The Frescoes of the Dura Synagogue and Christian Art (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 28) 0884021823, 9780884021827

Citation preview

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART Kurt Weitzmann and Herbert L. Kessler

DUMBARTON OAKS RESEARCH LIBRARY AND COLLECTION Washington, D. C.

........._____________________________

~ ~--~~

© 1990 DUMBARTON OAKS

TRUSTEES FOR HARVARD UNIVERSITY WASHINGTON, D.C.

TO THE MEMORY OF HANS LIETZMANN and CARL H. KRAELING

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Weitzmann, Kurt, 1904The frescoes of the Dura synagogue and Christian art I Kurt Weitzmann and Herbert L. Kessler. p. cm. -(Dumbarton Oaks studies ; 28) Bibliography: p. Includes index. ISBN 0-88402-182-3 1. Mural painting and decoration-Syria-Dura-Europos (Ancient city) 2. Synagogue art-Syria-Dura-Europos (Ancient city) 3. Bible. O.T.-Illustrations. 4. Jewish art and symbolism-SyriaDura-Europos (Ancient city) 5. Jewish art and symbolism-Influence. 6. Christian art and symbolism-To 500-Influence. I. Kessler, Herbert L., 1941- . II. Title III. Series. ND2819.S93D878 1989 704.9'484'093943-dc20

89-34489

Contents List of Illustrations

lX

Part I. Kurt Weitzmann

1

Preface Introduction The Individual Panels and Their Christian Parallels

3 5 15

The Pentateuch 1. Jacob's Dream at Bethel 2. Jacob Blessing Ephraim and Manasseh 3. Jacob Blessing All His Sons 4. The Infancy of Moses 5. Moses and the Burning Bush 6. The Crossing of the Red Sea 7. Moses Receiving the Tablets of the Law 8. Consecration of the Tabernacle 9. The Well of Be'er

17

The Historical Books 10. Samuel at Shiloh 11. The Battle of Eben-ezer and the Capture of the Ark 12. The Ark and the Temple of Dagon 13. The Anointing of David 13a. [Christian Baptistery] David Decapitating Goliath 14. David and Saul in the Wilderness of Ziph 15. David, King over All Israel 16. Transport of the Ark to Jerusalem and into the Tabernacle 17. The Walls and the Temple of Jerusalem 18. The Anointing of Solomon 19. Solomon and the Queen of Sheba

69

vu

. . . . . . . .iiiiiiiiliilll........................- - - - - - - -- - - - ~ ~----~-

CONTENTS

20. Ahab and Elijah 21. Elijah at Cherith and Zarephath 22. Elijah Reviving the Widow's Son 23-24. The Sacrifices of the Prophets of Baal and of Elijah on Mount Carmel 25. The Triumph of Mordecai; Ahasuerus and Esther 26. Mattathias and the Idolaters The Prophets 27. Isaiah 28. Jeremiah 29. Ezekiel in the Valley of Dry Bones 30. Belshazzar's Feast(?)

List of Illustrations 127

Conclusions

143

Part II. Herbert L. Kessler

151

Program and Structure Images of Absence The Coming of the Son of David Prophecies of Restoration and Return The Chosen People of God A Response to Christianity?

153

Selected Bibliography Index

185 197

Vlll

All photographs of Dura material were gifts from the late C. H. Kraeling for the present publication. Unless otherwise noted, photographs of manuscript illustrations are property of the Princeton University Department of Art and Archaeology.

