typically Apollonian attitude.** Perhaps it was

4. Mithras.

indeed purely pagan, or exhibits syncretic imagery because the sculptor was influenced by several conventional pattern types outside of which he could not create.

The eastern god Mithras is another vanquisher of animals, the great bull-slayer. His iconography of victory exerts a discernible pictorial influence on Orpheus in artefacts and monuments from the Northern provinces and Italy where a theme of victory over death is implied. There is no apparent conceptual relationship at a cult level, though West finds Orphic—Mithraic syncretism in art of another kind. Its abstract themes are not exhibited in the artefacts discussed

of

Possibly with the purpose of increasing the apotropaic potency of the charm, syncretic forms are exhibited frequently on gems and amulets, as on the gem discussed with Mithraic animals. above (4.) showing Orpheus Deliberate syncretism might be suspected, for the same creatures were elsewhere depicted to ward off the evil

prominent Mithraic worship evidenced in the archaeological

eye.7* The amulet, known as Gnostic, inscribed ORPHEOS

record. A third century AD gem*' shows a fox leaping up at

BAKKIKOS, appears to conflate Orpheus, Bacchus and Christ with lunar and astral symbolism. A crucified figure is depicted beneath seven stars and a crescent moon (fig.19). This combination of symbols is otherwise unknown, although individual pairings are attested. Orpheus with Christian

here.7°

This

mixed

iconography

relates

to

areas

Orpheus like the dog in the Mithraic bull—-slaying scene, which licks blood flowing from the wound made by Mithras (fig.47). All around Orpheus on the gem the animals are '* Stern

(1980)

figs.1,

Burkert,

Structure

and

History

in Greek

22 Stucco: Cubicle B, Farnesina House, Rome. c.20BC. Museo Nazionale, inv.1072. S.Aurigemma, Guide, pl. LXXIV. A Handbook of Roman Art,

Mytholoay and Ritual ( i919), Ch.IV, "Heracles and the Master of Animals’.

ruhl, Liber Pater, 244. 20 MLWet The Orphic Poems (1983) 253-5. A second century relief, probably from Rome, identified as the Protogonos of the Orphic Rhapsodies, relates to the esoteric texts and to Mithraic lion—headed deities, pl.6. =" Stern (1980), fig.4, according to Stern, Severan. The iconography, with its Mithraic overtones, "does indicate a late date, perhaps mid-third century.

M.Henig

(ed.) (1983)

100-1,

fig.83. Porto Torres sarcophagus:

Murray,

fig.6; Stern (1974) jer Toynbee ARLA, 290. Reinach, RSGRI, 246ff. 24 Mosaic of evil eye with owl, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome, Toynbee ARLA 402, n.27, fig.139.

41

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

Clement (Protr. I), accused Orpheus of introducing deeds of violence into ritual, probably reflecting the outsider's idea of the dismemberment of Dionysus as if actually carried out in the rites. Under the guise of music the legendary singers Amphion, Arion and Orpheus had deceived mankind and had done much to degrade human life, he said, they were charlatans who practiced a methodical sorcery disastrous in its results. They led humanity with song and lyre music to the adoration of pagan idols; with images and paintings they built up a stupid structure of social custom. Christ, on the contrary, the true instrument of God, had revealed the Truth in his service in a human body. His own body was like a musical instrument, his was the New Song: ‘but far different is my singer’. Unlike those musicians honoured by the Greeks who enchant and ensnare their listeners, the Word frees those who listen to his music. It is not wild beasts he tames, but human beings who resemble them (Protr. I, 3-6).

figures or emblems is usually designated as fully Christian, a figure recognised by Christians as expressive of their philosophy. Orpheus with Bacchic figures is a commonplace. Lunar and astral symbolism are known from Orphic texts. A bronze ring showing Orpheus with a star illustrates an article about the Brading mosaic (fig.18). Friedman illustrates a funerary relief with seven stars.** Eisler argued for a purely pagan origin for the figure. He cites an old tradition, now

lost, that Orpheus was crucified.*° However, the object might have been a fake of the seventeenth or eighteenth

century.*” Macrobius is a useful witness to the syncretism of late antiquity, especially in the Saturnalia (I, 18, 12-22), where verses of Orpheus are quoted regarding the many epithets of Sol/Helios, the sun. Zeus, Hades, Dionysus, Phanes and Iao are all accepted as manifestations of the same power. The divinity was conceived as encompassing both solar and chthonic forces. Orpheus might mediate and interpret the oppositions. Orpheus here is the authority on this new syncretism. His name is taken as an authentication of the philosophy.

Just as it was recounted that those famous singers moved trees and stones, so God the Word transforms senseless

people: ‘and the Logos of god, having scorned the lyre and the cithara, instruments without soul, rules by the particularly its Holy Spirit our world and microcosm, Man, body and soul...’

6. Christian Orpheus.

The

Fathers

of

the

Church

Orpheus, early on perceived

respect

special

showed

to

as a parallel to Christ,** The new song does more than tame the savage and revive the

absorbing the figure into Christian orthodoxy, but this did not diminish its potency in Greek polytheism. Orpheus remained pagan to the pagans. In the fifth century, Augustine, who himself had repeated the teaching of the early church that Orpheus, like the Sybils, had prophesied the ministry of Christ

(Contra

Faustum

1.

XVII,

ch.

xv.)

relates

insensible, it gives order to the universe, he asserts.*°

Which, of course, is exactly what the cosmogonic song of Orpheus was supposed to have done according to Greek thought.

that

In funerary art, the Orpheus who wore shepherd's costume

Orpheus was in charge of pagan Underworld rites in North Africa (Civ. Dei, XVIII, 14). Clement of Alexandria, at the end of the second or start of the third century, is a principle witness to the Christian view of Orpheus. He also imparts some of the only information on the pagan rites, but his description of Greek religion is biased, intended to show the foulness and absurdity of an enemy faith. Christians denigrated elements of magic they associated with Orpheus, which contrasted with their ideas of him as a shepherd religion in leading souls to heaven. Forms of popular Orpheus’ name could have seemed to be magic, whilst the way he lured animals could be interpreted as a folkloric casting of spells.

=% Gnostic amulet: see Ch.2; cf. bronze ring showing ing

and carried a pedum as he led his wife to the light, would blend seamlessly into the figure who appeared among the flocks of sheep supplied by Christian iconography. In the characteristic picture of Orpheus the Christians could easily see their Good Shepherd as well as the ancient Golden Age vision and Old Testament prophecy of the lion and the lamb lying down together. Later Christian writers were to make the natural comparison between the descent of Orpheus and the action of Christ rescuing souls from the powers of death. Orpheus in Christian art is mostly seen underground, in the catacombs. However, for Clement Orpheus is only the singer, he makes no use of the descent in his tirade, but is concemed only to vilify the character of the classical musicians with whom he brackets Orpheus.

oe with one star

in the Dressel Collection, Rome: J.E.Price, F.G.Price,

ins

According to a Hellenistic text Orpheus is supposed to have made a recantation of his Greek religion. It was brought to the notice of the church by Ps.—Justinius in the second century AD. Christians thought this allowed pagans to continue to follow Orpheus who, having turned his back on polytheism, would now lead them towards Christianity, the only true

of Roman

Buildings at Morton, IOW (1881) fig. on p.10. Funerary relief, child with 7 stars, Friedman, (1970) 7, and fig.12.

= Eisler, Mysteriengedanken, pagan origin of imagery 338-9, fig.121. An analogous tradition is preserved in Diod.Sic. 3.65, that Lycurgos was crucified by Dionysus, and stories that Dionysus himself and other Dionysiac figures were ‘bound to the tree’. Marsyas bound to a tree, as also figures in

other mythologies. An archetype of translation out of the earthly realm to a higher plane through suffering. ““ The possibility of its being an 18th century fake first suggested by M.Henig in a personal communication. Intriguing possibilities exist for a later origin. There was a medieval tradition that equated the lyre with the cross as in the 12th century Morte Christi celebrata,

n.11. The

correspondance

between

Henry, (1992) 50-1 and

the lyre and the cross

Calderén's two Autos called El divino Orfeo

faith, with his legendary skills.*° He had learnt the Unity E.lrwin, ‘Orpheus and the New Song of Christ’, in: J.Warden, ed. 2° aioe Metamorphosis of a Myth (1982), 54; Stern (1974), 9; Linforth,

persisted. In

of 1634 and 1663, Orpheus

248. Another interpretation of the passage of the Protrepticus: Murray on the Christian Orpheus. She believes (47) Clement was arguing for the

carries a harp made in the shape of a cross and called la citara de Jesus. The object is now lost. ** Christian writer Celsus: Sister C.Murray, ‘Rebirth and Afterlife’, BAR S100 (1981) 46.

substitution of Orpheus, who lacked truer power, by the Logos.

3© Guthrie, 256

42

Orpheus and the Gods

of God from Moses, it was said, on a voyage he had made to Egypt. The evidence for this change of heart was the text known as the Diathekai,*' 'The Testament of Orpheus' to his son Musaeus, perhaps written by an Alexandrian Jew for the purpose of establishing Jahveh as the source of all Greek philosophy:

the founder of mystery religions promising the immortal destiny of the soul. The celestial Paradise which was the destination of the soul after death was conjured by Orpheus’ music. When, in the catacombs his animal audience was replaced by sheep, he could appear as the Good Shepherd,

sense may you at least believe him who first instructed you in the lore of many gods, but who later thought it good to make a profitable and necessary palinode. You may believe Orpheus I say...’ (Cohortio ad Gentiles, c. xiv.)

Patrons continued to find the traditional image of Orpheus suitably expressive of their aspirations, modified to fit the accumulating conventions of Christian art. But perhaps ideas changed: some African mosaics were damaged, the eyes or

Christ himself.**

face hacked out.** Was this the work of Christians in the fourth century purges of Constantius or perhaps later, Muslims, or later still was it the Byzantine Iconoclasts of the eighth century? Christians may have seen in the lyre the peace and harmony wrought by the music of Orpheus, or perhaps the popular association of the soul with the lyre, at any rate it was used as a seal by the Christians: Clement, (Paedagog. 3.11 = test. 152):

Christians were convinced that he of all figures of Greek religion had recanted. Even Clement had to admit that this destructive figure had redeemed himself. ‘The Thracian who was at once hierophant and poet, Orpheus the son of Oeagros, after his disclosure of the mystic rites and his theology of idols, told the truth in a recantation which he published later. (Protr. 7, 74, 3 = Kern, OF.246)

‘let our seals be a dove or a fish or a ship running with a fair wind or a lyre ... or an anchor’.

The Christian picture of Orpheus reveals perception, by creating a negative definition.

For the most part, except for certain funerary depictions, Orpheus—Christus remained a literary concept.

David was not a god; like Orpheus he was the human founder-hero of a culture. Unlike Orpheus he was a historical personality, although the generally held notion in the classical world was that Orpheus had once existed. Many traits of Orpheus accrued to David and came to be equated with him symbolically. His visual imagery was to some extent modelled on that of Orpheus. David was the regulator of the Law, the good shepherd, the divine singer, whom animals came to hear; he was one who could tame fierce powers and calm the frenzied heart. Even the power of Psalms are emblematic of Judaic culture in the same way that the cosmogonic song of Orpheus was of Hellenic culture. Both David and Orpheus assumed semi-—divine status. The late antique Orpheus of Ptolemais, hieratically posed in Imperial robes, is nimbed like the Gaza David, the Phrygian cap an emblem of kingship like David's diadem.

would lend him the divine attributes of the poet (Ch.4.10). Eusebius presents Orpheus less as the negative image of

Clement contrasted David with Orpheus, saying that David, like Orpheus was a citharoedos, he was, however, far from revering demons who, on the contrary, he chased with his truthful music. He had only to play to Saul to heal him of possession by evil spirits, which compared with Orpheus’ actions on the bestial souls of animals and barbarians (Protr. I, 3).

Christ, than as his antetype, who by his music sweetened the

them

objects was ascribed to him.*° The

moving inanimate

Eusebius, writing c. 355 AD, whose disapproval was implicit, played on the difference between the false enchantment believed by the Greeks to have emanated from an inanimate object, the lyre, and that coming from the instrument of the soul, the Word of God. This recalls Lucian's story of the man who believed owning Orpheus’ lyre

led

pagan

7. David—Orpheus.

As an allegorical figure Orpheus the poet and seer was important in Christian thought, but the texts run a separate course to art and one cannot be taken as source material for the other. Perhaps too much weight has been accorded the texts in regard to understanding Orpheus in Christian art: a natural importance attaches to them as written evidence; we do not know how far their substance was known to the population at large, to patrons and artisans. The esteem attached to Orpheus’ cosmological song could make it seem equable with the Divine Word, the Logos, of the Christians, despite Clement distinctly opposing Orpheus and Christ.

spirit of the barbarians and

the

to civilisation.**

Eusebius was a contemporary of those frescos in the catacomb of Domitilla where Orpheus’ audience is composed of the conventional throng of wild beasts. Stern is not sure that this current of thinking or that exhibited earlier by

Clement had much influence on the catacomb images.** Eusebius may have been calling upon a generally accepted concept of the myth, suitable both to a Christian and pagan audience. What may have had most effect on the artisans and patrons of the catacombs was the fact that Orpheus in the ancient world was a generally held symbol for immortality,

The earliest evidence of close contacts is found in the Dead Sea scrolls, psalm CLI where allusion is apparently made to

the myth of Orpheus*”. Stern notes the important point that 34 DACL,

vol.12, col 2738; A.Boulanger,

Orphée et I'Orphisme,

(1925),

Ch.8, 'Orphée dans l'art Chrétien’, 149-163. 35 P Gaukler, Mon-Piot iii,

= Diathekai: Kern, OF 245-48, three versions. Friedman (1970) 13-37.

(1896), 219-20. Dunbabin, 152, n.81.

3© Stern CRAI (1970), 76ff.

32 Eusebius, Laud. Const. Ch. XIV, trans. Friedman, 57. 7? Stern (1974), 9.

37 4 Dupont-Sommer,

43

‘Le Mythe d'Orphée et ses prolongements dans le

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic the evocation of David—Orpheus coincided with Orpheus’ appearance in Graeco-Roman art. The psalm is dated first century BC, as is the peperino statue in Rome.

The Gaza mosaic shows David in the guise of Orpheus. The name David is written to distinguish him from Orpheus with whom he would immediately be compared, for he is accompanied by animals. The viewer, reminded that David was like Orpheus, would see in purple robes, imperial diadem and nimbus the famed biblical king in the frontal pose of late Roman Imperial iconography. Later manuscript illustrations of David depict him as a shepherd with

personifications and symbols of classical culture.** He too was the weakling singer who conquered brutality and overcame fearsome odds. At Gaza, David is presented in the image of Orpheus, the culture—hero, benefactor of Graeco— Roman civilization, who imparts his prestigious qualities to the great hero of Judaic culture, both a historic personality and symbol of messianic royalty. The Orpheus—David painted on the wall of the synagogue of Dura—Europus, is a curious image, amply discussed

elsewhere.*°

Without

wishing

to enter

the

argument,

mention must be made of it. The wall underwent many repaintings, therefore the exact sequence in which the elements were placed and their relationship to each other is disputed. In the drawing used by Dupont-Sommer a monkey sits next to the singer, top—right. Next a lion advances from the right, there are birds in a tree. This resembles the classical image of Orpheus. Stern uses a drawing showing an eagle, the imperial emblem, apparently perched on the back of Orpheus’ chair. The lion was, perhaps, the Lion of Judah.*° This image apparently of Orpheus and the animals may be a composite which never existed as such. However, the monkey, if contemporary with the singer, would denote Orpheus rather than another personage. The monkey is commonly seen with him, often sitting on the lyre. The image is positioned above the Ark of the Torah, lending it a powerful value, whatever its meaning: Orpheus himself creating the paradisiac state of the psalms; David—Orpheus, incarnation of the royalty of Israel singing a psalm of praise and echoing the divine song of Orpheus; or King David, a purely Judaic figure. —00000=-

Judaisme, le Christianisme et I'Islam'. Accademia Nazionale (1975) 6—10; Stern (1970), 70. Prigent, Rev-H-PhRel. (1984)

dei Lincei

*® Stern (1970) figs. 13-15. Vatican. Cod. Barb. gr. 320 Fol 2r: K.Weitzmann, Greek Mythology in Byzantine Art (1951), 68, fig.85 and cf. figs. 82-4; idem, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 14, (1960) fig.42: Paris Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 139, fol. 1v.

?° E.R.Goodenough,

Jewish Symbols

in the Greco-Roman

Period V,

(1956). Stern 'The Orpheus in the Synagogue of Dura—Europus', Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institute, XXI, (1958) 1-6; idem (1970), 7077.

Sister

Murray,

'The

Christian

Orpheus’

CArch.

26,

(1977)

19-27,

disputes his argument. Both include extensive bibliography and extent

of

discussion.

Pa Dune: gs.

8,

Sommer, pl.1, fig. 3; Stern (1970), 75, fig. 10; Stern ibid 74-5, 10.

44

PART I: THE MOSAICS

Chapter Six

Although Guidi's system is not now favoured, it is useful to consider since it approaches the material from the point of view of composition, which Stern's system leaves alone. However, on examination it turns out that the mosaics chosen for each group do not compare with each other on more than a superficial level. For example, the black-and-white Perugia Orpheus of the second century has little in common with fourth century Cos I, neither in design nor style. They originate in different mosaic disciplines each with its own determining conventions. Yet Guidi has placed them in the same group II.

The Design and Composition of Orpheus Mosaics The exploration of the figure in Graeco-Roman culture has established a wider meaning of the image, while the study of Orpheus in art has given a context for its expression in mosaic, to which we move now with an examination of the pictorial structure. The first subject is design and composition, with a history of design classifications. The systems proposed by G.Guidi, H.Stern and D.J.Smith have been taken generally as a basis for description and provide a focus for the scrutiny of design and composition which follows. The two major headings Design and Composition are concepts which require definition and separation. The well known typological systems of Guidi, 1935, and Stern, 1955, employing respectively composition and design, fail to distinguish these two factors, giving rise to confusing categorisations.' It appeared necessary to enlarge upon their work, not to attempt to supersede them, nor to propose any new system, but to observe the manner in which Orpheus mosaics were pictorially constructed and their contextual relationships. The definitions proposed below are for the purposes of exploring the material to hand and need not apply elesewhere.

In 1955 H.Stem presented his design scheme, fitting mosaics into his new typological system where he distinguished three main ‘types’, some of which are subdivided. According to

Stern his types Ia, Ib, II, and III, are regionally determined.* He stated that type Ia came from the Rhone valley, France, Ib from the three Gauls and the Germanies. Type II came from the Mediterranean area, North Africa, Italy, Spain, Greece. Type III, the circular, concentric fields, was almost exclusively found in Britain. Stern has ignored the composition of the central panel, the principal theme of Guidi's groups I-III, in favour of design framework. The system serves as an excellent descriptive tool, enabling the identification of mosaics according to design simply by the notations Ia, III and so forth. However, in order to distinguish, for example, the type Ia mosaics precise IJ, a more and Merida St.Romain-en—Gal description is necessary. The well made, geometrically first bears little precise compartmental scheme of the relationship to the baroque divisions of the second. The large number of mosaics brought to light since 1955 has disturbed Stem's regional relationships. It seems that circular mosaics are not exclusive to Britain, nor are all the British examples of the same basic type. Compartmental designs are not

DESIGN: The shape of the pavement, the geometric framework of the mosaic field, the framing and shape of the figured depiction, the arrangement of dispersed elements.

COMPOSITION: How the figurative elements are arranged within the framework in relation to each other and to the elements. Pictorial picture plane. Orientation of subject conventions. The material is conveniently referenced under the general headings of the 'types' and ‘groups’ previously proposed, but, as will become clear, it is more productive to consider the internal pictorial structure of the mosaics. The material falls into two main design types: panel pictures, in which Orpheus and his animals appear within the same frame, and compartmental mosaics where the elements of the picture are dispersed in their own panels within the framework of an all— over geometric setting.

confined to the Gallic and Germanic provinces, occurring also in Africa, in Mediterranean regions, in the Greek East. dispersed animals, but which do not converge towards the centre.

These are all panel scenes. In his first group Guidi puts Lepcis I, Blanzy, Trinquetaille and Cherchel,

error), we might now add Hanover.

These last two are the work of inept

draughtsmen, unrelated to the sophisticated Cagliari, which does not fit the description. Group IV: Orpheus in the centre alone or surrounded by a few animals. The other animals are not only isolated and dispersed, but also separated and enclosed by a geometric framework or stylised plants. oup IV: A: black-and-white — only one, Santa Marinella. B: polychrome. The second section is itself subdivided into a further seven groups amongst which are all the many compartmental designs, broken down according to the various types of vault decoration with which they appear to correspond. Next sub-subdivision g) are miscellaneous curvilinear designs and the contains those mosaics which cannot be placed in any other group, for which his single example is Aix, which does not, in fact, represent Orpheus. Group IV, B, e: 'mosaici che rappresentano un cerchio iscritto in un quadrato e l'unione di motivi desunti dalla geometria, dalla fauna, dalla flora’.

Horkstow alone belongs to this group.

Stern's Types:

Type Ia comes from the Rhone valley, France, where Orpheus is represented separated from the animals in a central compartment, with the animals in other similar compartments surrounding the central one; Ib comes from the

three Gauls and the Germanies where Orpheus is shown in a central panel of a larger size, alone or with a few animals. Other animals or independent subjects are placed in surrounding compartments. Type II comes from the

G.Guidi, ‘Orfeo, Liber Pater e oceano in mosaici della Tripolitania’

Mosaici della Tripolitania, Africa Italiana VI,

(1935) 110-155 H.Stern, ‘La

mosaique d'Orphée de Blanzy—les—Fismes', Gallia XIII (1955) 41-77. ~ Guidi's divisions are as follows: Group I: mosaics which present a composed scene: 'una scena composta’. Group II: mosaics showing Orpheus surrounded by isolated animals which

represented in one unified panel scene, the ancient emblema.

converge towards the centre. Group III: mosaics which

Romano-British mosaics.

represent

Orpheus

surrounded

by

Thina,

Palermo I and II. In his third he puts Cagliari and Martim Gil (called Amal in

In 1935 G.Guidi made the first systematic attempt to sort into visual categories many of the Orpheus mosaics then known. He chose types of composition as his mode of categorisation, distinguishing four main kinds. Matters were complicated by the compartmental mosaics whose design had to be separately analysed, making his group IV. This group is further divided to accomodate black-and-white and polychrome mosaics. The system is unwieldy and the many permutations of design, composition and style preclude the possibility of describing any example concisely.” '

in his second, Perugia, Cos I, Oudna,

Mediterranean area, North Africa, Italy, Spain, Greece, where the scene is comprises

the

circular,

concentric

fields,

according

to

Stern,

Type Il with

the

exception of Volubilis exclusively found in Britain. He recognised nine

isolated,

45

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

to move beyond the bounds set by cataloguing and design typology, which is another method of managing the material with a view to bringing a number of disparate depictions under quasi-scientific control. As Guidi pointed out, incidentally to his intention, there are many arrangements of the elements within the panel or emblema type, groups I-III, Stern's Type II, which require the particular attention of a compositional analysis. That will be the study here. The disposition of figuration in the through—designed schemes of compartmental mosaics and concentric designs, which follow artistic developments associated with the decoration of architecture and the applied arts, textiles, metalwork and so forth, is pursued in the following chapter.

The picture is more complex yet. An attempt to simplify the categorisation and to produce a workable system was made by A.Ovadiah in 1980 when he suggested a classification based on ‘compositional form'.* He divided the material into two basic types, then subdivided each of them.” His Group I encompasses Guidi's groups I, II, III and Stern's Type II, while Group II covers Guidi's group IVa-IVg, Stern's Types Ia, Ib and III. Ovadiah is taking into account the recently discovered examples which disturb Stern's strictly regional definitions. In the first group is the panel picture and the second comprises the compartmental mosaics. This system promises much, it is simple and essentially correct so far as it goes, the descriptive possibilities appear within the grasp, but in fact the observer is distanced from a detailed understanding of artistry in the mosaics.

*

group Ib, while Edessa, Rottweil and Tarsus occupy his group Ic. Mosaics where Orpheus in the central panel is joined by some animals while others are placed in the outer compartments, such as Mytilene, Cos II, Miletus, are not described, but Volubilis and Mytilene are thrown together in his group II. The pictorial distance between 4th century Blanzy and 2nd century Perugia is as great as the gulf of time which separates them. Edessa Ia, and Rottweil Ic, stem from artistic traditions worlds apart. Ultimately, if the only description one can give is to say whether a mosaic is compartmental or unified, then only the most basic information is passed. If it then becomes necessary to describe each mosaic in fine detail to distinguish it from the others, one has thus stepped outside a system and back to extended reportage.

from Britain (see Table after Catalogue). The larger numbers may to some extent reflect the rate of discovery in the west,

with greater land re-use, especially in urban centres. Overall, with 37 panel scenes against 38 compartmental mosaics and some unclassifiable compositions, it is not safe to say that the unified picture prevailed as a device for representing Orpheus. It accounts for 73% of the Orpheus mosaics found in the Greek East, 38% of those from North Africa and 39% from the western provinces, chiefly from Mediterranean regions.

In 1982 D.Smith® described, illustrated and completely referenced eleven British Orpheus mosaics, refining and expanding Stern's type III, giving the British mosaics three

Type

Illa, IIIb, IIc.

However

Brading

Panel scenes reflect directly, or at one remove, the conventions of spatial organisation in Hellenistic painting. These are perspectival systems, superimposition of spatial planes and the unified pictorial space which operated in painting and wall mosaic intended to be seen on the vertical plane from one viewpoint. The panel depiction remained the favoured format for eastern mosaic into the Sth and 6th centuries. Elsewhere, panel scenes employed for floor mosaic showed compositional changes reflecting the shift to the horizontal plane and the multiple viewpoints offered by pavements as part of an architectural composite. Regard must be taken of the artistic traditions which these types are perpetuating and of which they are modifications.

is

described as a circular form of Stern's Type II, falling outside these classes and Whatley’s rectangular shape makes it a rectangular form of Type IIIa, Smith concludes. He feels that Littlecote is in fact a radially divided form of Type Illa, more accurately described as Type IIla/c. Already designs are eluding definitive classification. No more will be attempted here. Stern's system is adequate to describe basic design distinctions, with some exceptions, given the reconsideration of the regional factor. Smith's refinements serve for type III mosaics. It is the intention here * A.Ovadiah and S.Mucznik, ‘Orpheus Byzantine Periods’, Assaph I, (1980).

Mosaics

in Roman

and

The horizontal rectangle panel is an old pictorial device for the presentation of idyllic and pastoral landscape, of which the paradisiac scene of Orpheus is one sub-genre. It lends a narrative and episodic character to the depiction.* In practice the vertical rectangle was also used in mural schemes, to fit the space. The square panel, favoured by mosaicists of North Syria, suits insertion into their extended decorative surrounds, making a carpet of pattern. The vertical rectangle,

Early

* Ovadiah's groups are:

Group I: Orpheus is shown together with the animals, enclosed within the same area.

KKK *K

The unified panel scenes are Stern's Types Ila and IIb and Guidi's group I. Proportionally the type II panels belong to the mosaics of the Greek east, 11 out of its 16 mosaics. However, since most Orpheus mosaics come from the western provinces (49, plus North Africa 21), the number of type two panels is therefore greater: 19 from the west and 7 from North Africa. On the other hand, only 3 type I mosaics have so far been found in the east, while 24 come from the west and Africa, with 11 type III mosaics, 9 of which are

For example, Perugia and Blanzy are coupled as Ovadiah's

sub-types,”

kK

This area can have four forms: a) a vertical rectangle, b) a

horizontal rectangle, c) a square, d) the form of a round medallion.

Group II: Orpheus is represented set apart from the animals, which are placed within various geometric forms: rhomboids, ovals, squares, octagons, tangles, circles, radial sections of the circle, and octagons with curved sides.

© D.J.Smith, ‘Orpheus Mosaics in Britain’, Mosaique: Receuil d’hommages 4 Henri Stern, (1983), 315-328, pls. CCIII-CCXI.

” Smith's groups:

Type IIIa: designs of two concentric circles. Type IIIb: designs of three concentric circles. Type IIc: radially divided concentric circles.

* P.H. von Blankenhagen ‘Narration in Hellenistic and Roman Art’, AJA 61

(1957) 78-83. The Odyssey frieze, Vatican, a continuous landscape.

46

The Design and Composition of Orpheus Mosaics

as the neutral ground parallel to the picture plane, in which they are set. Thus the birds at the top occupy their symbolic place in the upper register, while they are simultaneously seen walking naturally in the distance, on the same ground level as Orpheus, the horizon understood as outside the frame. At Blanzy and Trinquetaille the animals in overlapping planes are concertinaed into a shallow space. The pictorial recession is more the mechanical copying of a convention than the realisation of an empirical truth. The group of Orpheus, animals, birds and tree at Trinquetaille resembles a cut-out, an integral mass presented parallel to the picture plane, in decorative rather than realistic manner.

might be equated with the presentation of an emblematic, rather than narrative image, but such a design also takes account of its location, the floor, orienting the scene towards a room entrance and along a line of sight. The vertical panel is extended to take on, in some cases, the apsidal shape of its architectural setting, as at Sakiet, Thina and Piazza Armerina. The principal scene of many of the Type I mosaics is placed at the centre, the little scene itself, with rocks, trees and sometimes animals, being closely related to mural of Campanian landscapes sacral—idyllic the decoration. These landscapes are evoked most clearly in the late panel pictures, Thina and Sakiet, where the familiar sacred pillar is included.” The picturesque imagery had its origins in a naturalistic style called ‘Alexandrian’, paralleled in bucolic Hellenistic poetry which delighted in the tragic—

Pale reflections of Hellenistic composition can be seen in the Constantinian mosaics of Carnuntum and Poljanice (figs.111, 145). They are of crude style with only a few animals and rudimentary landscape setting. The emblema of Poljanice, though, is entirely made of glass paste, showing the value placed on the image. Other examples are Seleucia and Ptolemais (fig.146), possibly Tobruk. All are of fourth or fifth century date. Seleucia has animals and other figures within a perspectival landscape setting in a semiillusionistic manner, though the device of overlapping of forms is not used. The animals of Ptolemais sit in troups at either side of the singer's feet, reminiscent of those converging on Orpheus at Lepcis I, indeed both may be partaking of the same compositional tradition of Hellenistic illusionism. The city of Lepcis Magna is the location for the Aphrodisian of be to thought carvings Hercules workmanship. From nearby Sabratha came the marble sculpture of Orpheus which Squarciapino thought betrayed

pastoral story of Orpheus.*° Orpheus mosaics from Guidi's Group II and Stern's Type IIb, in which the animals overlap, and which are closest to the Hellenistic ideal, are from Chahba and Tarsus, both in a square frame. Chahba is artistically outstanding with great plasticity of form. The animals are seen to stand on a ground plane which recedes in accord with linear perspective. Almost all the animals are ranged one behind the other. An attempt is made to suggest that the group on the right stands beyond the central figure, by making them smaller than others, as if in the distance. The fox and griffin on rocks above, which should either be on the same scale or smaller are, on the contrary, larger, related in scale to Orpheus. Birds perch awkwardly in a tree at the top. The leopard and tiger on the left are set on the orthogonal, diagonal to the picture plane, respectively towards and away from Orpheus. The griffin takes its place in the upper region, crouching on a rock ledge.

the same pictorial influence.'* The Lepcis Orpheus (fig.133)

is dressed in folkloric Thracian dress, rather than the generic robes common to the African depiction, his arm is not outstretched, but away from the lyre, the snake curls up from the rock like Paphos (fig.141) and Sparta (fig.59). Lepcis too seems to betray the influence of artists from the Greek East. It is sited within an ancient area of Greek influence.

At Tarsus all the animals are recumbent at Orpheus’ feet with an eagle on a rock next to his shoulder, an equivalent place to the griffin at Chahba. The idea of a natural hierarchy is satisfied by its convincing placement within the landscape. Here the overlap is accomplished by so placing each beast that it is cut at shoulder level either by another in front of it or by a rock, effectively a composition of protomae. Even in such accomplished works as these, the relative sizing of the animals to each other and to the central figure is disregarded in manner typical of Orpheus mosaics. Nothing compares in the execution of a convincing perspective with even the

Guidi's Groups II and III, Stern's Type Ila, on the whole exhibit the drift from Hellenistic conventions. Two types of panel composition can be distinguished: decorative, Stern's Ila, where the figures are isolated on a neutral ground, and illusionistic, Stern's IIb, where they accord with a threedimensional view. Mosaics such as Oudna and Palermo I exhibit the more stylised and hieratic art of Roman naive or popular styles, also the older spatial solutions of Greek relief. Figures are seen in profile, without depth, parallel to

simple depiction of the Pompeii fresco of Orpheus,"' with its unresolved middle distance.

the picture plane, isolated against the neutral ground.'* This

is clearest in the black-and-white pavement of Perugia (figs. 54, 120). Its horizontal rectangle evokes landscape painting, but this is denied by a white ground and silhouette. This device took the place of the Hellenistic emblema tradition of illusionistic setting in the black-and-white mosaics of

Mosaics with fairly successful perspectival depth include Lepcis I, Blanzy and Trinquetaille. The groups of animals on either side of Orpheus at Lepcis I are set in superposed planes. The light background tesserae still serve both for the

illusory horizontal ground plane on which they stand, as well

Italy."* Bichrome, with its inherently abstract nature, was primarily a decorative medium,

° Cf. sacral—idyllic landscape from Boscotrecase, Naples, Museo Nazionale: E.Winsor—Leach, The Rhetoric of Space, (1988), figs.18, 19. Later, manuscripts with lyre—playing David also show a pillar: Stern, CArch (1974) fig.15; Weitzman, DOP, 1960, fig. 42: beribboned pillar, the Torah (Jewish

with emphasis on pattern

'2 M.Squarciapino, Bolletino del Commissione Communale di Roma LXIX (1941), 61-79, esp.66-7.

3 GPicard, Roman Painting (1970), 66-7, flattening was a characteristic of

scrolls of the Law) placed on top. '© Bucolic scenes in poetry: T.B.L.Webster, Hellenistic Poetry and Art (1964) 162-8. B.Hughes Fowler, The Hellenistic Aesthetic (1989) 23-31.

pular art. Bird's-eye view: I.Lavin, ‘Antioch Hunting Mosaics and their

Sources’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 17, (1963), 223ff. ‘4 JR.Clarke, Roman Black—and—White Figural Mosaics (1979) 104, cf. 97-9.

' If the recording of the lost fresco is reliable and it has not been too drastically corrected. H.Stern, Mélanges..J.Lafaurie (1980), fig.21.

47

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic foreground. In a literal reading animals at the same height as the central figure could be seen as hanging in the air, but they are not to be understood so, that is not the intention (fig.20). They are on ground level further back. Here we see the influence of popular and primitive picture making, where the superposition of planes is forsaken for a simplistic treatment of space: 'up' reads as ‘back’, 'down' reads as ‘forward’, on a line of sight beginning at the bottom of the picture. After all, the image lies on a floor, flat on the ground, it is horizontal, not vertical at all. At Perugia, with Orpheus placed top centre, large quadrupeds, snakes and walking birds are correctly below, or in front of him. The problem of figures hanging in the air is avoided here because with black—and-

and surface plane. The composition of Perugia can be most closely paralleled in Attic vase painting. This is the earliest Orpheus mosaic, of Antonine date, c.150, its construction corresponding with the contemporary popularity of the figure of Orpheus in aristocratic circles (Chapters Three, Four, Five). A diverse bestiary ranged in tiers fills the ground on either side and beneath the figure of Orpheus, who is positioned top centre.

It has been suggested that, in polychrome, the isolation of figures on a white ground (IIa) may reflect this black—and— white silhouette tradition.'’* In addition, vestiges of Hellenistic pictorialism remain. Landscape elements such as the sheltering tree and rock seat are regularly seen, convincingly shown at Thina (fig.154), Sakiet and Piazza Armerina. Beyond this central setting no landscape is represented save that each animal has a little landscape footing of its own (Oudna, Palermo I, La Chebba, Rougga, El Djem, figs. 48-50).

white, simple figure and ground, no pretence of receding landscape is offered.

the polychrome The bases function in this context, in depiction, where they render an envelope of illusory threedimensional space around each animal, that would otherwise be integral with the surface, and would cut back into the picture plane. Lavin's remark ‘a neutral ground cut through by an illusionistic hole’ (185-6) may be applied here. The bases allow the observer to imagine that the animals stand rather than lie flat in the floor plane. The footings accommodate the dichotomies arising between the illusory space projected by

These footings, or ground lines, particularly in the African depiction, have been explained elsewhere as being derived either from sculptural plinths or from copy—book models. Neither is mutually exclusive and both may indeed have been the case. The use of the device in wall—painting may also have played a part. B.Pace conjectured that miniature groupings of Orpheus and the animals, like the model

the polychrome depiction of the animals, and the decorative space of the neutral field, the actual plane of the floor surface in which they are set. They reflect the struggle between decorative picture making and the need to depict the empirical world, the naturalistic heritage of Greek art.

Nativity scenes of southern Italy, were the source,’® but one would not need to posit so esoteric a model. The practice of placing the several elements of a sculptural group in a landscape setting is well known, the Mount Helicon Orpheus and Telete group (Paus. IX, 30, 4) was one instance. There would be nothing surprising in sculptural tableaux in sylvan

More intuitively than systematically applied, as a convention it was often little understood. The hedgehog at Rougga hovers a few illusory inches above its base so that its delicate paws can be depicted against the cream ground. Each ground line represented by the bases indicates the place

settings in the parks and gardens of Rome, the Mediterranean area and Asia Minor in the second to fourth centuries AD. These might provide familiar models.

on the understood horizontal and receding plane where the animal stands. In bichrome the decorative value of the surface, the integration of figure and ground, would be disturbed by such footings. To find ground lines in the bichrome Rome Orpheus (fig.148) then becomes one of several indications of its later date, when the formal conventions of bichrome had lapsed and those of polychrome were incorporated. One development of the figure—base is the heavy shaded line which represents the uneven earth by showing the animal's shadow upon it. This appears in the mosaics of Adana, Sparta, Piazza Armerina. Sometimes it is successfully integrated into the scene so that, although

The most commonly agreed source is the copy—book picture, but the question of footings in mosaic is not answered by

ascribing their origin to a hypothetical resource. The question is as pertinently asked of copy—books: why would the device have been offered there as a model for emulation? I would like to suggest that the search for a specific and identifiable original model for these footings is misplaced. The impetus to distinguish the subject in three dimensions from the flat surface plane is perhaps an unconscious one, reliant on the physiology of human perception, without need of graphic example. Certainly the practice of setting an individual portrayal, animal or human, on a landscape base against a plain ground continues to this day, examples abound in any illustrative or decorative context. Whatever their origin, the interest lies in the effect of the bases and the manner in which they function in mosaic. In the type Ila panel other. No recession perspective, but the towards the top of the '* Lavin, 181-285, esp. 257.

the white ground predominates, the illusion of landscape is realised, as at Paphos. Elsewhere the line is elongated, representing, uncomfortably, the receding ground plane where perspective space has been denied. This is what appears at Rome, where animals are disposed in tiers, each row with its own ground line. Such a use of multiple ground lines to indicate an obliquely receding plane is also seen in the Great Hunt at Piazza Armerina. The positioning and orientation of figurative elements in relation to each other and to the top and bottom of the panel and the relative sizing of the animals and Orpheus, depended on resolving the opposing demands of narrative and symbolic space. The story to be illustrated was simple: Orpheus among entranced

we see animals isolated from each is indicated by linear or aerial implication is that animals placed picture are standing back, behind the

'© B.Pace, 'Riproduzione in musaico di gruppi

plastici di Orfeo affine al

presepio’, Monumenti antichi XXX, (1925) 189-200.

48

The Design and Composition of Orpheus Mosaics animals and trees while birds hover overhead. More than once in literature the listeners are described as 'the theatre of Orpheus’, meaning his audience who surround him as in an amphitheatre. ‘Surrounding’ was the idea to be illustrated. The animals around the singer allegorised the charmed, harmonious circle of Golden Age peace in the world, the essential, evocative quality of the image. The problem was to render the spatial composition visually coherent. A natural viewpoint, as if looking at Orpheus from behind a group of animals, gathered in a circle around him, would

appear to have been flexible enough to allow for a model to be transposed to the foreshortened view although these are known in amphitheatre and related scenes, especially in at Saragossa Exceptionally, North African mosaics. (fig.122), the bear is depicted from behind using such a genre model. At Oudna the monkey and raven at the base of the picture, 'in front’, look up at Orpheus above them on the picture plane, whereas in realistic perspective from the position indicated they would look straight ahead (fig.89).

have to be rendered as a row of heads, an occluded view.

A favourite model from later eastern mosaics is the animal facing one way and looking back. At Sparta the running leopard to the left of Orpheus faces towards him, but she looks back, out of the picture. The nearly identical beast from Paphos is correctly placed beneath and to the right, giving the illusion of starting to run, but being attracted by the music to look back at Orpheus (Cf. fig.22a.).

Panel

scenes

derived

from

Hellenistic

illusionism

might

render this natural view as the two ‘herds' approaching Orpheus from each side, each figure superposed on the one behind. Placing smaller creatures at the front of what in reality would be a raked ground plane, all beasts would be visible (Lepcis, Blanzy, Chahba (fig.112)). The observer on the same ground plane, is in the same space as the events depicted.

Sometimes space-filling overrode all other demands, the animals being placed randomly, their direction sometimes according with the integrity of the scene and sometimes at odds with it. So on the Hanover Orpheus from North Syria several animals apparently move away from Orpheus to the left, but others, facing the same way, are in their correct positions because they have been placed right of centre. No sense of spatial coherence is evident here, for the guiding models need only to have been reversed. Evidently less skilled mosaicists were unable to oblige.

A viewer looking down, as if from the tiers of amphitheatre

seats, or in the theatre above the stage or orchestra, would see a tableau where the listeners gathered round the singer would appear as a circle, ellipse or semi-circle in plan. The adoption of the second option, the overhead view, is that of a picture practice closer to naive or plebeian art, unable to compromise the wholeness of the figure. Overhead and multiple viewpoints were paramount, where everything occuring simultaneously was shown.'’ The crowding and uncertain locations resulting from superposition (Lepcis, Chahba) were eliminated. Perhaps the most famous painted example is the Pompeian amphitheatre fight, where events within the arena can be seen at the same time as those taking place outside, beyond and to the sides. The circle of cavalrymen parading in the decursio carved on the base of the column of Antoninus Pius in the Vatican, is seen in the same way, the ellipse of a real viewpoint flattened into the circle of narrative space. Similarly the animals of Orpheus' audience are disposed around the picture field, in parallel and oblique perspective. The natural order of the physical world is understood, but exchanged for the logic of artistic

representation.** perhaps directly in which the well

A

further

reason

for the

choice

Another factor modifying the placing of scenic elements is their correspondance in the symbolic field of the picture to the natural order of the physical world. Usually Orpheus is shown at the centre, just above middle, with the beasts ranged to the sides and below in a 'U' shape, rendering the ancient theatrum. The natural context could be rendered by the position of each creature towards the top or bottom of the panel or in relation to any landscape setting. The volatiles, birds, griffins, arboreal monkeys, naturally take their place in the airy, upper zone of the picture or in and around a tree, snakes might be in a tree, in the upper region or sliding from the rocks by Orpheus’ feet. Small creatures stand close to Orpheus. They could be at the base of the picture on the observer's ‘ground’ or at the centre, a location close to the singer's ground plane, like, for example the earthly lizards and tortoises. The scuttling mouse could be at his feet. Another natural looking location is at Chahba where the mouse balances on the cithara. Elsewhere it is placed at the height of Orpheus’ head. The correct location for the large, heavy quadrupeds is at the bottom, in front.

was

an obvious one, that mosaicists took their cues from arena displays, so popular in the late Empire, Orpheus may have figured frequently, reproducing known view of the observer in the stands.

Another problem was to have the animals face Orpheus, yet not have those in the centre, the difficult lower zone beneath Orpheus on the picture plane, tum their backs on the observer. In the two herds solution all the animals are in profile. Where figures were isolated, virtual cardboard cut— outs to be disposed across the surface at will, foreground perspective was more of a difficulty, those ‘in front’ (ie. below), sometimes apparently heading towards the sides of the picture, paying no attention to the singer. Artisans do not '7 'Plebeian': a term employed for pe

Problems with the management of space combined with inexact definitions result in curious placements. The giant ostrich is found at the top at Palermo I, standing uneasily in the same space as song—birds. Where Orpheus is centrally positioned, and the animals are disposed around pictorial space, the idea of Orpheus surrounded by beasts is satisfied, even if the natural perspective is thwarted. Thus at Thina several animals including a boar, a hare and a mongoose appear at picture top, above the tree under which Orpheus sits, an equivalent composition to the Pompeian fresco showing a fight in the amphitheatre and the decursio relief on

Roman art forms in distinction to

aristocratic styles, see R.Brilliant, Roman Art (1974) 217; for overhead and oe viewpoints, Blankenhagen, 81. Picard, 66—7.

'® Cf. Brilliant Roman Art 257-9. Column of Antoninus Pius, 2nd C.AD, Vatican courtyard, decursio: D.Strong, Roman Art (1976), fig.128. Riot between Pompeians and Nocerans in the arena of Pompeii, AD 59, fresco c.70AD, Naples, Museo Nazionale: Brilliant (1977) 80, fig.I.62.

49

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic in a milieu which discouraged inventiveness, as would have been the case in the later third century, when artisans were disallowed from changing their métier and sons were

the column base of Antoninus Pius. At Piazza Armerina the same space above Orpheus has a display of colourful birds in a delightfully realised tree.

constrained to follow fathers.?* Mosaicists were unable to invent new designs appropriate to the compositional problems which arose from their improvisatory spatial scheming. This method itself indicates that no cartoon (ie. full size plan) was produced before execution, nor even perhaps a sketch design of the whole, where space is so drawings of the mismanaged (Palermo I). However, individual animals may well have been available as models. of a combination display mosaics Orpheus Many compositional devices: those appropriate to the flat, decorative pictorial field of the floor, those deriving from Greek perspectival systems, as well as the illusion of realism appropriate to painting. The result is a pastiche where spatial organisation hovers uncomfortably between

As well as illustrating the story, the centrality of Orpheus confers upon him an importance beyond that of the main protagonist of a narrative. He becomes a symbolic figure, surrounded by animals, as Christ will later be placed amid angels. At Seleucia he is unusually displaced to one side of the panel, balanced by a personification of woodland on the other. At Woodchester, a concentric design, he is displaced from the centre by an unknown feature, perhaps a pool. Relative size is another factor, the animals being generally depicted on a smaller scale than Orpheus. The Lepcis Orpheus rises above the two tiers of animals, to touch the top border. Although increased size accords with a reading of the figure as an emblem, it also reflects a standard practice of Roman art, to portray the figures in a scene on a larger scale than the setting. The Sparta mosaic furnishes a good example

predesigned elements was limited to up, down or sideways

of this practice, the singer covering the entire height of the

in the field, each animal seen in profile facing right or left in

panel with animals on a far smaller scale.'? When the figure

a schematization of the classical model. The favoured profile view of the animals was symptomatic of the decorative character of late Roman art, just as the frontal depiction of the human figure was also a distinctive late Roman development. In that simplified manner the essential and

orthogonal and vertical planes.** In effect movement of

of Orpheus increases out of all proportion, the animals become cyphers, ideas about Nature, no longer animals of the real world. The Jerusalem mosaic, the latest of the Orpheus mosaics, displays an oversized, frontal figure inhabiting the panel in the iconic fashion consonant with its early Byzantine date (fig.117).

diagnostic features of the figure can best be presented. Three mosaics employing organisation around a centre may be discussed here: Cagliari, Martim Gil and Volubilis (figs.110, 134, 159). The first two comprise Guidi's third group, in his definition with ‘elements dispersed’. The comparison is not fair, for they are of widely differing artistic quality, offering two types of composition. Only the Portugese mosaic is the dispersed kind and cannot form a group on its own. In it the mosaicist appears to have lost of Hellenistic pictorial touch with the conventions integration. The traditions and pervading artistic conventions which governed the design and composition of all the Orpheus mosaics were so strong that Martim Gil alone of known examples breaks free in its ineptitude.

In all Orpheus mosaics, of whatever period, the relationship of the animals’ position to foreground or background and to each other is arbitrary, the animals appear on an individual scale, since no linear perspective scheme is followed systematically. Any correct depiction must be considered coincidental.

The observation has often been made that this lack of scale is direct evidence for models drawn from a copy—book, on the basis, it is said, that on its pages each animal would have

appeared the same size.*° This may be so, but there is no reason to suppose it always to have been the case, if the arbitrary sizing on the animal-—filled pages of medieval bestiaries can be used as examples. Mosaicists would know in reality that the lion was larger than the dove. Perhaps this is a case of simple ineptitude, or a lack of real models. Nowhere illustrates better the unnatural rendering of scale than the North Syrian pavement in Hanover (fig. 131), where the pheasant is as large as the lion and the leopard looks like a kitten at Orpheus' feet.7’ In such schemes decorative values govern the interrelationship of forms in pictorial space. Elements were to be balanced against each other, animating the surface. Real size would be discarded in this anti—illusionistic space-filling project. If all the animals were of equal importance they could be depicted in symbolic space as equal in size, unless notably small, like the mouse.

The artistry of Cagliari seen in extant fragments is excellent (figs.

53,

69).

This

unique

mosaic

combines

common

conventions of the depiction of Orpheus in an innovative way. He is a classical Apolline type in a new pose. Around him are not the usual Orphean fauna, nor are the usual poses assumed, but instead we see genre animal motifs such as the browsing hind, a chase scene, the seated boar. The location of these animal scenes at the edges facing outwards echoes North African traditions where the central figure is oriented towards an entrance, while surrounding scenes relate to the

edges, each to be seen from a different direction.** Cagliari

may be considered as a type of compartmental design in effect, one in which the visible borders were omitted. Where Cagliari is sophisticated Martim Gil is clumsy. It has

The same forms occur over and over, not necessarily due to the employment of copy models. The slavish reproduction of

forms learned in apprenticeship would have the same result

22 Professional immobility: H.P.L'Orange, Art Forms and Civic Life (1965), 6 23 I.White, Perspective in Ancient Drawing and Painting (1956), 62ff.

'® Seen on Trajans column, for example.

24 Cf. Dunbabin (1978): Neptune and Seasons, La Chebba: pl.XXXVII, 98;

2° Michaelides: Acts, Int.Arch.Symp. ‘Cyprus Between the Orient and the Occident' (1986), 473-89, esp. 483. *" U.Liepmann, (1974) 9-36, esp.14, thinks a copy—book is the reason.

Dionysiac scenes, Djemila, pl.LXX; amphitheatre scene, Smirat, pl.XXII, 53; Worcester hunt, Antioch, pl.LXXIX, 205.

50

The Design and Composition of Orpheus Mosaics

debased provincial workmanship with sketchy figures, lacks a sense of perspective or spatial organisation. The idea of Orpheus surrounded by animals is conveyed by their being scattered around a central figure, but beyond that it has little sense of tradition. Whilst other Orpheus mosaics such as Merida I, Winterton, Panik exhibit some degree of provincially inept draughtsmanship, these at least have the encompassing geometric framework holding the composition together.

and provincial art than to the illusionism of Hellenistic which was a continuing tradition in the Greek east. The to the mathematical working of the perspectival system to be the discovery of Renaissance artists. In antiquity

problem was approached more with intuition than system.”” Somewhere even in the most random seeming mosaic is an underlying order, or the evidence of the battle between antithetical modes of depiction. These are not the solutions of sophisticated artists, but craftsmen working with spatial conventions they little understood.

The categorisation of the circular Volubilis as a type III

-=00000=-

mosaic*> misses the subtlety of its spatial organisation. We see and was how

art, key was the

a radially divided circle, Orpheus at the centre, beasts birds in the radial divisions. The designer of this mosaic staying close to the description of Ovid where he tells the trees came to shade the singer (Met. X, 86-105);

Philostratus (Imag. 6, 2) describes interlaced branches. Orpheus sits on top of a rocky crag. A multitude of different

birds perch in the branches all around.7® Under the shade of the trees all the animals came to listen. They are depicted on the mosaic in broad sunshine. We are shown the scene from above, flattened out. We are looking down through a hole at the centre of the grove and can see Orpheus below, as if through the fanlight of a vault, indeed, a painted dome may have provided the inspiration for this design. The birds above Orpheus in the trees come next in the flattened visual field. The tree bases appear at the outer edge of the mosaic. Between them and Orpheus come the animals. The radial divisions and arcuate zones formed by the trees make an organic version of vault decoration. This mosaic can be considered a panel picture of the most imaginative kind, but will also be seen to be important as a comparative design when discussing compartmental mosaics. If we judge the composition of type Ila panel scenes as if they ought to conform to the rules of literal representation many configurations will appear anomalous. For instance where the ground plane is not indicated so that some animals appear to hang in the air, or the general disregard of scale. The literal depiction of space, which we have become accustomed to accept as truthful, was beside the point of these works where symbolic truth and the illustration of an imaginative concept were the objectives. There are two forms of spatial organisation evident in Roman painting. One is the illusionistic, perspectival depiction of depth, in the other the picture plane is pre-eminent. We are accustomed to reading both modes, the first would be deemed sophisticated and Western, the second, childlike or primitive. We might expect them to appear separately. Roman

art, like modern

art, sometimes used both simultaneously. The polychrome panel picture of the western and African Orpheus mosaics derived its figurative language from mixed sources, fused into a set of conventions which effected a spatial organisation closer to the symbolic space of popular ** Stern (1955) 74, no.31. *© Does this diversity of avifauna originate in physiological illustration: such as the manuscript illustrations to the ornithological treatise by Dionysius of Philadelphia. Vienna Dioscurides, Vienna Nationalbibliothek,

cod. med.gr.1, fol. 483v., K.Weitzmann, Late Antique and Early Christian

=” G.M._Richter, Perspective in Greek and Roman Art (1970), 58: Vitr. I, 2,

Book Illumination, (1977) pl.20. Its grid form is most reminiscent of late

2; VII, praef.II; 60, observation of perspectival laws was made, but were

they consistently applied? Cf. White, 43ff. on the Vitruvian perspectival systems and Pompeian practice.

antique mosaics from Antioch. The pattern is particularly relevant to the St—

Romain—en—Gal Orpheus.

51

Chapter Seven

spread along the roads, rivers and maritime routes of the eastern trading arc which stretched between Asia Minor and the German and Gallic provinces, by way of the Aegean and the Adriatic coast, Aquilea and the Alpine passes. The eastern style noticeable at Vienne I reminds us that the of routes of those arm another provided Rhone communication originating in the east of the Empire. Of these the Danube provided a major river route, while a major land route was the Egnatian Way from Byzantium across the Balkan Peninsula.’ The Byzantine Empire later commanded these lines of communication and trade, founding Venice as a refuge for its ships on the sea roads. The spread of

The Design of Compartmental Mosaics The fragmenting of a narrative scene into a number of constituent figures isolated within the compartments of a geometrically divided field departs from the illusionistic spatial precepts of Hellenistic art and creates new perceptual problems. For this reason compartmental mosaics have been treated seperately here. In Sterm's categorisation the geometric mosaics fall into three types: Ia and Ib which are closely related, and type III, the concentric circle design. In Type Ia Orpheus is represented separated from the animals in a central compartment, with the animals in other similar compartments surrounding the central one. Figuration becomes one component of a design, as important, visually, as the rich surface patterning of the geometric framework and decorative motifs, to which the presentation of the mythical scene is subordinate. The following examples of type Ia extend Stern's list:

iconography, design and composition of mosaics along these routes is marked, similarities are noted between mosaics from the provinces of Belgica and the Alps with North Syrian prototypes.” Merchants from the east thronged these routes and are known to have travelled into the north. Quite how repertories were disseminated is not clear. Possibly it was movement

of craftsmen

or model

According to Stern this design emanated from the Rhone Valley, but as well as the six examples from North Africa, there are two from Italy and two from Spain, none of which owe anything to Gallic designs. Vienne's draughtsmanship appears eastern in style.

In Type Ib Orpheus is shown in a central panel of a larger size, alone or with a few animals. Other animals or surrounding in placed are subjects independent compartments. The unified scene of Type II is presented in reduced form in a central panel with more creatures in supporting compartments of smaller size and variously shaped. Pendent scenes are introduced into the same field in other compartments. Sometimes the presentation of the animals is such as to blend their meaning with that of a pendent subject, so that they perform two functions. Geometric schemes are of the simplest. All the figurative elements can be read as one symbolic narrative. Stern's list and regional distribution are extended by the following mosaics: Forét

de

Brotonne,

Rottweil,

Yverdon,

Salona,

Stolac, Panik, Mytilene, Miletus, Cos II. Vienne is difficult to place because its figure style belongs with mosaics in this group, but its geometric setting accords with local Gallic conventions. Trento, with its accompanying marine panels might also be included in this group.

In a comparison of the two groups, a distinct regional pattern emerges, different from Stern's original groups, with type Ia centred on the western Mediterranean basin and routes of communication along the Rhone. The second group, Ib, is

or both, but the

visual relationship of the mosaics is evident. This repertorial grouping will be argued in the ensuing chapters. KK

Santa Marinella, Saint-Romain—en-Gal, SaintI, Vienne Saint Colombe, Paul—lés—Romans, Trento, El Djem, Tangier, La Chebba, Sousse I, Sousse IT, Rougga, Merida II, Merida III.

books

KKKKK

In Type Ia mosaics St Paul-lés-Romans and Tangier the field around Orpheus is divided into a simple grid of squares around a central larger square; St.Romain—en—Gal had a great spread of octagonal compartments. El Djem and Saint Colombe (fig.149) both depict Orpheus unusually as a bust in a central medallion. Within Saint Colombe's square frame is a circle with six hexagonal compartments each occupied by animals, around a central Orpheus. The Seasons occupy the spandrels. Four square panels in the decorated surround hold birds. El Djem is a vertical rectangle, its intricate pattern based on a division into octagons framing circular medallions. Orpheus occupies a central octagon, its internal circle bordered with Greek—key and wave-crest pattern, with tangent squares. Trento has a circle-in—a—square frame for hexagonal compartments. At the centre Orpheus appears with rocks, a snake unrolls from a tree. The animals, in hexagonal compartments, run clockwise round the field. Dolphins and fish with anchors and tridents occupy the spandrels, panels with fish extend the field at the comers. Santa Marinella had nine tangent circles within a square, Rougga nine plus six semi-circles. The design of Mytilene consists of a central octagon, eight square panels tangent to its sides touch the square frame, corner lozenges, isosceles and equilateral triangles, all containing figures. The compartmental Orpheus depiction fits as naturally into the North African decorative repertory as into that of the north western provinces. Many African mosaics show animals isolated in compartments, either with a central figure or as part of an all-over design. Diana amid animals of the hunt is a popular and analogous subject.* Many subjects are " Cf. M.P.Charlesworth, Trade Route and Commerce of the Roman (1924); F.O'Sullivan, The Egnatian Way (1972); R.Chevalier, Roads, (1976). 2 See Ch. 10, 11. Orpheus mosaics from Avenches and Blanzy iconographic features also seen on North Syrian hunting and Orpheus V. von Sonzenbach,

Die Rémischen

no.5.6, pl.37, Inv.1402. Stern (1955). 3

Mosaiken

der Schweiz,

Empire, Roman

display scenes.

(1961)

Diana amid animals: Thuburbo Maius: Yacoub, Musée du Bardo,

54,

120,

The Design of Compartmental Mosaics presented in compartmental designs with combinations of fruit, flowers, animals and birds. The same pattern of wreaths surrounds the Orpheus mosaic of Rougga as others with masks, vases and xenia motifs from the same locality. Richly decorated surfaces achieved with swirling arabesques of ornamental plant forms beloved of African mosaic are employed for Rougga, Sousse I, Sousse II and La Chebba. An equal delight was taken in rectilinear geometrics, used at El Djem (fig.128) and Tangier, some of which can be paralleled in Gaul and Germany. A fondness for such geometric settings is evident in the Gallic and Germanic provinces. In this type of scheme figuration shared in importance with decoration. North African geometrics balanced the elements differently, often giving fluid shapes and floral borders to the compartments. Perhaps their influence is to be seen in the Iberian mosaics. While the overall patterning of the geometric Orpheus mosaics of the Northern provinces can be sumptuously dazzling, as in the borders to the Woodchester pavement, nothing so inventively florid as the African designs appears outside their sphere of influence.

where they touch, with six half wreaths at the two side edges.

Santa Marinella had simple guilloche borders. Among its animals were a giraffe, which appears on a mosaic of similar

design to Rougga, in the Bardo.” The comparisons to be made between type Ib mosaics are in the iconography of the central panels and subsidiary subjects, rather than the geometric frame. Comparable mosaics belonging to type Ib are, for example, Rottweil (fig.121) and Miletus, where a bird and fox accompany Orpheus at the centre, with arena scenes in adjacent panels (fig.136). Panik has an octagonal centre formed by intersecting squares one of which touches the square frame, cutting an outer border to create compartments in the angles of that frame. Stolac likewise has an octagonal central panel within a lozengewise square, six elongated hexagons and four square panels in the space between the two. Yvonand had a central circular panel, tangent semi-circles with squares at the comers. This scheme is repeated at Cos II in a less omate manner based on a reduced design of tangent circles, seen in British mosaics.° The square comer panels of the design recur at Salona, but an extra sub-division of its central circle makes a concentric zone, radially divided, containing birds. The design has inspired comment on its similarity to the British mosaics.’ Littlecote is as much like a circular version of type Ib, than a type III, concentric circles.

Orpheus does not occupy the central panel of La Chebba’'s rectangle, but is placed to the right in a curvilinear tetragon, mirrored by a dolphin-riding genius on the left, amid an array of motifs displaying the riches of sea and land (fig.124). The central rectangle holds a fishing scene and sea craft. The figuration is held in an omate scheme of curvilinear tetragons and ovals. Within a circular frame Sousse I and II are divided by an interlaced laurel and guilloche border providing six deltoidal and six fan-shaped compartments and a central curvilinear hexagon. Two mosaics from Merida have a complex design leaving a curvilinear octagon for Orpheus, the animals occupying lozenge—wise squares, birds in the circles and ovals of an interlaced guilloche framework. The richly varied repertoire of decorative motifs and geometric designs in Roman polychrome ensured that hardly any Orpheus mosaics need be the same.

The subdivisions of Stern's type III were applied by Smith to the Romano-British mosaics alone. Volubilis, Salona, Ptolemais and Merida I were excluded from his account and, although difficult to categorise, they offer interesting comparisons. Type IIIa, designs of two concentric circles: Withington, Newton St.Loe, Pit Meads(?), and type IIIb, three concentric circles: Barton Farm (fig.107), Woodchester (fig.163), all have a main field divided into circular zones. The outer geometric framework is based on rectangles and squares. The zones are attenuated, curvilinear versions of rectangular fields, functioning as such at Barton and Woodchester. Each zone is dedicated to one order of subject matter. Mosaics of Type IIIc, radially divided concentric circles, Littlecote, Horkstow, Winterton, are circular versions of types Ia and Ib, in that the simplest division of such geometric schemes results in radial segments, where a rectangle would provide squares, and so forth. In all other respects they are similar, having Orpheus in a central panel with animals and independent scenes in separate, surrounding compartments. The Orpheus mosaics of Britain may be reconsidered under the following headings:

Black—and—white mosaic has a particular decorative effect which polychrome cannot so simply supply. Surfaces are animated by the vivid, flickering movement set up by the alternation of light and dark. Figuration varies and highlights the decorative effect or, if predominant, the visual scheme subordinates narrative to decorative qualities.* Even in the naively executed bichromes with some polychrome, Merida I and Trento, the simple colour scheme and sharp outlines lend vigour to the visual impact. Santa Marinella is the only black-and-white geometric known. The animals sit in their circles in haphazard order, landscape elements jumbled in with two or even three beasts to a medallion, without orientation. This is so odd a composition for the compartments of a geometric scheme, that I wonder if the recording of this lost mosaic is erroneous. Rougga, like Santa Marinella is constructed on a scheme of nine circles. It has tangent wreaths of ‘floral style’ foliage, vine leaves Inv. 2816,

fig.129, G.Fradier, Mosaiques (1986),

A: schemes which are circular versions of existing types; B: zonal schemes which employ concentric circles. Zonal schemes employing concentric circles are the innovatory design of the mosaicists working in Britain. They are listed following Smith's typology: Type IIIb: Barton Farm; Woodchester. Type IIIa: Pit Meads; Withington; Newton St.Loe.

100, colour. Dunbabin

274, no.5. El Djem: Sollertiana Domus, Dunbabin 259, 21a, i, pl.20. Sousse: L.Foucher, Inventaire des Mosaiques, Sousse, (1960), 57.187, pl.XLIlIc.

Animals diverge from centre.

> Musée du Bardo, floral style circles: room of Virgil and Muses. © D.S.Neal, Roman Mosaics in Britain (1981), 26, fig.6 A.

* J.R.Clark, Black—and—White Figural Mosaics (1979).

7 CMGR I, (1965), 294.

53

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

Within the compartments so formed, animals run anti— clockwise. The alternation of trees and animals could also be a conventional way of evoking the movement of a hunt through a forest. There is a distant relationship to Volubilis, where the naturalism of the draughtsmanship prompts the observer to read the pictorial space as an imaginative adaptation of an illusionistic picture. At Withington, however, stylisation and a geometric border to the central panel, in contrast to leafy, bird—filled branches on the African mosaic, flatten the space, precluding any perception but that of a decorative field. The arrangement at Volubilis appears naturalistic, birds in the branches, beasts in the grove.

Smith placed the mosaics of IIb later than IIa, but this writer considers them to be the source of the popular design,

as will be demonstrated. Pit Meads provides the link between the two groups, the decoration of its remaining corner spandrel resembling the foliage of the Corinian school whose workmanship is seen in type IIIb Orpheus mosaics and other local examples. Circular versions of existing types are Winterton (Ia), Littlecote (Ib) (fig.132) and Brading (IIa) (fig.109). Horkstow (fig.116) has radial sections dividing concentric zones, but cannot be considered an innovatory design since it exactly mirrors a scheme used for a vault decoration.* North African Volubilis, though its scene is divided by vegetation rather than geometric pattern, uses a similarly based scheme.

In some concentric mosaics birds encircle the centre, beasts are in the next register outwards. This could be described as ‘zoning’, which is the organisational system particular, but not exclusive to the British mosaics. It appears in another form at Saragossa, a long rectangle divided horizontally into three registers, birds with Orpheus, large quadrupeds in tiers below. Zoning relies on conceptual hierarchies within the scene, the relative values and natural place in the real world of the figures, which would be transposed into spatial relationships across the picture plane.

The discovery at Merida, Spain in 1983 of a concentrically circular mosaic, black-and-white with polychrome, throws any neat categorisations askew (fig.135). The mosaic has an inner, circular tableau of Orpheus with tree, rock and animals and an outer zone with mixed small and large beasts and birds, plus in the spandrels four winged male genii issuing from acanthus (cf. Titans in spandrels of Mythological circle, Horkstow) It could be categorised as a type IIIa mosaic (two circles), but the scene in the central panel is landscape— based, comparable with Salona, a type Ib panel. It has a unique fruit tree and its fauna is related to the Mediterranean mosaics. Its Phrygian Orpheus distances it from the wreathed Apolline Orpheus of the Dalmatian mosaic, but neither does it bear any comparison with British mosaics.

At Volubilis the larger quadrupeds are at the outer edges, for which read ‘foreground’. ‘Above’ them come smaller animals, close to Orpheus, then birds in the trees (figs.73, 74). The gradation of sizes is also the best way to manage the decorative space of the scheme. At Barton Farm birds come in the inner zone, quadrupeds occupy the outer zone. Trees altemating with the animals form compartments, but essentially that concentric field is one unified picture. The trees belong to the scene of the entranced creatures in the grove. Such an arrangement is common to decorative borders, where it gives a visual rhythm. Compare, for example, the border to a circular piscina from Sousse,'° its animals and vegetation reminiscent of Barton Farm and Woodchester.

Subtle resemblances between the mosaics of Britain and those of the Iberian peninsula and Volubilis do exist, but any attempt to reconstruct a route of reciprocal influence for mosaic styles between Mauretania and Southern Britain by way of Spain and Portugal meets with confusions, for no simple train of development can be traced. It is an interesting coincidence, but perhaps no more, that examples of circular mosaic occur along this, another putative trade route, the ancient route of the Phoenician traders. Only the fact that the circular field is so infrequent gives any hint that influence may have been extended. In the hunt mosaic from Conimbriga? an attempt is made to adapt material to the circular field, not altogether succesfully, the figuration is not oriented to the edges. Only in Romano—British mosaics, in Merida and Volubilis, is the composition organised relative to the edges, or set of edges presented by the geometric setting. Romano-British Orpheus mosaics display the best use of the decorative possibilities of the circular field. Trento (fig.156) appears to offer an analogous depiction only because its animals run around Orpheus, similar to Withington and Newton St.Loe, but they are locked in their hexagonal compartments, so it must belong with standard geometrics.

Hierarchies at Merida I are not so distinct. Small creatures inhabit the central panel with Orpheus. A mixture of animals, fierce and meek, quadrupeds and birds are seen in the outer zone. Salona is a hybrid, zoned within a type Ib geometric structure. Birds occupy the radially divided concentric circle around Orpheus's panel. Again we may imagine them hovering overhead. In squares tangent to it and in the comer spandrels, come four running beasts. The outer half—circles hold pendent marine scenes and sea—beasts. Salona is an interesting mixture of a common type, in which the circles are part of a geometric framework, and a concentrically zoned scheme. With its extra radially divided zone, Salona may correspond with the lost mosaic of Yverdon where circles were reported.'' At Rottweil outer, rectangular zones hold circus and chase scenes.

The stylised trees of Withington are arranged to form arched compartments, bases at the outer edge and branches forming a vegetal garland round the wave-crest border of the centre.

Numerous geometric schemes revolve around a circular central panel, exceedingly popular in Britain where mosaicists developed many concentric and radially divided

* Ceiling of 'The Painted House’, Ostia, R.Brilliant, Roman Art (1974), fig.III.32, AD 150-200; R.Bianchi Bandinelli, Rome, The Centre of Power 1971) fig.335. R.Ling, Roman Painting (1991) fig.196. ° M.Bairrao

Oleiro,

'Mosaiques

romaines

de Portugal’, CMGR

'© Inv.Sousse, 57.049, pl.Xc, XIa—c. '' Yverdon: Gonzenbach. Mos.Schweiz, 237, no.143.2.

I (1965)

257-63, fig.7. C-MacMillan Mosaiques romaines de Portugal (1986), 63.

54

The Design of

Compartmental Mosaics

schemes, a practice which included Orpheus mosaics. Mosaics where Orpheus in a central circle, has a_ setting which presents the legendary mise—en—scéne of a grove in Rhodope are: Merida I, Volubilis, Cos II, Salona, Yvonand, Brading, Rougga, Ptolemais; Vienne and Mytilene have an octagonal frame, Trento's is hexagonal; Forét de Brotonne and Newton St.Loe which depict a rocky seat perhaps belong to this group, although Barton Farm with its one pale frond is probably outside it. The spatial concepts of the vertically oriented rectangular panel are employed, as if the circular panel were a painting, an illusionistic hole in the flat plane. The actual horizontal plane and multiple viewpoints of a floor are recognised in the orientation of other elements and ‘pendent’ scenes towards the outer edges in the compartments of type Ia and Ib pavements. Brading, probably a circular Type IIb, can also be seen as a Type Ib, its outer compartments contracted to spandrels. Ptolemais (fig.146) with its integrally woven tangent medallions and spandrels wherein scenic elements form a setting for birds, may be considered in the same way, as either IIb or Ib. The setting is reduced to nil in mosaics of a late date: Littlecote, Withington, Horkstow, Winterton. Woodchester's Orpheus, moved down from the centre, has no background of his own, but the fox and peacock on either side intimate a ground line, faintly echoing advancing herds, as at Lepcis I. In type Ib mosaics animals tend to face the same way, following a train

left, in a mosaic for a funerary cave; Seleucia: Orpheus at the left is balanced by a personification on the right; Djemila: Orpheus occupies a comer of the border diagonally opposite Ulysses, between mythological scenes; Littlecote: the figure faces towards the far apse on the important sight line through the body of the two chambers.

A circular, radiate design emphasises the centre of the field in a manner lending it a symbolic force. Design centrality, with a central axis on both horizontal and vertical planes, assumed a new importance in architectural development of represented structures Such the late third century. microcosms of the universe, reinforced both by the pictorial and iconographic content of their decoration. Events enacted within such a space would assume a concomitant importance,

their

protagonists

cosmic

a

power.’*

Mosaics

with

symmetrical circular designs can be envisaged as echoing the decoration of a vault, for example Littlecote with its scallop—shell apses. Horkstow, almost exactly matching a vault fresco, includes the textile awnings hanging below the central skylight (fig.51). The vision of Orpheus would be ‘heavenly’, as if he were above, whereas at Volubilis spectators could imagine they looked down on him. In mosaic such centralised designs display a new concept of space departing from the illusionism of mural decoration. The pictorial organisation would not imitate reality, but obey conceptual demands.

of movement around the field, like the animals on a funfair ride and just as stiffly.

*

Type Ia mosaics are not so consistent a group as Ib and IIl, a number of arrangements and types of geometric frame being used. Several are so fragmentary as to preclude any compositional study. An originally well preserved example was Saint-Romain—en—Gal, where 44 birds and beasts once paraded before Orpheus.’* Creatures are disposed in their grid according to the spatial logic of panel painting, however those above Orpheus’ head are upside down when the pavement is seen from a single viewpoint as it would be if illustrating an article or a hung on a museum wall. Approached in real space from the ‘back’ of Orpheus, perhaps another room entrance, they would appear correct, giving the desired sense that the animals are around the singer. The mosaicist adapted the illusory space of the panel picture to the spatial dynamics of the room in which the

KK

KK

KOK

The pictorial idea illustrated by mosaicists of the Orpheus scene was a central figure surrounded by others, the simple narrative scene with birds, animals and perhaps trees gathered around the singer. This would be best presented in the realistic rendering of space in the manner of Hellenistic illusionistic styles. Another factor governing the design and composition of mosaics was their decorative function, the necessity to provide patterns for the eye, to present figures to the moving view, both in panel pictures and geometric schemes. Geometric mosaics might reflect an architectural setting, allowing elements dispersed within the picture to be both around Orpheus and around the room. This arrangement acknowledges both the central protagonist of the narrative and the moving view of the observer. The concentric circle design in particular takes into account the horizontal plane of the mosaic, and room dynamics, which govern the observer's movements. In panel pictures, problems posed and solutions provided by perspectival systems came into play.

mosaic was set, involving the participation of the spectator in the moving view. St-Romain is a great display picture. Orpheus, in classic profile, ignores the spectator. In later mosaics Orpheus, whether in central panel or part of a composed picture, faces towards the room entrance, (where that can be ascertained) on the central axis, to address the newly entered spectator. There are notable exceptions, La Chebba: centre occupied by the important marine scene, the dolphin rider to the left balancing Orpheus; Tarsus: Orpheus is one end of a line of three panels, Ganymede the other, a Bacchic motif in the centre; Constantine: Orpheus appears in a panel to the right of a central oval held by cupids, an Otherworld scene to the

Vying with the narrative urge was the symbolic content of the scene. This was effected in part by hierarchical arrangements of the figural elements. In addition the emblematic power of a circular frame could lend an abstract force to underly the mythical symbolism. The theatrum of the gathered audience formed a circle, a shape perfectly and profoundly expressive of the harmonious peace engendered by the divine music, and itself a powerful archetype. On a symbolic level the "3

HP.L'Orange, Art Forms and Civic Life in the Late Roman Empire

original design from the restorer's notes, 'Mosaiques de la region de Vienne’,

(1965), axial dominance: 70-85. Cf. figs. 24, 25 and p.79, cosmic ambience. XXVII, 1, (1945) 1-27. K.Lehmann 'The Dome of Heaven' The Art Bulletin Cf. organisation of Diocletian's Palace, Split: L'Orange, 71-76; Brilliant

Gallia XXTIX (1974), The mosaic destroyed by fire, 1968.

(1974) figs. 1.37a, 1.37b.

2

The

mosaic

shown

in reduced

restoration.

Stern

reconstructed

the

55

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

depiction could be perceived as representing every power with which Orpheus was credited: powers to avert evil, ensure safety, intercede with the gods, or provide a musicfilled haven of peace.

The form of mosaic design which provided the best visual analogy was symmetrical with a central focus. The ‘birds— eye’ viewpoint of Roman popular art could more successfully represent the symbolic space of the myth than could Greek perspective. The design best expressing all these levels of

meaning is the concentric circle mosaic. A simple idea simply expressed. The animals pictured moving around Orpheus also move, in imagination, around the room. The design expresses both the narrative and its symbolic content. The simple solution provides the structure which houses the strong impulse for narrative form and the desire for decoration and pattern.’* Perhaps the best of these mosaics are Woodchester and Barton Farm, where the animals pad around the singer, subdued and entranced. —=00000=-

'4 E.H.Gombrich The Sense of Order (1979) Introduction and 171.

36

Chapter Eight

the design of manuscript pages being influenced by mosaic and painting practice, as well as the other way round.* amply illustrated scientific treatises Doubtless many circulated.

Repertories and Style Style, artistry and figural repertories are the aspects of the pictorial character of the depiction of Orpheus in mosaic to be brought into focus now. The interaction of patron and craftsman in matters of taste and subject matter would have had a bearing on the final presentation of the image. How far antique perceptions can be divined from the image and the extent to which the contemporary eye re-interprets the ancient pictorial language, must be considered. Stylistic conventions governed both choice and expression of figuration. The evolution and spread of imagery in antiquity may have been effected through workshop practice, the use of model—books or the example of depictions in other media.

Balanced against any need for a ‘copy book’ is the craftsman's capacity to carry a visual idea mentally and transmit it through his hands. Any artist can carry elements of repertory ready to put into two-dimensional plastic form.

Some themes would be learned during apprenticeship, more in the course of a working life. The mosaicist might also gather patterns and subjects from various sources and note them down. These notebooks would be the personal property of the mosaicist. The medieval pattern albums of Villard de

Honnecourt offer a parallel, filled with motifs sketched some of them on the spot we are told, though the sketches are already in Villard's own idiom. Books of drawings by the fifteenth century Venetian Jacopo Bellini were a jealously guarded commodity, only passed on to the family with certain provisos.” Jacopo's drawings were fully elaborated schemes, inventions of his own, considered treasures. A number of sketch-books circulated among the artists of the International Gothic movement of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Motifs from such books can be discemed in the works of the Venetian and Northern Italian masters, including Jacopo's.

The hypothesis of the employment of pattern— or copy— books as a source for mosaicists, is one which recurs with

regularity." Only a few scholars question the notion.” The belief that a mosaicist would need to consult a picture every time he wanted to make it in mosaic lies behind the idea. The apparent similarity of model types or genre depictions of Orpheus or the animals prompts the hypothesis. It would be instructive to find sets of models used in Orpheus mosaics which would reveal a distinct source, but would this consist of a book, a mosaicists’ studio or a practice passed down in a family? The argument can be moved forward by proposing portfolios of sketches as aids to the mosaicists' pictorial resources. They would be but one among many influences, providing models, visual ideas, available for elaboration by the individual mosaicist and would complement such visual material as the mosaicist held in his head. This would be a closer description of the creative process suggested by the pictorial structure of the mosaics.

An antique sketchbook perhaps contained figures and motifs in common usage, others noted for interest, animals, famous works, specialities of other masters, decorative borders. The mosaics offer no evidence to suggest the passing from one workshop to another of a complete Orpheus scheme. On the contrary, Orpheus mosaics always have the appearance of a construct, of being on-the-spot inventions, lacking pictorial coherence, their elements derived from many sources. It was as if the picture had to be re-invented for each mosaic, rather than that the mosaic image derived from one or two Hellenistic painted originals. All internal visual evidence suggests the deployment of ready-made patterns. The use of models from the pictorial vocabulary of Orpheus in other media and from other genres, readily available, provides one explanation for this compositional process. The relationship of Orphean models to other genres emerges most obviously in later examples where imagery from the hunt and pastoral scenes is used almost unchanged. This suggests artisans more familiar with such repertories employing well rehearsed patterns to construct the famous image.

One genre motif is the bird scratching its head with one leg which occurs frequent in Graeco-Roman art and which continued to be depicted for centuries afterwards. A dove— like bird appears with the musician on the fourth century BC at pavements Orpheus On (fig.3).* mirror bronze Woodchester (fig.76) and Withington (fig.162) it is a long— tailed bird, at Ptolemais a wader (fig.146). A peacock scratching is the central motif of a bird mosaic at Mactar. The motif turns up later on the famous medieval sketchbook, c.1400, in the Pepys library, Cambridge, as a crane. Plausibly this motif always had a sketch—book location, the to illustrations manuscript with comparable ornothological treatise by Dionysius of Philadelphia. Its grid form is most reminiscent of the conventions of ceiling decoration which favoured grids in imitation of coffering, and late antique mosaics from Antioch. At St-Romain—en— Gal the idiosyncratic feature of the birds' hind wings, which appear in no other Orpheus mosaic, may derive from a set of drawings. Weitzmann draws attention to the possibility of

To add to the complexity it is evident from the study of figure forms that more than one repertory, ie. a set of patterns organically linked by repetitive pictorial formulae, was used in each mosaic. For example each of the mosaics of Carnuntum, Sparta, Chahba, Paphos display elements which link them to some or all of the others, but each one e al, Rechérches G.C.Picard de Venus’, 'La Maison 4 Mactar: Archéologiques Franco—Tunisienne 4 Mactar I, (1977) figs.44, 45. Medieval

' D.Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements (1947) 362ff.; V.von Gonzenbach (1950) 283; J.Thirion MEFRA (1955) 167; J.M.C.Toynbee, Latomus VI, (1951) 46-8, idem (1964) 10-11; R.M.Harrison, JRS 52 (1962) 13-18; L.Budde, Antike mosaiken in Kilikien (1969) 83, D.Michaelides (1986) 483;

sketch book: Pepys Library, Magdalene College Cambridge, Ms. P.L. 1916.

Vienna Dioscurides, Vienna Nationalbibliothek, cod. med. gr.1, fol. 483v., K.Weitzmann, Late Antique and Early Christian Book Illumination (1977)

1.20; idem, Illustrations in Roll and Codex, 2nd ed.(1970). > Villard: E.Gombrich, Art and Illusion (1959), 1977 ed., 68, fig.52, 130-1, figs. 105-6. Bellini: C.Joost-Gaugier, Jacopo Bellini, Selected Drawings (1980) v—vi.

etc.

? R.J.A.Wilson, IRS 71 (1981) 173-7; P.Bruneau, 'Les mosaicistes antiques,

avaient—ils des cahiérs des modéles?’ Rev-Arch (1984) 241-272. * Guthrie (1935) fig.9, 66; Stern (1980) fig.2.

af

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

also includes elements or stylistic modes which make them different from the others. If the repertories were available in book or portfolio form, either more than one such was called upon by mosaicist and assistants, or some of the models were executed from memory. Or both eventualities occurred. In the case of one or two distinct figures appearing in the midst of a conventional group, the introductions might be from memory, sketch or invention. The conventional figures in their turn might derive from memory or sketch.

of quality workmanship Orpheus mosaics have a tendency to look to us like the work of lesser artists because their elements appear to have been thrown together.

Mosaics from the Greek east preserve the skill of Hellenistic painters in presenting an illusion of depth. Type IIb mosaics with well balanced compositions are the same as those where the level of artistry displayed in figure work is high (eg. Chahba, Tarsus, Paphos) suggesting a master responsible both for the composition and execution of a figured panel. A pictor may have designed the overall scheme of the pavement in which the panel was one element or may be the name for the figure master. Differences in craftsmanship between figures and setting and between panel and ornamental surround are readily observed in many mosaics. The natural distribution of talents is such that one expects that the talent for producing subtle figure work would not belong to the same person as would be able to render the skilled geometrics with their complex nets and vice versa.

The notion of what are called copy—books as a sole source, therefore, introduces a process more problematic than it need be, raising many questions, disregarding many factors. Copying itself is not so easy an option, taking some skill. Sometimes working from memory produces a more fluent result. Copying is discernible in the work of less able craftsmen where the theme was unusual,® but some late Orpheus mosaics also betray the inept copying ability of the artisan (Poljanice, Carnuntum, Newton St.Loe, Littlecote). At Newton St.Loe the animals are vivid, though stylised, while Orpheus evidently derives from a complex drawing, so the lines of his cloak go astray. Copying might be unnecessary for the well known subject, especially for the able craftsman, unless perhaps he had seen a new pictorial feature which he wished to imitate. There is always the possibility that mosaicists distant in time and location from centres of artistic innovation would own only such models as they held in their heads. In practice recourse to visual information and influence, and the ability to use them are sophisticated acts and processes.

It is likely that on the finest mosaics there may have been several specialists at work: a designer, who may perhaps also have been either the figure master or the geometrics master or who may have subcontracted both or either of these; a master of decorative foliar borders; the masters’ assistants; background workers. Then others who prepared the floor, mixed the mortar, cut the numberless tesserae, ground the finished pavement and gave it a shine, perhaps the tasks of apprentices. Not to mention those who colour grouped and sorted the tesserae, some of whom in a family concern may have been children and nimble fingered girls. Some units may have been prefabricated in workshops with their own body of workers. Any element of figuration repeatedly employed in numbers of mosaics might, at the height of the Empire, have had its own specialist artisan. Such was the practice in art until at least the early twentieth century and which continues in the decorative arts.

Little can be adduced of the lives of the artisans who constructed the mosaics, something of their work practices.” The few indications suggest to Dunbabin a designer, pictor or ordinator, who may have designed the work, perhaps laying outlines or drawing sinopia. Others, whose work was described by 'tessellare' or ‘pavimentare', would fill in and perhaps lay the geometric surround, she suggests. Her hypothesis does not convey all the subtleties of appearance, nor the number of different hands evident in certain Orpheus mosaics. One would expect that the mundane task of laying in plain background would be given to the lowest in the workshop hierarchy — apprentices, the less able — but the execution of principal figures ought to be the work of a master. None of the figures in Orpheus mosaics seems to have been constructed as if an outline by one hand filled in by another, all appear achieved as an organic whole. The geometric surround would also require some skill, to design, organise and to lay down to high standard.

There is a perceptible difference in the hands, and skills, responsible for the several elements of a number of Orpheus mosaics. At Jerusalem the richly ornamented peopled scroll is more fluent than the principal figures. Evidently two mosaicists worked here, their styles distinguishable. At Woodchester two hands have been discerned in the acanthus border (fig.52), one less able than the other* master and apprentice perhaps. The naiads are drawn by two hands,

perhaps the same two, one of whom had access to classical forms (fig.100), the other exhibiting provincial stylisation. The elegant geometric borders are of a different order again, the work of yet another, most proficient master. Whilst a number of specialists may have worked on the best mosaics, the cruder, simpler examples, Martim Gil, Brading, Poljanice, Carnuntum, amongst others, were probably entirely the work of one artisan and his mate. These were provincial and later, when diminishing skill is evident

The combining of stock figures into a composed picture might have been the job of the pictor, says Dunbabin (29) although the improvisatory spatial organisation common to type II Orpheus mosaics does not say much for their ability. No example exhibits a wholly successful, balanced internal structure. The whole, familiar ensemble was _ subject to conventional rules of arrangement for which a specialist might well be superfluous. Even where individual figures are © Eg. Brading, misunderstood.

Astronomer:

Toynbee

(1962),

pl.233,

the

left arm

everywhere.

Woodchester is notable for the number of specialists the patron was able to commission for a provincial mosaic. The

is

* B.Woodward,

(1981), 10-15.

7 K.M.D.Dunbabin, The Mosaics of Roman North Africa (1969) 24—30.

58

talking about the Wotton reconstruction. Cf. Mosaic 4,

Repertories and Style

following

geometrics master either came from Trier or went on to work there,” the designer was perhaps also the figure master and, if not African, betrays an aquaintance with the African tradition, evident in the style and species of animals. The second hand, perhaps his apprentice, was possibly British, or Gallic, to judge from his style. On all accounts this was a prestigious undertaking with an according degree of

available

commissions

or in the

train of

merchants from Syria and the Greek east (known to have set

up shop all along the routes as far north as Britain).’* Costume details such as eastern contemporary fashions on western mosaics, or the use of the eastern animal repertory suggest the conventions of the mosaicist's home being employed. That is to say, a costume type which is regionally specific probably betrays the provenance of the mosaicist. Recall how the spontaneous sketches of Villard (thirteenth century), immediately transmuted the object seen into his own idiomatic style. The likelihood of a body of working designs and patterns migrating without its owner cannot be assessed. Palermo I provides the one instance where eastern prototypes are dressed in the style of African conventions. Perhaps the designer had travelled, or was not a native of Sicily. The mosaicist was responsible for translating the eastern figural repertory into African forms. Prosperous fourth century Britain attracted artisans from the Continent, some from further afield, seen (infra) in the eastern influence on mosaics of Brading and Newton St.Loe.

innovation and elaboration. Craftsmen are known to have travelled widely. Itinerant crews of mosaicists, perhaps family groups, practised their skills over a wide area. One from Alexandria worked in many cities before being honoured in Perinthus, Thrace, where his son enjoyed the same status. Mosaicists of eastern provenance signed their names at Ostia, Rome, Nimes,

Seville, Merida, Avenches and North Africa.’° Evidence of the movement of eastern mosaicists can be detected in mosaics exhibiting features of their repertories along the east-west routes from Byzantium through Dalmatia, and along the Danubian frontier across the Alps into modern

Italy, Germany, Switzerland and France."’ The diffusion of African style has been addressed adequately by Dunbabin.'*

The patron's role must also be assessed. A modern assumption is that the patron of antiquity would only be able to choose by looking through a book of possible subjects, being vague about his overall scheme of imagery until shown some suggestions. This is likened to the need of some modern patrons to look at sample decorative schemes. Although undoubtedly such an event must have occurred sometimes it cannot have been the case every time. The patrons of the Roman Empire will all have been wealthy enough to undertake the commission, but the levels of their education and aesthetic sensibility may have differed widely. There are several objections to the idea that imagery in the Graeco-Roman world was as much an unknown quantity as it is to the modern amateur interior decorator. We must choose paper from a pattern book because we cannot know all the possible variants. The advent of multiple reproduction has extended the range of images and their availability. But we usually know what manner of effect we are after. However, a proportion of patrons of antiquity would doubtless have known the extent of the most culturally pervasive and popular themes constituting the majority of depictions.

A travelling group offers one explanation for the phenomenon of far flung and isolated occurrences of an otherwise local repertory. Thus for example, features employed in Orpheus mosaics from the Greek East are paralleled in the mosaics from Avenches, at one end of a great route of communication. Images from the same Orphean repertory recur on other items (rings, statuary, relief) recovered all along the major routes (cf. Ch.10, ‘the snake’). See Map, fig. 21. Another pattern source might be genre figures in other media, especially portable items, employed for widely separated mosaics. The seated boar is seen at Paphos, Cagliari and possibly El Pesquero, Spain. Its characteristic pose is that of the cornered beast seen on depictions of the successful chase, for example hunting mosaics and sarcophagi with the Calydonian hunt. It appears

with Adam

the

on a fourth century ivory.’* It may derive

ultimately from the Hellenistic bronze boar, a copy of which is in Florence, known as ‘Il Porcellino'. Though unusual in Orpheus mosaics it appears elsewhere and recourse to a

model—book need not apply.**

These paintings, sculptures and mosaics were to be seen in the public rooms of the wealthy, in porticoes, galleries and

Vehicles for the dissemination of imagery might have been western craftsmen returning from eastern travels, carrying the new repertory in a graphic form, which subsequently circulated; or eastern workmen bringing out their skills,

temples.’° The best known imagery, and combinations of

away from a centre of inspiration. NB. the distinction made by this writer between geometric— and figure—masters: Masters of different disciplines. '° Toynbee, Latomus IX, (1950) 296-7. '' M.P.Charlesworth, Trade Routes and Commerce of the Roman Empire, (1924), Chapter 10, 173-8. "2 Dunbabin, influence and spread of North African style, Chapter XII.

images, would have been common currency. The well educated patron would have access to more recherché and literary themes, while the intelligentsia might require something more esoteric about which the mosaicist could be informed, if need be, through illustrated books or by inventing the visual programme. Some might be influenced by fashion, wanting the same as their peers or emulating their superiors. Some would be totally ignorant. Sometimes a mosaicist with a good reputation may have been left to his doubt patrons contributed to the own devices. No iconographic scheme, so that it would convey their desired

'* Carthage, Dermech, Dunbabin pl.XII, 23; Oudna, Maison des Laberii, ibid pl.XXXIX, 101; Lavin, fig.75. Many hunt scenes show the cornered

'> Merchants from Syria: Charlesworth, 238.

° Cf.K.Parlasca (1959), 50, pl.50; D.J.Smith (1965), 113-14, fig.18; idem, ‘The Mosaic Pavements’

in The Roman

Villa in Britain, A.L.F.Rivet, ed.

(1969) 116, pl.3.32. Both discuss a panel in the geometrically patterned border, considering that the mosaicist worked first in Britain, then Trier on the grounds that the greater elaboration of the Trier version is evidence of its

being

laid

second.

But

another

assumption

might

be

made:

that the

simplification of the Woodchester version might be evidence of movement

'? Ivory diptych with Adam:

Toynbee, ARLA fig.138.

'© Cf. L.Casson, Travel in the Ancient World, (1974), Ch.17, esp. 264-271.

boar on its back legs. 'Il porcellino’, Ufizzi, Florence: F.Haskell Taste and

Pliny NH XXXVI, 28-29, 34-36. More: J.J.Pollitt The Arts of Rome (1966) 88-91; and so on.

the Antique (1981) 161-3, fig.83. G.Richter Animals in Greek Sculpture (1930). Cf. Michaelides (1986) 483.

59

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic message, with personal references, favourite themes. They might themselves have sketches of animals or a style they wished incorporated into the finished Orpheus mosaic.

mosaic from Merida and a similar scene from Chahba,~’ the ‘Astronomer’ of Trier and Brading. Other schemes which offer esoteric readings might be composed of standard representations newly juxtaposed, for example the divinities

It is quite possible that many patrons would know what they wanted and how it was likely to appear. The realisation of the idea would depend on the skill and experience of the artist, his repertorial range, the counter-demands of the

of the pavement from the house of Orpheus, Palermo.**

patron. The mosaicist's advice may have been sought at any point, calling on his experience to suggest which figured combinations were appropriate or usual. Petronius is able to his presenting by taste bad Trimalchio's Satirize inappropriate juxtaposition of imagery (Satyricon 29). On the other hand, the endless permutations of ornamentation and colour schemes in geometric settings and decorative borders might indeed require consultation of the sort

themes outside the classical cannon, and by more obscure depictions of the personal philosophies of the patron. There is also work of provincial artisans representing the schemes

envisaged by the modern commentator, though available materials seem partly to have governed the choice of colour.

Given the desire to decorate a floor, the compendium of images which comprised the Graeco-Roman repertory was called upon. It was made up of several orders of imagery. One was the popular image (of which Orpheus is a prime example): depictions of the exploits of the gods and heroes known to everyone either in the vernacular, in oral literature or the popular classics. Genre scenes of the amphitheatre, the chase, inhabited scrolls, xenia motifs and so forth, could be adapted to local taste and personal biography. The standard iconography of Roman state religion, with local provincial variants, on statues, relief, implements and furnishings would be equally pervasive. Such popular images might be seen places, public surroundings, in domestic anywhere, illustrated in paintings. Stage settings of idyllic landscapes would have been familiar in cities, for example the type of scene painted to record the silva of Gordian I (235-38 AD), when the circus was turned into a forest. On a huge frieze some 1320 animals were painted.'” In the same category come paintings of wild animals on the walls of peristyle courtyards of private houses and the many garden landscapes

from Pompeii,’* where animals, birds and appropriate gods and heroes, such as Orpheus, would naturally fit. These decorated the houses of the wealthy. The evidence for the use

of visual narrative in public triumphs and court cases’® suggests that acceptance and understanding of such material was widespread. In the realm of popular imagery there may have been images of the bill-board type, springing from use as stage sets, carrying a depiction of Orpheus, on vexillae, inn or shop signs, like the Venus from the Via Abbondantia, Pompeii. Literature bears witness to elaborate scenarios of mythical scenes, including Orpheus, being familiar to the

masses.7° In contrast, the abstruse image illustrated a moral point, a philosophy, esoteric learning: for example "Ulysses and the Therapenides' from Apamea (Musée Royal, Brussels) stylistically derived from painting; the ‘Cosmological’

Style and omamentation would be the province of designer

The picture is clouded for us by the and mosaicist.** departure from traditional patterns in the illustration of

of late syncretism?* or that of inept artisans with scant knowledge of the rules of depiction of classical subjects, all now difficult for us to read. We may be sure that as often as not patrons knew what they were asking of their mosaicists. Sometimes it seems the stereotypical image of Orpheus might have been interpreted in an esoteric light. The inventive imagery of Littlecote and the unique conjunction at Palermo I of Orpheus with the so-called 'mystic' pavement suggests that where another reading was required, the pictorial message was clarified by the context of the overall programme. Few people would have had difficulty recognising an Orpheus, even outside the urban centres. Imagery on mosaics and other artefacts demonstrated that the underlying model the Roman Empire. The very remained constant across nature of the image of Orpheus may rule out the model prototype, for it was so well known in regions that were not isolated from classic cultural currents. How the concept was clothed depended on the artisan's ability, where he learned his craft, current and provincial fashion. Neither individuality nor innovation in the image appears to have formed part of the working practice of later Roman artists. The mosaicist would adapt the traditional forms and formulae, the patron would be sure he would obtain something encompassing the

picture he had imagined.** Having chosen a popular subject

the patron would have in mind an image echoing the generally available depictions with which he was familiar. Orpheus mosaics generally reflect the conventions and style of local work, but who chose whether Orpheus appeared semi—draped or in Thracian garb, the patron or the mosaicist? Or did pictorial convention finally determine the appearance? The type of garment worn by the singer is not found randomly, but in specific contexts and regions, as we shall see in Chapter Nine. The same conventions are observed on the numerous small articles such as rings, terracotta figurines and plates, which sustained the image. Imported repertories appear to have played a part. The proposal that a figured scene, Orpheus and the animals, 2" ‘Return of Ulysses and the Therapenides from Apamea’, Balty, Mosaiques

antiques de Syrie (1977) 76, no.33; Cosmological mosaic from Merida: J.M. Blasquez Martinez, AEArg. 59, (1986) 89-100 and fig.4, Chahba (also ty, 1977).

22 D.Levi Berytus 7 (1942); R.Camerata—Scovazzo,

231-73. 23 Cf. The Renaissance programme devised by a patron given over to the interpretation of the artist eg.: the one created by Paride de Ceresara for Isabella d'Este to present to Perugino, cited J.Hall, A History of Ideas and Images

'7 Pliny on galleries, NH. XXXV, 33, 51-2. Historia Augusta III, 6-8. J.J.Pollit, The Art of Rome, (1966), 202. G.Rodenwaldt, 'The Transition to

Late Roman Art', Cambridge Ancient History XII, ch. xvi, 560. '® P.Grimal, Les jardins romains (1943), Pompeii: 'House of the Ceii’. '? Cicero, Pro Sestio 93: P.H. von Blankenhagen AJA, 61, (1957) 81-2. 2° Martial, de Spect.21; Parody by Petronius, Satyricon, 29 and 83.

Kokalos 21, (1975)

in Italian Art (1983)

267

and n.53.

Isabella also commissioned

Giovanni Bellini who refused to produce her programme.

24 Eg. Trier, Kornmarkt mosaic: W.Dorigo, Late Roman Painting (1970)

235-241, figs.189-194, pl.19. Brading: Smith, BAR 41, (i), ( Aiea 25 PH. von Blankenhagen, "The Odyssey Frieze', MDAI (R) (1963) 100-

146: novelty and independence were not what mattered in Roman art, but an

adaptation to give new meaning was continually sought.

Repertories and Style direct observation, faithfully rendered portrayals, lovingly detailed, all subtly different. Their vivid reality betrays first hand knowledge. At least until the first years of the Imperial

with its accompanying subjects, might have been the random choice of the patron or even, perhaps, the mosaicist, is to be broadly refuted, though who is to say that it never happened? The scenario reflects the barrenness of the modern response to symbolic imagery. We do not, in fact, choose our interior decorations in a random manner, a good deal of attention is spent selecting a scheme reflecting individual and cultural aspirations, a mixture of fashion and personal taste. Clearly, since Roman patrons did not inhabit the same world, direct parallels cannot be drawn for the impetus behind their nonrandom choice. Nor can we can subsume their decorative values under our own, but we might acknowledge the human desire to withdraw from the totally random and place some order on the environment. It is tempting to consider that it was so in the potential chaos of a world at the mercy of nature and unpropitiated divinities. The predeliction for extended planes of geometrically patterned surfaces suggests this was the case. The delight we feel in the surface animation afforded by pattern is brought about by its regularly recurring forms which seem to show chaos

era artists

Works

KK

from

life.**

naturalistic

The

from

central

Italian

and

African

mosaic

best

exemplify ‘Alexandrian’ naturalism, characteristically a delight in the expansive display of animal portrayals. Orpheus represented one among many types of animal scenes

which included savage fights, the hunt and capture of animals, their display, the venatio in the amphitheatre, even viciously cruel executions. Such dramatic scenarios gave abundant opportunity for mosaicists to exhibit their artistry in depicting beasts in numerous active attitudes. The picture of Orpheus allowed animals to be shown in a peaceful situation, in quiet poses. The variety of naturalistic poses depicted in other animal scenes reveals that the mosaicists were quite conversant with their animal models. They are seen in combat or flight, at bay or savaging another beast, from the front, the side and the back. This can be seen in, for example, the scenes of animal combats in the amphitheatre, from El Djem, Tunisia or the animal ‘catalogue’ from Carthage (Dunbabin: El Djem 24a, Carthage 3a). Depictions such as these may have been worked from memory or observation, passed by example from master to apprentice or culled from model—books, but the expressive response to the natural world was maintained. Creatures were depicted in a manner embodying their typical features, stance, colouring and locomotion. Recognisably real, these portrayals still conformed to the conventions of the Hellenistic tradition. Within such limitations they necessarily shared many common points. Therefore similarities are no indication of an exclusively model—book source. The distinctions were made by the hands of the individual executants.

This ordering of chaos was exactly the effect of Orpheus’ song. An examination of the contexts for the Orpheus mosaics (Chapter Eleven), shows the manner in which the adjacent images qualify his meaning in regular and predictable ways, bearing on his importance as a beneficial image. Chapter Four has revealed his significance as a The figure which represented the cultural emblem. pacification of nature, the bringing of cultural order and the sense of Greek heritage, possessing eirenic and fortuitous qualities which could be bestowed on the building which housed it and thus its inhabitants, was not selected from a book on a whim, but was chosen in response to deeper however the choice, Underlying demands. societal spontaneous, whether by patron or mosaicist, would be the knowledge of all the symbolic baggage that had accrued to the figure. The most superficial appreciation, on the most populist level, would reveal something of power and value — Orpheus showed the patron to be cultured, or musical, or a lover of animal display, or brought luck. KK

drawing

tradition was served by the continuing presence in Italian and North African cities, of beasts imported in huge numbers by the animal trade for display. Later mosaicists may have relied on stereotypes, but the ethos of Hellenistic naturalism ensured fidelity to the physical truth. An important artistic development to be noted in mosaics of the Greek East is to the symbolic giving way Hellenistic naturalism stylisations of late antiquity and beyond. The same distinctive repertorial features as appear in mosaics from the Greek East are found in provinces connected by east-west communication routes as far afield as Britain.

ordered.”

*

were

K

To move now to an examination of figure style with some basic questions. Did a traditional Orphean repertory prevail that was the same in all regions and at times from the late second century AD to the fifth, or were there several, or none at all, but a random scattering of types and styles?

Animals familiar from their appearance in the arena were accurately portrayed and characterised. Others were subject to distortion, especially the elephant and leopard. The leopard is common in amphitheatre depictions, but the degree of stylisation suggests that as time went on it was rarely seen in reality. The changing colour of its coat affords a fascinating study. Beneath the rosette spots the ground colour is dark buff, which varies in its mosaic representation

In the following exploration of repertorial forms the depiction of the animals is treated first, although responding to the same influences, separately from that of the figure of Orpheus who is the subject of the following chapter. It

from a yellow ochre to khaki, to bright green.*° At Sparta

became apparent on studying the animals*’ that there were two types of depiction. One was naturalistic, deriving from

2 Pliny tells of Pasitiles, a sculptor, on the quayside attempting to draw a

2© E.Gombrich The Sense of Order, (1979),

lion in its cage, savaged by an escaped leopard. NH VIII, 25, (66).

He sees the ancient

1-12.

2° Khaki leopard: Utica, British Museum,

origins of pattern as a response to chaos, ordering chaos. 27

The

first task

was

to isolate the models

from

their mosaic

Hinks (1933), no.45, fig.137.

Bright green: Dionysus mosaic, Cologne, 3rd.C., eg Dionysiac Mosaic at Cologne Cathedral (1964) figs 11, 17.

context,

comparing them directly each with the other. Species were isolated and grouped utilizing drawings prepared from photographs. Where possible first hand material has been used, otherwise published pictures, to construct a pictorial catalogue. See Ch.10, figs. 21-31.

ee The Painted glass

probably from Egypt, from burial, Denmark, 3rd.C., A Handbook of Roman Art, ed. M.Henig (1983) 215, and colour pl.19. Pliny on ban on their import, NH VIII, 24, (64). Well observed beasts were those most easily available

61

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

These Orpheus mosaics exhibit the move towards the formal symbolism of medieval art. Although pictorial traditions could be said to be in the process of decay, there was no loss of artistic vitality. Indeed, the tendency to involve all elements of the scene into a decorative surface gives these mosaics a vigour of expression in many respects greater than representations where anatomical felicity is high. Such depictions accord with the dispersed and eclectic pictorial schemata of the mainstream of Roman art where the part was more important than the whole.

the leopard is malachite green, at Ptolemais it is blue. The leopard—head and spotted—skin motifs at Littlecote are dark purple-grey. A late antique reference to the leopard

describes it as ‘virides pardi'.*° In contrast, the mythical griffin comes in for fewer changes. Provincial artists, far from Greek traditions, may have had to rely on models, perhaps painted in scrolls or books, or from other media. This gave the occasion for such models to gather distortions as they were copied. Everywhere, even on ineptly executed mosaics, certain beasts were accurately represented. The wild boar, common to Europe, Africa and Asia Minor, is generally especially well pictured. The lion, the bear and bull must have been quite as well known over the wider area. Some were the familiar hunting prey of the region, others perhaps formed part of the travelling menageries of gladiatorial groups and entertainers, who kept performing animals. Birds are represented in great variety on mosaics of North African inspiration, particularly ‘plumage birds' as Pliny calls them, exotic peacocks, guinea fowl, parrots, and the bee—eater and vivid hoopoe of the locality.

In the course of the study underlying this dissertation, the distinctive qualities of the eastern repertories were revealed

when individual animal forms were compared

with each

other, rather than when whole mosaics were compared. While some animals assumed natural attitudes, others of the same species would be presented in an artificial manner. The most noticeable features were exaggerated gestures, dramatisations of normal movements and uncharacteristic behaviours. The gestures resemble those made by trained animals, like lions and tigers in the circus responding to the whip, or horses counting with a hoof. Troupes of trained animals may have performed in arena displays of the Orpheus scene. Standing out distinctly from a standard Orphean fauna employed Empire—wide were new species and groupings of animals. Iconographic features can be divided into two categories. These are termed here the Gestural Repertory and the Later Eastern Repertory. The former consists, as its name suggests, of clearly recognisable dramatised movements. The latter proves more generalised, with diverse motifs, consisting of some new poses, genre types such as the 'snake—in-tree' and the introduction of new kinds of beast and local fauna into the repertoire, such as horse and mouse. The following tables detail the differences.

Representations inspired by the naturalistic traditions are found primarily in the repertories of the Mediterranean and North Africa and mosaics influenced by that tradition in western provinces. These for the most part date to the second and third centuries. By the later fourth century deterioration of skill led to increasing stylisation, even the disintegration of forms, but underlying models, however ineptly executed, were based on realistic patterns. Animals of the fourth century Byzacene Orpheus mosaics were as realistic as any (Thina, Sakiet). Particularly well realised portrayals are found in the mosaics of Perugia, St Romain, La Chebba, El Djem, Sousse I, Oudna, Sakiet, Thina and Piazza Armerina. Vigorous depictions from Woodchester and Barton Farm though flattened and linear, belong in the same tradition.

I. Gestural Repertory

*A. Head tumed back. *B. Pawraised. *C. Both front legs raised. *D. Feline, paw raised. *E. Hoof raised. *F, Tail curled. Orpheus: *Xa. Arm outstretched. *Xb. Twisting pose.

A second mode of depiction is to be found in the Orpheus mosaics of the Eastern Mediterranean, where naturalism was replaced early by stylisation. The division between the naturalistic and stylised Orpheus depictions corresponds with the two Hellenistic sources of artistic inspiration. One would be ‘Alexandrian’ or North African, the other from the Greek East, centred on Pergamum, Ephesus and Antioch. One repertory, in which the animals are given dramatic, formalised movements and Orpheus himself twists or flings wide his arm, is particular to a geographically close group of mosaics in the Greek East. In comparison with the naturalism of African depictions and the iconic, hieratic, depictions of the later fourth century, it appears decorative and artificial. Paradoxically, in this region thoroughly permeated with the forms of classical art, artificiality had its greatest effect in the Orpheus genre. The favoured mythological scenes of eastern mosaic continued to employ the sophisticated compositional devices of Hellenistic art, the emblema panel, the spatial logic of continuous recession and the single viewpoint, and the convincing plasticity of the human form.

II. Later Eastern Repertory.

G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. P. Q.

Sitting up feline. Running beast. Seated bull. Sitting fox. Recumbent fox. Horse. Snake-in-Tree. Snake and rock. Small creatures. Monkey. Recumbent boar.

The artificial mannerisms of the Gestural repertory displayed by the fauna and by Orpheus, were confined to a set of mosaics geographically close. These combine with an overall flamboyant presentation on certain of them to offer a distinctive style in Orpheus mosaics. This is designated here '‘Mannerism' or ‘Antique Roman Mannerism’, since the pictorial dramatisations favoured by the mosaicists resemble the formal devices of 16th century Italian Mannerism, while the air of artificiality and otherworldliness is common to the depictions of both periods.*" (figs.22a-c)

from N. Africa. Chapter Ten: animal:

31

' See Jesnick, 'The Mannerist Depiction in Orpheus Mosaics’, Acts of the 6th International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics, Palencia—Merida, Spain,

> De consulatu Stilichonis III, 345, cited Smith (1976) 133, n.2, Toynbee

ARLA 86, n.123.

62

Repertories and Style among African mosaics in depicting the wild ass recumbent (cf. Saint Colombe). The horses (L) of Hanover and Cos II are also depicted in this unusual position. Cos II has all its beasts recumbent, while most are so on Cos I. The recumbent creatures of Tarsus in superposed planes appear as protomae. In eastern mosaics the horse rather than the ass is the equid attracted by the singing, apparently throwing back its head to join in at Chahba. The wild horse was a celebrated member of Asian fauna (as was the onager, more appropriate to hunting scenes), but one wonders if it was not chosen for the Orphean audience because it offered a more dramatic picture, with its long neck, waving tail and flowing mane, than the stiffer figure of the ass. The recognisable look of Mannerist mosaics is one of pictorial dramatisation.

The Mannerist style is seen in a cluster of mosaics in the Greek East. They date from the early third to the early fourth century: Sparta, Mytilene, Miletus, Cos I, Cos II, all from the Aegean coast of Asia Minor; Tarsus in the south east, and Paphos, Cyprus. Some Orpheus mosaics in the immediate locality share the same distinctive features and are clearly related iconographically: Seleucia, Adana. Further afield are: Chahba, Hanover (North Syrian), Jerusalem, Palermo I, Piazza Armerina, Saragossa, Avenches II, Carnuntum, Poljanice (Ulpiana) and from Britain, Newton St. Loe. Mosaics in the western provinces in which eastern influence can be detected in certain features are: Lepcis I, Djemila, Martim Gil, Avenches I, Blanzy, Vienne I, St.Paul-lés—-Romans, Trinquetaille and Brading. Palermo I and Piazza Armerina exhibit many African features, particularly among the animals. Palermo I shares the most repertorial features with the Eastern group. While

A variant on running is to show raised, splayed front paws (*C), half way between the rearing posture of the hunt and a raising of the fore legs. At Paphos, Sparta, submissive Martim Gil and Newton St Loe the animals virtually rear up on their hind legs. The horse of Mytilene performs a rearing act. The animals of Newton St.Loe are almost heraldic in their degree of stylisation, but clearly derive from the basic models. Sitting felines (G) appear at Miletus, Cos I, Mytilene and Seleucia, almost the same as the sit-up—andbeg pose of a circus act. The mongoose of Chahba (lower

direct African influence is evident in so many of the mosaics of Piazza Armerina, the Orpheus depiction contains many traces of the repertories employed in these mosaics of the Greek East.

Both Palermo I and Avenches II have the outstretched playing arm seen on other mosaics (infra) of the group. The Avenches mosaics are linked with the Eastern group not only by virtue of the gesture, but by such characteristic touches as comers filled with small, leafy bushes or tufts of vegetation at Avenches II, as at Hanover. This North Syrian style can also be detected in the Blanzy Orpheus in its vegetation and

animals

as well

right

posture at once conforming with the circus act mannerisms of the Gestural Repertory and quite characteristic of the beast in nature. This differs from its conventional depiction in Nilotic landscape and on sarcophagi. The raising of one front paw (*B) to signify submission and attention to the singer is a gesture usually made by a standing feline. It is one of the most prominent features of the repertory. At Saragossa, Mytilene and Palermo I, where we also see a fox and a hare raising a paw, they are all seated. The Paphos bear raising its paw is a singular occurrence. The stork and partridge of Mytilene signal this way too. The raised hoof (*E) is the equivalent gesture made by ungulates. The distinction is visual, because the leg bends in a different way. A group of mosaics give the gesture to the seated bull, but it is also made by ibex and gazelle at Hanover, oryx of Chahba, oryx and stag of Piazza Armerina and Palermo's stag.

as the figure and dress of Orpheus**

(Chapter Nine). The animals of Avenches I and Vienne I also appear more closely related to Syrian than African beasts, both in kind and style. Another mosaic from Switzerland

parallels eastern examples**

indicating

the presence

comer),** which raises both forepaws, is seen in a

of

travelling mosaicists. Routes to and from the East to the Western Empire carried the ubiquitous Greek and Asian professionals and traders, following whom, no doubt, came the mosaicists.

While the iconographic features listed above are specific to occurring regularly in the models eastern mosaics, naturalistic depictions of African Orpheus mosaics continued to be employed, for example the recumbent male lion and the boar in speedy flight, natural attitudes for these beasts. Running felines and beasts rearing at the hunter were seen first in the Orphean repertory of eastern mosaics. They are a commonplace of oriental hunting scene mosaics which appeared later than Orpheus. The African Orpheus, until the fourth century, always kept a separate vocabulary of forms

Another prominent feature is the backward—tumed head (*A) which has an ancient origin. The Thracian warrior of the fourth century BC Berlin Vase walks away, but looks back, drawn by the power of the music (fig.4; Chapter Two). The move, showing that even the fiercest heart can be turned, was a characteristic of Dionysus’ feline steed or accompanying leopard which only the god could tame. It shows resentment and submission. In this group of mosaics from late antiquity, the power, not only to tame, but to command, is transferred to Orpheus. We are reminded again of display, of a circus act, with Orpheus as ringmaster.

from contemporary hunt mosaics.** The boar is seated at Paphos, adopting a pose drawn from the hunt which is paralleled at Cagliari, where the animals are not Orpheus's audience, but are from genre hunt scenes. Uniquely, the boar of Cos II is recumbent and raises a hoof, an unnatural pose. The recumbent fox (K) with its head turned (*A) is unique in Orpheus mosaics, but mirrors a common formula for the shepherd's dog. El Djem is unique

The tumed head is a gesture of felines in one convention, in another it marks the fear of fleeing prey. Thus it appears natural made by the stag, oryx and pangolin from Piazza

g 990), forthcoming.

35 Not the recumbent beast so called by Balty, which is actually the fox.

Mosaique (1982), 34; idem, ‘Le cobra et la mangouste dans les mosaiques tardives du proche-orient’, Jarbuch der Osterreiche Byzantinstik 25, (1976)

*2 Blanzy Orpheus — before restoration, Stern (1955) figs. 5, 6.

33 Michaelides, 489. Traders: Charlesworth, 238.

*4 Relationship of Orpheus and hunting scenes: Chapter Eleven.

223-33, esp.229 and pl.10.

63

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

At Palermo I Orpheus shares the gesture of the outstretched arm with mosaics from the Greek east. Its animals display only one gesture, the raised paw (*B); the bull is recumbent. The overall effect would be something like Paphos, animals isolated in the background field, but fauna, draughtsmanship and costume are African. The four mosaics provide tantalising clues to the use of models. They have been assigned various dates between 220: Paphos, 250 and 325:

Armerina, an ibex and gazelle from Hanover and an oryx from Chahba, though the meaning is changed because with Orpheus they sit fearless. The movement is uncharacteristic of a bull (Miletus) and a bear (Piazza Armerina, Jerusalem). Paphos has the highest incidence of gestural features.

Perhaps the direction of the patron, commemorated in the inscription, is seen here. Set in different colours for each line it is another instance of pictorial showiness.

Chahba, c.300: Sparta, after 300: Palermo I.*° An intricate net of reciprocal influence binds these depictions which if unravelled might determine an absolute dating as well as revealing the process of visual realisation. It looks as if they

A third diagnostic feature of the Gestural Repertory is the reflexed tail seen so frequently (*F). In felines it is quite characteristic of the living beast to hold its tail thus, at certain times, principally when it stops moving. At Sparta it looks a device to ensure all creatures keep within the limited space. It is equally effective in balancing and centring forms, articulating the surface to give the picture a decorative quality. These linear arabesques are typical not only of this repertory, but of the eastern depiction in general, with its leaning towards decoration. The motif of running beasts with reflexed tail and raised paw may have been lifted from the popular decorative device of hunts in peopled scrolls. The curve—tailed beast is seen on textiles recovered from Egypt and in mosaic borders such as those around the Rural Scenes

should all be fairly close in date*° unless we are seeing the response to a model in graphic form current in the region over the longer period. Like the Chahba/Sparta pair, Paphos and Palermo may have been influenced by a famous art work.

Many variants in design and composition appear on mosaics employing these figural repertories. A consistent group of features exhibited in a manner suggestive of derivation from a central stylistic origin is displayed in these eastern mosaics. The new Mannerist mode of depiction imparted drama to a peaceful situation. It was the opposite of that which sought to make animals recognisable by showing them at their most typical in any situation. Movements are artificial and affected. Mosaics later in the fourth century retum to the standard Orphean repertory, but it is presented in a hieratic, abstract form. The Gestural and Late Eastern repertories and the "Mannerist' style bloomed in a limited area in the Greek East in the mid third century. Elements of both appear later in individual mosaics in other regions (see lists above).

panel from the ‘House of Ikarios' Oudna.*® The tail occurs in pavements pendent to Orpheus, laid by the same workshop: at Paphos the Nemean lion; at Miletus the hunting feline of the venatio; at Sparta, Europa’s bull. A compartmental mosaic from Manisa, Turkey, shows several beasts around a central eagle, all with turned head or reflexed tail. Otherwise

the features belong to a decorative context.*” No mosaic shows the Gestural and Later Eastern repertories entire, but new models are mixed with conventional figures. The gesture which links Paphos, Cos I and Miletus, as well as Palermo I, is that made by Orpheus, the outstretched playing arm (see Ch.9 and figs.23b, c, d). These mosaics, where the animals are the most closely related formally, and to draughtsmanship in regard dissimilar look composition. The animals of Cos II, distinctive in that all are recumbent, relate visually to those of Cos I, but are placed in a geometric scheme, while Cos I is a unified panel. The mosaics of Sparta and Paphos appear unalike at first sight, but the leopards are almost identical, even to the same bifurcated shadow. At Sparta it is squeezed between Orpheus and the left edge, looking back out of the picture. At Paphos the same model is placed below Orpheus and so looks at him. The same sinuous linearity displayed in the fine mosaic of Paphos holds together the decorative surface of the provincial Sparta depiction. Both exhibit ‘Mannerist' features, but use different compositional schemes and Orpheus figures. Sparta shares the model for its Orpheus with that of Chahba, which has nothing in common with Paphos, but the whole of Chahba has a lot in common with the provincial depiction of Carnuntum (figs.111, 112). Chahba, Sparta (cf. figs.59, 60) and Carnuntum may derive

The adaptation of a fashion to a mosaicist's own designs can be seen at Palermo I (fig.20), an example of predominantly African fauna appearing in eastern figural style. Possible scenarios are: an African trained mosaicist equipped with pictorial models from the Greek East, presenting the fauna of his training in these new poses; an African trained artisan who had travelled east and made sketches of the Eastern repertory, presenting the old fauna in newly fashionable forms; an eastern designer in Sicily, designing the mosaic which was laid by an artisan of African training; the influence of the patron coming back from the east with a record of something he had seen. The Palermo craftsman's handling of space is decidedly inept, it is hard to envisage him copying from a complete working drawing. The roles of designer and craftsman are impossible to distinguish without documentary evidence, but here and in the pair of Barton Farm and Woodchester differences might yield clues to a working process. The Mannerist style and the repertories were new to Orpheus 3° D.Boeselager, Antike Mosaiken in Sizilien (1986). 4° Balty (1983) dates Chahba to 325, but C.Dauphin, Israel Exploration Journal 29 (1979), 30-33, dates the mosaics to the floruit of building operations there c. 244-249 AD cup the Arab) to the end of the century, which is more convincing. Perhaps 250-275 AD would be better. Paphos is dated late 2nd—early 3rd century by Michaelides (1986) on archaeological evidence. On the basis of the similarity of Orpheus' pose to that on a Severan coin, itself possibly, though not necessarily, commemorating a statue in

from the same famous relief or painting.** 3© Also as ‘House of the Laberii'. Bull. AIEMA 12, (1988-9), 301, pl.2 (after Gaukler). Repeated models in hunting borders and animals in outer compartmental design.

7 Manisa, animal mosaic AEArq. 59, (1986), 240, figs 14, 15. 38 O.Wattel—de Croizant, I.Jesnick, ‘Mosaics from the House of Mourabas, Sparta: Europa and Orpheus’, JBAA, CXLIV, (1991), 92-106, pl. IX—XI.

Thrace, Stern (1955) 59, n.30, the date can be put at c.220-30 AD, allowing

time for the image to circulate.

64

Repertories and Style

Syrian origin** tying them all to the one area. Notable

mosaics, but the constituents were not new to the vocabulary of late antique art. Each was borrowed from other genres and media, combined to express a new message. The stylised depiction cannot be compared with a local output of animal scenes in those eastern Mediterranean regions where it originated. There the favoured representation in the early to mid—third century was the mythological scene. Beast shows were as popular in the eastern provinces as elsewhere, but

the idealised oriental hunt*’

features are a monkey perched shoulder level to Orpheus, or

above, with its legs drawn up (P), a griffin, a snake—in—a— tree (M). All save the personifications Hyle and Nape are found on the pyxides where the monkey sits on the cithara. The fountain sculptures agree, with the addition of the sphinx. This mosaic displays those elements of the Later Eastern Repertory particular to mosaics whose range in the east is denoted by a geographical arc from Seleucia (Pamphylia) through Syria round to Cyrenaica. Genre motifs

and the animal Paradise in

mosaic come from a later period than the Orpheus mosaics. The mosaicists of the Orpheus scene could not, therefore draw directly from a parallel visual tradition in the manner of their African counterparts. The style of animal presentation seems to owe something to the decorative formal devices of animals vividly portrayed in the fourth century BC Greek pebble mosaics from Pella and Olynthus

such as the snake—-in-tree (M), the mouse (O), relate the Orpheus mosaics of Seleucia, Hanover, Chahba, Jerusalem, Ptolemais and Tobruk repertorially, though they differ stylistically. Some also share the repertories discussed above. Overlapping nets enclose the two groups of mosaics. For instance, mouse and monkey at shoulder level to eastem The Armerina. at Piazza appear Orpheus iconography travelled north and west, the snake—in-tree of Syrian mosaics, the fountain oraments, the pyxides and a small sculptural group, the London Bacchus,*® is seen on the Orpheus mosaic of Carnuntum on the Danubian border. Gems recovered from routes through Danubian and Dalmatian provinces carry the same image. The iconography of the ivories is paralleled in Coptic textiles and the Jerusalem mosaic, where the Centaur and Pan (who also appear on the London Bacchus statuette) are depicted.

(the same style is seen in the animal hunt from Alexandria),

and

in the

second

BC

century

tesselated

mosaics

from

Delos.*7 The Roman mosaicists of the third century in the Greek East required other direct iconographic sources from which to construct a picture of Orpheus, perhaps drawing heavily on patterns already employed in the decorative and applied arts. The tendency to incorporate into the Orphean repertory motifs from other genres is seen in the later mosaics. Running beasts, for example, may have been drawn from decorative items. Some compartmental mosaics show running animals: Forét de Brotonne, Vienne I, Salona, Stolac, Panik, Newton St Loe, Withington, Horkstow, Winterton. They also occur on panel scenes of fourth century date: Sparta, Palermo IJ, Martim Gil, and from Africa: Sakiet and Thina. The animals of Vienne I, where one might are seen to be closely related expect African influence,

Other developments in Orpheus mosaics include the fashion for Nilotic scenes. At Merida pigmy battles (popular in the region) are pendent to Orpheus. Sakiet, Thina and Jerusalem employ the Nilotic group of mongoose and cobra, perhaps in the sense in which it appears on sarcophagi, indicating life

and death forces. Crocodile and cobra appear at Hanover.*” Nilotic groupings occur on the bichrome mosaics of Rome and at Perugia with its crocodile, rhinoceros, cobra and ibis.

stylistically to those of Syrian hunting mosaics.** Running

Nilotic scenes and figures were popular in Campanian painting, often in borders, and in mosaics in the environs of Rome Nilotic scenes were common before AD 200. The probably fourth century Orpheus mosaic of Rome continues the tradition. It has a hippopotamus and an ibis among Nilotic vegetation. Nilotic features in Orpheus mosaics perhaps bring in an allusion to Egypt as the origin of a certain type of naturalistic animal representation, and to Alexandria famed for its extravagant animal displays under the

animals around the rims of fourth century silverware bowls are commonplace and may have some particular relevance to the occurrence of the circular design in the British Orpheus.** Hunting scenes are common in decorative borders in mosaic and other media, especially relief, textiles and silverware; the influence of pastoral imagery, also occurring in decorative borders, is noted in the sheep at Thina and Rome and a sheepdog pose given to the Paphos fox. Hunt imagery appears first and pervasively in the eastern examples. The inclusion of running beasts in the two fourth century African mosaics exhibit the breakdown in craft traditions, losing the distinctions between genre repertories, which were so strong there earlier on, where running animals were appropriate to Diana, for example, but not Orpheus.

Ptolemies and for poetry in which Orpheus figured.** The influence of Mithraic iconography is seen in mosaics north of the Alps, principally in Britain, in Orpheus’ dress (infra). The fox moves nearer to him, imitating the dog's pose in the Mithraic Tauroctony (fig.47). The fox may have assumed the symbolic importance of the Mithraic dog, or was given the pose because it was an Orphean animal of

The Orpheus mosaic of Seleucia links the marble fountain omaments of Sabratha, Istanbul, Athens, Byblos and the ivory pyxides of Bobbio and Florence, believed to be of

*"

Such

rare

as 1969),

Apamea: 18-19.

J.Balty, LLavin

La

grande

‘Antioch

mosaique

Hunting

de

Mosaics’,

chasse

DOP

+ Ivory pyxides: M.Gough, The Origins of Christian Art, (1973) 107-8. ‘its colouristic treatment strongly suggests a Syrian provenance.’ Or from south or east of Asia Minor. Taken to Italy. Hunt imagery: animals leaping across

du

schematic trees are seen at Horkstow, Winterton, Stolac, Salona. Trento is similar.

(1963)

*© Danubian according to Toynbee, The Roman Art Treasures from the

cd M.Matthews, ‘Some Zoological Observations on Ancient Mosaics’, Bull.

Temple of Mithras (1986) 39-42, no.15, pl.XII. See Ch.2. 47 Cf. Balty (1976), 230. The cobra and crocodile are not in combat as she states, but are simply placed near each other, both being Nilotic.

AIEMA 12, (1988-9), 334-49, photos 1-6, 12-16. ** Delos: L'Orange and Nordhagen (1966) fig.3a, Dionysus, House of Masks, 2nd BC. Figs.4a—c. Animal hunts, stylised figures, griffins: pebble

+* Tn fact the type oF Hellenistic naturalism known as Alexandrian art may

mosaics, Alexandria, B.R.Brown (1957) pl-XLIII, 2; pl-XLIV, 1, cat. no.50,

51. *4 Balty (1969), 34, pl. XLV 1-4.

not

have

originated

there,

as

B.R.Brown,

has

demonstrated.

Painting and Mosaics and the Alexandrian Style, (1957).

65

Ptolemaic

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

the mosaics conformed. If it had not been so, the picture would have become unrecognisable. Stereotypical poses evolved for each animal based on characteristic behaviour, the embodiment of the typical. Distinct styles evolved so many regionally, representing local taste. With permutations of style, repertory and composition each mosaic now appears distinct. The eastern Mannerist depiction draws upon stereotypes from other genres, radically changing their meaning and subtly altering that of Orpheus himself. Orpheus mosaics of the Western Empire belonged to an extensive industry of animal depictions, reflecting pictorial conventions of Hellenistic naturalism. Mosaicists of the Eastern Empire, where the illusionistic unified scene tended to contain compositions of humans and gods at the time of the Orpheus mosaics, could not draw upon a local tradition of animal art. There animal forms become stylised. Even mosaics closely related by figural repertories can look vastly different where different design repertories were employed.

equal significance. The imagery occurs in Christian sarcophagi, Roman catacomb frescos, and ceramics from Cologne (cf. Chapter Two). A multiplicity of lost artefacts in other media might have acted as the agents passing the imagery from one discipline to another. Amongst these must be textiles, tapestries, woven and sewn, and carpets, with which mosaics have a formal relationship. All that now remains are the Coptic woven and embroidered tapestries and the small orbiculi, on several of which Orpheus appears. In many cases the closest parallels for later mosaics are to be found in other media, sharing spatial organisation and iconography. The contiguously carved animals of the marble fountain ornaments (figs.8, 9) and the ivory pyxides (figs.11-16) are echoed in the composition of mosaics from Sparta and Palermo II, where animals are disposed in tiers. Visual sources for later Orpheus mosaics appear to have been motifs culled from the decorative arts and portable items, almost as much as from mosaic craft traditions or painting. Stale workshop practices consolidated in provincial centres would further the decay of classical forms.

—=00000=-

It is appropriate to consider the matter of draughtsmanship at this point. The forms of classical art were imitated in local native styles. In Britain a tendency to subsume all forms to a rhythmic linear striation gave strong inner patterning, though

the structure of individual forms diminished.*? Nevertheless, design is a strength of these mosaics. Either through continual copying, or passing the figure from ‘hand to hand’ in the workshop without knowing or understanding the originating model, images lost their organic coherence. Many times the modern observer is at a loss to interpret strange figures. Perhaps only immediate visual effects — what it looks like now — are taken into account, disregarding distorted drawing. Points to note are the exaggeration of diagnostic or typical forms, changing them out of recognition; or, the normalisation of features which must have been strange to those who had never set eyes on the beasts in question. The hump on the back of the European bear, a generally familiar beast, can become overlarge or be smoothed out. The unlikely elephant undergoes distinct metamorphoses, its trunk is stretched or its ears shrink. Orpheus and the goddesses at Littlecote appear to dance or stand, though in fact they were intended to obey particular conventions of the seated figure, and can be shown to do so. Some of the naiads at Woodchester are angular and ugly, although based on classical forms. Bad draughtsmanship, which includes ill judged spatial organisation, has to be accorded its place in the formation of the image. The intended depiction, distanced for many reasons from an ancient model, should be sought beneath the distortions. If not, the image resulting from the inept drawing of a conventional model may be interpreted as turning oddly towards the esoteric and abstruse.

A repertory for Orpheus with the animals developed in the Hellenistic period. It was a genre with its own rules to which *° Cf. M.Henig 'Graeco—Roman Art and the Romano-British Imagination’ JBAA 135 (1985) 1-22, esp. 15-18. I agree with his championing of Romano-British style for the strength and vivacity of its line and form.

66

Junior writing a little before 300 AD, when Orpheus was enjoying a popular appeal and many of the mosaics were laid. The passage has been cited* to demonstrate the derivation of the mosaic image from this painting, or one like it, itself possibly preserving a Hellenistic archetype. The deduction is problematic. The mosaics differ in important respects from a painting which may not even have existed. The books of the Imagines may have been rhetorical exercises, either literary elaborations departing from the pictorial model, rather than factual reportage, or works totally constructed in imagination. They describe types of painting closely related to literary

Chapter Nine

The Iconography of the Figure of Orpheus in Mosaic The iconography of the principal figure of the mosaic image, Orpheus himself, was not a factor in Stern's typological study and catalogue of mosaics (1955). Later, he proceeded to examine Orpheus in paleo—Christian art (1974), then his earliest appearances in Graeco-Roman art, including an iconographic study of certain features (1980). Stern's work informs the subsequent discussion which nevertheless departs from some of his conclusions. The comparative study of costume, objects displayed and period gesture is an established method of art— historical enquiry, yielding valuable information on stylistic relationships, relative chronology and the evolution of Orpheus' depiction in mosaic. The revelation of such relationships within the corpus of Orpheus mosaics disturbs the neat geographic distinctions of Stern's "Types' to reveal the movement of artisans within the Empire, who clothed the archetypal figure in the garments of their own home.

works, almost illustrative of them.* The inclusion of Orpheus among the pictures in the Naples gallery may reflect the likelihood of such a popular literary figure being pictured there rather than the fact. The story of the Argonauts retained its popularity: in the Argonautica of the third century BC (Ap.Rh.) Orpheus was a character in the story of Jason, but by the early third century AD when the anonymous epic poem the Orphic Argonautica was probably written, Orpheus had become the first person hero, symptomatic of the vogue for Orpheus in the third and fourth centuries AD. Given his appeal, few paintings remain from that period and then only those from the catacombs, but their import would differ from l oria pict main the are s aic mos dant abun The s. ting pain lar secu evidence and some may preserve well—known images.

The subjects of this chapter are the various poses or stance of Orpheus, figure style, conventions regulating the clothing of a stereotypical figure, the landscape setting and the musical instrument.’ Many details cannot be fully ascertained as so many of the mosaics are destroyed, badly damaged or available only in the interpreted versions of engravings, but enough remains to indicate general trends.

The late antique literary image relies on example and convention. The description of Amphion charming the stones of Thebes by Philostratus the Elder, c.240 AD (Book I, 10), is the model for the Orpheus described by the Younger who also ned cer dis be can two the n wee Bet d. Ovi of y ger ima the kes evo the type of lyrist whom the viewer would have expected to see in a late third century painting, and the type of exposition it would have prompted:

Three types of Orpheus can be recognised: a) Apolline or Greek, b) Thracian and c) Phrygian or Oriental. In contrast Stern saw only Greek and Phrygian, distinctions followed by other writers, but hardly representing the diversity and interest of dress, as will become apparent. Details of costume type were often mixed in the mosaic picture, the confusion of one culture attempting to represent the historical dress of another. Roman mosaicists of the second century presented Orpheus nude in the

The Hellenistic Apolline Orpheus can act as one point of comparison. A muscular nude sits in profile facing picture right, his left leg is folded back and slightly raised to bear the lyre. The right leg extends forwards. He gazes picture—right over the lyre held in his left hand. His right arm crosses his body to touch the strings. Sometimes he retains a mantle across the knees (figs.2, 54). This is the archetypal image of the divine lyrist, capable of serving to represent all such musicians; therefore it could be ambiguous.

‘And the painter ventures a still more striking thing; for having torn trees up by the roots he is bringing them yonder to be an audience for Orpheus and is stationing them about him. Accordingly, pine and cypress and alder and the poplar and all the other trees stand about Orpheus with their branches joined like hands, and thus, without requiring the craft of man, they enclose for him a theatre, that therein the the birds may sit on their branches and he may make music in the shade. Orpheus sits there, the down of a first beard spreading over his cheeks, a tiara bright with gold standing erect upon his head, his eye tender, yet alert and divinely inspired as his mind ever reaches out to divine themes. Perhaps even now he is singing a song; indeed his eyebrow seems to indicate the sense of what he sings, his garment changes colour with his various motions, his left foot resting on the ground supports the cithara which rests upon his thigh, his right foot marks the time

A second point of comparison is the description of a painting, one of many in a gallery in Naples admired by Philostratus

the right one firmly grasping the plectrum gives close heed to the notes, the elbow extended and the wrist

' Cf. Gonzenbach (1950), 278ff. Stern (1955), 56; Liepmann (1974), 15-16; Tosi (1978), 72-8; Michaelides (1984), 481-2; inter alia.

t abou 119, i, Guid of view the to ing crib subs zy, Blan t abou 60, 5), (195 Stern, 16—7, about Hanover; Lepcis; Thirion, 170-2, about Henchir Thina; mer Balty (1982), 35, about Chahba; Michaelides (1986) 480, about Paphos, noting

likeness of Apollo, the Hellenistic model.* Soon he took on the

guise of the Greek citharoedos, the Thracian priest or the Phrygian/Oriental Mage or Magus. The semi—draped Greek Orpheus reappeared later in a revival of the classical model. The final destination was a figure typical of hieratic god/king imagery of the late antique court, heavily robed, eyes staring (figs.23a—g).

by beating the ground with its sandal, and, of the hands,

* Apolline Orpheus: Stern (1980), pls. XII—XIII. Cf. Capitoline peperino statue 1st.C.

BC,

Guthrie,

pl.7;

Perugia

mosaic,

c.150AD;

Hadrianic

dissimilarity of this mosaic. * The Philostrati, Imagines, Loeb ed. Intro. xviii.

classicising

plaque: Stern BSNA (1973).

67

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

Santa Marinella, Trinquetaille. The posture is taken in the majority of mosaics with Mannerist features. The instrument is always on the right, so that the figure shown reaching to play is in a state of torsion. At Tarsus, Adana, Cos I and Blanzy the lyre or cithara is even further right on the rock next to Orpheus. This may reflect the placing on a stand of the heavy concert instrument in actual play. Pictorially speaking the exaggerated twist in Orpheus' body corresponds with the antique Roman Mannerist style of the animals detailed in the previous chapter. The rightward gaze occurs half as often. The Greek Orpheus of Rougga (fig.55) evokes the classical figure, but the twist of the body, legs wide and frontality of the trunk, marks its date later in the third century. At Oudna, Orpheus is vigorously twisting to reach the lyre on its rock, a comparable posture which can be called semi-—frontal.

bent inward, while the left with straight fingers strikes the strings.’ (Philostratus Jun. Jmagines 6). We can follow the development of the representation up to and beyond this point, noting differences between the mosaic and the literary depiction. The picture described is supposed to have influenced mosaics so diverse as Sakiet, Chahba and Hanover, none of which match it, demonstrating the very effect for which Philostratus aimed. The viewer responds to literary art and elaborates his own picture round the verbal framework. The study is divided under the following headings:

CONNMNBRWND

. Posture

. The Greek Orpheus . The Thracian Orpheus . The Phrygian Orpheus . . . .

The rightward position is natural and aesthetically pleasing, but the opened, twisted pose allows the centre body to be seen frontally, a symbolic scheme characteristic of naive art forms. Compare, for example Egyptian, archaic Greek, and Etruscan frontality. This open pose has the effect of drawing the right shoulder and arm away from the lyre, the fingers only enabled to touch the strings, if at all, by some dislocation of anatomy. This is evident even on the Hellenistic inspired Perugia mosaic, and is not the concentrated, realistic play imaged by Philostratus. The problem was elegantly and uniquely solved at Cagliari, where a Greek Orpheus, painted with a high degree of realism, holds the lyre on a rock to his left, casually resting his playing hand on his right knee (fig.53). Another non—playing figure occurs at Lepcis I. Orpheus is oriented right, but, opening the pose to view, holds the lyre slightly away from his body on one side and just raises his bent right arm, gazing left as if pausing from playing to sing. Again the figure and animals are depicted with a plastic realism. This ‘pausing’ posture, occurs on some North African examples eg. Lepcis, La Chebba.

Headwear Shoes The Rock Seat The Musical Instrument 1. Posture

For the present study let body position be the first consideration. Orpheus of Perugia is the earliest mosaic, where, Gonzenbach noted,” the head is held in an attitude of Alexander-like pathos, gazing upwards (fig.50). The singing Orpheus of vases threw his head back, as also the late Hellenistic peperino statue in the Capitoline museum.® The trunk twists to the left and is frontal. In this respect the figure differs from the classic Greek pattern. The pure profile is only seen in the nude Orpheus of Saint

Romain (second century); at Trento (third century) the intention is denied by the inept drawing of a leaning figure (fig.157). The clothed Orpheus of Chahba and Sparta is the mid to late third century version of the model, displaying the articulated forms of the Mannerist repertory. The head tums to the left, gazing forward. These two mosaics appear to derive from a single source, either a famous painting or a relief. The stele from Intercisa” (fig.60) provides a comparison even for the arrangement of animals at Sparta.* The figures from Merida I and Barton Farm, of the same family, also have the frontal twist of the trunk. The profile Orpheus of Panik reflects the rigidity of its provincial style rather than any deliberate pictorial archaism.

On a small group of mosaics Orpheus flings his right arm up and outwards as if making a bravura musical gesture of playing. These

are:

Paphos,

Miletus,

Cos

I, Palermo

I, Poljanice,

Avenches II and Djemila. The gesture appears in late catacomb paintings from Rome, one strikingly similar to the Djemila Orpheus in pose, also in recognisably oriental dress (fig.6).'° The image is first seen on Severan coins from Thrace (AD 198217). Its origin has been discussed, possibly it was a monument

commemorated on the coins.’’

Dissemination of the image

would be facilitated by its use on coins, but may also have been effected by means of paintings on public view and widely circulating artefacts in perishable media. It may have entered the note books of travelling artists.

Stern noted an important change in the image with the assumption for the first time of three-quarter view on first century BC rings, a step on the path to late antique frontality.° The changed orientation marks an input of Roman aesthetic into Greek patterns. This is the manner in which Orpheus is depicted on most mosaics, in three—quarter view, facing picture—right or somewhat frontal, turning his head left to gaze seemingly to his audience, actually direct at the spectator of the mosaic. Less often the figure faces picture—left: Blanzy, Cos I, Hanover, Martim Gil, Paphos, Tarsus, Adana, Mytilene, Saragossa, Piazza Armerina, Newton St.Loe, Withington, Oudna, Thina,

This figure of Orpheus was adopted into the Mannerist repertory of the Greek east as another manifestation of the local contemporary taste for pictorial dramatisation. The earliest depiction on mosaic is the Paphos Orpheus, of a Severan date close to the coin issue. On mosaics the outstretched arm appears as an exultant gesture reflecting showy, virtuoso musical

* Gonzenbach (1950), 278.

'© Catacombs: Rome, Peter and Marcellinus, 4th.C.AD; Priscilla, 4th.C. AD. Sister C.Murray, BAR S100 (1981), figs. 7 and 9. See Michaelides, 480-1 and

© Berlin vase, Guthrie pl.6; statue, ibid, pl.7. Cf. Stern (1980) pl.6. Hungarian National 7 Intercisa relief: Reinach, RRGR II, 121, 4. Budapest, Museum no. 22—1905—88; Panyagua, (1973) no.167. ® See Jesnick in O.Wattel—de Croizant and I.Jesnick, 'The Mosaics of the House

n.51, where he mistakenly includes Piazza Armerina in this group. In black and

white photos, there seems to be the hand of an outstretched arm, colour photographs reveal this to be the head of a small mammal, probably a mouse.

of Mourabas in Sparta’, JBAA (1991), 92-106, pl.[X—XI. * Stern (1980), 162.

” Monument in Thrace: Stern (1955) 59. Liepmann (1974) 16 and n.38.

68

The Iconography of the Figure of Orpheus in Mosaic

On the Underworld vases Orpheus dances as he plays’’ (fig.24). In mosaic either he sits, or else the figure is not Orpheus.

performance and such as would accompany rhetorical declamation. Observers would be familiar with such movements in both contexts. At one extreme the gesture could be interpreted as the literal representation of popular animal theatre, with circus—act movements made by the animals in the mosaics. The ring—master's whip could be substituted for the plectrum. It is an imperious gesture which at the other extreme could be interpreted as encompassing Nature within Orpheus’ realm of civilizing command. The gesture has associations with Imperial iconography, a ceremonial gesture of benevolent greeting and power used for the virtus—adventus on contemporary Severan coins. The seated Orpheus even recalls a Hellenistic image of the idealised Alexander, Apelles' image painted in the House of the Vettii, Pompeii’*. The connection is distant, but is one of an state The ideal, harmonious underlying visual model. personified in these images was perhaps what was evoked in a Severan monument and celebrated on contemporary coins, the image of the eirenic Orpheus. Orpheus was already familiar as a metaphor of Concordia on the Alexandrian coins of the

The Apollonian figure on the mosaic from Aix, to whom three

birds and a fox listen, is usually identified as Orpheus,’* but bears no resemblance to the Orpheus of mosaic tradition. This mobile figure is derived from Hellenistic painting (fig.26). The excavator of the Aix musician, considered a scene of the Thracian singer in Elysium, where, in Pythian stola, he would be standing to play, but nothing sustains that definition. Rouard's first suggestion of Apollo citharoedos would be more suitable for this figure which bears a resemblance to the Vatican Apollo.*® But the problem is not solved, to depict animals with the god was not the current artistic convention. His further suggestion of a female, perhaps the Muse Erato, is a more convincing argument, since birds are sometimes depicted with the muses.2° Rouard's engraving clarifies what Reinach's line drawing omits, the figure has feminine characteristics. The chiton is the transparent, floating stuff of womens’ garments, wom off the shoulder, the wreath is of flowers, not laurel. Finally the green cloak and white robe are not consistent with Orphean colour conventions (infra). This is probably Erato.

Antonines.'* The ultimate metamorphosis of the pose is frontality. Many later depictions are transitional versions of the three-quarter view where the figure is shifted almost to the front (semi— frontal). Mosaics of Sakiet, Paphos, Rome, Cagliari are examples. In the completed move, knees face front at the same height, shoulders are straight. Frontal, hieratic figures are seen at El Pesquero, Arnal, Littlecote, Djemila, Ptolemais and Jerusalem, which are also the latest in date. The Jerusalem Orpheus (fig.117) not only sits straight to the front, but stares out ahead with the huge eyes of an icon. Stern noted the symbolism of this frontal pose, elevating the figure out of reality and imparting a religious character to the image. In combination with the sacerdotal robes this denoted a new conception of the figure. ‘Le musicien apollinien est devenu le magicien qui ensorcelle toute la nature'.'*

Another problematic figure is Orpheus at Littlecote: not Apollo, who would have a griffin and Marsyas with him at this period;”’ here the lone fox designates Orpheus (fig.61). The position of the feet (as restored) seem to indicate a standing figure, but late, frontal figures do not show the left leg raised to support the lyre (cf. El Pesquero, Jerusalem), but with feet together. The internal contours of the curve of the torso in its dark tunic are clearly delineated and indicate a seated posture. The drapery of the cloak, rather than fall straight downward, as it would were Orpheus standing, makes an oval, billowing out to the left. It is then pulled round the body below waist level on both sides. The outward movement of the cloak on the right follows the bend of the knees. Its folds over the lap can be traced, with the cithara resting on the singer's left knee. The cloak parts below to reveal the tunic, as it would on a seated figure (cf. Adana). There were familiar pictorial formulae for depicting the fall of drapery which the artisan followed, albeit clumsily. This figure exhibits the problems of depicting the folds of clothing without understanding the relationship between anatomy and drapery.

In mosaic convention Orpheus is always seated to play his instrument. On the earliest representation, the Delphic metope,

he stands.'* The pose adopted for Orpheus on sarcophagi from Rome (third century AD), is almost the same as that of the victorious Mithras of the Tauroctony, itself perhaps influenced by the bull-slaying Greek Victory. It indicates Orpheus’ victory over death, otherwise represented by the scene of Orpheus with Eurydice. The lyre is placed on a pillar, as sometimes it is for Apollo.'® Orpheus stands, one foot raised and resting on a rock by the back of an animal, retaining the seated conformation of his limbs (figs.7, 45, 46). Thus he appears in some British pavements apparently incorporating Mithraic iconography (Barton Farm, Woodchester, Withington). Only on some Apulian vases in the Underworld scene with Eurydice does Orpheus stand, asking for her release or leading her to the light.

2. The Greek Orpheus. For so specific a figure as Orpheus, the costumes in which he is attired comprise a variety of individual garments. He is presented in three types. Not every garment is clearly identifiable and cannot be certainly named. Texts reveal terms for certain items of Orpheus’ clothing which can be used. The study should begin, paradoxically, with the nude figure. Although the Thracian and Phrygian figure had long appeared in art, Orpheus in the earliest mosaics appears as a Greek, a figure

2 Severan coin: Stern (1955), fig.16. R.Brilliant, Gesture and Rank in Roman Art, (1963), 173-6; Apelles' painting of Alexander in House of Vettii, Pompeii: J.J.Pollit, Art in the Hellenistic Age (1986), fig.9. ‘? Fronto had interpreted the image of Orpheus taming the animals in this way for the young Marcus Aurelius c.140-143 AD. Letters of M.Cornelius Fronto, Loeb, 71-3. Stern brought to notice the eirenic qualities of the image in rings of

A iS '* "©

representative "7 The

of the

dancing hem

classical

world,

culture

of the robe indicates the movement

and

civilized

of the musician.

Schéeller pl-X1, 3, 4. Heurgon MEFRA, xlix, (1932) fig.1.

'® Vatican Apollo: Reinach RPGR, 203, 6. M.Rouard, Les fouilles d'antiquités

e 5 any BC, which he considered to be contemporary with the Civil Wars 162. Stern (1980) 163. Delphic metope, Panyagua (1972) no.2. Apollo: Reinach RSGR, I, 248-251.

faites 4 Aix en 1843 et 1844, 8-15, Inv.55. Lithograph: Reinaud.

*® Reinach RSGR, I, 255. 2© Muses with birds eg. Sousse, Foucher, Inventaire Sousse 57.042. 2" Cf. Toynbee, ‘Apollo Beasts and Seasons’ Britannia XII, (1982) 1-5.

69

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic wreathed or capped, and the robed figure wearing a wreath, are deliberately evocative of classicism and can be termed Greek.

refinement. The mosaics in question are Perugia, Rome, SaintRomain, Trento, Santa Marinella, Rougga, Volubilis, Cagliari and Oudna. Perugia has the only completely nude Orpheus. At Saint-Romain a cloak hangs behind, upon which he sits, at Rougga a cloak fastened on one shoulder descends to be drawn around his middle leaving him bare—legged, Trento is the same. Elsewhere (Volubilis, Cagliari and Oudna) the mantle is dropped, tastefully draped around the middle and over his knees and shins. The much restored Orpheus of Rome reveals his knees, at Santa Marinella he is similarly draped. The Elder Philostratus names the cloak of Amphion as a chlamys, but Orpheus wears the himation in the description of the younger writer (Imag. 6, 22) perhaps to indicate this type of semi—nude Orpheus which underlines his Hellenism. The himation indicated the philosopher and was later adopted by the

The stola is depicted at Paphos and Miletus, amongst others from the Greek East, where the costume would be in keeping with the locale, not an appeal to the classical past. Bare feet also evoke the Greek figure. The picture of Philostratus' Greek, himation—clad Orpheus is completed by sandals, not a combination seen on mosaic, but suggesting a semi—draped figure such as is seen on the eastern marble sculptures. He might have been describing an actual painting, or what he thought an ancient painting should look like. Conventions in mosaic may well have departed from those of mural and easel painting in some contexts. The tradition of Greek dress was perhaps retained in painting. Pausanias' remark that Orpheus looked Greek in the ancient painting of an Underworld scene by Polygnotus, has been taken to imply that a

Christians.7* Some of these mosaics have been dated earlier than they should be on the basis that the nude figure preceded the clothed Orpheus in the mosaic sequence (following Stern, 1955) and that polychrome superceded black and white: neither was exactly the case. Rome, Cagliari, Volubilis, Trento, Rougga are of the later third century.

robed figure was customary by c.160 AD.*” However, images

of the nude figure existed contemporaneously. Of those extant there are mosaics and the Louvre relief, there may have been paintings. The Greek Orpheus continued to be seen, as Philostratus c.300 and Pausanias himself witness, and to be made, in the shape of the marble fountain omaments. All examples come from a secular context. The remark may reflect a concept held by Pausanias, that Thracian Orpheus was the priestly figure associated with the Underworld, and that as a semi—draped figure he seemed incorrectly dressed in the ancient painting. This could be an interesting early example of the period eye, seeing only in terms of contemporary mores and unable to enter the imaginative world of another time.

The Perugia Orpheus is bareheaded, his hair blown up and back like a crown, recalling the iconography of Alexander. In all respects this mosaic is quite different from other Orpheus mosaics, earlier than those of the main sequence, c.AD 150, reflecting Antonine classicising tastes. The later Orpheus in Apolline guise may be crowned with a wreath as at Rougga. Those of Rome, Santa Marinella and Volubilis are flattened and resemble the laurel diadems worn by the Tetrarchic group of the

Vatican.**

At

Saint-Romain,

Trento,

Oudna

and Cagliari,

Rather than Philostratus' painting depending on an ancient prototype, might it have been a visualisation derived from the currently popular figure of the monuments, including mosaic? Might his description have followed the period fashion? The premise that there had to exist behind the mosaic depiction a real, originating painting is obstructive. Iconography seems to have developed organically, responsive to contemporary taste, vagaries of fashion, provincial style, the reciprocal influence of other media. All clothed the concept of the lyrist given literary form by the Philostrati. In that sense Amphion, Orpheus and the Phrygian-capped Apollo all manifest the same underlying conceptual pattern. Whilst a convention of mosaic practice was to copy famous paintings, they were perhaps not an exclusive source. The variety of guises in which Orpheus appears, whilst remaining recognisably the same figure, suggests that the archetype lay in the imagination, the visual model existing outside of any one medium, external details being matters of genre, craft tradition, fashion, and local taste. It was another conceptualisation of the figure to be added to those detailed in Chapter Four.

Orpheus wears a Phrygian bonnet, like the Phrygian—Apolline Orpheus of the eastern marble fountain omaments (cf. figs.8, 9). It may be significant that the pavements at Perugia and Oudna decorated frigidaria, Volubilis fronts a peristyle with large piscina. Orpheus in the Pompeian fresco decorating a fountained courtyard was also semi—draped with Phrygian cap. This suggests that a nude Orpheus accorded with a secular watery context.** A heavily-robed Orpheus at Salona wears a wreath, paralleled at Trier, where only wreathed head and cloak remain on a figure usually called Apollo. As far as can be told

from engravings of the mosaic of Yvonand** this Orpheus too was robed and wreathed and also decorated a bath building. In all three mosaics Orpheus occupies a central circular frame, a repertorial relationship of this classically evocative Orpheus, again associated with water.

Stem, in 1955, described a Greek costume, which he called the chiton of the citharoedos, bracketing this with the nude Orpheus as the Greek figure (68). In mosaic Orpheus is more often portrayed in long robes. Varro remarks that the parody Orpheus

wore the stola® a reference to the Pythian stola of the Apolline 3. The Thracian Orpheus

musician, similar to the chiton. The nude or semi—draped figure,

Greek-style robes appear most often, but were they intended for a Greek figure, or were Thracian sacerdotal robes understood to be represented by the traditional garments of the virtuoso musician? Virgil talks of Thracian robes, while Pausanias (10, 30, 6), distinguishes Greek dress from the Thracian robes and Thracian hat of Orpheus. Evidently ‘Thracian’ was the

2° 'L.M. Wilson, The Clothing of the Ancient Romans, (1938), 80.

2° Boll. Comm. LXXIII (1949/50) 1953, 80, fig.8. cf. above, the Alexander—like

tur of the head and aspiring gaze. See J.J.Pollitt, Art in the Hellenistic Age Is 1986), Ch.1, Royal Iconography. Tetrarchic wreaths: L'Orange, (1965) figs. 19, *4 M.Squarciapino,

Bull.Comm.Arch.

XIX-XX,

(1941),

70,

suggests these

marbles are lamps. The iconography fits this ‘water’ group. Cf. Picard on 'Lacus Orphei’, REL, (1947) 80-5. *° Reinach RPGR, 201, 7; 202, 3. 2

G.Roux,

‘Stola', DA.;

L.M.Wilson,

The Clothing of the Ancient Romans

27 Pausanias 10, 30, 6. Stern (1955) 57. Michaelides, (1986) 481.

(1938) 152ff. Varro, Dere rus. III, 13, 2-3.

70

The Iconography of the Figure of Orpheus in Mosaic

from the Sahelian coast of Tunisia, La Chebba and Sakiet, show the same heavily pleated, long robe. Sakiet is fourth century, La Chebba, given a second century date on the basis of its

designation and the term understood by the contemporary observer. Since variants of the long robe neither Greek nor Thracian, but late Roman, are employed equally often, I have figures long-robed Phrygian-capped, most designated ‘Thracian’. Those garments identify Orpheus as the Thracian priestly figure with knowledge of the Underworld. If he were wearing the robe of his legendary birthplace, as the sacerdotal figure described in Virgil: ‘nec non Threicius longa cum veste sacerdos' (Aeneid vi, 645-47), it should be the long, heavy, colourfully embroidered Thracian robe seen on Apulian vases, belted high on the chest. This is seen at Lepcis I, and is similar

geometric setting, could be the same.*" The tunic is worn under a heavy cloak, fastened by a fibula on the right shoulder. It either falls down to one side or is pulled across the knees. This mantle is the chlamys, a garment traditional in the iconography of Orpheus. At Miletus, Mytilene, Adana, Paphos and Vienne I, a Greek style is adopted: the mantle is dropped to drape around the knees over the tunic. This, perhaps, is the form indicated by Philostratus, so mosaics mirroring the painting would be these of the Greek East.

to the robe worm by victorious Dionysus on African mosaics.7* Often the long garment worn by Thracian Orpheus resembles the Pythian stola of Apollo citharoedos, long-sleeved, flowing, belted on the chest, who appears thus on mosaic at Paphos and an unpublished mosaic from Utica. In both cases Apollo wears a fillet and is accompanied by Marsyas. At Miletus, Paphos and Trinquetaille, the stola of the musician is wom by Orpheus to present a figure representing the vocal accomplishments of Greek culture: poetry, rhetoric, philosophical discourse. The tunica dalmatica was a long overtunic, sometimes belted, with short sleeves under which the long, tight sleeves of a tunica interior can be seen: Edessa, Adana, Tarsus. Beneath, trousers appear, confirming that these are contemporary eastern clothes. The long robes seen at Sakiet, Cos I, Saragossa and Jerusalem carry the rich decorations of Oriental dress. The Saragossa robe has horizontal hem stripes (figs.113, 122). Most interesting are the orbiculi ornamenting the shoulders. These are also seen at Lepcis, Cos I, Jerusalem, El Pesquero (also on the hem (fig.144)). Orbiculi ornament the costumes of the family and hunters on the Piazza Armerina mosaics, and many fourth century North African pavements where real persons are seen in secular settings. Rottweil's Orpheus has a decorative appliqué on his shoulder and the large, central woven stripe of the third— fourth century costume of the north-western Orpheus.

In westem regions of the empire the chlamys is usually depicted red. The colour varies according to the depth of red locally available in stone. A strong terracotta is used at Chahba, to reproduce perhaps the bright scarlet usual for the chlamys. Sometimes the colour is darker, aiming at one of the duller red dyes which fell under the generic heading of purple, although we

would hardly recognise them as such.** The purple robe, with

all its status, would be what was being depicted. In a particular group from the Greek East yellow was favoured for the cloak, with a blue-green tunic, or some permutation of those colours: Paphos, Adana, Sparta, Mytilene, Tarsus, Miletus. At Chahba the tunic is golden yellow. The preference may simply reflect the local availability of certain coloured stones, but the ist ner Man the of e tast wy sho the with ect conn may s ines gaud style. At Vienne I, where the animals show eastern stylistic influence, so do the costume type and colours. The tunic and cloak are both brilliant shades of green—blue, using glass, the undertunic and trousers are yellow (fig.57). Sometimes expensive enamel and glass tesserae represented the multi— coloured sleeve bands and embroidery of the exotic costume. These areas were robbed out at Sakiet in modem times. Examples from the north-westem provinces are limited in colour, in the brown and red range, with black, white and grey. Uniquely, a blue-grey stone is used in the cloak at Newton re figu This e. labl avai were wns bro and reds ough alth oe St.L shows evidence in the draughtsmanship of having originated as a drawing, badly rendered by the mosaicist. Perhaps the unusual colouring reflects an origin outside western traditions.

The practice of dressing Orpheus in contemporary garb increased in the later mosaics. He wears the heavily striped oriental material from Asia Minor and Syria, similar to the integrally woven clavi of Coptic and Asian robes. Variants of the striped dalmatic had become customary apparel for most of

the Roman Empire by the fourth century.7” The garment worn

The approximation of Thracian robes, which had assumed the look of late antique, rich court costume, then became, in the mosaics, the voluminous chlamys and tunic of the latest . ity hor aut of bol sym a , ta' ies ‘ma in ure fig the of hy rap nog ico The colour was often a rendering of the dark crimson that represents the most expensive purple: Thina, Sakiet, Amal, Martim Gil, Merida II, Piazza Armerina, Hanover, Littlecote, Horkstow, Ptolemais, Jerusalem.** At Jerusalem the dark reds are cut with golden ochres, like the shot effect described by Philostratus. The fluidity of antique pictural language is seen here: the Imperial iconography assumed by Orpheus was also

by the Tarsus Orpheus is a contemporary fashion. His shortsleeved, yellow dalmatic bears two blue clavi. The tight sleeves of the undertunic are ornamented with cuff—stripes, an almost universal addition to Orpheus’ garment. A similarly striped, long sleeved, loose tunic is seen at Djemila. The multi-coloured short tunic worn by the Orpheus of Sparta exhibits a trend in

Greek provincial mosaic to depict contemporary costume.*° It

has stripes in as many colours as the mosaic uses. Cos I has an even more motley appearance, stripes of blue, ochre, greens, reds, with as many colours in the cloak. Even Barton Farm and Newton St.Loe have this multi-coloured striping, though within their limited colour range, the effect is more tonal. Two mosaics =% Inv. Sousse 57.099. Dunbabin Tunisie, (1986) 145, colour.

pl.LXXI,

182.

G.Fradier,

Mosaiques

3" Gaukler, Inv. Tunisie I, suggested that the central marine scene was a later insert, Guidi considered it original. Stylistically it compares with other fourth

de

Orpheus is of the same period, century African marine subjects. If the figure of the early dating of the whole mosaic (Stern, 1955: 150-200 AD), is put into question. The central subject seems designed to accord with the presence of the

2° E.Abrahams, M.Evans, Ancient Greek Dress (1964), 117. L.M.Wilson, (1938); M.L.Rinaldi, 'l costume romano e i mosaici di Piazza Armerina’, Rivista dell'Ist. naz. di arch. e storia dell'arte, (RINASA), 13-14, (1964-5) 200-268, esp. 233ff.; Edict of Diocletian, XXIX, 9-34 in T.Frank, V, 408-11.

dolphin rider and

32 ‘Types of purple:

heus. See Chapter Eleven, Pendent Scenes.

L.M.Wilson, 6-11, colour plate I. Not the bright purple dye

we now recognise, which is a 19th century introduction.

3 §.E.Waywell, ‘Roman Mosaics in Greece’ AJA 83 (1979) 321. Colour picture

4? Rinaldi, 225 and fig. 16.

of Tarsus: Budde (1972) II, pl.158.

71

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

incorporated into early Christian art, to the same end. The Emperor was presented to his people, rigid and iconic, at the centre of an elaborate, stylised court ritual and was thus depicted. Orpheus in mosaic presented an analogous image.**

The most notable and frequent parallels for the short oriental garb are costumes worn by Mithras and the magi. The Persian magi wear short robes with Phrygian cap and baggy trousers, Mithras wears the tighter anaxirides seen on the British Orpheus. Phrygian costume appeared earlier in catacomb frescos from Rome. It is surely no coincidence that Orpheus' dress here mirrors that of the eastern hunter-magus Mithras, whose underground shrines were particularly numerous in Rome and Ostia. The Romano-British mosaics also display the short cloak which flies up like Mithras's cloak on the many statues and reliefs: Barton Farm, Woodchester, Withington. The influence of Mithraic iconography is not evident on the Orpheus of Chahba, Sparta, Palermo I, Carnuntum and Merida I where the fall of drapery and cloak length indicate the traditional long mantle pulled around the body. Nor is their posture the angular stance of the Victory, with one leg pulled up. The British pavements of Brading and Newton St.Loe are also exempt from this influence, different from the early fourth century Orpheus mosaics assigned to the ‘Corinian' school. The costume wor by the Brading Orpheus is a short version of that from the Greek East as seen at Tarsus and Adana, but also Trinquetaille and Vienne. It is short-sleeved with an undertunic. The ‘apron’ visible at Brading can best be paralleled on depictions of the

4. The Phrygian Orpheus

Less often Orpheus is dressed in a short tunic with cloak and bonnet. This figure is called here the Phrygian Orpheus, in which

elements of Phrygian

and Persian costume are combined.**

These short robes denote the Phrygian or oriental magus, powerful in effecting phenomena in the experiential world, although Orpheus sometimes appears thus in funerary art. Usually the garment is of seemingly heavy material with a single, central, embellished clavus and long, striped sleeves. Pliny describes the invention of embroidery by the Phrygians, a type of embroidered robe being known as Phrygian (NH VIII, Ixxiv, 196). The costume is the same as the shepherd's costume associated with Phrygia and Mount Ida. The Orpheus with eschatological associations often carries a pedum, like a

shepherd, as on the relief from the Porta Maggiore basilica.*° At Palermo a loosely belted, light, voluminous Roman tunic, a contemporary garment from that region of the Mediterranean, is worn with Thracian boots and leggings.

magi.*°

In many cases and from the earliest period, Phrygian costume is worn by the figure of Orpheus in a funerary context, on Apulian

5. Headwear

vases,””’ relief, fresco, and on sarcophagi. It is the dress of the

The headwear that denotes Orpheus is commonly known now as the Phrygian cap or bonnet. Pausanias called the hat Thracian (10, 30, 6). Philostratus Junior describes an erect tiara (Imag. 6, 17-18), otherwise the prerogative of royalty in Persia and the near East kingdoms. The conventional non—Greek headwear appeared early. Orpheus is seen wearing it with Thracian robes on fourth century Greek vases. Sometimes the hat is erect and highly decorated, with scalloped edging and hanging side

Orpheus of the Christian catacombs (fig.6). This Oriental or Phrygian style is seen in Britain (fig.58), Carnuntum and Merida. It seems to be a figure of western art, also appearing on

German

ceramics

and

Danubian

bas-trelief.**

Thus

the

appearance of the costume at Chahba and Sparta from the Greek East seems anomalous, Orpheus generally being shown in a long robe in that region. This may be another indication of those mosaics being influenced by a relief such as that from Intercisa. On the other hand, the costume itself is oriental in origin and in that context is quite fitting for these eastern mosaics. At Chahba the Phrygian costume is shown cinched on the chest as well as having a waist—belt, over which the material pouches. At Sparta the costume is belted only at the waist (figs.59, 112).

ribbons — perhaps this is the tiara.*' Sometimes the hat is closer to the Thracian alopexis, a fox—fur hat with a fox tail hanging down behind, a top knot, a high peak and ear flaps (fig.4). This was the traditional head—dress of the Thracians and was heavy and voluminous, although it also appears in lighter versions.** It is often the principal distinguishing sign. A

terracotta from Sousse, Tunisia, in the Bardo museum** and a coin from Lesbos both show simply a bonneted head. On the coin it is the Thracian fox—skin alopexis.

The short Oriental tunic was wom with trousers, the Persian anaxirides. These were loose with an embroidered panel or ribbon down the front, giving a ruched effect, clearly seen at Chahba. A type of baggy, oriental trouser tucked into boots can be seen at Barton Farm, Woodchester, Withington and Newton St.Loe and on the Trier dish (fig.10). The frontal ribbon is clear at Vienne and Djemila, just discernible at Brading. Leggings which covered the feet like tights were also called anaxirides in the east, while the same in the west were called generically braccae, though properly these garments did not reach below the

The familiar form to be seen in mosaics is less elaborate, conical with the typical rounded peak overturned, sometimes shown with ear flaps and strings to tie it on: Miletus, Adana,

Palermo I, Blanzy, Trento, Saragossa.** In the Greek East artisans

42ff.

Cf.

Jerusalem

Orpheus

with

Emperor

image

the

headwear

of

local,

the tiara:

on

death

vases,

Schéeller

pl-XXII,

1, 3, Panyagua,

fig.8,

cat.no.47, fig.9, cat.no.49; on Underworld vases, Schéeller pl.XI, 3, 4, pl-XII, 2; Panyagua fig.12, cat. no.67, idem, (1967) fig.9. 42 Phrygian bonnet: G.Seiterle, ‘Die Urform der phrygischer Miitze’, Antike

of

Theodosius, fig.105.

Welt 16, (1985), vol. 3, 3-11.; Alopexis: Gruppe, 1175, figs.4,5; Reinach RVGR 176, 1-3; Panyagua, (1972) figs.8, 12. Schdeller XIII, 2, XVI, 1, 3.

*5 Cf. T.Hope, Costumes of the Greeks and Romans (1962) pl.23, 32. 2 Rinaldi, fig. 9. %7 Reinach RVPG,

with

*' Tiara: O.Navarre, DA, Vol.V, 296-8; Smith, Dictionary of Antiquities; C.Bradley, A History of World Costume (1955), Asiatic dress, pl.V,7. Orpheus wears

(1969)

familiar

Ravenna twice, once on the robe of Empress Theodosia, Grabar, (1969), fig 252; also fig.52, Dura Europos; Basilica of S.Apollinare Nuovo, G.Bovini, Ravenna Mosaics, (1957), pl.21.

have the front ribbon of Persian trousers. Leggings are seen at Trinquetaille, Sakiet and Tarsus.

Grabar

be

4° 'Corinian school': D.J.Smith CMGR I, (1965) 95-115. Dress of magi: at

ankle.*° At Sparta the tighter-fitting, functional anaxirides

*4

would

+3 Terracotta head: Tunis, Bardo Museum, Panyagua (1972) no.93. “* Bradley pl.V, 8; Ch. 3, VI, 3.

176, 1, 2.

*8 Panyagua (1972) nos. 140-42; idem, (1973) nos.167, 169-73. 3° Rinaldi, 253.

72

vitr.12, no.1.8; coin of Lesbos:

The Iconography of the Figure of Orpheus in Mosaic traditional dress, descendants in form of those seen on vases, down to the flap at the back. Mosaics of Adana, Chahba and Sparta show it made of stitched and padded cloth, a fairly substantial item (figs.63, 64). Panyagua's fig.12, perhaps fig.9, both vases, illustrate what might be a version of the hat with multiple folds, ear flaps and tail. The folded appearance is evident in the bonnet of the Chahba Orpheus, some 700 years later. On mosaics the bonnet sometimes is striped, either horizontally: Adana, Miletus, or with a vertical band of fabric or embroidery: Chahba, Sparta, Blanzy, Jerusalem. At Djemila and St.Paul—-lés-Romans the curious turban-shaped cap is a distortion of the heavy eastern form. The bonnet of the mosaics is not the fox—fur alopexis, however, it may have belonged to the same family of regional headgear, a version worn centuries later in both Asia and nearby Thrace, understood to denote Orpheus's ancient Thracian origins.

6. Shoes.

One expects to see sandals wom by the Greek Orpheus, as described by Philostratus, but actually they appear on mosaics figures of late antique date, perhaps with heavily robed deliberately evocative of classicism: Merida (Phrygian tunic); Cos I, Saragossa (late Roman oriental robes); Jerusalem (chlamys, oriental robe). Exceptions are Paphos, in eastern Greek dress, dated early third century, and Rougga (third

century), a wreathed, semi-nude figure, the only Apolline figure on mosaic not barefoot. Otherwise, the nude or semi—draped Orpheus, wreathed or in Phrygian cap, is barefoot. Two clothed, barefoot figures are at Miletus, where the classical stola is worn, and nearby Cos II which is damaged, but where Orpheus may have been similarly dressed. The Sparta Orpheus wears the cuffed Thracian boots, traditionally of soft fawn skin, in keeping with his legendary origins, though not correct for the Oriental costume they accompany. These high boots of ancient origin are worn by Thracians on fourth century BC vases and appear at Barton Farm, Woodchester, Withington, Newton St.Loe, Brading, Palermo and El Pesquero. Round-—toed heavy shoes, perhaps of felt with a central seam and of eastern origin, are wom with anaxirides. These are clearly depicted at Chahba and can also be seen at Panik, Ptolemais, Djemila, Saint Paul— lés—Romans, perhaps Poljanice (unclear).