1. Dura Europos, synagogue, overall view 2. Dura Europos, synagogue, layout of frescoes (drawing: Nora Laos) 3. Dura Europos, synagogue, west wall, center 4. Dura Europos, synagogue, west wall, south half 5. Dura Europos, synagogue, west wall, north half 6. Dura Europos, synagogue, south wall 7. Dura Europos, synagogue, north wall 8. Dura Europos, synagogue, east wall, north half 9. Dura Europos, synagogue, (a) east wall, south half; (b) drawing 10. Dura Europos, synagogue, Jacob's Dream at Bethel 11. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 510, fol. 174v 12. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 747, fol. 50r 13. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 746, fol. 97r 14. Rome, Via Latina catacomb, Jacob's Dream (photo: A. Ferrua) 15. Klagenfurt, Museum Rudolfinum, Cod. vi, 19, fol. 37v (photo: Museum Rudolfinum) 16. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. Barb. lat. 4406, p. 40 17. Salerno, Cathedral, ivory (photo: Goldschmidt Collection) 18. Dura Europos, synagogue, Jacob's Blessing 19. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 747, fol. 66v 20. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 746, fol. 135r 21. Rome, Via Latina catacomb, Jacob's Blessing (photo: A. Ferrua) 22. Vienna, Nationalbibliothek, Cod. theol. gr. 31, pict. 45 23. London, British Museum, ivory (photo: Goldschmidt Collection) 24. Klagenfurt, Museum Rudolfinum, Cod. vi, 19, fol. 76r 25. Dura Europos, synagogue, Jacob Blessing All His Sons 26. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 747, fol. 67v 27. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 746, fol. 137r IX

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

28. Vienna, Nationalbibliothek, Cod. theol. gr. 31, pict. 46 29. Dura Europos, synagogue, Infancy of Moses (right half) 30. Dura Europos, synagogue, Infancy of Moses (left half) 31. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 747, fol. 72r 32. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 746, fol. 152r 33. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 1613, p. 13 34. Rome, San Paolo fuori le Mura, Bible, fol. 20v 35. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 746, fol. 153r 36. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 747, fol. 72v 37. Rome, Via Latina catacomb, Finding of Moses (photo: A. Ferrua) 38. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 923, fol. 79r 39. New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, Cod. M724 (photo: Pierpont ¥organ Library) 40. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, n.a. lat. 2334, fol. 56r 41. Dura Europos, synagogue, Moses and the Burning Bush 42. Mt. Sinai, St. Catherine's, Moses before the Burning Bush (photo: AlexandriaMichigan-Princeton Sinai Expedition) 43. Mt. Sinai, St. Catherine's, Cod. 1186, fol. 101 v (photo: Alexandria-MichiganPrinceton Sinai Expedition) 44. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 746, fol. 157r 45. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 747, fol. 74r 46. Rome, Via Latina catacomb, Moses Removing Sandal (photo: A. Ferrua) 47. Rome, Via Latina catacomb, Moses Removing Sandal (photo: A. Ferrua) 48. Dura Europos, synagogue, Crossing of the Red Sea (right half) 49. Dura Europos, synagogue, Crossing of the Red Sea (left half) 50. Dura Europos, synagogue, detail of flies (after Du Mesnil du Buisson) 51. Dura Europos, synagogue, detail of flies (after Kraeling) 52. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 746, fol. 174r 53. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 747, fol. 82r 54. Istanbul, Seraglio, Cod. 8, fol. 181v 55. Moscow, Historical Museum, Cod. 129, fol. 77v 56. Mt. Sinai, St. Catherine's, Cod. 1186, fol. 73r (photo: Alexandria-Michigan-Princeton Sinai Expedition) 57. Mt. Athos, Pantocrator, Cod. 61, fol. 103v 58. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 746, fol. 186r 59. Mt. Athos, Pantocrator, Cod. 61, fol. 104r 60. Madrid, Museo Arqueol6gico, mosaic (a & b), details 61. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 747, fol. 160v 62. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 747, fol. 162r 63. Mt. Sinai, St. Catherine's, Cod. 1186, fol. 86v (photo: Alexandria-Michigan-Princeton Sinai Expedition) X

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73.

Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. Reg. gr. 1, fol. 116r Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 747, fol. 88r Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 746, fol. 189r Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 746, fol. 190r Moscow, Historical Museum, Cod. 129, fol. 108r Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 746, fol. 192v Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 747, fol. 89v Rome, Via Latina catacomb, Crossing of the Red Sea (photo: A. Ferrua) Rome, Via Latina catacomb, Crossing of the Red Sea (photo: A. Ferrua) Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. n.a. lat. 2334 (Ashburnham Pentateuch), fol. 68r, detail 74. Dura Europos, synagogue, Moses Receiving the Tablets of the Law 75. Mt. Sinai, St. Catherine's, Moses Receiving the Tablets of the Law (photo: AlexandriaMichigan-Princeton Sinai Expedition) 76. Istanbul, Seraglio, Cod. 8, fol. 229v 77. Istanbul, Seraglio, Cod. 8, fol. 252r 78. Istanbul, Seraglio, Cod. 8, fol. 257r 79. Athens, National Library, Cod. 7, fol. 231 v 80. Dura Europos, synagogue, Consecration of the Tabernacle 81. Istanbul, Seraglio, Cod. 8, fol. 246r 82. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 747, fol. 11 lr 83. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 7 4 7, fol. 112v 84. Mt. Athos, Pantocrator, Cod. 61, fol. 165r 85. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 747, fol. 120v 86. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 746, fol. 257v 87. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 747, fol. 106r 88. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 747, fol. 106v 89. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 747, fol. 125v 90. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 747, fol. 108v 91. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 747, fol. 158v 92. Istanbul, Seraglio, Cod. 8, fol. 333r 93. Dura Europos, synagogue, the Well of Be'er 94. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 747, fol. 93r 95. New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, Cod. M724 (photo: Pierpont Morgan Library) 96. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 747, fol. 107v 97. Dura Europos, synagogue, Samuel at Shiloh 98. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 333, fol. Sr 99. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 333, fol. 6r 100. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 333, fol. 7v 101.r Dura Europos, synagogue, Battle of Eben-ezer XI

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

102. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 333, fol. 8v 103. Dura Europos, synagogue, Capture of the Ark 104. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 333, fol. 9r 105. Dura Europos, synagogue, Temple of Dagon 106. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 333, fol. 9v 107. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 333, fol. lOr 108. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 333, fol. lOr 109. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 333, fol. 45v 110. Dura Europos, synagogue, Anointing of David 111. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 923, fol. 80r 112. Mt. Athos, Vatopedi, Cod. 761, fol. 12r 113. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 1927, fol. 264v 114. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 333, fol. 22v 115. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 139, fol. 3v 116. Dura Europos, baptistery, David Decapitating Goliath 117. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, silver plate (photo: Metropolitan Museum) 118. Rome, Palazzo Venezia, ivory (photo: Goldschmidt Collection) 119. Mt. Athos, Vatopedi, Cod. 761, fol. 13r 120. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 923, fol. 91r 121. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 333, fol. 24r 122. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 139, fol. 4v 123. Dura Europos, synagogue, David and Saul in the Wilderness of Ziph (left half) 124. Dura Europos, synagogue, David and Saul in the Wilderness of Ziph (right half), drawing 125. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 333, fol. 35v 126. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 333, fol. 19r 127. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 333, fol. 36r 128. Dura Europos, synagogue, David, King over All Israel 129. Dura Europos, synagogue, David, King over All Israel, drawing (after Goodenough) 130. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 333, fol. 44r 131. Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, Cod. 5-3N-2, fol. 230r 132. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 752, fol. 82r 133. Rome, Palazzo Venezia, ivory (photo: Goldschmidt Collection) 134. Dura Europos, synagogue, Triumph of the Ark 135. Dura Europos, synagogue, Triumph of the Ark, drawing 136. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 333, fol. 46r 137. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 923, fol. 213r 138. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 923, fol. 369r 139. Dura Europos, synagogue, City of Jerusalem and Temple