This tiara or Phrygian bonnet seems to have been associated in art with the extreme north-west region of the Asian provinces, the nearest point to Thrace. For the Greeks the bonnet was the sign of the barbarian, in Roman art it was associated with rural subjects. The simple form is worn by Paris, shepherd of Mount Ida,** but it denotes all Trojans and Amazons. Ganymede, the young herdsman abducted from the same mountain wears the bonnet, as does Attis (who wears the same shepherd garb as Orpheus) beloved of Cybele the Great Mother goddess of Ida.*° Later it was taken to signify people from further East, Persians and Chaldeans generally. It assumed a symbolic import as a sign of the priests of Phrygia and the magi of Cappadocia and was adopted for both Mithras and the magi of Christian art. It came to signal a semi—divine status and ceremonial function. Even Apollo himself appears with the cap on third century

The rounded, thick shoe of Piazza Armerina, red, open at the front, tied at the ankle, is closest to the calceus patricius of red leather worn by noblemen, or the Byzantine slipper with a strap.*? Orpheus at Cherchel is reported as wearing red shoes. Authority and status are being emphasised. The ankle boots now wom by the Orpheus of Blanzy are the work of the restorer. Originally they were Persian shoes with a central seam, wom with anaxirides, as can be seen on the pre-restoration drawings. Stern noted North African influence here, but all indications

sarcophagi.*” By that time eastern and mystery religions were being absorbed into the mainstream of Graeco-Roman culture. At Blanzy and Vienne the bonnet is rendered in gold tesserae, which compares with Philostratus’ description of a tiara bright with gold. At Barton Farm and Littlecote (figs.61, 62), the cap bears three white crosses which might portray this sparkle, denoting the supra—normal importance of the figure, and comparable to the nimbus seen at Ptolemais. An example of a cap embroidered with stars is shown by Hope (pl.29), so the British mosaics may be portraying traditional eastern sewn decoration. The decorated cap harks back to that shown on Apulian vases, highly omamented, and distinct from the Thracian fur head—dress.

point to the repertory of the Greek East.*° Short boots, loose at

the ankle, are worn by the Orpheus of Tarsus, possibly also at Carnuntum. Boots of brown felt or leather with a central seam

are worn at Mytilene. Charitonidis says they are laced®*’ which

may explain the zig—zag line seen at Saint~Paul—lés—-Romans. On a number of mosaics, an anonymous, apparently soft, foothugging, pointed-toed shoe with a medieval character is wom: Trinquetaille, Littlecote, Adana, Hanover. 7. The Rock Seat

Poetic sources sit Orpheus on a rock or crag in mountainous Rhodope. The rock outcrop is carefully delineated in fourth century BC red—figure vases which show him singing, and all depictions thenceforward.** For this reason the identities of the enthroned lyrists of the Boetian cup and the bronze mirror (figs. 1, 3) are enigmatic. The figure called Orpheus, in the fourth century BC terracotta statuary group with two Sirens is

In a standard representation of Orpheus a great mass of curls

will fall from

beneath

the cap.

The

face bears

a sweet,

transported expression with the eyes rolled up to convey the ecstasy of the divine music. The round, staring eyes are further exaggerated in the course of the fourth century under the influence of Tetrarchic and Constantinian models and their expressions of divinity, fixed in the transcendent gaze. Orpheus becomes more an abstract symbol of eternal verities, uniquely nimbed like the gods in the fourth to fifth century mosaic of Ptolemais; the Jerusalem figure is hieratic, static and iconic.**

head of Constantine. Nimbus: cf. Apollo, Paphos, Cyprus; D.Michaelides, nn Mosaics (1987), pl. XXIV, 30; cf.pls.XXII-III. Venus, Bignor, England, 41 (i), (1977). PLO BAR *° Bradley, pl.X, 8. *° Original recording of Blanzy: Stern (1955) 42-6, figs.5, 6.

#5 A Greek vase shows him in Greek dress: The Judgement of Paris. c.480 BC, Staatliches Museum, Berlin. fig.89, fresco 1st.C. AD.

Gombrich,

Art and Illusion (1959),

fig.88,

5" Charitonidis et al, Les Mosaiques de la maison du Menandre 4 Mytiléne 1970) 19.

cf.

*2 Orpheus on a hillock, vases: Gruppe, figs 4-7. Only once on a vase is there a figure seated on a chair who might be Orpheus as the Thracian woman attack him. Panyagua (1972) no.8, fig.3. Some scholars question the identification of Orpheus here, preferring to see the death of Aegisthus.

*° Hope, pls.19-32, Phrygian costume.

*7 Apollo on 3rd.C.AD sarcophagus, Murray (1980), fig.14. He is recognised by accompanying poets and scene of the flaying of Marsyas.

48 HP.L'Orange, (1965), 121-5 and figs.61-6. Cf. especially fig.64, colossal

73

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic enthroned, a configuration in many ways outside the standard iconography. It has been suggested that this is not Orpheus, but may be a mortal calling upon the powers of Orpheus in the Underworld to ensure his safe passage beyond the fatal song of the Sirens.** In most mosaics the essential rock and tree are pictured. Sometimes this extends to a naturalistic environment, recalling the sacral—idyllic landscapes of Campanian painting. The most aesthetically pleasing examples are Sakiet and Thina (which include a sacred pillar behind the singer), La Chebba, Rougga, Piazza Armerina, Cagliari, Saragossa, Seleucia and Chahba. The rocky centre of Volubilis is surrounded by the abundant foliage of the tree tops. It is the only mosaic on which the interlaced canopy of sheltering trees as described by Philostratus is represented (fig.56).

8. The Musical Instrument

The lyre is the most diverse and difficult element of the imagery. As can be seen from the illustrations (figs.27a, b) it is

different

in

almost

every

mosaic.

In reality

any

precise

definition attempted here will fail to encompass all the variety good been have may Some shown. of instruments representations of local, contemporary instruments, others might be visual constructs. The depictions approximate to two types, called here the lyre and the cithara. The lyre, a rustic instrument of simple construction, was the instrument invented by Hermes

which he gave or bartered to Apollo.*® The sound box was a tortoise—shell, the incurving arms were made first of goat, later antelope horn (Herod. IV, 192). These last are shown in mosaic by the use of 'barley—sugar' striations. Finally the arms became wooden, hom shaped. They were joined by a cross bar to which the gut or sinew strings, of an equal length, were secured with the aid of greased hide. These were connected at the other end to the shell by a string bar and a bridge and stretched taut. Seven, the number of mystical import, according with the seven spheres of heaven, is the number of strings on the legendary instrument. In reality it may have had as few as four, though the three sometimes shown is probably erroneous. The ancient cithara had seven strings, while the Roman instrument is

Sometimes the animals sit on the rock setting, perhaps birds on the crags and beasts on the ledges. Chahba, Tarsus and Saragossa show the same type of mountainous background, a pale echo of which can be discerned within Brading's circle. The crags of the naive depiction of Carnuntum are similarly stylised. Comparable reduced versions are seen at Miletus and Rottweil, where plants grow from the cracks. At Miletus only the fox and crow join the singer on his rock. Tarsus shows a naturalistic rocky landscape with a token branch for plant life. In a further reduction the only indication of setting is a single boulder upon which Orpheus sits: Adana, Hanover, Avenches I, Sparta, Ptolemais, Forét de Brotonne. The snake Paphos, Lepcis, sometimes is to be seen sliding around the rock: Paphos, Sparta, Lepcis, Merida I. A curious placing of the tree is noted at Ptolemais and Tobruk where it grows in an arc from the surrounding frame of the picture with a snake curling around the

depicted with as many as twelve.*” The number of strings

carried by the lyre in mosaic varies, perhaps according to the capability and understanding of the mosaicist. By the time of its representation in Orpheus mosaics it was an object of great antiquity, and to judge from the way it is depicted, perhaps unknown in reality to the artisans who confused its details.

Oxhide would be stretched over the concave side of the tortoiseshell to produce a sound-—chest, allowing the plucked strings to resonate within the bowl of the carapace. In mosaics a hole in the flat base of the shell is sometimes shown. In one vase-painting, the lyre is correctly played by a female

stem; a similar arrangement appears at Trento.

The stylised representation of the boulder seat, an attempt to depict light falling on the hard, slabbed surface of rock, gives a form best described as chequered, box-like: Edessa, Merida I, Newton St. Loe, Martim Gil. The rock at Ptolemais is stylised into pelta shapes. At Forét de Brotonne (fig.130) inept restoration has given Orpheus what now appears like a chair or

musician, with the shell behind, stringing to the front.** If it

the mosaics, were realistically portrayed on Orpheus tortoiseshell would not be seen when Orpheus was in his usual position. However, the shell was an important part of the story, so is often depicted on mosaic. A poetic name for the lyre was Greek chelys or Latin testudo, both meaning tortoise. The Elder Philostratus, describing the picture of Amphion, advises on how to represent the lyre (Jmag. I, 10). He makes much of asking the spectator to see if the tortoiseshell is portrayed in lifelike fashion, then goes on to describe the stringing as if the instrument were facing the other way. What was he actually looking at, or, more likely, expecting to see? Mosaics where the lyre is turned so that the shell faces front to display the markings are: Oudna, El Djem, Palermo I, Vienne I, Adana (with sound hole wrongly shown in the top shell). Edessa is just

a throne.** Orpheus at Blanzy is now seated on a chair which, like the table beside him on which the cithara rests, is covered with voluminous drapery. In the drawing of mosaic as found, the familiar rocks are rendered in light and shade. At El Pesquero a seated Orpheus is separated from the rocks by a line of light tesserae and appears to be floating. His feet rest on a curious stippled triangular addition, like a marble foot stool, which lends him a regal appearance. Jerusalem, to which the mosaic bears many similarities,*” likewise shows Orpheus in seated position, but without a seat in common with other mosaics showing no setting at all. The posture alone was intended to convey the familiar message. These others are Cherchel (like Jerusalem it has a scatter of plants across the field), Amal and the British mosaics. These are the latest or most remotely

5 Bion, IX, 8; Paus. V, 14,6; DA III, 2, ‘Lyre’, 1437-61, T. Reinach; Grove, Dictionary of Musical Instruments, (DMI) Lyre 2, J.McKinnon. I remain to be corrected, but at the time of writing I have found no study which deals with the extraordinary variety of instruments seen in mosaics, indeed none mentions the extensive visual evidence of the mosaics. Such a study is outside the scope of this work, but remains to be accomplished by another scholar. On musical instruments: G.Comotti, Music in Greek and Roman Culture (1979) Johns Hopkins paperback edition 1991, Chapter Four. Book and bibliography

located of the series.

unavailable to me at the time of completing this dissertation, but it does not

* J Paul Getty Museum. Handbook of the Collections (1986) 33. *4 Cf. RPGR, 200, 5. M.Charlier, Mémoires de la Soc. des antiquaires de Normandie, XI, (1837/39): colour drawing of Forét de Brotonne. ** Both mosaics late, Pesquero fourth century, Jerusalem fifth—sixth; both frontal, the stylised figure not integrated with setting, both have elaborate peopled scroll surround.

encompass mosaic images. *7 New Oxford History of Music, I, 1957, 381. The seven-—stringed lyre is first seen on the Cretan sarcophagus of Haghia Triada, Iraklion Museum. EAA colour pic. opp. 1092. >® Grove, DMI 582, fig.5, 5th.C. BC red—figure vase, lyrist facing left.

74

The Iconography of the Figure of Orpheus in Mosaic

mosaics which combine parts of real instruments with the antelope horn arms of the antique Orphean lyre: La Chebba, Sakiet, Sousse I, Djemila, Volubilis, Mytilene, Hanover, Ptolemais, Merida I, Saragossa, El Pesquero, Woodchester, Barton Farm. These hybrids perhaps imitate in size, shape and method of play, real instruments whose appearance was modified on the mosaic to render the antique lyre of legend. The straight—armed, tortoiseshell lyre of Oudna is almost the same

a circle. The lyre would be unplayable this way, like a lute held with the bowl outwards. Mosaics showing the shell and horn lyre more or less correctly are: La Chebba, Cagliari, Tarsus, Sparta. In many damaged mosaics the antelope horns remain, indicating the popularity of this type for the portrayal of Orpheus. The other instrument portrayed in mosaic is realistic, commonly used and no doubt familiar to the craftsmen, the cithara. Depictions divide into two types, the cithara of classical Greece and the instrument developed during the Empire when the lyre fell out of general use. The classical instrument was large and could be elaborately decorated with inlays of fine woods, ivory, hom, and even gold and silver fittings. Suitable figures for decorating the cithara were Apollo and Marsyas, and Orpheus. Metal or horn plates could be fitted to the base to increase the tone, one can be seen on the cithara of Chahba. The arms, integral with the rectangular sound box, were parallel, curving from front to back, rather than inwards in lyre-shape. They could be hollow to add to the resonating cavity of the instrument. The strings connected between the box below, then up over a bridge to fix to pegs on a heavy, cylindrical cross

as a modern African lyre.** Philostratus gives no description of the instrument

the cithara,

befitted his antiquity, while Orpheus used a plectrum on the cithara in the manner of a contemporary musician. The cithara was primarily a concert instrument,®* while the lyre was at first associated with amateur music making, suitable to accompany love songs. By the fourth century AD the lyre was

considered the more manly

instrument, more

serious,°° its

sonority close to the cithara, but of more resonant tone. The amateur lyrist was, then, associated with archaic heroism (Achilles, Hercules) while the performing citharist was less

manly. An ancient motif attached to Orpheus’ role as a performer was his lack of manliness. The cult of the concert soloist, the brilliant virtuoso, was as entrenched in Graeco— Roman society as in our own. The well known artist would be feted and commemorated. Nero dressed up as Orpheus for his appearance as citharoedos.~° The legend of Orpheus describes a player so virtuosic, so moving, that he could charm the natural world. He could be perceived as equivalent to the artistic ‘star’, for whom the cithara would be more appropriate than the lyre. At Mytilene in the 'House of Menander' Orpheus is associated with scenes from famous stage comedies. There he epitomises music, the concomitant to theatrical events. He plays a lyre, a feature of which is the blue smoke issuing from the top (the

European lyre or Rotte.°’ The instruments of Newton St. Loe and Littlecote may be of this type or an intermediary between it and the Roman cithara. The cithara shown on the Jerusalem mosaic is unique. The tops of the arms appear omately carved with ridges, spheres, even curved finials like the antelope—hormn tips. Behind the strings are glimpsed at the base two joined, curved projections apparently fixed to the arms in front, the only indication of a sound box or resonating plates on an otherwise simple rectangular eleven stringed instrument. hybrids,

calls

plectrum. They are for the most part the simpler, more provincial and naive depictions, the later mosaics of the fourth and fifth century which nevertheless incorporated a feature of ancient art. In the Campanian paintings described by the Philostrati, Amphion was playing the lyre with hands only, as

The other type of cithara was that in common use, developed from one not so graceful and finely balanced as the classical Greek version. It had a flat body, integral with the arms, extending half way up the entire instrument and finished in the double—curved shape of a bow. The strong cross bar held the tuning pegs. It was of solid construction capable of the hard wear necessary for a travelling musician. It was held by an arm strap in use.°° The clearest examples are Aix (not Orpheus), Perugia, Miletus and Rottweil. They are all slightly different. Others probably of the same type are: Paphos, Carnuntum, Salona, Trento, Forét de Brotonne, perhaps Newton St.Loe and Littlecote. The cithara seen at Rottweil might portray a musical instrument more common in northern provinces, the developing

representations,

he

which

Stringed instruments could be played with the aid of a pecten or plectrum of ivory, held in the right hand and attached to the instrument by a cord. As Virgil describes: '...iamque eadem digitis, iam pectine pulsat eburno..' (Aeneid V1, 645-7). One end was round and the other pointed, so the strings could be plucked or struck. The left hand behind could strum the strings as well as damping them. About 30% of the mosaic sample shows the cithara or, less often, the lyre, played without a

concert play. Good depictions of this type are Chahba and Blanzy; perhaps Rougga, Trinquetaille, Cos I, Poljanice. The ancient cithara had seven strings, while sixteen are shown on the late Roman instrument at Chahba. Wavy lines beneath the box of Cos I may indicate loose ends of strings. The classical cithara was a heavy instrument which, when the player stood, was held up by a shoulder strap, apparent on statues of Apollo, who was credited with inventing it.

of confused

plays,

doubtless familiar to his readers.°* In art this heavy concert instrument often rests on a rock.

bar.*? It was the instrument of the professional musician, for

A number

Orpheus

same pale blue stone used elsewhere on the mosaics). If correct

(and not an effect of colour reproduction), the aura may represent the issuing of the extraordinary, divine music itself.

One might argue that the portrayal of Orpheus in mosaic always relates to this celebration of the musician, that the picture

appear on ©2 Grove DMI 580, b.

©? Good illustrations of varieties of instruments in Hope (1962) pls. 113, 192,

°° DMI Lyre’.

200; also DA. “4 Aristotle (Polit. V [viii] 6,5.) proscribed the cithara for education of the

©° Oxford Hist.Mus. I, 414, pl.12. ©" The Rotte: a medieval instrument, with a flat, rectangular body, the body,

young as it presented too many technical difficulties.

the body. Large black spots along edges may be holes.

1437-51. ©® Reinach, DA III, 2; Grove DMI; Oxford Hist.Mus., I, 416.

> Arist. Quint. De Musica II, [p.101, Meib],

arms and cross bar made of a single piece of wood. Grove DMI: Rotte II. At Rottweil it has its five strings all converging to one point on a bridge added to

hs

T. Reinach,

‘Lyra’, DA

II], 2,

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

It is notable that the depiction of almost every instrument on the other one. every is different from mosaics Orpheus Interestingly, on the most closely related mosaics such as Chahba and Sparta or Barton Farm and Woodchester, the instrument is different in each one of the pair. Patterns are

bonneted, can be recognised, deliberately evocative, in late Roman society, of the classical heritage. Greek robes were appropriate to the virtuoso singer, a familiar figure, denoting the importance of musical performance. The long costume and Phrygian cap was recognised as Thracian by contemporary observers, evincing the poet of the Underworld, knowledgeable in afterlife mysteries. The Phrygian magus implies operative garments, though powers of a different order. Orpheus' representing those of the legendary singer of past times, were often in the form of contemporary and regional costume. A revival occurred of the classical figure: semi—draped rather than nude, sometimes crowned with laurel, Phrygian—capped at others. Another similar form of dress in mosaic was long robes with a wreath. These Greek figures were apparently associated with water, bath buildings and nymphaea, in all media. A sacerdotal reading would not then seem appropriate for such

elusive.’”°

figures’’ which may be dated after AD 250.

signifies musical prowess and the imagined pleasure and peace of the sound, nothing more.®” So it may in some cases, but the lyre, its music, and Orpheus’ song had profound spiritual and religious qualities especially in the Neoplatonic currents of late

antiquity.°* In mosaic the lyre is depicted as often, if not a little more, than the cithara, as far as extant material tells. The nude, Greek Orpheus, the Apolline Orpheus in Pythian stola, the Thracian priest and the Phrygian magus might all equally well play the lyre as the cithara on mosaic. According to Panyagua, most of the huge number of representations of Orpheus in all

media show him playing the cithara more often than the lyre.°?

KA KK KK

Another development of this period can be seen in mosaics of the Greek East, where the depiction of Orpheus, like that of the animals, was marked by a distinct move from naturalism to a dramatisation of movement, the exaggerated twisting of an antique ‘Mannerist' style. In contrast many of the most naturalistic settings are to be found in mosaics of the fourth century at the same time as the figure moves towards rigidity and other—worldliness. The later figure took on all the trappings of Imperial iconography, transcendent gaze, purple mantle, red shoes, a semi—divine figure of mystical import. The later mosaicists dressed Orpheus in Imperial robes in frontal, hieratic pose, an icon in the image of the Emperor. The David of the Gaza synagogue uses this imagery to depict the semi—divine

*K

The lyre is the most diverse element of Orphean iconography, but the exploration of other features reveals repertorial affinities. When like features of costume and setting are grouped together, the same names occur together over again, parallelling the western and eastern animal repertories of the employ examples western Several chapter. previous constituents of repertories from the Greek East and Syria, suggesting the movement of artists following the source of commissions. They would use the great trading routes, thronged by Eastern merchants, running from Asia to beyond the Alps. Mosaics from as far west as Brading and Blanzy, from the Rhone Valley, Vienne and St—Paul—lés—Romans, Algerian Djemila, and a Roman catacomb painting all show Orpheus clearly dressed in contemporary eastern costume. The presence of eastern artisans was apparently widespread and the influence of their style pervasive after the mid—third century. While the model for the figure may be carried in documentary form and the conventional folding of drapery may have been the common exhibiting costume artisan, the of knowledge trade contemporary fashion details must betray his place of origin. The supremacy of the influence of North African workshops should be reviewed in this light. Ample iconographic evidence shows the influence of Eastern repertories employed Empire— wide, even picked up in North African practice. Gothic raids along the Aegean coast in the later third century may have forced craftsmen to move to settled areas with new building and refurbishment.

singer—king of Israel.”* It is difficult to conceive of these figures as having originated in a copy—book source when they are all so different from each other in their details and the combination of possible elements. Individual mosaicists may have kept graphic records of figures and visual elements, perhaps drawn them up for themselves, deriving from their own experience and figural conventions of the locale where they learned their craft. These would be sketch books, which are a different concept. The idea of circulating copy—books is simply not borne out, indeed is contradicted by, in particular, the extraordinary diversity of representations of the musical instrument. -—=00000=-

When the development of figure and setting is reviewed, we note at the outset a nude Orpheus derived from a Hellenistic model of the Apollonian lyrist, soon to be replaced by the robed figure which was the usual apparition. Another Greek Orpheus, wearing a chiton or stola with sandals or bare feet, wreathed or “7 Stern (1955), Gonzenbach (1950) 280.

©® J.Festugiere, 'L'Ame et la musique d'aprés Aristide Quintilien’ TAPA 85 (1954), 55-78. ° Panyagua, Helmantica 24 (1973) 456.

7° Cf. Charitonidis (1970) 19, n.5 — but his comparisons do not bear close scrutiny. The lyre of Saragossa is the nearest to Mytilene, both are hybrids. Orpheus always plays a stringed instrument, a simple iconographic point: a figure playing anything else would have been understood to be other than Orpheus. Objects showing diverse musicians have been claimed as Orpheus, cf. DACL, XII, 2752, 17, lamp; shepherd of Jenah, Harrison JRS (1962), 13, n.8; Knole relief, Panyagua (1973) no.156.

7" Contrast Eisler, Mysteriengedanken, baptism represented at Oudna.

111-12, who sees a form of Orphic

72° Stern, CRAI (1970), 63-82; not Orpheus, but David in persona of Orpheus. The figure inscribed DAVID in Hebrew.

76

Chapter Ten

inanimate in which the animal world figures large. Drawing on the work of his illustrious Greek predecessors, he combined scientific discovery with apocryphal stories and everyday lore. The same body of works, many now lost, seem to have been available to Plutarch and later, Aelian. There were also available many treatises on zoology, biology, medicine, husbandry and animal welfare.

The Animals The animals, so essential to the character of Orphean imagery, offer an important approach to the meaning of the image. Their depiction would have been one of the prime attractions of the scene for artists and patrons. The choice of animals in Orpheus mosaics is not random, but accords with certain antique conventions of animal character. By the term ‘animal’ all creatures depicted are meant: mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, invertebrates and fabulous beasts."

Besides the growing desire for knowledge of the natural world came the opportunity for empirical discoveries with the flow of goods and animals through the markets of the Hellenistic world, opened up by Rome's power. By the middle of the second century BC, many species were imported regularly to Italy and elsewhere for the arenas and parks of cities and estates. Perhaps associated with the availability of animal species a taste grew for displaying the abundance of teeming life in art and spectacle. The fabulous pageant of 278 BC held in Alexandria by Ptolemy Il Philadelphus is a famed example. Later at the feast of the Liberalia in Thysdrus (El Djem) Dionysus was honoured

Literature records an ancient and persistent sentiment that wolves would lie down with lambs and flocks have no fear of ravening lions,” but mosaics do not directly illustrate this theme. Poetic imagery evokes peace in a Golden Age, reflecting the idealised aspirations of the Roman people, proud of their civilized refinement, but continuing to picture themselves as a farmer nation, where fearless flocks, pacified lions and satiated wolves mingle in the idyllic peace of romanitas. These animals, their inner natures changed, respond in a novel manner to each other's presence, forgetting their own battles. The pictorial convention of Orpheus was not bucolic. By means of art he effected what was otherwise the prerogative of the gods, controlling the forces of Nature. His music affects wild and savage beasts only. In general animals on Orpheus mosaics are those shown elsewhere in an antagonistic relationship to man, in man-made situations. Ferocity, cruelty, danger or timidity were the traits of these animals, which the bestiarius, huntsman and gamekeeper found difficult to handle or elusive. It may have been the patrons’ intention that mosaicists should portray the literary ideal, but the message of the depiction is not the same.

with spectacular displays of beasts.* In Hellenistic poetry Orpheus was seen to be in mystical communion with Nature, which mourned his tragedy. Artists of the late Roman era were to ignore the tragic element of the story, picturing only the life enhancing image of fecund prosperity. The parade of animals on some later Roman floors was surely as much a celebration of the life force, the here and now, as it was a scene of paradise to come.

Orpheus mosaics belong to the ‘animal scene’ genre, one of the most popular in Roman art, depicting the arena, the chase, the circus, the capture and display of animals. In North African mosaic Orphean iconography related directly to these portrayals of realistic events, both in regard to the choice of animals who succumb to Orpheus’ music, which were those of the hunt and spectacle, and to their symbolism. The image was an antithesis to such real life situations: Orpheus could accomplish what in the real world took physical courage and skill, to lure and still the beasts. The struggles and savagery of the arena, the danger of hunts and races could allegorise the battle through life, the hope for victory, the play of chance and fortune. Orpheus brought peace, concord and eternal stillness. At Piazza Armerina the visual scheme, redolent of, if not imperial authority, then power on a grand scale, includes the Great Hunt, the gathering of beasts from the whole world, the Little Hunt, the Circus and scenes of mythic carnage, and a large and important Orpheus picture.

The scene of Orpheus surrounded by many animals and plants encapsulated a fascination with nature, a love of and animal-filled growth vegetative natural forms, landscape, which begins to be evident from the fourth century BC. Hellenistic artists and poets and those of the first centuries of the Roman era, delighted in a portrayal of the natural world, effected with minute realism. Interest in the details of natural history grew. Aristotle in the fourth century BC wrote his formative and exacting studies on the history, parts and generation of animals. Pliny in the Roman period presented his wide-ranging study of all things animate and " Aristotle, Pliny, and Aelian, amongst others, provide antique perceptions and definitions. Aristotle, Historia Animalium; Pliny, Naturalis Historia;

Plutarch, De sollertia animalium: On the Cleverness of Animals; Oppian,

The eastern Orpheus depiction, in the medium of mosaic, is different in kind, both in style and symbolism. It had developed independently of eastern animal genres, the oriental hunts and teeming paradise themes which do not appear in mosaic until the later fourth century. In the eastern Orpheus of the Roman period, animal forms still recall those of the much earlier pebble mosaics of the fourth century BC. These are vividly drawn, though already tending to some stylisation borrowed from their oriental prototypes. Roman mosaicists evidently drew on contemporary models from

Cynegetica; Aelian, De natura animalium. Modern books collating historic ce scientific references to the ancient animal world are essential to this ae J.G.Jennison's Animals for Show and Pleasure in Ancient Rome (19 7), ASPAR, from the point of view of an animal keeper. Invaluable for first hand zoological information and characteristic behaviour. An exhaustive review is provided by J.M.C. Toynbee, Animals in Roman Life . A synopsis of ancient ideas of birds is found in and Art, (1973), F.Klingender, J.Pollard, Birds in Ancient Greek Art and Myth, (1977).

Animals in Art and Thought, (1971), Ch.3, ‘Animal Art in the Civilizations of Greece and Rome’, 63-94. (Keller's Antike Tierworld not seen.) Modern

scientific guides: J. Dorst, P.Dandelot, Field Guide to the Larger Mammals of Africa, (1970), 1988 edit.; Grzimeks Animal Life Encyclopaedia, 13 vols. Illustrated Animal En cyclopedia, ed. P.Whitfield, compact (1975); , ed. edit. (1988); The Hamlyn Guide to Birds of Britain and B.Bruun, (1970), repr. 1989; P.A.D. Hollom, R.F.Porter, S.Christensen, I.Willis, Birds of the Middle East and North Africa, (1988). Names, Latin and

English, taken from these sources. Claudian, The Abduction Isaiah 11, 6; Virgil, Eclogues 4.22. Proserpina, IL, 25. A.Grabar The Origins of Christian Art, (1969) 53-4.

3 ChPicard BAC

of

(1961-2)

23. Ptolemy's pageant: Athenaeus, V, 101B,

200F—202A, ARLA 39 and passim.

77

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

occasionally. It was used on sarcophagi to signify, like the lion and deer, the struggle of the soul with death. The mongoose will outwit the fatal sting of the cobra, a hope of salvation in the afterlife. Its appearance on Orpheus mosaics perhaps intimates the same triumphant aspirations, but also the hope in everyday life of outwitting Fate.

other media in which the old patterns were retained, their stylisation perhaps increased to enhance decorative qualities. The result in the later Roman period was a depiction quite artificial in appearance. Its pictorial context was formed by the mythic subjects favoured in the region. Thus the picture of Orpheus related to classical myth as an expression of Hellenism, not the experiential world of a living tradition of animal representation. The picture is an expression of Orpheus’ command over a Nature seen as somewhat alien, an array of abstract forces, rather than a celebration of Nature's variety. For the most part the animals are of lesser importance in this kind of depiction.

The symbolic is one level of interpretation of the imagery, but of course, the decorative effect of animal scenes remains paramount as a motif for choosing them, an opportunity for sumptuous display, a favourite, enjoyable subject. As well as recording combats and munificent gifts, such pictures served also to remind the patron and his guests of the exciting, pleasurable sight of animals in the arena, parks and processions. The larger mosaics, intended to display all the animals of the world — ‘omnia ex toto orbe terrarum'® depict a great variety of birds and beasts. The largest number with Orpheus on a single mosaic must be the sixty odd, fifty— six of which are visible whole or in part, at Piazza Armerina.” Large pavements have the less commonly depicted creatures, exhibiting the power of the patron to gather every creature into one place to create a zoological Saint-Romain, Perugia, Thina, a paradeisos: park, Volubilis. Such images might have a propagandist intent, almost certainly to be found in the gathering of animals pictured in the Great Hunt of Piazza Armerina. As public munera were commemorated in the picture of an arena

In Hellenistic and Augustan poetry, landscape elements personified human feelings. In Orpheus mosaics everything inherent in the antique conception of natural forces (against which Man had so few defences) along with potentially presented was passions, human uncontrollable metaphorically in the shape of the animal audience. This accords with the persistent attribution of character to animals, analogous to human nature, from Plato through Aristotle to the Christian apologists of the second to fourth centuries AD. This is the deeper, symbolic level on which the imagery works. Fourth century AD depictions in all media include fabulous beasts, symbolising the battle of benign and malevolent forces: the cruel Sphinx, vengeful griffin, bestial Centaur and Pan, who is the generative force of Nature. Only Orpheus with his cosmogonic song could avert the onslaught to bring harmony where furious discord ruled. He could harness such bestial powers and provide them for Man's use, accomplish a rapport, bringing the savage, the fugitive to a peaceful confrontation with civilisation. Thus, Orpheus is important in representing the division between raw nature and culture: through his mediation came civilization.

display,* so the gathering of wild animals by the figure

representive of civilisation, Orpheus, would reflect on the virtue, power and prestige of the patron. Perugia has some thirty-seven creatures remaining of a probable forty or more, Volubilis once had as many, plus the same of birds. Saint-Romain-en—Gal had twenty-four animals, twenty birds. At the other end of the scale are the four animals at Brading, Forét de Brotonne and Rottweil. Where there are so few animals, perhaps due to lack of space, they serve simply as attributes of the figure.

The animals are literally enchanted by the song, they are made to behave uncharacteristically. The antagonistic fascination is embodied both in animal types and the poses given them, one artistic tradition stretching back to the earliest representations. The similarity between the Thracian warrior of the Berlin vase (fig.4) and the leopard of the Paphos Orpheus has been noted (fig.22b). They present the same fierce rejection and grudging acceptance. Both tum away, but are drawn back, both are the most fearsome, barbaric, of their kind. The stock pose was often given to the savage animals in mosaics of the Greek East where Orpheus’ song seems to have been a metaphor for the dominance of Hellenic cultural values. In African mosaic the image of the musician, like some others of that repertory, seems to have belonged in the area of quasi-magical icons. The pictured song belonged in the same area of operation, in regard to the world of the imagination, as the actual use of music and noise to lure and baffle animals in the real situations depicted on mosaics.* The picture of Orpheus might perhaps lure and nullify the abstract forces which endanger Man. For example, the Nilotic motif of cobra and mongoose” appears + J.Aymard, ‘Quelques scénes du chasse’, MEFRA

Some species are rarely depicted anywhere: the squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) of Merida, genet of Volubilis and zebra of Perugia (until the fifth century). The pangolin (Manis tricusis) of Piazza Armerina (fig.67), running rather than curling up within its protective scales, is unique.” The giraffe s, heu Orp h wit e anc ear app y onl its e mak lla ine Mar ta San of

but appears quite often in late antique art from the east."® Beasts which are rare in Orpheus mosaics, like the flamingo, both have cobra mongoose group.

© Historia Augusta, Vita Pii, X, 9.

7 Cf. Z.Kadar, 'La fauna del mosaico di Orfeo in Piazza Armerina’, Acts of

the XI Inter. Congress of Class.Arch. (1978/9), 282f. He sees only about 40

animals. Idem ‘Uber die Tiere um Orpheus auf einem Mosaik der Villa bei

Casale (Piazza Armerina)' Festschrift fiir Klaus Wessel,

reconstruction of the line drawing in Gentili (1959), fig.10, compared with colour photographs, reveals the presence of 56 animals, whole or

fragmentary, with room for the total to reach 60. * Munificium commemorated: K.M.D.Dunbabin, The Mosaics of Roman North Africa, 288. ° Toynbee ARLA, 293, identified a squirrel at Yvonand, but this is probably

a fox, and at Piazza Armerina, an armadillo, the South American cousin of

54 (1937) 52. Magical

the African pangolin. '© There is also a frog, if the drawing of the lost mosaic can be trusted. The random arrangement and orientation of animals in their compartments is so

XXVII, 68. See: Thirion, ‘Orphée magicien....' = JA

querelle du cobra

et de la mangouste

dans

(1988)

139-145, pl. pp.419-421. He counts 50 animals. Close examination and

images: eg. Medusa from Sousse, Inv. Sousse 57.274, pl.LXVII; Dionysus holding lizard among amphitheatre beasts, Dunbabin, El Djem 12, a, pl. d, ‘La

Munich

odd as to be suspect. Frog: ARLA 216 and n.5. G.Moretti, Ara Pacis Augustae, (1948), pls.11, 13. Giraffe: C.Dauphin, "Byzantine Pattern Books’,

I'antiquité’,

MEFRA 71 (1959) 227-62. J.Balty ‘Le cobra et la mangouste dans les mosaiques tardives du Proche—Orient', J6Byz (1976) 223-33. Thina, Sfax

Art History (1978) 1/4, 407-8, figs. 2, 11, 13.

78

The Animals

mongoose and cobra grouping.’* In fact, the snake, on the left, is a benign tree climber, not a cobra. The fox, on a ledge below the griffin, is identifiable by its club-like tail (the mongoose's is pointed) long, sharp ears, body shape and recumbent posture. Another misidentification is the horse at Piazza Armerina, depicted on the right, below the camel. It has a long, strong, upright neck, flowing mane and tail, long legs, deeply hollowed back and large build. It is painted a dark pink—brown. Kadar claims it to be a zebra. He mistakes for the zebra's stripes the indication of a thick coat by short, double lines, a characteristic of the painterly style of the mosaicist, and to be seen on several animals. The zebra is a smaller beast closer in build to the ass, with a short, tufty

crocodile, rhinoceros, scorpion, hedgehog, and snail, are common in other genres of Graeco-Roman art. Some never found their way into the Orpheus mosaic repertory. There is no lynx, the native Greek cat, though it appears elsewhere and with an early depiction of an Apolline figure (fig.3). The scavengers — vultures and kites — do not appear, nor the hyena, which might have been expected, unless at Piazza Armerina (in a lost or damaged section), where the bestiary goes beyond the conventional. There a wolf, animal of the literary tradition, can be identified between the fox and the jackal (fig.68), another two are possibly seen elsewhere.

in demonstrated amply behaviour, and Character amphitheatre or hunt, were vital. Domesticated animals are not shown, no beasts of burden, no young of any kind. The exceptions are camels, ordinary in their native countries, but exotic eastern beasts where depicted,'’ and associated with Sheep, characteristically timid, are not in Bacchus. themselves indicative of Christian dedication, but reflect the influence of both Christian and pastoral—idyllic iconography. Recall that rams are by no means docile. Hunting dogs from the arena were of the most tenacious savagery, capable of felling elephants and lions. There are many testaments to

mane,

stocky,

low neck

(fig.65). There

are no black

and

white stripes at all on this Sicilian equid.** The main division in the character of the animal audience lay between fierce, the most amply represented, and timid. Animals belong to one or other category. It does no justice to the symbolic structure of the scene to characterise the animal audience as one made up of wild and tame or domestic

animals, as is so often done. Some animals could be tamed, others not, but they all come to Orpheus as wild beasts.

their ferocity and strength.’* Animals running as if in a hunt Some creatures we might not think of as such could be fearsome. The Ethiopian monkey, Pliny says, is known for its particularly wild and difficult behaviour (VH VIII, Ixxx, 216). The partridge was known for its fighting ability, likewise the cockerel — cock-fighting, a common artistic

appear in later mosaics. A short—tailed boar hound among Withington's animals runs in pursuit of the boar ahead of it in

the circle (fig.90). The popularity of the griffin with Orpheus relates to this development, appearing first in Hellenistic hunts and seen in late antique hunts of symbolic import, for example in Piazza Armerina's Great Hunt and on the lid of the silver casket from the Walbrook Mithraeum.

motif, even had a moral quality.’* Birds account for 30% of the creatures shown. At Piazza Armerina the robin (Enthacus rubecula), thrush (Turdus viscivorus), hoopoe (Upupa

dove palm carduelis), (Carduelis epops), goldfinch (Streptopelia senegalensis) and swallow (Hirundo rustica) amongst others, inhabit the trees. Volubilis has a bee—eater

The number of species which it has been possible to identify, including fabulous beasts, is about ninety. Some animals defy identification (by this writer), many birds are indistinguishable, sometimes, it seems, because not all colours were available, so were substituted. The most commonly depicted animals, as familiar to us as to the ancients, are recognisable, portrayed in vividly realistic manner. The boar's bristly coat and speed are frequently well observed. In the hands of an inept draughtsman an already badly understood image would distort beyond recognition. With creatures occurring rarely in the repertory, perhaps not seen first hand by the mosaicists, conventional models did not develop to help. Volubilis is notable for combining realistic with enigmatic depictions (fig.74). Perhaps two artisans worked there originally.

(Merops apiaster), falcon, blue rock-thrush (Monticola solitarius), owl, kingfisher (Alcedo atthis), flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca), and more (fig.73). Although these wonderful displays, particularly that of Saint-Romain, seem to parallel illustrated natural history handbooks, they could just as well comprise a gazeteer of local birds. The compartmental format seen at Saint-Romain was commonly used for painted decoration on ceilings, in imitation of

coffering,"® which may be the real inspiration. African

mosaicists, delighting in nature, presented as many colourful species as possible, apparently derived from direct observation. Lepcis I and Sousse have fine bird portrayals (figs.133, 71). Outside the African sphere of influence, matters differed. Native birds of the north-western provinces hardly appear, unless conventional in Greek art or African practice, for example magpie and crow. These are joined by a number of colourful southern and eastern natives, such as the partridge, pheasant and cockerel. Guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) and crane (Grus grus) appear at Barton Farm (figs.78, 79). Far fewer birds appear on Orpheus mosaics from the eastern provinces, their artisans, unlike their African fellows, not concerned to manifest the riches of

Sometimes the modern observer is less sure of animal physiology. Chahba, a mosaic of high artistry, has a small animal, lower right, which has so far proved difficult to identify. It sits up on hind legs, raising its paws, resembling the typical stance of the mongoose (Herpestes ichneumon) which will sit up to see around. It is usually shown in four— footed attacking pose in Nilotic scenes. Balty does not name it at all, but calls the fox a mongoose, seeing it as part of a

'? Balty, (1976), 229; idem, (1980) 34. '4 Kadar (1988), is unreliable, he has several idiosyncratic attributions, does not even see the hopooe or snail. 'S J Pollard, Birds in Greek Life and Myth, (1977), 107-8.

'" Camel: Trinquetaille, Avenches I, St-Romain-en-Gal, Vienne II, Piazza Armerina, Rome, Panyagua (1973) no.181, fig.26.

Perugia. In other media with Orpheus: dish from Trier, no.142; marble sculpture groups, ibid, no.180, fig.25,

'© Painted tomb, Silistra, 4th century. D.Strong, Roman Art (1976), fig.216.

'? Hunting dogs: Toynbee, ARLA, 102ff.

79

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

(Acinonyx jubatus), which hunts in packs during the day, is a lighter, hollow—backed cat with big shoulders. Its colour is pale buff, with small spots scattered singly, its legs are extremely long and thin, it has a slight wiry mane and carries its ears pricked up. It has a small head with canine features and a diagnostic black stripe from eye to mouth, which I have never seen in mosaic.”' The cheetah, being quite amenable to taming, walking on a leash — it was used for hunting by the eastern kings — would be excluded by its character from the repertory of Roman mosaic. It is probably the cat depicted with Dionysus, in hunts or in decorative contexts on Hellenistic mosaics, which derive some of their inspiration from oriental art. The leopard, untamable according to Aristotle (Hist.Anim., I, i, 488a) was the steed of Dionysus. It is the only large spotted cat which appears in Roman art with Orpheus.

nature.

A count was made of creatures remaining on all extant mosaics published and all those of which descriptions exist, providing a 65% sample of the corpus of Orpheus mosaics. The results cannot be claimed as accurate: few of the mosaics are complete, some written descriptions could be misleading, nor do they give a full account; some mosaics remain unpublished; not all portrayals are accurate, while my designations of ambiguous depictions might be questioned. However, general trends can be ascertained. For a typological analysis of the material, creatures were organised into zoological groups of ‘kind’ rather than the modem scientific ‘orders’. Another way of looking at the animals was to regard them as grouped according to their perceived characters, much as they might have been thought of in antiquity, which would have had a bearing on their use in the mosaics.’” Of each 'kind' of animal, there are several varieties, one or more of which might represent the ‘kind’ in the audience (figs.30-39).

North African mosaic depictions are clear. Sculptures, usually of Bacchic scenes, show the typical flat head and lowered ears. Two late versions in mosaic are British, at Woodchester the leopard has a vigorous pattern of large black circles with yellow centres. At Barton Farm the

Felines comprise lion, leopard, tiger, lioness, wild cat, genet. Panther is a poetic term for the leopard, not another cat. The genus ‘big cats’ is now denoted by Panthera. The modem dual naming of the leopard only reflects the antique lack of distinction. It is difficult now to know which of the spotted cats were being described sometimes. Pliny (VIII, xxiii, 62— 4) describes the marks of ‘pantheris' as like ‘oculi’, architectural wreaths with central holes, which exactly matches the rings of the leopard. Jennison discusses the ambiguous nomenclature of the spotted cats. Leopardus was thought to be the offspring of the lion and a spotted cat. New lion—cubs are clearly spotted, which must have contributed to the confusion. Male and female cats, perhaps cheetahs, were called pardus and varia in Nero's reign. Later leopardus and

panthera

might

have

denoted

male

and

female’*

rosettes are transformed into scale pattern (figs.82, 83).

The leopard, rather than the cheetah, which, though it is fast, is not strong, would have provided a more suitable element of ferocity in the African arena for venationes and executions and would, therefore have been a more familiar sight and model. Elagabalus' cruel trick of loosing ‘leopardos' or '‘pardi' into his guests' bedrooms (SHA Elagab. 21, 1; 25) would be easiest accomplished with the cheetah, but most frightening, and satisfying to the Emperor, with the leopard. The cat at Adana is cheetah-like, but has no eyestripe. Its hind legs are striped like the African wild cat (Felis libyca which may appear above the lion and tiger at Piazza Armerina), but perhaps it is just an inept rendering of an unknown beast in terms of familiar ones. At Cos I a small, squat cat on the left might be the European wild cat (Felis silvestris).

of

probably the leopard. Leopardina occurs in Diocletian's Edict in the entry on fur prices, no other spotted fur is named.’? Since the leopard is clearly and exclusively represented on mosaic in arena and hunt, the trade in their skins depending in large part on these activities, a reasonable conclusion is that the name and the depiction coincide. However, it was always the case and surely by the third century, that leopards were hard to come by. Cheetah skins from the orient might also have contributed to this trade.

The count reveals, as expected, that felines alone make up over a quarter of the total, and individually lion and leopard are the most common beasts, with the tiger (Panthera tigris) coming next. It was brought from India, providing a major item of the animal trade or from Armenia and around the

Black Sea shores.7* It was second to the leopard as a

Bacchic animal, also a nocturnal lone hunter. The name tigris is always feminine in Latin poetry and in Pliny. Conventionally the tigress is given large teats. She was savage in the defence of her cubs, which she is never without in the wild. Roman hunters would almost certainly meet the female, the male being even more shy than she. The leopard

Visually and zoologically cheetah and leopard are distinct. The leopard (Panthera pardis) is large, powerfully built, with long body and short legs, its ears drawn back flat. The ground colour is tawny, its spots are grouped in rosettes which break it up to seem greyish from a distance. This dark coloration was in late antiquity a diagnostic feature subject to exaggeration over the course of time: leopards are shown khaki, green, purple. A late antique writer refers to 'virides

pardi'.*°

'saffron—coloured'

The nocturnal leopard hunts alone. The cheetah

in 2nd.C.,

Julius

Pollux,

Onomasticon

IV,

83.

Green:

Utica hunt, British Museum, Hinks, Catalogue. 45, fig.137, 2nd.C. olive

green; Sparta Orpheus, 3rd C., viridian; Winterton Orpheus, late 4th.C. outlined blue, shaded dark olive, D.Neal, Roman Mosaics, (1981) 111;

'7 Aristotle,

Historia Animalium;

Pliny NH

VIII;

Aelian,

purple: Littlecote.

De Natura

Animalium. Illustration drawings in zoological books show the most typical

2'

Cf. Titian's

"Bacchus

and Ariadne’,

National

Gallery,

London,

where

leopard-shaped cheetahs draw the god's chariot. The cheetah was available in Renaissance menageries and model books, eg. Pisanello, the leopard

postures, a useful comparison since it was antique pictorial practice to present animals at their most recognisable.

hardly known.

* Jennison, ASPAR, 183-7; Toynbee, ARLA, 82. '? Edict of Diocletian VIII, 39, Tenney Frank, Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, V, 350.

Roman Empire and India, (1928). From Armenia and Black Sea: Pliny NH

2© 'Virides': Claudian,

VII, xxv, 66.

22 Indian trade in tigers: E.H.Warmington, The Commerce Between The

De Consulatu Stilichonis, III, 345. Described as

80

The Animals

confronting it wears a leash>* which might be an association with the 'montreurs de serpents'*° who put on a staged battle

is sometimes specifically shown as female with teats (Sparta, Adana), and it was the female leopard that was held to be the braver (Arist. Hist.Anim. VIII 608a). The lion was a common symbol of death in funerary art and a memento mori

with an air of protective magic. Alternately it might reflect, as Rosen thinks, its employment in the east as a semi— domesticated exterminator of vermin. It is reminiscent of a hunting dog both in its wearing of collar and leash and its prospective action and so brings the old theme of the hunt to this Byzantine mosaic. Sometimes in Graeco-Roman thought the snake had a character which was mean and scheming, while in Jewish and early Christian symbology it was the incarnation of all evil. At Jerusalem it may belong with the Bacchic figures, Pan and the Centaur who are, if seen with a Christian eye, vermin by extension. The cobra (Naja naja), traditional enemy of the mongoose, is recognisable by its hood and striped belly as it sits coiled ready to strike. At Sakiet and Thina it continues its cosmic fight with the mongoose. At Hanover it appears nose to nose with a lion, a running hound at its back, which is an inept placement (fig.131). Balty opposes it unconvincingly to the crocodile, from which it is separated by a flower, and beneath which can be seen the striped, venomless colubrid snake usually

on mosaic.** Its shaggy mane made it quite unmistakeable. Toynbee notes the exhibition at the games of Probus (AD 276-282) of maned (iubati leones) and maneless lions (leopardi), which might be young males, which are lightly spotted, or the maneless adult male lion, which is quite often found in nature. The lioness is often depicted, more so in the later mosaics (fourth century). She is given teats in Africa (Sousse I, El Djem), not in later images (Barton Farm).

This is a case where both male and female of a species are shown. Others are stag and doe, ram and ewe (with opposing characteristics), peacock and peahen. An interesting feature of the Orphean audience is that, with the exception of the two griffins at Volubilis, which are not near each other, only one of each animal is shown. There are no other repeats. To underline the force inherent in the gathered array of beasts, most are the virile males of the species, the genitalia graphically delineated, especially: the hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus: Oudna, Cherchel), griffin (Piazza Armerina),

shown

wriggling

along the ground.*°

Where

the cobra

appears, so also does the benign snake.

The positive side of the snake is its beneficial and otherworldly properties. In some later eastern mosaics a snake curls around a tree in the manner of the arboreal Aesculapian snake (Elaphe longissima). This snake is associated with Apollo as a healer and was an envoy of his son, the healing god. Its presence would lend a protective air in Graeco-Roman art. It was thought capable of regeneration since it sloughed its skin and it had apotropaic and prophetic qualities. The snake also belongs to the mysteries, seen with both Demeter and Dionysus, issuing from the cista mystica. The snake-in-tree motif is seen with Orpheus at Ptolemais, Tobruk, Chahba, Seleucia, Carnuntum and Trento; the snake curls through a bush at Oudna. The snake—in-tree occurs frequently in later eastern depictions in mosaic and other

bull and ass (Thina), fallow stag (Dama dama: Lepcis I). The

so-called cow at Saint-Romain—en—Gal was no doubt a conventionally well endowed bull. A decorous 19th century illustrator probably preferred to see udders.7* There is neither precedent nor parallel for a cow. Animals would be assumed male unless the female had an especially savage reputation, such as the tigress, lioness, leopardess and sphinx. The bear, sacred to Artemis, was perhaps always considered female in view of the exclusively female myths

and rites associated with it,*> but this is not shown in art. The she—bear was ‘the most savage and sullen of beasts’ according to Plutarch (De amore prolis 494c) and held to be braver than the male bear (Arist. Hist.Anim. VIII 608a).

media.*' (See Map 1, fig.21)

The next largest grouping after felines is reptiles, mostly snakes, plus tortoises and lizards. The striped snakes are often seen together with tortoise and lizard in a grouping of fortuitous animals (Sparta for example), recalling creatures

At Sparta (fig.59) a snake coils round a rock like Python around the Omphalos or as it appears with Apollo round an

on the apotropaic hand statuettes of Sabazios.”° The slow,

altar.*? Often a snake issues from a crack in the rock seat

cold tortoise was almost a stone, and would be a considerable feat to charm. Of course he was sacrificed to give his shell to make the lyre.

(Paphos, Lepcis I, Merida I, Saragossa, Poljanice) or hides by one (Palermo I). The spiralling snake was always an ambiguous presence, evoking Orpheus’ protective and prophetic character as well as symbolising a particular evil vanquished. Ovid tells how a snake almost savaged the up on the shores of severed head of Orpheus, washed Lesbos, but Apollo interceded (Met. XI, 58). A snake-bite took Eurydice to Hades, so this denizen of the earth might

A universal quality of the snake is its capability to embody a dual symbolism, both evil and benign. In mosaic both venomous and harmless are shown. A Palestinian viper (Vipera palaestinae), the commonest venomous snake of the

recall the Descent. A belief of great antiquity connected snakes with the Underworld, they were considered to be the

area, has been recognised at Jerusalem.*” The mongoose

benign familiars of the dead and appeared on Greek funerary Stele.

=? Verulamium, lion and stag—head: Building XXI, II, room 4. Neal, (1981) 102-3, fig.75. 24 Stern, "Mosaiques de la region de Vienne’, Gallia XXIX, (1971).

2° Myth of Callisto; the Athenian girls who danced as Bears to Artemis

Brauronia, J.Harrison, Themis, 450. M.Eliade, A History of Religious Ideas, I, (1979) 456; Martial, De spect. 21b, a she—bear appears in the arena to

savage the criminal ‘Orpheus’. 2© ARLA 223-236; A.Merlin, L.Poinssot, MonPiot XXXIV (1934) 129-76, for discussion of prophylactic properties of these animals. Hands of

=* Cf. Balty (1976) fig.7. 2° Aymard, MEFRA 71, (1959), 249-54. 2° Balty (1976) 230, fig.12.

Sabazios: ARLA, 216-7, n.7, fig.114, from Avenches; an example in the British Museum, S.Perowne, Roman Mythology (1969), 1983, 102.

3" See Chapter Two. mosaic of Adam, Huarte;

heus: rings, ivory pyxes, marbles; other images: Bacchus group, London.

32 Snake with Apollo and altar: RSGR 250-52.

*” B.Rosen, Israel Exploration Journal 34, (1984), 182-3.

81

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic divine as well as temporal power to the scene. The crow was the oracular bird of Apollo, prehaps because it is a good mimic. Hawks, used for hunting (shown on the Little Hunt at Piazza Armerina), and therefore already in human control, are seen only at Volubilis. Against the raptors is set the dove, attribute of Venus, chosen alone at Carnuntum for its pacific character opposite the eagle. Likewise on a catacomb fresco the dove and eagle perch on either side of Orpheus

The groups of canids, equids, deer, cattle, antelopes, bears and boars, reptiles, are equally represented, as are a sizeable group of small beasts. After the lion and leopard, the most frequently represented animals are in order: the tiger, boar, bull, stag, snake, bear, wild ass and fox. Next come the monkey, elephant, antelope, hare, griffin and lioness. The hare stands out here from the savage beasts of the hunt which predominate, but the speedy hare was a popular prey for the hunt, the only one that could not retaliate. At Merida and El Pesquero rabbits, native to Spain might be depicted (figs. 135, 144). So characteristic of the country was the rabbit, it graced Hadrianic provincial

(fig.6).77 Numerous small, colourful birds appear, some for their plumage (bee-eater, kingfisher, hoopoe), or song birds joining with the divine song. The nightingales which sang

coins.**

their sweetest on Orpheus'

tomb*®

would no doubt be

depicted, but this small brown bird cannot be identified. In (Luscinia nightingale the Perugia, at bichrome, megarhynchos) and blackbird (Turdus merula) may indeed be represented, but how to tell? The thrush (Turdus viscivorus), another songster, was also thought good to eat. Birds can represent the seasons as in the genre scene of birds pulling chariots. The migratory swallow and the peacock, which moults in autumn and regrows its feathers when new

Some birds represent timid creatures, but not all. Pliny divided them into taloned and web-—footed classes (X, xiii, 29), the first of which is subdivided into carnivores and other clawed birds: song birds and large plumage birds, peacocks and farmyard cockerels (X, xxii, 43). The peacock is by far the most frequently represented on mosaic, followed by partridge, parrot and dove, crows and the eagle. The partridge (fig.81), like pheasants and guinea fowl, was not only hunted for food, but was extremely shy; the bustard (Otis tarda), also hunted, is noted for its timidity as is the porphyrion or purple gallinule (Porphyrio porphyrio), a wader kept for its brilliantly coloured plumage.

leaves appear,*” both represent Spring. At Miletus (fig.137) a peacock, parrot and porphyrion represent spring, summer

and autumn respectively (was winter perhaps a goose?)** Of sheep and goats, which might constitute the ‘fearless flocks’ of literature, few examples appear, save the billy— goat, notoriously wayward. The barbary sheep (Ammotragus lervia) a native of North Africa, with huge horns and an apron-like fringe of hairs, is the wild sheep of the African venatio mosaics. There are two on the animal catalogue mosaic of Carthage, one appears at Volubilis in suitably

The ostrich must count as one of the dangerous amphitheatre beasts, notable for speed and strength. These are ground— birds, they walk about, like the web—footed ducks and geese. The duck was hunted in winter and like the wild grey goose depicted (Anser anser) it was a bird difficult to tame. The goose shown at Pesquero and Barton is grey and black. The white domestic goose is ferociously antagonistic, its capabilities as a guard are legendary,** it will even see off snakes. The swan, sacred to Apollo, was also dedicated to Venus, and an incarnation taken by Zeus. Plato tells how it was the preferred reincarnation of Orpheus (Rep. X, 620a). It occurs only at Perugia and perhaps Barton Farm. Of the long—legged birds the sacred ibis, stork (Ciconia ciconia) and grey heron are hunters of fish and reptiles, while cranes had a reputation for fighting Pigmies (NH, X, xxx, 58) and belong also to Nilotic scenes. The stork was noted for killing snakes, but at Thina and Sakiet it is coupled with the hare. The flamingo, often depicted as a xenia motif, appears with Orpheus only at Thina. These are mostly fresh water waders or live in a marshy habitat. No sea birds are shown. The cockerel by virtue of its antagonistic character, belongs with savage creatures, rather than fowl.

pugnacious posture.*? The ibex has equally huge horns and a short beard.*° Pliny notes its remarkable speed (VIII, 79, 214). A popular item in the arena in the third century, it is recorded as appearing in great numbers, and is common in later eastern depictions with a corresponding appearancein Orpheus mosaics of the region (Cos II, Hanover, Mytilene). Of domestic sheep, two bellicose rams occur, at Rome and Thina. Timid ewes appear on two mosaics from the Rhone valley (second century) and at Rome and Jerusalem (fourth and fifth century). There alone the literary ideal is expressed, with sheep near savage beasts. Sheep occur either on the earliest mosaics, reflecting Hellenistic landscape poetry, or the latest, influenced by Christian or pastoral imagery.

Equids, including horses and wild asses, deer and antelope would all have been recognised as potentially dangerous, with many testaments to their behaviour in the amphitheatre. The ferocity of the stag is well known, while the hind is a byword for timidity. Roman animal keepers, who could tame

The raptors form a group of savage birds which complement the beasts. Chief amongst them is Jupiter's eagle, an avian counterpart to the lion. The majestic eagle is a carnivore capable of carrying off small quadrupeds. It could battle both stags and serpents, said Pliny (X, iv, 17). The eagle and snake fight, zoologically correct, is depicted at Perugia. This savage bird is not as commonly depicted on Orpheus mosaics as one might expect, its presence lending an air of

anything, managed to put deer into hamess. Two forms are 35

Catacomb:

Peter and

Marcellinus,

J.B.Friedman,

(1970),

48,

fig.5

Cemetery of Two Laurels); Murray, BAR $100, fig.7.

*® Teibethra: Paus. IX, 30, 3, nightingales nesting on Orpheus’ grave. Lesbos: Myrsilus, FGrH 477 F 2, nightingales of Antissa, where Orpheus’ head buried. F.Graf (1987) 92 and n.46. 37 Aristotle, Historia Animalium VI 564 B, 1. 38 Cf, ARLA 280-2, ‘Birds in Harness’. 3° Dunbabin, Carthage 3, a, pl XXIV, 57. ARLA 30-1, n.73; 163: called

*? Rabbits on coins: ARLA 203, n.29.

‘moufflons' which are different animals.

*° Capra ibex, is the European native, but C.i. nubiana and C.i.walie, from

4 Aristotle, Hist.Anim. I.i. 488b: ‘bashful and cautious as the goose’. Legend

Africa and Asia accord with mosaic distribution, cf. ARLA,

of geese guarding the Capitol of Rome, Livy V, 47, 3, 4; Pliny, NH, X, 26.

82

147.

The Animals

to Orphean imagery, but the appellation is misleading, for they are the most dangerous of creatures. The placid ox which pulls the plough is not the beast of the mosaics. At Perugia three types are depicted, one appears like the light, ferocious bull, half wild, of the modern Spanish bull—ring; another is a heavier, hairy beast, perhaps the European bison (Bison bonasus) which is also seen at Piazza Armerina; the third is a smaller, seated bull, perhaps the domestic stud animal, whose danger is legendary. The same violence is true of the humped ox or zebu (Bos indicus) which frequently appeared in the arena. Bulls were tied to bears in a cruel amphitheatre turn.

depicted, the fallow and red deer stags, which are distinct animals, though often difficult to distinguish in art. Both are clearly shown at Lepcis I and perhaps El Pesquero. The red deer (Cervus elephas) has typical branched antlers. The fallow stag (Dama dama) is smaller and distinctive with a light, spotted coat and flattened, spade—like antlers. It is not to be confused with the elk, a larger, dark beast which Pliny describes as 'bullock—like’ (VIII, xv, 38, 39) on account of its

hump and rounded muzzle, though its antlers are similar.*' Fallow stags are seen at Thina and (seated) at Volubilis. Deer appeared in the arena and were also beasts of the hunt.

Antelopes include some of the fiercest fighters of the venatio, beasts which could despatch the dogs. Oryxes (Oryx dammah) were especially destructive of the hounds and would provide a good show. Oryxes, addaxes and hartebeests (Alcelaphus buselaphus) were imported in numbers to Rome, the last appearing frequently in African

Bears (Ursus arctos) were common wild animals all over the

Roman Empire, a staple of amphitheatre displays large and small. Horrendous to meet in the arena or hunt, a ruthless killer when enraged, it was also in demand as a performing animal of some charm and ability. Sacred to Artemis, symbolic, after its hibernation, of resurrection, the bear combines qualities of cruelty with an almost human intelligence and form.

amphitheatre scenes in mosaic.*” Gazelle belong to the same timid and fleet footed category as hares and hinds.

Quite as rapid, but untamable, were the wild asses of Africa

(Equus asinus atlanticus)** and of Asia (Equus hemionus — These

the onager). Wild asses, exceptionally shy, were favourite hunting prey able to run for long distances at great speed. When finally cornered they defended themselves with some force. Onagri was a slang name used by the Roman army for small catapults with a powerful kick. The Asiatic ass would attack an enemy with its teeth and hooves, flailing with rage. Leg stripes on the African wild ass are diagnostic and reveal its presence at Oudna and Piazza Armerina where only the lower legs remain.

of Horses'

Carthage**

includes

depiction of a horse with Orpheus,

the only

associated

it with

the

ancient

shamanistic origins of the Orpheus figure.*” Doubtless in mosaic its familiar performance in the hunt or arena was the motive for depiction. The bear trade was a major industry.** Equally available throughout the empire was the wild boar (Sus scrofa), ferocious, aggressive and stubborn (Arist. Hist.Anim. I. i. 488a). As an object of mythical hunts and the cause of heroic deaths it was perhaps also viewed as an agent of divine destiny. The boar hunt was a metaphor for imperial virtus, as displayed on a Hadrianic tondo in the

Arch of Constantine.*?

Third century mosaicists from the Greek east preferred to put the horse rather than the ass with Orpheus. Asia was a favoured source of horses in the Late Empire, those from near the Taurus being considered the best. Imperial horse ranches existed in Phrygia; race horses came from Cappadocia.** Another source of horses was Spain. The more flamboyant anatomy of the horse, long—necked, flowing mane and tail, better suited the decorative character of the depiction than the stiffer build of the ass. The "Mosaic

from

last characteristics

The magnificent elephant was consecrated as a solar beast, with a symbolic role in the expression of triumphs temporal

and celestial.*° The Indian triumph of Dionysus on the

Pashley Sarcophagus,”’ shows an elephant whose thick hide is represented by an incised reticulation which is also shown El Pesquero, on the mosaics of Piazza Armerina,

Woodchester

and

Oudna

II (figs.28,

29,

140).

This

is

unlikely to be ceremonial netting. Pliny considered the wrinkled hide, ‘cancellata cutis', a notable feature of the beast. It was believed to be able to expand and contract for the purpose of killing flies! (VIII, x, 30). A second century Greek medical treatise describes the hide fissured with

African

but is exceptional in

showing no other animals with him. On this pavement he is a secondary motif, like others, to indicate the name, perhaps the character of the racehorse. Salomonson (118) only considers ‘Orpheus’ as the name alluded to, which is unlikely in view of his legendary weakness, but perhaps ‘Enchanter' might fit. By back reference to the nature of the Orphean audience further suggestions are: Atmetus, ‘Unconquered’;

transverse and oblique channels like a furrowed field.** It

was a convention of Roman relief to score the hide in this

regular pattem.** Like every animal shown, elephants are

assumed to have been creatures of the wild drawn to the

Ferox, 'Hotspur';*® Thrax, ‘Thracian’ = barbarian, fierce; a 47 MEliade, Shamanism, Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy E.R.Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational, (1951) Ch.5, 135ff.

name meaning ‘uncatchable’.

48 Aymard

their methods. 4° Aymard ‘Notes sur une mosaique de Westerhofen', Latomus, 58 (1962)

171. 5° HH.Scullard, The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World,

*" Cf. ARLA 145. 4° Martial Ep XII 95, Oppian Cyn. Il, 445ff.; ARLA 146.

a

extinct. The shoulder cross distinguishes it from

E.a.somalicus. M.Matthews, Bull AIEMA 12, (1989), 334-6. Hartebeests: Sousse, Maison des Autruches, Dunbabin pl.XXV, 60. ian Cyn. I, 197, Imperial horse ranches; Tenney +4 Horses from Taurus:

Frank, Economic Survey,

5"

Catalogue of Greek and Roman

>2 Scullard, 221.

IV, 617.

(1974);

Les sarcophages romains a représéntations dionysiaques, (1966),

Cambridge, (1964), no.161,

Sculpture, Fitzwilliam Museum,

pl.54.

*3 Sarcophagus dated 2nd century, but mosaics, Woodchester, El Pesquero, and incised reticulation in relief, eg. ivory diptych, apotheosis, ARLA pl.11,

#5 J,W.Salomonson, La mosaique aux chevaux de I'antiquarium de Carthage

1965), 68, 118, fig.48,

(1937) 56-7. Traders: ursorum negotiatores, the scene of

trapping on a mosaic in the Antiquarium of Rome is a rare illustration of

Bulls have been counted among domestic animals in regard

+? Atlas Mountains, now

(1964);

pl_XLIX:3; Dunbabin, fig.85.

are fourth to fifth century.

© Race—horse names, cf. ARLA 178-82.

83

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

the Imperial period it had become the attribute of the god in Roman art, appearing by his side everywhere. The griffin was associated with Fortune, death and apotheosis, guardian of the road to salvation. On sarcophagi such aspects would

mountain where Orpheus sang. They would not then bear the trappings of human domination. Sacrificial animals, especially those for the amphitheatre, were beribboned, as

were tame decoy animals.** Few exceptions are noted on

be evoked.*° As guardian of treasures it denoted vigilance

Orpheus mosaics: collared hunting dogs, the Jerusalem mongoose on a leash, the bulla worn by the eagle there. The collars and reins worn by the animals ridden by the divinities at Littlecote designate them as attributes of the goddesses and not of Orpheus. Cf. Chapter Eleven.

and vengeance and was also sacred to Nemesis; L.Foucher sees it as a symbol of Diana—Nemesis, patron of the

amphitheatre.°° At Littlecote the figure of Nemesis herself, with Zeus in swan form, brings the same symbolism to the scene of mythic pursuit as the griffin might to realistic hunting scenes. The added complexity is that she too, like Dionysus, was forced to metamorphose into fierce beasts to

Small creatures have their own group, the hare being the most frequently represented of all. Uniquely a squirrel appears at Merida I. The creature seen with Orpheus at Yvonand is unlikely to be a squirrel, but is probably a fox, elaborated by the engraver, seated in its customary position

escape the pursuing god.°" See below. Other fabulous creatures are represented once each. The phoenix is another creature of ancient eastern origin. It appears with Orpheus at Piazza Armerina. It also occurs there in the south apse of the Great Hunt, which shows a personification of either Arabia or India, in both of which lands it was believed to exist. Pliny thought it might be fabulous rather than real (X, ii,3). It is depicted with Orpheus

attentive to the singer.** At Jerusalem a shrew (Crocidura russula), which, like the mongoose, was a sacred animal in

Egypt, makes of the depiction a religious panorama.”® The mouse appears in later, eastern mosaics, not scurrying round the floor, but high up on the picture plane, perched on the

cithara at Chahba. Amongst the rarer animals of Piazza Armerina are a hedgehog and snail, sharing a characteristic of withdrawing into defences with the tortoise and pangolin

on the dish from Trier (fig.10).°7 The solar bird was a

symbol of immortality. There was only one which lived for five hundred years, died in the fire of its nest, and was there resurrected from the ashes. Seven rays of fiery light emanate from its head. Such transcendent symbolism of renewal and etemity was usually provided by the peacock (which also appears at Piazza Armerina). This is an early depiction of the phoenix, which became in later art a symbol of imperial apotheosis, the perenniality of the Roman empire and a

(Manis tricuspis). The migratory swallow, envoy of Spring, the bee-eater, the hare and the scuttling mouse fall into the character category ‘animals which never rest’ with the inference that only Orpheus lures them.

The fabulous griffin (gryphus, gryps) seems to have entered the Orphean mosaic repertory in the mid—third century. Though not numerous in the total sample, it became popular from that time. At Chahba it occupies a rock ledge above and behind Orpheus, a place equivalent to that of the eagle of Tarsus. In the griffin the lion's body, ears and mane were combined with the eagle's wings, head and beak. It was a combination of two solar animals and was often symbolic of ascent to the heavens. The griffin of Romano—British mosaics has the wattle of a cockerel under its beak (figs.39, 85-87). The griffin appears on all the eastern marble sculptures with Orpheus, and on the ivory pyxides. It was long associated with hunting scenes. A pebble mosaic from Alexandria shows erotes killing a deer in a decorative border of lions, deer, leopards, and so forth, with griffins constituting a familiar apparition amid typical hunting scenes.*” The popular belief was that it had a real existence guarding the gold mines of the Scythians. Its origin probably lay in the ancient east. It appears in the Great Hunt of Piazza Armerina, being lured by human bait in a cage. It is sometimes said this shows the gold it guarded being stolen from it. The same scene occurs on a silver strainer from the London Mithraeum, which also depicts the mongoose—cobra

Christian eternity symbol.°* Dionysus' companions, Pan, half goat, and the Centaur, half horse, appear at Jerusalem. There they symbolise the unbridled animal passions, lust, drunken brutality, ignorance,

to be restrained and kept under control — by Orpheus.°* In

the older, Greek mythology their human halves allowed them the grace to master the Nature embodied in their animal halves, a duality which gave them benign aspects. A philosophical reading of the Orpheus image makes all animals representative of natural passions which the civilised man must bring into concord. Pan, who pervaded all things, was the fertile force of Nature, denizen of woods and fields, guardian of flocks and herds and therefore the embodiment of that spirit of Nature drawn by the cosmogonic song: the greatest good, with, nonetheless, a propensity for chaos. His powers of generation were allegorised in his lustful exploits. On the Jerusalem pavement his genitalia are depicted, like *° Orpheus appears on a strigillated sarcophagus with a ram and a griffin as his audience:

Porto

Torres,

Sardinia,

Murray,

(1981),

fig.6, the griffin

Romano-British mosaics, 50% of the sample: Barton Farm, Woodchester, Whatley, Winterton and Horkstow.

suggests to Murray that Christ is the new Apollo, lord of music and the sun, 290, argues that the taking Orpheus to represent Christ. Toynbee meaning is that Orpheus is the new Apollo. This seems to be a condensation of common Orphean imagery, with Orpheus denoted as capable of bringing the defunct to victory over death by way of his song, ie. the ritual poetry of his authorship and perhaps an ee way of life. ©° Popular beliefs about the griffin: Philostratus Vita Apoll. 3, 48. C.Settis—

The griffin, as a solar beast, was consecrated to Apollo. In

palpony

combat.** A disproportionate number of griffins occur in

iii, (1960).

©" Apollodorus, III, 10, 7; Pausanias I, 33, 7. The deer used as a decoy in hunting wore a ribbon to denote its tameness, Aymard, Les Chasses romaines

*4 Smirat, Dunbabin, fig.53, a leopard with lucky millet stalk girdle; El Djem, fig.68, all bulls girded and painted with spots. >° RPGR, 202, 3. Cf.von Gonzenbach, (1961), 235-6, no 143, pl.39; ARLA

1951) 335, n.4 — presumably to stop the hunters killing it.

? Trier dish, Panyagua (1973) no.142.

©% Pollard, 99-101; G.Amad, Rechérches sur le mythe du Phénix dans la mosaique antique, (1988). ©* Compare the satyrs and erotic couple on the vase in the British Museum, F 100, red—figure S. Etruscan oenochoe.

293. Cf. Rottweil, Cagliari.

>

grifone e la tigre’, CArch 24 (1975); 'Grifo', Enc. dell'Arte Antica

Rosen, IEJ (1984).

*” B.R.Brown, Ptolemaic Paintings and Mosaics (1957), pl.41/1.

** Toynbee, (1986), 43, fig.2 and 44, fig.3, pl.22.

84

The Animals

be a sea—beast. Every creature on earth had its marine double. Sea—griffins served on the symbolic level the same purpose as their terrestrial counterparts, to intimate the dangers of the marine arena and salvation through death therein. Fish and dolphins are also common decorative motifs and as well as being the charmed audience at Salona, act as such there. Dolphins were fortuitous creatures, they helped man, often effecting actual rescues from the sea. On mosaics from coastal towns their presence would be appropriate. They had the role in funerary art of escorting souls across the sea to the Isles of the Blessed. In a domestic context they may be interpreted as guardians of life, ie. lucky emblems. On four mosaics fish occupied the same field as

other powerful male animals with Orpheus. The centaur combined instinctual animal force with the superior human qualities of virtue and judgement. Achilles’ teacher Chiron was unique amongst his race, being an immortal who personified wisdom. The horse was a solar beast, representing intellect, nobility, dynamism. The centaur at Jerusalem carries a club, an analogy with Hercules: it is his human constituent which is responsible for his brutal exploits. He shows his bemused submission to a higher spiritual force by putting a hand to his mouth, a gesture of approval, while he sits and beats time with a hoof. This compares with the description in the late antique Orphic Argonautica of the centaur Chiron after his defeat by

Orpheus:

state and presents the apparition Orpheus with an outstretched open hand (comparable to the gesture of satyrs

Bobbio,

Trento,

Yverdon

and

Woodchester

(an

early witness saw ‘fish and a star round the centre’). The first account of Orpheus’ power has fish following him like sheep.

Orpheus in a singing contest (440-42).°° Pan indicates his

on the pyxis from

Salona,

The fox, the most prominent creature in the British repertory,

fig.13).°° The pair appear

regularly on Coptic textiles.°” They entered the audience in late antiquity, but the precedent for their attendance was set on Attic vases when satyrs and Thracians were drawn by Orpheus’ song, analogous personifications of raw animal energy and brutality. The place of the Thracian horsemen was taken in late antique art by the then favoured equivalent, the centaur. Together they present the highest and lowest aspirations, the powers of heaven and earth, intellect and instinct, bound together in fruitful harmony by the music. The limiting Christian view would make them all evil.

is common

in mosaics

from the Greek

East (figs.37a, b).

Where Orpheus occupies a central panel the fox is among the few animals to accompany him: Miletus, Mytilene, Rottweil, Yvonand, Salona, Brading. It lies on the ledge below the griffin at Chahba, apart from the other animals. The accompanying animals at Cagliari are a crow and probably a fox. Its importance in Britain is denoted by a location close to Orpheus, set apart from other animals. It is the only

animal of the audience

at Littlecote and one of two at

Brading, where its seated posture and the rocky setting recall eastern mosaics. It is always a fox companion, not a dog, as will be demonstrated.

These are all male creatures, while Orpheus is involved with fatal female powers in his legend. An expression of female force in mosaic is the Sphinx. She occurs on the eastern

The dog which accompanies such hunters as Diana, Meleager, Silvanus, is their designating attribute. Orpheus was not a hunter, though he sometimes sits amidst hunting animals, so would not have a dog. Shepherds with a dog companion are Paris and Endymion. Some pastoral imagery could have permeated to Orpheus, such as at Paphos where the fox assumes a sheep-dog pose. Romano-British mosaics, influenced by the iconography of Mithras the eastern hunter, employ his dog as model figure for the fox, but the colour, build and club tail show that it is a fox.

marbles,°* on the Trier dish and on textiles, but appears just once on a fourth century mosaic, El Pesquero (fig.144). She has the body of a lioness with teats, a woman's upper body and breasts and eagle's wings. While the similarly compounded griffin is a savage, but potentially salvationary force, the Greek Sphinx is a malevolent power. Man, in his search for the arcane wisdom of which she was the repository, could be dragged into the depths by her. She

represents female cunning, is static, calculating. The Sirens, with girls’ faces, but bird legs and feet, who were outsung by Orpheus on the Argonautic voyage, are not represented in the terrestrial setting of the mosaic scene.°? Eager for blood, they diverted men from their spiritual goal. Male bestial

Dogs in late mosaics are the hunting breeds of the venatio genre which invades the charmed circle (figs.90, 91). Hunting dogs run at full (Withington, Rome)

qualities, it seems, were capable of reform, while the revelation, or attribution, of the bestial nature of women only increased the terror they inspired.

speed (Hanover), have short tails (Mytilene, Miletus). The or collars

other canids, wolf and jackal, are seen with the fox at Piazza Armerina, demonstrating their conventional distinctions from each other and from hunting dogs. The fox is long, low, short-legged, with a club-like tail, which distinguishes it from a hunting dog. In one repertory it might sit (Miletus,

The sea—griffins of Salona are beasts common to decorative borders and might qualify as the pendent marine motifs which so often accompany Orpheus. A fish-tail, 'un pez plateado’ as it says in the description, can be made out at Santa Marta. The photograph is indistinct, but this too, may

Rottweil, Brading, Piazza Armerina, St-Paul—lés—Romans),

recline (Mytilene, Chahba), or run. In most British mosaics it leaps up like the Mithraic dog. Its smooth, red coat and pale chest are realistically pictured at Piazza Armerina. The jackal here is shown running. It has long thin legs, a thick, rough coat of variegated colour, indicated by black lines on an ochre ground. It also has a club-like tail on mosaic. The heavier set wolf has a dark grey coat, its shaggy tail curls upward. Dark canines at Merida II and Ptolemais may be wolves. The long—legged animal hounded by Mustela on the

65

Orphic Argonautica, ed. Budé, trans. F.Vian, (1987), 105, 179. “© Cf Brilliant, Gesture and Rank (1963), passim. Rhetorical gesture.

©7 Sister Murray, ‘Rebirth and Afterlife’ BAR $100, (1981), 148-9, n.8, for references and discussion.

©* DACL XI1,2752, fig.9246, Athens; ARLA fig.137, Sabratha. °° BA, XXXII-III, (1977-8), 3861, Attic black—figure vase, c.580 BC. Arch.Anz. (1977) 582-610. A lyrist with two Sirens, on a boat, has been

identified as Orpheus. A terracotta group in the Getty Museum, West (1983)

pl.4, shows a singer seated between Sirens.

85

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

Oudna pavement is a jackal.”° As the prey of African hunts,

Vervet or Green monkey (Cercopithecus aethiops) of which

its appearance with Orpheus there would be understandable. Foxes belong mostly to the eastern mosaics which did not

there are several varieties.”” It has green—brown fur and a long tail. Pliny speaks of the 'cynocephalus', dog—head, from Ethiopia, remarking on its extreme ferocity (VI, xxxv, 184; VII, ii, 31; VIII, Ixxx, 216). Two ape species can be seen at Thina and Sakiet. One peers from behind the rocks, hand to head in a typical manner. The other seated nearby, both hands raised, has a distinctive tail with a brushy end. If this is the Anubis Baboon (Papio anubis) from Ethiopia, it would fit Pliny's description, dog—headed and fierce, though it might be the Hamadryas (Papio hamadryas), the sacred Egyptian baboon. The baboon was one of the animals sacred to the god Thoth (Greek Hermes), a god of wisdom and the voice of reason. The baboon only appears on these late African mosaics.

rely on the hunting genre for their fauna’’ and so may have a different import there. The animal lower right on the engraving of Yvonaud, sometimes called a squirrel, was probably originally a seated fox. In Christian symbolism the fox was a cunning deceiver, the despoiler of vines. In the classical world he was mischievous and wicked (Arist. Hist.Anim. I. i. 488a), but his legendary (and real) fondness for grapes brought him, like the leopard, peacock and snake, all drawn by wine, into the orbit of

Dionysus the wine god.’* The fox is principally nocturnal, living in an underground earth, an animal representative of the chthonian god. An epithet for him was Bassareus = fox— fur, which is attested both in Horace: 'candide Bassareu' (Carm, I, 18, first century) and Macrobius (Sat. I, 18, 9, fifth century). Even the purple foxglove — baccare — attests to the association with Bacchus (Virgil Ecl. IV, 19; VII, 27). The distinctive Thracian fox—fur cap and boots of ancient times and the long fox—fur robes called bassarai, were wom by the Thracian followers of Dionysus. The fox, served, therefore, to signify the Thracian origin of Orpheus and his relationship to the god Bacchus. At Littlecote the animal charmer becomes the Thracian magus, the fox acting as his specific

attribute,

distinguishing

highlighting rites.

this figure

from

Apollo’*

The tailless Barbary Ape (Macaca sylvanus) appears on eastern mosaics and other artefacts of the area. Toynbee

illustrate typical postures assumed by the monkey or ape.”* One on a shop counter sits, knees drawn up, one hand to its head (cf. Thina, Sakiet, Palermo II, Seleucia). Other postures are with legs trailing, as on a branch (Piazza Armerina), or seated, legs and arms straight (Palermo I, Brading). Instead of being on the ground (Volubilis, Oudna) (figs.88, 89), in several mosaics the monkey is placed high up on the picture plane, to one side (cf. Adana, Brading, Rome, Perugia, Palermo I, Palermo II, Seleucia) in respect of its arboreal habitat perhaps. On ivories and marbles, the monkey sits on the cithara itself, knees drawn up, hand to head. The example unique to British mosaics at Brading is coupled with the fox. Both are of the eastern repertory, suggesting the provenance of the mosaicist (fig.38).

and

Orpheus’ ritual function as poet of the Bacchic

In Woodchester's sumptuous display, the fox and peacock are emphasised by their location on each side of Orpheus, like heraldic beasts, one a creature of earth, the other of the heavens. At Brading, fox and peacock again represent the essential cosmic symbolism of the singer. The peacock which carried the stars on its tail, ‘quae cauda sidera portat' (Ovid, Met. XV, 385), was a symbol of the heavens and

immortality.

Its flesh was

The monkey had a natural place in a display of the world's creatures, but more than that, it was imitative, almost human.

It performed tricks in the arena. Levi’® describes the tums,

including jugglers, tumblers and trained monkeys, of a venatio, illustrated with a relief of monkeys and a bear cub seated on stools at a table, like a ‘chimps tea party’.

said never to decompose,’*

making it analogous to the eternal Phoenix. It also came from the east, from India, and signified Spring and resurrection (NH, X, 44). It could carry souls up to heaven, and was the bird of apotheosis for certain empresses. It was depicted in funerary art, becoming absorbed into Christian

symbolism.

It was

a powerful

apotropaic

image,’

Brading's monkey, said to be wearing a ‘red hat’ could be performing, except that the hat is no more than the ear badly

drawn.*° Monkeys ‘ape’ the lowest, most bestial human qualities. Monkey is the trickster figure, highlighting weakness, yet ultimately benign. The parody ape of Sousse II (fig.153) playing a mandolin is illustrating its typical characteristic of

its

feathers alone and the ‘wheel’ of its spread tail providing protection from evil influences on African mosaics.”° The splendid bird was a prime decorative subject, both for its jewelled colours and feather pattern. Its prominent placing in British mosaics also suggests a symbolic reading. It does not display on Orpheus mosaics.

imitation.** The instrument was usually played by Psyche,

the soul. The lost central figure was surely Orpheus, whom he mirrors. The parody would underline Orpheus's capability

The species of monkey on African mosaics is probably the

77 Toynbee's ‘Barbary ape’ ARLA, 56, is the tailless Macaque which now

infests Gibraltar. It has no variant with a tail, as she states, unless she means

the whole order of Cercopithedae, Old World Monkeys. 7* DT) Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements II, (1936), 273-77. 7° JEPrice and F.G.HPrice, A Description of the Remains of Roman

7° GFradier, Mosaiques romaines de Tunisie (1986) 94-5; Dunbabin, pl.XIX, 44; perhaps also in Rural Scenes panel, ibid, pl.XXXIX, 101. " Its presence on the Sabratha marble suggests eastern provenance, as do the

Buildings at Morton, near Brading, IOW, (1881), 9. Toynbee, Art in Britain

sphinx, griffin, lizard, and monkey on the cithara. Squarciapino saw a local

Under the Romans (1964) 255.

artisan trained in the Aphrodisian school, Bull.Comm.Arch. (1941). 7? British foxes are known to love blackberries. ”? Literature on the association of Dionysus and Orpheus with the fox is

%° Cf. Oudna, where the ear appears at the top of the head because the

animal is shown with a cocked head looking up at Orpheus. See Panyagua (1973) 490-1, no.245, for a critique of the argument of Price and Toynbee.

extensive. S.Reinach Cultes, Mythes et Religions, II, 85-122, sees the fox as

He cites another example of parody monkey, on a terra sigillata dish from Cologne, cat. no.140, discussed idem, (1967) 234. On a 5th. century eastern

an ancient totemic animal which Orpheus embodies. He reviews ancient references. Also R.Eisler, Mysteriengedanken (1925) 110, n.2. 7+ Cumont, Rechérches sur le symbolism funeraire des Romains (1942) 231. 7° DA II, 987, ibid III, 674, n.12. 7© Peacock on African mosaics: Dunbabin, 166-9.

mosaic from Kuseir Amra with animals in compartments, is another musician monkey: RPGR 225, 1. Levi, (1947).

*" Crows and ravens were also kept as talking pets. ARLA, 274-5.

86

The Animals

reference to the cult is implied in two instances: at Littlecote the animals ridden by the deities are the same as the metamorphoses of Dionysus fleeing the Titans — leopard, bull, goat and deer. Pan and the Centaur of Jerusalem, members of the Bacchic cortege, might signify a despised cult subdued, or more probably classical nature spirits civilized, like the satyrs of Attic vases.

to impose order. Monkey music will be far from divine, but Orpheus will bring order to the perceived chaos of a dangerously human imitation. The monkey, in many respects like the half-human Pan and the Centaur, is the unregenerate soul, showing what might befall man if it were not for the civilising effects of the cosmogonic song. However, though imitative of Man, he has no humanity in his make-up and cannot achieve salvation. On another level this is simply a comedic image. Parrots and crows are also imitative, but while the parrot's utterances were the mundane repetitions of pets, those of the crow, Apollo's bird, were oracular, prophetic, its presence hinting at Orpheus’ ultimate fate, a

Clement of Alexandria wrote that only the New Song of Christ, rather than the pagan chant of Orpheus, had been able to tame Man, the most intractable animal, comparing types of men with their animal counterparts: frivolous men were like birds, deceivers like reptiles, irascible men like lions, voluptuous men like swine, rapacious men like wolves. The silliest men are as thick as wood and stone, while the man steeped in ignorance [of Christianity] is more insensible even than stone (Protrep. I, 4, 1). Such comparison of human and animal souls was ancient. Plato believed evil souls entered the bodies of animals with a corresponding nature, gluttons, drunkards and violent men would be reincarnated as asses and similar beasts. The unjust, robbers and tyrants would find themselves in the bodies of wolves, hawks and kites (Phaedo 82, A-B). Orpheus expressed a desire to return as a swan, rather than be born through the body of a woman (Rep. X, 620 A). Pythagoreans believed in the absolute equivalence of animal and human souls: just men would be

severed head uttering oracles.*” The monkey, peacock, fox and crow at Brading make a carefully chosen group symbolising the powers of dark and light, benign and malevolent forces. The mosaic is placed on the dangerous

threshold, and looks like a protective orbiculum.** ok

ke KK

Species may be appropriately bracketed by character, for example the imitative, Nilotic and nocturnal groups. One from each might be represented. Nilotic creatures are crocodile, mongoose, cobra, ibis, duck, hippopotamus and rhinoceros, all of which appear on the Praeneste mosaic. They appear together in three Italian Orpheus mosaics. Perugia has the crocodile, rhinoceros and ibis, Piazza Armerina the mongoose, hippopotamus and rhinoceros. The animals are not placed together. At Rome the hippopotamus has aquatic vegetation, lily pads, usual in black—and—white Nilotic scenes which were so popular a subject of Italian mosaic.

reincarnated as mild and tamed animals.** by The Egyptian system of theriolatry was well known, repute and as exemplified in the widespread Isiac cult. Animals sacred to each divinity would have their own characters, some corresponding to Greek beliefs, perhaps influencing them. The ass, into which Lucius metamorphosed (Apuleius, 2nd C AD) was the despised animal consecrated to the evil god Set, enemy of Isis, the goddess who saved Lucius ultimately.

Creatures not normally encountered in public displays and hunts in any region, might be considered as exotics there. Such might be the camel, shown infrequently, only seven examples, but all on mosaics from the Gallic provinces and Italy. They seem to have been considered exotic there, whereas in North Africa and Asia they were and remain draught animals and beasts of burden well known for their treacherous temperament. They were used as battle cavalry. They may be bracketed with Nilotic animals as examples of exotica. The zebra, giraffe and pangolin are curiosities, shown to demonstrate the power of the patron as much as Orpheus, to bring them from afar. Exotic birds were those brought from the east, originally novelties, then kept in Italy and perhaps further west eventually: guinea fowl, pheasants, porphyrions, peacocks (which still excite our admiration and wonder), the fabulous Phoenix, the parrot from Bacchus' Indian triumph. At Barton Farm guinea fowl and crane represent exotics.

The attribution of moral qualities to animals is found in Aristotle, in such words as ‘intelligent and timid, as the stag and the hare’, ‘noble and brave and high—bred, as the lion’, as the fox’, ‘jealous and ‘crafty and mischievous, ostentatious, as the peacock’ (Hist.Anim. I. i. 488b). To some extent these are endorsements of the animal characters of folklore, exemplified in the tales of Aesop. Another, more the where subtle level of likeness is expounded, in and attitudes of animals psychological qualities comparison with humans are defined (Hist-Anim. 588a, b),*° something distantly echoed in Clement's phrasing. Clement's tirade denigrates Nature, the animals and the animal nature of humanity using a simile alluding to the familiar myth, with a view to diminishing the value of Orpheus’ song. The kinds of animals omitted from the Orphean repertory, the domestic, the cowardly, the ‘unjust’, show that Orphean animals belonged to a pagan symbolic system of art emphasising positive characteristics. Clement's ‘irascible’ lion, for example, was as often the noble envoy of valorous Death in pagan funerary art. So the action of Orpheus was not the deceiving magic gathering ignoble

The placing of creatures common to Bacchic scenes on Orpheus mosaics does not suggest the influence of ritual iconography. They mingle with the others, all having their own symbolic life. Leopard and tiger may in other contexts denote the Bacchic rites Orpheus reformed, but are more likely represented for their natural ferocity. A direct *° Cf. R.L.Gordon, 'The Real and the lmnagnay Production and Religion in

the Greco-Roman World’, An History 2, sree tion of reality in imag . Jesnick, Mosaic 16, (1989) 9-13.

1, March

1979, 5-34, on the

*4 Cumont, Symbolism funeraire, 404. *5 Klingender, 88—90.

87

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

souls, as Clement would have it, but was expressive of a noble life and death struggle, ultimately victorious. The massed strength conjured by Orpheus was as potentially

dangerous in the image as it would be in reality.*° All the savage, rapacious beasts, all the malign forces such as the Sphinx, the nocturnal owl, all the fear generated by the timid animals, the mischievous harm of the monkey, the darkness of chthonian fox, all the powers of divine vengeance, Nemesis, the griffin, were brought together by the singer. Ranged against them are birds of good omen, the peacock, the crow, the swallow, the peaceful dove, the majestic eagle, the fortuitous presence of the snake and the lizard. Orpheus plays, sings, and the tremendous, almost electrical potency of the audience is brought into harmony, transformed into a force for good, the evil spirits vanquished, the weak overpowering the strong.

Scenes of carnage could be tolerated on living room floors in part for their apotropaic value. An ‘Evil Eye’ mosaic shows an owl on an eye pierced with a spear being mobbed by a group of animals: crows, snake, bull, stag, tiger, bear, oryx,

scorpion.*” The malevolence of the eye is held in check by the animals of good omen. The combination of hunting and amphitheatre scenes had a particular prophylactic effect stemming from the moral sense of ‘virtue’ attaching to the vanquishing of a foe, the dangers of pursuit, combat and death. One interpretation of the depiction of Orpheus in such a context, would be to see it as a protective image of the same type.

related subjects, leaving no clues as to which genre Orpheus belonged. We have to return to examine the formal values of the depiction, the 'Mannerist' style of some examples, to see that the image is conceptual and artificial and did not bear any relationship to events in the real world. Here the image could be purely decorative, but it also must be seen against the background of the surrounding imagery. This, in eastern provinces, is mythological, symbolic, literary. Orpheus must be part of this kind of perception, he is the mythical figure, emblem of culture or transcendence, as at Tarsus where he balances Ganymede in the same pavement. On the one hand the animals are simply the attributes of the figure, part of the scene. On the other, they had their own mythic associations. The fox would signify Orpheus’ Thracian origin and his association with Dionysus; the snake, Apollo and healing; the tortoise, Hermes and the lyre. In this depiction Nature was allegorised.

In both east and west the animal audience was structured as a range of opposing, but equal forces which illustrated the harmonious balance brought by Orpheus. Animals were not anthropomorphised, but could embody human traits, they might even be transmigrated souls. Simultaneously, in antique thought almost every creature was consecrated to a god, both attribute and companion. Perhaps the god was not by the side of the beast, but each beast reflected some aspect of their divinity. Some creatures were half human, some imitated humanity, their ambiguous duality permeating the image. According to context the same animal could be a good or a bad omen, the assumption with Orpheus being that

good fortune prevailed. *

KOK

KK

KK

African mosaics depict a zoological inventory of animals derived from amphitheatre or hunts. Animals which were immortalised on mosaic being gathered from many lands (Dermech), arrayed ready for despatch (Rades), in active combat with hunters or each other (Smirat, El Djem) or ennumerated as victims (Sousse), would meet their death in great numbers in arena set—pieces or hunted down in the field.** To this savagery the African Orpheus was in one sense an antithetical image, depicting the gathering of beasts by peaceable, perhaps magical means. On the other hand the image of Orpheus was part of the grand schema representing the animal industry, processions, displays, parks, public munificence, killing. It is difficult to conceive of this corpus of images being viewed in antiquity without reference to this culture, as purely decorative. Another possibility, perhaps working in parallel, was that it functioned as a prophylaxis complementing the protective potency of camage imagery, effective against the malignities of nature and jealous gods. The image might also provide protection for the men engaged in the carnage, either combatively or those who procured the beasts. The figural repertory of such Orpheus mosaics directly reflects the animal scene genre.

The context of the eastern depiction is not so clear. The manner in which the animals were depicted owes nothing to %

J.Aymard,

‘Notes sur une mosaique

de Westerhofen’, Latomus,

(1962), 171.

7 ‘Evil eye' mosaic, ARLA fig.

**® Dunbabin: pl.XIII, 26-8; Raw 58: XXII, 53, XXIII, 56; XXV, 60.

lviii,

The depiction of numbers of animals provided a pleasurable display, sometimes the sole purpose of the picture, but not necessarily always so. The image could be the natural partner to amphitheatre scenes. Some elemental force was generated by the massing of bestial power which could also be diffused by it. Positive and negative forces were allegorised in the Orphean animals: celestial, solar and chthonian beasts, light and dark, male and female, malevolent and benign, representatives of vengeance, fate, destiny and ultimate safe passage through life, perhaps chaotic harmonised Orpheus death. after salvation oppositions providing a positively charged field which would protect the house of which it was an integral part, as well as decorating it admirably.

-—=00000=Location of Unusual Creatures

ADDAX: BABOON:

Lepcis Magna; Palermo I. Sakiet; Thina; Perugia.

BARBARY SHEEP:

Volubilis.

BISON:

Perugia; Piazza Armerina; Vienne

CAMEL:

Il. Avenches I; Piazza Armerina; Saint-Romain—en—Gal; Rome; II; Vienne Trinquetaille; [?Perugia].

The Animals

COBRA:

CROCODILE: DOE:

FROG: GAZELLE:

GIRAFFE: GOAT: HARTEBEEST:

HEDGEHOG:

HIPPOPOTAMUS: HORSE:

HOUND:

IBEX: JACKAL:

Hanover; Perugia; Sakiet; Thina; ?Santa Marinella; ?Rome; ?Rougga. Blanzy; Hanover; Perugia. Cagliari (2); Carnuntum; Newton St. Loe; Perugia; Saint-Romain-— en—Gal; Volubilis; Withington; Yvonand. ?Santa Marinella. Cherchel; Cagliari; Adana; Miletus; Hanover; Edessa; Yvonand. Santa Marinella; ?Vienne II. Adana; Miletus; Perugia; Rome; Sakiet; Salamis; ?Tobruk. Arnal; Cherchel; Lepcis Magna; Armerina; Piazza Oudna; Santa Volubilis; Ptolemais; Marinella. Piazza Armerina; Rougga; Constantine Piazza Armerina; Rome; Vienne II; Volubilis. Carthage; § Chahba; Blanzy; Perugia; Mytilene; Hanover; Rome; Armerina; Piazza Santa Yvonand; Volubilis, Marinella. Bavai; Hanover; Horkstow; Perugia; Mytilene; Miletus; Withington; Winterton; Rome; Trento. Mytilene; Hanover; II; Cos Rome; Yvonand, Volubilis. Rougga; Armerina; Piazza ?Saint-Romain—en—Gal; Salona;

Thina; Sakiet; ?Ptolemais. LIZARD:

MONGOOSE:

?Tobruk;

Hanover; Mytilene; Palermo I; Rome; Armerina; Piazza Rougga; Sparta; Sakiet; Santa Marinella. Piazza Jerusalem; Chahba; Thina; Sakiet; Armerina; Volubilis.

MOUSE: ONAGER:

PANGOLIN: RAM: RHINOCEROS:

SCORPION: SHEEP: SMALL CAT:

SNAIL: SQUIRREL:

Jerusalem; Hanover; Chahba; Piazza Armerina; Ptolemais. II; Cos II; Avenches Adana; Perugia; Salona; Stolac; Vienne I; Withington, Woodchester. Piazza Armerina Thina; Rome. Perugia; Piazza Armerina; Vienne II. Merida I; Sakiet. Armerina; ?Piazza Jerusalem; Saint—-Romain—en—Gal; Vienne II. Cos I; Perugia; Piazza Armerina; Volubilis. Cos II; Piazza Armerina; Rome. Merida I.

HARE/STORK: SNAKE-IN-TREE:

TORTOISE:

VIPER: WOLF:

ZEBRA: ZEBU:

I; Rome; Palermo Mytilene; Rougga; Sakiet; Thina. Carnuntum; Chahba; Ptolemais; Seleucia; Tobruk; Trento; Oudna I. Mytilene; Palermo I; Perugia; El Armerina; Piazza Pesquero; Rome; Rougga; Sparta; Sakiet; Thina. Jerusalem. II; Piazza Armerina; Merida ?Saint— ?Tobruk; Ptolemais; Romain—en-Gal. Perugia. Hanover; Merida I; Mytilene; Perugia; Saint-Romain-—en-Gal; Santa Volubilis; I; Sousse Marinella.

BIRDS:

BUSTARD:

COCKEREL:

CRANE: FLAMINGO: GOOSE:

Lepcis Magna; Merida I; Rome; Rougga; Saint-Romain—en-Gal; Saragossa; Volubilis; Yvonand. Lepcis Magna; Piazza Armerina; Saint—-Romain—en—Gal; Withington. Barton Farm; Piazza Armerina; Saragossa. Thina. Lepcis Magna; Barton Farm; Miletus; Palermo II; El Pesquero;

GUINEA FOWL: HAWKS: HERON: HOOPOE:

IBIS: KINGFISHER:

MAGPIE:

OSTRICH:

OWL:

PEAHEN:

PHEASANT:

PORPHYRION:

Piazza Armerina; Sparta. Barton Farm, Lepcis Sousse I. Volubilis.

Magna;

Ptolemais; ?Santa Marta. Sakiet; Piazza Armerina;

Saint— Saragossa;

Romain—en-Gal; Volubilis; Merida II. Adana; Avenches II; Cherchel; Hanover; Perugia. Saint—Paul—lés— Volubilis; Romans. I; Mytilene; Merida Edessa; Palermo I; Rottweil; Volubilis. Chahba; Cherchel; Thina; Lepcis Magna; Palermo I; El Pesquero; Piazza Armerina; Sakiet. Lepcis Jerusalem; Adana; Magna; Perugia; El Pesquero; Saint—-Romain—en-Gal; Volubilis. Barton Farm; Saint-Romain-en-— Gal. Hanover; Farm; Barton Merida I; Lepcis; Horkstow; Piazza Armerina; Saint-Romain— en—Gal; Vienne I; Withington; Woodchester. La Chebba; Cos I; Merida III; Vienne I.

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic ROLLER:

Hanover; Piazza Armerina; Volubilis. Mytilene; Piazza Armerina. Avenches II; Mytilene; Palermo I; Piazza Armerina; Ptolemais; Rome; Rottweil; Rougga, Sakiet; ?Santa Marta; Thina. Hanover; Thina; Piazza Armerina; Saragossa; ?Trinquetaille. Barton Farm; Perugia.

SHELDUCK: STORK:

SWALLOW:

SWAN:

BLUE ROCK THRUSH: THRUSH: ROBIN: GOLDFINCH: CHAFFINCH: FLYCATCHER: WHEATEAR: FISH:

DOLPHINS: MOLLUSC:

Saint—Paul—lés—Romans; Volubilis. Piazza Armerina; Saint-Romain— en—Gal. Piazza Armerina. Piazza Armerina. Volubilis. Volubilis. Piazza Armerina. Salona; Trento; Woodchester. Salona; Trento. Trento.

Yverdon;

FABULOUS CREATURES: CENTAUR: PAN: SPHINX: PHOENIX: SEAGRIFFIN: ?HIPPOGRIFFE: ?SIREN: GRIFFIN:

Jerusalem. Jerusalem. El Pesquero. Piazza Armerina. Salona. Bavai. Bavai. La Alberca; Bavai; Barton Farm; Chahba; Horkstow; Merida II; Sakiet; Armerina; Piazza

Seleucia; Volubilis x 2; Whatley; Winterton; Woodchester.

-=00000=-

90

Chapter Eleven

follows proceeds from the imaging of Orpheus in late antiquity as revealed by the documents and artefacts studied in Part I.

Pendent and Associated Scenes

The discussion will pursue two issues: first, relative placing — imagery which is either part of the same picture or in a separate, but adjacent field. For these the terms ‘pendent’ and ‘associated’ have been coined. Second, the kind and character of that imagery — how it affects or is affected by the image of Orpheus, how each sets up a context for the other. The material comprises [i] genre images occurring together with Orpheus integrated with the design, in the border to the main panel, or the spandrels of a circular design, sometimes even in the same panel with Orpheus; [ii] separate scenes within the same overall scheme of one floor; [iii] mosaics located in the same building on floors in different, but adjoining rooms.

The stereotypical picture of Orpheus by itself might be interpreted in anyone of several ways corresponding with the several identities of this important personage. Study of the imagery seen in association with Orpheus reveals that groups of subjects are found in recurrent patterns. Investigation of these patterns can aid in understanding the message of each depiction and how it is qualified by the associated imagery. The possibility of interpretation hinges on two basic premises: that such groups of images were not random combinations of independent subjects, but might form part of larger related visual schemes; that besides the important decorative function, the symbolic value of the imagery might also play a part in the perception of the mosaic picture.

In the first instance the material can be readily accepted as belonging to Orpheus’ own symbolic field, the two, or more, sets of images are intended to be read together. These are designated PENDENT’ SCENES, directly attached to the depiction of Orpheus, where the figures surely belong to the interpretation of the whole. For example, the border of gladiators at Cos I, Hercules at Cos II, the naiads of Woodchester, Pan at Jerusalem. An example of type [ii] would be a mosaic where Orpheus is not the central motif, such as Tarsus where a Bacchic subject is the central of three panels, the other being Ganymede. The third type of setting presents a related scheme extending over the floors of one complex, as Cos I, Chahba and Piazza Armerina. The relationship is established by comparison of such imagery, found on the other floors of the building with an Orpheus pavement, with that found in a ‘pendent’ juxtaposition to Orpheus. These are the ASSOCIATED SCENES. The subjects used for these dispersed schemes are different from those in a ‘pendent’ relationship, but the content remains the same. For example, a ‘pendent’ aquatic subject might be fish, or an actual fountain while an ‘associated’ pavement might

In the case of mural paintings it has been argued that some juxtaposed subjects were intended not so much to form a continuous narrative, as to evoke the feeling of visual relationships, paralleling the use of echoing compositional devices in poetry. Such scenes allowed the observer to discover their inter—association and define the larger thematic patterns. However, while the artist might have structured the images in that manner, some observers might not necessarily want, or be able to interpret the pictorial structure in the same way. Such studies focus on Hellenistic painting. The mosaic image excites another and additional kind of aesthetic response.’ While mural painting may mirror and extend its surrounding architectural setting, mosaics are part of the building's fabric, seen and experienced underfoot. They partake of the conventions of architecture, their compositions reflecting the structural and visual axes of the building, the patterns of movement directed by its form and perhaps the function of the room. The perception of thematic patterns in Orphean imagery, both within the principal field and on mosaics laid in other rooms of the same building, is not stimulated by purely pictural means, as it might be in mural painting. Rather it would derive from the physical experiencing of suites of mosaic images.

show a marine thiasos. Certain subjects are unambiguously coupled with Orpheus. The most common of these divide under three headings: and STRIFE. AGRICULTURE, imagery, AQUATIC AQUATIC may be subdivided into: a) Marine: a direct reference to the sea, its dangers and bounties, marine activities, beasts, personages and divinities connected with the sea, references to mythic voyages in literary form; b) Watery: fresh water themes, which include fountains, real and pictorial, personages connected with water and mosaics set adjacent to water. AGRICULTURE is indicated by the Seasons, elaborate vegetal garlands, fruits and food, rural scenes, vintaging, personifications and divinities connected with growth and safe harvest.

Regular and coherent patterns of imagery are presented with Orpheus which would have excited in some contemporary observers, schooled in the symbolic language of antique figuration, a predictable response to their conventional message. Without straining probability, credible metaphoric narratives can be read in the recurrent combinations of images. It can be inferred that a comprehensive visual scheme was intended. Whether a patron would then see such a scheme as any more than a decorative group of suitably juxtaposed conventional motifs is open to conjecture. The potential existed for apprehending the imagery at any one of several levels of complexity, but it would be impossible to say exactly how it was received in any particular case. What ' E.Winsor Leach,

The Rhetoric of Space,

Opposing these positive themes are as many of struggle and danger under the heading STRIFE. Hunting appears as genre scenes and in an adaptation the meaning is condensed so that the animals of the audience are also those of the hunt. The venatio introduces the systematised bloodletting of the arena, including gladiatorial combat. Dangerous pursuits include chariot races. Depictions of Strife and Combat tend to appear

(1989), 405. M.L.Thompson,

"The Monumental and Literary Evidence for Programmatic Painting in Antiquity’, Marsyas 9, (1960-1) 36-77. J.R.Clarke, Roman Black and White Figural Mosaics (1979) 'kinaesthetic address’, 20—3, 104.

91

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic in adjacent rooms, setting up chamber with Orpheus.

combat with supernatural animals he is almost the same as they are. He also displays an intelligence and cunning which supercedes brutality, taking him on to the spiritual plane. The abductions of Europa, Persephone, Ganymede and Hylas evoke the uncertainty of life, with the solace of immortality Orpheus the and salvation, an area of thought in which theologian is involved (figs. 102, 102a). Zeus is present in animal form. Dionysus hovers behind much of the imagery.

a contrast to the peaceful

Personages appear whose characters and stories express Orphean themes. Hylas, belonging to the Watery context, presents a theme of spiritual transformation, likewise Europa, and Hercules, who shows intellect overcoming brutality, also embodies combat. In one sense, Pan (a generative force), and the centaur (half bestial), are aspects

of Nature celebrated. inherent in express the

All the ‘pendent' and ‘associated’ images are listed with each mosaic in the catalogue.

or natural passions, either to be restrained or The carnality of Pan and the higher wisdom the human part of the centaur seen together song's effect of reconciliation.

KKK KK KK

Agricultural themes are sometimes personified, many figures are nameless denizens of the sea: nereids, tritons, sea— beasts. Cupids, who impart good luck, take the place of human protagonists as venatores, charioteers, fishermen or in funerary contexts. Deities appear occasionally, Venus with Neptune and Oceanus presiding over marine scenes; with as __ seasonal Nemesis/Leda Persephone, Demeter, apparitions. Mythical figures are few, drawn from the Argonaut adventure, Orpheus’ marine association, popular throughout the Empire. Borders of masks in mosaics of the Greek East are proper both to the theatre, and to the Bacchic cult, which Orpheus as poet of the rites always evoked. Figures of the cortege, Pan, Silenus, satyrs, maenads, vintaging scenes, grapes, allude to it. Unique figures are Hyle and Nape, personifications of the woodland setting of the myth, both at Seleucia.

Examining

afterlife,

heavens,

luck,

fortune,

fecundity,

in

the

detail,

widespread

most

is

AQUATIC which seems to have been a basic concomitant of

the Orpheus motif, occurring on mosaics from all parts of the Empire. Much of this imagery is MARINE, concerned with the safe gathering of a fruitful marine harvest; not unnaturally it is depicted clearly on mosaics located near coasts, in particular those of North Africa (Sousse I, I, La Chebba, Thina, Lepcis I, Djemila, Tobruk, also Cos II). The subject belongs to the extensive marine repertory of North Africa, which includes the everyday experience of the peoples of the fertile Mediterranean coasts. Fishing is often pictured using rod and line, tridents, nets from boats. One panel at Lepcis I shows the search for crustaceans on the rocks (fig.96). A variant was to replace human with cupid

fishermen.” At La Chebba the central tableau shows, not Orpheus, but a large boat powered by a bank of oars, able to voyage out to sea. Two men fish from its side. Below, the genre figure of the lone fisherman sits on a rock, playing rod and line at a sea brimming with large fish (fig.97). The Fisherman was a potent emblem of humanity pitted against the elements, a genre figure who occurs in many African displays of teeming waters, showing how Nature's plenty was available to local fishermen. He is also seen in the mystic scene of the Farnesina stuccoes of the first century BC, which at some later time received an incised Chi—Rho. Another version of the fisherman occurs with Orpheus on the Vatican strigillated

A final category of subject matter is abstract, Otherworldly: the

themes

health.

Orpheus was a well known subject in funerary art, including tomb mosaics, offering salvation after death. Among motifs conferring luck are mongoose and cobra, peacocks and craters, birds and fruit. Seasons and chariots express time passing, growth, fulfillment and eternity. Associated scenes on adjacent pavements exemplify the same themes, but in allusive manner. The aquatic theme is represented by Europa and the bull, Nilotic scenes and marine deities. Jason and the Golden Fleece illustrates the goal of the Argonautic voyage, the winning of treasure. The association of Orpheus with agriculture, harvesting in particular, is shown by personifications of providence and comucopias. bearing Fortuna, Tyche, Ge, fortune, Occasionally, ‘associated’ motifs on adjacent mosaics form part of an overall theme, with Orpheus, which appears to be on a more esoteric plane. The imagery of each is then for example at Horkstow, Palermo I and modified, as Piazza Armerina, discussed below. In ‘associated’ scenes, arena savagery is presented in allegorical form. Combats, which include wrestlers, palaestra motifs, pigmy and crane fights, scenes of mythical carnage, even an Amazon, are not depicted with Orpheus in the same field. The fight between Eros and Pan, a Bacchic motif, embodies the struggle between spiritual and carnal passions, the higher and lower worlds, somewhat akin to the pairing of Pan and the centaur. Hercules the master of beasts exemplifies this struggle within himself, for he is an animal—like brute force. In

sarcophagus® (fig.43). The Fisher of Men was a familiar

Christian symbol. derived

from

One theory that the name

a word

is asserted

for fish,

Orpheus

is

Eisler

in

by

Orpheus the Fisher. On the mosaic of La Chebba the fisherman is under the aegis of Orpheus, in a panel to the right, who had powers over the waters and the sea beasts, and who could avert a storm or call up the wind (Val.Flac. 4. 422). Thus as well as luring fish to him and safeguarding ships, he might enable a successful sea harvest.

The sea voyage is protected by the dolphin—rider in the lefthand opposite panel, surrounded by fish. He is usually called Arion, but has none of the attributes of that lyrist from Methymna. Arion is seen at Piazza Armerina dressed in long ? Fishermen cupids with Orpheus mosaic,

57. 124. * REisler Orpheus the Fisher (1921).

Sousse I, Foucher,

Sarcophagus:

Stem

Inv. Sousse

(1974), fig.7;

Lepeis Magna, ‘Villa del Nilo’, ILavin, ‘Antioch Hunting Mosaics’, 17, (1963), fig.24; Farnesina stuccoes: Dumbarton Oaks Papers S.Aurigemma, Museo Nazionale Romano, Inv. 1072, pl.LXXIV; Henig ed. (1983) 3ill.83. D.Levi, "Mors Voluntaria’, Berytus7, (1942), 51.

92

Pendent and Associated Scenes

Adjacent to Orpheus are two figures, one a cupid driving two dolphins chariot—wise. A similar motif is seen at Sousse II, where charioteer cupids drive teams of fish. Blanchard— Lemée calls the Djemila figure Palaemon’ (fig.40). In the myth Ino, daughter of Cadmus, jumped into the sea with her young son Melicertes to flee the wrath of her husband Athamas. Poseidon took pity and changed Ino into Leucothea the goddess of the foam. Her son became the sea—god Palaemon, bome across the waves by a dolphin to the safety of Corinth. The Romans honoured him as Portunus, a god who watched over harbours, which seems to be the location for the secular activities at Djemila. If this and the figure at La Chebba are the same their presence would enhance the protective character of the imagery. At Djemila a nereid ona dolphin to the left of Orpheus carries a flying arc of drapery to show her movement across the waves. In this prominent position she might be Ino—Leucothea, promoter of marine fertility.* Ino and Palaemon guided sailors in storms, spirits of safe journey across and bounty from the sea. Ulysses himself was saved from drowning by Leucothea who gave him her veil (Odyssey V, 13-493).

robes and Phrygian cap, fitting this native of Lesbos, and at

Thina (fig.93).* The figure at La Chebba is more probably Palaemon, a sea—god who is represented thus riding a dolphin and carrying a wand. This boy is bareheaded with classical hair—style, with a cloak flying out behind him as he drives through the waves. He does not carry a lyre. He has none of the attributes which identify Arion (fig.92). The dolphin-rider of La Chebba compares with the many representations of winged cupids on dolphins and may be the same figure who accompanies Orpheus at Djemila (below).*

Djemila is another African mosaic where Orpheus is not the central figure. The mosaic occupies a large apsidal chamber in the Maison de I’Ane, built around the earlier temple of Venus Genetrix. Its central scene, a marine triumph of the goddess, portrays her symbolic manifestation. Above her on the mosaic, a statue of Neptune in shallow water seems to be of the phenomenological world. The borders comprise apparently subsidiary scenes: fishing of all types portrayed in accurate detail, the unloading of goods in a port and a marine religious festival dedicated to the goddess herself. In the comers, myths: Hero and Leander, Perseus and Andromeda, Ulysses and the Cyclops; finally Orpheus, on an obligatory slip of land, with two beasts. This minimum audience is enough to designate him, for his relationship to the marine ritual is emphasised over the animal— charming

Located diagonally Orpheus’ purport here is two-fold. opposite Ulysses in the scheme, he represents the Argonaut's voyage, the other great marine adventure. Jason could have been depicted, but Orpheus, easily associated with marine settings because of the voyage, fulfills the same function in the Djemila imagery as he did as an Argonaut: he was taken aboard to use his enchanting song to overpower supernatural enemies, avert the natural dangers of the voyage, calm storms, and call up slack winds.

scene (Cf.Littlecote: only the fox). The two sea divinities are the most important, Venus in particular. She had the power of life and death, dearth and harvest, and in some respects

controlled all the other activities. The presence of Orpheus informs us of the celebrants’ aspirations, for in his late antique role as a mediator between potentially implacable gods and men, he acts to ensure the success and protection asked from the gods. That is to say, liturgy in the form of his

A comparable scheme is found in the baths of Thina, where the same mythological figures, fishing scenes, charioteers driving teams of fish and a marine Venus, are all subordinate to the central figure of Arion on his dolphin. Stern called the

poetry, known from the extant Orphic Hymns,° would do this.

Djemila lyrist Arion,? but while at Thina Arion rides his

dolphin over the waves, here at Djemila an area of terra firma has been intruded, somewhat awkwardly, into the seascape, indicated by white tesserae against the black of the rest of the border. On this land the lyrist sits, land which indicates the terrestrial figure of Orpheus. Blanchard—Lemée aquatic recorded Djemila and thought both Thina amphitheatre spectacles, but the overwhelming narrative of the combined imagery of Djemila, including the marine festival scenes of the border, suggests otherwise. What is shown is an evocation of marine dangers and divine guardianship in which Orpheus, Palaemon and Leucothea played their parts in parallel with marine Venus and Neptune in the centre. Likewise Arion at Thina.

All the marine activities undertaken by the population are indicated, their dangers metaphorically represented by the represent and Andromeda Perseus figures. mythical salvation from vicious sea monsters, metaphorically the sea ‘devouring’ men, but doubtless the literal fear of such monsters; Hero represents the personal danger of drowning and the fallibility of human guides (the lighthouse); the perils of the great sea voyage, marine trading and travel, are represented by Ulysses (who eventually arrives home safe).

* Thina:

Inv. Tun.

II,

18. K.M.D.Dunbabin,

The

Mosaic

Pavements

of

Roman North Africa (1969) pl.IX, 17, 18. * Cf. N.Glueck, Deities and Dolphins (1966), pls. 16b, 17b, 19. Palaemon: J.Toutain, "Melicertes', DA II, 2, 1707-8. Principal city of worship Corinth.

Appropriately located in a marine context, Orpheus' effect was, according to textual sources, protective, almost magical, as exemplified in, for example the Orphic Argonautica. Orpheus, who could control the elements, calm the sea and draw animals, might be invoked here to attract shoals of fish. More than one Mediterranean fish was known to the ancients as ‘orphus' (Pliny NH XXXII, 152 and IX,

Appears on their coins sometimes lying on dolphin, cf. Philost.El. I, 19, 20; II, 16, 25; sometimes astride, cf. Pausanias II, 7. LIMC VI, 2, ‘'Melikertes' nos. 20-31, coins of Corinth, esp. no.23 = coin of Lucius Verus (161-

69AD), boy with curls rides dolphin; no.20 = ceramic fragment "Korinthischer pinax', carries wand. B.S.Ridgeway, ‘Dolphins and Dolphin Archaeology 23 (1970) 86-95. Djemila: M.Blanchard—Lemée, Riders’, Maisons 4 Mosaiques du quartier central de Djemila, (1975) 61-84, pls.IXIII, late 4th century. © Association of the Maison de I'Ane, Djemila, with the temple of Venus

Genetrix: D.Fernandez—Galiano, Actas A.Balil (1990), 206-7. Blanchard— Lemée thinks house and temple not contemporary. For longer consideration of iconography of La Chebba and Djemila: IJesnick, "Two North African Orpheus Mosaics: Orpheus, Arion, Palaemon' in Acts of Vilth International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics, Tunis, 3—7 October 1994, forthcoming.

Orphic

Hymns:

A.N.Athanassikis,

Guthrie

(1935)

257-61;

Linforth,

7 After the figure in Apuleius The Golden Ass, (Metamorphoses), IV, 31.

* Cf.Glueck, pl.23a, Aphrodite with an arc of drapery, on a dolphin, Tunis. ° H.Stern, Le Caléndrier de 345, (1953), 278, n.4.

178-89;

(1977) Eng. trans.

93

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic 57), indeed ‘orphoi' may have been a generic term. Music was thought effective as a hunting charm to lure fish.’° The fox, symbol of Thracian Orpheus, epithet of Dionysus

tendrils, was, in fact, Tethys with oar and streaming hair, turned by the lithographer into a more ambiguous image. Alternatively she may be an image of fortune, Tyche with

(Bassareus), was thought to fish using its tail as bait."

mural crown, or Ge, ancient earth goddess. '*

On a pavement with a different character at Blanzy, the presence of Arion is inferred in the badly damaged area on one side of a fountain where Orpheus and his animals occupies the other. Fish and sea beasts which would accompany Arion are all that remain, but the focus could as well be Oceanus, Palaemon again or even Tethys. At Piazza Armerina Arion, amidst a marine thiasos, occupies room 32,

A version of marine themes in Abduction of Europa, on one transformation. This single motif adjacent to Orpheus and is one of Zeus’ at Palermo I.

Distinguished from marine imagery in mosaics, is FRESH WATER, the evocation or actual presence of fresh, flowing water, springs or fountains. Several mosaics in the grander villas were either set around, or are in a suite of rooms opening onto a piscina. The mosaic at Blanzy around a large circular pool, was designed to take account of this major water feature, Orpheus one side, a marine figure on the other. A small piscina at Piazza Armerina interrupts the composition of the huge panel picture. A central octagonal pool is envisaged for Woodchester, its design of concentric circles emphasising and leading to it, the repetition of water features in the iconography creating an ‘island’ effect. Volubilis occupies one of a suite of large rooms around a courtyard pool. Proximity to water was traditional. A fountain with Orpheus and the animals was well known in Martial's Rome. Several mosaics actually decorated the frigidaria of bath complexes. Oudna was on the access to a semi-circular piscina, its fountain in the form of a dolphin— riding amor. Orpheus in these cases is the Greek figure, denoting Hellenic culture, refinement, harmonious music, and pleasurable activities.

some way from Orpheus in room 39.'* The literary pairing was old: ‘Orpheus in silvis, inter delphinas Arion’ (Virgil, Ecl. VIII, 56) is the well known tag; mosaicists did not show them so closely associated.

A lively depiction of a Koan fisherman, wearing his typical pointed hat, and carrying rod and line, is the local version of fishing at Cos II. With this exception, only African mosaicists depicted everyday marine events with Orpheus. Other marine scenes are of an imaginary kind. On British mosaics, dolphins and sea beasts represent the aquatic realm; the head of Neptune/Oceanus rears up from the waters. Such marine motifs at locations near the coast, as at Salona, may indicate the same hope for safety and deliverance from the everyday perils of the sea, always desired, though may be no more than the traditional accompaniments.

These

mosaics

compare

iconographically

with,

‘associated’ mosaics, the level allegorises spiritual occurs at Sparta in a room the several of the "Loves of

from

Switzerland, Yverdon and Orbe (where marine motifs in the apse are dominated by a triton blowing a conch), and Trento, north Italy, where dolphins flank anchors and tridents, motifs

The Littlecote complex, which includes a small bath suite, is separate from the domestic wings of the villa, next to a stream. Dolphins, shells and sea—panthers appear. One mosaic feature can be interpreted as depicting a pool: on the threshold between the rectangular ante-room and the triapsed principal chamber, is a long rectangle filled with zig— zag lines, an abstract rendering of water. The design is also seen at the baths of Thuburbo Maius and the entrance to a

similar to those on a Hellenistic mosaic in the ‘House of Dionysus' at Delos (fig.156). Dolphins in quotidian surrounds might have been seen as lucky and life-enhancing images. A great many stories circulated of the friendship of dolphins with man, and of their helping people at sea. As the sites are close to Lakes Neuchatel, Geneva and Garda, the imagery may have been employed for the same reasons as in coastal regions — of course, the creatures would not appear in lake waters — to ensure a rich harvest of fish and safety on the waters. They may have been lucky symbols in the same way that we in the largely horseless late twentieth century still regard horseshoes. Or, their symbolism might be transcendent. Dolphins offered a safe passage across the most dangerous sea: guiding the dead soul towards the Isles of the Blessed.

water garden at Piazza Armerina to simulate water.'” Here

the pool is not only a necessary adjunct to the Orpheus image, but, placed on the potent threshold, could be seen as marking the crossing from one plane to another. The Wells of Memory play an important part in the formulations of the Orphic Gold Leaves.'® On the other hand, it could be one way of denoting the conventional juxtaposition of water with Orpheus.

The baths at Littlecote may have served a religious function. The iconography of the mosaics is not usual, forcing one to think differently about all the circumstances of this site. Eisler long ago postulated the employment of the piscina at

At Chahba, within a border of fishing cupids, a magnificent representation of Tethys with fish—-strewn hair and starfish crown, her dragon of the depths, and her oar, occupies a

room adjacent to Orpheus.'* Perhaps the female bust amidst dolphins and sea—beasts at Whatley, whom we see with a comucopia and wearing a strange crown with flowing

Oudna as a ‘baptismal’ pool for Orphic initiates.’” This

'° Herodotus i.141; Pliny NH XXXII, vii, 17; Varro, De re rust. iii. 17.

‘4 D.Smith, BAR 41 (i), (1977), pl.6.XXX, Whatley. For suggestion that this figure might be Ge, thanks to Pat Witts. 'S B Walters, Archaeology, (Nov/Dec 1982), 43. '© Orphic Gold Leaves: J-Harrison Prolegomena, 1962 ed. Appendix, 659— 73; G.Zuntz, Persephone (1971) 277-393. '? Eisler (1925) 111.

interpretation is not bore

Plutarch Mor. 961E. ''

Aelian, De nat. anim. vi, 24; Gruppe,

col.1062;

Kem,

test.4; Eisler

(1925) 14, 26-7; Zeigler, RE, 203-7. ? R.J.A.Wilson, Piazza Armerina (1983).

'? J.Balty, Mosaiques Antiques de Syrie, (1977) no.28—9, 66-9.

94

out by the iconography of its

Pendent and Associated Scenes

At Merida, pigmy and crane fights, traditional elements of this type of landscape, also satisfy the category of Strife. Stylised lotus bordering the central panel at Jerusalem may belong here. Orpheus was supposed to have stayed in Egypt for some time. Antonine coins with his image issued from Alexandria reflect this association. Egyptian animal worship, especially as experienced in the widespread Isiac cult, would make an it appropriate adjunct to Orpheus. Nilotic scenes combine the watery element with an evocation of the classical heritage and the exotic flavour ever associated with Egypt.

semi-nude Orpheus who belongs to the genre of Greek, classical figures, found in secular contexts. The sacerdotal figures, in Thracian or Phrygian dress are recognised in association with unambiguously religious contexts (eg. catacombs, funerary stele). The whole ensemble at Oudna is part of a baths complex anyway.

The depiction of fresh water has Otherworldly connotations on the funerary mosaic of Constantine, where Orpheus is placed to one side of a central oval panel. In the other was a stag drinking from a stream, a motif also found in Christian art. Another aspect of the theme is portrayed by Hylas, abducted by the nymphs of the spring to become immortal, seen at St.Colombe.

An enigmatic panel at Brading, in room 3,7’ may be interpreted as a Nilotic scene. The draughtsmanship is poor. It may be that the whole scene derives from a manuscript illustration, in particular one brought from the east. Such a provenance is strongly suggested by the iconography of other mosaics here, Orpheus in particular, whose dress is of eastern type. Animals and setting are paralleled at Miletus, as well as the combination of ‘associated’ scenes. These are also found at Cos I, where gladiators, which also appear on the pavement in Brading room 3, border the Orpheus scene. At Brading there is a temple with (reversed) stairway and winged beasts (usually called griffins), a scene paralleled on

Eight recumbent naiads in the spandrels at Woodchester each hold an overturned vase issuing water (fig.100). The Cotswolds and River Severn areas abound with springs period were availed of shrines which in the Roman dedicated to Romano—Celtic water divinities. The presence of a real pool at the centre of the Woodchester pavement is suggested by archaeological evidence and a natural spring still feeds a fountain in the garden adjacent to the site. The iconographic programme leads us through Oceanus, god of all flowing waters, to the earthly and astral symbolism of fox and peacock, on to the centre, where, according to an early

an

Apamean

mosaic,**

where

one

element

of

an

Alexandrian port scene is a tempietto with winged beasts flanking its stair. A fisherman indicates with a gesture the presence of the god.

witness, there were ‘fish and a star about the centre'.'* One possible reading of the figuration across the field from the naiads to the centre, reveals the progress of the soul to immortality, through the astral symbolism of the lyre and the salvationary character of Orpheus.

At Brading the perspective of the stairway and flanking beasts has been misread so they appear in a dislocated important and prominent are These arrangement. architectural elements of Isiac temples. The strange cock— headed creature may be an attempt at representing an Egyptian god in Roman dress, inexpertly copied from the illustration, perhaps the ibis—headed Thoth, in one aspect analogous to Hermes, Mercury — who in Roman art is sometimes given the head of his cockerel attribute, a more familiar image.7* Or, it might be Horus, the hawk—headed god, in his feather headdress, which has tured into a cockscomb, akin to the impressionistic reduction to be seen

Four mosaics from north-western provinces which include fish have a circular or concentric circle design (Trento, Salona, Yverdon, Woodchester). Fish might serve as marine creatures complementing land animals and to denote Orpheus as a provider or protector of bounty. At Trento, with a Greek Orpheus, the fish appear with dolphins confronted on anchors and tridents in the decorative conventions of bichrome. This combination could convey a hope for safety at sea, also the metaphoric sea of life, as well as being appropriate decoration for a location near Lake Garda. At Woodchester the fish, if they existed, would have been in the spring or fountain at the centre. An esoteric significance might be inferred from the well known symbolism, both pagan and Christian, of fish as souls or initiates. Fish are prominently placed in the mosaic scheme of the great hall of the divinities at Palermo, to which the room housing Orpheus

on Egyptianising Pompeian frescos.** A third possibility, and the most promising, is that the figure is a priest of Isis, wearing a mask of Anubis, the jackal— headed god, her principal companion. Her priests wore the star, Sirius, as a headdress, which could have been the the illustration to become misinterpreted from cockscomb. Anubis was conflated with Hermes (Mercury, of the cockerel attribute) as Hermanubis. A depiction of a priest

is linked.'? Even so at Woodchester the principal motive for using fish in the base of a pool is likely to have been the

decorative one.7° 2" Brading, Room 3, Smith (1977) pl.6.IVb. 22 Janine Balty, (1977) 70, no.30; Jean Ch.Balty Guide d'Apamée (1981)

Associated Nilotic scenes (Cos I, Merida, Brading) belong to the same liking for Alexandrian landscape as the Nilotic beasts and vegetation included on the mosaics themselves.

98,

23

pl.101, whole scene, 99, pl.103 colour detail.

The Orpheus panel employs an eastern repertory. The combination of

gladiators, Nilotic and hunt scenes with Orpheus is paralleled at Cos I. GR um, British Museum: Ithyphallic, cock—headed Mercury, tintt 1814. 7-4. 415. Statue of a priest of Isis, Anubis—headed, in Roman dress,

'® G.Clarke

"The Roman

Villa at Woodchester'

(Vatican museum),

Britannia XIII (1977);

Isis in the Graeco-Roman

fig.46. The Greeks identified Anubis

R.Bradley, British Museum, Add. MSS. 5238, folio 3.

'® Levi, Berytus 7, (1942). 7° Lufton: PSANHS XCII (1946) pLIV, ibid XCVII octagonal basin of the type that may have adorned the C.Balmelle, M.Gauthier, R.Monturet 'Mosaiques de XXXVIII (1980) 63-66, figs.2-4. A mosaic with fronds decorates a basin around a central fountain.

R.E.Witt,

with Hermes,

World

(1971)

‘Conductor of Souls’,

Thoth with Hermes, "Messenger of the gods’. Mythologie Genérale Larousse. Cella of Iseum, Pompeii, Witt, fig. 22, staircase with flanking

(1952) pls. VI-IX; an centre at Woodchester: Saint—Emilion’, Gallia fish and water—weed

sphinxes,

mural, Pompeii, Witt, fig. 23.

°4 Cf. the impressionistic drawing of Horus in feather headdress at Benge

in M.de Vos, L'Egittomania in Pitture e Mosaici Romano—Campani (1980)

4, fig.2, and 3, Cat. 2.

95

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

steeds might have had their own seasonal symbolism.*°

of Anubis appears on the Calendar mosaic of Sousse to represent the month of November. Probably this refers to the inventio ceremony of Osiris, part of the Isiac mysteries, which took place in this month. Thus the scene at Brading may be a picturesque Nilotic view, without any symbolic overtones, showing the priest of Isis outside her temple. Many apotropaic gems show the strange figure of a cock— headed human with anguipede legs which are often reduced to mere lines like the chicken feet shown here. He is identified as Iao/Abraxas, an entirely different being whose iconography does not find a match here. These gems too, may have influenced the mosaicist, or the mosaicist may have been trying to rationalise the animal—headed creature,

Fruit, the earthly harvest which Orpheus protects and provides, is depicted on mosaics as both real and symbolic gifts. Scenes of rural life, harvested fruit and birds share the larger panel with marine depictions at Lepcis I. At La Chebba xenia motifs are used. A basket of figs occupies a circular panel above the dolphin-rider, another beneath Orpheus holds a bunch of grapes (figs.92, 125); below the marine panel are artichokes, above, gourds. Insofar as these items represent plenty and gifts, the mosaic belongs to the might be popular xenia genre, where a dinner menu displayed. In parallel here, they are portrayals of ripening and the gifts of the harvest. In the lush vegetal border scrolls of Jerusalem and El Pesquero, mosaics similar in several respects, baskets of fruits are depicted. Cornucopiae and personifications of plenty are coupled with Orpheus on some later mosaics: Abundantia, Fecunditas, Providentia, Felicitas

about which he knew nothing.?° * KOK KO

To move now to AGRICULTURAL imagery, the harvest of the fruits of the field. The seasons are frequent pendents, either in the conventional manner of the four female heads of Amal, Thina, Forét de Brotonne and St.Colombe, decked with fruit and flowers, or in a more allusive form. The heads of Brading and Horkstow are schematic. They might be anything, but Seasons are most probable. Orpheus controlled the elements brought by the seasons. They signify also the turning of the year and on the more philosophical plane, time, renewal. Seasons decorate an adjacent room at St.Paul—lés— Romans; in a separate panel below Orpheus at Ptolemais is a nimbed and winged female reminiscent of Antiochene Seasons*® who bears armfuls of fruit and is the one remaining of four. On fifth century metal relief Orpheus accompanies the Seasons and their leader Dionysus.”’ Rottweil's chariot race provides an allusion to the year, with the seasonal connotations of the four colours of the circus factions. The chariot race is also seen at Horkstow (fig.94). Birds, whose arrivals and departures are seasonal markers, are often shown pulling chariots. At Miletus comer panels each hold a seasonal bird pecking a different flower, satisfying the need for appropriate flora, avifauna and ‘pendent’ imagery.

and Fortuna are possible appellations.*' At Jerusalem a female, diademed bust, wearing a bulla occupies the central medallion of the border immediately below Orpheus. The top of a comucopia appears at her

shoulder.*” A female bust with turret crown and basket appears at Panik.** She may be the earth goddess Ge. A diademed female bust is located similarly at Newton St.Loe, in a medallion between one chamber and another. All may be interpreted as manifestations of abundance. The increasing display of these motifs may be associated with Themistius' statement in the fourth century that it was Orpheus who brought agriculture to men (Or, XX, 349b). This had been long accepted as another of his gifts to culture. At Winterton a female with comucopia is probably the same image, but another bust in a corridor mosaic, so—called Fortuna is more

likely to be Bacchus with a thyrsus** All the aspirations

expressed by such personifications, abundance, luck and so forth, could emanate from the same figure, negating the need to double imagery. Dionysus was so closely associated with Orpheus and with the Seasons that his appearance would be natural in a context evoking fecundity.

Vintaging scenes at Horkstow and Merida again link Bacchus and Orpheus, presenting prosperity, and a hope of continuing good fortune. Such motifs appear in funerary contexts urging salvation in the afterlife. The same mingling of present and future life aspirations expressed in terms of husbandry is seen in the complex symbolism of the Jerusalem mosaic. Pan, generative force of nature, guardian of flocks and fields, appears in the same picture as Orpheus, though he can be regarded as the equivalent of a ‘pendent’ image. The sheep in the top left-hand corner may belong to him and would not then be a Christian soul.

The divinities of Littlecote bear a seasonal interpretation.** Demeter carrying a stalk of wheat*® represents harvest, more than she does autumn (also the import of grape—laden Dionysus often depicted in this place). Persephone, her arm raised for help, as in the abduction scene (fig.102) signifies Winter; Aphrodite is budding, flowering Spring. The next figure looks like Leda with the swan, fitting Summer. Their = Gems depicting Abraxas with cock—head and anguipede legs: eg. Antike Taf. 279, 2907a; taf. Gemmen in Deutschen Sammlungen 1, 3, Miinchen, 280, 2908a—2912. He holds a whip and a shield. In the same volume, taf.278, 2901a, shows a priest of Anubis with jackal head, crowned with a star,

which easily quoted of the

on first sight I took for the cock—headed man, demonstrating how the mistake is made. Anubis already suggested by Roach Smith, Price and Price, (1881) 8. Cf. R.Ling on Brading: 'The Iconography Brading Mosaics' Mosaic 18 (1991) 14-20; idem Britannia XH

3°

Cf. calender mosaic, Saint-Romain—en—Gal, J.Lancha Mosaiques de

Vienne, (1990) 98-109, no.50, erotes ride animals, 100-1.

(1991) 147-157. Anubis on Calendar Mosaic: El Djem, Maison des Mois,

3" D).Neal, Roman Mosaics in Britain (1981), 113. 32 A Ovadiah, ‘Orpheus from Jerusalem..' The Jerusalem Cathedra (1981) 158. Ideally she should follow the orientation of the age oe figures, like

romaines et paléochrétiennes du musée du Louvre, (1978) figs. 115-118;

Oceanus at Woodchester, but, following the organisation

Dunbabin 111-12, n.12-15; El Djem 22, d, pl.XXX VIII, 99, Severan date. 2© Antioch Seasons, in the Louvre, F.Barratte, Catalogue des mosaiques

of the border, she

— appears upside down. 73° Not Eurydice, as M. del Chiaro states, 'A New Orpheus Mosaic in Yugoslavia’, AJA 76, (1972) 198. She may be wearing kalathos cf. Ge from Apamea with Seasons, Balty (1977) 72-4, also crowned with flowers and

W.Dorigo, Late Roman Painting (1971) pls.19, 20, colour. *7 G.Hanfmann The Seasons Sarcophagus in Dumbarton Oaks. II, 65 and n.134, no.362, fig. 14. c.400 AD. *8 B.Walters 'The Orpheus Mosaic from Littlecote Park England’, CIMA III

carrying cornucopia. 34 Neal (1981) 112, 84; cf. Smith (1977) 153, no.150.

1984) 433-442.

*° Demeter holding wheat, LIMC V, addenda.

96

Pendent and Associated Scenes

substantiate Orpheus’ powers. His animals, adapted from the iconography of the bloodiest arena displays and the hunt, are submissive, pacified and safe. Struggles and combats unalleviated by his song appear in ‘pendent’, but especially in ‘associated’ scenes. A small panel on one side of the Rome mosaic, which did not survive restoration, showed a centaur under attack by wild beasts, who hits a tiger with his club, reminiscent of the opus vermiculitum panel from Hadrian's

The panel below Orpheus holds two haloed female figures (fig.118), designated by inscriptions GEORGIA and THEODOSIA, by which tokens they may be identified as

personifications rather than real women.** (The Season from Ptolemais is nimbed.) A beribboned sacred column separates them, like the pillar seen behind Orpheus at Thina and Sakiet, denoting a pagan sacred place. GEORGIA, holding a bird, signifies by her name ‘fruit of the earth’ or ‘agriculture’. Holding a flower is THEODOSIA, 'gift of the god', who would be Dionysus, one of whose feast days, a celebration of the gift of wine (Pliny, NH, II, 321), was so named. Again it harps on the theme of the gifts of harvest. These figures are analogous to the busts with comucopiae, above. At Woodchester in a side room Bacchic figures alternate with cupids bearing baskets of fruit and leaves, with inscriptions of salutation or exhortations to enjoyment or to the worship of Bonus Eventus. This god, or Abundantia, or Bacchus, might have filled the lost central medallion.

villa (now in Berlin).*” At Rottweil hunting scenes occupy outer panels of the concentric, rectangular scheme. A scene in the outer border of the Merida I Orpheus shows deer chased by hounds into the hunters’ encircling nets. At Withington and Jerusalem genre figures of hunters spearing felines are set in panels near the depiction of Orpheus. This motif, in late antiquity, encapsulated the ‘virtus' inherent in the fully realised hunt depictions of earlier periods. It came to symbolise the power of good over evil. At Cos I, in an adjoining room, the hunter is a cupid with lance, while at Miletus a full scale venatio is staged where winged genii perform as venatores. (fig.91). At Brading only a fox remains to indicate a hunt scene (the running figure crosses a tree, a genre motif of the hunt), in front of a small, round temple. Perhaps a cupid was the lost antagonist.

VEGETATION might be included here. Integral to the myth were the trees which listened to and were moved by the song. At Seleucia the setting of woodland and vale is further indicated by personifications, denoted in inscriptions HYLE and NAPE, who sits beneath a plane tree. The usual representation of the grove is a single tree behind Orpheus in the central panel. At Merida I this little tree bears several

Closer to Orpheus, the animals around the singer at Cagliari, at first sight comprising the audience, are actually genre figures of landscape and chase scenes. Usually in border panels, here they occupy the same pictorial field. A browsing doe, fleeing ass, leopard pursuing a doe, lion confronting another beast and a comered boar appear. Their orientation to the outer edge, rather than to Orpheus, compares with African mosaics with separate scenes on the margins of a

small, round fruits. Green Nature itself is represented by elaborate vegetal border decoration befitting the Orpheus who bestowed Nature's bounties, as he was perceived to do in the Roman period. Lush garlands and scrolls also symbolised Dionysus the god of living, dying and resurgent growth. Those of El Pesquero and Jerusalem provide locations for other ‘pendent’ motifs, animals and fruit.

central image.**

genres, ‘Orpheus with animals’ and ‘animal scenes and the The from the Hellenistic repertoire. chase’, drawn conventional audience is omitted. The compartments of Orbe hold, not the single beasts of earlier such mosaics, but genre hunt scenes, lion with stag head, a hound pursuing a deer, cockerel and snake. The hounds and hares or hinds of a stylised chase in compartments near the centre at Horkstow can be confused with the audience. At Withington and Newton St.Loe the animals run around their circular frame in the same configuration as hunted animals in decorative borders. Indeed, it might be categorised as a hunt, for they are certainly not a pacified audience. An entire entourage of running animals is also seen at Trento, Salona, Stolac and, highly stylised, at Winterton. Panik has a border of such beasts. The animals galloping at full speed ridden by Littlecote's deities are not the audience, they wear reins, and, as metamorphoses of Dionysus fleeing the Titans, they

At Jerusalem four Oceanus—type heads emerging from leaves in the corners belong to the eastern genre of male Medusas and vegetation deities described by Glueck.*® The two young and two old heads of Jerusalem perhaps also signify seasons and time. The clawed head of Oceanus from which the acanthus scroll of Woodchester issues, is an image both terrestrial and marine. Beneath a marine scene in the apse of Orbe presides another head of the Oceanus with crustacean claws, engendering an encircling acanthus scroll. The energetic scrolling of the lush acanthus at Woodchester could as easily represent the powerful waves of the ocean as the surging force of natural growth, Bacchus or Pan immanent in the leaves - 'The force that through the green fuse drives the flower...’ (Dylan Thomas). Almost as vigorous is the acanthus border at Santa Marta. The associations with Apollo, poetry and the arts, and Orpheus' prophetic powers, are evoked in the garlands of laurel edging Blanzy, surrounding at Rougga, compartment each Woodchester, Barton Farm, Sousse I and II, El Pesquero and Piazza Armerina, where a statue of Apollo graced the apse. *

Images

of STRIFE

kK

balance

represent a scene of pursuit.*® On a lighter note, panels of birds in the next room to the Orpheus of Cos II may be the natural adjunct to a picture of Nature enthralled by song, fisherman, but the bird—catcher hunting theme. Nilotic scenes Merida I offer a version of hunt

KOK OK *K

these

positive

aspects,

At Cagliari we see a combination of two

yet

35 Tevi, (1942), 53; Ovadiah, (1981), 160.

though they accompany a of Cos I reiterates the basic of pygmies and cranes at and capture with a humorous

37 | Kriseleit, Antike mosaiken (1985) no.8, 30-1. 3* Ta Chebba, Neptune; Djemila, Dionysus, Lavin, (1963), figs. 53, 54. 3° Walters, (1984) 437.

*° Glueck, 335ff. pl.35. Cf. Beisan, El Hammam necropolis, Lavin (1963)

fig.51

97

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

to fall. The theme of victory is the same as that shown by gladiators. The victorious charioteer can be discerned at Rottweil, and stands alone at the centre at Rudston in the mosaic which may accompany a lost Orpheus in the adjacent panel. These are genre circus scenes, clearly seen in the circus mosaic of Piazza Armerina, which presents much

content, including the popular motif of the pigmy chased up a tree by a hippopotamus or crocodile. An Amazon at Paphos represents particularly tenacious and savage behaviour in the hunt, in battle and in the arena. Hercules there fights the Nemaean lion, a supernatural beast, the first of his 'Labours'. This is his usual mosaic imagery, the same as was popular on sarcophagi. An image of Hercules occurs in association to the hunting—Orpheus scene at Cagliari. At St-Paul—lés-Romans a particularly fine representation of the Labours occupies an adjacent room. At Piazza Armerina all twelve are present as ‘associated’ images, in the carnage scenes. The bloody animal scenes experienced in reality, to which pacific Orpheus acts as an antithesis, are allegorised here. Hercules provides a mythologising of the theme of strife, and a version of the mastery of animals to contrast with Orpheus. He also is a provider of plenty.

anecdotal detail.*” A few combats usual to other arenas occur with Orpheus. The wrestlers of Merida I would normally meet in the palaestra. It was a favourite theme of Hellenistic sculptors. A famous group often copied** is depicted here, a classical reference in its naively executed mosaics. One of the closest rooms, 38, to the Piazza Armerina Orpheus has the famous

girl athletes (though these are much later in date). Athletic combats, which ensured a victor without involving life and death forces, had a positive outcome, like the childrens’ mock hunts. A symbolic combat is the wrestling or boxing match between Pan and Eros pictured in room 35, also to be

seen in the room next to Orpheus at Saragossa.**

Orpheus is subordinate in the great scheme of Piazza Armerina, its centrepiece being the ‘Great Hunt' corridor, the capturing of beasts from the entire empire for presentation in the amphitheatre, with the ‘Little Hunt’ (room 23) recording recreational events. Scenes of the chase and mock hunts involving children with small animals, which also appear there, might have had a similar fortuitous import to those where cupids and pygmies act as huntsmen. Diana, mistress of beasts and patron of the hunt, is depicted in Rougga’s main

Perhaps it stretches the hypothesis to include the mosaics of Piazza Armerina in this survey of imagery attaching to Orpheus, as though they made a coherent iconographic programme, given the several stages of building and the

distance between rooms in this palace.*° but virtually every picture fits the inventory of suitable imagery, comprising a coherent scheme into which Orpheus fits, although he is not the focus, but is subordinate to the major themes: animals, the sea, struggle, carnage, victory, power.

salon, the villa's scheme including Orpheus.*° Amphitheatre scenes, like hunts, are common in funerary art, gladiatorial combats having originated as part of funerary rites. In metaphorical terms they denote a valiantly fought life, in a world where survival was always a struggle, and ultimately they are a metaphor for victory over death itself. They were not employed with Orpheus on funerary mosaics, but bring echoes of their life and death symbolism where they do appear. The cupid venatores of Miletus take the scene into the allegorical realm, perhaps taking the edge off the savagery of the scenes depicted, if this was a triclinium. Bordering the Orpheus of Cos I named gladiators are pictured in specified combats. The games master is present

*

KK

KK

The personages who appear exemplify the various themes concomitant with Orpheus, and extend the message of the depiction. Hercules is quite complex. Orpheus was once his teacher and they shared the capacity to descend to the Underworld and retrieve dead souls. In this persona Hercules is shown in the same mosaic at Cos II (fig.127) reclining ata banquet, his club and lion skin discarded. In the background is a sign of mouming, a servant cutting branches. This is Admetus' house where Hercules has been welcomed as a guest. To the right the shrouded figure of Alcestis emerges from the tomb. Hercules has battled with and defeated Necessity, against which not even Orpheus had a magical verse nor Aesculapius a medicinal remedy (Eur. Alc. 960-5). The combination of these two powerful Underworld figures must have increased the apotropaic properties of the image. The house is adjacent to the temple of Hercules, who traditionally was driven aground on the island of Cos after a storm.*® The hero attained divinity and is present with other deities on the esoteric pavement of Palermo. An important is his (Villa Herculia) theme at Piazza Armerina

and each victor indicated with NE/, making this an unusual

portrayal.*’ A pair of gladiators fight in a panel of room 3, Brading. In all these motifs the theme is victory after dangerous struggle, a fight with a moral sense, labor et periculum. In the chariot race at Horkstow the four circus factions are shown in a continuous narrative proceeding around the spina with the usual combination of victory and defeat. The winning charioteer is reining in his horses, lower right, being led in by the mounted games master with whip, at full gallop. The other rider has dismounted and appears to be helping the losing chariot, upper left, which has suffered a naufragium, ‘shipwreck’, or loss of fortune. It has lost a wheel and the charioteer is being tipped out of his overturning vehicle. Disaster will overtake the second chariot for a horse is about

glorification. 42 R.J.A.Wilson, (1983) fig. 8. + Example in Ostia museum. Cf. Gigthis, G.Fradier, Mosaiques de Tunisie (1986) 128, Dunbabin, 261. RJ.A.Wilson (1983), 28; M.Chamoso Lamas ‘Hallazgos romanos en Zaragoza’, AEArq. 17 (1944) 286-95; B.Neutsch, JdI 70 (1955) 155-84: the figure of Venus seen by Chamoso is in fact the referee, present in other depictions: ‘Casa di Bacco e Ariana’, Ostia, B.Becatti, CMGR

fig.18. LIMC Il], 2, pl.695. 4° Given the several stages of building, R.J.A.Wilson, 34-39. 4° R.Graves, Greek Myths, 137, Hesione.

+° Hunts: Rottweil, Piazza Armerina, Rougga (Diana), Merida I, Horkstow, Withington, Jerusalem. Cupid venatio:

KK

Miletus, Cos I.

+" Dunbabin, 75.

98

I, (1965) 24,

Pendent and Associated Scenes

engravings of Pompeian paintings, which was suggested by the sketch of the Oceanus head. The surging acanthus scroll issuing from beneath his chin might be transposed to Scylla's dog girdle and coiling tails, while his crustacean claws might translate as her upraised weapons.

Several other personages appear in ‘pendent’ positions, such as those of Jerusalem (discussed above), the boy dolphin— rider and sea—goddess of Djemila, who personify the safe marine passage for which Orpheus would be invoked, the life-enhancing naiads in the spandrels at Woodchester who give a never-ending supply of fresh water (which delineates the central ‘island’ of peace where Orpheus sings). Two mythic persons whose abduction was associated with water are in mosaics adjacent to Orpheus: Hylas snatched by the nymphs of the spring (St. Colombe) and Europa (Sparta, Palermo J) taken across the sea to Crete. As Wattel has shown the iconography of the Sparta figure derives from marine nereids (fig.102a). With her arc of flying drapery she

But the mystery is not wholly solved. A_ simpler transposition on the original drawing may have been the exchange of Scylla in a subsidiary position with a central Orpheus. However, because of the evident copying of idiosyncratic features from both Woodchester and Barton Farm, I do not believe this and have excluded Dyer Street from the catalogue count. More tantalising, the sketch may visually record something of those obscure descriptions of ‘fish and sea—monsters' and ‘fish and a star’ supposedly seen

resembles the sea—goddess of Djemila.*” The nymphs who took Hylas can be called negative aspects of what is generally a beneficent female presence, personifications of plenty, the teeming life of the sea, abundant water. The Amazon of Paphos, however, represents a ferocious aspect of the female, exemplified in the animal audience by the savagery of tigress, lioness, leopardess and the Sphinx of El Pesquero, horrific for being half animal. A_ figure belonging to the legend of Orpheus as an Argonaut, but rarely depicted with him, is Scylla, a fearsome creature with the head and body of a female from whose waist grew a girdle of savage dogs. She lurked in the straits of Messina opposite the whirlpool Charybdis and snatched passing ships, when the dogs devoured any sailors. She is seen on the funerary monument from El Amrouni, Tunisia, where Orpheus is depicted twice: with animals and with Eurydice. Hercules

at the centre of Woodchester.*° Maenads were the female followers of Dionysus said to have killed Orpheus. On vases they watch him civilizing Thracians an satyrs by his song, intimating the savagery to follow the peaceful music. At Orbe one occupies the compartment next to Orpheus, bringing an aura of strife to the scene. A maenad with purely Bacchic character is she who appears with a satyr in the central scene of the Tarsus ensemble, others appear in medallions below. Another name for these women was Bassarides. The name derives from their Thracian fox— fur clothes, also the garb of the god whose epithet was Bassareus. The fox in the eastern mosaics, and prominent in British mosaics may serve to remind the viewer not only of the singer's Thracian origin, but of the imminent savagery of the women's furious attack.

and Alcestis are also depicted.** A figure has been identified as Scylla on a mosaic from Dyer Street in Cirencester. No trace of the mosaic has come to light. The only record is a drawing which seems to combine figures from nearby Barton Farm and Woodchester (fig.108). A strange figure in the central panel derives from images of Scylla, but whether in antiquity or through the agency of the nineteenth century recorder is impossible to discern. As a associations, marine with power female malign demonstrating Orpheus’ power to mollify evil forces, she would not be out of place as a ‘pendent’ here, but such a figure as the central focus cannot be paralleled.

*

kK

OK OK

KOK

The gods with whom Orpheus the ‘poet of the rites’ is associated do not appear directly in pendent scenes. Much imagery alludes to Bacchus. At Merida, fruited vines harvested by putti issue from canthari in side panels, while vintaging scenes occupy others. Silenus on his ass led by a bacchante and accompanied by a satyr is prominently placed. Ganymede at Tarsus is a unique association with Orpheus, but the central Bacchic scene and the line of maenad and satyr heads beneath provide the connection: the youth Ganymede was snatched away to become immortal, like Hylas, both taken young by divinities smitten by their beauty. The stories offer a warning not to incur the envy of the gods. Bacchic rites in the form prescribed by Orpheus might have effected a prophylaxis against the invidus.

The drawing may be a garbled record combining elements of two locally famous pavements. The leopard's scale—pattem, unique to Barton Farm, is repeated, while the off—centre placing of Orpheus copies Woodchester (accounted for there by a central pool). On the drawing one at least of the animals vertical within the centre circle would echo the fox of Barton Farm, but two would be out of place. I would like to suggest that the Scylla figure may be the rationalisation of an unclear misunderstood sketch of the Oceanus head from and Woodchester. This mosaic was never uncovered fully at any time, so revealed figures might have appeared unrelated to their actual position in the scheme. Beecham admits to having tidied up the sketch and may have done so by inserting an appropriate figure from the classical myth, perhaps one more familiar to him from antiquarian

At Chahba, in a room next to the Orpheus, in an ‘associated’ relationship, is pictured the marriage of Ariadne and Dionysus. Accompanying the pair were a torch—bearing erote named Pothos, Desire, a drunken Hercules and the satyr Maron. Surrounding the heiros gamos and symbolising the happy immortality bestowed on Ariadne and promised to all initiates of the mysteries, is an elaborate vine rinceau peopled with vintaging erotes and animal and human hunting motifs. In the corners are four heads, an aged and a young man, which may be compared with those of Jerusalem, and

47 ©.Wattel—de Croizant, IJesnick "The Mosaics from the House of and pl.IX, A. Mourabas in Sparta..' JBAA (1991), 92-106, O.Wattel: Europa 71-83, +* El-Amrouni mausoleum: Ph.Berger, Rev.Arch. ser.3, 26, I (1895) figs. 1-6. Panyagua (1973) no.166.

4° Thomas Wright, The Celt, Roman and Saxon (1892) 230-1. cf. Mosaic 4

(April 1981) 11.

99

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic (Apolline prophecy). These depict the most prominent Mysteries of the period. Four winds fill the alternate spaces. A marine thiasos panel is at one end; the famous astronomer figure (cf. the 'wise men' of Palermo) sits on the threshold to instruments The the larger part of the chamber. accompanying him appear to be a globe of the heavens, an astral calculator and a water clock. In combination these subjects could be interpreted as signifying cosmological concerns. Such an interpretation, based on these scenes alone, allies this combination of figures with the 'Orphic' pavement of Palermo. At Brading a further group of scenes, of which only Perseus and Andromeda is identified, the rest lost, might have been famous mythological scenes from literature. This may indicate that the ensemble was an evocation of classical culture, learning and religion, not the decoration of a sacred locus as such.** Again, with such a combination and emphasis of imagery, the iconography is placed outside the African sphere, the values to be found in their schemes being different. Mosaics from the eastern Empire show this leaning to literature and intellectual display.

two women, one crowned with ivy, the other with grapes.

The heiros gamos with Zeus, the heavenly creator and agent of the transcendent soul, is depicted at Palermo I in a room connecting with that where Orpheus is depicted. The god is seen as the abductor in animal form with his several ‘amours'. Other deities ride winged animals in the heavens. Present also are nereids, winds and seasons, telamones upholding a central space probably for an altar, and fish, whose meaning must be symbolic since there is no evident marine context for them. Levi discusses the symbolic implications, the mystical association of Orpheus with fishing, and fish as initiates in Orphic rite. The iconography of this pavement is sufficiently esoteric, in a programme containing the three ‘wise men’, the hieros gamos, transcendence, and the regeneration of life — perhaps related to the Orphic theogony centred around Zeus — to question the interpretation of Orpheus, in a room of the same linked suite,

as a simple decorative subject (cf. Chapter Thirteen).*° This well known mosaic in itself contains no esoteric imagery.

Littlecote's four female divinities are Demeter, Persephone, Aphrodite and Leda. It has been suggested that this last is Nemesis, with whom Zeus coupled as a swan, and who would fit the Orphic story of Dionysus’ pursuit and dismemberment, to which an allusion might be made here. The beasts the goddesses ride are the animal forms which Dionysus assumed to escape the Titans. Perhaps Helios is signified by the sea-shell/awning rays emanating from leopard heads in the apses. Helios appears as a rayed head at Palermo. Oceanus is prominent at Woodchester. A sea— god, dolphins issuing from his mouth, in an adjoining marine panel at Withington, holds Neptune's trident. Venus at Djemila is the central figure, with Neptune alongside,

Two other mosaics display telamones, which fit so well as spandrel decoration for circular designs, Horkstow and Merida, where they are winged male figures issuing from acanthus. In the great hall of Horkstow, compared by Levi to Palermo for its complex iconography, snake—legged Titans, or Giants, uphold the central circle of the composition accompanying Orpheus, which has vintagers and marine figures and scenes, nereids and tritons (fig.116). While Titans are essential to the Orphic myth of Dionysus, representing the base nature of men to be discarded through initiation, they are also classical decorative filling figures. Their presence here may reveal an urge to employ classical imagery, an appeal to Greek culture, rather than the expression of rite, as may pertain at Palermo. The circular panel is divided into concentric zones and at four points there were four circular medallions, of which the enigmatic contents of three are known. The scenes depicted may be Bacchic. One shows a nude female, arm over head, kneeling, with another figure seemingly touching her. The standing figure wears a skirt-like garment and appears to carry a staff, while the nude makes the sleeping gesture, so it is tempting to see Bacchus and Ariadne. It is not quite right, but nothing is here, it is so badly drawn (fig.101). Another medallion shows two standing figures, perhaps bacchantes holding a thyrsus and tympanum. The third medallion may have shown a satyr and bacchante. In the concentric zones are the remains of a marine thiasos and vintaging cupids. Traditional figures and scenes at Horkstow, unlike Palermo, are combined in a standard manner, albeit design and composition are unusual.

Orpheus a subsidiary, of a marine festival.** Orpheus the reformer of rites, composer of sacred poetry and prayers, authority on divinity, was an important and pervasive figure in late antiquity and could naturally associate with religious themes in art. Orpheus as a funerary image occurs at Cherchel and Edessa. In both he is conventionally represented, at Edessa cupids

hold a tabula ansata as they apparently did at Constantine. There Orpheus is to one side of the central oval, on the other is a paradise scene with a drinking stag; at Jerusalem the floor was in a building later dedicated with a cross as Christian. Once thought to be a funerary chapel, no

sarcophagi

:

os

‘Late Roman

Orphic theogony: Derveni Papyrus, M.Eliade, A History of Religious Ideas, II (1982) 188, n.19. Levi, (1942); R.Camerato—Scovazzo, Kokalos 21, ( 1975) 231-72. Symbolic associations of fish: Levi, 51-3. Three ‘wise

53 Blanchard—Lemée

men’, 40.

festival.

*" Smith (1977) pl.6.V.

>4 Ovadiah (1981) 160 and n.13.

©

:

imagery

The

is

and ‘associated’ The Bacchic nature of much ‘pendent’ imagery is evident; members of the bacchic cortege, Silenus, Pan, centaurs, satyrs, maenads, vintaging scenes, the prominent fox, all point to the god. He appears at Chahba, perhaps at Brading, and may have been depicted in the villas of Woodchester and Winterton. Bacchus was _ patron of

panels show respectively Lycurgus and Ambrosia (Bacchus), Attis and Sagaritis (Cybele), Demeter and Triptolemus (Eleusis), and an enigmatic fourth which could be Zeus as a satyr with Antiope (‘Loves of Zeus’) or Apollo and Daphne sO

found.**

overwhelmingly pagan — the hunters, sacred column, female personifications and phallic Pan all belong to pagan Orpheus.

The same can be said of Brading, room 12,°' where four

:

been

have

*2 Cf. M.Henig,

Mosaic 13, (1986), 13-19.

100

Mosaics

in Britain:

Myth

and Meaning’

(1975) 78-84, pls.I-XIII. Details and discussion of

Pendent and Associated Scenes

well—being fortuitous hunts, and delineated.

theatre and of the performance of mysteries and religious ritual, which appear to have had a theatrical presentation. Linforth concludes that the arts of Orpheus were evidenced in

such theatrical forms.** At Chahba masks, bacchic emblems

depictions

of the thiasos, occur in the border to Orpheus. They are seen in the intersteces of the compartmental mosaic of Vienne II. The style of mosaics from the Greek east is of a kind evoking dramatic exposition, bravura performance of thetoric or music (Chapter Nine). The mosaic subjects in the room next to Orpheus in the ‘House of the Menander', Mytilene, suiting this fashion, are theatrical. The decoration includes masks, Menander the playwright, the muse Thalia, and scenes from famous stage comedies. There existed a long tradition of theatrical imagery in domestic mural decoration. Further reference to drama is made on a mosaic from another Aegean island, Cos II, where a scene from Euripides’ Alcestis is depicted with Orpheus (fig.127).

The

cupid

charioteers

of

future.°° Personifications of abundance and fortune have the

same import. Certain motifs, such as the mongoose and cobra, the lucky group of reptiles, form part of the animal scene itself. At Jerusalem the eagle wears a bulla around its neck, likewise the female bust in the border. Friedman sees a Christian symbol here, a cross, as on Coptic Christian reliefs with eagles, but there is ample evidence to suggest this jewel—bearing raptor might be an ancient apotropaic symbol; pagan divinities wear such amulets.°° The protective nature of the image is announced. Medusa at Orbe performs the same function.

adventure, Jason and the Golden fleece with Medea and the dragon appear at Trinquetaille. Hercules and his companion of the voyage, Hylas, while they have their own symbolic connotations, represent memebers of the crew of the Argo. The third century BC epic poem by Apollonius Rhodios was influential, later accounts of the first century and the anonymous Orphic Argonautica (fourth century version), reflect the continuing popularity and changing character of the adventure in the Empire. Familiar mythical characters with marine connotations occur at Djemila: Ulysses, Hero and Leander, Perseus and Andromeda, also seen at Brading. At Orbe, scenes of Ariadne and the departing Theseus, implying the imminent arrival of Dionysus, have the same weight as Orpheus in that scheme. A panel with marine motifs at Littlecote has been interpreted as a reference to the

Confronted peacocks drinking wine from Dionysus’ crater assured initiates of luck, the motif had a religious sense in

the figural language of paganism:®" this lucky symbol occurs

at Withington. The peacock and fox either side of Orpheus at Woodchester are presented in the same confronted formula. Birds pecking fruit or flowers (Miletus, Horkstow, Rudston)

are further lucky emblems. Laurel, signifying poetry and prophecy, is also an emblem of peace, the cessation of battle, quietness, victory. Being evergreen it stands for eternity, immortality. It was used in purificatory rituals and protected against plague so was associated generally with rites

story of Dionysus and the pirates.*® Strange motifs which require decipherment are reported from a destroyed mosaic known only at second hand, Bavai. The mosaic was located in an important room of a sumptuous dwelling. The report states that, surrounded by a mixture of fruits, flowers and birds, probably a lush vegetal scroll, were a hippogriffe [a], a siren [b], fighting bulls [c], a lion asleep, hounds, birds, a winged dragon [d], a Parthian discharging an arrow [e], butterflies [f] and, in the centre, a sort of Apollo playing a tetrachord [g]. This seems to be the

intended to ward off evil or misfortune.°* Around Orpheus,

the author of such rites, laurel might surround the image with a protective barrier, especially true of Woodchester where the end bindings of a real wreath are depicted. A decorative function is combined with the evocation of poetry, prophecy, victory, immortality. *k KK

usual assortment of motifs: sea—beasts [a] and nereids [b], a

KK

KK

Pendent and Associated imagery is not anecdotal. It does not comprise other scenes from the legend of Orpheus, nor are the scenes random or purely decorative. We see recurrent thematic patterns illustrative of the song's mythic character.

griffin [d], perhaps a centaur [e] a lyrist playing a small four—stringed instrument [g]. The fighting bulls [c] might belong to an arena scene, the butterflies [f] more likely

bivalve shells,*’ possibly fluttering birds. kK

is well known.**

fish—-chariots at Sousse II betray the metaphorical import of this type of image. Replacing human participants, fortuitous cupids carry the image into the realm of allegory, their lifeenhancing character expressing and forwarding aspirations of good fortune. They replace venatores at Miletus, Cos I, the fishermen at Sousse I, inhabit the sea at Djemila, accompany Europa at Sparta. Bacchic cupids vintaging at Merida and Horkstow bring their benign influence to bear, at Woodchester they exhort salutations and wish a good

Several literary references are marine; from the Argonautic

*

underlies much of the imagery. The benign and aspects of animals, of the depiction of savage of amphitheatre displays themselves, have been The symbolic and prophylactic content of circus

The imagery further alludes to areas of real experience, and to the desired effect of the ritual verses ascribed to Orpheus.

OK KOK

ABSTRACT CONCEPTS. The provision of luck and general 58 A Merlin and L-Poinssot, Mon.Piot XXXIV, (1934), 149ff.

$9 J.M.C.Toynbee (1964) 274. Smith, (1977) 114, 25. © J.B.Friedman, Orpheus in the Middle Ages (1970) 51-2, 79. P.Donceel— es H.Stern Vouté, ‘La Pierre d'aigle at l'aigle au bijou’, Mosaique:

** ].M.Linforth, The Arts of Orpheus (1941) 296: "...the poetry ...the music, the mimetic representation, the symbolism, the whole action of the ritual...were looked upon as the ‘arts of Orpheus’..." >° B.Walters, B.Phillips, Archaeological Excavations in Littlecote Park, Wiltshire

1979

&

80, Second

Interim Report,

Djem, (1982) 115-121, pl-LXII-LXIV. Amulets, worn by Venus: El Fradier, 149. Victory, Triumph of Bacchus, Sousse, Fradier, 145; Venus on LVIII —LIX. 5 mosaics, Dunbabin, pls.

11, pl.9, though this may

©" Good Luck symbols: Merlin and Poinssot, 138. ©2 Apotropaic qualities of laurel: J.Stannard, "Herbal Magic and Herbal

simply be a version of the marine subject so often accompanying Orpheus, incorporating Bacchic crater and confronted cats. Smith, *? Cf. Littlecote, marine panel; Jurancon, Inv. 409; Lullingstone,

medicine in Pliny's Time’ Helmantica 37, (1986), 100, n.17. sources: NH XV, 127, 133f.; Martial Ep. 10, 1; Juvenal, 10, 65.

(1977), pl.6.XXIV a.

101

Ancient

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic glasses to drink. These simple entreaties have the same underlying meaning, not necessarily noted by the speaker, but needing to be stated. By the same token some patrons must

Orpheus is associated with aquatic themes through being a crew member of the Argo. His accomplishments, control of natural elements, purifications, the institution of rites, the gaining of treasure (the Golden Fleece), were powers belonging to the figure of myth, which the icon might then bestow. In the late antique Argonautica Orpheus the narrator plays an important part in the summoning of deities to aid the gathering of the Fleece, a bounty which also had healing powers. The many motifs of harvest, marine or agricultural, personifications of Providence or Abundance, the Seasons, safety at sea and in harbour (so as to accomplish the import and export of the precious goods), all point to a primary function of the image to promote well-being and prosperity, to guard against the envy of the gods. Thus, the presence of Orpheus amid the marine celebrations of Djemila is no surprise, but the figure who

would

extend his powers

have been very well aware of the symbolism involved in their mosaic schemes. Set around the animal charming scene, which crystallises the central theme of the control of Nature and natural passions, the achievement of harmonious accord, are scenes of Strife, Fortune, Bacchic figures, Aquatic and Agricultural motifs. Every figure or scene can be accommodated under these headings. What we see are not independent subjects, but imagery contrived to present an overall programme. Evidently Orpheus could signify several themes, the conventions of ‘pendent’ and ‘associated’ imagery offering a contextual language allowing a tolerably precise reading of the antique message. Pendent and Associated imagery tells what the image of Orpheus singing was supposed to achieve, perhaps reflecting the aspirations of the patrons who commissioned the ensembles.

to

invoke the goodwill of the deities is not the same as the musician of the Greek East, a sophisticated associate of theatre themes, the badge of classical culture. Nor is the eastern magus the same as the images evocative of Hellenism.

Greek

figure

set among

-=00000=-

The adjunction of scenes of strife contradicts, but at the same time substantiates Orpheus’ character as bringer of harmony, so that in the ensembles a balance is drawn between the hoped for and the given. The antitheses which characterise the relationships between Orpheus and the gods are marked by such contrasts in the mosaic imagery. The gods presiding behind the imagery are Apollo: reason, regulation and culture; Dionysus: god of the living world, immanent in animals and plants, god of ultimate salvation; Zeus: the heavenly creator. Cupids playing human parts bring good fortune and can take the image on to a heightened plane. The overriding theme is victory, celebrated by the animal— vanquishing venator, the winning charioteer.

The imagery is that also employed in funerary contexts where victory over death is intended, but many of the rooms decorated thus were reception rooms, public and private. They housed the bustling activities of thriving communities, some were for relaxation and the arts. The ancients had a fondness for memento mori, sharpening the appreciation of life with the certainty of death. Rooms decorated with cruel images, reminders of death, might still be employed for pleasantries, although we perceive such pictures, out of context, with a sense of shock. Such imagery also served to safeguard the lives of the men and women who thronged those rooms; manifest in the iconography are their hopes for the prolongation of fruitful and healthy life. The familiar message of the transformation of human nature from a bestial to a civilised state is taken a stage further when the human soul is to be transported to a heavenly plane, the afterlife, the hope of immortality conferred on Bacchic initiates. All the complex allegory translates to one hope, Life, promoted and preserved by Orpheus. His image brought health, wealth, a safe journey through life, avoiding or reversing its perils. The appreciation of such an aspiration need not have been on any profound level, but much the same as when we say ‘Cheers’ or 'To Life’ when we raise our

102

Chapter Twelve

the Greek East. From the island of Cos off the coast of Asia, the mosaic Cos II has PROTEAS (Greek letters) over a figure cutting leafy branches (fig.127). It is a scene from Euripides' Alcestis, showing Hercules feasted by Admetus while he mourns his wife, for which purpose the branches are cut. To the right Alcestis is seen emerging from the tomb. The house was built directly against a temple of Hercules, incorporating part of the edifice.” The intended message of the imagery may be salvationary, Hercules and Orpheus both being capable of returning souls to life, Orpheus offering further aid in the afterlife. Hercules and Alcestis accompany Orpheus on the funerary monument of El Amrouni, Tunisia. Proteas may have been the name of the owner or a devotee. Antalya, Pamphylia, has ELYSJON in Greek, with clear afterworld and salvationary connotations. The name might indicate that the singer and his animals are not in the customary grove in Rhodope, but in the Underworld. That would make this badly damaged mosaic unique, though he was depicted in other media in the Underworld, for example the fourth century AD Vatican Virgil manuscript. Or the title might denote the realm of Orpheus' power.

Inscriptions and Location The small number of inscriptions throw some light on the intent and social background of the patrons. The location of mosaics within the building, relative to architectural features, other mosaics and to rooms of known function provides the physical context which helps define the character of the decoration. 1. Inscriptions

Mosaics with inscriptions are: Oudna I, Paphos, Cos I, Cos II, Seleucia, Antalya, Poljanice, La Alberca, Edessa and Jerusalem; a mosaic from the Woodchester villa, near the great pavement is also included.