140. Dura Europos, synagogue, the Anointing of Solomon 141. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 333, fol. 71 v 142. Rome, San Paolo fuori le Mura, Bible, fol. 185v, detail 143. Dura Europos, synagogue, Solomon and the Queen of Sheba 144. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 923, fol. 327v 145. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Cod. Anseley Add. 24, fol. 127v (after Arnold) 146. Dura Europos, Ahab and Elijah 147. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 923, fol. 275v 148. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. Reg. gr. 1, fol. 302v, detail 149. Dura Europos, synagogue, Elijah at Cherith and Zarephath (after Goodenough) 150. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 333, fol. 98v 151. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 1528, fol. 88v 152. Dura Europos, synagogue, Elijah Reviving the Widow's Son 153. Cannes, Villa Faustina, sarcophagus (a-c) (after Weitzmann, Roll and Codex) 154. Vatican, Museum, sarcophagus (after Weitzmann, Roll and Codex) 155. Dura Europos, synagogue, the Sacrifice of the Prophets of Baal 156. Dura Europos, synagogue, Elijah's Sacrifice on Mount Carmel 157. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 923, fol. 161v 158. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 923, fol. 275r 159. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 923, fol. 206r 160. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 923, fol. 206r 161. Dura Europos, synagogue, the Triumph of Mordecai 162. Dura Europos, synagogue, Ahasuerus and Esther 163. Erlangen, Universitatsbibliothek, Cod. 1, fol. 264r (after Swarzenski) 164. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. lat. 5729, 319v (after Neuss) 165. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. lat. 6, fol. 97v (after Neuss) 166. Dura Europos, The Enforced Sacrifice and Mattathias Slaying a Jew (resp., the Commander of the Army) 167. Dura Europos, Mattathias Slaying a Jew, and Mattathias Killing the Commander of the Army 168. Leiden, Universiteitsbiblioteek, Cod. Perizoni 17, fol. 9v (photo: Leiden, Universiteitsbiblioteek) 169. Rome, San Paolo fuori le Mura, Bible, fol. 240r, detail 170. Dura Europos, synagogue, Isaiah 171. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 755, fol. 107r 172. Vatican, Biblioteca, Cod. gr. 755, fol. lr 173. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 923, fol. 57v 174. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 923, fol. 39v 175. Dura Europos, synagogue, Jeremiah

xii

Xlll

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

176. Ravenna, San Vitale, Jeremiah (after Deichmann) 177. Dura Europos, synagogue, Ezekiel (left part) 178. Dura Europos, synagogue, Ezekiel (center part) 179. Dura Europos, synagogue, Ezekiel (right part) 180. Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Cod. E49/50 inf., p. 78 181. London, British Library, Cod. Add. 10546, fol. 5v 182. Venice, San Marco, mosaic (photo: Bohm) 183. London, British Museum, ivory (photo: Goldschmidt Collection) 184. Vatican, Museo Pio Cristiano, sarcophagus, detail (after Wilpert) 185. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 923, fol. 316r 186. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 923, fol. 1 lr 187. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 510, fol. 438v 188. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 510, fol. 438v (after Neuss) 189. Dura Europos, synagogue, Belshazzar's Feast(?) 190. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 923, fol. 259r 191. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 923, fol. 259v 192. Dura Europos, synagogue, west wall 193. Dura Europos, synagogue, Torah niche and area above 194. Rome, Santa Maria Maggiore, triumphal arch 195. Dura Europos, synagogue, central panel (reconstruction I) (after Goodenough) 196. Dura Europos, synagogue, central panel (reconstruction II) (after Goodenough) 197. Vatican, Julii tomb, mosaic 198. Ravenna, Orthodox Baptistery, mosaic 199. Leningrad, Hermitage, ivory pyxis (photo: Goldschmidt Collection) 200. Rome, Domitilla catacomb, Christ and the apostles 201. Ravenna, San Vitale, left wall 202. Ravenna, San Vitale, right wall

PART I: Kurt Weitzmann

•

xiv

Preface My preoccupation with the frescoes of the Dura synagogue goes back more than half a century, to the winter of 1933-34, to a time shortly after the discovery of this most remarkable monument by Yale University in 1932. Professor Baur, one of the excavators, had left a complete set of photographs with his friend Professor Hans Lietzmann in Berlin and the latter, who held the chair of Patristics and Early Christian Archaeology at Berlin University, announced a seminar on the subject of the Dura frescoes. Though no longer a student, I was admitted to this seminar under the condition that I read a paper, a proposition I gladly accepted. I worked on the panel of the Crossing of the Red Sea, and the essence of my paper was the establishment of a distinct iconographic connection between this fresco and the same scene in Byzantine book illumination, especially that of the Octateuchs. At that time I had already made my first trip to Mount Athos (1931) and had studied the Vatopedi Octateuch. The connections between Jewish and Christian art based on the Dura synagogue and Greek miniature painting have held my fascination ever since. After moving to Princeton in 1935 it was one of my great fortunes to become a close friend of Professor Carl Kraeling, who at that time, before becoming the director of the Oriental Institute in Chicago, was professor at the Divinity School of Yale University. When I first met him, Kraeling was working on the final publication of the Dura synagogue frescoes. In April 1945, he and I jointly held a symposium at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, D.C., where he gave four lectures, chiefly about the Jewish sources of the Dura frescoes, and I gave three lectures about the frescoes of the Dura synagogue in relation to Christian iconography. In close collaboration with Kraeling I worked on all the narrative scenes of the synagogue frescoes and came to the conclusion that not only for the Pentateuch but especially for the books of Samuel and Kings and the Prophets also there were links between Jewish and Christian iconography. It was understood that I was not to publish the results of my investigations before Kraeling's final publication had appeared. His results were published in 1956, the same year I became deeply involved in the expeditions to Saint Catherine's Monastery at Mount Sinai (1956-65), which absorbed all my energies and distracted me from the Dura problem. In 1968, when I gave a lecture on the Dura frescoes at the University of Heidelberg, I tried to make a comeback, but was too preoccupied with Sinai.

3

PREFACE

I almost despaired of ever getting back to the Dura study and was only recently encouraged to turn the Dumbarton Oaks lecture series into a publication by my good friend and pupil Herbert Kessler, who has taken a lively interest in the program of the synagogue frescoes and its relation to programs of decoration in Christian churches from a point of view that is complementary to the study as I had laid it out. And so we decided on a joint publication. It must be clearly understood at the outset that I had never contemplated a full treatment of all the complex problems involved in the study of the Dura synagogue frescoes. I consciously confined myself to their connection with Christian art, an aspect that previously had not been entirely neglected but that had never been systematically investigated. Thus, my part of the study does not touch on the problem of the purpose of the selection of the narrative scenes from various biblical books nor the way they were arranged in order to fit into a program laid out for the decoration of the walls of the synagogue. This problem is dealt with by Herbert Kessler. My main thanks for support of this study, when I worked on it intensely forty years ago, go to the late Carl Kraeling, a dear friend and highly respected counselor, to whose memory this study is dedicated. He provided me with a complete set of photographs and permission to publish them as soon as his volume had appeared. The photographs of the comparative material of miniatures are practically all from the Department of Art and Archaeology of Princeton University and my own collections. For much help at every stage of the production of this book-word processing, editing, and proofreading-I am very grateful to my devoted secretary, Lynda Emery. For overseeing the copyediting of the book at Dumbarton Oaks, my thanks go to Dr. Frances Kianka. The authors are grateful to Dr. Josepha Weitzmann-Fiedler for preparing the index.