Inscriptions at Oudna and Paphos refer to the patrons. At Oudna it reads: MASURI. ‘IN PRAEDIS LABERIORUM LABERIANI ET PAULINI’ MASURI (fig.139). First and last are names presumed to be of the mosaicists. The rest denotes the establishment and family.’ At Paphos a multi-coloured inscription in Greek (fig.141) is held to name the owner of the mosaic, Gaius Pinnius Restitutus and to proclaim his patronage.” The mosaic from Edessa, Syria, paved a cave— tomb (fig.115). Its inscription on a tabula ansata held by two cupids is in Syriac. It names the defunct, Aphtuha, and yields a precise date, 227-8 AD. The previous two mosaics also belong to this period. At the time when Orpheus provided a

The inscription on the mosaic of Poljanice, Moesia Superior, reads ORPHEUS in Greek letters, with interpolated hederae. The lucky hederae evoke the protective powers associated with Orpheus, and lend their own protection to the image (fig.145). Orpheus in the mosaic is quite unmistakeable and, close to an urban centre was undoubtedly a well known subject. There would be no need of identification. In the illustration to the Vatican Virgil showing him as seen by Aeneas, where he could be none other, yet he was named. Characters on the mosaics of the House of Aion, Nea Paphos, Cyprus, are all named. Perhaps we see a late fashion reflected here. The inscriptions of Seleucia, Pamphylia, seems to belong in this group with the personifications NAPE, ‘forest’, and HYLE, ‘groves' indicating the setting of the famous scene. At Nea Paphos the settings of mythical episodes are likewise signified, for example, the figure of

funerary subject Edessa had a sizeable Christian community,

but no Christian formulae appear in the wording.* The central oval of Constantine, upheld by cupids, may carried an inscription.

have

The Jerusalem Orpheus was in a building given a Christian dedication somewhat later than the laying of the mosaic. The inscriptions in Greek are: GEORGIA and THEODOSIA, indicating women carrying respectively a bird and a flower, on either side of a sacred column tied with ribbon (fig.118). It has been debated whether the inscriptions signify that the two female figures were patrons, but in Chapter Eleven it was argued that the iconography points more to them being personifications having titles with a symbolic meaning.* The word Georgia, ‘fruit of the earth’, occurs four times in a fourth century description of Orpheus the tamer of the wild elements in Man's soul and inventor of the civilizing practice of agriculture (Themist. Or. XXX, 349b); Theodosia, ‘gift of the god’, is the same as the name of a feast of Dionysus. Even at this late date the message conveyed in the inscriptions, is the traditional one of Bacchic plenty. The desires of Man's bestial nature (Pan, the Centaur) are controlled by the agency of Orpheus’ teachings. A further level of symbolism seems to allude to the freeing of the soul, which will be transported to heaven on eagle's wings through the sounds of the lyre. Allusions to the afterworld are made ' * ? *

Lacedaemonia behind Leda and the swan.° From La Alberca, Spain, the word VIRTUS is read by Blasquez where (—)JRTUS or (—)IRIUS appears on the mosaic. Orpheus wreathed, in long robes is the classical figure evocative of Greek culture. Virtus was a characteristic forms of the superior Roman, a quality taking several according to context. It could be ‘excellence’ and ‘virtue’, ‘courage’, ‘valour’, all of which are expressed in the Hadrianic hunting tondi reused in Constantine's Arch, Rome, a transcendent performance of the hunt. Seneca defines the word once as ‘perfect reason',” which would suit the protegé of Apollo, striking up the music of the spheres on the lyre,

opposite to uncontrolled Dionysus. Elsewhere Seneca talks of the disasters of life sent by Fortuna as providing an opportunity for virtus, the testing of the spirit in the face of adversity.* The image of Orpheus, often combined with that of Fortuna or Providentia, provided protection from the > L.Morricone, 'Scavi e richerche a Coo’, Bolletino d'arte 35, (1950).

in two mosaics from

(1973) no.256c. Nea Paphos: © Vaticanus Virgilianus: Panyagua D.Michaelides Cypriot Mosaics (1987) pl. XXII-XXIV, Leda: 29, no.28, 1.XXII, 28.

Dunbabin, (1969) 25, n.47, 266. Michaelides, (1986) 485-6. J.B.Segal, "New Mosaics from Edessa’, Archaeology XII, (1959), 151-7. Cf. Ovadiah (1981) 160.

Seneca the Younger, Letter 76.10, (1988), 434 (source book).

J-A.Shelton,

As the Romans

An Essay about Providence, 2.1—4; 4.1,3,6,11—13, Shelton, 436-7.

103

Did

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

anything other than decorative qualities. Orpheus mosaics are said to decorate triclinia, but only Miletus, shows the orthodox Hellenistic configuration of a 'T’-shaped figured panel with a simple pattern decorating the space for benches. Many depictions cover the floor space or a large part of the central field, and were obviously meant to be admired in their entirety. Others pave rooms not immediately indicating the business of dining, such as the largest room, set on a central axis. The buildings themselves sometimes betray a use set apart from the everyday. Room function could be fluid so that one which served for receptions might also be employed as a dining room. Certain Romano-—British pavements may have been laid in rooms used both for public receptions and for dining. These have been recognised by the layout of entrances and general configuration, and location of the room within the building. They are Withington, Winterton and Newton St. Loe.’* The general atmosphere of good cheer and plenty evoked by the Orpheus image would be appropriate in such a context. Another consideration would be a location for the feasting attendant on the Bacchic cult, which would be appropriately celebrated in a room decorated with a picture of the poet of his rites.

unfairness of the gods’ barbs. This mosaic with a scholarly invocation to Orpheus may belong with others seeking his aid and protection in a less elevated fashion.

At Cos I the inscription belongs to the pendent image of gladiators, where the pairs of combatants are named: TYDEUS and LEUCASPIS, PACTOLOS and NYMPHEROS, PERSEUS and [ACHILL]JEUS.° Each victor is indicated by the letters NEI. The arena is here the metaphor for life's

battle. In the dream book of Artemidorus,'° a dream of death in the arena was considered a fortuitous outcome and a prognostication of fortune. At Woodchester the small ante-room to the great pavement has, in one of its four figured panels, cupids bearing a basket of flowers and leaves with the inscription BONUM EVENTUM. Opposite, only the damaged inscription remains,

reconstructed

as

BENE

COLLITE,''

perhaps

urging

enjoyment of whatever took place in the great room and bestowing a wish for good luck on the proceedings. A more general wish for good cheer, for 'Life!' may in fact have been the underlying aspiration. The Bacchic quality of the imagery (bacchantes in other panels) increases the fortuitous quality of the whole.

The inscriptions of Woodchester, Oudna and La Alberca are in Latin, that of Edessa is in Syriac, the rest in Greek, all local languages. Something of the symbolism and _ the patrons’ aspirations are conveyed in these short messages. The owners’ names at Oudna, Paphos, Cos II, indicate that the mosaics were prestigious objects which would enhance or denote their reputations, perhaps Cos II was even a devotional image. It is evident from the inscriptions of La Alberca, Antalya, Poljanice and Cos I, that the image was more than a simple decoration evocative of music and poetry. The employment of these rooms for receptions of a secular, public kind would be quite in order even in the presence of such otherworldly imagery, while the overt wish for good luck and present enjoyment exhibited at Poljanice and Woodchester, perhaps Cos I, again manifest that hope for plenty and a fortunate life.

Many reception rooms opened on to the gardens where a pool frequently completed the relaxing ensemble. Sometimes pools were incorporated in the mosaic. Pompeiian frescos of Orpheus were on outside walls in courtyards facing pools. 8 In the Maison d'Orphée' at Volubilis the mosaic of Orpheus occupies a large oecus isolated from the rest of the house. large Marine mosaics lead between Orpheus and a

piscina.'* A piscina lay near the Cos II Orpheus.’* At

Ptolemais the Orpheus room opens off a corridor overlooking a peristyle court. A large circular pool occupied the centre at Blanzy, and the off-centre Orpheus of Woodchester possibly ceded his place to a pool. This largest single mosaic north of the Alps, decorated a grandiose chamber on the central axis, in a symmetrically designed wing of a palatial establishment, directly facing on to its courtyard and gardens.'© Its interior structure was a domed tetrapylon, with clerestory above, an ambulatory round the four pillars. The hall, indeed the whole establishment, must have dominated its surroundings. (The villa lasted long enough into the Saxon period to achieve the name 'ceaster’: Uiduceastir, in 716-43.) This hall was surely to the appropriate dedicated to public receptions, importance, or wealth, of the owner. At Piazza Armerina the mosaic of Orpheus decorates the principal exedra off the peristyle. Containing a small square pool and a statue of Apollo Musagetes it could have served for small

2. Locations.

Such locations as can be ascertained yield further information on the image. The subject of Orpheus was frequently chosen for the principal oecus of the house. One would expect a major effort to be expended on the best rooms, with the most elaborate mosaic, a subject which would bring most pleasure through personal reference, which would reflect the function and importance of the room and its users. Viewed in this light any mythological subject, or a philosophical motif, would seem to reflect the character of the patrons’ aspirations in one way or another, though it has been argued that such motifs were chosen without thought for

Several Orpheus mosaics are known to have come from the frigidarium of a bath complex: Perugia, Oudna, Vienne I, Rottweil, Orbe, Yvonand, Yverdon, Stolac, Salamis. The

et

'2 Panyagua (1973) nos.186, 187. Cf. P.Grimal Les jardins romains (1943)

° Gladiators

at

Cos:

Mendel,

Catalogue

des

sculptures

romaines

receptions.*”

365 and passim. ‘3 A stibadium placed in the apse at Whatley is a possibility. '4 Chatelaine, PSAM i (1935), 1-8; R.Thouvenot, ibid iv, (1941) 42-6. "5 G Karo, AA 51, (1936) 178. "© G.Clark, 'The Roman Villa at Woodchester' Britannia XIII, (1982). '7 A Carandini et al, Filosofiana (1982) II, 138-144, fig. 63; Dunbabin, 135 and n.25.

byzantines III, (1914) 509; Dunbabin, 75. "© Artemidorus, Key of Dreams II. 54 and V. 49. See MonPiot (1934) 152.

It was a happy presage to see oneself fighting beasts in the amphitheatre. I. 5: it is good if a bachelor dreams he fights a gladiator, the dream foretells

marriage. Pre—Freudian dream interpretation is notoriously over prescriptive

and biased, but still throws some light on contemporary ideals. '" Toynbee, (1964) 274, D.J.Smith, BAR 41 (i) (1977) 114, no.25.

104

Inscriptions and Location

wings of the villa. It has been proposed that the tri-apsed building right on the bank of the river served as a summer triclinium, however, as has been shown, such usage is not the norm for a chamber where Orpheus is seen. The singular imagery of the Littlecote mosaic is unlike any other representation of Orpheus. Orpheus appears in Imperial guise, goddesses are in attendance. Apollo—Helios and Dionysus appear in allusive imagery. Its evident dedication to the pagan pantheon through the intermediary Orpheus gives one leave to consider a sacerdotal function for the edifice. It was to some extent a public location, even if only to a restricted group, perhaps Bacchic initiates, or adherents of resurgent paganism, followers of Julian. The erection of the building can be firmly dated to the time of his reign, 361-

hall at Littlecote immediately adjoined a small bath suite. Orpheus from Sakiet may have decorated the main reception room of the villa or the frigidarium. Thirion, though, could not decide whether the irregularly shaped room was that or

an oecus.'* In either case the image was placed to be visible on public occasions. Other public locations are Piazza Armerina, where the colonnade of the public corridor and that of the Orpheus room are common; at Brading, where the mosaic decorates the front corridor on the central axis of the villa on the threshold; at Mactar, the mosaic was in the portico of the Schola Juvenum. The Orpheus of Saragossa comes from an important public building with many columns (thought to be a temple). At Seleucia Orpheus paved the floor of a barrel—vaulted room with a Doric facade and exedra in the east stoa of the Agora, indicating a public, perhaps official room, rather than one privately owned.

363

allegiance

to the

Emperor

could

be

18). Orpheus here could have functioned as an emblem of pagan religiosity through the person of the Emperor. (On Littlecote, Horkstow and Palermo cf. Chapter Thirteen).

In three cases (Amal, Jerusalem, Hanover), the buildings housing the mosaics received a Christian dedication. Whether, in the case of the first two, contemporary with or later than the construction of the mosaics is not certainly known. Hanover's Orpheus is said to have come from a monastery, the Rome Orpheus was found beneath that of San

journey of the transcendent soul. It occupies one end of a linked suite of rooms, which may have served for gatherings of a religious character, at the other end of which is the well known Orpheus. The strange location of the Sparta Orpheus with its iconographic echo of Palermo I suggests that the room may have served as a family shrine, with Orpheus

Anselmo. These locations may only indicate a substantial institution ready to be taken over by Christians. Saragossa's Orpheus may have come from a temple. Cos II was adjacent to, perhaps incorporated a wall of the temple of Hercules. The image of marine Venus of Djemila is located in the great hall of the Maison de I'Ane’, likewise employing a temple wall in its construction, that of Venus Genetrix. The house and temple are not contemporary, but a public rather than private location, which might also have a religious function

evoked in his persona as the founder of rites.'° The Palermo pavements in their tum have been compared

with those of Horkstow,*° an enormous hall with three figured mosaics. Orpheus governs the overall meaning of the Orphean typical show mosaics Adjacent imagery. combinations of marine and Bacchic groups, as well as a circus race indicating victory in the race of life, with attendant trials and defeats, or victory over death. The use of vault imagery for both circular mosaics could be interpreted as suggesting the likening of the earthly to the heavenly order, investing the imagery with a sense of the cosmos made manifest. Conversely it might imply no more than a sense of architectural symmetry. The conventionality of the imagery, with classical nereids and bacchantes, was surely a proclamation of devotion to classical culture, reason and law through its traditional representatives. The imagery may then be associated with the state as embodiment of romanitas. With its classicising imagery and great size Horkstow speaks of an official function. It must have seen public meetings, perhaps connected with provincial government, even the Imperial bureaucracy. At Littlecote the complex is separate from the domestic

has been suggested.?* Three mosaics come from tombs:

Edessa, which paved a cave tomb in ancient Urfa, Cherchel and Constantine from funerary caverns. British Orpheus mosaics come from villas or other country establishments. The Dyer Street Orpheus would have been unique as the only British example from a building within city boundaries, a reason which mitigates against its existence.

-—=00000=-

'S J._Thirion, MEFRA (1955); Dunbabin, 27.

21 B Walters, Archeological Excavations in Littlecote Park, Wiltshire 1979 & 80, 2nd Interim Report, 8. 22 1 Fernandez—Galiano, Actas A.Balil (1990) 205-7.

'? O.Wattel—de Croizant, I.Jesnick, "The Mosaics of the House of Mourabas

2°

when

expressed by manifestly observing Greek religion. The imagery may be making a display of devotion to the religion of the pagan establishment and especially the Emperor, rather than representing some esoteric cult. Performance of ritual in the building may not have been far removed from the conventional pagan practice of the day: a form of the Bacchic mysteries reflecting the highly syncretic religious systems of which Orpheus was the poet and authority (Macrobius, Saz. I,

The character of certain buildings and the imagery on their mosaics, seem to indicate a function other than the evocation of the charms of music and poetry or claims to culture by the owners. At Sparta Orpheus occupies a small, low, dark room joined diagonally to a larger chamber housing a depiction of Europa. The rooms had separate entrances and were not intercommunicating. Both mosaics came from the same workshop, and the figures are actually mirror images. Their juxtaposition has been likened in its symbolism to a grander scheme at Palermo. There a huge pavement of esoteric character indicates, through the imagery of the ‘Loves of Jupiter’ with deities and personifications, the

in ape

AD*'

JBAA (1991), 92-106, pl.[X—XI.

D).Levi (1942) 39, 50-51.

105

Chapter Thirteen

scenes' in Graeco-Roman art and that, it could be argued, is the ‘genre’, of which Orpheus is one subject. Defining the Orpheus scene thus reveals affinities and deeper structures of significance and function. The assimilation of the image into subsequent and _ its iconography Judaeo—Christian transformations indicate that it possessed a complex symbolic life of its own and deserves to stand as an individual genre. Some other images of the vanquishing of animals also crossed the divide with the same implication for their innate philosophical value.

The Definition and Interpretation of an Orpheus Mosaic It seems pertinent to ask now, having explored the construction of the pictorial image, to what category of Roman art an Orpheus mosaic belongs. What should it look like? Further, in relation to the cultural import of the figure: what, metaphorically, might it have represented? Orpheus in Graeco-Roman culture was a figure often presenting contrasting aspects, hugely popular, capable of being all things to all men. To arrive at some present understanding it has been necessary to fathom the antique perception of this multi-faceted persona as it developed over many centuries. Thus its visual expression in one medium, mosaic, during one period, the later Roman Empire, could be placed in context. The premise underlying the following assumptions is that artistic output, whatever its quality, reflects the producing society: that the mosaic picture can best be understood if seen in relation to the image in other media and in the literature, religion, philosophy and popular culture of its own time. The threads of the discussion so far can be pulled together to define the genre ‘Orpheus mosaics’, the pictorial rules of the depiction. To ask the question ‘why Orpheus’ among all possible subjects presupposes that a choice was made, that the image was not used randomly, that all subjects were, as well as being decorative, capable of readings on a deeper level, didactic, symbolic, philosophical, where the patron required them to be so.

Pictorial conventions for Orpheus in other media ensured distinct limits on imagery. A vogue for the subject of Orpheus' murder on red—figure vases of the fifth century BC is not repeated, nor is the episode explicitly depicted again; Eurydice's rescue is reserved for funerary contexts. To my knowledge the only scene from the myth represented on mosaic is the animal charming. That it of all episodes was chosen is perhaps to be attributed simply to the superb opportunity offered for the display of animals, more than would be seen in arena subjects, shown in new poses. It is related to the genre of the animal paradise, where the mingling of many kinds of animals acted as a symbol of teeming life, a Golden Age theme of continuing interest to artists, Hellenistic to Byzantine. Depending on context the paradeisos might evoke the idyllic peace and plenty awaiting the defunct in the afterlife or the Golden Age of peace to come in this world, both a pagan and a Judaeo—Christian image. Many animal-filled pavements graced the naves of eastern churches in late antiquity. Presiding over many of these scenes might be Noah, David or the Good Shepherd, all Christian subjects.’ Orpheus might be seen as a precursor and model for these types, especially in the large display mosaics.

First should come a definition of the pictorial genre. The designation ‘Orpheus mosaic genre’ implies limitations beyond which the visual image is transformed into a picture of something else or loses the force of its specific import. The further implication is that the image had a particular meaning of which patron and artisan would be aware and which was best served by staying within the limits of commonly understood pictorial conventions. For the modern viewer the definition which is aimed at here would aid identification in the case of fragmentary mosaics or complete the picture where uncertain imagery is interpreted as Orpheus, or is not considered to be Orpheus. It would also provide reference for future researchers, since, happily, new mosaics are constantly brought to light. Current discussion of imagery often focusses on the comparison of one mosaic with another without reference to the larger contexts explored in this work, resulting in forced and false comparisons.

In North Africa the motif was closely allied to the hugely popular hunting and arena scenes. The power which Orpheus asserted by virtue of his weakness, stilling savage forces by artistry, not brute force, was celebrated by African mosaicists who placed him amid scenes of animal carnage. The polarity of his pacificity was appreciated at the same time as he represented another, almost magical, form of luring and quietening animals so important to the patrons, who were aware of the power of music over the beasts in the real world. In the Greek East Orpheus represented literary and musical arts and an appeal to the classical past apparently more to the tastes of those patrons. In funerary art the animal scene was sometimes accompanied by the scene of Eurydice's release.

The suggestion of another scene in mosaic at Keynsham, the supposed severed head of Orpheus prophesying, has been demonstrated to be the reflection in a pool of Minerva playing the pipes.” What appears is distinctly a helmeted head with pipes in the mouth. The oracular head appears only on fifth century BC vases and coins and later on mirrors and

A limitation to the method is the reliance on catalogues. In Appendix I it is 2-gsed that the form in which the data is held provides a powerful positive influence on the perception of '‘likeness' in the material. Clearly the mosaics are superficially similar, apparently obeying rules, but equally, as demonstrated, they display many differences. Traditions governing the overall look guaranteed the continuing recognisability of the subject, while local pictorial conventions produced differences. The term ‘genre’ is applied here to the single image ‘Orpheus and the Animals’. Strictly speaking the scene belongs in the broader category of ‘animal

vases, not so far as I am aware, in late Roman art. However, Henig argues* that a head of Orpheus or the Etruscan ' ARLA 283-99. > R.Stupperich, Britannia XI (1980) 289-301. Perhaps the ensuing contest between Apollo and Marsyas accompanied it in the scheme. * M.Henig, PDNHAS CVI, (1984) 143-6.

106

The Definition and Interpretation of an Orpheus Mosaic

Only animals of a character and typology examined above (Chapter Ten) accompany him. They are subdued, either sitting or walking in African mosaics, sometimes running in repertories where hunt iconography was absorbed into the Orphean image. Also present might be female figures of an animal ferocity: maenad, sphinx, and other relevant figures in ‘pendent’ scenes.

oracular hero Tages appears in a largely destroyed panel at Frampton. The objections are, most importantly that the head is bearded, which is incorrect for the androgynous Orpheus (cf. Chapter Five, 2). Second, it appears at the top of the panel, while the oracular head of Orpheus was always depicted at the bottom of the picture plane, supposedly speaking from underground. By late antiquity the traditional placing could perhaps have been forgotten. An object appears by the head which could be the lyre, but equally could be a spear. This is probably a god.

Alone, the birds on the Italica mosaic are no indicator of Orpheus' presence, they never occur without the animals, whose savagery held in check was the point of the motif. Orphean birds are all different, an inventory of species to confirm the musician's power to attract all things in the world, whereas the Italica mosaic includes more than one peacock, once with spread tail. The eyed wheel, a warning display unseen with calming Orpheus, was an apotropaic image extensively employed throughout the Empire, here matching the propensity for Iberian mosaic to include such protective charms. The animals too, are always all different, repetition being the clue to another subject. Italica’s central panel is now virtually destroyed. There animals might have appeared, or another figure.

At Thruxton* a ring of medallions holding heads and foliage surrounds the figure of Bacchus. Seasons fill the corner spandrels. One of the heads is depicted with a Phrygian cap. While Orpheus might well be found with the god, these heads, all apparently helmeted except the one, may well be theatrical masks, or stand for the erotes which regularly accompany Bacchus and Seasons and which might sport a Phrygian cap, or this one might be Attis, who also appears with Seasonal Dionysus.” Orpheus was so important in fourth century Britain it seems unlikely that he would be relegated to quite such a subsidiary role.

A picture of Orpheus which showed the singer and his audience of charmed animals ought to leave no doubt as to the subject, but matters are not so simple. With a damaged mosaic identification may depend on the interpretation of uncertain imagery in the surviving fragments. Given a complete image, the subject should be quite clear, but in some instances the assertion or denial of the presence of the figure of Orpheus is erroneous. Dubious identifications will be examined here to reveal the pictorial rules governing and defining the genre, its characteristics and controlling factors. The rules allowed certain pictorial events, not others. found once. Nevertheless, some motifs have only been Knowing whether they actually occurred more often depends on future archaeological finds. From these single occurences have to be distinguished those motifs relating to Orphean conventions, and those others which reveal the subject to be other than Orpheus. An example of the latter case would be the tripod on the mosaic known as Los Pajaros, Italica. For an answer one has recourse to the literary and visual traditions of Orpheus, and the pictorial conventions of mosaic in relation to those of other media. The context provided by ‘pendent’ and ‘associated’ imagery and by local repertories, aids in the definition of the message of the picture, whether Orphean or not. Elements of the myth understood by the observer of the mosaic, but not illustrated in it would included. Everything appearing with Orpheus ought to belong to the cultural concept built up over centuries.

The

Only

the

obvious,

typical

motifs

appear

J.Lancha in a personal

communication.

in here,

Stern's

typology

scenes and/or animals would appear outside (cf. Rottweil), again not so. Anyway, figures accompanied by animals are not always Orpheus: Diana, Bacchus and Ganymede all appear among beasts in North African mosaic. The identification of Orpheus depends on the character of the animal entourage. I have argued elsewhere that a supposed Orpheus at Caerwent (central figure lost) was probably Bacchus with Seasons, animals and torch—bearing cupids. which in themselves reveal another figure.* From the baths of Stolac comes a mosaic not previously included in the cannon of Orpheus mosaics, belonging to the type Ia group. The usual Orphean beasts, in panels, run around the lost centre. Running beasts are seen in an Orphean repertory combining hunt imagery with the tradition of animals circling the singer (cf. Withington, Newton St.Loe, Salona, Panik). The location of Stolac in a bath building is specially indicative of Orpheus, rather than another figure, through his association with water.

Returning to Italica, the head, all that remains of the figure, wears neither Phrygian cap, nor wreath, but Apollo's curls and fillet. Orpheus in mosaic is never bare—headed, with the one exception of Perugia, where the hair is arrayed in the fashion of Alexander and which in many respects lies outside the pictorial mainstream. That the Italica figure is placed to one side of the panel would not rule out Orpheus. He usually occupies the centre, but this position is not vital, the composition could be modified to include important related material (Cf. Chapter Nine). However, the position upper right, facing left does not compare with other Orphean images. A high placing is typical of late images where the

with

* D.J.Smith, BAR 41 (i) (1977) pl.6.XXXa, Thruxton. * See I.Jesnick, Mosaic 17, (1990) 7-13. © The suggestion that the configuration to the left was a tripod was made by I, 251:

comes

argument is flawed. If type Ia, Orpheus would be alone in the centre, animals as well as birds would occupy other panels (cf. Saint Romain), which is not the case. If type Ib, other

Orpheus: his lyre, a rock and a tree show the legendary location. Uniquely at Seleucia the location is personified.

Cf. Reinach RSGR

of design

having been adduced to confirm a type I mosaic,” but the

The tripod, as it appears, on the Iberian mosaic has no business near him, being without precedent in imagery or

myth.°

question

7 J.M.Alvarez—Martinez, "Mosaicos Romanos’, Actas A.Balil, (1990) 31-2.

954,

* Jesnick (1990) 7-13.

Apollo with tripod.

107

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic figure

is centralised

(Santa

Marta,

Hanover,

5;

Jerusalem).

Semi-—draped figures of an earlier period face right. 6. 7. 8

The excavator of Aix (cf. Chapter Nine) looking at the mosaic itself rather than Reinach's line drawing? never considered it showed Orpheus. The figure is clearly a female lyrist, her costume so different from the conventional dress Orpheus wears as the Thracian musician, or eastern garb of one sort or another. The cloak is usually red, brown or purple, a male garment, or a mantle of the greens and blues of the Greek repertory, but always strong colour.

9.

10.

11.

The Aix musician, like Apollo citharoedus dancing while playing, breaks another mosaic rule, for in the animal charming scene Orpheus is always seated. He only stands in Underworld scenes and is shown dancing on some Apulian vases (fig.24). The seated figure, who in late depictions wears Imperial garb, shows his dominion over nature and the bestial instincts of men by the enthroned posture. The Good

12. 13.

Shepherd of Jenah,’® strikes the typical shepherd pose, leaning on a staff, one leg crossed.'' Only the large number

14.

of animals around a central male figure could prompt the identification of Orpheus when it was clearly not so. The only time a pedum substitutes for the lyre is in Underworld scenes.'* No musician playing pipes or any wind instrument

15.

can be Orpheus'* since pipe music was inimicable to the 16.

heavenly nature of Orpheus who helped souls ascend to the astral plane through the notes of the lyre.

Stern was concerned that the aquatic setting of the Djemila musician and the juxtaposition of a dolphin-riding genius Arion should be riding the cetacean sidesaddle, while in fact the musician sits on a specially intruded spit of land, animals behind him. The combination of subjects on this elaborate mosaic, interpreted according to the conventions of Orphean ‘associated’ imagery, show how completely Orpheus fits in to an aquatic context and is suited to the intent of the major scene. Simplest of all, the figure, with eastern style costume and outstretched arm, is paralleled in several mosaics and test above examples The frescos. catacomb two identification of Orpheus against the pictorial rules of the genre evinced from an analysis of the images of Orpheus in mosaic and other media. The principal pictorial rules for mosaic may be listed as:

2.

4.

later

depiction in combination with ‘pendent’ and ‘associated’ scenes must conform to one of a set of variants strictly defined and understood. A figure cannot be called something other than Orpheus (usually Apollo) if it does not obey the genre rules for that other figure.

KKK

K

Because Orpheus mosaics do not all display the same iconography, and because they are found in different contexts, some secular, some religious, it can be inferred that the image could have different meanings. This indicates that there were, indeed, meanings to be drawn from the imagery apart from the obvious ones of a musician and symbol of culture. No single meaning covers all the mosaics. Nor is it possible to state what any observer might have understood by any image, but only to indicate what was available, bound up in the imagery of the Orpheus panel, plus ‘pendent’ and ‘associated’ scenes, combined with context, as a pictorial message.

Orpheus is always accompanied by animals, often also birds. All the animals are different (save specific male Only subdued beasts, except in influenced repertory. Birds do not appear without animals.

The creatures are disposed across the picture plane to convey the concept ‘surrounding’, either one—point perspective or naive flattened space. The overall message conveyed by the central

KKK

It is clear from inscriptions and the locations of the mosaics that while the subject of Orpheus, son of the Muse, might well represent the pleasures of music and poetry to be enjoyed by guests in a reception room, it was also the image of rhetoric, reason, regulation and the possession of education, therefore culture. It was a worthy image on which to place one's name and announce one's status. As Dunbabin says of the African mosaics, Orpheus was, like the Muses, sometimes chosen as an example and model of the owner's culture. However, she warns, there is no way of telling the depth of the culture possessed by such men,of whom there were a great number. Orpheus might express a generic

and female pairs).

By

can affect placing. with accord scenes and figures Additional traditional ideas of the dominion of Orpheus, his powers over nature and the gods. The classical Greek Orpheus, naked, or robed and wreathed, in a watery location denotes a secular, pagan figure. Specific conventions of costume type, specific colours. Orpheus not bareheaded: he wears a wreath or Phrygian bonnet. An arrangement conforming to Stem's design typology is a good indicator of Orpheus rather than another subject.

The last ‘rule’ is the most instructive, for all figures obey iconographic conventions of their own, a vocabulary common to each of them which constitutes the figural language.

and nereid were attributes of Arion, not Orpheus.'* But

1.

No objects other than rocks and trees accompany Orpheus. The only instrument played is a lyre or cithara. Orpheus always sits. He is usually central, but important related material

hunt—

° Reinach, RPGR 203, 6.

'© M H.Chehab, 'Mosaiques de Liban’, Bull.du Musée de Béyrouth xiv,

(1957) 55-6, pl. XXXI, and 64-73. Cf. Miniature, pastoral scene, Vatican Virgil, Cod.Vat.lat. 3867, fol.44,

Grabar, (1969) pl.I; British Museum silverware, bowl with decorated rim:

Carthage Treasure M & LA AF 3726. fresco, Gruppe 1175, fig.1; terracotta Tunisia, Panyagua, (1973) "2 ao hoon no. 1 g.2 DACL XII, 2752, 17; Horn—player, Knole * Lamps, flautist with a me Panyagua (1973) no.1 Stern, Le caléndrier de aia (1953), 278. and n.4.

108

The Definition and Interpretation of an Orpheus Mosaic

restoration or implementation of peace, harmony and order, the creation of concord in a discordant world. The image of Orpheus the peacemaker was sometimes employed as a conscious parallel to the image of the Emperor, who was thus presented as capable of creating across the whole empire concord and unity amongst its disharmonious elements.*® Orpheus singing to the charmed circle of animals could be interpreted as an allegory of the pax romana. It would not stretch the imagination too far to envisage the choice of subject as responding to strains in the political background.

homage to learning and culture in Africa,"* were he was primarily the enchanter of animals, both adjunct and antithesis of popular hunt and amphitheatre scenes. In the Greek east Orpheus the poet was more important than the master of animals. He was an emblem of the arts of man, from high-minded poetry to comedic theatre (exemplified at Mytilene in the House of the Menander). Theatricality in the image of the eastern Orpheus is evidenced in style, which has been likened to sixteenth century Italian Mannerism, and in iconography. The wearing of the musician's stola for example and the expansive sweep of the arm seen on some of these mosaics would recall familiar gestures of theatrical rhetorical especially and performance musical and declamation, a capability which marked the cultured man. Here the use of the image to signify a claim to learning on the part of the patron is more overt, but in the Greek east it need not be the matter of the assumption of Hellenic culture it was in Africa.

Orpheus, reformer of the rites of Dionysus, was a theologos, his song was the creation of the world, the poetry ascribed to him was religious. He had knowledge of the afterlife which he could teach humanity, and give a hope of salvation after death. This was a pervasive image at all periods. It is not surprising to find his image in sacerdotal locations, frequently funerary. When as sometimes occurs these appearances are unambiguous, it becomes possible to extrapolate a sacral iconography, so that the secular image can then be distinguished. So strong was the association of Orpheus with pagan ritual in late antiquity, that it seems plausible that such an association would come easily to the mind of many observers or patrons of an Orpheus mosaic.

Several times Orpheus is found in public locations or halls so large as to raise the question of official public gatherings. Orpheus as an embodiment of deep rooted cultural values, his image an appeal to classical culture, might reinforce the sense of belonging to a State strong in its foundations. This was especially important in times when blows to the political structures of the Empire were growing in intensity. It is not possible to date most mosaics closely enough to see exactly how they relate in time to the fragmentation of government in the Empire in the third century. Many mosaics were apparently laid in the Severan period when a message of pleasure and plenty, the enjoyment of the animal spectacle and the evocation of music and poetry pervades the depictions. It would seem that as many were laid later at a period of political turmoil when the message of peace and harmony would be appropriate, though how far political events impinged upon the affairs of those not immediately involved is uncertain. It is always possible that the major political events made no impression on the class of patrons of the Orpheus mosaics, whose lives for the most part may have remained unaffected. However, it is tempting to find a certain sympathy between the troubled atmosphere and the message of peace inherent in the imagery.

*

Kk

KK

KK

Since many Orpheus mosaics date to the period of Diocletian's Christian purges, the question of disguising a Christian sentiment behind a pagan image arises — Orpheus was considered by some a prefiguration of Christ; he was perceived by pagan and Christian alike to be a salvationary figure. If they are such, no hint is given in the iconography nor in the adjacent scenes, which is as one would expect of hidden imagery. But, without the type of imagery which qualifies otherwise pagan forms, as we find on the it is unequivocally Christian artefacts from Rome, impossible to say what lay in the mind of the patron. There is no way for the modem observer to tell whether an image which looks purely pagan was considered by its Roman viewers to be a cryptograph of Christ. Orpheus mosaics created later, when the patrons were free from the threat of persecution share some visual vocabulary with Christian art, but are not themselves necessarily Christian. The ambiguity of classical forms in late antiquity is exemplified in the Christian mausoleum of Santa Constanza, Rome and the mosaic of Frampton in Britain. There, among thoroughly pagan imagery, is a Chi-Rho, but it is not certain whether it is a Christian symbol, or if it was used as a good luck charm,

as it already was when Constantine adopted it.’” Of the Christian Orpheus images that are agreed, the context was funerary, the central image clearly qualified by adjacent biblical imagery. It occurred for the most part locally in and around Rome. Texts witness to the manner in which apologists perceived the powerful pagan figure and converted their impressions to suit Christian thought.** the ng uri fig pre as g son his saw y tur cen th four the in us ebi Eus new song of Christ (Laud.Const. XIV, 355). It is easy to imagine Christian writers, belonging to the same culture after all, being able to move easily between pagan and Christian ideals which had grown close together. The same effect is not true of the visual arts. Distances open between the declarations of Christian texts, the actions of the early church, the effects it thought it had achieved, and the visual evidence.

The earliest catacomb paintings date from a time when Clement of Alexandria was railing against the trickery of '® Stern (1980)

162 and fig.16, a gem of 1st century BC. P.Rinuy,

"L'imagerie d'Orphée os

A large number of mosaics date to the Tetrarchy and later. Orpheus always had the popular significance of effecting the

'7 W.Dorigo,

Tae

RAMAGE4, (1986) 311.

Roman Painting, (1970) pl.24, figs.166, 167; Grabar

wpete 3, fe. 76. Frampton: Lysons (1813) pt. iii, pl.V, BAR 41 (i) (1977) BSDiscussed by Sister Murray in BAR $100, Rebirth and Afterlife,

J.B.Friedman, Orpheus in the Middle Ages ( 1970).

‘> Dunbabin, 136 and n.32, cf. Virgil and Muses, Inv. Sousse 57.104.

109

(1981).

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic pagan enchanters amongst whom he counted Orpheus, whom he despised and abhorred. Evidently, notes Stern, Clement's

not offend later Christian users. On the other hand, certain

or was

Muslim is unknown, who must have perceived some sort of demonic power in the images. None of these date from the Tetrarchy. Another message might be considered: that the flush of Orpheus mosaics coincident with the Diocletianic purges was precisely to proclaim the orthodox observation of Greek polytheism. At least to the wealthy pagan elite, Orpheus symbolised certain of its forms, of which he was the traditional founder figure and reformer (cf. Chapter Four.3, Four.5).

tirade had no effect on the Christians of Rome,

mosaics were mutilated?* by people, whether Christian or

unknown to them.'® In the popular mind Orpheus was a protector, promoting fruitfulness and the general good, an image of reason whose cosmogonic song promoted peace (cf. Chapter Four.10). Besides these terrestrial benefits, were the powerful eschatological associations of Orpheus. So strong

was

the convention

of depicting him

in pagan

funerary

contexts, that he would naturally enter Christian iconography as a ready made image of the guide and protector of souls.

After the edicts of tolerance in the Constantinian period, a Christian Orpheus could have been used openly. However, as far as I am aware, it was not, a fact which parallels a scarcity, according to Grabar, of extant Christian images from this same period.7* One would expect Orpheus to appear as he did in Rome surrounded by Old or New

Of altogether over 300 depictions of Orpheus, Leclerc including the Jerusalem discussed 24 Christian images, 10 artefacts to be Stern only considered mosaic.

incontrovertably Christian, followed by P.Prigent.7° Neither scholar includes mosaics. All items are examples of funerary art, of which the iconography reveals that Orpheus and his history was taken by the first Christians as a parable of salvation. The Christian Orpheus is known only for a short period c.220-c.400 AD, from Rome and its environs in the catacombs and, in victory stance, on strigillated sarcophagi where the Christian character of the image is denoted by adjacent imagery. Stern's fig.9, from Porto Torres, Sardinia, belongs to the same Roman workshop, but may not be Christian. From outside Italy come a sarcophagus from Cacarens, a Coptic carving and naive relief from Loudon,

Testament scenes

as well

appropriate attributes, or orants. Christian art, evolved from classical forms, is specific in its vocabulary, unambiguously qualifying Orpheus when he appears.

straining in opposite directions.’ 7° g win kno of way no is re the n whe ns’ isa art n tia ris ‘Ch s say He their religious beliefs. He calls upon the account of the Christian Claudius and his fellow stonecutters in a workshop in Pannonia, commanded by Diocletian to make an image of Helios. Claudius and the best cutters were given the task of

chrétienne’, Revue d'histoire et aca religieuse (1984), 205-221. XII, 'Orphée’, 2748, no.12, fig.9244; ibid IX, 2" Stern (1974) fig.10; DACL ‘Loudon’, 2545, fig.7201. Metal casket decoration from Hungary, Hungarian

Orpheus

At

human and divine in the person of Jesus, Christian artisans were still depicting Christ in the aspect of Orpheus. Truly it could be said that in the third, fourth and fifth centuries words and pictures ostensibly representing the same ideas were often

XII, Orphée. P.Prigent, Orphée dans l'iconographie

and 67.126.1.

as nereids.*°

sought to define for all time the relation between the

'? H.Stern, 'Orphée dans !'art paléo—chrétien' CArch XXIII, (1974), 9.

64.1903.19-24

such

‘could remain relatively aloof from the doctrinal and Christological controversies of the period. Thus while the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon

The ivory pyxides carry a similar pagan imagery, which did

Inv.no.

figures

It would not be correct to call any Orpheus depiction from later than AD 250 Christian as is sometimes done. J.B.Friedman makes this assumption and has then to justify the lack of Christian iconographic features. Arguing that since visual statements were less flexible than words they could retain their symbolic appeal over a long period, he says that artisans, concerned with image rather than word

Because of this funerary connection, thoughts of a possible Christian dedication might hover over the tomb mosaics, though Augustine tells us Orpheus was still in charge of pagan burial rites in fifth century North Africa (Civ.Dei, XVIII, 14), nor do they display overt Christian imagery. The Edessa. Constantine, Cherchel, are: mosaics tomb Constantine had a motif common in Christian contexts, a stag drinking from a stream (though the afterlife paradise it represents was not an exclusively Christian ideal). Edessa in Syria was a thriving Christian community, but pagan burials were present in equal numbers and no Christian formulae appear in the inscription. Also from the Middle East the Jerusalem Orpheus presents purely pagan imagery reiterating a traditional Bacchic message, which when the building been have could dedication Christian a received reinterpreted.

Museum,

as semi—divine

Ptolemais the adjacent figure of seasonal plenty is a conventional figure, it too is nimbed. Pagan Orpheus is pictured here, numinous, powerfully authoritative. Such a figure would have been acceptable equally to pagans and Christians, who may well have given the image a Christian gloss.

his usual felines, not Christian sheep, while the end motifs are lions devouring wild asses, typically pagan, where on Christian sarcophagi the defunct appear as philosophers with

National

or Christian devout figures

(sarcophagi). It is impossible to say whether a late mosaic image such as Ptolemais was perceived as specifically Christian, it contains no overt Christian imagery. Orpheus is nimbed, a feature later associated with Christian sanctity, but already fourth century pagan deities had received their nimbus, for example Apollo at Paphos and Venus at Bignor,

France.”’ Stern's fig.11 found in Rome, also may not be Christian: it may be earlier than the others.** Orpheus has

2° Leclerc, DACL;

(catacombs)

23 Dunbabin 152, n.81.

and

24 A Grabar, Christian Iconography (1969) 1980 ed., 37-8.

animals in medallion, chi-rho adjacent, biblical scenes also part of the same

decorative scheme. This item came to my notice too late to include in the discussion. 22 Pesce dates it earlier, c.238-44, see Murray (1981) 151-2, n.30.

25 Nereid,

pre-Coptic Alexandrian woven wool and linen textile, Cleveland

Museum of Art, W.Dorigo, Late Roman Painting (1970) fig.201.

2© J_B.Friedman, Orpheus in the Middle Ages (1970), 72.

110

The Definition and Interpretation of an Orpheus Mosaic where the Christian character of the loci is evident. It might be expected that the earlier representations would remain closer to the traditional, pagan image. In explanation Stern (1974) ventures the opinion that Christians were hesitant about representing the figure, whom he calls Orpheus— Christus, absolutely identical to his pagan homologue early on, but to mark the difference, suppressed the fierce beasts (15). Without them the singer, says Stern, is evidently the Saviour who charms by his music the faithful, represented by sheep. He sees a confirmation in the central position of the figure in the decorative scheme.

carving the Sun—god in his chariot, which they undertook without objection, but stopped to cross themselves all the while. When the image was completed Diocletian was pleased and ordered a temple for it from the same workshop. Then he asked for a project which included decorative motifs, acanthus, fountain basins, water—spouting lions, shells, eagles, deer, Victories, cupids, none of which caused any problem to Claudius and his companions. Only when required to produce a statue of Aesculapius for his temple did they draw back, refusing to carve a human image, since the making of idols was prohibited in Psalm 135. Ultimately

Claudius and the Christian recalcitrants were executed. Vivid This supposes that the figure of Orpheus had lost its own importance in Graeco-Roman culture. Although this may have been the case in and around Rome, the evidence, seen in the wider development of Orphean iconography, proves the contrary. The numinosity of the pagan depiction gave it power enough to keep its own character, even while appearing in Christian art. An example would be the Underworld figure of funerary art, carrying a pedum which provided a ready made symbol for the Christian guide and protector of souls, imaged as the pastoral animal tamer. Stern's hypothesis does not explore parallels with the underground sanctums of the other eastern magus, Mithras, with whom Orpheus was visually conflated at about the same period as some catacomb painting. Orpheus’ place in that real under-world of the catacombs would seem a natural iconographic development. Nor does it question how it was that at a later period both Orpheus and Christ were dressed in the garments and authority of late Imperial iconography. These are pictorial constructs stemming from a discipline of art with its own conventions independent of theological arguments.

though the story is, it does not tell us how Claudius would have responded to the request for a figure of Orpheus.

What is interesting is the distinction between Helios and Aesculapius. The figure of Helios being of a god, albeit of another religion and requiring frantic crossing to protect the artisans from contamination, was nevertheless not considered an idol. Aesculapius, the semi—divine healer was beyond the pale for the Christian craftsmen. The pagan Orpheus may well have been off-limits for Christian artisans, though if considered as a prefiguration of Christ he may have been permissible. The artists depicting Orpheus in sarcophagi might have been pagan, companions who were Christian Victories. They were merely

commissioned

the catacombs and on just as Claudius and his could carve Helios and executors of schemes

and designed by others.7” The image in

catacombs and on sarcophagi need not have been Christ in the aspect of Orpheus, but the divine singer himself, whose realm by ancient right was the Underworld and victory over death. The perception of the figures representing the various manifestations of religiosity in antiquity was evidently fluid and complex.

The problematic ‘straining in opposite directions’ detected by Friedman in images he assumes to be Christian, falls into place if we accept that most late Orpheus depictions are as pagan as they appear. Christian apologists might reconcile the potent pagan figure with their religious philosophy, but there is no support for the assumption that all late images were certainly Christian. It is only possible to assert this if the figure is accompanied by Christian imagery. The fourth century Orpheus mosaic of Rome has a sheep and ram, but at the same time deliberately evokes classicism with its nude figure and Nilotic decoration. Others with Christian influenced imagery betray no hint of such thought in their expression. It is interesting to note that Grabar, in his seminal work on the origins of Christian iconography, makes no mention at all of Orpheus, who was a potent emblem of late aristocratic paganism as well as enjoying a persistent role in the world of superstition and magic. Even in Christian art Orpheus appears as himself, an allegory for Christian ideals certainly, an antetype of Christ, but not Christ disguised. Ultimately we cannot know if on some occasions a completely pagan Orpheus might have been interpreted as the Christian messianic figure by a Christian observer.

It would not be correct, either, to maintain that Orpheus passed unchanged into Christian art where that is unambiguously presented. His iconography was changed both in subtle and overt fashion. On sarcophagi he becomes a victory figure, adopting the pose of Mithras slaying the celestial bull. Instead of gently luring and pacifying animals, the sheep by his raised foot has the place of the vanquished foe. In the catacomb frescos, adjacent imagery, which elucidates the meaning, is biblical, sometimes showing of divine occasions sometimes of flocks, leaders intervention, each ensemble radically altering the import of the central figure. Presumably Orpheus was supposed to be the same: a leader of flocks, an example of divine intervention.

Of the six depictions of Orpheus in fresco, four have an audience composed entirely of sheep, domestic animals which appear infrequently with the pagan Orpheus, while the birds are dove and eagle. In the Domitilla catacomb, of mid to late fourth century date, a return to the classical figure enchanting the usual wild beasts is seen in two examples *”

Passio

Sanctorum

Quatuor

Coronatorum

in

Sitzungsberichte

KKK KK KK

Another question raised in regard to Orpheus is whether the image can be associated with an Orphic cult. In this case a

der

Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, X, (1853), 115-126. Latin text in

full of mss. with comment. E.R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco—

Roman Period, [X, i, 22. Friedman 76, makes use of Goodenough's précis.

111

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

century BC to the third century AD.** The verses were

definition of ‘Orphic' is required, one applicable to the late Empire. The problematical nature of what is known as Orphism, what was designated Orphic in antiquity, lies outside the scope of this work. Whatever its character, many scholars have devoted their energies to resolving the

intended to aid the souls of the dead on the difficult journey to Hades. While the sentiments seem to echo Orphic thought, the name of Orpheus is never mentioned, and Zuntz considered these amulets to be Pythagorean. There is no evidence for formal recognition of entry into an Orphic cult, for grades within it, no statement of membership of such a cult appears on any tombstone. Only a graveyard set aside for those 'who have taken part in the Bacchic rites’ at Cumae indicates an acknowledged status. Perhaps nobody ever

question.** Linforth declared, in perhaps too rigorously exclusive a fashion, that there was no such thing,” that the assumption made by Guthrie and others of the widespread existence of an Orphic religion with its body of followers, with Orpheus its high priest, was erroneous and was not substantiated by any evidence nor bore out by close reading of the texts. Other scholars, too, doubted the validity of an exclusive, esoteric cult, questioning the definition of Orphic and Orphism, by—passing the intricacies of what West calls ‘the pseudo—problem of the supposed Orphic religion’ (1).

Eliade distinguished

a movement,

called him or herself an 'Orphic’.** What that term meant in

fourth century AD Sicily or the provinces of Roman Britain, if it was known at all, cannot be determined.

No Orphic sect is known from the Empire. The extant Orphic hymns were composed in the Imperial period, probably second to third century, and were perhaps used in the sanctuary of Demeter at Pergamum, but have not been connected to a recognisable sect. They do not mention Orpheus. The Orphic Argonautica exists in a fourth century

at once initiatory and

popular, in which sacred texts played a large part.*° What was called ‘Orphic' by the ancients is now generally held to have consisted first of a Theogony, the creation of the gods and all matter from Chaos; a body of literature ascribed

AD version, but may be a

Orpheus mosaic belonged to a pagan religious community is impossible to establish without comparative pictorial evidence.

to Orpheus’ authorship, including hymns, metaphysical and esoteric poems, the formation of an acceptable liturgical form of the excesses of the myth and ancient mysteries of Dionysus; purificatory rituals. The followers of these ritual forms were known as ‘Orphici’. Perhaps a way of life was involved. The designation, however is stretched to cover a wide variety of cults from many regions, across many centuries. There is no evidence for a cult of Orpheus himself, in fact it is specifically stated that Orpheus was not worshipped (Cicero, De nat. deor. III, 44-6; Augustine, Civ.dei. XVIII, 14). He was poet and hierophant of the rite according to Clement of Alexandria. Whatever was orthodox in the performance of mysteries was ascribed to Orpheus. the been to have seem traditionalism, Orthodoxy, characteristics which allowed poetry and liturgy to be attributed to Orpheus in late antiquity.

Only

have

sects

two

been

identified

which

might

The question to ask is if any mosaics reveal characteristics associated with Orphic theology as understood. Mosaics which might be considered are: Littlecote, with Orpheus as the central subject, and a conventional depiction at Palermo I in combination with the ‘divinities’ mosaic. The Littlecote Orpheus is housed in a building separate from the domestic ranges of the villa. The iconography of the mosaic is unlike any other Orpheus in the Empire, differing radically from the formulaic presentations used elsewhere. It incorporates imagery so deliberately unorthodox that one is at first forced to read it as reflecting unorthodox ideas. Orpheus sits at the centre with only a fox companion. Around him in compartments are four running beasts, three of which have reins: a bull, goat, hind and a dark feline, probably meant for a leopard. They are ridden by four goddesses, (goat), Persephone (bull), Demeter as recognisable Aphrodite (deer), and Leda/Nemesis (leopard). In the three apses are shell—awnings with leopard—head finials. A panel of water pattern links this with the next chamber where a panel with a pair of dark leopardesses confronted on a crater is, like Orpheus, oriented towards the far apse, rather than the entrance. At at the far end of a geometric mosaic is a marine scene with dolphins, molluscs and sea—panthers confronted on a crater.

be

designated Orphic,*’ one was from Olbia on the Black sea (near Odessa) in the fifth century BC. Tarentum, S.Italy, in the second half of the BC, might include the users of Underworld appear to be the only works of art which can with a sect.

Another from fourth century vases. These be associated

Evidence for initiates to some kind of cult comes from the verses inscribed on the so-called Orphic Gold Plates which were found in graves, usually of women, in South Italy, Crete, Thessaly and Rome and which date from the fourth =* A Boulanger, 17-67; esp. ovements',

hée:

In one reading the imagery seems to reflect the Orphic myth of the pursuit of the child Dionysus—Zagreus by the Titans, when he transformed himself into animals, represented by the

de l'orphisme et du christianisme (1925)

‘Early M.P.Nilsson, Theological Harvard

Orphism Review

and 28,

Kindred (1935)

Religious 181-231;

A.J.Festugiere ‘Les Mysteres de Dionysus’ Revue biblique, 44 (1935) 372ff; idem, REG 49 (1936) 306-310; W.K.Guthrie, Orpheus and Greek Religion (1935); A.D.Nock 'Orphism or Popular Philosophy?’, HThR XXXIII, (1940) 301-315; I.M.Linforth, The Arts of histoire du culte de Bacchus (1951);

four running beasts, only to be caught and dismembered.*”

Orpheus (1941) H Jeanmaire, Dionysus, L.Moulinier, Orphée et I'Orphisme a

32 G Murray in J.Harrison, Prolegomena, Appendix, 659-673; G.Zuntz,

Persephone (1971) 275-393; West (1983) 17-19; F.Graf 'Textes Orphiques et rituel Bacchique' in Orphisme et Orphée (1991) 87-102. 3° B Henry (1992) 75. 74 Orphic Hymns: Guthrie (1935) 257-61; Linforth (1941) 179-89;

l'époque classique (1955); M.Eliade, A History of Religious Ideas I , (1982) Orphic Poems 180-202 and 482ff. for critical bibliography. M.L.West The (1983); P.Borgeaud

ed.

'Orphisme et Orphée

en I‘honneur de

little earlier.** Whether any

J-Rudhardt’,

Recherches et rencontres 3, (1991). =° A.D.Nock, Classical Weekly XXXV, no.14, Feb. 1942. 161-163. 3° Eliade (1982) 185. 3" E.R.Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (1951) 147ff; West, 1-3.

W.Quandt

(1962)

Orphei hymni;

Eng. trans. and notes (1977).

A.N.Athanassakis,

The

Orphic

Hymns,

35'B Walters, Littlecote, 2nd Interim Report (1979 & 80) 9; idem, CIMA III,

112

The Definition and Interpretation of an Orpheus Mosaic

the air' and so created the world. A journey of the soul, transcendence, is indicated in the sacred marriages, the wafting of the soul to the sacred Isles by the Winds, escorted by nereids and the gods and heroes in heaven (they ride their animal attributes). At the centre a bare space where an altar may have stood is upheld by telamones. Orpheus would belong in this mystical ensemble, for the capability to carry the soul to heaven on the notes of his lyre is evoked by the

He was then resurrected. The goddesses belong to Orphic thought, particularly Demeter and Persephone, on whom Zeus fathered Dionysus in this myth. Nowhere else do they appear with Orpheus, except on the Apulian vases. The imagery could be taken to show the epiphany of the god in syncretic form, all under the rule of Orpheus. In these conditions the suggestion of a sacerdotal function for the edifice is not far fetched, perhaps providing a sanctum for the performance of Bacchic mysteries, the form of which might have been in some manner Orphic — if only we knew what ‘that was.

adjacent placing of his image.** However, there is no way of telling whether he is present because the great pavement is Orphic in its symbolism, since, though it has an iconography which appears to represent esoteric thought, the beliefs it expresses are not certain. He may have been evoked in a more general fashion as poet of the rites, or the image may have been chosen to project an air of cultured religiosity. The ‘Orphic' Orpheus mosaic is not proved.

It is possible, however, that the designer expressed what might have been the conventional pagan theology of late antiquity, syncretic and convoluted as it was (cf. Macrobius, Saturnalia), in a display which to us appears illustrative of esoteric learning. It was fashionable in late antiquity to ascribe texts and rituals to Orpheus, a ‘device for conferring antiquity and authority’ said West (3). His name was used for poems claiming to reveal divine truth, he and everything over which he had charge embodied the truth of Greek, not Christian, religion and culture. As stated above, Orpheus stood for what was orthodox and traditional. Perhaps to call such religious practices Orphic is no more than saying that they were pagan, of late antique date.

*

KK

KKK KX

The presence which pervades Orphean imagery is that of the god Dionysus/Bacchus. Any appearance of Orpheus as a priest or magus would be in the service of the god whose orgiastic, potentially chaotic rites he regulated with Apollonian rationale. This god was the force within the animal kingdom, the life of plants, Nature itself, over which Orpheus had powers of enchantment. Pan, maenads, centaurs and satyrs always appeared regularly with Orpheus and again at the later period as if to reinforce an opposition to Christianity. Orpheus was traditionally the terrestrial embodiment of the heavenly Apollo, radiating light, reason, law. The arts of rhetoric, poetry, the music of the spheres derived from Apollo. As well as theatre, Dionysus ruled the performance of religious rites, characteristically theatrical in effect. The imagery of the mosaics exhibits these oppositions of light and dark, from the tamed ferocity of the beasts, to the implicit domain of Orpheus regulating the impending chaos of Nature, bringing the benefits of civilization.

The imagery, though unusual, is not itself cryptic, but uses conventional forms in a novel combination. The iconography would reveal its message to those fluent in the conventions of classical imagery and conversant with the syncretic currents of late antique art. The Trier Kornmarkt mosaic of the Dioscuri is representative of this new manner of picture

making, but there the illustration of a cult is quite explicit.*° The cycle of Nature, of which the birth, growth, death and rebirth of Dionysus was a mystical symbol, was not itself an arcane concept, but one expressed in more conventional fashion in several Orpheus mosaics (Seasons, chariot race, vintaging). Dionysus as the leader of the seasons was a popular subject in art, occurring several times in the British provinces. Indeed, the figure of Bacchus is just about the most popular subject in Romano-British mosaic. The designer of the Littlecote mosaic might be presenting a conventional message in terms of somewhat recherché imagery. The programme as it appears, in a building hastily erected c.360, suits the picture of wealthy, educated, influential patrons displaying their allegiance to the Emperor Julian and his venerable Greek religion through their calculated choice of imagery. The renewal of Dionysus, the implication of a return to the Golden Age, applies just as well to the hope of a regeneration of Hellenic religion and philosophy under the apostate Emperor.

This was his role in religion, as a theologian and regulator of rites, but he also signified the delights of music and poetry, he was the epitome of culture. His well known ability to draw all things with his song gave him a further power, the control of natural forces, the weather and evil spirits. By extension the image of Orpheus could function as a

prophylactic.*°

He

is frequently

seen with images

of

fruitfulness and harvest, fostering the impression of an ensemble designed to promote fertility centred on the powerful figure in touch with cosmic forces. The potency of this figure may be recognised in the mutilation suffered by the Oudna Orpheus, where the face has been destroyed. This is the Greek type, from a bath complex and had no original magical intent, but Christians or Muslims destroyed it later. Other The Orpheus of Sakiet suffered the same fate.

At Palermo a conventional Orpheus is pictured in a room en suite with one with a scheme which Levi considered to be Orphic. Its complex iconography includes riding gods and goddesses, the loves of Jupiter, winds, nereids, fish. In the Orphic exegesis*” Jupiter in his many forms made love ‘in

mythological figures also had the faces excised.*°

7% Cf, Macrobius, Somnium Scipionis, IV, 7-8. Commentary on the Dream

ofScipio, trans. W.H.Stahl (1952) 195.

SP cakler Mon Piot, iii, (1896) 217, fig. 12, pl.II. R.L.Gordon, "The Real

(1984) 436-7. © Trier, Landesmuseum. Mosaic of the Dioscuri, Kornmarkt: Dorigo, vow 235-241, 235 n.8, bibliog. c.350 AD on, figs. 189-194, col.p1.32. D.Levi, Berytus 7 (1942), 50-55, pl. V-VII; Eliade (1982) 189.

and the Imaginary’ Art History 2/1, (1979) 5— 34,

4° Dunbabin, 152, n.81, on other mythological figures similarly treated. Sakiet: Thirion, 159, 176.

113

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

effect is increased. Medusa appears at the centre of a dazzling spiral pattern** intended to catch the evil spirits and lead them to the middle to be held and destroyed by the Gorgon's stony stare. The circles of a concentric design, like the elaborate patterns used for Medusa, have the effect of drawing powers to the centre (like water to a plug—hole). There animal—charmer Orpheus was pictured and could attract and mollify the evil spirits lurking in the room as if they were wild beasts. Here we are in the realm of popular there are many religion and magic, superstition, where

The African representation belonged to the genre of animal scenes where the Orpheus image highlighted the contrast with the violent arena scenes and acted as a calming influence on the powers conjured by the depiction itself (see Chapter Ten). In this sense it acted as a protective figure. Testimony to his power to work magical spells comes from classical Greek literature, Euripides’ (Cyclops, 646, Alcestis, 962), from Pliny (VH, XXX, 7) through to the extraordinarily detailed description in the fourth century AD Orphic Argonautica of a spell for conjuration of the gods and spirits (941-1019). With a mind to the difference between text and picture, there is little likelihood of Orpheus mosaics belonging directly to this pervasive thread of magical imprecation. However, the laurel garlands arrayed round the depiction, with their protective and purificatory associations, may act like the numerous sprays of lucky millet scattered

testimonies

to

the

powers

of Orpheus

the

magus.

(See

Chapter Four.4 and .10)

The relation of such floor designs to those used for vaults perhaps indicates the need to concretise the associations of universal order presented in the circles of celestial hierarchies above. The urge to architectural symmetry, perhaps purely on an aesthetic level, must also be considered. There was a fashion for centralised architectural designs in late antiquity connected with the presentation of Imperial power.** Vault designs are most evident where the conventional architectural references are depicted: Littlecote with finials, echoing niche apses has scallop—-shell architecture. Horkstow's Giants and Merida’s winged genii issuing from acanthus act as telamones in the spandrels. Horkstow shows the central ‘fanlight'’ surrounded by the awnings depicted on an Ostian ceiling.

through African mosaic.*' Complementary evidence of Orpheus as a protective image comes from analogous depictions. One of the applied arts with a traditional relationship to mosaic is woven or sewn tapestry. Both decorated the same architectural areas. None of Orpheus are known in the larger tapestries, but several of the orbiculi, the small, circular woven pictures sewn onto garments, carry depictions of Orpheus (Chapter Two). Although some of these have been recovered from graves, mosaics and paintings tell us that orbiculi were wom on the everyday clothes of the well-to—do. Whether the picture of Orpheus was considered more appropriate for the afterlife than for the present is not certain. Grabar (99) makes the point that Christians took to omamenting their garments with prophylactic images of biblical subjects, a usage stemming

Orpheus as the central focus represents order and universality on the terrestrial plane, civilization ruling Nature. The design of concentric circles relates to the eastern mandala form, an important symbol of psychic completion or the desire for unity. This pattern of circles within circles has the symbolic property of safety and wholeness, often coming to the fore when events in the life of the individual or state

from the pagan custom which had a similar intent.*” The image of Orpheus on finger rings might have provided a protection for the wearer. Certainly in antiquity it was widespread practice to protect the person with some image considered effective to ward off evil. No doubt Orpheus, with his well known ability to divert harm, ensure a safe passage through life and promote good fortune, would figure among the suitable range of subjects.

have been tom apart and are disharmonious.** In some

societies it is ceremonially constructed to urge a universal harmony (Tibetan sand mandalas). We see these concentric circular designs in mosaic emerge after the crises in government of the third century and in the one region which seems to have been prosperous and able to provide relative stability and a safe haven for refugees fleeing barbarian incursions into the Continent: the fourth century provinces of

Orpheus on mosaic as a protector is most evident at Brading where the image is placed on the potentially dangerous threshold, where evil spirits were thought to congregate. Coincidentally this mosaic resembles an orbiculum in having a circular frame with sketchy spandrel imagery. Almost all the British Orpheus mosaics are circular, raising the question as to whether the circular design simply reiterates a local design fashion or if the scheme itself includes protective elements.

‘restoration’ after the revolt of Britain. Constantius' Carausius and Allectus was followed by a rash of building and expansion. Wealthy families emigrating to Britain may

well have brought mosaicists in their train.*° That would be the deeper psychological impulse behind the circular design, but many factors might account for the popularity of concentric schemes for Romano-British Orpheus mosaics. One would be expediency, for example the

Leaving aside the decorative qualities of the circle, its prophylactic symbolism and relationship to the historical and social background may be considered on a speculative basis. A circular frame has the effect of increasing the numinous quality of any depiction within it. When it is one with a known apotropaic effect, such as Bellerophon, the victorious charioteer, Medusa (and Orpheus may be included), the

43 Medusa, Inv.Sousse 57.274, pI-LXVII.

44 H P.L'Orange, Art Forms and Civic Life in the Late Roman 69-85. K.Lehmann, 'The Dome of Heaven', The Art Bulletin

ire (1965) I, 1,

(1945) 1-27. * Mandalas appear at times of crisis. They promote calm and harmony. E.Gombrich, The Sense of Order (1984) 246-7, gives C.G.Jung's definition and his own comments. He sees ‘degrees of order as potential metaphors of inner states’. 4© D.J.Smith in A.L.F.Rivet, The Roman Villa in Britain (1969) n.4, 114;

*' Dunbabin, 170-2. +? H.Maguire ‘Garments Pleasing to God: the Significance of Domestic Textile Designs in the Early Byzantine Period’ DOP 44, (1990) 218-224,

K.Branigan

‘Gauls

in

Gloucestershire?’

TBGAS,

(1974)

83-95.

S.Applebaum in ‘Rural Settlements in Roman Britain' CBA Research Report 7, ( 866) 104. P.Salway, Roman Britain (1981) 329.

pl.1—-36.

114

The Definition and Interpretation of an Orpheus Mosaic

might represent a more generalised aspiration for a fruitful and safe life protected by Orpheus. Some patrons might have been making a show of their loyalty to the Establishment, the State, through its traditional representatives; perhaps they were members of the Imperial bureaucracy, or close to the throne, the senatorial aristocracy clinging to traditional religion and their classical heritage even when Christianity was in the ascendant, almost certainly the educated upper classes: Palermo I, Brading, Horkstow, Littlecote, El Pesquero. Another order of patronage would be public, in those places where the chamber may be interpreted as having an official character: Horkstow, Seleucia, Saragossa, Arnal, Jerusalem, although there may have been private funding from wealthy municipal aristocrats. Orpheus would signify the Golden Age peace, always eagerly sought, once to be found in the classical past. He signifies present harmonious concord in the Empire, the pax romana, the regulated order of the Establishment.

ease with which it could be accomodated to fit any size frame without necessitating complex subdivisions of the area. The circular panel and circular, subdivided designs

were popular in Britain for other subjects,*” Orpheus just one among many. The convention prevailed long after the

immediate

sense

of peace

attendant on the ‘restoration’

period, although the strict concentric schemes can be associated with the decade following (Barton Farm, Woodchester, Withington). The circular design for Orpheus is not unique to Britain. Forms of it occur at Salona, Merida, Volubilis and Ptolemais. The singularity lies in the predominance of this design over any other for Orpheus in the provinces of fourth century Britain. x

Kk KKKKX

Finally, what can be deduced about the patrons? Who were they, what might their needs have been which were answered by the image of Orpheus? No single character could describe the late Roman patron choosing the image of Orpheus, a figure of import pervasive at every level of society, every

Patrons asking for Orpheus on mosaics destined for burial chambers would have thought of him in his traditional role of the divine musician who safeguarded the defunct in the pagan afterworld and promised salvation. Some who put Orpheus in their reception rooms saw him as an elevated motif, a representative of esoteric philosophies, of a higher spirituality, of the heavenly realm to which they aspired, pouring out the music of the spheres; some were men who acknowledged him simply as the embodiment of the truth of Greek religion. Others saw a figure embedded in ancient superstitions, for Orpheus was continually associated with the magi and magical practices from the time of Plato to the fifth century AD at least. Some employed the image for its protective properties, perceiving Orpheus as a power to avert the potential harm of chaotic nature, harmonising its discords, a provider of bounty who would ensure prosperity and an unscathed passage through life. His image was one of the many agencies which could aid humanity in conquering Destiny, prolonging life beyond the term fixed by Fate. Chance no longer rules their lives when Orpheus brings order. Some men perhaps thought of Orpheus only as the poet, bringer of harmony, appropriate to decorate a room for quiet relaxation, or, with Orpheus as patron of the art of music, a room for concerts, for musical soirées.

time and location.** The mosaics represent the choice of the affluent man. Only the wealthy could commission what were often large and elaborate pavements in a suite of similarly rich floors, sometimes using glass and enamel tesserae. The emblema at Poljanice is constructed entirely of glass paste, though the style is crude. The image was popular, not in itself arcane or learned, indeed it was common to the extent of banality, but was deemed suitable for the proclamation of status (names are blazoned across the picture at Paphos and

Oudna), and for use in prestigious contexts. In African mosaic Orpheus may on occasion have been the badge of Greek culture for men eager to show their acquisition of it. In other instances the image may represent an alternative display of animals to the arena pictures, commissioned by men involved in connected trades who wished to show tamed beasts or to invoke supernatural powers of protection on the proceedings lavishly depicted in so many villas. Patrons may have been cultured, or were pretending to the culture which Orpheus signified, displaying their learning, or just the knowledge that learning, rhetoric and poetry were the hallmarks of the cultivated man. Perhaps they were only wealthy in relation to their milieu, where the only available artisans were of lesser quality, such as at Brading, Poljanice, the border fortress town of Camuntum. The installation of this sign of the cultured condition was perhaps more important to some than obtaining an artistically refined depiction. Certainly such examples are schematic, with few creatures, a statement rather than a display of animals.

There must have been as many reasons for choosing the image of Orpheus as there were commissioning patrons, motivated by anything from the affectation of learning, the emulation of the style of peers or superiors, to the most refined display of arcane knowledge. If this line of thought is pursued to its extreme, it can be said that one patron must have known or cared so little about the decoration of his rooms that he chose the subject at random, or left the choice to his decorator; at the other end of the scale, one patron carefully arranged the subjects including Orpheus to make a programme of imagery that would reflect his personal aspirations, a display of esoteric learning. In between come the many occasions, outlined above, when one or more of the several perceptions and powers attached to the multivalent figure of Orpheus was acknowledged as a reason for its choice.

The combination of Orpheus with imagery pertaining to fruitfulness, prosperity, a safe harvest from land and sea, may be associated with the aspirations of wealthy landowners, merchants and ship owners: Woodchester, Lepcis Magna, La Chebba, Djemila. The same imagery *7 D.Neal, Roman Mosaics in Britain (1981), 31-2.

+* Patrons have been characterised as men, but in some cases women must

have been responsible for choice of imagery. What, if any, difference might this have made? ‘Pendent’ imagery alluding to fruitfulness and safety perhaps. Possibly a whole sphere of influence has been overlooked.

115

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

As for the combinations of images which come together with Orpheus, some of these must have arrived as_ the conventional decorative accompaniments supplied by the mosaicists, on other occasions the particular expression of conventional themes would have been the choice of the patron. Whether everyone who saw a particular pavement saw in it the symbolic significance that has been delineated here it is impossible to say. The potential was there to read a metaphorical narrative in the imagery through the symbolism of antique figural language. Patrons would be steeped in this, no matter what their level of education. There was an accumulation of associations to the figure of Orpheus of which no one could be totally ignorant. Some would have drawn a wealth of meaning, others would have seen little. These are matters of education, taste and personality which still pertain today as regards visual imagery. For some people myths were no more than the background pattern of their own culture, the stories which provided subjects for theatre, art and decoration. For others each motif would be deeply significant, a repository of symbolism relevant to Greek religion even in its late antique manifestations.

governor of the province. For the central, public room, where the most important personages, not only local dignitaries and government but officials of Imperial perhaps, prestigious, maybe princely visitors from abroad would be received, the patron chose to represent himself, his learning,

his dignity and status with an image of Orpheus. This figure epitomised the heritage of classical culture, Greek polytheism rather than Christianity, harmony and prosperity. To choose Orpheus and his grand parade of subdued animals as the focal image of this magnificent chamber was a statement by which the patron tied himself to Rome yet extolled the solidity, safety and wealth of certain structures of society in fourth century Roman Britain.

The importance attached to the image, its link to centres of power, its fortuitous and prophylactic qualities, may help to explain the prevalence of Orpheus as a theme for mosaic, relative to the size of the country, in fourth century Britain. Orpheus is one of a few special subjects, Bellerophon is another, Bacchus the most pervasive subject in mosaic and other media, which found favour in a late antique, provincial repertory condensed to a few significant images which were pressed to serve more elevated ends than decoration. We see the same use of Orpheus in important locations where the imagery is associated with the pagan Establishment at Brading, Littlecote and Horkstow.

Of the motives behind the choice of imagery, none can be attached with any certainty to a particular image; one can only interpret in some cases the content of associated imagery, the location of the pavement, the social background prevailing in the region at the time, to suggest one reading against another. The villa at Woodchester covered a vast area, much of which remains to be excavated. It was built on such a substantial scale and so grandly symmetrical with, at its centre, the domed chamber housing the Great Pavement, that its original appearance can only be described as palatial. Its decoration was clearly a prestigious undertaking. Its context was a province, Britannia Prima, which has yielded evidence of considerable affluence, centred on Cirencester and Dorchester, in the expansive architectural complexes of other villas, for example Hinton St.Mary, Littlecote and Frampton. Woodchester may be the most grandiose of these undertakings, but may yet be no more than the most exuberant expression of the wealth and confidence of the ‘landed gentry’ at this time. Perhaps the owners were municipal the to belonging landowners, influential aristocracy, of British descent, grown rich on the profits of the wool trade.*° The villa complex included many buildings and yards apparently dedicated to rural activities in which wool production no doubt played an important part. The place is certainly not solely a farm, but even now royal country residences (eg. Highgrove) have their own home farms.

In late antiquity one image, that of Orpheus enchanting the animals, crystallised a complex archetype. Whatever reason the patrons had for choosing the subject, surely none would be totally unaware of other aspects of the legendary figure's multivalent persona, the magician, prophet, the salvationary, pacific, concordant Orpheus, the divinely inspired, yet tragic musician, hierophant and poet of the rites, tutelary genius of culture, inventor, propagator, teacher of culture, tamer of the excesses of the chaotic Dionysus, counterpart of rational Apollo, bringer of harmonious peace.

—=00000=-

Were the owners merchants, perhaps from abroad, connected with the sea—borne trade from the eastern Mediterranean which made Corinium more important than London in the fourth century?°° Or was Woodchester a palace? Was the owner a member of the senatorial aristocracy, or of even higher status? Perhaps he was a high-ranking member of the Imperial bureaucracy acting in Britain, maybe even the *° Rise of wool manufacture: R.G.Collingwood, J.N.L.Myres, Roman Britain and English Settlement, (1937) 239-40; VCH Wilts. I, 2, 455. *° Evidence for Mediterranean trade: 4th—SthC. pottery from North Africa in those extensively found communication: B.Walters.

areas

and

around

Exeter.

Personal

116

unappreciated. We expect the same of antique imagery. It is not unusual to be accused of ‘reading too much into it’. Put the other way around, might we not be overlooking the many layers of meaning inherent not only there, but in our own visual surrounds? The Roman observer would be as liable to and education taste, temperament, of differences responsiveness to imagery as the modem, so one can imagine the same disagreements as to 'what was there’ occurring in antiquity. The added complexity was the adherance to or dismissal of pagan religiosity, of which images of mythology formed a part.

Conclusion In the language of Graeco-Roman art, the image of Orpheus takes its place as though a phrase in a spoken tongue. I have the pattern of sentences, phrases, words, explored paragraphs which those sentences form. By these means I have hoped to tease from its syntactic web the meaning of one word in that phrase: the image of Orpheus in Roman mosaic. As with words, there was no fixed interpretation of nuanced the mosaic image, but a complex of related, meanings, changing with time, place and immediate circumstance. As the single element is meaningless unless it has the framework of linguistic structure, so the picture of Orpheus in mosaic is best understood when seen within the structures of pictorial language.

The climate of appreciation would be different also because the Roman observer would be capable of reading the symbolic language of antique figuration, not least because it was familiar to him in the form of state propaganda. The messages communicated in images of Emperor and State would have to be available at some level to all the inhabitants of the Empire. Whilst the most direct and simple idea would reach furthest, a complex and subtle symbolic language is displayed in the monuments which must, in part, stem from the pictorial language of art itself — self— referencing and universal at the same time. This deeper structural message might have gone unappreciated except by artists and perhaps commentators on art, nevertheless, it is there, and remains to be discussed by the modem arthistorian. Whatever can be found in the imagery of Orpheus would have been available to the Roman viewer. One cannot say how any particular mosaic picture of Orpheus was received, but can only consider what it was that it could transmit, what the potential message was, given the complexity of the figure of Orpheus in late antique imagination, to which the mosaic relates.

Firstly, it can be viewed in relation to the history of the visual depiction of all episodes of the myth, then relative to the development of the animal—charming scene in all media. Thus a context is provided for examination of the pictorial structure of the mosaics. Individual Orpheus mosaics reveal little when compared with one another on the basis of superficial affinities of design. Close attention to the iconography and style of the figures is more productive. When compared with examples of other subjects in their own medium, and with other artefacts depicting Orpheus, stylistic features belonging to the same local repertories become evident. The distinction between the African and eastern composition of type II panels has long been recognised and is complemented here by the revelation of two figure styles, originating from western and eastern centres of influence: the naturalistic and the stylised repertories. In the divergent pictorial structures different meanings are to be discerned. The repertories overlapped regionally, the eastern repertory being well represented in western locales along the great east-west routes of communication, eastern-style figures occurring in compartmental designs in the north-western provinces. The means by which the dissemination of imagery was effected remains for the most part unknown or conjectural. The movement of artisans following work around the Empire, however, is quite probable.

Commissioning patrons would be wealthy, so some degree of education can be assumed. The stories and personalities, at least, of the myths and legends would be well known, along with their characters and characteristic appearance. Some patrons would be aware of the practice of extrapolating character and moral value from such imagery, as is evidenced in texts on the interpretation of art. Any late antique observer might have seen nothing more than decoration in the sumptuous display before him, or he might have seen an arcane and convoluted symbolic narrative, or something on a more prosaic level. As for the mosaicists, the — sts arti fine than er rath n, tsme craf rs, rato deco were they distinction could not be so easily made these days. While in a few cases the execution of Orpheus mosaics is of a high standard, for the most part they are frankly second rate artistically speaking when compared with the achievements of sculptural media, for example. The juxtapositions and permutations of images produced by the mosaicists, from which the present conclusions regarding the meanings of Orpheus have been elicited, may have held no more meaning for them than that they were a stock of images to be placed according to tradition in certain combinations.

The evolution of the image, and the significance of Orpheus in media other than mosaic, have been principal themes of this investigation. These factors offered a means of defining and represent a image, of the mosaic the place complementary understanding that all figures in antique art were part of a greater visual language. Whatever it is that limits the depiction of Orpheus, at the same time defines any other figure associated with him. Because figures and scenes are subject to limiting conventions, appreciation of one is dependent on knowledge of the rules applying to the others. To understand Orpheus it was necessary to enter into the codes of antique art. First the preconceptions of the late twentieth century viewer were to be set aside. Accustomed as we are to fragmented images, to jumps from subject to subject, much familiar modern imagery is to us apparently devoid of content, with the deeper symbolic levels

However, while one must be aware that in some circumstances the iconography is conventional and the response by the patron might have been unimaginative, certain pictorial events lead one to suppose that the

117

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic prosperity and plenty, a beneficent personage, imagery so often and so emphatically reiterated, that a further inference may be drawn, that the very image itself had powers to produce that good. Orpheus was a good luck charm.

underlying conception of some Orpheus mosaics, and adjacent schemes of images, might have been more deliberate. Roman art tends to the conventional, it is adaptive rather than innovative. Clearly it changed in style and symbolic emphasis from the early Empire to late antiquity, responding to societal changes and provincial influences. Some visual patterns, or archetypes, however, remained constant, which can be detected beneath the differences rendered by the individual artisan, by periodic or local style. Where imagery is largely stereotypical, where the patterns can be predicted with confidence, which seems to have been the case with Orpheus, when that imagery steps outside the ordinary, then one is alerted to a new message. The meaning of an Orpheus mosaic is augmented by the meaning accruing to the additional imagery, which itself is modified by its placement with Orpheus.

The position of Orpheus in late antique thought comes under consideration here, seeking for a reflection in the mosaic image. Far from being simply a singer with prodigious powers over nature, he proves to have been important in late antique philosophy and religion. Orpheus remained an emblem of Greek polytheism, an authority on the nature of divinity, through whose religious teachings men could attain salvation after death, an ‘Orphic' philosophy which appears to have had some currency among the educated elite, while the Orpheus of magic and superstition kept his power to effect and safeguard the course of life. The many facets of the Orpheus persona were pervasive, so that few could be ignorant of them. The Orpheus who had charge of the pagan rites of the dead seems to have been well known at a late period especially in North Africa, where Orpheus has been

This is especially true of mosaics of the fourth century and later. Imagery from other decorative disciplines was imported into the standard patterns for Orpheus which had evolved from Hellenistic origins. To some extent this development indicates a change in craft practice, a modification of pictorial codes, which might be designated a crisis. Artisans were no longer creating imagery inspired by and dependent upon the pictorial language of their own craft, which lends fluency and assurance to visual production, but looked outwards to those crafts where imagination was flourishing, to textiles for example. The skill of imaginative creativity, more important than pictorial mimesis, seems to have declined with these late mosaicists. While many had not yet found a new and vital form of expression such as we see in the Coptic textiles, certain late images, such as Woodchester and Barton Farm, Jerusalem, El Pesquero, Sparta, exhibit a vivid picture making style which is not classical, indeed it is positively naive, but which is richly expressive and reaches out towards the more abstract virtues of Byzantine art. Others, such as Piazza Armerina and Chahba retaining something of Hellenistic pictorial structure, and succeed through a fusion of these virtues with painterly techniques. The decline is evident too, in sculpture, which becomes increasingly stylised until it produces the rigid and iconic figures on the base of the obelisk of Theodosius in present day Istanbul.

used for tomb mosaics. Other direct links, with the Orpheus of philosophy, so—called ‘Orphic' thought, for example, or the

Christian Orpheus, are not proven, but cannot be entirely discounted. There are examples of the Christian Orpheus which are unambiguous, with the Chi-Rho, or biblical imagery juxtaposed. This is not seen on mosaic, the complementary imagery is apparently pagan, therefore I have read it as without Christian intent. How it might have been perceived cannot be told. The picture of a singer with animals was at the same time stereotypical, often bland, yet operated as an important archetype of creativity, culture and religion. Although mosaics were functional, pavementing rooms, their imagery was not neutral, but lent an ambience of one sort or another to the chambers which they decorated. The image of Orpheus belonged to a compendium of mythic images constituting the figural and symbolic language of Graeco-Roman picture— making, where each was inextricably linked to every other one. This visual language was quite as powerful as those of literature, architecture, politics and so forth, in transmitting and reflecting the contemporary aspirations of society.

The importance of the part played by ‘pendent’ and ‘associated’ motifs, qualifying the central, formulaic picture to give each image its particular meaning, cannot be over—

The point is, that the addition of motifs in late Orpheus mosaics might be no more than a reflection of changes in craft structure, and should not be taken as_ esoteric

emphasised. Such motifs act in the same way for Orpheus in other media. Without this subsidiary imagery, and without a

symbolising. On the other hand, such differences as there are, whatever the impulses behind them, still respond to societal change. Whether the mosaicist or the patron was aware or not that his Orpheus mosaic contained a new message, or any message at all, matters little, because we are told something about the spirit of the age through the imagery.

relationship to other figures in Graeco-Roman art, Orpheus by himself could signify anything — nothing. The modem observer should read that associated imagery with particular care, in combination with individual features of the iconography. The character of the animal audience, the style in which the figures are presented, the location of the mosaic, and the historic background, are all factors which play a part. Each mosaic, distinguished from the others by the minutiae of imagery and iconographic detail, diversity of rendition and sense, has something different to offer.

Even with these provisos I remain of the opinion that certain more unconventional Orpheus images and combinations of scenes were programmed to represent something outside the standard conception of the mythical singer who represented an aspiration for the cultured man. Besides, was that the standard conception? The recurrent patterns of imagery occurring with Orpheus seem to imply a figure evocative of

In the first part of this work the concept of the figure in Graeco-Roman culture, and its visualisation was examined. 118

Conclusion x

The various aspects of the multivalent personality were accomodated under convenient headings. Thus it could be shown how many opportunities existed for the men of all epochs and from all strata of society to take Orpheus as a badge of their own aspirations. In the late Roman period Orpheus might represent the essence of romanitas rooted in Greek culture, peace and stability; the arts: music, poetry, rhetoric, the skills of the cultivated man. Orpheus, of the cosmogonic song, in late antiquity could express adherence to Greek religion. At the same time, the image could act for some as a prophylactic and promoter of prosperity. So important was Orpheus as a numinous figure of pagan religiosity, with power over nature and knowledge of the afterlife, on all levels from esotericism to superstition, that he was absorbed into Judeo-Christian philosophy. He was considered an acceptable moral exemplar both by Christian apologists and pagan philosophers.

KK

KK

KX

The ambition fuelling this research, to come to some understanding of the unique group of Orpheus mosaics from Britain has been fulfilled. Each mosaic was Roman discussed where a particular point of its iconography was pertinent to the argument. In this way the place occupied in the corpus by the British mosaics has been demonstrated. They are not all alike, though with two exceptions they were set in the same circular frame, but belong with several repertorial groups rather than the single unifying category of Romano-British mosaics that has hitherto been employed to describe them. Salient aspects of their iconography have been revealed here to contribute to their discussion. The search began with the Great Pavement of Woodchester. Even in its fragmentary state, it of all the Orpheus mosaics of the Empire, with its circle of subdued beasts, its heraldic fox and peacock, the powerful surge of the acanthus from which Oceanus rears up, the naiads, bathed in the blue water of their pools, who pour fresh streams from their urns, the dazzling surround of geometric patterns, represents a supreme achievement of Roman art. It remains so, and it remains hidden.

Part Two involved a close examination of the pictorial structure of the mosaics, the way they look. The delight taken by modern viewers in the spectacular display of animals in the best mosaics cannot be far different than it was for the Roman observer. However the allusion to their gory demise in the arena would not give us a thrill, while the commemoration of the munera would add a layer of meaning unavailable to us. We would not take the same pleasure in an inept rendering, while he might see the beauty of the idea however badly realised the image. Much of the appreciation of the picture of Orpheus lay in drawing from it the poetry, moral values and spirituality this image represented. At the same time it offered the enjoyment of re-telling the myth it illustrated, reminded observers of arena displays, or acted as a comforting protection against evil spirits. The fruitful working of the image in the mind of the antique observer was the measure of its success, not how far its appearance conformed to classical ideals.