Introduction My part of the study deals with three basic issues: (1) as clear a definition as possible of the narrative character of almost all the fresco panels and the root of this particular type of narrative method in book illumination; (2) the use of miniature paintings as models for fresco painters and the alterations such a transfer involves; (3) the tracing of iconographic parallels to the Dura scenes that are all found in Byzantine book illumination-a fact from which the conclusion must be drawn that there existed a close relationship between Jewish and Christian art. By narrative art one can understand many different forms of pictorial expression as became clear in the papers on "Narration in Ancient Art" that Carl Kraeling organized at a meeting of the Archaeological Institute in Chicago in 1955. 1 My own concept, as applied in this study, limits the narration in pictures to a type of cyclic illustration whereby one episode is divided into a number of phases that quickly follow each other in almost cinematographic fashion. 2 The clearest example of this type of narrative illustration at Dura is the Ezekiel panel (p. 132 and figs. 177-179) where the prophet is repeated six times in a picture that covers only half of chapter 37. This is a clear case of a "section" of a fuller cycle, which, illustrated on this scale, must have contained a great number of scenes. For this kind of illustration the book is the only medium that can accommodate full picture cycles associated with a basic textual unit, in this case the book of a prophet. From this follows the conclusion that the fresco painter must have used an illustrated prophet book, which therefore we claim to have existed at the time the Dura synagogue was decorated. It is not exceptional for a monumental painter to have used a manuscript as a model for a program of narrative illustrations. True, in many cases this must remain a hypothesis, because so very little of Early Christian book illumination as well as fresco painting has survived. It is therefore all the more remarkable that it can be proved that two of the very few early manuscripts were used as direct models by fresco painters. The 'American Journal of Archaeology 61 (1957), 43£f. The papers are by H.J. Kantor (Egypt), A. Perkins (Babylonia), H. G. Giiterbock (Anatolia, Syria, and Assyria), G. M.A. Hanfmann (Greece), P.H. von Blanckenhagen (Hellenistic and Roman), and K. Weitzmann (Early Christendom). 2 For a more thorough analysis of the cyclic method see K. Weitzmann, Illustrations in Roll and Codex, A Study of the Origin and Method of Text Illustration (Studies in Manuscript Illumination, 2), Princeton, 1947 (2nd ed. 1970), esp. pp. 17££.

4

5

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

seventh-century Ashburnham Pentateuch in Paris, which is known to have existed since the ninth century in Tours, served as the model for the eleventh-century frescoes of the Church of Saint Julien at Tours. 3 The second and much more elucidating case is the fifth-century Cotton Genesis in the British Library, whose miniatures have been closely related to the thirteenth-century mosaics in the narthex of San Marco in Venice, a fact first established in a memorable study by J. J. Tikkanen. 4 But whereas Tikkanen was not quite sure whether the Cotton Genesis itself or an almost identical sister manuscript served as model for the mosaicist-a doubt shared by other scholars-my own most recent study has accumulated evidence whereby, I believe, sufficient proof has been advanced that it was indeed the London manuscript itself on which the San Marco mosaics were based. 5 It is quite natural that the use of an illustrated manuscript by a monumental artist would entail many adaptations and alterations due to the different setting, scale, and purpose. The paradigm of San Marco with its more than 100 mosaic scenes selected from some 359 miniatures containing more than 500 individual scenes is so complex that all possible changes from one medium to the other come into play in one way or another. They occur with such frequency that they can be classified according to certain principles of general validity. These principles, moreover, would be applicable, totally or in part, in all periods and cultures beginning with the Hellenistic-Roman, wherever the copying of miniatures by monumental artists is involved. Consequently, if our assumption is correct that the narrative frescoes of Dura also hark back to illustrated manuscripts, one should be able to apply the. same principles that are valid for San Marco in relation to the Cotton Genesis. Indeed, as we shall try to demonstrate, each of the ten principles operative in San Marco6 is valid in the case of the synagogue frescoes. These are the ten principles: 1. Selectivity. Selectivity results from the impossibility of transforming a miniature cycle in its entirety into monumental art because of the sheer number of scenes involved. As is clear in San Marco, the selection is not made by trying to cover a basic textual unit evenly and picking out individual scenes, but by representing certain episodes fully in all their phases (e.g., the Adam and Eve or the Joseph story) and in leaving out whole sections (e.g., the Jacob and Isaac story). Basically we find the same principle applied in Dura. Here, too, such sections as the Infancy of Moses (figs. 29-30), the Crossing of the Red Sea (figs. 48.-