—=00000=-

Texts in which Orpheus appears, lyric poetry, histories, epics, Philostratus' description, Christian apologia, cannot be taken as direct influences upon the formation of visual imagery, for they often obey literary conventions of their own. They seem to have been complementary manifestations describing the charismatic persona. Sometimes the literary picture seems to have been influenced by contemporary art

traditions. The mosaic image served many functions according to the personal aspirations of the patrons, in their turn responding to their cultural milieu. A single, concise conclusion as to its place in late Roman society is impossible to reach. In order to understand more it would be necessary to research in greater depth than I have been able each of the areas in which Orpheus was involved, which reflect on the pictorial construction of the mosaics and their meaning. Besides his iconography there are topics such as the literary, religious, philosophic, social and historic manifestations of the legendary figure and his popularity to be found in the texts. The subject of the antique Orpheus is vast. Eminently universal, each mosaic represents a person, a place, a moment.

119

Appendix One

parallels encourage the collection of items into a set. The tendency for similarities to be stressed within a nominal set leads to the glossing over or dropping of characteristics which obtrude into the new vision of a coherent entity. The mosaics are now accessed in their catalogues as a homogeneous group, but the very form of presentation might be obscuring the importance of distinctions, giving the

The Cataloguing of Mosaics Since the last century scholars have attempted to record and catalogue every single artefact carrying a depiction of the singer, of which the mosaics form the largest group. The results of this devotion are presented in the form of monographs and catalogues. These provide the main access to the corpus of mosaics, extant examples of which are scattered across what was the Roman Empire, some in museums, some in situ, the remainder represented only in documentary form. Does this method of storing information effect our assessment of Orpheus in mosaic? A collection of similar items has a fascination. Catalogues attest to the popularity of Orpheus for archaeologists and classicists, and to a preoccupation with including all material in an enveloping scientific framework.

Orpheus mosaics a new, modern, context which lends the same sense to them all. It is a short step to believing that

each image had the same significance for each Roman observer. Valuable information on the use and diffusion of imagery in the Graeco-Roman world is harboured in the differences between Orpheus mosaics. Whilst a useful tool for collating information, the catalogues are by no means the best source for a discourse on the significance of the image in the antique world. The perception of the antique image has become influenced by the recording process. The structuring of the catalogues has come to determine contemporary conceptions of the image of Orpheus in mosaic. It seems fitting that the development and structure of catalogues be examined, as well as an assessment made of what they set out to achieve. For this work, they form a principal source and, indeed, model. Besides, the form is an excellent one with which to chronicle discoveries.

Orpheus' importance in antiquity guarantees large entries in are inventories such where dictionaries classical appropriately placed. These have formed the precedent for subsequent presentations. The prestige of the pagan figure in early Christian philosophy and art was one point of interest for the late nineteenth century scholars who began the recording process.’ The number of items recovered which depict Orpheus encouraged their collation into a group: large enough to make Orpheus prominent in relation to other classical figures, yet not so large as to make a catalogue unwieldy nor the material impenetrable.

and interpretation iconography Essays on comparative offered with the catalogues on the whole suffer the same tendency to see the grouping of Orpheus mosaics as an established fact, and a firm domain from which to extrapolate information. The prototypical work is that most often cited as a source by subsequent writers, the list of Orpheus mosaics in the exhaustive article ‘Orpheus’ by O.Gruppe in Roscher's Lexicon, which notes every classical literary reference, the mosaic list forming part of a catalogue of all the representations of Orpheus in ancient art (he draws on earlier work).” The 27 mosaics are grouped by country of origin, beginning with Italy. Gruppe gives references in which some inaccuracies appear. In some cases he names the animals in Orpheus’ audience. P.Gaukler, DA, vol.III (1904), '‘Musivum Opus’, lists 31 mosaics; depictions in other media are discussed by Monceaux in the article ‘Orpheus’. K.Zeigler offers a later discussion.*

Many of the mosaics were discovered intact, but, sadly, were destroyed as being of no contemporary interest; our present delight in the fragmentary, and our enhanced capability for preservation has promoted interest, during the later twentieth century, in the more incomplete and mundane remnants of the past. So the mosaics are now valued as historical documents, rather than disregarded for the intrinsic worth of their material. Every slightest fragment assumes an importance. Pictorially they mirror conventional models, but respond enough to changing fashions and regional preferences to make them varied and interesting. Continual discoveries are adding new material which clouds certainties about unity of style and significance.

A common form of presentation has been the appending of the catalogue to a description of a single Orpheus pavement, the subsequent discussion of which includes consideration of further groups of Orpheus mosaics, in the form of a catalogue raisonné. G.Guidi on Lepcis Magna and H.Stern on Blanzy—-lés—Fismes set this pattern, followed by V.von Gonzenbach on Swiss mosaics, U.Leipmann on Hanover and D.Michaelides on Paphos. Guidi, in 1935, made the first attempt to analyse the Orpheus mosaics organising them according to design and composition.* He listed 29 Orpheus mosaics dispersed through the text as examples of each of his categories. Guidi, like Gruppe, omitted to mention

The catalogues remain the most convenient source for the corpus of material and reference for papers devoted to individual studies. The fact that they provide the principal route of access for the mosaics raises a difficulty, imposing a homogeneity upon them which is not tempered by attempts to contain them within design categories. A tradition of cataloguing the Orpheus of antique art has come into being and taken on a momentum of its own. These activities have become ends in themselves: the seductive draw of the list, the desire to add one more mosaic than can be found anywhere else, to fit new images into the existing framework.

2 ©.Gruppe

in Roscher's Lexicon III (1898),

‘Orpheus in der Kunst’, col. 1172

The natural justification for bringing the Orpheus mosaics under a single heading is that they all depict the same subject presented in a superficially similar manner. Such visual

Stephani,

Comptes

Rendus

ff. Amongst

(1881)

‘Orpheus’

- XIV,

102,

others he acknowledges:

102-107.

Knapp,

Uber

Orpheusdarstellung (1880). Some of the inaccuracies have been noted by Stern, though erroneously repeated elsewhere.

* K.Zeigler,

*

G.Guidi,

RE XVIII, 1 (1939) cols. 1200-1316.

'Orfeo, Liber Pater e Oceano

Africa Italiana VI (1935) 110-155.

' E.g: O.Kern, Orphicorum Fragmenta, (1922).

120

in mosaici

della Tripolitania’,

The Cataloguing of Mosaics

67 mosaics regionally, beginning with Italy, noting present locations and working his way around the provinces of the Roman Empire in a geographical sequence which does not immediately reveal its logic. Each well referenced mosaic is briefly discussed, with important archaeological information and critique. He gives a descriptive heading,” but offers no interpretation of figuration, after the general discussion on the mosaics in his work on the history of Orpheus in art. The list of mosaics forms part of the general catalogue of Orpheus in Graeco-Roman art. This makes it easy to compare them with depictions in other media, either showing the animal charming scene or other episodes from the legend. arranged is medium, by divided catalogue, The approximately in chronological order, mosaics coming near the end. All items are similarly categorised and described, making this the best available reference work to date. Its greatest value lies in its comparative function, since the mosaics are not iconographically isolated.

notable British mosaics known for some time previous to

publication,*

so with

the exception

of Horkstow,

their

concentric circle design remained uncategorised by him. In 1955 Stern appended a catalogue of all the Orpheus mosaics then known to him, 47, to an article on the mosaic of

Blanzy—lés—Fismes,

France.

His

discussion

of

the

iconography of Orpheus among the animals is the standard, forerunner work. With it he presented a refined design classification. His list of mosaics is arranged by country of origin, beginning with France, Blanzy at the top. Each mosaic is categorised according to his new typological system.® The format of Stern's well referenced catalogue is clear, easy and useful to consult. Certain mosaics are omitted from his main list where he considered their attribution uncertain, but every mosaic he thought depicted Orpheus is acknowledged, if only in footnotes, or is discussed in the main article. Stern's catalogue is now thirty years out of date and the many discoveries made since then should be taken into account when considering his theories. On the subject of the iconography of Orpheus in Greek and Roman art, Stern's later articles (1974, 1980) are invaluable and many new ideas are added to the discussion of the earlier catalogue, some of which supersede its propositions. Guidi and Stern set a pattern for the classification of Orpheus mosaics, thus establishing as a fact that the mosaics fall into classifiable groupings, but do they?

Again appended to the discussion of a new Orpheus mosaic,’° U.Leipmann's catalogue of 1974, listing 70 mosaics, gives only name, location and limited references. The mosaics are organised under five headings relating to their state of preservation.'* Within the categories they are placed in alphabetical order according to present location, a confusing system when they are customarily known by the name of their original site, so the two from Lepcis are separated (nos. 15, 36). On British mosaics she is unclear and inaccurate. Some of her information is now simply out of date, on Littlecote, for example.'* Other inaccuracies are transposed from earlier lists, but where appropriate she points out Schoeller's mistakes. She lists six mosaics not included by Panyagua, of which three were discovered after his publication, he includes four which she had omitted.'* Her catalogue therefore includes 64 certain examples. Otherwise it provides a useful source. No commentary is provided for the mosaics, though within the article she joins the discussion on comparative iconography, being principally concemed with the North Syrian mosaic in the Kestner Museum, Hanover.

Two new, descriptive catalogues of Orpheus in Greek and Roman art encompassing depictions in all media appeared around the same time, by F.Schoeller in Germany, 1969 and

E.Panyagua in Spain, 1970-72, but are of different quality.’ As far as his list of Orpheus mosaics is concerned Schoeller is inaccurate, his discussion unreliable. Panyagua's excellent listing is thorough. Late antique work in the minor arts, such as ivories and textiles, which have a relevance to the iconography of the latest Orpheus mosaics, are omitted from both catalogues. Panyagua promised a sequential catalogue of the Christian Orpheus, which ought to have included catacomb paintings and sarcophagi, but this has so far failed to materialise. The objects are discussed in his earlier publication tracing the history of the figure of Orpheus in

Graeco-Roman

The article by A.Ovadiah, include the later Orpheus area the in frequently

art,* which notes throughout affinities of

style or figuration occurring between all the depictions. Cabrol—Leclerq in DACL provides examples of what was considered the Christian Orpheus. Late antique pagan images remain uncollated as such.

1980, extends the period to mosaics, which occur more Eastern the concem, of

Mediterranean.'* He attempts a new design classification,

ton Bar g bin cri des es’ mal ani y aves de o ead rod ico mus eo ‘Orf e mpl ° For exa Farm, no.226;

‘Orfeo musico con animales’ for Littlecote, no.229. A brief

explanatory description follows.

Panyagua was not convinced by the typological division of the mosaics made by either Guidi or Stem, (1973, 434) preferring to disregard such attempts to draw the wide variety of designs into a rigid framework. He organised his

"©" U.Liepmann, 'Ein Orpheusmosaik im Kestner-Museum zu Hannover’, Neiderdeutsche Beitrage zur Kunstgeschichte 13 (1974) 9-36. The mosaic was brought to the Kester Museum in 1970.

'" The mosaics are organised under five headings relating to their state of

D ; yed tro des C s; heu Orp of ge ima lost with nt exta B nt; exta A : ion vat ser pre

heus. She disallows 6 mosaics Orpheus; E destroyed, not extant, but not under D and E, including Littlecote, Whatley and Trier, which are here

designated as Orpheus mosaics. Of those disallowed in this work, she puts

Aix under A, Oudna II under B, Dyer Street under C.

* Gruppe in 1898 omits both Woodchester and Barton Farm, as well as La

‘2 Pitney shows a seated figure in Phrygian dress, holding a

Alberca, Spain, found 1892, as Panyagua, (1967) notes. Guidi, in 1935, also omits Withington, Winterton, Littlecote, Brading, all known before, citing

may

be read as Attis, paired with Sagaritis, or, following

which R.Stupperich,

ph nym the with a an, dsm her a as s Pari -7, 296 80) (19 XI nia tan Bri n bee has c.) IX 6.X pl. ibid am, nsh Key I. XVI 6.X pl. 77) (19 th Smi Oenone.

only Horkstow.

© “H.Stern, ‘La Mosaique d’'Orphée de Blanzy—lés—Fismes’, Gallia XIII (1955) 41-77. E.R.Panyagua. ‘Catalogo de representaciones de Orfeo en el arte antiguo’. I — Helmantica XXIII 70 (1972) 87-135. II — Helmantica XXIII 72 (1972) 75 (1973) 433-498. F.Schoeller. 393-416. III — Helmantica XXIV us in der Antike’ (1969). ‘Darstellungen des * E.R.Panyagua, ‘La figura de Orfeo en el arte griego y romano’, Helmantica XVIII, 56 (1967) 220-228.

thought to show the oracular head of

Smith follows Stupperich's interpretion seeing her reflection piping. '*

Liepmann

lists

Hanover,

Adana

heus (Toynbee,

1964, 241), but

(294-6) of the group as Minerva and

Panik

(new

discoveries)

and

Jerusalem. She also includes Caerwent I and a second Orpheus at Oudna (Oudna Il). Panyagua lists Arnal, Bavai, Djemila, notes Comb End. + A.Ovadiah and S.Mucznik, ‘Orpheus Mosaics in Roman and Early

121

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic mosaics, in an iconographic study. While several mosaics fit into broad, overlapping categories, no exclusive boundaries enable the modern observer to come to grips with the subject. Any number of sets can be made by grouping and regrouping mosaics exhibiting variants of design, composition and iconography, but this endeavour on its own adds little to our knowledge of stylistic provenance, significance or function, so long as such sets are self—referencing. When all factors are taken into account, it can be seen that each mosaic would demand a class of its own, or more detailed headings with which to describe it.

simply making two groupings with subdivisions. Only 21 mosaics are used as examples of the classes. This is not a full catalogue. It might have been instructive if all the known mosaics were subjected to placement within the system to see how many more subdivisions were actually necessary to encompass all variants. The variety of design would have become evident as well as the unwieldiness of the design Classification in practice. The iconography of the chosen mosaics is discussed, some useful interpretations are proposed, but in such a short paper it cannot be other than a superficial review of the subject; there are some inaccurate attributions.

The mosaics were separated by time and place, their models not so much each other, as a study of the catalogue collections would lead one to believe, nor specific paintings, but a concept, the archetypal image of Orpheus to which each depiction aspired. More immediate influences came from the appearance of Orpheus in other media, particularly small portable items and ephemeral media, far more accessible to the antique eye, and sculptured relief. The modern observer perceives similarities between the Orpheus mosaics because of the bracketing effect of the catalogues, with their pages of illustrations. Such juxtapositions should have shown up their patent differences, since even a cursory glance reveals the diversities. The treatment of a popular theme within the conventions of a traditional visual aesthetic ensured the antique observer's immediate recognition of and response to the intended subject. A certain uniformity will appear in the depiction, which is only a superficial layer of the pictorial structure, but which is the view drawn from catalogue presentation.

The British Orpheus mosaics separately grouped were treated by J.M.C. Toynbee in 1963, which informative study was enlarged upon by D.J.Smith in 1969. In 1983 he described, illustrated and fully referenced 11 British Orpheus mosaics, refining Stern's type III, which was the designation for the concentric—circle composition virtually specific to

these mosaics.” His meticulous account omits analysis and interpretation of the iconography, as he himself allows. The most recent cataloguing of mosaics comes in the article by D.Michaelides on the Orpheus mosaic of Nea Paphos, Cyprus. There, in footnotes, all the entries in Liepmann's list are organised by country of origin (retaining her numbering system). His total of 83 includes several mosaics she missed, adding examples disallowed by her, and recently discovered examples not collected elsewhere. Subtracting incorrect entries leaves 75 certain examples.'® He offers a comparative iconographic study, finding stylistic affinities for the Paphos Orpheus.

Conversely Roman patrons and artisans may not have perceived dissimilarities since they could have no idea of the state of the entire corpus. Patrons could only see the examples nearest to hand, or when visiting, artisans only those occurring within their working orbit, which they might show as sketches. Their intention was to provide an image which fitted the genre. The conceptual image of Orpheus amid the animals, coupled with its appearance on the myriad of items in other media which abounded in the Roman Empire, would have influenced the picture realised in mosaic, as well as mosaic practice in the working milieu.

Details of all the proposed categorisations are discussed in the chapters on design (Chapters Six, Seven) in relation to particular mosaics. Generally speaking, attempts up to the present to impose a definitive system of classification according to composition and design, have not been totally successful. All systems are valid as far as they go, only preferable from the standpoint of ease of understanding and convenience of use. In this respect Stern's categories remain viable, since they encompass most design types and allow mosaics to be referenced by his numbering system. His observation that certain designs were regionally specific remains something of a guide, though subsequent discoveries have introduced enough exceptions to cloud the picture.

The fact diverse existing all come

Only in a few circumstances do mosaics survive showing the effects of fashion and copying: mosaics laid on nearby sites within a short space of time, so that both artists and patrons could easily have had sight of an existing example. Orpheus mosaics from Britain display local fashion, with a vogue for their particular pattern and evidence for a single workshop producing more than one example (Barton, Woodchester; plus other subjects). Mosaics from the Greek East displaying ‘mannerist’ style are repertorially linked, but while the two from Cos both belong, they differ in design, composition and figure models. The intention may have been to produce something different in the later mosaic (Cos I). Elsewhere two mosaics from near Sfax, Tunisia (Sakiet, Thina) are like in composition, dissimilar in style. Of the two mosaics with the same design from Sousse, Tunisia (Sousse I, IT), one was evidently influenced by the other, but the figure work differs. Two from Merida, Spain (Merida II, II) are of similar

is, as demonstrated earlier, the mosaics are more in design, composition, style and figuration than catalogue systems allow. While in broad terms they within Stern's types, as Panyagua has pointed out

(1973, 434), neither he nor Guidi distinguished the various

types

of Orpheus

figure

as a means

Byzantine Periods’, Assaph I (1980) 43-56.

'*

J.M.C.Toynbee,

of classifying

Art in Britain Under the Romans,

the

(1964) 228-289;

D.J.Smith, 'The Mosaic Pavements’ in A.L.F.Rivet, ed. The Roman Villa in Britain (1969) 71-125; Smith, "Three Fourth Century Schools of Mosaic in

Roman Britain’ in La Mosaique Greco—Romaine I (1965) 95-115, not strictly a catalogue, but does include a discussion of the Orpheus mosaics. Idem, ‘Orpheus Mosaics in Britain’ in Mosaique. Receuil d‘hommages a Henri Stern (1982) 315-328, plus plates.

'© D.Michaelides, ‘A New Orpheus Mosaic in Cyprus' in V.Karageorghis,

ed. Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium "Cyprus Between the Orient and the Occident” (1985) 473-489.

122

The Cataloguing of Mosaics

design, one much cruder and less elaborate than the other. Three mosaics from different regions, from Sparta, from Chahba, Syria, and from Carnuntum share a common model. Here it is unlikely that the patron or craftsman of one saw the other. The two mosaics from Palermo are quite different, though both show eastern influence. The African provinces of Byzacena and Proconsularis were the source of a vast mosaic production, reflected in the number of Orpheus mosaics. With so many ‘ateliers' at work at one time, it is not surprising that their mosaics offer widely differing styles. This is a problem which the catalogues do not address, and which, indeed, they disguise. The categories proposed so far by modern scholars are so general as to preclude the observation of distinctions, compounding the picture of stale repetition and copying which is the reputation of Roman art. Comparisons have been made according with the desire to uphold the tradition of Orpheus mosaics as an integral group which do not bear close analysis. Only the subject is the same. As a method for description and collation, catalogues have their uses, but they do not help to reveal the artistic structure of mosaic imagery, nor the place of the image in Graeco-Roman culture. In the main body of the work an attempt has been made to break from the viewpoint imposed by the structure of the catalogues and to seek the wider picture. If, as I have suggested, catalogues are obstructive, why will yet another be added here? One reason in this instance is to allow assessment of this contribution by comparison with its precedents. The catalogue uses a similar presentation, with the addition of repertorial and iconographic features, explored in the chapters on artistry, presented as data. From this information internal affinities between mosaics can be adduced. The listing is geographic, so that regional styles are Clarified. Some comment is made with each entry. No catalogue could claim to be complete, to list all Orpheus mosaics. New examples are always being discovered, others, summarily notified, remain unpublished and forgotten, so there must always be unavoidable omissions. In all the catalogues errors of transcription occur, inaccuracies are copied from list to list, non-existent mosaics are cited, multiple entries made for a single mosaic. All of these will be commented upon in the catalogue included here, with the hope that the same errors have not slipped in. No attempt is made to ‘sort’ the mosaics into an order limited by the imposition of theory.

~=00000=-

123

1. MOSAICS CATALOGUED: Alphabetical order:

Appendix Two

Catalogue of Orpheus Mosaics

Number in catalogue follows name.

*= probably; The arrangement of the catalogue is such as will best display Stylistic associations and geographic proximity, therefore headings do not necessarily conform to either modern or Roman regional boundaries. The mosaics of Italy head the Adana list, including the earliest. The movement spirals out via Aix*** La Alberca Sicily, along the North African provinces to the Iberian Antalya peninsula, into France, across the Alps, down the Danube Amal and through Dalmatia, touching Greece and on to Asia Avenches I* Minor, passing along the Aegean coast, then Pamphilia and Avenches II Cilicia, Cyprus, thence to the East and down to Egypt and Cyrenaica, where the later mosaics are found. The Orpheus _—‘ Barton Farm mosaics of Roman Britain have final place in the catalogue, § Bavai* Beirut*** as the special focus of this study, appropriately, Blanzy distinguished stylistically from the rest by their design. Brading Caerwent I** listed | Caerwent II*** are mosaics groupings geographic Within Cagliari alphabetically. All mosaics considered are entered in the greater catalogue, to allow for comparison. Those without an | Carnuntum Carthage asterisk are definitely images of Orpheus. Those with a single asterisk* are included as probably depicting Orpheus | Chahba La Chebba where the accompanying figures, characteristics of designor Cherchel figuration, or ensembles of pendent scenes indicate a likelihood of his presence, though in some cases it may be | Comb End** Constantine arguable. Those with two asterisks** possibly depicted CosI Orpheus, where certain features suggest his iconography, but Cos II there is no conclusive evidence of his presence. El Djem (Thysdrus) Djemila Those marked with three asterisks***, and placed at the end of each entry, are not, in the opinion of this writer, Orpheus § Dyer Street*** Edessa mosaics, though claimed to be so elsewhere, either where the imagery is unclear, where they are erroneous citations, listed | Féret de Brotonne Gaza*** elsewhere or are non-existent mosaics. These are numbered a) b) c) etc. after the last entry in each group.

Six lists which indicate the above groupings and serve as indices precede the catalogue. 103 mosaics are listed altogether. Of these 85 comprise the definites and probables. The rest are putative or non-existent. For each mosaic, the details given, where known, are: the original location in its building, the place and date of discovery, present location, bibliography, measurements and design type (following Stern's typological system insofar as it can be applied). Notable iconographic features are listed as additional data. For example, the Graeco-Roman concert cithara is distinguished from the rustic lyre, except where the mosaicist has produced a garbled version of an ancient, but unknown instrument, which has been categorised as ‘lyre’. Only such animals notable as species or for the manner of their depiction are mentioned. This form of presentation allows for comparisons and reveals stylistic groupings, which are made immediately apparent either by consulting the entries for adjacent sites or by cross-referencing in parentheses.

| |

| |

| |

124

**=possibly;

60 46a 28 61 35 49 50 76 37 73a 38 77 78 Ola 5 54 11 70 12 pe) 79 2 62

63 13 24 91b 71 39 73b

Gloucester**

80

Guelma* Hanover

25 72

Horkstow _Italica*** Jerusalem Keynsham*** Lepcis Magna I Lepcis Magna II _Littlecote Lyon*** Mactar* Martim Gil Meridal Merida II Merida III* Miletus Mytilene Newton St.Loe Orbe Oudnal Oudna II***

81 34a 73 91c 9 10 82 46b 14 36 29 30 31 64 65 83 51 15 2la

Palermo I

6

Palermo II*

7

*** =not.

Catalogue of Orpheus Mosaics Panik Paphos Paternoster Row** Perugia El Pesquero Piazza Armerina Pit Meads* Pitney*** Poljanice Pont d'Ancy** Ptolemais

Avenches II Barton Farm

Blanzy Brading Cagliari Carnuntum Carthage Chahba La Chebba Cherchel Constantine Cos I Cos II

Rome Rottweil

El Djem (Thysdrus) Djemila

Rothenburg*** Rougga Rudston** Saint Colombe Saint-Paul Saint—-Romain Sakiet—es—Zit Salamis* Salona Sta. Marinella I Sta. Marinella II*** Santa Marta Saragossa Seleucia Sousse I Sousse II*

Edessa Féret de Brotonne Hanover Horkstow Jerusalem

Lepcis Magna I Lepcis Magna II Littlecote Martim Gil Merida I Merida II Miletus

Mytilene Newton St.Loe Orbe Oudna I Palermo I Panik

Sparta Stolac* Tangier Tarsus

Thina Tobruk Trento Trier*

Paphos Perugia El Pesquero

Trinquetaille Tunisia*

Poljanice Ptolemais

Vienne I Vienne IT Volubilis Wellow Whatley* Winterton

Rome Rottweil Rougga

Piazza Armerina

Withington Woodchester Yverdon* Yvonand

2. Status of Orpheus Mosaics: 1. Orpheus Present Name

Cat. no.

Saint Colombe Saint-Paul Saint—Romain Sakiet—es—Zit Salona Sta. Marinella I Santa Marta Saragossa Seleucia Sousse I Sparta Tangier Tarsus Thina

Tobruk Adana La Alberca

Antalya Arnal

Trento

Trinquetaille Vienne I Vienne II

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic Volubilis

3. Regions and Numbering

Wellow Winterton

Withington ITALY:

Woodchester Yvonand

1.

Perugia

2. Rome 3. Santa Marinella I 4. Trento 4a. Santa Marinella II***

Total

2. Probably Orpheus Mosaics: Orpheus not Seen. Avenches I* Bavai* Guelma* Mactar* Merida III* Palermo II* Pit Meads* Salamis* Sousse II* Stolac* Trier* Tunisia*

LIBYA:

Whatley* Yverdon*

9.

Lepcis Magna I

10.

Lepcis Magna IIT

SARDINIA: 5.

Cagliari

SICILY: 6. 7. 8.

Palermo I Palermo II* Piazza Armerina

TUNISIA:

Total Grand Total

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 21a.

Caerwent I** Comb End** Gloucester** Paternoster Row** Pont d'Ancy** Rudston** Total

Carthage La Chebba El Djem Mactar* Oudna Rougga Sakiet-es—Zit Sousse I Sousse II* Thina Tunisia** Oudna II***

4. Not Orpheus

ALGERIA:

Oudna II*** Pitney*** Rothenburg*** Sta. Marinella II***

46a 73a 9la 91b 73b 34a 91c 46b 2la 91d 48a 4a

Total

12

Aix* ae ok

Beirut*** Caerwent II*** Dyer Street*** G az a* 2

Italica*** Keynsham*** Lyon***

22. 23. 24. 25.

MOROCCO: 26. 27.

Tangier Volubilis

SPAIN:

28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

18 Grand Total

Cherchel Constantine* Djemila Guelma*

103 126

La Alberca MeridalI Merida II Merida III* El Pesquero

Catalogue of Orpheus Mosaics 33.

Santa Marta de los Barros

34.

Saragossa

34a.

Italica***

ASIA MINOR: 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67.

PORTUGAL: 35. 36.

Aral Martim Gil

FRANCE: 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44, 45. 46. 46a. 46b.

Bavai* Blanzy—lés—Fismes Forét de Brotonne Pont d'Ancy** Saint Colombe Saint Paul—lés—Romans Saint Romain—en—Gal Trinquetaille Vienne I Vienne II Aix*** Lyon***

Adana Antalya CosI Cos Il Miletus Mytilene Seleucia Tarsus

CYPRUS:

68. 69.

Paphos Salamis*

THE EAST: 70. 71. 72. 73. 73a. 73b.

Chahba Edessa Hanover Jerusalem Beirut*** Gaza***

GERMANY:

CYRENAICA: 47. 48.

Rottweil Trier

Ptolemais Tobruk

48a. Rothenburg***

74. 75.

SWITZERLAND:

BRITAIN:

49. 50. 51. 52. 53.

76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87.

Barton Farm Brading Caerwent I** Comb End** Gloucester** Horkstow Littlecote Newton St. Loe Paternoster Row** Pit Meads* Rudston** Wellow

88. 89. 90. 91.

Whatley* Winterton Withington Woodchester

91a. 91b.

Caerwent II*** Dyer Street***

Avenches I* Avenches II Orbe Yverdon* Yvonand

AUSTRIA: 54.

Carnuntum

BOSNIA AND HERCEGOVINA 55. 56.

Panik Stolac*

SERBIA 57.

Poljanice

91c. Keynsham*** 91d. Pitney.***

CROATIA: 58.

Salona

GREECE: 59.

Sparta

127

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

(1976).

THE CATALOGUE

9 x 8m. TYPE Ia. Black and white. Nine circles enlaced in rows of three, cf. Rougga [16]. Facing left. Nude, wreathed. Several animals in each circle, randomly oriented, including butterfly, lizard, frog, giraffe. But are they original or work of engraver? 2nd century.

ITALY 1 2

Perugia Rome

Santa Marinella I 3 4 Trento 4 a. Santa Marinella II*** — not Orpheus.

4, TRENTO. Public gardens of Corso Rosmini, Trento. Italy. Jn situ. Fogolari, FA 13 (1958) 243, no.3685. PI.XX, fig.57 (erroneously 58 in the text). Harrison (1962) 13, n.5. Charitonidis 25, no.6. Panyagua (1973) 466, no.202. Liepmann no.35. G.Tosi, ‘Mosaico romano di Trento con figura di Orfeo', RINASA III series I (1978) 65-87, inc. ps. Michaelides 478, n.44. Floor 9.15 x 6.10m. Decorative surround and figured panel 7.24 x 4.71m. Bichrome with some polychrome. TYPE Ia/b. Within circle, 6 hexagons around central hexagon with

1. PERUGIA. Baths, Perugia, Italy. 1876. In situ. RPGR 202, 4. Guidi 123-4, fig.14, group II. M.Guardabassi, Notizie degli Scavi (1876) 181f. (1887) 6 and 309 pl.XI. U.Tarchi, L’arte I (1936) pl.253-5. M.E.Blake,

nell'Umbria e nella Sabina

MAAR XI (1936) pl.38, 4, watercolour of 1877. D.Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements (1947) I, 362. Gonzenbach (1949/50)

278.

Bolletino

della

Commissione

Orpheus. Cf. St.Colombe

communale

Semi—draped, bare feet. Phrygian bonnet. Lyre. Animals in compartments running clockwise across trees cf. Salona [58], Stolac [56], Winterton [89]. Confronted birds and plants. Snake around tree growing from frame cf. Ptolemais [74], Tobruk [75]. PENDENT: dolphins with anchors, tridents. Fish, waves, molluscs. Fogolari sees the dolphin and anchor motif as Christian, omitting from the argument the combination of fish and tridents (Neptune). Panyagua refutes this, evidencing the use of dolphin and anchor in pagan contexts. 250AD.

LXXIII 1949/50 (1953) 79ff. figs.7 and 8, showing new fragments. Stern 70, no.14. Thirion 161. Panyagua, Orfeo 229. Schéeller 38, no.30 pl. X, 2. Panyagua (1973) 463, no.194, Liepmann no.22. Ovadiah 45, 52, fig.5, group Ib. Michaelides 478, n.44. 18 x 8m. TYPE Ila. Black and white. Rock seat, tree. A muscular nude, in profile right, gazes left, wind—blown hair. Bare feet. Cithara. 40 animals remain. Zebra, rhinoceros, camel? crocodile, owl, tortoise, monkey. 1SOAD.

2. ROME.

4a. SANTA MARINELLA IL.***

From a dwelling perhaps belonging to Pactumeia Lucilia and her family, found under the cloister of Sant'Anselmo on the Aventine. 1892. Antiquarium, Rome, Italy. G.Gatti, NS

(1892),

134.

Blake,

MAAR

XI

(1936)

3 and

160,

pl.

XXXVIII, 'probably...Antonine’. Gonzenbach (1949/50) 277, 278. Thirion 161. Stern 71, no.16, fig. 15. Schdeller 38, no.195. 463, (1973) Panyagua 3. plIX no.34,

P.A.Gianfrotta, ‘Il sull'aventino e le (1976) XXVIII Severan). Liepmann Floor 5.75 x 3.25m, and white. Heavily

In the garden of a modern villa, Santa Marinella. Gianfrotta, Arch.class. XXVIII (1976) 198-205, pl.LXIX. 2.47 x 1.09m. A copy of the mosaic from the monastery of Sant'Anselmo, Rome. The work of a late 19th. century firm specialising in restoration. Another copy, pl.LXXI, exists in an unknown private collection. Not antique Roman.

mosaico di Orfeo a sant'Anselmo sui reproduzioni', Archeologia classica (perhaps pls.LXIX-LXXII 198-205, no.25. Michaelides 478, n.44. Orpheus 5.21 x 2.16m. TYPE Ila. Black restored. Rock seat, large tree. Frontal,

semi—draped, wreathed, animals. Hippopotamus,

[41]. Rock, tree. In profile right.

SARDINIA 5.

Cagliari

5. CAGLIARI.

bare feet. Lyre (restored). 32 tortoise, lizard, snail, monkey,

ia. din Sar ri, lia Cag ct, tri dis ca pa am St la, vil h ric a From 1762. Museo Archaeologico, Turin, Italy. G.Spano ‘Orfeo, l. Bul ’, ino Tor do no zia egi eo mus nel nte ste esi do sar o mosaic Arch. Sardo (1858) 161ff., 1 pl. RPGR 200, 4. Guidi 130, fig.20, group III. Gonzenbach (1949/50) 278. L.Manino, ‘Il Mosaico sardo di Orfeo del Museo archeologico di Torino’ di e ia log heo arc di e tes mon pie a iet Soc la del ino let Bol in belle arti IV-V (1950/51) 40-53, figs. 1-4. 2nd.C. Stern 70, , 197 no. , 464 73) (19 ua ag ny Pa 46. no. 39, ler éel Sch 13. no. fig.30. S.Angiolillo, ‘Tl mosaico di Orfeo al Museo di

camel, horse, ram, ewe. PENDENT: a centaur attacked by fierce animals, striking a tiger. Debased figure style (allowing for modern work), and animal repertory indicate 4th century. 3. SANTA MARINELLA. From ant. Punicum, near Civitavecchia, Italy. c.1840. Destroyed? Guidi, 130. Stern 70, no.15. Guidi 130, group IV, Blake MAAR 13 (1936) 159-69. Gonzenbach (1949/50) 285. Toynbee (1964) 256, n.1. Schdeller 37, no.25. Panyagua

Torino’, Studi Sardi 23 (1973-4) 181ff., pl.1, IV; idem, Sardegna (Mosaici Antichi in Italia) (1981) no.101, OOff. pl.XLIII. Liepmann no.39. Michaelides 478, n.44.

(1973) 464, no.196. Liepmann no.59. P.Gianfrotta, Formae Italiae Regio VII, vol. WI, Castrum Novum, Rome (1972) 56-7, fig 97. Michaelides, 478, n.44. Gianfrotta, Arch.class.

c.6.85 x 4.60m. TYPE

IIc. Really Ib without delineated

compartments. Rocky setting, trees. Semi—draped, bare feet.

128

Catalogue of Orpheus Mosaics Phrygian bonnet. Lyre. Orpheus accompanied by fox which looks back at him cf. Salona [58], and crow cf. Miletus [64], Rottweil [47]. PENDENT in same field: genre hunting motifs, running animals. ASSOCIATED: Hercules. 250—75AD.

464,

no.198.

no.24.

Liepmann

Dunbabin

196-212,

n.3,

bibliography 243-5. A.Carandini, A.Ricci, M.de Vos, Filosofiana (1982), Part II, pl.XV:36 (black and white) Orpheus, 138-44, figs 64-8. Ovadiah (1980) group Id, 47. R.J.A.Wilson ‘Roman Mosaics in Sicily: the African connection’, AJA

413-28;

Ixxxvi,

idem

‘Piazza Armerina'

(1983), with bibliography. Boeselager 186-192. Michaelides 478, n.44.

SICILY

10.10 x 6.10m. TYPE Ila. Apsed room. Cf. Sakiet [17], La 6. 7. 8.

Alberca [28], Amal [35], Martim Gil [36], Orbe [51], Whatley [88]. Landscape setting, rocks, leafy trees. Semi— frontal. Long Thracian robes, cloak, red shoes. Phrygian

Palermo I Palermo II* — probably Orpheus Piazza Armerina

bonnet. Lyre. Pangolin, snail, camel, hedgehog, wolf, mouse, monkey, seated fox looking up, hippopotamus, rhinoceros, mongoose, tortoise, bison, cockerel. Griffin, phoenix. 60 creatures, 56 can be counted. Square pool in room cf. Blanzy

6. PALERMOI. From a roman villa (edificio A), Piazza della Vittoria. 1869.

[38], Woodchester [91]. Statue of Apollo musagetes adored

Museo Nazionale, Palermo, Sicily. RPGR 201, 2. Guidi 129, fig.18, group II. B.Pace, Arte e civilta della Sicilia antica (1939) 178-88. D.Levi, Berytus 7 (1942) 37-51, fig 1. Gonzenbach (1949/50) 277. Manino, 47. Stern 71, no.18, fig 10. Thirion 163. Parlasca 111 and n.8. Enciclopedia del Arte

the apse. ASSOCIATED: Hunting; collecting for the amphitheatre, Arion and marine display, vintaging and fishing erotes, Ulysses, palaestra, circus, Eros and Pan, glorification of Hercules. c.325AD.

Antica V (1963) 746, col. plate, A.Bisi: Orfeo 744ff. I.Tamburello, FA 21 (1966) no.4485. 4th.C. Panyagua, Orfeo 228. W.Dorigo, Late Roman Painting (1970) 157, n.44. Schéeller 37, no.27 pl.IX 2. Budde 173-4, pls. 185-6. Panyagua (1973) 465, no.199. Liepmann no.20. R.Camerato—Scovazzo, ‘Nuove Proposte sul grande mosaico di Piazza della Vittoria a Palermo’, Kokalos 21 (1975) 23173, pls.50-63. Dunbabin 197. Ovadiah (1980) 44, 51 figs. 1,2, group Ia. D.von Boeselager, Antike Mosaiken in Sizilien

LIBYA

9. Lepcis Magna I 10. Lepcis Magna II 9, LEPCIS MAGNA I. From a Roman house incorporating an olive press, ‘Villa di Orfeo’, within the city, near the west wall, Lepcis Magna, Libya. 1933. Tripoli Museum. G.Guidi, ‘Orfeo, Liber Pater e Oceano in Mosaico dell Tripolitania’, Africa Italiana 6

(1983) 186-192, no. 128, pl.LXIV. 4th.C. Michaelides 478, n.44, 6.14 x 5.55m.

TYPE IIa. Rock seat, tree. Semi-—frontal. ‘Phrygian’ dress. Short, loose Roman tunic, waist belt, leggings, cuffed Thracian boots. Lyre. Outstretched arm. Seated fox looking up, lizard, tortoise, monkey, ostrich. ASSOCIATED: divinities, "Loves of Jupiter’ (cf.Sparta [59]

(1935)

figs.

1-11.

Gonzenbach

(1949/50)

277.

Manino 46, fig.5. Stern 72, no.25, fig.17. Panyagua, Orfeo

224, 228. Schdeller 36, no.15, pl. VIII 3. Panyagua (1973) 491, no.246, fig.42. R.Bianchi Bandinelli, Rome, The Late Empire, fig.239 (colour). Liepmann no.36. Dunbabin 109, n.5, 264. Probably late 2nd C. Ovadiah 45 group Ib.

— Europa), Hercules, winds, marine figures, fish. Late 3rd

century.

S.Aurigemma, L’Italia in Africa Tripolitania I (1960) 52-4, pls.106—14. Michaelides 479, n.45. TYPE IIb. One large and six small panels in a grid. 5 x 5m. Orpheus and 23 animals in long rectangle, 2 x 0.67m. Rock seat. Three-quarter view facing right. Thracian embroidered robes, mantle round knees. Phrygian bonnet. Cithara. Hartebeest, addax, red deer, fallow deer, owl, cockerel, bustard, guinea fowl. PENDENT: two scenes of rural activities, one of fishing, three panels with xenia motifs, fruit and fish cf. La Chebba [12]. 3rd century.

7. PALERMO II*.

From Via Maqueda, Palermo, Sicily. Museo Nazionale. Guidi 130, fig 19, Group II. Stern 71, no.19. Schéeller 37, no.28. Panyagua (1973) 465, no.200. Liepmann no.50. Boeselager 186-192, pl. LXIV, no.129. Michaelides 478, n.44, TYPE Ila. Lost Orpheus. Running beasts. Running fox, monkey. Late 3rd century.

8. PIAZZA ARMERINA.

10. LEPCIS MAGNA II.

From a large diaeta of the Villa Herculia, Piazza Armerina near Casale, Sicily. 1946. In situ. G.V.Gentili, La Villa imperiale di Piazza Armerina 1954 13ff. 79, pl.29. Idem

From the zone north of the palaestra and west of the nymphaeum, in good condition. 1953. In situ, reburied. E.Vergara Caffarelli, FA VIII (1953) 290, no.3887. H.Sichtermann, AA (1962) 495. Harrison 13, n.8. Panyagua

(1971) 43, pl.29. B.Neutsch, AA 69 (1954) 568-9. Thirion 161 and 168-9. Stern 71, no.17. Gentili, La Villa Erculea di Piazza Armerina, I mosaici figurati (1959) 26-7, 67, fig. 10 line drawing of whole mosaic, pls. 44-5, details, colour. Harrison 17, n.25. Dorigo 157 (Ch.Six). Panyagua, Orfeo 232, fig.19, detail. Schdeller 38, no.32. Panyagua

110-155,

(1973) 492, no.247. Liepmann no.15. Michaelides 479, n.45. Not described.

(1973)

129

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

octagon centre of second row. Now shown reduced. Phrygian bonnet, half lyre, striped sleeves. All animals recumbent cf. Saint Colombe [41]. Birds in 4 lozenge—wise squares. PENDENT: next room, masks, satyr, bacchante. Late 2nd

TUNISIA 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 21a.

Carthage La Chebba El Djem Mactar* — probably Orpheus Oudna Rougga Sakiet—es—Zit Sousse I Sousse II* — probably Orpheus Thina Tunisia** — possibly once existed. Oudna II*** — not Orpheus.

century. 14. MACTAR*.

11. CARTHAGE.

From room I of the portico of the Schola Juvenum, juventus mactarina, Mactar, Tunisia. Retained even after conversion of the schola to Christian use in the mid—4th.C. Destroyed in 5th.C. barbarian raids. Fragments in situ. G—Ch.Picard ‘Civitas Mactarina', Karthago VIII (1957) 107-8 fig.9c, pl.XXXVII, e, f. J.Huskinson, PBSR XLII (1974) 68-97, 89, no.23. Deer, duck, bee—eater, one other. Looks like Orpheus composition.

Oecus, "Maison des chevaux'. Jn situ, Antiquarium, Carthage,

15. OUDNA.

Tunisia.

J.W.

Salomonson,

La Mosaique

aux

chevaux

de

Roman villa, Sahelian coast, prov. Byzacena, Tunisia. 1902.

From frigidarium of private baths of "Maison des Laberii’, Oudna, ant. Uthina, Tunisia. 1894-6. Musée du Bardo, Tunis. Inv. IT Tunisia no.381. P.Gaukler, Mon-Piot iii (1896) 177-229 pl.XX-XXII + figs. RPGR 201, 8. R.Eisler, Orphisch—dionysische Mysteriengedanken in der Christlich Antike 1925 (1966) 111, 123, 188, 191, 218 and fig. Guidi 124-5 fig. 16, group II. Gonzenbach (1949/50) 277. Manino 47 fig.6. Stern 73 no.27. Thirion 162 and n.1, 169 and n.1, P1.VI. 250-75AD. Panyagua, Orfeo fig.17. Schdeller nos.4, 47 and in part 6: identical. Charitonidis 25 pl.11, 1. M.Yacoub, Le Musée du Bardo (1970) 69, fig.72. Panyagua

Musée du Bardo, Tunis. Inv. II, Tunisia I, no.88. Guidi 137-

(1973) 485, no.239. Liepmann no.37. Dunbabin 25 n.47, 135,

l'Antiquarium de Carthage (1965) 68, 118 (tableau 44) fig.48, pl.XLIX:3. Michaelides 477. Dunbabin 44, 95-6; pls. J, 84-6, p.253 (d) ii. Chequerboard, panels of opus sectile alternating with mosaics with single figures, some reduced versions of mythological scenes, each with a racehorse, to allude to the name of the horse. Phrygian bonnet. Lyre. PENDENT: circus, charioteers of the factions. After 300AD.

12. LA CHEBBA.

n.23, 152, n.81, 266 (n), pl.134. Ovadiah, 45, 51, fig.3, group Ia. Michaelides 479, n.45. Entire pavement 11.50 x 12.60m. Orpheus 4.50 x 6m. TYPE Ila. Rock seat, tree. Semi—frontal. Semi—draped, bare feet. Phrygian bonnet. Lyre. Snake in bush, hartebeest, monkey. LABERIORUM PRAEDIS IN ‘MASURI. Inscription: LABERIANI ET PAULINI. MASURI.' Head deliberately mutilated, cf.Sakiet [17]. ASSOCIATED: Adjoining the hall with Orpheus was a cold dip, three steps into basin, fountain in the form of an amor riding a dolphin. Eisler believed it to be a piscina for Orphic ritual baths. 230-SOAD.

8, fig.27. Gonzenbach (1949/50) 276. Stern 73, no.28, fig.8. 175 AD. Thirion 163, n.1, pl. VIII. L.Foucher, Latomus 58 (1962) II, 648-9. Schdeller 35, no.5. Panyagua (1973) 488,

no. 242. Dunbabin 135, 254. Early 3rd.C. Liepmann no.38. Michaelides 479, n.45. 3 x 4m. TYPE Ia. ‘Cushion pattern’ compartments. Orpheus in curvilinear square to right of central panel. Wand—bearing genius on dolphin on other side (so-called Arion) = Palaemon? Cf. Djemila [24]. Rocky setting, leafy tree. In profile left, twists right. Thracian robe, cloak. Phrygian bonnet. Lyre. PENDENT in centre: line fisherman, sea—going fishing boat; other panels: fruit, vegetables, fish, cf. Lepcis I [9], porphyrion pecking plant, peacock. Gaukler (/nv.) thought central scene later, Guidi, Panyagua thought it original, there is no reason to think otherwise. Mid-late 3rd century.

16. ROUGGA. From a sumptuous residence still in the course of excavation, 1980. Archaeological Rougga, ant. Bararus, Tunisia. Museum, El Djem. R.Guery, ‘L’occupation de Rougga (Bararus) d'aprés la stratigraphie de Forum’, Bulletin des Comtes des travaux historiques et scientifiques, nouvelle série 17, fasc.B. (1981) 91-100. H.Slim, ‘Orpheus Charming the Animals’, in Carthage: A Mosaic of Ancient Tunisia, exhibition catalogue, N.Y. (1987) 210-11, no.78 + colour pls. Late 2nd—3rdC. 4,13 x 3.59m. TYPE Ia. Nine tangent circles and six tangent semi-circles, formed of foliate wreaths round circular and semi-circular panels. Cf. Santa Marinella [3]. Rocky setting, tree. In four outer interstices, trees; in central four, birds. Semi-frontal. Semi—draped, wreathed, sandals. Cithara. Hedgehog, lizard, tortoise, bustard, stork, running boar, bull.

13. EL DJEM. From a Roman villa in El Djem, ant. Thysdrus, quartier Bir Zid, NW of the amphitheatre, 1960. El Djem museum, Tunisia, one panel (deer) presented to HM. The Queen Mother. L.Foucher, Découvertes archéologiques 4 Thysdrus en 1960, 8-10 pls.1, II; ibid, ‘La Mosaique d'Orphée de Thysdrus’, Latomus 58 II (1962) 646-51 pls.137-8. Harrison 13, n.7. Panyagua Orfeo 224. Charitonidis, 25 n.4. Panyagua (1973) 488, no.243, fig.41. 190's AD. Liepmann no.10. Dunbabin 258. Michaelides 479, n.45. 4.55 x 3.50m. TYPE Ia. 4 rows of 3 octagons, circular medallions, 8 occupied by animals, bust of Orpheus in

130

Catalogue of Orpheus Mosaics

from Cologne (no.140) showing Orpheus with a musician monkey and tibia—playing centaur. The Sousse ape perhaps imitates or even joins in with Orpheus, rather than parodying him, which would be a different emphasis. The monkey assumes importance, sitting on the cithara, in later depictions of Orpheus. PENDENT: winged erotes drive teams of different fishes, one holding victor's palm, imitating circus factions, cf. erote venatores at Miletus [64]. c.275AD.

ASSOCIATED (unpublished): amphitheatre and circus scenes, Diana (+ hunt?), Helios, Phaeton. Mid—3rd century.

17. SAKIET-ES-ZIT.

From baths? or oecus? of villa, at Sakiet—es—Zit, north of Sfax, ant. Taparura, Tunisia. 1953. Fragments (considerably reduced since excavation) in Musée Municipal, Sfax. J.Thirion, ‘Orphée magicien dans la mosaique romaine’ MEFRA LXVII (1955) 149-179, Pls.I-VIII. Stern 77, no.47. J.Aymard 'La quérelle du cobra et de la mangouste dans l'antiquité’ MEFRA 71 (1959) 254—8 and 261-2. Panyagua,

20. THINA. From Henchir Thina, ant. Thaenae, near Sfax, prov. of Byzacena, Tunisia. Formerly in Municipal Museum, Sfax. Destroyed in second World War. Inv. II, supplement (1915) no.32a, p.6. RPGR 202, 2. Guidi 125, 128, fig.17, group II. Gonzenbach (1949/50) 277. Stern 72, no.26. Thirion 162-3, 169, nl, pl.VII. 250-350AD. Panyagua, Orfeo 227. Aymard, MEFR 71 (1959) 254-8 and 261-2. Schéeller 39, no.40. Budde 24, 220, n.12. Panyagua (1973) 486, no.240. Liepmann no.60. Dunbabin 273, no.135, n.23. Michaelides 479, n.45. 5.60 x 5.20m. TYPE Ila. Landscape setting, leafy tree,

Orfeo 224, idem: (1973) 487, no.241. Charitonidis 25, n.3. Liepmann no.33. Dunbabin 135, 268. Michaelides 479, n.45.

c.4.50 x 4.50m. + apse. Apsidal chamber, cf. Piazza Armerina [8], La Alberca [28], Amal [35], Martim Gil [36], Orbe [51], Whatley [88]. TYPE Ila. Landscape setting, leafy tree, rocks. A small altar or sacred pillar beside Orpheus cf. Thina [20]. Frontal. Thracian robes, cloak. Phrygian bonnet, trousers, heavy shoes. Lyre. Mongoose and cobra, tortoise, lizard, scorpion, monkey, ape. Griffin. Face mutilated, cf. Oudna [15]. First half of 4th century.

18. SOUSSE I.

rocks,

sacred column,

cf. Sakiet

[17].

three-quarter view

facing left. Thracian robes, cloak. Phrygian bonnet. Cithara. Mongoose and cobra, flamingo, monkey, ape, ram, fallow stag, tortoise, hare and stork. PENDENT: Seasons. 300-350AD.

From villa, Sousse, ant. Hadrumetum. 1929. Musée de Sousse, Tunisia. Omitted by Stern. Foucher, /nv.Sousse (1960) 57.025, 8-9, pl. III. Foucher, Latomus 58 (1962) 649 pl.CXXXIX, figs 5-6. Panyagua (1973) 489, no.244.

21. TUNISIA**.

Panyagua, Orfeo 223. Liepmann no.31. Dunbabin 269, 2.(i) and ii. Michaelides 479 n.45.

3.70 x 3.30, central panel of a larger pavement. TYPE Ia. Circular frame, interlaced bands of laurel, cf. Piazza Armerina [8], Sousse II [19], El Pesquero [32], Blanzy [38], Barton Farm [76], Woodchester [91], form panels occupied by birds and beasts around Orpheus in damaged central compartment. Rocks, tree. Thracian robes. Lyre. Guinea— fowl. PENDENT: fishing erotes. Mid 3rd century.

Supposedly formerly in possession of the Comte d'Hérisson. Heron de Villefosse, Bulletin de la Societé nationale des Antiquaires de France, (1883) 321: ‘assis sous un arbre et tenant sa lyre’. L.Chatelain, Publications du Service des Antiquités du Maroc I (1935) 5. Stern 72-3 n.1, disallowed it, saw no evidence of actual existence. Schdeller 39, no.45. Panyagua (1973) 491. Liepmann no.63. Michaelides 479 n.45.

19. SOUSSE II*

21a. OUDNA II***

Ant. Hadrumetum, 1882. Upper part only, no centre, Louvre, Paris. Cat. sommaire des marbres antiques du Louvre (1896)

From ‘Villa des Laberii', Oudna, ant. Uthina, Tunisia. Fragment in Musée du Bardo, Tunis. Museum Inv.A.140. Inv.II Tunisia no.374. Gaukler, Mon.Piot Tl, 207ff. no.32. Stern 72, n.1, disallows it. Panyagua (1973) 491. Schdeller 35, no.6, mistakenly adds Guidi 125, fig.16 and Manino 47, fig.6, actually illustrating Oudna I. Yacoub, Musée du Bardo

no.1798. Inv. IT no.145. Guidi 138, group IV, B, f. R.Eisler,

Orpheus the Fisher (1921) pl.30; idem, Mysteriengedanken 14, fig.6, mosaic with its threshold panel. Guidi 138, no.4. Gonzenbach (1949/50) 285. Foucher, Inv.Sousse no.57.125; idem, Latomus 58 (1962) 649, pl.CXL, fig 7. Schdeller 38, 39 nos. 29 and 41, identical. Panyagua (1973) 489, no.245. Panyagua, Orfeo 223, fig.16. Liepmann no.51. Dunbabin 270, no.15, and no.14, threshold panel 105-6, pl.94, Inv.Sousse 57.124. Probably early 4th C. Michaelides 479, n.45. Presumed Orpheus mosaic. Same design of interlaced bands of laurel as previous. 1.925 x 1.12m (size of remaining fragment). TYPE Ia. Stern 72 n.1, disallowed it, he did not consider that Orpheus appeared in the form of the mandolin—playing monkey nor did he see any reason why Orpheus should ever have graced the centre. Panyagua (1973) disagrees. 490-1, he discusses the monkey and a notable parallel, a terra sigillata plate

(1970) 71. Liepmann no.52. Dunbabin 266 (1). Michaelides 479, n.45. Shown on plan of villa (Gaukler 1896) to be panel in peristyle leading on to oecus with scene of Ikarios (room 32). Hunt with hounds Ederatus and Mustela lies between the two. Design of animals and acanthus rinceau with volutes

ending in animal protomae. Row of animals standing at each end, aligned to face observers walking along corridor, not towards missing central image. PENDENT: Hunt; Dionysus and Ikarios. Probably not Orpheus. c.200-220.

131

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic Ino—Leukothea? dolphin, on WJNereid PENDENT: Personification of the shore? Boy charioteer driving dolphins, Palaemon? Marine genius. Border of marine religious festival, fishing, commercial marine activities cf. La Chebba [12]; in other angles: Hero and Leander, Perseus and Andromeda, Ulysses. Principal scene: marine triumph of Venus, statue of Neptune. End 4th to Sth century.

ALGERIA

. Cherchel . Constantine* — probably Orpheus Djemila . Guelma* — probably Orpheus 22. CHERCHEL.

25. GUELMA.* From the flat roof above a funerary cavern. Cherchel, ant. Jol Caesaria, Algeria. Destroyed? Taken to France according to Guidi, whereabouts unknown. Inv. JII, Algeria, no.440. Heron de Villefosse, Bull.Soc. des ant. de France (1883) 320-1, with sketch. RPGR 201, no.9. Guidi 122, description, group I. Stern 73, no.30. Panyagua, Orfeo 221. Schéeller 35, no.7. Panyagua (1973) 484, no.237. Liepmann no.54. Dunbabin 138, 255 no.18. Michaelides 479 n.45. 6.50 x 3m. TYPE Ila. No seat, scattered plants cf. Jerusalem [73]. three-quarter view right. Blue tunic, trousers, purple mantle, red shoes. Phrygian bonnet. Lyre. Hartebeest, ostrich. 4th century?

P.Herval, Précis analytiques des travaux de I'Acad. des Sciences, Belles Lettres et Arts de Rouen, (1969) 116. D.Parrish, Season Mosaics of Roman North Africa (1984) 261, Al. No detailed information on provenance, condition, technical details, features, present location. No date. No photo. Orpheus in centre, comer personifications of Seasons. According to Herval, the same as Forét de Brotonne [39].

MOROCCO 26. 27.

Tangier Volubilis

23. CONSTANTINE*. 26. TANGIER. From over a funerary cavern, Constantine, ant. Cirta, Condiat-Ati, Algeria. 1865. Destroyed. Inv. III, Algeria no.221. Guidi 138 group IV, B, f. Stern 73, no.29. expresses doubt about an Orpheus image. Panyagua, Orfeo 221. Schdeller 35, no.10. (1973) 484, no.236. Panyagua Liepmann no.56. Dunbabin 138, 255, no.2. Michaelides 479, n.45, 1x 1m. TYPE Ia, b? Central, oval medallion held by putti cf. Edessa [71]. Two square panels on either side cf. sarcophagus design. On one side camel, elephant, stag drinking, other: Orpheus among palm trees, felines, snake, tortoise, hedgehog. 4th century?

From Tangier, Morocco in the construction of the church. 1880. Destroyed. Only one panel 40cm sq., the lion and a tree, in the private museum of the Franciscans. Inv. III no.458. Bull.Soc. Antig. de

(1881) 97; ibid (1883), 319. Guidi

Spanish remains, Spanish France

138 group IV, B, f.

Thouvenot, MEFR 53 (1936) 27. Stern 74, no.32. M.Ponsich ‘Une Mosaique d'Orphée', Bull. d’archéol. marocaine V1 (1966) 479-81, pl.1. Schdeller 39, no.43. Liepmann no.61. Chatelaine (1935) 4. Dunbabin 272. Michaelides 479, n.46. TYPE Ia. Grid of square panels, each 40cm.sq. Late 2nd

century.

24. DJEMILA.

27. VOLUBILIS.

From room XI, ‘Maison de I'Ane', adjacent to temple of Venus Genetrix, next to the forum, Djemila, ant. Cuicul, prov. of Constantina, Algeria. Djemila Museum. Inv. III Algeria, no.293. Y.Allais, Djemila (1938) pl. X fig. 20; idem, 'Mosaique du Musée de Djemila (Cuicul). La Toilette de Venus’, Actes du 79e congrés national des societés savantes, Algér 1954 (Paris 1957) 76-83. H.Stern, Le calendrier de 354, (1953) 278; idem (1955) 49, n.8. Panyagua (1973) 484, no.238. Dunbabin 43, 134, 256, pls.128-9. Blanchard—~Lemée, Quartier central de Djemila 23-106, esp. 61-84, pls.I-XXVIII. Michaelides 477. Romanos, Actas del Mosaicos D.Femandez—Galiano, Homaneje in Memoriam A. Balil (1990) 181-208, pls.I-III. Main scene: Triumph of Venus, Orpheus in upper left angle of figured border. Setting of land with bulls and trees intruded into marine-scape. Stern believed Arion would have a better place in the programme than Orpheus, Panyagua refutes his arguments. Three-quarter view facing left. Arm outstretched. Loose tunic with striped long sleeves and clavi cf. Tarsus [67], trousers with ornamented front bands cf. Vienne I [45], thick seamed shoes. Cloak. Heavy, banded Phrygian bonnet cf. Chahba [70]. Cithara.

Tingitaine, Volubilis, Mauretania d'Orphée', "Maison Morocco. 1926-9. In situ. L.Chatelaine "Mosaiques de Volubilis', Publications des antiquités du Maroc I (1935) 1-

10. R.Thouvenot, 'La Maison d'Orphée a Volubilis’, PSAM 6 (1941) 43-7, fig.1; idem 'L'art provincial en Mauretanie Tingitaine, les Mosaiques', MEFRA LIII (1936) 27 and pl.Ill, 3, detail; idem ‘Volubilis’, Coll. Le Monde Romain 160. Stem 74, no.31, fig.14. (1949) 48-9. Thirion

Academie d'Orphée’, mythe ‘Le A.Dupont-Sommer, Nazional dei Lincei (1975) colour picture. Liepmann no.42. Smith (1963), 106, n.56. Panyagua (1973) 482, no.234. 135, 277. Ovadiah (1980) 47, group IL. Dunbabin Michaelides 479, n.45. 5.75 x 5.75m. TYPE III (circular Ia). Circle radially divided by trees growing from outer border, cf. Newton St.Loe [83], Withington [90], bird—filled branches frame Orpheus at centre, beasts in compartments around. Rocky setting. Lyre. feet. bare wreathed, Semi-draped, Frontal. Hippopotamus, barbary sheep, mongoose, monkey, hawks, bustard, owl. Two griffins. Some 60 species. PENDENT: birds + canthari or fruit baskets in spandrels. ASSOCIATED: marine subjects, chariots, sea—gods, atrium

132

Catalogue of Orpheus Mosaics name. 1980 Alvarez—Martinez, Mosaicos Merida 27-30, no.1, fig 1, pls.1-5; idem: Actas Balil 32-3 no.2, fig 1, pl-III. Fragment 5.83 x 4.72m. TYPE Ia. Birds in a grid of guilloche—-edged circles and ovals, animals in lozenge—wise squares bordered by peltae. Orpheus in central, concave— sided octagon. Rocky setting. Thracian robes. Cithara. Wolf. Griffin. 3rd century.

and piscina. Mauretania Tingitaine abandoned by Roman administration late 3rd century (Thouvenot, Volubilis (1949) 18-19; Dunbabin 31, n.85). Mid—3rd century. Unlikely to be after 230AD.

SPAIN 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 34a.

La Alberca Merida I Merida II Merida III* — probably Orpheus El Pesquero Santa Marta de los Barros Saragossa Italica*** — not Orpheus

31. MERIDA III*. From a Roman house with baths, found in the garden of the Parador Nacional de Turismo, calle Almendralejo. 1986. Alvarez—Martinez, Mosaicos Merida 49-51 no.4, pls.21—2; idem, Actas Balil 33-4. no. 3, p1.IV. Fragment 1.50 x 1.52m. TYPE Ia. A similar, but less elaborated scheme than the previous, cruder workmanship. A lion and wader remain. No Orpheus seen, but assumed to have existed on a parallel with the above. End 3rd century.

28. LA ALBERCA. From a rich Roman villa, by La Alberca, near Murcia. Province of Murcia. Spain. 1892. Destroyed. A.Engel, Rev.Arch. ser.3, 29 (1896) 2, 218. M. Chamoso Lamas, Archivo Espanol de Arqueol. 17 (1944) 293. Stern 72, no.22. Panyagua (1973) 474, no.220. C. de Mergelina, ‘Tres sepulturas levantinas', Bol. del Semin. de Ests. de Arte e

32. EL PESQUERO. From a large central room next to the peristyle courtyard of the villa of El Pesquero, 20km from Badajoz. 1984. Alvarez—Martinez, ‘Nuevos documentos’, Bath, 1987 (1994) 217-224, figs. 6-10, colour fig.8; idem, Actas Balil 37-8, no. 7, pl. VI. Central panel 3.80 x 3.20m. TYPE IIb. Within a square, octagonal panel cf. Trinquetaille [44] edged by laurel cf.Piazza Armerina [8], Sousse I [18], II [19], Blanzy [38], Barton Farm [76], Woodchester [91], laurel berries at angles. Landscape setting, rocks, trees, no seat, Orpheus outlined in white; marble? footrest cf. Panik [55]. Frontal. Long-sleeved long robe omamented with orbiculi cf. Saragossa [34], Cos I [62]. Cloak. Phrygian bonnet. Cuffed Thracian boots. Cithara. Tortoise, ostrich, owl, elephant, red deer, fallow deer. Sphinx, cf. Panyagua (1973) no.142, mould for tazza, Trier, 4th.C; ibid nos.180, 181, marble groups, Athens, Sabratha, 3rd.C, Orpheus with beasts and sphinx. PENDENT: in angles, craters sprouting acanthus; acanthus scroll with baskets, fruit, birds, beasts, cf. Jerusalem [73]. After 350AD.

Arqueol. IX (1942-3) esp. 42-3. 4th.C. Liepmann no.57. J.M.Blasquez—Martinez, Corpus de mosaicos de Espana Fasc. IV, Sevilla, Granada, Cadiz y Murcia (1982) 81, no.92.

Michaelides 478, n.44. AEsp.de Arg. 58-60 (1985-7) 113. Alvarez—Martinez,

‘Nuevos

documentos’,

Bath

(1987),

below, 224ff.; idem, Actas Balil 35-6, no.5. Inscription — IRIUS read by Blasquez as (V)IRTUS. 2nd C. c.3 x 4m. Apsidal room, cf. Piazza Armerina [8], Sakiet [17], Amal [35], Martim Gil [36], Orbe [51], Whatley [88]. TYPE IIb. Thracian robes, wreath. Griffin. 4th century. 29. MERIDA I. From ‘calle Travesia de Pedro Maria Plano’. Formerly in

Museo de Alcazaba, Merida. 1983. Michaelides 477. la para Documentos ‘Nuevos J.M.Alvarez—Martinez iconografia de Orfeo en la musivaria hispanorromana' in Acts of Vth International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics, Bath, Sept 5—12th, 1987 (1994), Part I, 211-227 and colour fig.8, esp. figs 1-5: Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary

33. SANTA MARTA DE LOS BARROS. From a large central room next to the peristyle courtyard of a considerable Roman villa in La Atalaya, near Santa Marta, province of Badajoz, Spain. 1925. Unprotected after Museo in fragments damaged, badly excavation, Arqueologico Provincial de Badajoz. J.Ramon Melida, Catalogo Monumental de Espagna. Provincia de Badajos (1907-9) I (text 1925) 385-7, no.1583; II (plates) pl.CXXXI-CXXXII (figs.188-9), bad photos. M. Chamoso Lamas, AEArg. 17 (1944) 293. B.Taracena, Arte Romano = Ars Hispaniae Il (1947) 157. Panyagua (1973) 475, no.221.

series number 9. Idem: Actas Balil 40-1, no.10, fig.2; idem: Mosaicos Romanos de Merida Nuevos Hallasgos (1990) no.3, 37-49, fig.3, pls.8—20. Overall 10.60 x 4.20m, with several scenes, central panel with Orpheus 1.96m.sq. TYPE Illa. Two concentric circles. Bichrome with polychrome in the Orpheus panel. Rock seat, fruit tree. In profile facing right. High-waisted Phrygian dress, striped long sleeves. Long cloak. Trousers, sandals. Phrygian bonnet. Lyre. Wren? Squirrel, rabbit, bustard, scorpion, fox. PENDENT: in spandrels winged telamones issuing from acanthus; vintaging erotes, Silenus and satyr, palaestra subjects, Nilotic pigmy and crane fights, deer hunt. 4th century.

Stern 72, no.21. Liepmann no.29. Michaelides, 478, n.44. Alvarez—Martinez, ‘Nuevos documentos’, Bath (1987); idem, Actas Balil 36-7, no.6. 4.60 x 4.60m. TYPE Ila. Frontal. Thracian robes, Phrygian bonnet. Lyre. Acanthus scroll border. ‘un pez plateado' (Ramon Melida): a fish tail can be seen, perhaps a marine beast. After 360AD.

30. MERIDA II. Under the ancient 'ermita de la Piedad’, in the street of that

133

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

Nuevos documentos 1987; idem, Actas Balil 37-8, no.8, pl. VII. TYPE Ila. Apsed chamber, cf.Piazza Armerina [8],

34. SARAGOSSA. From an important public building, perhaps a temple, next to the city walls. 1944. Museo di Zaragoza, Spain. M Chamoso Lamas, 'Hallazgos romanos en Zaragoza’, AEArg. XVII (1944) 286-295, figs.4, 6, 7. 2nd.C. Ars Hispaniae II (1947) 155, fig 148. AJA 52 (1948) pl.XXVII. A.Blanco Freijero, "Mosaicos antiguos de asunto baquico’, Bol. de la R. Acad. de la Hist. 131 (1952) 273-316 (Orpheus: 307-1, figs. 20-1). Sten 71, no.20. fig. 18. 200-250AD. B.Neutsch, ‘Das epigrammenzimmer in der ‘Casa degli Epigrammi’ zu Pompeji und sein Wandbild 'Eros im Ringkampf mit Pan’, JdAl (1955) 155-184. Panyagua, Orfeo 227-8. Schéeller 38, no.39. Panyagua (1973) 473, no.219, fig 36. Liepmann no.45. Michaelides 478, n.44. D.Fermandez Galiano, Mosaicos romanos del convento cesaraugusto, Zaragoz

Sakiet [17], La Alberca [28], Martim Gil [36], Orbe

Whatley [88]. Frontal. Thracian robes, Phrygian bonnet. Lyre? Acanthus scroll? Vertical fox. Two deer confront PENDENT images in lower inside angles of Orpheus field: Seasons. Thought to come from paleo—Christian area and to have a Christian character (Serpa Pinto). Alvarez not convinced, follows Balil in considering the apse, horseshoe— arched in plan, the location for a stibadium, cf.Whatley [88]. Late 4th century.

36. MARTIM GIL. From the daieta of a Roman villa, site called Martim Gil, 1897. Portugal. Collippo, ant. Leiria, from lkm. Ethnological Museum, Lisbon, Portugal. J. Leite de Vasconcellos, Historia do Museu Etnologico Portugues

(1987) 49-52 pls.XXI and XXII (not seen). Alvarez— Martinez, ‘Nuevos documentos’, (1987) fig.11; idem, Actas Balil 34—5, no.4. pl.V. Pavement 9 x 6m, Orpheus panel within this geometric setting, 3.80 x 1.84. TYPE IIb. Long vertical rectangle in

(1915) 191ff. R. de Serpa Pinto (1934) 174-5. Guidi 131 fig. 21, group III, Manino 47 fig.7 and Gonzenbach (1949/50) 277, call it Amal. I.Nobrega Moita, O Arqueologo Portugues ns. 1 (1951) 132-3, including pls. Stern 72, no.24 — Type IIc. Panyagua (1973) 476, no.223, fig.37. Liepmann no.17.

three registers. Above, Orpheus in rocky landscape, trees, birds and snake; below, two tiers of fierce quadrupeds. Semi—frontal. Long striped robe omamented with orbiculi cf. Pesquero [32], Cos I [62]. Cloak. Phrygian bonnet, sandals. Crane, bustard. Lyre. ASSOCIATED: fight between Eros and Pan. 4th century.

Nuevos Alvarez—Martinez, n.44. 478, Michaelides documentos (1987); idem, Actas Balil 39-40, no.9, pl. VIII. Apsed chamber, cf. Piazza Armerina [8], Sakiet [17], La

Alberca [28], Arnal [35], Orbe [51], Whatley [88]. Emblema (Orpheus) c.2.20 x 1.90m. within extensive geometric floral setting, 10.55 x 5.45m.? TYPE Ila. Stylised rock seat. Facing left, twists right. Thracian robes, Phrygian bonnet. Running fox. Not a Christian basilica. 4th century at least.

34a, ITALICA*** From a house in the Nova Urbs of the Roman city of Italica, near Seville, Spain. Known as ‘Mosaico de los Pajaros’. Alvarez—Martinez, Actas Balil 31-2 pls.I, II. 5.60m.sq. Birds in panels 75cm.sq. Central panel with figure 2m.sq. TYPE Ib acc. Alvarez, but does not conform, only birds, no animals nor independent scenes outside centre. In profile facing left. At extreme left of scene — tripod? Bare head, filet. Probably Apollo cf. RSGR I, 251. Not Orpheus. 1SOAD on.

FRANCE 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 46a. 46b.

PORTUGAL 35. 36.

[51],

Amal Martim Gil

35. ARNAL. From the diaeta of a Roman villa by the monastery of Batalha in the village of Amal near Leiria, ant. Collippo, Portugal. 1855. Taken to the United States. J.Leite de Vasconcelos, Religioes da Lusitania III (Lisbon 1913) 493, fig.627 (not seen). RPGR 201, 6. R. de Serpa Pinto, "Mosaicos romanos de Portugal’ Anuario del Cuerpo facultativo de archiveros, bibliotecarios y arqueologos | (1934) 169. Chamoso Lamas, AEArg 17 (1944) 292-3. Panyagua (1973) 475, no. 222. Both Stem, no.23 and Schéeller, no.2, cite Guidi 130 and fig.21, and Manino 48, fig.7 where the figure called Amal is, in fact Martim Gil. Liepmann no.16. A.Balil, ‘Notas sobre los mosaicos de Armeiro' (Arnal, Leira)' Studia Archaeologica 59 (1980) 20 (not seen). Michaelides 478, n.44. Alvarez—Martinez,

Bavai* — probably Orpheus Blanzy—lés—Fismes Forét de Brotonne Pont d'Ancy** — possibly Orpheus Saint Colombe Saint Paul—lés—Romans Saint Romain—en—Gal Trinquetaille Vienne I Vienne II Aix*** — not Orpheus Lyon*** — not Orpheus

37. BAVAI.* Large room of a sumptuous dwelling, Bavai, Avesnes, France. 1843-6. Destroyed. H.Bievelet, Latomus 15 (1956) 575-6. Resumé in FA 11 (1956) no.5720 (F. de Ruyt). Panyagua (1973) 473, no. 218. Bievelet notes ‘Nous pensons avec M.Henri Stern qu'il s‘agit peut—etre d'un Orphée’, however, not included in Stern's catalogue. '..une sorte d‘Apollon jouant du tetrachorde..' Griffin.

PENDENT: Pesquero

Peopled scroll, flowers, birds and fruit cf.El [32],

Jerusalem

[73].

Sea—beasts?

Molluscs?

Sphinx or Nereid? Centaur? ASSOCIATED: erotic scene = bacchic motifs, palaestra?; fish and doves in a semis.

134

Catalogue of Orpheus Mosaics 11. J.Lancha, Les Mosaiques de Vienne (1990) 33, 111-12,

Probably Orpheus. 4th century.

no.52, fig.52. 175AD. Panyagua (1973) 472, no.215. Liepmann no.28. Michaelides 478, n.44. 3 x 3m. TYPE Ja. Hexagon in circular frame, honeycomb design, bust of Orpheus in central hexagon, head tumed to right. Phrygian bonnet. No lyre. All animals recumbent. 4 birds in square panels out in geometric surround cf. El Djem [13]. PENDENT: Busts of Seasons in angles. Perhaps ASSOCIATED: Hylas and Nymphs, Lancha 94-5, no.47, Bacchus and bacchantes, Lancha 110, no.51, and Four Seasons. End 2nd—3rd century.

38. BLANZY—LES-—FISMES. In the principal street of Blanzy—lés—Fismes, Aisne, Soissons, France. 1858. Bibliothéque Municipal, Laon, France. Much restored. Inv. J no.1122. RPGR 203, 3. Guidi 121, fig.12, group I. Gonzenbach (1949/50) 277, 284. H.Stern, "La Mosaique d'Orphée de Blanzy—lés—Fismes (Aisne)', Gallia XIII (1955) 41-77, figs.1-6, 7, pl.I. Cat.1; idem, Receuil gen.des mos.de la Gaule 1, 1 = X Supplément a Gallia (1957) 50-1 no.77 A, frag. 1 (p.50), pls. XXIIIXXV; ibid 1,2 (1960); 1,13 (1963). Panyagua, Orfeo 224. Schéeller 36, no.14. Panyagua (1973) 470, no.211. Liepmann no.14. Ovadiah (1980) 45, 52, fig.6, group Ib. Michaelides 478, n.44. A pool of diameter 3m. within and placed towards the north side of a rectangular pavement 10 x 7m. The eastern portion with Orpheus c.6.30 x 3.30m. Three semi-circular exedrae, E, N and W, cf. Littlecote [82]. TYPE IIb. Heavily restored. Originally: leafy trees, rocky setting. Faces left, twists right. Green, eastern tunic, cloak, red baggy trousers, heavy seamed shoes. Phrygian bonnet ornamented with gold tesserae cf.Vienne I [45]. Cithara. Laurel border cf. Piazza Armerina [8], Sousse I [18], II [19], El Pesquero [32], Barton Farm [76], Woodchester [91]. Elephant. Peacock in tree. PENDENT: fish, molluscs, dolphins, perhaps celebrating

42. SAINT-PAUL-LES-ROMANS. From a room opening onto the courtyard with a large pool of the villa at a site called Mingauds, Saint—-Paul—lés—Romans, 60km. east of Vienne, France. 1967. Musée de Valence. M.Le Glay ‘Informations archéologiques' Gallia XXVI

(1968) 594-6. Stern, Gallia XXIX (1971) 145 n.68; ibid, M.Le Glay 435, 437, fig.39. FA XXVIII-XXIX (1973-4) no.12687. M.Vignard, La Villa gallo—romaine de Saint— Paul-lés—Romans et quelques aspects de la vie quotidienne dans notre région a l'époque gallo—romaine, Exposition du des Romans, archéologiques Centre des Rechérches catalogue (1974). Michaelides 477. Lancha 93. 6.30 x 4.70m, grid of 12 square panels, centre 1.25m.sq. TYPE Ia. Figures polychrome, bichrome geometric setting. Orpheus between two bird—filled trees, seated fox at his feet. Thracian robes, Phrygian bonnet. Cithara. Half the animals recumbent. ASSOCIATED: Four Seasons, Labours of Hercules. 3rd

Arion, or a marine genius, cf. La Chebba [12], Djemila [24],

perhaps Oceanus or a simple marine scene. First half of 4th century.

century.

39. FORET DE BROTONNE.

43, SAINT-ROMAIN-EN-GAL.

From ‘La petite Houssaye’, near Yvetot, Forét de Brotonne, Seine maritime, France. 1838. Musée des Antiquités, Rouen.

From Saint-Romain-en-Gal, known as Montant) Only three destruction, 1968. Musée de Lyon. Inv. I no.201 = Inv. I ‘mutilation’, 44 panels, and panels. Ph.Fabia, Mosaiques

Inv. I, no.1032. RPGR 200, 5. Guidi 135 group IV, B, c. Stern 69 no.7. Schéeller 38 no.37. Panyagua (1973) 472 no.217. Liepmann no.27. Michaelides 478 n.44. 3.20 x 3.20m. TYPE Ib. Grid of 5 square and 4 rectangular compartments. Orpheus in circular medallion in central square. No setting, stylised seat. three-quarter view, facing right. Thracian robes, cloak, Phrygian bonnet. Cithara. PENDENT: Four Seasons. Much restored, only the lion and

(1923) 83-100. P1.X, watercolour of original state, and XI.

Guidi 132-4, fig.23, group IV, B a. Both Manino 47, and Gonzenbach (1949/50) 279, call it Montant. Stern 68, no.4. Panyagua (1973) 471, no.214. Schéeller 37, nos.23 and 24 (identical) pl.X, 4. Stem, Gallia XXIX (1971) 138-149

Summer are actually conserved. 3rd century. 40. PONT D'ANCY.**

(called Montant).

Ancy, France. 1887. gaule 1, 1, 816, p.54, TYPE Ia? Grid of Polychrome. Perhaps

Lyon, France. 1822. (Also fragments conserved after fire la civilisation gallo—romaine, no.242. RPGR 199, 4, before 202, I, after restoration, 32 romaines des Musées de Lyon

Liepmann

no.18. Ovadiah

(1980)

47-8,

56, fig.13, group II: original, large version called Saint-

InvJ, no.1128. Receuil gen. des mos. de pl. XXX. 4 squares, bear, elephant, stag, boar. Orpheus?

Romain, calls Fabia's reduction Montant, erroneously fig.46. 93, no.46, Lancha identifying two mosaics. Michaelides 478, n.44.

TYPE Ia. Originally: 6.60 x Sm, grid of 44 octagons containing 20 animals and 22 birds, around Orpheus in larger square. Restored and reduced to 2.58 x 2.58m. Rock seat, Orpheus between two trees. In right profile. Semi—draped in cloak, bare feet. Phrygian bonnet. Lyre. Camel, wolf. c.200AD.

41. SAINT COLOMBE. on the (Saint Romain—en—Gal) Saint—Colombe From property of M. Grange, near Lyon, France. 1899. J.Paul

Getty Museum, Malibu, California. Inv. J, no. 219. Guidi 134—5, group IV, B, b. Fabia 98-9. Stern 69, no.5. J.P.Getty, The Joys of Collecting (1965) colour picture (not seen). Schéeller 38, no.38. Stern "Mosaiques de la région de Vienne, Isére’, Gallia XXIX (1971) 123-4, 130-5, pls.10,

44, TRINQUETAILLE.

From 135

the villa ‘du Clos

Saint-Jean’,

Trinquetaille, near

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

Arles, S. France. 121-2, fig.

1934.

Musée

RPGR 203, 6. Guidi 138, group IV, B, g. Gonzenbach (1949/50) 284. Stern 68, no.3. Schdeller 35, no.1. Panyagua

Lapidaire d'Arles. Guidi,

13. Stern 68, no.2, fig.11. F.Benoit, Mosaique

d'Orphée, CRAI (1934) 343-47. Guidi 121, fig.13 group I;

(1973) 471, no.213. Liepmann no.2. Michaelides 478, n.44.

idem, Forma Orbis Romani (=FOR), Gaule, V, Bouches—du—

1.95 x 1.95m. TYPE II. Rocks on right. Standing/dancing figure. Light, flowing, sleeveless exomis; white bordered red and blue peplum and chiton. White pharos bordered black and red, floats from shoulder. Wreath of flowers, bare feet. Cithara. Seated fox looking up, birds on right. Dancing female musician. Muse Erato? (Rouard 14). Not Orpheus.

Rhone

no.37,

Mosaiken

p.182.

Gonzenbach (1961)

der Schwiez

(1949/50)

20, n.9,

116.

277;

idem,

Schdeller

39,

no.44, PI.VIII, 2. Panyagua (1973) 471, no.212. M.del 199, n.10. Liepmann no.4. 76 (1972) Chiaro, AJA Michaelides 478, n.44. Room 4.70 x 2.95m. TYPE IIb. Orpheus within an octagon, sides 0.60m, in a square frame cf. Pesquero [32]. No seat. Leafy tree. Faces left, twists right. High-waisted short— sleeved Greek stola, long-sleeved undertunic, mantle over knees cf. Vienne I [45], Adana [60], Mytilene [65], trousers, bare feet. Phrygian bonnet. Cithara. Camel, vertical fox. ASSOCIATED: Jason, Medea and the Golden Fleece. c.240 AD.

46b. LYON*** C.Poirieux, ‘Lyon, Les mosaiques de L'le des Canabés orneront la future station metro?', Archaeologia (Paris) 95 (1976) 69 and figs. Michaelides 477. TYPE Ia. Largely black and white geometric, animals in compartments, only partial bull remains. Centre: nude Dionysus holding thyrsus stands behind seated lyrist, semi— draped, playing the lyre. Probably Silenus (suggestion of P.Witts). Cf. Dionysus with Silenus: RPGR 98.3, 4; 108.6;

45. VIENNE I.

108.8; Pompeii; 108.7, Hinks 14, no.23, Pl. VII, Boscoreale. Not Orpheus.

From frigidarium of the private baths, 'Maison d’Orphée’, Vienne, Isere, France. 1859. Musée Lapidaire, Eglise Saint— Pierre, Vienne. Inv. J, no.181 = Inv. I no.233. Fabia 98-9. RPGR 201, 4, centre only. Guidi 132, group IV, B, a and 135, group IV, B, b (called Saint-Colombe), identical. Stern 69, no.6, fig 9. CMGR II 322, pl.CXLVI. Schdeller 39, nos.48 and 49, identical. Budde, Kilikien II pl.256 (Orpheus). Panyagua (1973) 472, no.216. Liepmann no.41. Michaelides 478, n.44. J.Lancha, Les Mosaiques de Vienne (1990) 23-5 no.32, pls. Orpheus in colour. End 2nd.C. 8.30 x 5.30m. TYPE Ia. 5 rows of 3 compartments, alternately squares, holding birds, with larger octagons, Orpheus in central octagon, animals in others. Rocky setting, two tiny trees. Semi-—frontal. Blue-green high—waisted, short-sleeved Greek stola, yellow undertunic, striped long sleeves, mantle over knees cf. Trinquetaille [44], Adana [60], Mytilene [65], banded trousers, red shoes. Phrygian bonnet, golden tesserae employed cf. Blanzy [38]. Lyre. Eastern style animal forms. Mid 3rd century.

GERMANY 47. Rottweil 48. Trier 48a. Rothenburg*** — not Orpheus

47. ROTTWEIL. From baths. Rottweil, Wiirtemburg, Germany. 1834. Stadt Museum Rottweil. Inv. I, no. 1611. RPGR 201, 5. Guidi 136, group IV, B, d. Stern 70, no.11. K.Parlasca, Die Rémischen Mosaiken in Deutschland (1959) 99-100, n.4 bibliography, pls.12, 1; 94, 2; 95, 3; 96, 1-3; 101. End 2nd century. Schéeller 38, no.36. Charitonidis 24, n.8, pl.II, 2. Antike Welt 4 (1971), fig.6, colour. Budde fig.257, head only. Panyagua (1973) 469, no.209, fig.33. Liepmann no.26. Ovadiah (1980) group Ic, 46, 53, fig.7. Michaelides 478, n.44. Pavement 8m.sq. TYPE Ib. Cruciform design. Central panel 1.75m.sq. Rectangular panels tangent to each side with figures. 4 outer six-sided panels with figures. Rocky setting, tree. Three-quarter view facing right. Long Roman tunic, waist belt, wide central clavus, shoulder ornament cf. Salona [58], cloak, trousers. Phrygian bonnet. Cithara. Seated fox looking up, crow. PENDENT: first range of 4 exterior panels: chariots including victorious charioteer, ie. circus, cf. Horkstow [81];

46. VIENNE II. From Vienne, France. c.1984/6. Unpublished. In store, Musée Lapidaire, Eglise Saint-Pierre, Vienne. A.Le BotHelly, Mosaiques inédites découvertes a Vienne (1984/1986) paper given at VII Colloque International Pour L’Etude de la Mosaique Antique, Tunis, 3-7 October 1994. TYPE Ia. Animals in 70 octagonal compartments the same size as that containing Phrygian Orpheus. Large pavement, mostly lost. Rhinoceros, hippopotamus, sheep, elephant, boar, bear, bison. Birds in outer compartments; trees in two lowest rows. PENDENT: In interstices Dionysiac masks and canthari. Oceanus and fish; drunken Hercules. ASSOCIATED: Mosaic came to notice too late for inclusion in review.

outer: venationes cf. Miletus [64], Withington [90]. Mid 3rd century.

48. TRIER.*

From Weberbachstrasse, Trier. 1925. Parlasca 30, pl.2, 3 and pl.26, 1. c.220 AD. Wavers between Apollo and

46a. AIX***, A

Gallo—Roman

villa,

Aix-en-Provence,

France.