49), and Ezekiel in the Valley of Dry Bones (figs. 177-179) are represented with a density of phases obviously close to the original, while other sections from the same basic books are left out altogether. 2. Alteration of format. The friezes of San Marco and Dura are filled with scenes of equal height, whereas in a manuscript the height of the miniatures often changes from page to page. For instance, where the building of Noah's ark in the Cotton Genesis was surely a miniature of considerable height, with workers arranged in several rows, in San Marco some workers were omitted and the remaining ones squeezed into the height of the predetermined frieze. 7 A comparable reduction in height has taken place in Dura in the panel of Jacob's dream (p. 17 and fig. 10), where the ladder had to be drawn much more as a horizontal than a vertical. The model must have depicted the ladder in a more upright position to indicate convincingly the ascent to heaven. 3. Condensation. In a manuscript the width of a miniature is predetermined by the width of the writing column, so that the miniaturist can be lavish within the provided frames when few figures are involved. The monumental artist, on the other hand, can regulate the width of a scene within a frieze comprising several scenes. Whereas in the Cotton Genesis Abraham facing the Lord breathes much free air around him, the San Marco mosaicist confined the space to the width of the figure proper and placed the hand of God above the preceding scene. 8 We can expect a similar condensation for the various Ezekiel figures (p. 132 and figs. 177-179), which in the model must have had more space around them comparable to the Abraham miniature in the Cotton Genesis. 4. Omissio ns. Sometimes a condensation goes so far as to omit certain features necessary to the understanding of a scene. So in San Marco in the scene of the denial of guilt by Adam and Eve, for example, the serpent, to whom Eve should point, is omitted.9 And the Israelites, who in the model were surely portrayed marching behind Moses closing the Red Sea, are omitted in Dura (p. 38 and fig. 49). 5. Additions. On occasion monumental artists may feel free to make additions. In San Marco, for instance, where Abraham is shown sending out his servants for the liberation of Lot, the mosaicist depicted a large army standing before him; the Cotton Genesis, however, has only three soldiers. 10 In general the Dura artist seems to have been more economizing, and whether he made additions cannot be proven. 1

3

A. Grabar, "Fresques romanes copiees sur !es miniatures du Pentateuque de Tours," Cahiers archeologiq~es 9 (1957), 329ff. See also E. Kitzinger, "The Role of Miniature Painting in Mural Decoration," in K. We1tzmann et al., The Place of Book Illumination in Byzantine Art, Princeton, 1975, pp. 108ff. and figs. 6-7. •J. J. Tikkanen, Die Genesismosaiken van San Marco in Venedig und ihr Verhiiltnis zu den Miniaturen der Cottonbibel (Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae, 17), Helsingfors, 1889 (repr. Soest, 1972). See also K. Weitzmann, "Observati~ns on the_Cotton Genesis Fragments," Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Albert Math,_as Friend, Jr., Princeton, 1955, pp. 112ff.; Kitzinger, "Role of Miniature Painting," pp. 99ff. 5 K. We1tzmann, "The Genesis Mosaics of San Marco and the Cotton Genesis Miniatures," chap. 4 in Otto Demus, The Mosaics of San Marco, Chicago, 1984, vol. 2, pp. 105ff., esp. 141ff. 6 1bid., pp. 106-8. . .