Orpheus. Harrison 13, n.6. Liepmann no.67. (1973) 470, no.210, fig.34, Orpheus. Michaelides Cf. Inv. I, 1223, Trier, Weberbachstrasse, 1875, bear, may be part of same pavement. Circular

1843.

Musée Granet, Aix. M.Rouard, Les fouilles d’antiquités faites a Aix en 1843 et 1844 8-15, pl.I and II. Inv. I, no.55.

136

Panyagua 479, n.44. back of a field, bust

Catalogue of Orpheus Mosaics

48a, ROTHENBURG.***

Martim Gil [36], Whatley [88]. 9.35 x 5.25m. TYPE Ia? Orpheus with lyre under a tree in adjacent medallion to a maenad. PENDENT: in other compartments of same field: Theseus and Ariadne, canthari, birds, hare and grapes, animals in

Gruppe col. 1192. Schdeller 36, 35. Erroneously named in AA 7 (1849) for nearby Rottweil. Stern 70, no.11, points this out. Non existent.

combat, deer and hound chase, lion and stag head, snake and cockerel, leopard, mongoose, bird and fox?; seasons, Medusa. In apse: Oceanus, triton, sea—griffin, dolphin, hippocamp. Acanthus scroll surround. 200—225AD.

remains, heavily cloaked, wreathed head tums to left, apparently singing. Top of lyre. On parallel of Salona [58], Yvonand [53], probably Orpheus. c.220 AD.

52. YVERDON*.

SWITZERLAND 49. 50. 51. 52. 53.

From baths of a villa, Hameau de Mordagne, Yverdon, ant. Eborodunum, canton de Vaud, Switzerland. Exc. 17th.C., 19th.C. Destroyed. ‘detruit par des ouvriers qui cherchaient un trésor'. Inv. I, no.1386. Guidi, 138, group I, B, f. Gonzenbach, (1949/50), 276. Stern 69, no.9. Gonzenbach (1961), 234, 237, no.143.2. Panyagua (1973), 467, no. 204. Schéeller 40, no.52 (nv. 1396 in error). Liepmann no.64. Michaelides, 478, n.44. Perhaps in concentric panels quadrupeds, birds and fish. 'Le pavé etait divisé en trois compartiments, dans l'un on voyait les quadrupedes, dans l'autre les oiseaux et dans la troisieme les poissons.' cf. Woodchester [91].

Avenches I* — probably Orpheus Avenches II Orbe Yverdon* — probably Orpheus. Yvonand

49. AVENCHES I*. From 'Vers le Cigognier’, the main temple complex on the main axis of the theatre, Avenches, ant. Aventicum. 1793. Stadt—Universitats— elephant, fragment remains, One Bibliothek, Bern, Switzerland. Inv. J 2, 158, no.1402. V.von Gonzenbach ‘Drei Orpheusmosaiken aus der Waadt' JOSGUF

53. YVONAND.

XL (1949/50) 271-287; idem, Die Rémischen Mosaiken der

Schweiz (1961) 54-5, no.5.6, pl.37. 200—250AD. Panyagua

From frigidarium of baths of a villa, Cheyres, Yvonand, canton de Vaud, Switzerland. Exc. 1778 and 1911. Freiburg Lausanne; Vaudoise, Historique Musée Universitat; Schulsammlung, Cheyres; Musée de la Ville, Yverdon. Inv. I, no.1387 (Yvonand), 1388 (Cheyres). RPGR, 201, 7 and 202, 3, versions by different engravers. Guidi, 135-6, group IV, c. Gonzenbach (1949/50), 273ff., pl.38, and fig.1 (plan). 175-225AD. Stern, 69, no.8. Parlasca 117 + n.6, 175-

(1973) 468, no.205. Liepmann no.46. Michaelides 478, n.44.

3.6 x 3.6m. TYPE IIa. Comer bushes, cf.Hanover [72], Paphos [68]. Lost Orpheus. Elephant, peacock in tree cf. as indeterminate quadruped in Blanzy [38], appears engraving, camel, griffin? Eastern figure style. Late 3rd

century. 50. AVENCHES

II.

200AD. Gonzenbach (1961), 234-6, no.143.1, II, p, pl.39 (eastern influence, p.236). Schoeller 35, 40, nos. 8 and 53, identical, pl.X, 1. Charitonidis, 24, n.7. Liepmann no.48. Michaelides, 478, n.44. 5.45 x 5.45m. TYPE lb. Central, circular panel with Orpheus,

From ‘Vers le Cigognier', Avenches, Canton de Vaud, Switzerland. 1793 by the same person and in the same place as the previous. Destroyed. Jnv. I no.1403. Stern 69, no.10. Type IIc. Gonzenbach, (1949/50) 271-87, pl. XXXVII; idem (1961) 55-6, no.5.7, pl.40. Parlasca 123 + n.6. Schdeller no.3. PI.IX,1. Panyagua (1973) 468, no.206. Liepmann no.53. Michaelides 78, n.44. 5 x 4.80m. Tableau placed off—centre within a geometrically decorated field. TYPE Ila: one bird misplaced in engraving, others, including seated bear cf. Adana [60], conform to crowded and inept eastern Type IIa composition cf. Hanover

tangent semi—circles cf. Salona [58], Cos I [62], animals in square comer panels. Birds in interstices. Known from engravings, information distorted. Rock seat, tree. Three— quarter view facing right. Cloaked, wreathed cf. Trier [48], mantle over knee cf. Vienne I [45], Adana [60], bare feet? Lyre. Seated fox looking up. Border scroll issues from 4 canthari. Severan.

[72], Avenches I [49]. Rock seat. Three-quarter view facing

AUSTRIA

right. Arm outstretched. Thracian robes, Phrygian bonnet. Cithara. 3rd century. 54. Camuntum.

51. ORBE

54. CARNUNTUM.

Perhaps the frigidarium of a baths, Orbe, Switzerland. 1845. Maliciously mutilated the following year. Fragments: Schutzhaus 4, Orbe, Switzerland. InvJ, 2, 151, no.1378. Gonzenbach (1961) 177-82, 95 B, Mos. III, fig.78 pls.54— 57, fig 32. Panyagua (1973) 468-9, no.207. According Liepmann no.47: preserved, lost Orpheus. Michaelides 478, n.44. Grid of octagonal compartments. Apse cf. Piazza Armerina

[8],

Sakiet

[17],

La

Alberca

[28],

Amal

From Petronell, ant. Carnuntum, Hainburg, Austria. 1873. Museum Carnuntinum, Bad Deutsch—Altenburg, Austria. Stern 70, no.12. A.Obermayr, Rémerstadt Carnuntum, (1967), 187. Panyagua (1973), 469, no. 208. Severan. Schdeller 38, no.31. Liepmann no.23. Michaelides, 479, n.44,

[35],

137

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

Floor 1.80 x 1.80m, Orpheus panel 0.90 x 0.90m. TYPE IIb. Rudimentary rocky setting. Faces left twists right. Short

CROATIA

Phrygian dress, short cloak, high boots cf. R-B mosaics. Phrygian bonnet. Cithara. 4 animals, snake—in-tree, dove, eagle. Crude style. Mid—late 3rd century.

58. Salona.

58. SALONA.

From Solin, ant. Salonae, environs of Split, ant. Spalato, Casa Consula. 1942. Archaeological Museum, Split. Stern, 76, no. 45. idem, Journal des Savants, (1962), 175. D.Mano— Zissi, 'Mosaiques greco—romaines de Yougoslavie' in CMGR I, Paris 1963 (1965), 287-2, fig.4. Severan. Panyagua (1973), 465-6, no.201, fig.31. End 2nd—3rd.C. del Chiaro, (1972), 199-200, pl.48, fig.8. Liepmann no.32. Michaelides, 479, n.44. TYPE Ib. Central circular panel with Orpheus, one concentric circle, radially divided. Tangent semi—circles, comer quadrants cf. Cos II [63], squares in interstices. Smith, CMGR I, 294, likened the design to R-B mosaics, Panyagua

BOSNIA AND HERCEGOVINA

55. Panik. 56. Stolac* — probably Orpheus. 55. PANIK. From the oecus, room 16, of a Roman fundus near Panik, 30 miles NE of Dubrovnik. 1967. Zemaljski Museum, Sarajevo. Fragment. M.del Chiaro, 'A New Orpheus Mosaic in Yugoslavia’, AJA 76 (1972), 197-200, pls. 47, 48. 3rd C. Liepmann no.21. Michaelides, 479, n.44. Room 6.15 x 4.60. Orpheus panel considerably smaller. Orpheus himself c.1.20m. high. TYPE Ib. Octagonal field defined by an intersecting squares, cf. Pesquero [32], Trinquetaille [44], Vienne I [45]. Birds and running animals in outer border. Rocky setting, one tree. Orpheus in right profile, feet on foot rest cf. Pesquero [32]. Long robe, cloak, heavy, seamed eastern shoes. Phrygian bonnet. Cithara. PENDENT: panel below Orpheus, female bust, wearing crown, basket by shoulder, figure of plenty, good fortune, eg. Abundantia in mural crown; or Ge, the earth, wearing calathos. Not Eurydice as del Chiaro suggests. Cf. Ptolemais [74], Jerusalem [73], Newton Winterton [89]. 3rd century.

St.Loe

[83], Whatley

saw it more akin to Swiss mosaics eg. Yvonand [53]. Rock

setting, tree. Three-quarter view facing right. Thracian robes, shoulder ornament cf. Rottweil [47], wreathed cf. Trier [48]. Cithara. Fox looking up at Orpheus in centre cf. Yvonand [53], birds in circular frieze and comers, beasts running clockwise

across

trees, cf. Stolac

[56], Winterton

[89], in tangent squares. PENDENT: fish, marine beasts in semi—circles. 3rd century.

GREECE 59. Sparta.

[88],

59. SPARTA. 56. STOLAC.* House of Mourabas, Sparta, Peloponnese, Greece. In situ. AJA 2, (1898), ‘Archaeological News 1897-8’, 110. Stern 74, no.33, fig. 19. Ch.Christou, Ancient Sparta (1960), 67-8, fig.9. G.Touidiou, Archeologicon Deltion 19 (1964), 136-7. Panyagua, Orfeo, 220. Schéeller 39, no.42. Charitonidis, 19, n.5, 24-5 n.9, 88, n.12, 91 n.1, 95, n.8, pl.11, 3. Hellenika 26, (1973), 247, no.61b. Panyagua (1973), 494, no.250. Liepmann no.30. E.Waywell, ‘Roman Mosaics of Greece’, AJA 83 (1979), 302, 46, fig. 42. Ovadiah, Group I a, p.45, 51 fig.4. Michaelides, 479, n.46. O.Wattel-de Croizant and I.Jesnick, ‘Mosaics from the House of Mourabas, Sparta: Europa and Orpheus’, Journal of the British Archaeological Association, CXLIV (1991) 92-106, pl.[X—XI. Floor 3.38 x 3.11m. central tableau 1.40 x 1.13m. TYPE Ila. Rock seat. Orpheus in right profile, gazes left cf. Chahba [70]. Dress ‘Phrygian’, short multi-coloured striped Roman tunic, striped long sleeves, waist belt, long cloak. Leggings, high, cuffed Thracian boots. Phrygian bonnet. Lyre. Snake around rock, lizard, tortoise, hare, green leopard looking

Baths of Stolac. Mano—Zissi, CMGR I, (1965) 290, fig.6. TYPE Ia. Central octagon cf. Panik [55], figure destroyed, within square set lozenge—wise, points cut by frame. Compartments: round centre elongated hexagons, in which 4 beasts run clockwise across trees cf. Salona [57], Winterton [89]; in comer triangles 4 beasts run anti-clockwise. Birds in squares. Probably Orpheus.

SERBIA 57. Poljanice.

57. POLJANICE. From 7-roomed building, a luxurious villa, in late Roman settlement, Poljanice—Glavnik, near Ulpiana, Serbia. 1984. S.Fidanovski, Arheoloski Pregled (1985), Arch. Reports, 150, colour illustration on front cover. Jn situ? Michaelides,

back cf. Paphos [68]. Running animals cf. Palermo II [7].

478, called Ulpiana. Room 7 x 9m. inc. geometric surround. TYPE IIb. Orpheus panel entirely of glass paste. Inscription: ORPHEUS in Greek letters, incorporating hederae. Rocky setting and tree. Three-quarter view facing left. Outstretched arm. Highwaisted Greek robe, trousers, boots, cloak. Phrygian bonnet decked with laurel wreath. Cithara. Snake and rock. Crude style. 300-350AD.

ASSOCIATED: in next room: Europa and the Bull. 250-300 AD.

138

Catalogue of Orpheus Mosaics PERSEUS, [ACHILL]EUS. NEI indicates the victor of each combat. Cf. victorious charioteer Rottweil [47], Horkstow [81], Rudston [86]; cupid charioteer with palm Sousse II

ASIA MINOR [n.2] 60 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66.

Adana. Antalya. Cos I. Cos II. Miletus. Mytilene. Seleucia.

[19]. ASSOCIATED:

next

panel

room,

of

hexagonal

compartments occupied by sea monsters, tritons, erote venatores and beasts. Mendel, Cat. 1305, Inv. 1611 + fig., Modona, pl.XV. Another room, disc. 1926, in situ: bird— catcher in action, riverine landscape, perhaps Nilotic, fish and harpoon. 4th century.

60 ADANA.

63. COS II. From Adana, Cilicia, Turkey. Two fragments from a larger field in Archaeological Museum of Adana. L.Budde, Antike Mosaiken in Kilikien I, (1969), pl.191; idem bande II (1972), 20-30, fig.5, pls.6—28. c.250 AD. Liepmann no.1. Ovadiah, 47, 54 fig 10, group Ic. Michaelides, 479, n.46. Orpheus frag. 1.56 x 1.85. Fragment with animals 1.87 x 1.79m. TYPE Ila. Rock seat. Facing left, twists right. Green short-sleeved Greek stola with central clavus, red undertunic with striped long sleeves, yellow mantle over knees cf. Trinquetaille [44], Vienne I [45], Mytilene [65]. Phrygian bonnet. Lyre. Owl, monkey, ibis, wild cat? Perhaps held as many as 40 animals and birds. Mid—3rd century.

Port quarter excavation, Cos town, house built to include old temple of Hercules, adjacent to his sanctuary, island of Cos, Aegean coast of Turkey. 1935. Jn situ. G.Karo, AA 51 (1936) 175-9, fig 24. L.Laurenzi, Boll.d’arte, 30 (1936-7) 137, fig.14, no mention of Orpheus. L.Morricone, 'Scavi e Ricerche a Coo', Boll.d‘arte 35 (1950) 54-75, 320, 330, figs.21-9 (area excavations, not Orpheus mosaic), called C. 3rd 64. described 62, Ercoli’, de '‘mosaico G.Azimakopoulou—Atzaka, Hellenika 26 (1973) 235, no.31 and 236, no.36. Michaelides 478, nos.31 and 36 of Hellenika 26, identical. TYPE Ib. Central circular panel, tangent semi—circles, commer quadrants cf. Salona [58]. Animals, all recumbent cf. El Djem [13], in compartments and interstices. Nothing remains of Orpheus but a bare foot and part of the lyre. Facing picture left? Birds and snail. PENDENT: Hercules feasted in the house of Admetus, Alcestis by the tomb, scene from Euripides cf. Mytilene [65]. Inscription: PROTEAS. ASSOCIATED: Koan fisherman with rod and line between panels of birds cf. Lepcis I [9], La Chebba [12], Djemila [24]. Late 3rd century.

61. ANTALYA.

In the Archaeological Museum of Antalya, ant. Aftaleia, Pamphylia, Turkey. Blasquez y Lopez Monteagudo, AEArq, (1986), 233-252, fig. 4. Unclear photo. Virtually all lost. According to Blasquez, the same hand as Seleucia [66] in

Antalya museum. TYPE IIb. Orpheus on the left. Boar. Landscape. Inscription: ELYSION. Sth century.

62. COS I.

64. MILETUS.

From the west of the town of Cos, environs of the port, outside town boundary, island of Cos, Aegean coast of Turkey. 1900. Archaeological Museum Istanbul, Turkey. Museum Inv.1606. R.Herzog, JoDAI XVI (1901), AA 134 and 137. G.Mendel, Catalogue des sculptures romaines et byzantines III (1914), 507-511, no.1304. RPGR, 203, 2. A.Neppi Modona, 'L'isola di Coo nell’ antichita classica’, Memorie I (1933), 168-9, pl.XIV. Guidi, 124, fig.15, group

Pergamonmuseum, 1903. Turkey. Miletus, From Massow, W.von Berlin, Germany. Antikensammlung, Fiihrer durch das Pergamonmuseum (1932), 99-100, fig. 46 (not

26

(1973),

234,

no.29.

Liepmann

Stem

77,

46.

Staatliche

Museen,

Antikensammlung (1955) 41ff., figs.26ff. and colour plate. Panyagua, Orfeo 218, 220; idem, (1973) 495, no.253, fig 43, Orpheus only, notes only two creatures. Liepmann no.5. 186-187, n.95. Boeselager, Mosaiken Sizilien (1983) Severan. I.Kriseleit, Antike Mosaiken, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Antikensammlung (1985) 14-7, no.3, 2 pls. End 2nd.C. Michaelides 479, n.46. T-shaped field within semis, 2 panels: square with Orpheus 3.35 x 3.32, crossing rectangle with erotes, 3.00 x 6.30. TYPE Ib. Centre panel square, eight compartments, squares and rectangles, around cf. Forét de Brotonne [39]. Rocky setting with plants. Frontal. Outstretched arm. Green, long sleeved, high—waisted, Greek stola, red mantle around knees cf. Paphos [68] also Vienne I [45], Adana [60], Mytilene [65]. Bare feet. Phrygian bonnet. Cithara. Crow and seated fox looking up accompany Orpheus. Other animals paired in outer compartments; seasonal birds pecking appropriate flowers in comer squares act also as pendent subjects. PENDENT: crossing panel, venatio with erote protagonists.

II. Gonzenbach (1949/50), 277. Stern, 74, no.34. Panyagua, Orfeo, 220. Schéeller 36, no.13. Panyagua (1973), 495, no.252. Charitonidis, 24, n.9. G.Azimakopoulou—Atzaka, Hellenika

seen).

no.12.

Michaelides, 479, n.46. J.M.Blazquez Martinez, 'Mosaicos del Museo Arqueolégico de Estambul' in Estudios de Geografia e Historia 3 (1990) 353-362, pl.83—5. Overall 2 x 5.60m. Central panel 1.67 x 3.74m. TYPE Ila. A wide rectangle, at either end, two narrow panels with figures. Orpheus on rock between two trees. Three-quarter view to left. Arm outstretched. Long, loose multi-coloured Roman robe ornamented with orbiculi cf. Saragossa [34], Pesquero [32], long striped sleeves, cloak. Sandals. Phrygian bonnet. Cithara. Peacock in tree. Porphyrion. Wild cat. PENDENT: borders 2 x 0.73m. pairs of named gladiators in combat, accompanied by games masters. Inscription: TYDEUS, LEUCASPIS, PACTOLOS, NYMPHEROS,

139

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

right. Contemporary Roman garments, short-sleeved yellow tunic, waist belt, with two blue clavi. Long-sleeved undertunic, blue leggings, red boots. Striped red cloak. Phrygian bonnet. Lyre. Animals all recumbent behind rocks or cut by frame, effectively a composition of protomae. Eagle on rock. PENDENT: Abduction of Ganymede, Budde 124, pls.14955. Satyr and maenad, 123, pls.146-8. Busts of satyrs and maenads in medallions surrounding main panels, 123, pls.115—155. c.225 AD.

Cf.Rottweil [47], Sousse II [19] c. 225 AD. 65. MYTILENE.

Roman house of late Empire with peristyle, Mytilene, island of Lesbos, Aegean coast of Turkey. Jn situ. BCH 86 (1962) 874-6. AJA 66 (1962) 390-1. S.Charitonidis, Praktika, (PAAH) 1962 (1966) 134-141. L’Ann.Philol. 37 (1966) 493. Hellenika 26 (1973) 239, no. 42. S.Charitonidis, L.Kahil, R.Ginouves, Les mosaiques de la Maison du Menandre (1970)

17-25,

90-1,

105, pl.1,2, colour, pls.9, 10, 12-14.

Panyagua (1973) 494, no. 251, called Chorafa. Liepmann no.19. Ovadiah 47, 55, fig 12, group II. Michaelides 479, n.46. TYPE Ib. 5.95 x 6.20m. Central octagon 1.42 x 1.45m, encircled by 8 tangent trapezoids, 4 lozenges and 4 triangles. Rocky setting and tree in central medallion. Facing left, twists right. Yellow, short-sleeved Greek stola, green undertunic. Green mantle around knees cf. Adana [60], Trinquetaille [44], Vienne I [45]. Heavy seamed eastern boots. Lyre issuing blue smoke = music? Phrygian bonnet. Hound, horse. Tortoise, snake, lizard. Recumbent fox. ASSOCIATED: next room, famous scenes from stage comedies, cf. Cos II [63] — scene from Euripides; busts of playwrite Menander, muse Thalia, theatrical masks cf. Chahba [70], Vienne IT [46]. After 250AD.

66. SELEUCIA. From barrel—vaulted room in N. corner of E. stoa of agora. Doric facade and exedra, public colonnade, Seleucia, Pamphilia, Turkey. In the Archaeological Museum of Antalya, ant. Attaleia. Mellink ‘Archaeology in Asia Minor’, AJA 60 (1976) 273. S.Campbell, ‘Roman Mosaic Workshops in Turkey’, AJA 83 (1979) 287; ibid ‘Archaeology in Asia Monteagudo, y G.Lopez 337. J.M.Blasquez Minor’, "Mosaicos de Asia Menor’, AEspArgq., 59, 163/4 (1986), 478. Michaelides photo. Unclear fig.5, 233-252, J.M.Blasquez y M.P. Garcia—Gelabert, "Mosaicos en la costa de Asia Menor II', Revista de Arqueologia 8 (1987),

34. LIMC, VI, I, 702, Nape 1; VI, II, 415, Nape I. TYPE IIb. Landscape setting. Artistically well achieved. Orpheus to left of scene. Female personification of right. the on NAPE, inscribed forest, woodland, Personification of groves, vales inscribed HYLE left. Orpheus frontal, long robes, cloak. Cithara. Eagle on rock, monkey on branch, snake-in-tree. Bear Rampant lion. Griffin. Mid 5th century.

chasing

deer.

67. TARSUS.

CYPRUS 68. Paphos. 69. Salamis* — probably Orpheus.

68. PAPHOS. House of Orpheus, Nea Paphos, Cyprus. 1984. K.Nicolaou in ILN (August 1979), 47; idem, 'Three New Mosaics at Paphos,

Cyprus’,

(Ravenna

CIMA,

1980)

1984,

219-225,

figs 6-8. D.Michaelides in V.Karageorghis, ‘Chronique ...1982', in BCH CVII (1983) and following; idem in V.Karageorghis, in ARDA 1982 and following; idem, 'A New Orpheus Mosaic in Cyprus’. Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium 'Cyprus Between the Orient and the Occident’ Nicosia 1985 (1986), 473-489, pls.LIII-LV1; idem, Cypriot Mosaics (1987), 12-14, colour pl.XIX and XX. I.Jesnick, 'The Mannerist depiction in Orpheus Mosaics’ in Acts of the VIth International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaic, Palencia—Merida, 1990, forthcoming. c.4.25 x 5.10m. TYPE Ila. Rock seat. Plants in comers cf.Hanover

sleeved,

[72].

Frontal.

Arm

Greek

high-waisted

Blue,

long—

mantle

round

outstretched.

stola, yellow

knees cf.Miletus [64] also Adana [60], Mytilene [65], sandals. Phrygian bonnet. Cithara. Recumbent fox looking

Sitting

back.

boar.

Inscription:

[..JOS

PINNIOS

RESTITOUTOS EPOIEI (Greek letters). ASSOCIATED: Hercules and Nemean Lion, an Amazon and

her horse. 220—30AD.

69. SALAMIS*. Exedra at entrance to baths of a house adjoining the gymnasium, Salamis, Cyprus. 1882. Destroyed by exposure. earlier and history n.1-11, 473-4, Michaelides, bibliography. pl.LIII:1. 3rd—4th C. At time of discovery some animals remained, known: goat, duck. Monkey, hand raised, cf.Palermo II [7], Sakiet [17]. Orpheus lost. Perhaps deliberate damage to figure of Orpheus in antiquity, cf.

Oudna [15], Sakiet [17]. Turkey. in Cilicia. Antioch Museum, Tarsus From A.M.Mansel, FA VII (1952) no.2310. Harrison 13, n.4. Panyagua, Orfeo 220; idem (1973) 495, no.254. Charitonidis, Mosaiques Mytilene 25, n.3. L.Budde, Kilikien I, figs.174, 178, idem, Kilikien II, 121-6, fig.22, pls.118, 156-167, inc. 158, colour. Liepmann no.3. Ovadiah 46-7, 54 fig.9, group Ic. Michaelides 478, called Antioch. Orpheus 1.94 x 2.14m, the right of three panels in a tableau 7 x 8m within a geometric field c.10 x 12m. TYPE IIb. Rocky setting. Small tree. In profile left, twists

THE EAST 70. 71. 72. 73.

Chahba Edessa Hanover Jerusalem

73a. Beirut*** — not Orpheus. 73b. Gaza*** — not Orpheus.

140

Catalogue of Orpheus Mosaics

Mouse, crocodile, cobra, horse. After 350AD.

70. CHAHBA. From a rich house in Chahba—Philippopolis, Syria. 1970. Museum of Chahba—Philippopolis, conserved in situ. Charitonidis, Mosaics Mytilene 105, n.7. J.Balty, Mosaiques Antiques de Syrie (1977) 44-9, pls.17—19, details in colour; idem, "La Mosaique d'Orphée de Chahba—Philippopolis’, Mosaique, Receuil d'Hommages 4 Henri Stern (1983), 33-7, pls. XXI-XXIV. c.325AD. C.Dauphine, 'A Roman Mosaic Pavement from Nablus’ in /srael Exploration Journal 29

lizard, peacock

in tree, hound,

73. JERUSALEM. From the courtyard of a Jewish house to the north-west of the Damascus gate. 1901. Archaeological Museum, Istanbul, ‘Das J.Strzykowski, 1604. Inv. Museum Turkey. neuegefundene Orpheus—mosaik in Jerusalem’, ZDPV 24 (1901) 139-165, pl.4. AJA V (1901) 366; IX (1905) 135. H.Vincent, ‘Une Mosaique Byzantine a Jerusalem’, Rev.Bibl. X (1901) 436-444, fig; XI (1902) 100-3. Mendel (1914), Cat. 511-4, no.1306. RPGR, 203, 4 and 6. Eisler (1925) 299-306. Cabrol—Leclerq, DACL VII (1927), ‘Jerusalem’ 2354-55, fig. 6191; ibid XII (1936) ‘Orphée’ 2740-46, fig.9240. M.Avi-Yonah, ‘Mosaic pavements in Palestine’, QDAP Il (1932) 172-3, no.133. Levi, Berytus 7 (1942) 53f., n.151, pl.VII, 4. P.B. Bagatti, ‘Il Mosaico dell’Orfeo a Gerusalemme' Rivista di archeologia cristiana XXVII

(1979): dates the villa to the reign of Philip the Arab, AD 244-249. Michaelides, 478. Wattel and Jesnick, JBAA CXLIV (1991) esp.95-101.

3.085 x 3.075m, emblema 2.365 x 2.355m. TYPE IIb. Landscape setting. Orpheus in profile facing right, gazes left cf. Sparta [59]. Long-sleeved, short Phrygian dress, belted at waist cf. [59] and cinched on chest. Long cloak. Baggy oriental trousers with stripe, heavy seamed eastern boots. Phrygian bonnet. Cithara. Horse, recumbent fox, mongoose, ostrich, elephant. Mouse on cithara. Snake-in-tree. Cf. Carnuntum [54]. Peacock in tree. Griffin. PENDENT: border with theatrical masks cf. Vienne II [46], Mytilene [65]. ASSOCIATED: marriage of Dionysus and Ariadne cf. Orbe [51], with thiasos figures, satyr Maron, drunken Hercules, vintaging erotes, vegetal masks cf. Jerusalem [73], Balty (1977), 50-6, pls.20-3. Also: Tethys with border of fishing

(1952) 145-60. Thirion 161, n.3. Stern 74, no.35. A.Grabar, L’age d'or de Justinian (1966) fig.119 (colour). Panyagua,

Orfeo, 221. J.B.Friedman, ‘Syncretism and Allegory in the Jerusalem Orpheus Mosaic’, Traditio 23 (1967) 1-13; idem, Orpheus in the Middle Ages (1970) 72-85, fig.15,16. Stern, CRAI (1970) 69-70, fig.7. Budde, Kilikien IH, pl.258. Liepmann no.13. A.Dupont-Sommer, "Le mythe d'Orphée aux animals et ses prolongements dans la Judaisme le christianisme et l'islam', Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei

erotes; Aphrodite and Ares (Balty 66-69, pls.28-9; 58-65,

(1975). Ovadiah 45, group ‘Orpheus from Jerusalem, 1 Cathedra Jerusalem

pls.24—7); the Three Graces. c. 244—249 AD.

71. EDESSA.

Ia. A.Ovadiah and S.Mucznik Pagan or Christian Image?’ B.Rosen, 152-166. (1981)

'Reidentified Animals in the Orpheus Mosaic from Jerusalem’, Israel Exploration Journal 34 (1984) 182-3. P.Prigent, ‘Orphée dans l'iconographie chretienne’, Rev.

From a burial cave, necropolis south of the city walls, Edessa, ant Urfa. 1956. In situ. J.B.Segal, Archaeology XII (1959) 151-7 esp. 157. Ch.Picard, Rev.Arch. (1960) 1, 11820, fig 9. J.Leroy, Syria 38 (1961) 160. Harrison, 13, n.3a. Panyagua, Orfeo 220-1, fig 14. J.B.Segal, Edessa, the

da‘hist. et de philos. rel. 64 (1984) 205-21. Michaelides 479, n.46.

Overall 5.87m x 3.485m, Orpheus panel 3.795 x 2.98m. TYPE Ila. No seat. Plant sprigs scattered between figures cf. Cherchel [22]. Frontal. Long dark (grey) robe and red chlamys. Sandals. Phrygian bonnet. Cithara. Eagle with bulla, mongoose, viper, mouse, owl, sheep. PENDENT: with Orpheus, seated centaur overcome by the music, Pan (cf. satyrs, Tarsus, Budde pl.140). Lotus border. Peopled vegetal scroll, fruit, baskets, birds, beasts cf. Pesquero [32]. Two old and two young male vegetal masks female in corners = Seasons? At foot of tableau, personification of plenty wearing bulla, diadem and mural crown, carrying cornucopia cf.Panik [55], Ptolemais [74], Newton St.Loe [83], Whatley [88], Winterton [89]. Two female figures carrying flower, bird, a sacred column between; below, two venatores and felines. Inscription: THEODOSIA, GEORGIA (Greek letters). 5th—6th century.

Blessed City (1970) 51ff. Ch.II, 94, pl.47. Panyagua (1973) 496, no.255. Liepmann no.40. Ovadiah 46, 53 fig.8, group Ic. H.J.W.Drijvers, Cults and Belief at Edessa (1980) 189-92,

pl.XV. Michaelides 479, n.46. TYPE Ila. Stylised rock seat, tree. three—quarter view facing right. High—belted, long-sleeved, Greek stola, cloak, mantle around knees cf.Miletus [64], Paphos [68]. Baggy oriental trousers, bare feet. Lyre. Lion and gazelle. Tabula ansata held by two putti cf.Constantine [23]. Inscription in Syriac: "In the month Tammuz in the year thirty-nine, I Aphtuha son of BRLY made for myself this tomb, for myself and for my children and for my heirs to eternity." The date corresponds to 227-228AD.

72. HANOVER.

73a. BEIRUT.***

From a monastic complex in Northern Syria. Hannover, 1970.48. Inv. Museum Germany. Kestner—Museum, U.Liepmann, "Ein Orpheus Mosaik Im Kestner-Museum zu Hannover’, Neiderdeutsche Beitr. zur Kunstgeschichte XIII (1974) 9-36, Cat. no.11. Michaelides 479, n.46. Square. TYPE Ila. Rock seat, bushy tree. Corner plants cf.Paphos [68]. Frontal. Long purple robe and chlamys cf. Ptolemais [74], Littlecote [82]. Phrygian bonnet. Soft shoes. Cithara.

Actes du Ve congrés international d’archéologie chretienne (Vatican + Paris 1957) 170. Harrison, 13, n.8: the mention of an Orpheus mosaic here is erroneous. Really a Good Shepherd. See M.Chehab 'Mosaiques du Liban’, Bulletin de Beyrouth XIV (1957), 55, pl.XXXI 'The Good Shepherd of Jenah’. 141

—

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

73b. GAZA***,

75. TOBRUK.

From near Tobruk, Libya,

From the central nave of a synagogue at Gaza. 1966. In situ? M. Marc Philonenko 'David—Orphée sur une mosaique de Gaza’, Rev. d‘hist. et de phil. rel. (1967), 355-7. Ovadiah, ‘The Synagogue at Gaza' Quadmoniot I (4), (1968), 195; idem ‘Excavations in the area of the Synagogue at Gaza’ JEJ XIX (1969), pl.1SA. H.Stern, 'Un nouvel Orphée—David dans une mosaique du VI siecle’, CRAIJ (1970) 63-79. A.Dupont-Sommer (1975) 11-12, figs 9, 10. P.C.Finney, ‘Orpheus—David: A Connection in Iconography between Greco-Roman Judaism and Early Christianity’, Journal of Jewish Art 5 (1978) 6-15. Ovadiah (1980) 46 and n.18, group Ib. Michaelides, 477. Frontal. Long striped robe, shoulder decoration, chlamys, diadem, nimbus cf. Ptolemais [74]. Cithara. Lioness, giraffe? snake (or elephant's trunk). Inscription: DAVID (Hebrew lettering). King David ‘fitted into the iconographic cliche’ of ‘Orpheus the kitharode' (Finney, 7) so as to evoke Orphean qualities, dominion over the powers of nature, by music, to bring universal peace. Not Orpheus. 6th century.

Destroyed? In situ? Harrison, JRS 52 (1962)

BRITAIN 76. Barton Farm 77. Brading 78. Caerwent I** — possibly Orpheus. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88.

74. Ptolemais 75. Tobruk

74. PTOLEMAIS.

flowers cf. Miletus [64] in medallions and spandrels. Scratching bird, waders. wave-crest border to Orpheus panel cf. PENDENT: Withington [90]; on threshold cf.Panik [55], Jerusalem [73],

Newton St.Loe [83], Whatley [88], Winterton [89], bust of winged and nimbed Season (cf.Antioch Seasons). Christian or late pagan Imperial iconography? Discussion in Harrison 17f. and Panyagua (1973) 493. Late 4th—Sth century.

17 and n.22,

description. Panyagua, Orfeo, 224; idem (1973) 493, no.249. Liepmann no.62. Michaelides 479, n.45. 1.80 x 1.50. TYPE Ila. Tree growing from picture frame cf. Ptolemais [74]. Frontal. Robes? Chiamys over left knee, Phrygian bonnet. Lyre. Snake-in-tree, elephant, monkey, seated fox? or wolf? Animals have own ground lines. PENDENT: Marine scene with fish 0.66m x 1.50. 4th century.

CYRENAICA

From a room opening off the corridor fronting a peristyle court in a late Roman dwelling, near the sea, Tolmeita, ant. Ptolemais, Cyrenaica, Libya, 100km east of Bengazi. 1960. In situ. JDAI: H.Sichtermann, AA (1962) cols. 427-8, figs. 5,6, col.430, fig 6, col.435. R.M.Harrison, ‘An Orpheus Mosaic at Ptolemais in Cyrenaica'’ Journal of Roman Studies 52 (1962) 13-18, Pls. I-VIII. Resumé: AJA 66 (1962) 197. Toynbee (1964) 256, n.1. Panyagua, Orfeo 221-3, fig.15. Schéeller 38, no.33. Panyagua (1973) 492, no.248. Liepmann no.34. Ovadiah (1980) 47, 55 fig.11, group Id. Michaelides 479, n.45. E.Alfoldi-Rosenbaum "The Orpheus Mosaic from Ptolemais in Cyrenaica. Some Observations’ in Festschrift fiir Jale Inan Armagani, N.Basgelen and N.Lugal eds., Istanbul (1989) 39-45. Circular emblema 1.50m. diam., in square panel 3.50m wide, in room 8.20 x 10m. TYPE Ib in circular frame cf. Brading [77]. 4 small medallions where guilloche border of centre seat. Tree interweaves with outer frame. Stylised rock growing from picture frame. Frontal. Long purple robes, chlamys cf.Hanover [72], Littlecote [82], seamed boots. Phrygian bonnet. Blue nimbus cf.Gaza [73b]. Lyre. Mouse, blue leopard. Snake-in-tree. Wolf. Birds pecking fruit or

1959. Badly damaged by rain.

Comb End** — possibly Orpheus. Gloucester** — possibly Orpheus. Horkstow Littlecote Newton St.Loe Paternoster Row** — possibly Orpheus. Pit Meads* — probably Orpheus. Rudston** — possibly Orpheus. Wellow Whatley* — probably Orpheus.

89. Winterton 90. Withington 91. 91a. 91b. 91c. 91d.

Woodchester Caerwent II*** — not Orpheus. Dyer Street*** — not Orpheus. Keynsham*** — not Orpheus. Pitney*** — not Orpheus.

76. BARTON FARM. From site called Barton Mill, outside walls of ant. Corinium, Cirencester, Gloucestershire, England. 1842. Corinium Museum, Cirencester. J.Buckman and C.H.Newmarch, Remains of Roman Art in..Cirencester (1850) 32-4, pl.VIL. Journal of the British Archaeological Association XXV (1869) 101-4, pls.2-6. T.Morgan Romano-British Mosaic Pavements (1886) 81, no.18. K.J.Beecham, History of Cirencester, The Roman Corinium (1886). E.C.Sewell, at the Barton— Pavement ‘The Roman A.H.Powell, Cirencester’, TBGAS XXXIII (1910) 67-77, pl.; A.Fox, "The date of the Orpheus Mosaic from the Barton, Cirencester Park' ibid, LXX (1951) 51-3, pl.I, I. Stanton, JRS (1936), 45. Gonzenbach (1949/50), 285 (Cirencester). Stem 75, no.39. J.M.C.Toynbee, Art in Roman Britain (1962) 198, no.185, pl.221; idem, Art in Britain Under the Romans (1964) 268, 273, pl.LXIa. D.J.Smith, "Three fourth—-century Schools of Mosaic in Roman Britain’, CMGR I (1965) 95115. Schdeller 35, no.9. D.J.Smith "The Mosaic Pavements’ in The Roman Villa in Britain, ed. A.L.F.Rivet (1969) 71125, pl.3.12. A.Rainey, Mosaics in Roman Britain (1973) 21. Liepmann, no.9. D.J.Smith, ‘Mythological Figures and Scenes in Romano—British Mosaics' in Roman Life and Art in Britain, ed. JMunby and M.Henig, BAR 41 (i) (1977)

142

Catalogue of Orpheus Mosaics

80. GLOUCESTER.**

107-158, figs 6.1-6.XXXIII, 126, no.69, pls.6. Xb, 6.XIa. Neal (1981) 31. W.B.Yapp, ‘The Birds of the Corinium Mosaics' Mosaic 6 (April 1982) 19-25. D.J.Smith ‘Orpheus Mosaics in Britain’, Mosaique: Hommages a Henri Stern (1983) 315-28, 318, no.4., pl.CCV. Michaelides 478, n.43. Orpheus panel 4.45m sq. TYPE IIIb. 3 concentric circles within square. Orpheus in centre with fox. Birds in first frieze, quadrupeds in outer. No seat. One frond of vegetation. Orpheus in right profile, gazes left cf. Sparta [59], Chahba [70]. Short Phrygian dress, central clavus, short flying cloak, baggy trousers, high boots. Phrygian bonnet, spangled decoration cf.Blanzy [38], Vienne I [45], Littlecote [82]. Cithara. Walking fox, vertical. Peacock, guinea fowl, goose, crane, swan, peahen. Griffin. Laurel wreath border cf. Piazza Armerina [8], Sousse I [18], II [19], Pesquero [32], Blanzy [38], Woodchester [91]. 293-300AD.

From Southgate Street, Gloucester, ant. Glevum. 1746. Gloucester Journal, 25 March 1746. L.E.W.O.Fullbrook— Leggatt, Roman Gloucester (Glevum) (1968) 36. Rainey 84, no.9, a. '..Birds and beasts in diverse colours...’ Perhaps Orpheus, no proof.

81. HORKSTOW. From villa, Horkstow, South Humberside (Lincolnshire), England. 1796. Formerly in British Museum, London, now Reliquae S.Lysons, England. Museum, City Hull Britannico—Romanae (1813) part i, 1-4, pls.I-VIII, IV. Morgan 136. Leclercq, DACL II, 1, (1925) ‘Bretagne (Grande)' 1182. Guidi 136, group IV, B, e. Hinks 101-10, no.36, figs. 112-24. Stanton 46. Levi, Berytus 7 (1942) 50-

1, fig.2, pl. VII, 1. Gonzenbach (1949/50) 285, 287, n.50. Stem 76, no.43, Type III. Toynbee (1962) 202, no.198, pl.227; idem (1964) 280-82. Smith (1965) 95-115, fig.1 (from Fowler); Panyagua, Orfeo 228. Smith (1969) 71-125, fig.3.2. Schdeller 36, nos.12 and 19, identical. Panyagua

77. BRADING. In situ, emblema of long geometric pavement in entrance corridor of Brading Villa, Isle of Wight. J.E. and F.G.H.Price A Description of Roman Buildings at Morton Near Brading, IOW. (1880/1), pl.opp. p.10. Morgan (1886) 234-9, pls. VCH Hants I (1900) 313-16, figs.22—4. Hinks

(1973) 481, no.231. Rainey 96, a. Liepmann no.49. Ovadiah

(1980) 48, 56, fig.15, group II. Smith (1983) 322-3, no.8. Michaelides 478, n.43. According to Leclercq Christian, according to Levi an Orphic telesterion, both claims dismissed by Panyagua.

109. Stanton 45. Gonzenbach (1949/50) 285. Stern 75, no.37,

fig 13. Toynbee (1962) 201-2, nos.195-7, pl.231-3; idem, (1964) 254-8. Smith (1965) 106 + n.56. Schdeller 36, no.20

Three figured panels overall 15.25 x 6.10m. Orpheus panel 5.63m.sq. TYPE IIIc. Two concentric circles, the outer inscribed in a square, linked by eight radiating arms, awning pattern bordering centre, the eight compartments each subdivided by concentric arcs into 3 compartments. The design most closely resembles the painted ceiling at Ostia (Brilliant, fig. I11.32). Fox and peacock in centre with Orpheus. Heavy cloak? Phrygian bonnet, cithara. Only boar, bear and elephant remain of the quadrupeds. Next a series of confronted birds pecking fruit cf. Miletus [64], Ptolemais [74]. Nearest centre, hunting beasts, deer and hound running. PENDENT: birds and hunt might also come into this category. In spandrels 4 heads = Seasons? Adjoining panel, a great circle upheld by anguipede Giants, divided into 4 quadrants, then concentric circles: tritons, nereids and erotes, vintaging erotes nearer centre — subject lost. Inserted medallions containing Bacchic motifs, Bacchus and Ariadne. Rectangular end panel with circus race around spina, winning charioteer, 'shipwreck’, games master cf.Rottweil [47]. 350's

(erroneously located in British Museum). Smith (1969) 71-

125. Rainey, 27, b. Panyagua (1973) 481, no.232. Liepmann no.6. Smith (1977) 125, no.68, pl.6.VI, a. Ovadiah (1980) 47, group Id. Smith (1983), 316, pl-CCII, 1. Michaelides, 478, n.43. Jesnick, Mosaic 16 (1989) 9-13, esp. 12-13. Circular panel in square, 2.48m.sq. TYPE Ila in circular frame cf. Ptolemais [74]. Rocky setting, no tree. Frontal. Short-sleeved short tunic, undertunic? long cloak, baggy trousers, cf. Vienne I [45], high boots, Phrygian bonnet. Lyre. Monkey, seated fox looking up, peacock, crow. PENDENT: in spandrels, Seasons. ASSOCIATED: Room 3, Bacchus, gladiators, hunt, Nilotic scene with priest of Anubis; room 12, Seasons, Perseus and Andromeda, philosopher, religious scenes, Medusa, marine thiasos. Fourth century.

78. CAERWENT I.** Venta Silurum, Wales.

Destroyed. Archaeologia

58-9, pl.1. A parrot tail and a vase depicted local parson recalled seeing a lion, tiger moment of discovery. Toynbee (1964) 266. typically Orphean bird. Possibly Orpheus, no

V (1799)

AD.

in the plate. The and stag at the The parrot is a proof.

82. LITTLECOTE. From a_ self-contained complex close to the river, comprising the hall with Orpheus adjoining a small bath suite, detached from the residential wing of the villa, Littlecote, 3 miles W of Hungerford, Wiltshire, England. 1727. Lost. Rediscovered and first re-excavated 1977. A allowing restoration substantial proportion remained, following the engraving and embroidery made in the 18thC. In situ. Lysons (1813) iv, 4, pl.IX. W.Fowler, Engravings of the Principal Mosaic Pavements (1804) no.20. R.C.Hoare, The History of Wiltshire (1821) 117, pl.1. T.Morgan,

79. COMB END.** A

villa,

Colesbourne,

Gloucestershire.

1787.

Lysons,

Archaeologia IX 319, and XVIII, 112. Morgan 33. TBGAS, XLVIII (1926) 79. Stanton 46, n.13. Panyagua (1973) no.233. ‘birds, fishes and circles were reported’, 'many figures of birds and fishes’. No indication of Orpheus.

Romano-British Mosaic Pavements (1886) 104-5 (Apollo).

143

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic PENDENT: on threshold, acanthus scroll, panel with female bust, crown and cornucopia, personification of plenty cf. Panik [55], Jerusalem [73], Ptolemais [74], Whatley [88], Winterton [89]. Late 3rd century.

Stanton 46. J.A.Richmond, Roman Britain in Pictures (1947) pl.opp. 33. G.M.A. Hanfmann, The Seasons Sarcophagus in Dumbarton Oaks ii (1951) 144-5, no.104. Stern 76, no.44.

Toynbee (1964) 253-4. Smith (1965) 95-115; idem, (1969) 71-125, pl.3.16. Schdeller 36, no.16. Panyagua (1973) 480, no. 229a. Rainey, 110. Liepmann no.68, under heading ‘destroyed, unseen image of Orpheus’. Smith (1977) 150, no.139, pl.XXIa. M.Todd (ed.), Studies in the Romano-

84. PATERNOSTER ROW.** From Paternoster Row, near St.Pauls Cathedral, London, England. 1839-41. A mosaic some 40' long found at a depth of 12%' and subsequently destroyed had a design of birds and beasts and an object said to resemble a starfish in compartments within a border of guilloche and rosettes. cf.

British Villa (1978) 129, 133-5, figs. 42, 43; 146, n.31. B.Walters and B.Phillips, Archaeological Excavations in Littlecote Park, Wiltshire,

1978: First Interim Report (1979);

idem, Second Interim Report 1979 & 80. Toynbee, ‘Apollo, Beasts and Seasons: Some thoughts on the Littlecote Mosaic’ Britannia XII (1981) 1-5. R.Ling, Current Archaeology 82 (May 1982) 350. B.Walters, "The Orpheus Mosaic in Littlecote Park, Wiltshire’, CIMA III (1984). Smith (1983) 323-4, no.9, pl.CCIX, CCX. Michaelides 478, n.43. Orpheus panel 3.76m.sq. Tri—apsed chamber cf.Blanzy [38]. TYPE IIIc. Circle quadrilaterally divided, Orpheus in circle at the hub. No seat. Three-quarter view facing right. Long purple robes, chlamys cf.Hanover [72], Ptolemais [74]. Phrygian bonnet, spangled decoration, cf.Blanzy [38],

Lancha, Mosaiques Vienne (1990) nos.27, 34, xenia subjects. Archaeologia XXIX (1842) 155. Roach Smith, I/lustrations of Roman London, (1859) 57-8. W.R.Lethaby, Londinium

(1923) 149. Toynbee (1964) 247, n.4. R.Merrifield, The Roman City of London (1965) Gazeteer, 18-20; idem, London, City of the Romans (1983) 247: fourth century levels, perhaps the residence of an official. No mention of Orpheus, no central focus.

85. PIT MEADS.*

Vienne I [45], Barton [76]. Cithara. Vertical fox, no others.

From Pit Meads, near Warminster, Wiltshire, England. 1800. Destroyed. R.Colt Hoare, The Ancient History of North Wiltshire II, Roman Aera (1821) pl. opposite 113, fig.4. Smith (1965) 95-115, fig.13; idem (1969) 71-125. Rainey 128, d. Panyagua (1973) 480, no.229b. Liepmann no.58. Smith (1983) 324, no.10, pl.CCXI, 1. Michaelides 478, n.43. TYPE IIa, cf. Newton [83], Withington [90]. The hind legs of a quadruped moving clockwise near the perimeter of a circular design. Foliage in spandrels reminiscent of Corinian style, cf. Barton [76]. Probably Orpheus. 293-—300AD.

PENDENT: Four goddesses mounted on harnessed, running beasts, goat, doe, dark leopard, bull, alluding to Dionysiac myth and seasons. In apses, shell/awning pattern with leopard head finials, leopard—skin reverse. Panel of water pattern, cantharus between confronted felines cf.Rudston [86], Wellow

[87], confronted sea panthers, marine motifs

and cantharus, cf. Whatley [88]. 360-63AD.

83. NEWTON ST.LOE. From a Roman villa in Newton St.Loe, western outskirts of Bath ant. Aguae Sulis, Somerset, England. 1837-8. Lifted 1851. Unrestored remains, drawings, plans and full size colour tracing by T.E.Marsh, (1837-8) in City Museum, Bristol. Morgan 102. F.J.Haverfield, Victoria County

86. RUDSTON.** From the N. side of the courtyard of a substantial villa 6 1971. miles W. of Bridlington, Yorkshire, England. D.J.Smith, "The Mosaics from Rudston Villa’ in I.M.Stead, Excavations at Winterton Roman Villa and other Roman sites

History of Somerset 1 (1906) 302. Hinks 109. G.R.Stanton, ‘The Newton St.Loe Pavement’ Journal of Roman Studies

XXVI (1936) 43-46. Pls.VII-IX. Gonzenbach (1949/50) 285. Thirion 160, n.2. Stern 75, 36. Smith (1965) 95-115, fig.10; idem, (1969) 71-125, pl.3.10. Toynbee (1964) 2478. Schoeller 36, 37, nos.17 and 26 (identical), erroneously

in North Lincs. (1976) 131-133, House 8, East Room: (C) ‘The Mosaic of the Small Figures’, pl.Xc. Neal (1981) 95-7,

no.69, 'The Charioteer Mosaic’, panel C., colour pl. between pp.104—5. Virtually lost, reconstructed as a linear square containing a linear circle around a large octagon divided radially into eight trapezoidal compartments, perhaps a circular or octagonal panel in centre cf. Winterton [89]. 2.99m.sq. TYPE IIIc. Only a fragment of figuration, in the spandrels, survived. PENDENT: in spandrels, human figures. Smith calls attention to figures in similar location on a mosaic from Cologne, spectators to gladiatorial scenes. Clothing suggests daily life scenes, perhaps seasonal (cf.El Djem, Calendar A small motif is Mosaic, Dunbabin PI.XXXVIII). interpreted by Smith as a phallus, which had a protective function in African imagery. Crenellated parapet border. On threshold, a cantharus between a pair of confronted leopards cf. Littlecote [82], olive green with blue spots cf. Sparta

located in British Museum. Panyagua (1973) 476, no.224. Rainey 122, C. Liepmann no.7. Smith (1977) 127, no.73,

pl.6XXVIla. Ovadiah (1980) 48, group II. Smith (1983) 3167, no.2, pl.CCIII, 2. Michaelides 478, n.43. J.Russell "The Roman Villa at Newton St.Loe’ in Bristol and Avon Archaeology vol.9 (1992) 2-23. I.Jesnick ‘Newton St.Loe: Orpheus, Running Animals and the Hunt’, Mosaic 20, (1993) 18-23. Panel c.3.04m.sq. TYPE Illa. Two concentric circles. Diameter of central circle c.1.52m. Rock seat. Facing left, twists right. ‘Phrygian’ dress, long-sleeved short, striped Roman tunic, long cloak, grey—blue stone used. High, cuffed Thracian boots. Phrygian bonnet. Cithara. Vertical fox attendant. Between different types of tree, traditional pairs of confronted beasts of the venatio: leopard and stag, lion and doe, bear and bull, bull turned to face the feline whose prey omitted for lack of space.

[59], Ptolemais

[74]. The

pecking fruit cf. Horkstow 144

other pavement:

Seasons, birds

[81], victorious charioteer cf.

Catalogue of Orpheus Mosaics

[81], Rottweil [47]. These fortuitous, fruitful and protective motifs are consistent with the central theme of Orpheus. Possibly Orpheus. Mid 4th century.

Littlecote [82], dolphins around female bust: A) with mural crown, cornucopia = Abundantia, cf. Panik [55], Jerusalem [73], Ptolemais [74], Newton St.Loe [83], Winterton [89]. Or B) = a misunderstood Tethys with oar and starfish crown (for whom marine decoration would be suitable) cf. Chahba [70]. C) = GE or Gaia with calathos and cornucopia. Probably Orpheus. Fourth century.

87. WELLOW. From the central chamber (room A) of a rich courtyard villa,

Wellow, Somerset. 1683. Lost. Original drawing of 1685 in J.Aubrey's unpublished Mon.Britannia, Bodleian Lib. MS. Aubrey 15, Top.Gen. C.25, fol.102a, text fol.100-110. 'A curious [an exact] draught whereof was taken...’ Vetusta Monumenta I (1747) ArchAntiq. a. U.37, fols.52-4 (= pl.52-4). Tho. Gale, Antonini Iter Britanniarum, (Gough Gen. top. 3, fol. 89) p.89 and pl., Bodleian. A copy after Aubrey. Coloured drawings in Somerset County Museum. VCH, Somerset I, (1906), fig. 71, Room A. Figure in central medallion not published in VCH, 'Scene with figures now unintelligible’. Given the exactitude of the record, on which Aubrey insists, the illegibility of the central figure would indicate that it was then in a fragmentary state, perhaps broken on discovery. N.Cookson, BAR 135 (1984) 53, noted a possible square Orpheus at Wellow even in the incomplete VCH illustration. P.Witts queried the presence of Orpheus on the basis of Gale's drawing which includes the centre. The figure in Gale's version brought to my notice by S.Cosh and convincingly interpreted as being fragments which once formed the picture of a lyrist with a strong resemblance to that of Littlecote by A.Beeson, who kindly relayed the information. Thanks to P.Witts for sharing her investigation of the original Ms. in the Bodleian library where we confirmed the presence of the 1685 drawing and Aubrey's comments. There is a resemblance between the design of this

89. WINTERTON. From room 3, building D of a villa, Winterton, south Humberside (Lincolnshire), 5 miles W. of Horkstow, England. 1752. In situ, buried. Re-excavated I.M.Stead, 1958-61. G.Vertue, Vetusta Monumenta (Soc.Ant.Lond.) II (1789) pl.9. Fowler (1804) pl.1. Morgan 135. Stanton 46 and

n.11. Stern 76, no. 42. Type III. Toynbee (1964) 282-3. Smith (1965) 95-115, fig.2; idem (1969) 71-125, pls.3.17, 3.18. I.M.Stead, Excavations at Winterton Roman Villa (1976) 39-49 (building D), pl.XXIV; ibid, Smith 259-271, pls.XVI, XVII, XXIV, XXV, (Mosaic A). Rainey 161 a. Neal 108-114, no.83, pl.83, pls. 84 (=Bacchus), 85, Providentia, fig. 25. Smith (1983) 321-2, no.7, pl. CCVII. Schoeller 40, no.50. Panyagua (1973) 480, no.230. Liepmann no.43. Smith (1977) 152-3, nos. 149, 150, pl.6.XXXIa. Michaelides 478, n.43. Orpheus panel 3.92m.sq. in geometric surround 7.47 x 4.57m. TYPE IIIc. A square, the angles bridged to form comer triangles, within this octagon a circle, divided radially into 8 trapezoid compartments around an octagonal hub. Orpheus in profile right?. The animals proceed anti-— clockwise, either set across a tree cf. Salona [58], Stolac [56], or next to one. 6 surviving animals including leopard (olive green, outlined blue), tiger (the teats identify the generically female tigris), hound, griffin. An elephant appears in early drawings. PENDENT: in angles, 4 canthari. ASSOCIATED: another chamber 3.05 x 5.03m, stag running across tree in circular medallion, plus another, lost centre, canthari in spandrels (Neal 110, fig.25). Room 6 of same building: Bacchus (Neal, Mosaic 84, Fortuna) cf. Smith (1977) no.150 (and in Stead 1976, 259, the attribute 13: thyrsus. Room identified as grapes). Probably Abundantia/Felicitas/Providentia, nimbed, with cornucopia

pavement and of Panik [55].

TYPE

Ib. Entire pavement

approx. 29'3", central square

approx. 11'6"sq. Orpheus in central circle within interlaced

squares. PENDENT: Border with opposed peacocks and cantharus, cf. Withington [90], at comers. Two panels at either end with confronted spotted leopards amid spiralling foliage, cf. Littlecote [82], Woodchester [91]. Fourth century.

88. WHATLEY.* From Whatley, Somerset, England. 1837. Destroyed. Coloured lithograph in Somerset County Museum. VCH, Somerset I (1906) 317, fig 77. Archaeologia 1x (1930), 60. Stanton 46 and n.12. Toynbee (1964) 249. Smith (1969) 71-

cf. Panik

confronted

sea—beasts

and

fish,

Ptolemais

[74],

Newton

From a long rectangular room, a villa? Withington, 9 miles N. of Cirencester, Gloucestershire, England. 1811. Orpheus, lion and wild ass lost, the rest in the British Museum store, London, save one fragment (Bear) in the City Museum, Bristol, England. Lysons, Rel.Brit—Rom. II (1817) part i, pls. XVII-XXI. Archaeologia (1817) XVIII, pl.7, 118-21. JBAA I (1845) 44. Arch.Journ. (1846) ii, 42. Morgan 78-9. RPGR 203, 1 and 5. Baddeley, no.37, pl.II. Hinks 111-14, no.37, figs.125-8. Stanton 45. Stern 76, no.41. Type II. Toynbee (1964) 271-2. Smith (1965) 95-115, fig 11; idem (1969) 71125, pl.3.11. Gonzenbach (1949/50) 276, 285. Panyagua (1973) 477, no. 225. Schoeller 37, 40, nos. 21 and 51 (identical). Rainey 21. RCHM, Glos.I (1976) 131-2, pl.51.

[35], Martim Gil [36]. Main panel, 4.10 x 4.25m. TYPE: Rectangular form of IIa, concentric rectangles, perhaps. Centre lost. Confronted pairs of animals alternate with trees in outer frieze, lion, stag, elephant, ass, griffin, typical Orphean fauna. PENDENT: in apse a fish, and 4 canthari issuing plants. Adjoining panel, at right—angle to main chamber: acanthus with

[73],

90. WITHINGTON.

cf. Piazza Armerina [8], Sakiet [17], La Alberca [28], Amal

panel

Jerusalem

St.Loe [83], Whatley [88]. c.340AD.

125. I.M.Stead, PSANHS 114 (1970) 37-47. Panyagua (1973) 482, no.233. Rainey, 126-7, a, b. Liepmann no.69: ‘destroyed, Orpheus image not seen.’ Smith (1977), 127, no.75, 134, no.102, pl.6XXXb; idem (1983) 324-6, no.11, ‘putative’, pl.CCXI,2. Michaelides 478, n.43. Apsed chamber

scroll,

[55],

cf.

145

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

feet extend. Once said 'to be fish and a star about the centre’

Liepmann no.8. Smith (1977) 124, no.64, 128, no.77, pl.XXXIb; idem (1983) 317-8, no.3, pl.CCIV, 1. Yapp, Mosaic 6 (1982) 19-25. Michaelides 478, n.43. Orpheus panel 3.30m.sq. TYPE IIIa. Two concentric circles. Animals proceed anti-clockwise in outer zone divided into 8 compartments by stylized, calyx—leaved trees, cf. Volubilis [27]. Wave—crest border cf. Ptolemais [74]. No seat. Facing left, twists right. Short Phrygian dress, short cloak flying out, baggy trousers, long boots, Phrygian bonnet. Cithara. Vertical fox. Bull, hound. Birds in two friezes on either side of the main panel. Cockerel, scratching bird, cf. Woodchester [91]; cantharus between confronted peacocks, cf. Wellow [87]. 320's AD. PENDENT: Neptune/Oceanus cf. [91], with sea—beasts, dolphins, vegetation, cf. Whatley [88]. Venatio. Marine panel. All the work of a later school of mosaicists,

1722,

BM

(Bradley,

Add.

MSS.5238,

fol.3).

No

seat.

Frontal. Short Phrygian dress, zigzag central clavus, cloak flying out, baggy trousers, boots. Cithara. Orpheus between confronted fox and peacock. Scratching bird. 11 beasts proceeding clockwise, trees or trailing plants between, Oceanus, PENDENT: griffin. elephant, including cf.Withington [90], acanthus scroll. In spandrels, eight naiads, in pools filled with waterweed, with overturned vases issuing water. ASSOCIATED: erotes carrying basket of fruit, Satyr, maenad and satyr, Bonum Eventum? Inscription: BONVM EVENTVM, BIINII = BENE C[OLLITE]. 293-300AD.

91a. CAERWENT II.***

identifiable with the Durnovarian group, see Smith (1965).

From room 6 in a suite of two reception VIIS, Caerwent, ant. Venta Silurum, Wales. and displayed Newport Museum. T.Ashby, Caerwent', Archaeologia 58 (1902) 140,

340's AD.

91. WOODCHESTER. Principal oecus on central axis of sumptuous villa, Woodchester, 1 mile south of Stroud, Gloucestershire, England. Known from 1695, excavated and drawn by Bradley 1722; Lysons c.1796; Clark 1973. In situ, buried. Fragment of acanthus scroll in British Museum store, London. S.Lysons, An Account of Roman Antiquities discovered at Woodchester in the County of Gloucester (1797); idem, Reliquae Brit-Rom. I (1813) i, pls. XXII-

(1964)

266.

J.Liversidge,

Britain

in the

rooms, building 1901. Restored ‘Excavations at pl.X. Toynbee Roman

Empire

(1968) 77-8, fig. 26. Rainey 37, no.12. Liepmann no.66. Smith (1977) Jesnick, "The

129-130, Caerwent

no.84. Michaelides 478, n.43. Seasons Mosaic — Perhaps an

Orpheus?’ Mosaic 16 (1990) 7-13. Torch—-bearing winged erotes, animals, Seasons. Centre probably Bacchus. Not Orpheus.

91b. DYER STREET.***

XXVII. Vetusta Monumenta ii (1788) pl.xliv. Morgan (1886)

74ff. W.St.Clair Baddeley ‘The Roman Pavement at Woodchester’, TBGAS, XLVIII (1927) 75-96, pl.I, TI—X. Hinks, 96-7, no.31, fig.107. Stanton 45. Gonzenbach

From 33 Dyer Street, Cirencester, ant. Corinium, Glos., England. Supposedly found 1810-20. Destroyed? The Gentleman's Magazine, (1849) ii, 358. Beecham (1886) 267— 8, pl.opposite 266. Stanton 45. Stem 75, no. 40. Toynbee

(1949/50) 285. Stern 75, no. 38, fig.12 (Lyson's watercolour

of 1797). Toynbee (1962) 198, no.186, fig. 222; idem, (1964) 272-4, pls.LXI, b,c, LXII, b. M.D.Mann, The Roman Villa at Woodchester (1963) 16pp, figs, 4pls. colour. Smith (1965) 95-115, figs. 17, 18; idem (1969) 71-125, 3.13, 3.14.

(1962)

198;

idem

(1964)

268-9.

Smith

(1965)

95-115,

fig.12; idem (1969) 71-125. R.Reece, "Two "Lost' Mosaics at Cirencester", TBGAS LXXXIX (1971) 175-6. Rainey 48, no.12. Panyagua (1973) 478, no.227. Liepmann no.55. Smith (1977) 126, no.70, pl.6XIb. R.Stupperich 'A Reconsideration of Some Fourth—-Century British Mosaics’, Britannia XI (1980) 299-300. A.McWhirr, ‘Cirencester Mosaics’, Mosaic,

Schéeller 35, 37, nos. 11 and 22 (BM fragment). Gonzenbach (1949/50) 287, n.50. F.Klingender, Animals in Art and

Thought (1971) 99, pl.73. Panyagua (1973) 479, no.228. in at Woodchester D.J.Smith, The Great Pavement Gloucestershire (1973). Rainey 163 a. Liepmann no.44.

Bulletin of ASPROM, 4, (April 1981) 5-6; idem, 'Dyer St. Orpheus Again’, Mosaic 5 (November 1981) 17. Smith

RCHM Gloucestershire 1 (1976) 132-4, pls.17, 19, 20, 21 (vertical colour photos). G.Clark, 'The Roman Villa at

(1983) 319, no.5 and 328, pl.CCIV, 2. Michaelides 478, n.43. A.J.Beeson, 'A possible representation of Scylla from Cirencester’, Mosaic 17 (1990) 19-23.

Woodchester’, Britannia VIII (1977). Smith (1977) 121-2, no.52, 125, no.65, 128, no.78, pl.6. XXXIla, 114, no. 25, 142, no.127, pl. 6.XXXIc. Ovadiah (1980) 48, 56 fig 14, group II. Neal 115-122, no.87, colour pl. opp.105, pls.87a, b, c, fig.26. Yapp, Mosaic 6 (1982) 19-25. Smith (1983) 320-1, no.6, pl. CCVI. Michaelides 478, n.43. Orpheus panel 10.06m.sq. TYPE IIIb. Within a square, a circle divided into three concentric zones edged with guilloche, octagon at centre. Outside, decorative borders take

TYPE IIIb. The history and lack of archaeological evidence suggest that the mosaic never existed. The graphic evidence within Beecham's drawing, the only record, substantiates this conclusion, being most likely a garbled combination of features from Barton Farm, notably scale—pattern leopard, birds, vertical fox, with those from Woodchester eg. offcentre Orpheus and head of Oceanus transformed into Scylla. Non-existent.

dimensions to 13.91 x 13.76m, forming an ambulatory around the figured panel, in a room 14.86m.sq. At internal angles of inner square, four stone bases indicate that wooden columns may have supported a gallery, perhaps a domed

91c. KEYNSHAM.*** From room W of a large and sumptuous villa, Keynsham, Somerset, England. 1922. Formerly in Cadbury—Schweppes Factory, Somerdale. Archaeologia 75 (1926) pl.XVII, fig. 2. Rainey 101, (h) iii. Toynbee (1964) 241: saw head of

roof covered the chamber. Orpheus placed off centre, probably to accommodate a pool with fountain cf. Blanzy [38], in the second zone, where a laurel wreath border cf. Barton Farm [76] is depicted, between the ends of which his 146

Catalogue of Orpheus Mosaics Orpheus prophesying. Liepmann no.65. Contrary: Smith (1977) 149-150, no.138, pl.6.XIXc. Stupperich, Britannia XI (1980) 294-6. Michaelides 478, n.43. Stupperich: Minerva sees her reflection in water. Not Orpheus.

91d. PITNEY.*** From a courtyard villa, Pitney, Somerset, England. 1828. Destroyed. Toynbee (1964) 248-9. Smith (1969) 102, 125. Rainey 129, 1,a. Liepmann no.70. Smith (1977) 133, no.96, 120, no. 51, pl.6.XXVII. Stupperich (1980) 296-7. Michaelides

478, n.43. Paris

with Oenone,

or Attis with

Sagaritis, cf. R.Ling, Mosaic 5 (November 1981) 6, pl.I, 1. Not Orpheus.

147

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

TABLE:

I

Type

WEST

THE

Britain France Italy Sicily Sardinia Spain Switzerland Bosnia and Hercegovina Serbia Croatia Portugal Germany Austria

DISTRIBUTION OF MOSAIC TYPES

Type

II

Type

III

Unclass.[1]

Unknown

TOTAL

1 6 2 ) 0 2 1

i 2 2 3 1 4 2

9 Le) ) 0 6) 1 6)

O O 6) ¢) 0 0 1

) 1 6) 0 0 0 1

11 9 4 3 1 7 5

2 fe) 1 O 1 0

fe) af 0 2 0 1

0) 0 0 O fe) O

0 0 0 6) 0 6)

0 0 0 (6) 1 6)

2 1 1 2 2 1

16

19

10

1

3

49

6 0 1 1 6)

3 1 eA O 2

6) 0 0) 1 0

1 0 1 0 0

2 1 0 O 0

12 2 3 2 2

8

7

a

2

3

21

3

5

0

0

fe)

8

Syria

O

3

0

0

0)

3

Cyprus Greece

0 O

2 1

0) 0

0 fe)

0 6)

2 1

Israel

0

1

0

0

0

1

3

12

0

6)

0

LS

27

38

11

3

6

85

AFRICA

Tunisia Libya Algeria Morocco Cyrenaica

THE

EAST

Asia

Mr.

TOTALS

[2]

[1]

Unclassified are mosaics whose design does not fit any of Stern's types: Carthage, Djemila, Orbe. Unknown mosaics are not properly described in the literature or too fragmentary to tell.

[2]

The designation 'Asia Minor' here includes the Aegean islands, disregarding moder political boundaries for the sake of geographic proximity and repertorial alliances.

148

St. Julien a Brioude, now Bargello, Florence. Front.

List of Dlustrations

19.

5th-6th C. After Volbach (1976) no.92, pl.51. Approx. life size. Pyxis, Brioude. Reverse: mounted huntsmen, wild animals, hunstman on foot spearing lion. After Volbach no.92, p1.51. Pyxis, Brioude. Side: mounted huntsman, satyrs, felines, griffin, centaur. After Volbach no.92, pl.51. Orpheus with monkey and star. Late antique bronze ring. Late 4th C. AD. After Price and Price (1888), fig. p.10. Thracian Orpheus with animals, snake—in-tree, elephant. Glass paste gem imitating amethyst. 15 x 13mm. British Museum (Cat. Smith 3129). Drawn directly from original. cf.Stern 1980, figs.18a—c. from Berlin; 17, from Belgrade. 4th C. AD. Magic amulet, syncretic imagery. Haematite.

20.

ORPHEOS BAKKIKOS. 3rd—4th C. AD. Lost. After Friedman fig.8. Spatial diagram: Illusionism and the frontal plane in

I. Comparative Material.

15. Line drawings by I.J.Jesnick unless otherwise credited.

L,

16.

Boetian cup. Enthroned Apollo/Orpheus with birds and leashed hind. Base 6.5cm. 6th—-Sth C. BC. After Stern (1980) fig.1. Nude Orpheus, horse, deer, lion, crow, owl. Engraved sardonyx, 13 x 10.7mm. c.160 BC.

18.

Stern

It.

British Museum (Cat. Dalton (1980) fig.6, impression.

Apollo Bronze

no.804).

Cf.

with collared hind, lynx, box of scrolls. mirror. Etruscan or Greek, 420—390BC.

Boston Museum

of Fine Arts. After Stern (1980)

fig.2. Orpheus sings to group of Thracian warriors. "The Berlin vase’. Red-figure Attic krater, Gela, Sicily. Berlin, Museum of Antiquities. H.51cm. c.440BC. After Guthrie (1935) P1.6. Oracular head of Orpheus. Scribe. Apollo with

a mosaic of Orpheus (Palermo I).

laurel branch. Red—figure kylix (stemless cup). Late

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Map 1: dissemination of repertorial features. The following comparative figures not to scale.

21. 22a-—c.

5th C. BC. Fitzwilliam Museum, Lewis Loan 103.25. H.60mm. Diam.189mm. Photo:Reproduced with the permission of the Master and Fellows ofCorpus Christi College Cambridge and of the Copyright, Cambridge. Museum, Fitzwilliam Fitzwilliam Museum. Orpheus in eastern robe, orbiculum, central clavus. Catacomb of Peter and Marcellinus. 4th C. AD. After Friedman, fig.5. Victorious Orpheus, with griffin, sheep. Central motif of strigillated sarcophagus, crypt of basilica of San Gavino, Porto Torres, Sardinia. 3rd C. AD. After Murray (1981) fig.6. Scale 1:3 approx. Orpheus, semi—draped, Phrygian cap, with animals. Marble fountain ornament, H.1.10m. C.275 AD. Athens, Byzantine Museum, after Murray (1981) fig.13. Orpheus, semi—draped, Phrygian cap, with animals. Marble fountain ornament, Lepcis Magna, c.275 AD. Sabratha Museum. After Murray (1981) fig.11. Scale 1:6 approx. Orpheus in Phrygian dress amid a multitude of creatures. Clay mould, probably from silver original. Diam. 19cm. 4th C. AD. Trier, Rheinische Landesmuseum. After Elbern, fig.92, impression. Orpheus with animals, snake—in-tree, griffin, Pan, Ivory pyxis, scene above. Centaur. Pastoral monastery of St Columbano, Bobbio, NW Italy. 5th-6th C. Front. After Volbach (1976) no.91, pl.50. Approx. life size. Pyxis, Bobbio. Reverse: mounted huntsmen, capture of tiger cub, felines; pastoral scene. After Volbach (1976) no.91, pl.50. Pyxis, Bobbio. Side: mounted huntsmen, hounds, satyrs, triton; pastoral scene. After Volbach (1976) no.91, pl.50. Orpheus, in Phrygian dress, with animals, snakein—tree, griffin, Pan, Centaur. Ivory pyxis, Abbey of

Animals exhibiting Mannerist features. Orpheus: alphabetic display of figure in mosaic. Not to scale. The dancing hem of Orpheus’ robe as he plays to plead for Eurydice. Apulian vase, c.330 BC. After Heurgon fig.1. Panyagua no.83. Orpheus with Eurydice in the Underworld. Apulian

23a-g.

24.

25:

krater c.330 BC. Naples, Museo Nazionale. After Gruppe, col.1187, fig.13. Panyagua no.81. 26. 27Ta—b.

28.

.

Female lyrist, Muse Erato? Aix-en-Provence, Musée Granet. Engraving, after Rouard 1844. mosaics: Orpheus on instruments Musical alphabetic display. Not to scale. Elephant, Woodchester. Copy of Lysons' engraving (1787) of lost fragment. After Neal 1981, fig.26 and with kind permission. Elephant, Piazza Armerina, apse of Great Hunt, ‘The East’. Animals: alphabetic display. Not drawn to scale. The Lion.

. . . . . . .

The Leopard. The Tiger. The Bear. The Bull. Equids — the Ass, the Horse. The Boar. Canids — the Fox, the Jackal, the Wolf. The Monkey. The Griffin. Orpheus, Ino—Leukothea, Palaemon. Djemila, "The Triumph of Venus’, detail: border, top left comer. Late 4th C. AD. After Blanchard—Lemée, P1.XIII.

Photographs.

41.

Orpheus

sings,

satyr,

erotic

scene.

Red—figure

S.Etruscan oenochoe. British Museum F100. Photo: Trustees of the British Museum.

149

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

42.

43.

45.

3rd-4th C. Vatican, SANCTA. Cristiano. Photo: I.J.Jesnick. Strigillated

47. 48.

49. 50. 31. 52.

53.

54.

55. 56. 57. 58. a9,

61. 62.

63.

65.

66.

Death of Orpheus. Thracian woman attacks with spear. Red—figure Attic vase c.470-60 BC. British Museum E301. Photo: Trustees of the British Museum. Fisherman, end panel, strigillated sarcophagus with Pio— Orpheus, 3rd—4th C. AD. Vatican, Museo Cristiano. Photo: I.J Jesnick. Orpheus leads Eurydice to the light. Funerary stele. H.1.21m. W.86cm. Intercisa. Budapest, Hungarian National Museum. Inv.22.1905.18. Photo: Hungarian National Museum. Strigillated Sarcophagus, victorious Orpheus as FYRMI DVLCIS ANIMA central motif. Inscribed:

Sarcophagus,

victorious

Museo

70.

Perugia, detail left. Animals including rhino. In situ. Photo: A.L.Colski. Piazza Armerina Orpheus, detail. Pangolin between hippo and ?rhino. Oryx, mongoose, tiger. In situ. Photo: P.A. Witts. Piazza Armerina Orpheus, detail. griffin, sphinx, fox, wolf, jackal. In situ. Photo: P.A.Witts. Browsing doe, Cagliari Orpheus, detail. Turin, Museo di antichita. Photo: Chomon Perino and courtesy museum. El Djem, detail, reclining leopard. Musée d'El

71.

Djem. Photo: I.J.Jesnick. Sousse I, animals. Top right, adjoined fishing scene.

67.

68.

69.

Pio— 72.

Orpheus

as

73.

central motif. Ostia. 3rd—4th C. Photo: I.J. Jesnick Mithras Tauroctonos, marble. 2nd C. AD. H.1.30m. British Museum. Photo: I.J Jesnick. Ground lines: Piazza Armerina, Orpheus mosaic. parrot, lizard. In situ. Photo: P.A.Witts. Ground lines: Sakiet, Orpheus mosaic. Lion, snake. Musée du Sfax, Tunisia. Photo: I.J Jesnick. Ground lines: Oudna, Orpheus mosaic. Tunis, Musée du Bardo. Photo: I.J Jesnick. Stylised awning pattern, centre of Orpheus mosaic, Horkstow. Hull City Museum. Photo: I.J Jesnick.

74, 75. 76. 77.

Acanthus scroll. Woodchester, Orpheus mosaic. Photo: Peckhams of Stroud and courtesy Rev. J.Cull. Orpheus, Cagliari, detail. 3rd—4th C. AD. Museo di antichita, Turin. Photo: Chomon Perino and courtesy museum. Orpheus. Perugia, in situ. c.150 AD. Detail. Photo: A.L.Colski. head. wreathed detail, Rougga, Orpheus, Photo: Djem. El Museum, Archaeological I.J Jesnick. Orpheus, Volubilis, detail, wreath or diadem. In situ. Photo: J.Moyes. Orpheus, Vienne, detail. Photo: courtesy J.Lancha. Orpheus and fox, Barton Farm, detail. Photo: Corinium Museum, Cirencester. Sparta, Orpheus and the animals, ‘House of Mourabas'’, Greece. In situ. Photo: N.Georgiadis. Orpheus and the animals. Intercisa stele. Budapest, Hungarian National Museum. Inv.22.1905.28. H. 1.18m, W. 89cm. Photo: Hungarian National Museum. Photo: In situ. detail. Littlecote, Orpheus, Association for Roman Archaeology. Head of Orpheus in ‘sparkly’ headwear. Barton Farm, Corinium Museum, Cirencester. Photo: I.J.Jesnick. Chahba, detail: head of Orpheus, elaborate Phrygian cap. In situ, museum of Chahba—Philippopolis. Photo: J.Balty. El Djem, detail: head of Orpheus. Musée d'El Djem. Photo: I.J Jesnick.

78.

Perugia, detail right. Animals including zebra. In situ. Photo: A.L.Colski.

92.

7.

Barton Farm, detail. Swan, guinea fowl (spotted breast). Corinium Museum, Cirencester. Photo: I.J.Jesnick.

80.

Woodchester, detail. Small birds, fox tail. In situ. Photo: Peckhams of Stroud and courtesy Rev. J.Cull. Vienne I, detail. partridge. Musée Lapidaire, Vienne. Photo: P.A.Witts. Woodchester Orpheus, detail. Leopard, rosette spots. Photo: Peckhams of Stroud and courtesy Rev. J.Cull. Barton Farm, detail. Leopard, scallop pattern. Corinium Museum, Cirencester. Photo: I.J.Jesnick. Vienne I, detail. Leopard. Musée Lapidaire, Vienne. Photo: P.A.Witts. Woodchester, detail. Griffin. Photo: Peckhams of Stroud and courtesy Rev. J.Cull. Sakiet-es—Zit, detail. Griffin. Musée du Sfax. Photo: I.J.Jesnick. Chahba, detail. Griffin, below, fox. In situ, museum of Chahba—Philippopolis. Photo: R.Field. Volubilis, detail. Monkey, griffin, hartebeest. In situ. Photo: J.Moyes. Oudna, detail. Monkey, crow looking up, snake in bush. Tunis, Musée du Bardo. Photo: I.J.Jesnick. British Withington, detail. Boar and hound. Museum. Photo: I.J.Jesnick. Miletus, detail of venatio panel. Hunting dog, speared tiger. c.230AD. Berlin, Pergamonmuseum. Photo: H.A.Davis. La Chebba, detail. Palaemon riding dolphin. Musée du Bardo, Tunis. Photo: I.J.Jesnick.

81.

82. 83. 84.

85. 86. 87.

88. 89. 90. 91.

150

Musée de Sousse. Photo: I.J.Jesnick. Woodchester, detail, stag. In situ. Photo: Peckhams of Stroud and courtesy Rev. J.Cull. Volubilis, detail. Birds in trees, inc. L-R: ? and kingfisher, chaffinch and bee-eater, flycatcher and peacock, ? and hawk. Photo: J.Moyes. Volubilis, detail. Enigmatic animals: tiger, fox, hippo + genet? and ? and ? In situ. Photo: J.Moyes. Vienne I, detail. Pheasant. Musée Lapidaire, Vienne. Photo: P.A. Witts. Woodchester, detail. Scratching pheasant. Photo: Peckhams of Stroud and courtesy Rev. J.Cull. Barton Farm, detail. peahen or pheasant. Corinium Museum, Cirencester. Photo: I.J Jesnick. Corinium Barton Farm, detail. Goose, crane. Museum, Cirencester. Photo: I.J.Jesnick.

List of Illustrations

94.

95. 96.

o7.

98. 99.

Musée du Sfax. Photo: I.J.Jesnick. Horkstow, chariot race panel. Engraving, Lysons 1813. Photo: Trustees of the British Museum, RB 18.4. Sousse II, Cupid fish-charioteers panel, detail. Paris, Louvre, no. MA 1797. Photo: M.Chuzeville and courtesy Musée du Louvre. Lepcis Magna, detail, fishing scene, netting from boat, with line and bait, pulling crustaceans from rock. Photo: D.E.Johnston. La Chebba, detail. Central fishing scene. Musée du Bardo, Tunis. Photo: I.J Jesnick. Withington, panel with Oceanus/Neptune and marine motifs. British Museum. Photo: Trustees of the British Museum, PS 159 353. Orpheus and vintagers. Bronze casket fittings, Fenékpuszta. Budapest, Hungarian National

Museum.

100.

101.

102. 102a.

Inv.

31.1885.34.

Photo:

114. 115.

117.

Edessa (Urfa), Turkey. Drawing after Archaeology XII (1959) 150-7. JHinks, drawing: reconstruction Horkstow, Catalogue 1933. Courtesy Trustees of the British Museum. Jerusalem, Israel. Istanbul Archaeological Museum.

118.

Drawing after Grabar (1966). panel, adjoining Jerusalem,

116.

119. 120. 121.

Hungarian 122.

National Museum. Woodchester, detail. Naiad with vase issuing water. Photo: Peckhams of Stroud and courtesy Rev. J.Cull. Horkstow, associated panel detail. Vintaging and marine motifs, medallion with Dionysus and Ariadne. Hull City Museum. Photo: I.J Jesnick. Littlecote, detail. Persephone (winter) riding goat. Photo: Association for Roman Archaeology. Sparta, 'House of Mourabas', Europa riding bull. In situ. Photo: O.Wattel—de—Croizant.

123.

124. 125. 126. (27.

Line drawings by I.J.Jesnick unless otherwise credited.

128.

103.

129. 130.

105.

106. 107.

108.

109. 110.

111.

112.

113.

personifications Drawing after Budde

Georgia and Theodosia. (1972) pl.259. Newton St.Loe, Somerset, England. Bristol City Museum. Drawing: S.R.Cosh, 1995. Perugia, Italy. In situ. After Guidi fig.14, fragment known in 1935. Rottweil, Germany. Rottweil, Stadmuseum. After Inv.Gaul. t.1, f.II, 1611. Saragossa, Spain. Saragossa, Museo de Zaragoza. Drawing after Stern (1955) fig. 18. Hatay (Antioch), Antakya Turkey. Tarsus, Museum. Drawing after Budde (1972) pl.156. Photographs.

II. Orpheus Mosaics

104.

Oaks, neg.nos. 930, 931, 932. Cherchel, Algeria. After Reinach, RPGR 201, 9.

Map 2. Distribution of Orpheus mosaics. Roman Empire. Map 3. Distribution of Orpheus mosaics. Roman Britain. StadtBerne, Switzerland. I. Avenches engraving, After: Universitats—Bibliothek. Gonzenbach, Rémischen Mosaiken der Schweiz, pl.5.6. After: Destroyed. II. Switzerland. Avenches engraving, Gonzenbach JbSGUF vol.XL, pl. xxxvii. Barton Farm. Cirencester. Corinium Museum. Engraving in the Haverfield Collection, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Photo: Ashmolean Museum. Cirencester, Dyer Street ‘Orpheus’. Engraving, Beecham 1886. Brading, in situ, Morton, Isle of Wight. After: lithograph in Price and Price 1888. Cagliari, Sardinia. Turin, Museo di antichita. Engraving by D.Colombini, 18th C. After Angiollilo (1973) plL.iv. Carnuntum. Austria. Bad Deutsch—Altenburg, Museum Carnuntinum. Drawing, after photo: A.Foster. Chahba, Syria. In situ, museum, ChahbaPhilippopolis. Drawing after photo: R.Field.

131.

132. 133. 134, 155.

136.

137. 138. 139, 140.

Cos I, Cos. Istanbul Archaeological Museum. Drawing after photographs, courtesy Dumbarton

151

La Chebba, Tunisia. Musée du Bardo, Tunis. Photo: I.J.Jesnick. grapes. La Chebba, detail. Orpheus, animals, Photo: I.J.Jesnick. Cos II, Cos. In situ. Photo: P.A.Witts. Cos II, detail. Scene of Hercules in house of Admetus. Photo: P.A.Witts. El Djem (Thysdrus), Tunisia. Musée d’El Djem. Restored and reduced. Photo: I.J Jesnick. El Djem, detail. Reclining ass and lion. Forét de Brotonne, France. Rouen, Musée des antiquités. Heavily restored. Photo: R.Ling. Hanover, from north Syria. Kestner-Museum, Hanover, Germany. Photo: courtesy Kestner— Museum, Hannover, Inv.No.1970.48. Littlecote, Wiltshire, England. In situ, restored. Photo: Association for Roman Archaeology. Lepcis I, Libya, Archaeological Museum. Photo: D.E.Johnston. Martim Gil, Portugal. Lost. Photo: M.Novaes. After Guidi, fig. 21. Merida I, Spain. Detail, centre panel. Merida, Museo nacional de arte romano. Photo: courtesy J.M.Alvarez Martinez. Miletus, Turkey. Berlin, Pergamonmuseum. Photo: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz — Antikensammlung. Miletus, Turkey. Detail. Photo: courtesy museum.

Newton

St.Loe,

Somerset,

England.

Tracing

of

Orpheus panel by T.E.Marsh, 1837, Bristol City Museum. Photo: courtesy of the Archaeology Section, Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery. Oudna, Tunisia. Baths of ‘Maison des Laberii'. Musée du Bardo. Photo: I.J.Jesnick. Oudna, ‘Maison des Laberii’', animal mosaic fragment. Musée du Bardo. Photo: I.J.Jesnick.

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

141.

|

142. 143.

_

144.

145. 146.

—

147. 148.

149.

150.

151. 152.

153. 154. 155.

156. 157. 158.

|

159. 160. 161.

—

|

162.

163.

|

fragment. Musée du Bardo. Photo: I.J.Jesnick. Paphos, Cyprus. In situ. Photo: Getty Conservation Institute and the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus. Perugia, Italy. In situ, Perugia. Photo: A.L.Colski. Perugia. Detail showing area now revealed, with extra animals to the left. Photo: A.L.Colski. El Pesquero, Spain. In situ. Photo: courtesy J.M.Alvarez Martinez. Poljanice, Serbia. In situ. Photo: S.Fidanowski. Archaeological Cyrenaica, Libya. Ptolemais, Museum. Photo: P.A.Witts. —Ptolemais, detail. Photo: P.A.Witts. Rome, Italy. Rome, Convento di Sant Anselmo. Archdologisches Deutsches Photo: Restored. Institut, Rome, Neg.no.67.471. Saint Colombe, France. Malibu, California, J.Paul Getty Museum, no. 62.AH.2. Detail, centre panel, head of Orpheus, animals, seasons. Photo: courtesy Collection of J.Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, California. France. Le Valence, Saint—Paul-lés—-Romans, musée de Valence. Photo: courtesy museum. detail, centre panel. Saint-Paul-lés-Romans, Orpheus, birds and fox. Photo: courtesy museum. Sousse I, Tunisia. Circular Orpheus mosaic with fishing scene, top right. Musée de Sousse. Photo: I.J.Jesnick. Sousse II, Tunisia. Paris, Louvre. Monkey parody. Photo: I.J.Jesnick. Thina, Tunisia. Destroyed. After Jny.Tun.II, 32a. Trinquetaille, France. Arles, Musée Reattu. Photo: courtesy Musée de l'Arles antique. Trento, Italy. In situ. Photo: Soprintendenza Archeologica per il Veneto, Padova, neg.7513. Trento, detail. Photo: Soprintendenza Archeologica per il Veneto, Padova, neg.7521. Vienne, France. Vienne, Musée Lapidaire. Photo: courtesy J.Lancha. Volubilis, Morocco. In situ. Photo: J.Moyes. Volubilis, detail. Photo: J.Moyes. Detail, England. Gloucestershire, Withington, leopard, wave crest border, ‘lotus’ foliage. British Museum. Photo: I.J.Jesnick. Withington, detail: hound and boar, bird border. British Museum. Photo: I.J.Jesnick. Woodchester, Gloucestershire, England. Buried in situ. Original painting: D.S.Neal. Copyright Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, neg.no. BB76/768.

152

Roman Paintings and Mosaics in the British Museum (1933). INV. = Inventaire des mosaiques de la Gaule et de l'Afrique romaine, Ill vols. — Algérie, Gaule I, II, Tunisie — (1909-

Abbreviations AA = Archaologischer Anzeiger. AJA = American Journal of Archaeology. ALVAREZ-—MARTINEZ, Actas Balil

1915) INV. feuille JRS =

=

J.M.Alvarez— Martinez, ‘La Iconografia de Orfeo en los Mosaicos Hispanorromanos’', in: Mosaicos Romanos, Estudios sobre Iconografia, Actas del Homenaje in Memoriam de Alberto Balil Illana, Guadalajara (1990) 29-58, figs.1-2, pls.IIVIIL. Merida ze ALVAREZ-—MARTINEZ, Mosaicos J.M.Alvarez—Martinez, Mosaicos Romanos de Merida Nuevos Hallazgos (1990). ARCH.CLASS. = Archeologia Classica. AEArq. = Archivo espajol de arqueologia. ARLA: = J.MC.Toynbee, Animals in Roman Life and Art. 1973.

LANCHA = J.Lancha, Les mosaiques de Vienne. (1990). = U.Liepmann, ‘Ein Orpheusmosaik im LIEPMANN Kestner—Museum zu Hannover’, Neiderdeutsche Beitrdge zur Kunstgeschichte XIII (1974) 9-36. LIMC = Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, Vols I-V, 1981-, in progress. L.Kahil ed. Zurich and Munich.

LINFORTH = I.M.Linforth, The Arts of Orpheus 1941. LOEB = Loeb Library Editions, Classics. MAAR = Memoirs of the American Academy at Rome. MANINO = L.Manino, ‘Il mosaico Sardo di Orfeo del Societa Bolletino Torino’, di Archeologico Museo

ASPAR = G.Jennison, Animals for Show and Pleasure in Ancient Rome. (1937). BAR = British Archaeological Reports. BCH = Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. BUDDE = L.Budde, Antike Mosaiken in Kilikien Bande II

Piemontese N.S. di Archeologia e Belli Arti 4/5 (1950/51)

40-53. MEFR = Mélanges d'‘archéologie et d'histoire de l'Ecole ; francaise de Rome. MEFRA = Meélanges ... de I'Ecole francaise de Rome, Antiquité. MICHAELIDES = D.Michaelides, 'A New Orpheus Mosaic in Cyprus’, Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium ‘Cyprus Between the Orient and the Occident',

(1972). CHARITONIDIS = S.Charitonidis, L.Kahil, R.Ginouves, Les Mosaiques de la Maison du Menandre a Mytilene (1970). CIMA III = Colloquio (III) internazionale sul mosaico antico: "Il mosaico antico”, Ravenna. 1983. CArch = Cahiers archéologiques. Fin de l'Antiquité et Moyen Age. I = La Mosaique gréco-romaine. Colloques CMGR Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris 1963 (1965) CMGR II = La Mosaique gréco—romaine II. Vienne 1971

Nicosia 8-14

The Mosaics

1985

= Monuments MON.PIOT l’Académie des Inscriptions Piot. NEAL

= K.M.D.Dunbabin,

September

(1986) 473-489,

pls.LIII-

LVI.

(Paris 1975). DUNBABIN

and plates (1911-1925). SOUSSE = L.Foucher, Inventaire des mosaiques, no.57 de l'atlas archéologique: Sousse (1960). Journal of Roman Studies.

=

D.S.Neal,

Roman

et Mémoires publiés par et Belles—Lettres, Fondation Mosaics

in

Britain.

An

Introduction to Their Schemes and a Catalogue of Paintings. (1981). OVADIAH = A.Ovadiah and S.Mucznik ‘Orpheus Mosaics in Roman and Early Byzantine Periods’, Assaph I (1980) 4350, figs.1-15. PANYAGUA ORFEO = E.R.Panyagua, ‘La Figura de Orfeo en el arte griego y romano’, Helmantica XVII, 56, (1967) 173-239. ‘Catalogo de (1972) = E.R.Panyagua PANYAGUA representaciones de Orfeo en el arte antiguo’ Helmantica XXIII, 70, 72, 1972. (1973) = E.R.Panyagua ‘Catalogo de PANYAGUA representaciones de Orfeo en el arte antiquo’ part III, Mosaicos romanos, Helmantica XXIII (1973) 463-498. in = K.Parlasca, Rémischen Mosaiken PARLASCA Deutschland (1959). PBSR = Papers of the British School at Rome. PDNHAS = Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeology Society. PSANHS = Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society. RAINEY = A.Rainey, Mosaics in Roman Britain, A Gazeteer (1973). RPGR = S.Reinach, Répertoire des peintures greques et

of Roman

North Africa. 1978. DA = C.V.Daremberg, E.Saglio, Dictionnaire des Antiquités greques et romains. 5 vols. 1873-1919. DACL = F.Cabrol, H.Leclerq, Dictionnare d’Archéologie Chrétienne et de Liturgie. vol.12, 1935. DOB = Dumbarton Oaks Papers. = R.Eisler, Orphisch-Dionysische—Mysterien— EISLER Gedanken in der Christlichen Antike. 1925. FA = Fasti Archaeologici. GALLIA = Gallia. Fouilles et monuments archéologiques en France métropolitaine. 1949/50 = V.von Gonzenbach, ‘Drei GONZENBACH der Jahrbuch Waadt’, der aus Orpheusmosaiken Schweizerischen Gesellschaft fiir Urgeschichte XL (1949/50)

271-287. GONZENBACH

1961 = V.von Gonzenbach, Die Rémischen Mosaiken der Schweiz (1961). GRUPPE = O.Gruppe, ‘Orpheus’ in Roscher's Lexicon, vol. III, 1898. GUIDI = G.Guidi, ‘Orfeo, Liber Pater e Oceano in mosaici della Tripolitania', Africa Italiana, VI (1935).

GUTHRIE = W.K.C.Guthrie, Orpheus and Greek Religion. 1935. HARRISON = R.M.Harrison, 'An Orpheus Mosaic from Ptolemais in Cyrenaica’, JRS, 52 (1962) 13-18. HINKS = R.P.Hinks, Catalogue of the Greek, Etruscan and

romaines (1922).

SCHOELLER = F.Schéeller, Darstellungen des Orpheus in

der Antike, Phil. Diss., Freiburg (1969).

153

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

SMITH (1965) = D.J.Smith, 'Three Fourth Century Schools of Mosaic in Roman Britain’, CMGR I, 1963 (1965) 95-115. SMITH (1977) = D.J.Smith, "Mythological Figures and Scenes in Romano—British Mosaics’, in: Roman Life and Art in Britain, eds.J.Munby and M.Henig, BAR 41 (i), (1977) 105-193, pls.6.I — 6.XXXIII. SMITH (1983) = D.J.Smith, ‘Orpheus Mosaics in Britain’, in Mosaique, Receuil d'Hommages a Henri Stern 1982 (1983) 315-328, pls.CCIM-—CCXI. STERN = H.Stem, ‘Mosaique d'Orphée a Blanzy—lés— Fismes'’, Gallia XIII (1955) 41-77, catalogue 68-77. STANTON = G.R.Stanton, 'The Newton St.Loe Pavement’,

JRS (1936) 43-46, pls. VI=IX. TBGAS = Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society. TEST = Testimonia, O.Kern, Orphicorum Fragmenta (1922). TOYNBEE (1962) = J.M.C.Toynbee, Art in Roman Britain

(1962). TOYNBEE (1964) = J.M.C.Toynbee, Art in Britain Under the Romans (1964). THIRION = J.Thirion, 'Orphée magicien dans la mosaique romain, A propos d'une nouvelle mosaique d'Orphée

découverte dans la Région de Sfax', MEFR 149-79.

LXVII (1955)

154

Abbreviations and Bibliography

Bibliography

T. 1902, ‘Excavations at Caerwent', Archaeologia LVIIL, (i), 138-47, pl.10. ATHANASSAKIS A.N. 1977, The Orphic Hymns, Text, translation and notes. Oxford. AURIGEMMA S. 1926, I mosaici di Zliten. Rome—Milan. 1960, Litalia in Africa Tripolitana I, I mosaici. " Rome. ASHBY

Antique Sources ANON

Orphic Argonautica.

AELIAN ARISTOTLE

De Natura Animalium. Historia Animalium.

APOLLONIUS RHODIOS CALLISTRATUS

Argonautika. Descriptions.

CICERO EURIPIDES " FRONTO

De Natura Deorum. Bacchae. Alcestis. R.Cornelius Fronto. Letters.

HORACE

The Complete Odes and Epodes.

" MACROBIUS " MARTIAL NONNOS OF PANOPLIS OPPIAN OVID PLINY the Elder PAUSANIAS PHILOSTRATUS the Elder PHILOSTRATUS the Younger PLUTARCH SENECA VIRGIL "

"

AYMARD

'Quelques

1937,

mosaique

scénes

de

chasse

sur une

de I'Antiquarium', Mélanges de I'Ecole

francaise de Rome. Antiquité. (MEFRA) 54, 42-66,

pl.I-II. 1951, Essai sur les chasses romaines. Paris. 1959, ‘La querelle du cobra et de la mangouste dans l'antiquité'’, MEFRA 71, 227-262. 1962, ‘Notes sur une mosaique de Westerhofen’, Latomus LVI, 165-172. AZIMAKOPOULOU-ATZAKA G. 1973, [Greek Mosaics] Hellenika 26, 216-254. BADDELEY H. ST.CLAIR 1927, "The Roman Pavement at Woodchester.' Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society (TBGAS) XLVIII, 75-96. a dell'Orfeo musaico ‘Il 1952, P.B. BAGATTI Gerusalemme', Rivista di archeologia cristiana XXVIII, 145-60. BALMELLE C., GAUTHIER M., MONTURET R. 1980, "Mosaiques de Saint—Emilion’, Gallia 38, 62-66. BALTY J. 1969, ‘La grande mosaique de chasse du triclinos’. (Fouilles d'Apamée de Syrie, Miscellanea

Ars Poetica. Saturnalia. Somnium Scipionis. De Spectaculis Liber. Dionysiaca. Cynegetica. Metamorphoses. Naturalis Historia. Guide to Greece. Eikones (Imagines). _—_ Eiikones (Imagines). De Solertia Animalium. Hercules Oetaeus. Hercules Furiens. Aeneid. Eclogues.

2). Brussels. 1976, ‘Le cobra et la mangouste dans les mosaiques

tardives

de

Proche

Orient’,

Jahrbuch

der

Osterreiche Byzantinstik, 25, 223-33.

Georgics.

1977, Mosaiques Antiques de Syrie. Brussels. de Chahba— d'Orphée ‘La mosaique 1983, Philippopolis', in Mosaique recueil d'hommages a Henri Stern. Paris. 33-37, pls.XXI-XXIV. BARB A,.A. 1963, 'The Survival of the Magic Arts’, in Momigliano A., ed. Paganism and Christianity, 101-125. 1968, eds. R.-P.C. HANSON & M.W. BARLEY Christianity in Britain 300-700. Leicester. BECATTI G. 1967, The Art of Ancient Greece and Rome. New York. BEN ABED BEN KHADER A. & SOREN D. eds. 1987, Carthage: A mosaic of Ancient Tunisia. Catalogue, New York. BENOIT F. 1934, "Mosaique d'Orphée. Recherches faites a Tringuetaille’, Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Inscriptions, 343-351. BERGER P. 1895, ‘Le mausolée d'El—-Amrouni’. Revue archéologique XXVI, II, 71-81. BIANCHI-BANDINELLI R. 1970, Rome The Centre of Power. Roman Art to 200AD. London. BIANCHI-BANDINELLI R. 1971, Rome The Late Empire. Roman Art AD200-400. London. "Mosaico e mosaicisti nell'antichita. EAA, 49-61. BIANCHI-BANDINELLI R.and BECATTI G.eds., 195866, Enciclopedia dell’arte Antica Classica e Orientale (EAA) 7 vols. BIARRAO OLEIRO M. 1965, 'Mosaiques romaines de

Bibliography ABRAHAMS E. & EVANS M. 1964, Ancient Greek Dress. Chicago. AELIAN De Natura Animalium. Trans. A.F.Scholfield. Loeb 1958, 3 vols. ALVAREZ MARTINEZ J.M. 1990, Mosaicos Romanos de Merida Nuevos Hallazgos. Madrid. AMAD G. 1988, Recherches sur le mythe du Phénix dans la mosaique antique. Montivideo. ANDERSON WS. 1982, 'The Orpheus of Virgil and Ovid' in J.Warden, Orpheus, 25-50. ANGIOLILLO S. 1973-4, Il mosaico di Orfeo al Museo di Torino, Studi Sardi 23, 181-9, pls. I-V. ty

J.

1981, Sardinia (Mosaici antichi in Italia) X. Rome.

APOLLONIUS RHODIOS Argonautika. Trans. R.C.Seaton. Loeb 1930. 1975, ‘Some Observations on the APPLEBAUM S._ Economy of the Roman Villa at Bignor'’. Britannia, VI, 118-132. ARISTOTLE Historia Animalium. Trans. A.L.Peck. Loeb 1979, 3 vols. ARNHEIM M.T.W. 1972, ‘Nobles as Landowners’. The Senatorial Aristocracy in the Later Roman Empire, Oxford. Ch. VI, 143-154. ARNHEIM R. 1982, The Power of the Centre, a study of composition in the visual arts. Berkely, California.

w

155

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

Portugal’, Colloque, ‘La mosaique gréco—romaine’ (CMGR) I, 257-265, figs.1-8. BISI A. 1964, ‘Orfeo’. EAA V, 744-7. BLACK E.W. 1986, ‘Christian and Pagan Hopes of Salvation in Romano-British Mosaics’ in eds. Henig M., King A., Pagan Gods and Shrines, 147158.

England. Moonraker Press. BREMMER J. 1987, Interpretations of Greek Mythology. Beckenham. BRENDEL 0O.J. 1979, Prolegomena to the Study of Roman Art. Yale. BRINK C.O. 1971, Horace on Poetry. The Ars Poetica. Cambridge. BRILLIANT R. 1963, Gesture and Rank in Roman Art. Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. XIV. 1974, Roman Art, From the Republic to Constantine. " Oxford. 1984, ‘Pendants and the Mind's Eye’, in Visual " Narratives: Story Telling in Etruscan and Roman Art. Comell. Ch.II, 53-89. BROWN B.R. 1957: Ptolemaic Painting and Mosaics and the Alexandrian Style, Cambridge, Massachusetts. BROWN P.R.L. 1971, The World of Late Antiquity. London. 1980, ‘Art and Society in Late Antiquity’, in ed. " Weitzmann, Age of Spirituality, 17-27. 1961, ‘Aspects of the Christianization of the Roman " Aristocracy', Journal of Roman Studies (JRS) 51, 111. BRUNEAU P. 1984, ‘Les mosaicistes antiques, avaient—ils des cahiers des modéles?’ Revue Archéologique 2, 241-72. BRUHL A. 1953, Liber Pater, Origine et Expansion du Culte Dionysiaque a Rome et dans le Monde Romain. Paris. BUCKMAN J. & NEWMARCH C.H. 1850, Remains of Roman Art...in Corinium. BUDDE L. 1972, Antike Mosaiken in Kilikien, Band II, Recklinghausen.

BLANCHARD-LEMEE M. 1975, Maisons a mosaiques du quartier central de Djemila (Cuicul). Paris. 61-84,

pls. I-XX VII. BLAKE M.E. 1930, 'The Pavements of the Roman Buidings of the Republic and Early Empire’. Memoirs of the "

American Academy at Rome (MAAR), VIII, 7-160. 1936, "Roman Mosaics of the 2nd Century in Italy’.

MAAR, XIII, 67~214. . 1940, "Mosaics of the Late Empire in Rome and Vicinity’. MAAR, XVII, 81-130. BLANCO FREIJERO A. 1952, "Mosaicos antiguos de asunto baquico’. Boletin de Academia de la Historia 131, 273-316, esp.307-10, figs. 20-21. von BLANKENHAGEN P.H. 1957, ‘Narration in Hellenistic and Roman Art.’ American Journal of Archaeology (AJA), 61, 78-83.

"

1963, "The Odyssey Frieze’, MDAI (R) 70, 100-46, pl.46-63.

BLAZQUES

MARTINEZ

J.M. 1990, 'Mosaicos del Museo

Arqueolégico de Estamboul’, Estudios de Geografia e Historia 3, Homenaje al Profesor A.Blanco Freijeiro, 353-362, pl.83-85. BLAZQUES MARTINEZ J.M., LOPEZ MONTEAGUDO G., NEIRA JIMENEZ M.L., JAN NICOLAS PEDRAZ M.P. 1986, ‘La Mitologia en los mosaicos Hispano—Romanos’', Archivo espanol de arqueologia (AEArgq) 59, 153/154, 100-162. BLAZQUES MARTINEZ J.M., LOPEZ MONTEAGUDO G. 1986, "Mosaicos de Asia Menor.’ AEArq 59, 163/4, 233-252, figs. 1-15. BLOCH H. 1963, "The Pagan Revival in the West at the End of the Fourth Century’ in ed. Momigliano, Paganism and Christianity 193-217. BOARDMAN J. 1964, Greek Art. London. BOARDMAN J., GRIFFIN J., MURRAY O. eds. 1988, The Roman World. Oxford. BOESELAGER D. 1983, Antike Mosaiken in Sizilien. Rome. BODSON L. 1986, 'La zoologie romaine d'aprés la NH de

BURCKHARDT

J. 1949, The Age of Constantine the Great.

Eng. trans. New York. BURFORD A. 1972, Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society. London. BURKERT W. 1979, Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual. Berkeley. 1982, ‘Craft Versus Sect, The Problem of Orphics " and Pythagoreans' in eds. Meyer and Sanders, Self—

Definition in the Graeco— Roman World, Ch.1. 1987, Ancient Mystery Cults. London. " CLARKE G. 1982, 'The Roman Villa at Woodchester.' Britannia XII, 197—224. COOKSON N.A. 1984, Romano—British Mosaics. BAR 135. Oxford. F.CABROL and H.LECLERCQ 1907-1953, Dictionnaire

Pline.' Helmantica 37, 107-116.

BORGEAUD P. 1991, ed. Orphisme et Orphée, en l'honneur de Jean Rudhardt, Recherches et Rencontres 3. Geneva. BOULANGER A. 1925, Orphée, Rapports de l'Orphisme et du Christianisme. Paris. BOWDER D. 1978, The Age of Constantine and Julian. Elek Books. BOWRA C.M. 1952, ‘Orpheus and Eurydice’, The Classical Quarterly, 46, 113-26. BRADLEY C. 1955 (1966 ed.), A History of World Costume. London. BRANIGAN K. 1974, ‘Gauls in Gloucestershire?’ TBGAS, 92, 82-95. BRANIGAN K. 1977, The Roman Villa in South-West

d'Archéologie Chrétienne et de Liturgie. 15 vols, Paris. vol. XII, 1935, 2740-46, ‘Orphée’. CAMBRIDGE ANCIENT HISTORY 1939, Vol XII, The Imperial Crisis and Recovery, AD 193-324. Cambridge. CALLISTRATUS, Descriptions. Trans. A.Fairbanks. Loeb, 1931. CAMERATO-SCOVAZZO R. 1975, ‘Nuove proposte sul grande mosaico di Piazza della Vittoria a Palermo.’ Kokalos 21, 231-73, pls. 50-63. S. 1979, ‘Roman Mosaic Workshops in CAMPBELL Turkey.’ AJA 83, 287-92. CANIVET M-T and P. 1975, 'La mosaique d'Adam dans

156

Abbreviations and Bibliography

DELPLACE C. 1980, Le Griffon de l'archaisme a l'époque Imperiale. Brussels and Rome. a ‘De TI'iconographie paienne 1969, C. DELVOYE l'iconographie chrétienne’. IX congrés d’archéologie classique. 329-345, pl.CI-CIV. Damascus. DETIENNE M. 1979, Dionysus Slain. Baltimore. in Orpheus’ 1981, ‘The Myth of Honeyed R.L.Gordon ed. Myth, Religion and Society 95-109, Cambridge. 1987, ‘Orpheus’ Trans. D.M.Weeks. In M.Eliade ed. Encyclopedia of Religion, 111-14. DIEL P. 1893, Symbolism in Greek Mythology. 1980 Shambala Publications. DODDS E.R. 1951, The Greeks and the Irrational. London. 1965, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety. " Cambridge. DONCEEL-VOUTE P. 1983, 'La Pierre d'aigle et l'aigle au bijou.’ Mosaique, recueil d‘hommages a Henri Stern. 115-121, pls. LXTI—LXIV. DOPPELFELD O. 1967, The Dionysiac Mosaic at Cologne Cathedral. Cologne. 1970, Late Roman Painting. English DORIGO W. translation. London. DORST J. & DANDELOT P. 1970 (1988 ed.), A Field Guide to the Larger Mammals of Africa. London. DRIJVERS H.J.W. 1980, Cults and Beliefs at Edessa. Leiden. DUNBABIN K.M.D. 1978, The Mosaics of Roman North Africa. Oxford. DUNCAN-JONES R. 1974, The Economy of the Roman Empire. London. DUPONT-SOMMER A. 1975, "Le Mythe d'Orphée aux animaux et ses prolongements dans le Judaisme, le Christianisme et I'Islam.' Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Rome. EISLER R. 1921, Orpheus the Fisher. London. Orphisch—Dionysische 1966, reprint 1925, Mysterien—Gedanken in der Christlichen Antike. Berlin. ELIADE M. 1958, Rites and Symbols of Initiation. New York. 1964, Shamanism, Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy. Princeton. 1982, A History of Religious Ideas, Vol II. Chicago, London. EURIPIDES, Bacchae. Trans. A.S.Way. Loeb 1912. Alcestis. " FARIOLI CAMPANATI R. ed. 1983, Colloquio (III) internazionale sul mosaico antico, Sept. 1980. Ravenna. CIMA. FERGUSON J. 1970, The Religions of the Roman Empire. London. FESTUGIERE A.J. 1935, ‘Les mystéres de Dionysus. Revue Biblique XLIV, 192-211, 366-96. 1954a, ‘L'ame et la musique d'aprés Aristide Quintilien.' Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association (TAPhA), 85, 55-78. 1954b, Personal Religion among the Greeks. Berkely. FIDANOWSKI S. 1985, 'Poljanice—Glavnik'’, Arheoloski

l'église syrien de Huarte.' Cahiers Archéologiques (CArch), 24, 49-69, figs 1-10. CAPUTO G. & DRISS A. Tunisia, Ancient Mosaics. Greenwich, Cinn. CARANDINI A., RICCI A., de VOS M. 1982, Filosofiana, La Villa di Piazza Armerina. Palermo. CARCOPINO J. 1927, La Basilique pythagoricienne de la Porte Majeure, Paris. 1941, Daily Life in Ancient Rome. (Penguin. 1981). CASEY P.J. 1977, 'Carausius and Allectus — Rulers in

w

oh

Gaul?’ Britannia VII, 283-301.

CASSON L. 1974, Travel in the Ancient World. London. CHAMOSO-LAMAS M. 1944, 'Hallazgos romanos en Zaragoza.’ AEArg. 17, 286-295. CHARBONNEAUX J., MARTIN R., VILLARD F. 1973, Hellenistic Art. English translation, London. CHARITONIDIS

S.

1962

(1966),

‘Mosaics

Mytilene’,

Praktika 134-141. CHARITONIDIS S., KAHIL L., GINOUVES R. 1970, Les mosaiques de la Maison du Menandre. Beme. CHARLESWORTH M.P. 1924, Trade Routes and Commerce in the Roman Empire. Cambridge. de Volubilis.’ 1935, ‘Mosaiques L. CHATELAINE Publications du service des antiquités du Maroc I, 1-8. CHEHAB M.H. 1958-9, 'Mosaiques du Liban.’ Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth XIV-XV. Paris. CHEVALLIER R. 1976, Roman Roads. London. del CHIARO M. 1972, 'A New Orpheus Mosaic in Yugoslavia.’ AJA 76, 197-200, pl.47-8. CICERO, De Natura Deorum. Trans. H.C.P.McGregor. Penguin. 1972. CLARKE J.R. 1979, Roman Black and White Figural Mosaics. New York.

COLLINGWOOD R.G., MYRES J.N.L. 1937, Roman Britain and English Settlement, 2nd.ed. Oxford. COLLINGWOOD R.G. & RICHMOND I. Archaeology of Roman Britain. London. CORNELL T & MATTHEWS J. 1982, Atlas of the Roman World. London. della CORTE F. 1986, Gli spettacoli di Marziale. Genoa. CULIK J. 1985, Orpheus Through the Ages. London.

ty

w

CUMONT F. 1911, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism. 4th ed. Chicago. 1912, Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans. Dover, New York. 1960. 1923, Afterlife in Roman Paganism. Yale. 1942, Recherches sur le Symbolisme Funeraire des Romains. Paris. 1949, Lux Perpetua. Paris. DALTON O.M. 1911, Byzantine Art and Archaeology. Oxford.

”

DAREMBERG C.V. and SAGLIO E. _ 1873-1919, Dictionnaire des Antiquités grecques et romains. 5 vols. Paris. DAUPHIN C. 1978, ‘Byzantine Pattern Books, A Reexamination of the Problem in the Light of the Inhabited Scroll.’ Art History Vol.1, no.4, 400-23, figs 1-17.

w

1979, 'A Roman Mosaic Pavement from Nablus.’ Israel Exploration Journal 29, 11-33, esp. 30-3.

157

Ww

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

Pregled, 150 and cover. FINNEY P.C. 1978, ‘Orpheus—David, a Connection in Iconography between Greco-Roman Judaism and Early Christianity?’ Journal of Jewish Art V, 6-15. FISCHER P. 1971, Mosaic, History and Technique. FOUCHER L. 1960, Inventaire de mosaiques, Sousse. Tunis. 1962, 'La mosaique d'Orphée a Thysdrus.' Latomus 58, 646-51, pl. CXXXVII-CXL. 1969, 'A propos d'un griffon.’ Latomus 103, 233-38, pls.XC-XCIV. 1981, ‘Le culte de Bacchus sous l'empire Romain.’ Aufsteig und Neidergang der Rémischen Welt Il, 17 (2) 684-702. FOWLER B.H. 1989, The Hellenistic Aesthetic. Bristol. FOWLER W. 1796-1818, Twenty-six Plates of Mosaic Pavements. FOX A. 1951, 'The Date of the Orpheus Mosaic from Barton, Cirencester Park.' TBGAS 70. FRADIER G. 1986, Mosaiques romaines de Tunisie. Tunis. FRANK T. ed. 1927-40, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome. 5 vols. Baltimore. (2nd ed. revised 1962, New York.) A. 1986, Corpus de mosaicos FREIJEIRO BLANCO romanos de Espana. Madrid. FREND W.C.H. 1968, ‘The Christianisation of Roman Britain’, in eds. Barley and Hanson, Christianity in Britain 37-49. FRERE S.S. 1967, Britannia, A History of Roman Britain. London. FRIEDLANDER P. 1945, Documents of Dying Paganism. California. FRIEDMAN J.B. 1967, 'Syncretism and Allegory in the Jerusalem Orpheus Mosaic.’ Traditio 23, 1-13. 1970, Orpheus in the Middle Ages. Harvard. FRONTO, The Correspondance of M.Cornelius Fronto, Letters. Vol.1, Trans. C.R.Haines. Loeb 1955. GAUKLER P. 1896, 'Le Domaine des Laberii 4 Uthina.' Monuments et Memoires Fondation Piot (MonPiot), II, 177-229. W 1904, 'Musivum Opus’, DA Il, 2088-2129.

World.’ Art History Vol.2, no.1, 5-34. GOUGH M. 1973, The Origins of Christian Art. London. GRABAR A. 1969, Christian Iconography, A Study of its Origins. London. in GRAF F. 1987, ‘Orpheus, A Poet Among Men’, Greek of Interpretations ed.J.N.Bremmer, Mythology, 80-105. 1991, 'Textes orphiques et rituel bacchique' in ed.P.Borgeaud Orphisme et Orphée, 87-102. Ww

GRAVES R. 1955, The Greek Myths. Penguin (1980 ed.) 2 vols. GRIMAL P. 1943, Les jardins romaines. Paris. 1951, The Dictionary of Classical Mythology. Paris, " English translation, Oxford 1985. GRUPPE O. 1898, ‘Orpheus’. Roscher's Lexicon vol.III, cols.

1058-1207. Life Animal Grzimek's 1975, ed. B. GRZIMEK Encyclopaedia. 13 vols. GUERY R. 1981, 'L'occupation de Rougga (Bararus) d'aprés la stratigraphie du forum.’ Bulletin archéologique du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques, fasc. 17B, 91-99. GUETTEL COLE S. 1980, 'New Evidence for the Mysteries of Dionysus’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies

223-38. GUIDI G. 1935, ‘Orfeo, Liber Pater e Oceano in mosaici della Tripolitania.' Africa Italiana VI, 110-155. GUTHRIE W.K.C. 1935 (1952 ed.), Orpheus and Greek Religion. London. % 1950, The Greeks and Their Gods. London.

London. HANFMANN G.M.A. 1951, 'The Season Sarcophagus in Dumbarton Oaks', Dumbarton Oaks Studies Il. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 2 vols. HANFMANN G.M.A. 1980, 'The Continuity of Classical

Art, Culture, Myth and Faith’ in K.Weitzmann, Symposium, Age of Spirituality 75-99. HARRIS

E.H.

1960, Art and Illusion. Oxford. 5th ed.

1977. "

1979, The Sense of Order. Oxford

&

J.R.

1965,

The

Oriental

Cults

in Roman

Roman Britain. Oxford. (reprint 1979).

1979. 2nd. ed.

von HEINTZE H. 1972, Roman Art. London. HENIG M. 1979, ‘Late Antique Book Illustration and the Gallic Prefecture’ in De Rebus Bellicis, British

1984, st

E.

Britain, Leiden. HARRISON J.E. 1903 (1962 ed.), Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion. London. (reprint 1980). 1962, ‘An Orpheus Mosaic From R.M. HARRISON Ptolemais in Cyrenaica’, JRS 13-18, pl. I-VII. HAUSER A. 1951, The Social History of Art. Vol I. From Prehistoric Times to the Middle Ages. London. HAVERFIELD F. 1906 (4th ed. 1923), The Romanisation of

1959, La Villa Erculia di Piazza Armerina, i

mosaici figurati. Rome. P.A. 1976, Tl mosaico di Orfeo a GIANFROTTA sant'Anselmo sull’ Aventino e le sui riproduzioni.' Archeologia classica XXVIII, 198-205, pls. LXIX— LXXII. GOMBRICH

Etruria and Magna

Graecia. New York. HALL J. 1983, A History of Ideas and Images in Italian Art.

wt

GENTILIG.V.

1969, Art of Rome,

G.

HAFNER

1982, The Image and the Eye. Oxford.

von GONZENBACH V. 1949/50, ‘Drei Orpheusmosaiken aus der Waadt.’ Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Friihgeschichte. und_ Urfiir Gesellschaft

Archaeological Reports (BAR) S63, 17-28. pls. I-

IX. 1984, Religion in Roman Britain. London. 1985, ‘Graeco-Roman Art and Romano-British Imagination’, Journal of the British Archaeological

(V/bSGUF) XL, 271-87. 1961, Die Rémischen Mosaiken der Schweiz. Basel. GOODENOUGH E.R. 1951, Jewish Symbolism in the Greco—Roman Period. New York. GORDON R.L. 1979, 'The Real and the Imaginary, Production and Religion in the Graeco-Roman wv

Association (JBAA), 135, 1-22.

HENIG M. ed. 1983, A Handbook of Roman Art. Oxford. HENIG M. and KING A. eds. 1986, Pagan Gods and

158

Abbreviations and Bibliography

School.’ TBGAS 102-6. 1979, Roman Villas. Shire Archaeology.

Shrines of the Roman Empire. Oxford Monograph no.8. HENRICHS

A.

1979,

'Greek

and

Roman

Glimpses

" JOLY D. 1983, 'A propos de mosaique, quelques réflexions de poétes.' Mosaique, receuil d'‘hommages H.Stern 231-37. JONES A.H.M. 1963, 'The Social Background of the Struggle Between Paganism and Christianity’, in ed. Momigliano, Paganism and Christianity, 17-37.

of

Dionysus’, in C.Houser, ed. Dionysus and his Circle, Ancient Through Modern, Harvard. 1-11. 1982, 'Changing Dionysiac Identities’, in Meyer and " Sanders Jewish and Christian Self—Definition Ch.8. 137-160. HENRY E. 1992, Orpheus with his Lute: Poetry and the Renewal of Life. Bristol. HERVAL P. 1969, 'Mosaistes et Chasseurs', Précis Analytique des Travaux de l'Académie des Sciences, Belles Lettres et Arts de Rouen, 116. HERZOG R. 1901, 'Arch.Anzeiger’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts (JdAI), XVI, 134. HEURGON M.J. 1932, ‘Orphée et Eurydice avant Virgile’. MEFRA, XLIX, 6-60. HINKS R.P. 1933, Catalogue of the Greek Etruscan and Roman Painting Museum. London.

and

Mosaics

in

the

"

1964, The Later Roman Empire, 284-602.

2 vols.

Oxford. KADAR Z. 1979, 'La fauna del mosaico di Orfeo in Piazza Armerina’, XI Congres Internationale d'archeologie classique (Greece and Italy in the Classical World) 282-3.

"

1988, ‘Uber der Tiere um

Mosaik der Villa bei Festschrift fiir Klaus zur Kunstgeschichte Munich. KARAGEORGHIS V. 1985, Maison d'Orphée',

British

1939, Myth and Allegory in Ancient Art. Warburg Institute. London. HOLLOM P.A.D., PORTER R.F., CHRISTENSEN S. & IAN WILLIS. 1988, Birds of the Middle East and North Africa. Calton, Staffs. HOPE T. 1962, Costumes of the Greeks and Romans. New York. The Complete Odes and Epodes. Trans. HORACE, W.G.Shepherd, Penguin, 1983. HORN H.G. 1972, Mysteriensymbolik auf dem Kélner Dionysosmosaik. Bonn. HOUSTON M.G. 1931 (2nd.ed. 1977), Ancient Greek, Roman and Byzantine Costume and Decoration. "

Orpheus

auf einem

Casale (Piazza Armerina)' in Wessel. Miinchener Arbeiten und Archdologie, Band 2, 'Fouilles de Kato Paphos, Bulletin de correspondance

héllenique 109, 947-8. KERENYI K. 1951, The Gods of the Greeks. London. 1976, Dionysus, Archetypal Image of Indestructable Life. Princeton. KERN O. 1922 (repr. 1963), Orphicorum Fragmenta. Berlin. KITZINGER E. 1965, ‘Stylistic Developments in Pavement Mosaics in the Greek East from the Age of Constantine to the Age of Justinian.' CMGR I, 341"

52, figs 1-18. 1977, Byzantine Art in the Making. London. " KLINGENDER F. 1971, Animals in Art and Thought. London. KRISELEIT I. 1985, Antike Mosaiken. Staatliche Museen,

London.

Berlin. LANCHA J. 1984, ‘L'iconographie d'Hylas dans mosaiques romaines.' CIMA III, 381-392. 1990, Les Mosaiques de Vienne. Lyon. "

D.B. 1964, Hounds and Hunting in Ancient Greece. Chicago. HUSKINSON J. 1974, 'Some Pagan Mythological Figures

HULL

and their Significance in Early Christian Art.’ Papers of the British School at Rome XLII, 68-97. HUTCHINSON V.J. 1986a, "The Cult of Bacchus in Roman Britain’, in Henig and King eds., Pagan Gods and Shrines. 135-145. 1986b, Bacchus in Roman Britain. BAR 151, i, ii. " Oxford. IRWIN E. 1982, "The Songs of Orpheus and the New Song of

les

LAURENZI L. 1936-7, ‘Mosaics Cos’, Bolletino darte, 137, fig.14. LAVER J. 1964, Costume in Antiquity. London. LAVIN I. 1963, ‘Antioch Hunting Mosaics and their Sources’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17, 181-285, figs. 1-140. LEGLAY M. 1968, ‘Informations Archaéologiques... Saint—Paul—lés— Circonscriptions Rhdéne—Alpes, Romans.' Gallia, XXVI, 594-595. LEHMANN-HARTLEBEN K. 1941, 'The ‘imagines’ of the Elder Philostratus', The Art Bulletin XXIII, 16-44. 1945, ‘The Dome of Heaven’, The Art Bulletin " XXVII, 1-27. LEVI D. 1942, ‘Mors Voluntaria, Mystery Cults on Mosaics from Antioch’, Berytus VII, 19-55, pls. I-VII. 1947, Antioch Mosaic Pavements II. Princeton. . 1963, 'Mosaico', Enciclopedia dell’arte antica V, " 209-240. LEWIS B. 1881, ‘Antiquities in the Museum at Palermo.’ Archaeological Journal XXXVIIIL, 146-153. LEWIS M.J.T. 1966, Temples in Roman Britain. Cambridge. LEWIS N & REINHOLD M. 1955, Roman Civilization. Sourcebook II, The Empire. Columbia.

Christ’, in J.Warden ed., Orpheus, 51-62. JEANMAIRE H. 1951 (reprint 1970), Dionysos, Histoire du Culte du Bacchus. Paris. JENNISON G. 1937, Animals for Show and Pleasure in Ancient Rome. Manchester. JESNICK I. 1989, ‘Animals in the Orpheus Mosaics.’ Mosaic

16, 9-13. 1990, "The Caerwent Seasons Mosaic — Perhaps an Orpheus?’ Mosaic 17, 7-12. P. 1982, Romano-British Mosaics. Shire JOHNSON Archaeology. 1984, "The Mosaics of Bignor Villa, England, a " Gallo-—Roman Connection’, CIMA III, Ravenna, "

405-10. JOHNSON S. 1980, Later Roman Britain. London. JOHNSTON D.E. 1967, 'Two Mosaicists of the Corinian

159

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic

LEXICON ICONOGRAPHICUM MYTHOLOGIAE CLASSICAE (LIMC) Vols I-V, 1981. In progress. L.Kahil ed. Zurich and Munich. LIEBESCHUTZ J.H.W.G. 1979, Continuity and Change in

"

1950, Guide du musée du Bardo. (Musée Alaoui). Tunis.

Kestner-

B.F. & SANDERS E.P. eds. 1982, Jewish and Christian Self—Definition, Vol.3, Self—Definition in the Graeco—Roman World. MICHAELIDES D. 1986, 'A New Orpheus Mosaic in

Museum zu Hannover.’ Neiderdeutsche Beitrdge zur Kunstgeschichte 13, 9-36. LINFORTH I.M. 1931, 'Two Notes on the Legend of

Cyprus’ in Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium, ‘Cyprus Between the Orient and the Occident', ed. V.Karageorghis. Cyprus, 473-489,

MEYER

Roman Religion. Oxford. LIEPMANN

" LING "

"

U.

1974,

'Ein

Orpheusmosaik

im

pl.LI-LVI.

Orpheus’, TAPhA. LXII, 5-17. 1941, The Arts of Orpheus. California. R. 1977, 'Studius and the Beginnings of Roman Landscape Painting’, JRS 67, 1-16. on Fourth Century ‘Further Thoughts 1981, Mosaics’, Britannia XII, 292-3. 1983, ‘The Seasons in Romano—British Mosaic Pavements’, Britannia XIV, 13-22. 1991, Roman Painting. Cambridge.

LIVERSIDGE

J.

1968,

Britain

in

the

Roman

1987, Cypriot Mosaics. Nicosia. " MORGAN T. 1886, Romano-—British Mosaic Pavements. MOREY C.R. 1938, Mosaics of Antioch. New York. MORRICONE L. 1950, 'Scavi e richerche a Coo’ (1935-43), Bollettino d’'arte XXXV, 54, 64, 320, 330. A. ed. 1963, The Conflict Between MOMIGLIANO Paganism and Christianity in the 4th century. Oxford. MOULINIER L. 1955, Orphée et l'Orphisme a I'Epoque Classique. Paris. MUNBY J. and HENIG M. eds. 1977, Roman Life and Art

Empire.

London. L'ORANGE H.P. 1965, Art Forms and Civic Life in the Late Roman Empire. Princeton. L'ORANGE H.P. and NORDHAGEN P.J. 1966, Mosaics. English ed. London. LYSONS S. 1797, Roman Antiquities at Woodchester. 1813-17, Reliquae Britannico—Romanae, Vols. 1" 3. MACCHIORO V. 1930, Zagreus, studi Intorno all'Orfismo. Florence. MACDOUGALL E. & JASHEMSKI W. eds. 1981, Ancient Roman Gardens. Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium on History of Landscape Arch. VII. MACMILLAN C. 1986, Mosaiques romaines de Portugal. Paris. MACMULLEN R. 1981, Paganism in the Roman Empire. Yale, London. 1984, Christianizing the Roman Empire (AD 100" 400). New Haven. MANGANARO G. 1960, 'Grifo'. Enciclopedia dell‘arte antica, III, cols. 1056-63. Rome. MANINO L. 1950-1, ‘Tl mosaico Sardo di Orfeo del museo archeologico de Torino’, Bolletino della Societd Piementese n.s. IV, V, 40-53. MANO-ZISSI BD. 1965, ‘La question des différentes écoles de mosaiques greco-romaines de Yugoslavie et essai d'une esquisse de leur évolution.’ CMGR I, 287-295, figs. 1-30. MARTIAL, De Spectaculis Liber Trans. W.C.A.Ker. 1925. Loeb. MENDEL G. 1914, Catalogue des sculptures romaines et

in Britain. BAR, 41, i, ii, Oxford.

MURRAY SISTER C. 1977, "The Christian Orpheus’, CArch 26, 19-27. and 28, H.Stern in reply. MURRAY

C.

1981, Rebirth

and Afterlife, BAR

$100, Oxford. J.F. 1990, ‘Hierarchy, Heroes, and Heads’, in L.Edmunds ed. Approaches to Greek Myth, John Hopkins UP. Baltimore, London. NEAL D. 1981, Roman Mosaics in Britain. Gloucester. NEPPI MODONA A. 1933, 'L'isola di Coo nell'antichita classica’, Memorie 1, Archeologio di Rodi, 168-9, NAGY

pl.XIV-XV. NEUTSCH B. 1955, ‘Das Epigrammenzimmer in der "Casa degli Epigrammi" zu Pompeji und sein Wandbild "Eros im Ringcampf mit Pan".' Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts, JbDAD 155184. 1935, ‘Early Orphism and Kindred NILSSON M.P. Theological Harvard Movements.’ Religious Review (HarvThR), XXVIII, 181-231.

1940, Greek Popular Religion. New York. 1957, The Dionysiac Mysteries of the Hellenistic and Roman Age. Lund. 1964, History of Greek Religion. New York. " A.D. 1940, ‘Orphism or Popular Philosophy’, HarvThR XXXII, 301-315. 1942, Review, ‘Arts of Orpheus’, Linforth, Classical " Weekly, XXXV, 14, Feb. 16, 162-63. NONNOS OF PANOPLIS, Dionysiaca, 3. vols. Trans. W.H.D.Rouse. Loeb 1940. OBERMAYR A. 1967, Rémerstadt Carnuntum. OGILVIE R.M. 1969, The Romans and their Gods. London. ONIANS J. 1979, Art and thought in the Hellenistic Age. The Greek World View 350-50 BC. London. 1980, ‘Abstraction and Imagination in Late " Antiquity’, Art History 3, 1-23. ORPHIC ARGONAUTICA, Trans. F.Vian. 1987. Editions Budé, Paris. OTTO W.F. 1933, Dionysus, Myth and Cult. Frankfurt, English translation, Indiana 1965. " "

byzantines III, Constantinople. 507-514.

MELIDA J.R. 1907-10, Catalogo Monumentale de Espana, Prov. de Badajoz, I (text, Madrid 1925), 385-7. 1976, ‘Archaeology in Asia Minor, M. MELLINK

Pamphylia’, AJA, 60, 273. MERGELINA C. de 1942-3, 'Tres sepulturas Boletin del Seminario de estudios arqueologia 9, 27-43. MERLIN A. AND POINSSOT L. 1934, ‘Deux de Tunisie a sujets prophylactiques Bardo)’, MonPiot XXIV, 129-176.

SISTER

levantinas', de arte e mosaiques (Musée du

160

Abbreviations and Bibliography

POLLITT J.J. 1966 (repr.1983), The Art of Rome, c.753BC— AD337, Sources and Documents. Cambridge. 1986, Art in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge. PONSICH M. 1966, ‘Tanger, une mosaique d'Orphée’, Bulletin d'archéologie marocaine 6, 479-480. PRICE J.E. & PRICE F.G.H. 1880-1, "Remains of Roman Buildings at Brading, near Morton, Isle of Wight’, Transactions of the Royal Institute of British

OVADIAH A. and MUCZNIC S. 1980, ‘Orpheus Mosaics in Roman and Early Byzantine Periods.’ Assaph I. Tel-Aviv. 43-56. 1981, ‘Orpheus from Jerusalem — Pagan or Christian Image?’ The Jerusalem Cathedra I, 152-166. OVERBECK E. 1875, Das Grosse Mosaik auf der Piazza della Vittoria in Palermo. Leipzig. OVID, Metamorphoses. Trans. F.J.Miller. Loeb 1934. PACE M.B. 1925, 'Riproduzione in musaico de gruppi plastici de Orfeo affine al presepio.’ Monumenti antichi XXX, col. 189-200. PALLAS I. 1975, 'Les monuments chrétiens de Gréce avant Constantine’, CArch, 24, 27-19. PANOFSKY E. 1955, Meaning in the Visual Arts. Princeton. PANYAGUA E.R. 1967, 'La figura de Orfeo en el arte griego y romano.’ Helmantica XVIII, no.56, 173239. 1972, ‘Catalogo de representaciones de Orfeo en el arte antiguo I." Helmantica XXIII, no.70, 87-135. figs. 1-13. 1972, ‘Catalogo de representaciones de Orfeo en el arte antiguo II.' Helmantica XXII, no.72, 393-416. 1973, ‘Catalogo de representaciones de Orfeo en el arte antiguo III.' Helmantica XXIV, no.75. 433498. K. 1959, Die Rémischen Mosaiken in PARLASCA Deutschland. Berlin. PAULY A. and G.WISSOWA G. 1894-1972, RealKlassischen der Enzyklopadie Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart. PAUSANIAS, Descriptions of Greece. Loeb. 1935, 5 vols. PESCE G. 1957, Sarcofagi romani di Sardegna. Rome. PERCIVAL J. 1976, The Roman Villa. London. PERROT M. 1980, Le symbolisme de la roue. Paris. PHILOSTRATUS the Elder, Eikones (Imagines). Trans. A.Fairbanks. Loeb 1931. t PHILOSTRATUS the Younger, Eikones (Imagines).

w

w

Architects. PRIGENT P. 1984, 'Orphée dans l'iconographie chrétienne’. Revue d‘histoire et de philosophie religieuse 64, 205-221. QUONIAM P. 1951, 'Une mosaique a scénes de chasse récemment découvert 4 Henchir—Toungar (Tunisia)’, Karthago I, 109-122. RAINEY

A.

1973, Mosaics

Newton Abbot. REINACH S. 1889-1900,

in Roman Britain, a Gazeteer.

Répertoire

des

Vases

Peints

Grecs et Etrusques. (RVPG) 2 vols. Paris.

1909-1912, Répertoire des Reliefs Grecs et Romains (RRGR). 3 vols. Paris. 1897-1930, Répertoire de la Statuaire Grecque et Romaine (RSGR). 6 vols. Paris. et 1922, Répertoire des Peintures Grecques Romaines (RPGR). Paris.

1909, Cultes, Mythes et Religions, Vol. II, Paris. ‘La mort d'Orphée', 85-122. 'Une formule Orphique’, 123-134. RHODE E. 1893, Psyche, The Cult of Souls and Belief in Immortality among the Greeks. Tiibingen and Leipzig, English translation. New York, 1925. RICHMOND I.A. 1955 (2nd ed. 1963), Roman Britain. Penguin. RICHTER G.M.A. 1970, Perspective in Greek and Roman Art. London. RINALDI M.L. 1964—5, ‘Il costume romano e i mosaici di Piazza Armerina.' Rivista dell'instituto nazionale di archeologia e storia dell'arte (RINASA) XIII-XIV, 200-268. RINUY P.L. 1986, ‘L'imagerie d'Orphée dans I'antiquité’, Ramage 4, 297-314. RIVET A.L.F. 1958, Town and Country in Roman Britain. London. ed. 1969, The Roman Villa in Britain. London. ROBBINS E. 1982, ‘Famous Orpheus’, in J.Warden, ed. Orpheus. 3-23. ROBERTSON M. 1975, A History of Greek Art. 2 vols. Cambridge. RODENWALDT G. 1936, ‘Art from Nero to the Antonines'. Cambridge Ancient History Vol. XI, 775-805. 1939, 'The Transition to Late Classical Art’. Cambridge Ancient History Vol. XII. Ch.XVI, 544— 571. ROSCHER W.H. Ausfiihrliches Lexicon der Griechischen und Rémischen Mythologie. 6 vols, Leipzig 1884 — 1937. ROSE H.J. 1949, Ancient Roman Religion. London. ROSEN B. 1984, 'Reidentified Animals in the Orpheus Mosaic from Jerusalem." [srael Exploration Journal 34. 182-3. ROSENTHAL E. 1972, The Illuminations of the Virgilius

Ch. 1947a, ‘Lacus Orphei', Revue des Etudes Latines 80-85. 1947b, ‘Sur L'Orphée de la fontaine monumentale de Byblos’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica I, Miscellanea G. de Jerphanion 266-83. 1960, ‘Orphée, les fontaines et les tombes.' Revue Archéologique 118-20. 1970, Roman Painting. English ed. PICARD G.-C. 1957, ‘Civitas Mactarina’, Karthago VIII, 107-8, fig.9c, pl.XXXVIL, e, f. ed. 1965, Colloque ‘La mosaique gréco—romaine I, (1963) Paris. PLANKE D. 1970, 'Volubilis', Antike Welt 2, vol.2, 10, 12. PLINY the Elder, Naturalis Historia. Loeb, 1938-1962, trans. xxxili-xxxv, Books IX, Vol. esp. H.Rackham, 1952. P. 1951-2, ‘Bétes POINSSOT L. AND QUONIAM d'amphithéatre sur trois mosaiques du Bardo.’ Karthago III, 129-165. POIRIEUX C. 1976, ‘Lyon, les mosaiques de l'ile des Canabées omeront la future station de métro?’ Archéologia, 95, 69. POLLARD J. 1977, Birds in Greek Life and Myth. London.

PICARD

w

t

t

Ww

161

The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic Romanus. Zurich. ROSTOVSTEFF M. 1957, Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. Oxford. SALOMONSON J. 1965, La Mosaique aux chevaux de l'Antiquarium de Carthage (= Archeologische

York. STANNARD J. 1986, 'Herbal Medicine and Herbal Magic in Pliny's Time’, Helmantica 37, 95-106. STANTON G.R. 1936, 'The Newton St.Loe Pavement’,

Studien van het Nederlands Institut te Rome, Deel

STEAD I.M. 1976, Excavations at Winterton Roman Villa. HMSO, London. et al 1980, Rudston Roman Villa. Leeds. STERN H. 1953, 'Le Calendrier de 354.' Bibliothéque de I'Institute francais d'archéologie et histoire d'archeologie de Beyruth LV. 1955, ‘La mosaique d'Orphée de Blanzy—lés— Fismes', Gallia XIII, 41-77. 1957, Receuil générale des mosaiques de la Gaule, I, 1; I, 2 (1960), 1,3, (1963). 1958, ‘The Orpheus in the Synagogue of Dura— Europos’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XXI, 1-6. 1970, 'Un nouvel Orphée—David dans un mosaique du VIe siecle’, Comptes rendus de l'académie des inscriptions. 63-82. 1971, 'Mosaiques de la région de Vienne (Isere)’, Gallia XXIX, 123-149. 1973, ‘Un relief d'Orphée au Musée du Louvre’, Bulletin de la societé nationale des antiquaires de

Journal of Roman Studies, 43-46.

I). The Hague. SALWAY P. 1981, Roman Britain. Oxford.

w

SCHOELLER F. 1969, Darstellungen des Orpheus in der Antike. Dissertation, Freiburg. SCHWARZ E. 1984, Aspects of Orpheus in Classical PhD _ Dissertation. Literature and Mythology. Cambridge, Massachusetts. SCULLARD H.H. 1974, The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World. London. t 1979, Roman Britain, Outpost of the Empire. London. 1981, Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic. London SEGAL C.P. 1966, ‘Orpheus and the Fourth Georgic, Vergil on Nature and Civilization.’ American Journal of Philology 87, 307-25. 1972, ‘Ovid's Orpheus and Augustan Ideology’. TAPhA 103, 473-494. w 1988, Orpheus, The Myth of the Poet. Baltimore. Edessa’, from Mosaics ‘New 1959, J.B. SEGAL Archaeology XII, 150-57. 1970, Edessa the Blessed City. Oxford. SENECA, Hercules Furens. Loeb, Seneca’s Tragedies, vol.1, Trans. F.J.Miller. 1916; Hercules Oetaeus, vol.II, 1951. C. 1975, ‘Il grifone e la tigre SETTIS-FRUGONI nell'Grande Caccia’ di Piazza Armerina.’ CArch. XXIV, 22-27. SHELTON J.-A. 1988, As the Romans Did. A source book. New York. Oxford. SILBERBERG-PEIRCE S. 1980, ‘Politics and Private Imagery, The sacral—idyllic landscapes in Augustan Art’. Art History Vol.3, no.3, 241-51. SMITH D.J. 1965, "Three Fourth Century Schools of Mosaic in Roman Britain’, CMGR I, 95-115. 1969, ‘The Mosaic Pavements’, in A.L.F.Rivet, The Roman Villa.

France, 330-341, pl. XXX-XXXIL.

1974, 'Orphée dans l'art paleo—chrétien’, CArch. XXII, 1-16. 1980, ‘Les débuts de l'iconographie d'Orphée charmant les animaux.’ Mélanges de numismatique, d'archéologie et d'histoire offerts a Jean Lafaurie 157-164, pl.XII-XIV. STERN H. ed. 1965, Colloque Internationale ‘La mosaique gréco—romaine' I, Paris 1963. CMGR I. STERN H. & LEGLAY M. 1975, Colloque Internationale ‘La mosaique gréco—romaine' II, Vienne 1971. CMGR I. STRAUSS W.A. 1971, Descent and Return, The Orphic Theme in Modern Literature. Harvard. STRONG D. 1976, Roman Art. London. STRZYGOWSKI J. 1901, ‘Das neugefundene Orpheus— Mosaik in Jerusalem.' Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palaestina—Vereins XXIV, 139-171, pl.4 STUPPERICH R. 1980, 'A Reconsideration of some Fourth

"

1973, The Great Pavement and Roman Villa, Woodchester. 1975, ‘Roman Mosaics in Britain Before the Fourth Century.’ CMGR II, 269-290.

Century British Mosaics’, Britannia X1, 289-301. THIRION J. 1955, 'Orphée magicien dans la mosaique

romaine’, MEFRA XXVII, 149-179. THOMPSON M.L. 1960-1, 'The Monumental and Literary Evidence for Programmatic Painting in Antiquity.’ Marsyas 9, 36-77. THOUVENOT R. 1941, Publications du service des antiquaires du Maroc VI, 43-7. 1965, ‘Les mosaiques de Mauretania Tingitaine’,

in and Scenes Figures ‘Mythological 1977, Romano-British Mosaics’, in Roman Life and Art in Britain, BAR 41, (i) 105-58. 1983, ‘Orpheus Mosaics in Britain.’ Mosaique, receuil d‘hommages a H Stern, 315-328, pl.CCIII-— CCXI. 1984, ‘Roman Mosaics in Britain, a Synthesis’, CIMA III, 357-380. SQUARCIAPINO M. 1941, Un gruppo di Orfeo tra le fiere della Builetino Sabratha.' di museo del Commissione archeologica del Governatorato di Roma, (Bull. del museo dell'impero romano) X1XXX, 61-79. STAHL W.H. 1952, Somnium Scipionis. Macrobius. New

t

CMGR I, 267-74. TODD M. 1978, 'Villas and Romano-British Society’, in Todd, Studies in the Romano-British Villa 197208. TODD M. ed. 1978, Studies in the Romano-British Villa. Leicester. TOSI G. 1978, ‘Mosaico romano di Trento con figura di Orfeo', Rivista dell'istituto nazionale d’arch. e 162

Abbreviations and Bibliography

92-106, CXLIV, Association Archaeological pl.IX—XI. WAYWELL S.E. 1979, 'Roman Mosaics in Greece’, AJA 83, 293-321, pls. 45-52. WEBER L. 1932, ‘Orpheus’, Rheinisches Museum fiir Philologie 81, 1-19. T.B.L. 1964, Hellenistic Poetry and Art. WEBSTER London. 1966, Hellenistic Art. London. " WEITZMANN K. 1951, Greek Mythology in Byzantine Art. Princeton. Cambridge, 1959, Ancient Book Illumination. " Massachusetts. Mythological of Survival ‘The 1960, " Representations in Early Christian and Byzantine Art and their Impact on Christian Iconography.' Dumbarton Oaks Papers 14, 45-67, figs. 1-44. 1970, Illustrations in Roll and Codex. 2nd. ed. " Princeton. ed. 1980, Age of Spirituality. Late Antique and " Early Christian Art, 3rd—7th century. Symposium. Metropolitan Museum, New York. WEST M.L. 1983, The Orphic Poems. Oxford. WHEELER M. 1964, Roman Art and Architecture. London. WHITE J. 1956, Perspective in Ancient Drawing and Painting. Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies, London. WHITFIELD P. Consultant ed. 1988, Longmans Illustrated Animal Encyclopedia. London. WILKINSON L.P. 1974, The Roman Experience. Random House, USA. WILLIAMS G. 1970, The Nature of Roman Poetry. OU Press. WILLIAMS S. 1985, Diocletian and the Roman Recovery. London. WILSON L.M. 1938, The Clothing of the Ancient Romans. Baltimore. WILSON R.J.A. 1981, ‘Mosaic, Mosaicists and Patrons.’ JRS 71, 173-77. 1983, Piazza Armerina. St. Albans. " E. 1988, The Rhetoric of Space. LEACH WINSOR Princeton.

storia dell'arte (RINASA) III, 1, 65-87. TOYNBEE J.M.C. 1950, ‘Some Notes on Artists in the Roman World' part IV, Latomus IX, 295=302. " 1957, ‘Fragments of Italian Red—Glossware from

" " "

the ‘Domus Aurea’, pl.I-V. 1962, Art in Roman 1964, Art in Britain 1965, The Art of the

"

1971a,

Death

and

Rome.’ Latomus 16, 2, 18-22, Britain. London. under the Romans. Oxford. Romans. London. Burial

in the

Roman

World.

London. " 1971b, (published 1986) ‘Parthian’ art and the Roman mosaicist's copy—book.’ Mosaic 13, (1986) 8-12. " 1973, Animals in Roman Life and Art. London. and Seasons, Some 1982a, ‘Apollo, Beasts " Thoughts on the Littlecote Mosaic’, Britannia XII, 1-5. 1982b, ‘Life, Death and Afterlife on Roman Age " Mosaics’, Jahrbuch fiir Antike und Christentum Erganzungsband 9, 210-14, pl.8-9. 1986, The Roman Art Treasures from the Temple of " Mithras. Special Paper &, London and Middlesex Archaeological Society. a romains sarcophages ‘Les 1966, R. TURCAN représentations dionysiaques.' Bibliothéque des écoles francaises d’Athénes et de Rome CCX. Paris. VAUGHAN DAVIES P. 1969, Saturnalia, Macrobius. New York. London. VIGNARD M. 1978, La Villa gallo—romaine de Saint— Paul—lés—Romans. Catalogue. Centre de recherches archéologiques de Romans au Musée de Romans. VIRGIL, Georgics. Trans. L.P.Wilkinson. Penguin. 1982. Eclogues. Trans. H.Rushton Fairclough. Loeb 1956. " Aeneid. Trans. H.Rushton Fairclough, Loeb 1932; " R.Fitzgerald. Penguin 1985. VOLBACH W.F. 1961, Early Christian Art. Florence, London. VOUTE P. 1972, ‘Notes sur l'iconographie d'Océan a propos d'une fontaine 4 mosaiques découverte a Nole (Campanie)', MEFRA, 84, 1, 639-673. WACHER JS. 1974, The Towns of Roman Britain. London. ed. 1987, The Roman World. 2 vols. London. " WALTERS B. 1982, 'The Restoration of an Orphic Temple in England’, Archaeology Nov/Dec 1982, 36—43. 1984, ‘The Orpheus Mosaic in Littlecote Park, " England’, CIMA III, Ravenna, 433-442. WALTERS B & PHILLIPS B. 1980, Archaeological Excavations in Littlecote Park, Wiltshire 1979 & 80. Second Interim Report. WARDEN J. ed. 1982, Orpheus, The Metamorphoses of a Myth. Toronto. WARMINGTON B.H. 1954, The North African Provinces Conquest. Vandal the to Diocletian from Cambridge. WARMINGTON E.H. 1928, The Commerce Between the Roman Empire and India. Cambridge. WATMOUGH JR. 1934, Orphism. Cambridge. WATTEL—DE-CROIZANT O. and JESNICK I. 1991, 'The Mosaics of the House of Mourabas in Sparta, Europa and Orpheus.’ Journal of the British

WOODWARD

R. 1981, 'The Wotton Mosaic, A Recreation

of the Great Pavement at Woodchester’, Mosaic 4, 10-15. WRZESNIOWSKI A. 1971, 'The Figure of Orpheus in Early

Christian Iconography', Archaeologica XXI,

112-

123. Polish with English resumé. YACOUB M. 1970, Musée du Bardo I, Antiquités. Tunis. ZEIGLER K. 1939, ‘Orpheus’ in Pauly, Real—Encyclopadie vol. XVIII, I, cols. 1200-1316. ZUNTZ G. 1971, Persephone, Three Essays on Religion and Thought in Magna Graecia. Oxford.

163

Index of Mosaics Adana — 48, 63, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 80, 81, 89, 90, 121n., 124, 125, 127, 136, 137, 139, 140. Aix — 45n, 69, 75, 108, 121n., 124, 126, 136. La Alberca — 90, 103-4, 121n., 124, 125, 126, 129, 131, 133, 134, 137, 145. Antalya — 103, 104, 105, 124, 125, 127, 139. Amal — 45n., 69, 71, 74, 89, 96, 115, 121n., 124, 125, 127, 129, 131, 133, 134, 137, 145. Avenches I — 15, 52, 59, 63, 74, 79n., 88, 124, 126, 127, 137. Avenches II — 52, 59, 63, 68, 89, 90, 124, 125, 127, 137. Barton Farm — 53, 54, 55, 56, 62, 65, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 87, 89, 90, 97, 99, 115, 118, 121n., 122, 124, 125, 127, 131, 133, 135, 144, 146. Bavai — 89, 90, 101, 124, 126, 127, 134-135.

Beirut — 108 and n.10, 124, 126, 127, 141.

Blanzy — 1, 45n., 46, 47, 49, 52, 63, 67n., 68, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 89, 94, 97, 120, 121, 124, 125, 127, 129, 131, 133, 135, 136, 137, 143, 144, 146. Brading — 18, 33, 25n., 42, 46, 54, 55, 58, 59, 63, 72, 73, 74, 76, 78, 85, 86, 87, 95-6, 97, 98, 100, 101, 105, 114, 115, 116, 121n., 124, 125, 127, 142, 143. Caerwent I — 121n., 124, 126, 127, 143. Caerwent IT — 107, 124, 126, 127, 146. Cagliari - 23n., 45n., 50, 51, 59, 63, 68, 69, 70, 74, 75, 84n., 85, 89, 97, 124, 125, 126, 128-9. Carnuntum — 47, 57, 58, 63, 64, 65, 72, 74, 75, 81, 82, 89, 115, 123, 124, 125, 127, 137-38, 141. Carthage — 16, 16n., 83, 89, 124, 125, 126, 130. Chahba — 41, 47, 49, 57, 58, 63, 64, 65, 67n., 68, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 79, 81, 84, 85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 94, 99, 100, 101, 118, 123, 124, 125, 127, 132, 138, 141, 142, 145. La Chebba — 41, 48, 52, 53, 55, 62, 68, 71, 74, 75, 89, 92-3, 96, 115, 124, 125, 126, 129, 130, 132,

135, 139. Cherchel— 16, 45n., 74, 81, 89, 100, 105, 110, 124, 125, 126, 132, 141. Comb End — 121n., 124, 126, 127, 142. Constantine — 16, 55, 89, 94, 100, 103, 105, 110, 124, 125, 126, 132, 141. Cos I — 15, 45, 45n., 63, 64, 68, 71, 73, 75, 80, 89, 91, 95, 95n., 97, 98, 101, 103, 104, 122, 124, 125, 127, 133, 134, 137, 139. Cos II — 46, 52, 53, 55, 63, 73, 82, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 97, 98, 101, 103, 104, 105, 123, 124, 125, 127, 138, 139, 140. El Djem — 48, 52, 53, 62, 63, 74, 81, 124, 125, 126, 130, 135, 139. Djemila — 15, 55, 63, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 92, 93, 99, 100, 101, 105, 108, 115, 121n., 124, 125, 126, 130, 132, 135, 139. Dyer Street — 99, 105, 121n., 124, 126, 127, 146. Edessa — 16, 46, 71, 74, 89, 100, 103, 104, 105, 110, 124, 125, 127, 132, 141. Féret de Brotonne — 52, 55, 65, 74, 75, 78, 96, 124, 125, 127, 132, 135. Gaza — 43, 44, 76, 124, 126, 127, 142. Gloucester — 124, 126, 127, 143. Guelma— 124, 126, 132. Hanover — 45n., 49, 50, 63, 65, 67n., 68, 71, 74, 75, 81, 82, 85, 88, 89, 90, 105, 121, 121n., 124, 125, 127, 137, 140, 141, 142, 144, Horkstow — 23n., 45n., 53, 54, 55, 65, 65n., 71, 73, 84, 89, 90, 92, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 105, 114, 115, 116, 121n., 124, 125, 127, 136, 139, 143, 144. Italica — 107, 124, 126, 127, 134. Jerusalem — 16, 18, 50, 63, 64, 65, 69, 71, 72n., 73, 74, 75, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 89, 90, 91, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 103, 110, 115, 118, 121n., 124, 125, 127, 132, 133, 134, 138, 141, 142, 144, 145. Keynsham — 106, 124, 126, 127, 1467. Lepcis Magna I — 45n., 47, 49, 50, 55, 63, 67n., 68, 71, 74, 79, 81, 83, 88, 89, 90, 92, 96, 115, 120, 124, 125, 126, 129, 130,

164

139. Lepcis Magna II — 124, 125, 126, 129. Littlecote — 46, 53, 55, 58, 60, 62, 66, 69, 71, 73, 75, 84, 85, 86, 87, 94, 96, 97, 100, 101, 105, 112-13, 114, 115, 116, 121, 121n., 124, 125, 127, 141, 142, 143-44, 145. Lyon — 124, 126, 127, 136. Mactar — 105, 124, 126, 133. Martim Gil — 45n., 50, 51, 58, 63, 65, 68, 71, 74, 124, 125, 127, 129, 131, 133, 134, 137, 145. Merida I — 51, 53, 54, 55, 65, 68, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 81, 82, 84, 89, 90, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 114, 115, 124, 125, 126, 133. Merida II — 45, 52, 53, 71, 85, 89, 90, 122, 124, 125, 126, 133. Merida III — 52, 53, 89, 122, 124, 126, 133. Miletus — 15, 46, 52, 53, 63, 64, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 82, 85, 89, 90, 95, 96, 97, 101, 104, 124, 125, 127, 129, 136, 139, 141, 142, 143. Mytilene — 46, 52, 55, 63, 68, 71, 75, 76, 82, 85, 86, 89, 90, 101, 109, 124, 125, 127, 136, 140, 141. Newton St.Loe — 23n., 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 63, 65, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 89, 96, 97, 104, 107, 124, 125, 127, 138, 141, 142, 144, 145. Orbe — 23n., 94, 97, 99, 101, 105, 124, 125, 129, 131, 133, 134, 137. Oudna I — 45n., 47, 48, 49, 62, 68, 70, 74, 76n., 81, 83, 85, 89, 94, 103, 104, 113, 115, 124, 125, 126, 130, 131, 140. Oudna II — 83, 121n., 124, 126, 131. Palermo I — 15, 45n., 47, 48, 49, 50, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 68, 72, 73, 74, 81, 86, 89, 90, 92, 94, 99, 100, 105, 113, 115, 124, 125, 126, 129. Palermo II — 45n., 65, 66, 86, 88, 89, 124, 126, 129, 138. Panik — 51, 52, 53, 65, 68, 73, 96, 97, 107, 12in., 125, 127, 138, 140, 141, 142, 144, 145. Paphos — 15, 47, 48, 49, 57, 58, 59, 63, 64, 65, 67n., 68, 69, 71, 74, 75, 81, 85, 97, 99, 103, 104, 115, 120, 125, 127, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141.

Index

Paternoster Row — 125, 126, 127, 144. Perugia — 15, 34, 45, 45n., 46, 47, 48, 62, 65, 68, 70, 75, 78, 79n., 82, 87, 88, 89, 90, 104, 107, 125, 126, 128. El Pesquero — 59, 69, 71, 73, 74, 75, 82, 83, 83n., 86, 89, 90, 96, 97, 99, 115, 118, 125, 126, 131, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 141, 143. Piazza Armerina — 47, 48, 49, 50, 62,

63, 64, 65, 68, 68n., 71, 74, 78, 78n., 79, 79n., 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 97, 98, 99, 104, 105, 118, 125, 126, 129, 131, 134, 135, 137, 143, 145. Pit Meads — 53, 54, 125, 126, 127, 144, Pitney — 121n., 125, 126, 127, 147. Poljanice — 15, 47, 58, 63, 68, 73, 75, 81, 103, 104, 115, 125, 127, 138. Pont d'Ancy — 125, 126, 127, 135. Ptolemais — 43, 47, 53, 55, 62, 65, 69, 71, 73, 74, 75, 81, 85, 89, 90, 96, 110, 115, 125, 127, 128, 138, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145. Rome — 48, 65, 69, 70, 79n., 82, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 105, 125, 126, 128. Rottweil — 46, 52, 53, 54, 71, 74, 75, 78, 84n., 85, 90, 96, 97, 98, 105, 107, 125, 127, 129, 136, 138, 139, 143, 144.

Rothenburg — 125, 126, 127, 137. Rougga — 48, 52, 53, 55, 70, 73, 74, 75, 89, 90, 97, 98, 125, 126, 128, 130-31. Rudston — 98, 101, 125, 126, 127, 139, 144-45. Saint Colombe — 52, 63, 95, 96, 99, 125, 127, 128, 130, 135. Saint Paul—lés-Roman — 52, 63, 73, 76, 85, 89, 90, 96, 98, 125, 127, 135. Saint—Romain en Gal — 45, 52, 55, 57, 62, 68, 70, 78, 79, 79n., 81, 88, 89, 90, 107, 125, 127, 135. Sakiet—es—Zit — 23n., 47, 48, 62, 65, 68, 69, 71, 72, 74, 75, 82, 86, 88, 89, 90, 105, 113, 122, 125, 127, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134, 137, 140, 145. Salamis — 89, 105, 125, 126, 127, 140. Salona — 52, 53, 55, 65, 65n., 70, 75, 84, 85, 89, 90, 94, 95, 97, 107, 115, 125, 127, 128, 129, 136, 137, 138, 139, 145. Santa Marinella I — 45n., 52, 53, 68,

70, 78, 89, 125, 126, 128, 130. Santa Marinella IT — 125, 126, 128. Santa Marta — 85, 89, 90, 97, 125, 127, 133. Saragossa — 49, 54, 63, 68, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76n., 81, 89, 90, 98, 105, 115, 125, 127, 133, 134, 139. Seleucia — 47, 50, 55, 63, 65, 74, 81, 86, 89, 90, 97, 103, 105, 107, 115, 125, 127, 139, 140.

Sousse I — 52, 53, 62, 75, 79, 81, 89, 92, 92n., 97, 101, 122, 125, 126, 131, 133, 135, 143. Sousse II — 52, 53, 86, 92, 97, 101,

122, 125, 126, 131, 133, 135, 139, 143. Sparta — 48, 49, 50, 57, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 81, 89, 94, 99, 101, 105, 118, 123, 125, 127, 129, 138, 141, 142, 144. Stolac — 47, 52, 53, 65, 65n., 89, 97, 105, 107, 125, 126, 127, 128, 138, 145. Tangier — 52, 53, 125, 126, 132. Tarsus — 46, 47, 55, 58, 63, 71, 72, 74, 75, 84, 88, 91, 99, 125, 132, 140. Thina — 23n., 45n., 47, 48, 49, 50, 62, 65, 67n., 68, 74, 78, 81, 82, 88, 86, 89, 90, 96, 122, 125, 126, 131. Tobruk — 47, 65, 74, 81, 89, 92, 125, 128. Trento — 52, 53, 54, 55, 65n., 68, 70, 72, 74, 75, 81, 85, 89, 90, 94, 95, 97, 125, 126, 128. Trier — 70, 121n., 125, 126, 127, 136, 137, 138. Trinquetaille — 20, 45n., 47, 63, 68, 71, 72, 73, 75, 79n., 88, 90, 101, 125, 127, 135-36, 138, 139, 140. Tunisia — 125, 126, 131. Vienne I — 52, 55, 63, 65, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 89, 90, 104, 125, 127, 132, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 143, 144. Vienne II — 79n., 88, 89, 101, 125, 127, 136, 140, 141. Volubilis — 45n., 46, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 70, 74, 75, 78, 79, 81, 82, 88, 89, 90, 94, 104, 115, 125, 126, 132-33, 145. Wellow — 125, 126, 127, 145. Whatley — 46, 84, 90, 94, 121n., 125, 126, 129, 131, 133, 134, 137, 138, 141, 142, 144, 145. Winterton — 51, 53, 54, 55, 65, 65n., 84, 89, 90, 96, 97, 100, 104,

165

121n., 125, 126, 127, 128, 138, 141, 142, 144, 145. Withington — 23n., 53, 54, 55, 57, 65, 68, 69, 72, 73, 79, 85, 89, 90, 97, 100, 101, 104, 107, 115, 121n., 125, 126, 127, 136, 142, 144, 145-46. Woodchester — 1, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 65, 66, 69, 72, 73, 75, 76, 80, 83, 83n., 85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 94, 95, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 115, 116, 118, 119, 121n., 122, 125, 126, 127, 129, 131, 133, 135, 137, 143, 145, 146. Yverdon — 52, 54, 85, 90, 94, 95, 105, 125, 126, 127, 137. Yvonand — 53, 55, 70, 84, 78n., 85, 86, 89, 105, 125, 126, 127, 136, 137, 138.

Above: Boetian cup. Enthroned Apollo/Orpheus with birds and leashed hind. Base 6.5cm. 6th—Sth C. BC. After Stern (1980) fig.1.

Nude Orpheus, horse, deer, lion, crow, owl. Engraved sardonyx, 13 x 10.7mm. c.160 BC. Cf. Stern (1980) fig.6. Apollo with collared hind, lynx, box of scrolls. Bronze mirror. Etruscan or Greek, 420390BC. After Stern (1980) fig.2.

167

Orpheus sings to group of Thracian warriors. "The Berlin vase’. Red—figure Attic krater, Gela, Sicily. H.51cm. c.440BC. After Guthrie (1935) P1.6.

Oracular head of Orpheus. Scribe. Apollo with laurel branch. Red-figure kylix (stemless cup). Late 5th C. BC. H.60mm. Diam.189mm. Photo: Reproduced with the permission of the Master and Fellows of Corpus Christi College Cambridge and of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.

168

“xordde ¢:] o[e0g “9°31y (1861)

ABLINA IOV “AV ‘D PIE “BIUIpIES ‘SoLIO], OWOg ‘OUTARD UBS Jo voTTISeq Jo 3d410 ‘sndeydoores pojey[isiys Jo JHOU [e.UaD ‘dooys “uTyZ1I3 YIM ‘snoydiQ snoL0}OrA

"G'81y “UPWIPOTI JOY ‘AV ‘OD Wp ‘snurpooreyy pue JaJag JO QUIODEIBD ‘snAy/I [e.NUDD ‘wNjNIIGJO ‘aqOI UID\Sed UT sNaYydIO :aAoqy

L

169

Orpheus, semi—draped, Phrygian cap, with animals. Marble fountain omament, Athens. H.1.10m. C.275 AD. After Murray (1981) fig.13.

170

Orpheus, semi—draped, Phrygian cap, with animals. Marble fountain ornament, Lepcis After Murray (1981) fig.11. Scale 1:6 approx.

171

Magna, c.275 AD.

5 SB

} p

10.

Orpheus in Phrygian dress amid a multitude of creatures. Clay mould, probably from silver original. Diam. 19cm. 4th C. AD. After Elbern, fig.92.

172

11.

Orpheus with animals, snake—in-tree, griffin, Pan, Centaur. Pastoral scene above. Ivory pyxis, monastery of St Columbano, Bobbio, NW Italy. 5th-6th C. Front. After Volbach (1976) no.91, pl.50.

Approx. life

size.

173

‘0S'Id “16°0U (9161) HORqIOA JOyW

‘QUddS [BIO\Sed ‘UOJL ‘SIAJeS ‘spuNoY ‘uUdWISJUNY poyuNoU ‘apts ‘oIqqog ‘s7xC7

‘OS1d ‘T6°0U (QL6T) YORQIOA JOY

“QuUddS [B.10}Sed ‘SoUTTOJ ‘qnd 1081) JO oINjdeo ‘uoWISJUNY payuNoU :asIOADY “oIqqog ‘s7x

Qe

e

Wee

oy,

be? Oba,

eng 20

0 9900 col 9 POO PES

¢

SPTX

STN

24,

The dancing hem of Orpheus’ robe as he plays to plead for Eurydice. Apulian vase, c.330 BC. After Heurgon fig.1.

an

Orpheus with Eurydice in the Underworld. Apulian krater c.330 BC. After Gruppe, col.1187, fig.13.

26.

Female lyrist, Muse Erato? Engraving, after Rouard 1844.

190.

27a.

_ Musical instruments on Orpheus mosaics: alphabetic display. Not to scale.

t

(M0)

,

Uy

ie ys

hi) lity a n i p ahi 4

if 1

27b.

TY

a

Thaingee late

192

Musical instruments.

OSS

SI, Sn

28.

6. fig.2 , 1981 Neal r Afte . ment frag lost of 7) (178 g avin engr ns' Lyso of Copy ter. ches Elephant, Wood

29.

Elephant, Piazza Armerina, apse of Great Hunt, ‘The East’.

193

30a.

Animals: alphabetic display. Not drawn to scale. The Lion.

La. Cheb by.

Foret de Brolenne

30b.

195

The Lion.

“31a.

LepedsT

Say Mena

Newia St Lee

Al fe sguavo

Duduw

FalernpT 196

The Leopard.

31b.

197

The Leopard.

32a.

The Tiger.

32b.

199

The Tiger.

33a.

The Bear.

33b.

201

The Bear.

34a.

202

The Bull.

34b.

ia St Remeu-Ca-Gel

))

St Rom ain ~o4-Caf (aol

clone)

203

Feterme TT

The Bull.

35a.

Equids — the Ass, the Horse.

35b.

Sp hilknglr uss

ASS

205

Ny

Weed chesky as

Equids.

The Boar.

36a.

Blaugy

wes

) i l l a v o l s (before se ~ |

I s e h c u e y A ae aaa

“ dane

ah %

; ws Pa

US

Ses

JAR (eq lun

“a ad

s/

sin

eae

roo3s

|

|

wi /

NL forks lew

s

asl

[ AI

Ne. L

FG

NS

LG,

,

\

N O S N A D y AX

o r e u q s o f i E

36b.

207

The Boar.

37a.

,

r: ute

iY

or — t—

aval

:

CA

FILA gm

’

4]

nt

LS,

A ArN Ssoyun cena!

ipaee=

61.

Orpheus, Littlecote, detail. Photo: Association for Roman Archacology.

62.

Head of Orpheus in 'sparkly' headwear, Barton Farm. Photo: I.J.Jesnick.

ei oO

=

a

a

a

3

_—

rE

=

Oo

Se

te a

—

=

2

o

S

2 =

ag =

as

eH

3

5 §

= =

as Ss

~

S

3 Fe = a

=

OS

3

wm A

22

oaeal

222 A

Oo

ss -

os

fo) 5

Md

Sti Rwaseiegerts: eee!

~ Po7

oat

,

“

‘

ser

opr

We = *,

-

|

Bye cea

,

erStaites’ “hac gt

eetees

*

as)

a

a

°

> pecdip ee +? eer eeie’

aoa.

2

oe

8 |

Ad

vs

\eosaet eee

yon

ayie>

780 twee mg tine?

r :

per ar 7 ees 3

+

Meare Pace Led Lod 4 & Bea >.

223

ttt

ach

65.

Perugia, detail right. Animals including zebra. Photo: A.L.Colski.

66.

Perugia, detail left. Animals including rhino. Photo: A.L.Colski.

224

.

“SHIM. V d

o104g 103) 6

“[rejop ‘snoydig eurrowy ezzetg

"89

Wd :010Yd ‘Teyou! “‘JJom ‘xoj ‘xuryds ‘uy

“LO

SHIM

asoosu ow *xAI C “OuT YL, pue oddr y uso mJo q UIf OSu e ‘To p ‘sno ydio BULI OULL Y BZZR Ig

val N

69.

. Turin hita, antic di o muse esy court and o Perin on Chom : Photo . detail us, Orphe ari Cagli doe, sing Brow

70.

El Djem, detail, reclining leopard. Photo: I.J.Jesnick.

71.

Sousse I, animals. Top right, adjoined fishing scene. Photo: I.J.Jesnick.

72.

Woodchester, detail, stag. Photo: Peckhams of Stroud and courtesy Rev. J.Cull.

227

73.

Volubilis, detail. Birds in trees, inc. L-R: ? and kingfisher, chaffinch and bee-eater, flycatcher and

peacock, ? and hawk. Photo: J.Moyes.

74.

Volubilis, detail. Enigmatic animals: tiger, fox, hippo + genet? and ? and ? Photo: J.Moyes.

228

"yorusoy’f" sweyyoog

11ND ‘¢ ‘Aoy Asoqinoo puke pnons jo [IBIOP ‘Ia}SOyOPOOAA

I :0]0d ‘jueseoyd 10 uayead ‘JIBJop “ue uOJIeEg

9 L

“LL

suryoye10s

¢ L

0}JOUd ° Juesvoyd

‘SHIM Wd :0}0Yd “JuRseoyd ‘THeIep ‘| ouuotA,

229

78.

Barton Farm, detail. Goose, crane. Photo: I.J.Jesnick.

79.

Barton Farm, detail. Swan, guinea fowl (spotted breast). Photo: I.J.Jesnick.

80.

Woodchester, detail. Small birds, fox tail. Photo: Peckhams of Stroud and courtesy Rev. J.Cull.

81.

Vienne I, detail. partridge. Photo: P.A. Witts.

231

78

"YorUsoe’f*] ‘TIND'f “AOY AsoqInOd puke pnons Jo sueyyoog 010d

suIT o104g predoaT ‘[reyap ‘] ouuarA

. .

ojJoyg ‘u1a}ed doypeos

¢

piedoay

[rejap

¢

Wey uOLeg

sjods ayjasoz ‘predooy "‘TIeJop ‘snoydio Jo}soyopooA,

C8

‘C8

232

PIP a 010Ud

. “