6

Weitzmann, "Genesis Mosaics of San Marco," p. 119 (scene 35). In K. Weitzmann and H. Kessler, The Cotton Genesis, Princeton, 1986, p. 63, p. 140 fol. 27r, and fig. 106. 8 Weitzmann, "Genesis Mosaics of San Marco," p. 125 (scene 51). Weitzmann and Kessler, Cotton Genesis, p. 72, p. 150 fol. 48r, and figs. 165-167. 9 Weitzmann, "Genesis Mosaics of San Marco," p. 115 (scene 21). Weitzmann and Kessler, Cotton Genesis, p. 55, p. 132 fol. 11v, and figs. 55-56. 10 Weitzmann, "Genesis Mosaics of San Marco," p. 126 (scene 55). Weitzmann and Kessler, Cotton Genesis, p. 75, p. 155 fol. 57r, and figs. 180-182. 7

7

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

6. Conflations. One of the most frequent space-saving devices is the conflation of two consecutive scenes into one, a merger that often creates an effect of simultaneity that is in conflict with the actual event. This device exists already in Classical art and occurs in many media. 11 In San Marco, where Noah releases the raven and the dove, he is represented only once, whereas in the Cotton Genesis each action has its own ark with its own Noah figure. 12 In the Dura panel of the Infancy of Moses (pp. 26 and 30 and fig. 30) the artist even goes so far as to make a triple conflation. In the three actions, the taking of the Moses child out of the ark, handing him over to Miriam, and Miriam passing him on to Jochebed, the infant is depicted only once, whereas in the model three different actions must have been represented, each with its own infant. 7. Compositional changes. Wherever feasible the monumental artist tries to make a given scene more hieratic and turn it into a more independent unit so that it no longer is as closely bound to the flow of the narration, and here he may go so far that the character of the model becomes obscured. In San Marco the punishment of Adam and Eve and the curse of the serpent are depicted with a central, enthroned Creator and Adam and Eve kneeling at his feet. This is a clear adaptation of the Last Judgment composition, for in the miniature model the Creator was represented standing at the left and facing Adam and Eve. 13 We see this tendency toward strong centralization in the Dura panel of the Anointing of David (p. 80 and fig. 110), where David is prominently displayed in the very center of the composition, although in the narrative model he would be facing Samuel and be followed by his brothers. The hieratic aspect impairs the immediacy of the action, and Samuel has to hold the horn in an unnatural position for the act of anointing. While in this case the changes are not so drastic as in the San Marco parallel, one must in other cases reckon with much more far-reaching changes. 8. Iconographical changes. In the Expulsion from Paradise in the San Marco mosaic, Eve is depicted enthroned with spindle and distaff, an iconography that seems quite clearly to be an adaptation of the Virgin Mary, while the manuscript tradition showing Eve nursing a child is much more in conformity with the Bible text. This is only one of several cases in which the medieval artist introduces christological elements into Old Testament scenes. 14 A comparable phenomenon in Dura is the replacing of the biblical tent by a temple in GrecoRoman style (p. 55 and fig. 80), whereby the scene is transplanted into another temporal setting. 9. Stylistic changes. Changes in style must be treated separately from the iconographic

changes. Generally speaking, iconography reaches further back in time than style. While in

Weitzrnann, Roll and Codex, pp. 24ff. and passim. Weitzrnann, "Genesis Mosaics of San Marco," p. 121 (scene 40). Weitzrnann and Kessler, Cotton Genesis, p. 165, p. 143 fols. 32v and 33r, and figs. 118-120. 0 Weitzrnann, "Genesis Mosaics of San Marco," p. 115 (scene 22). Weitzrnann and Kessler, Cotton Genesis, p. 56, p. 132 fol. 12r, and fig. 57. 14 Weitzrnann, "Genesis Mosaics of San Marco," p. 116 (scene 25). Weitzrnann and Kessler, Cotton Genesis, p. 57, p. 133 fol. 13v, and figs. 60 and 64. 11

San Marco an iconography persists separated from its model, the Cotton Genesis, by about eight hundred years, the style is no longer that of fifth-century Egypt, but is a Byzantinizing style of the thirteenth century. Similarly the third-century orientalizing style of Dura is different from the Byzantine style of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, that is, separated from it likewise by about eight hundred years. In each case the constant elements that persist are the compositional layout and the outline of the stances and poses of the individual figures. The changes occur in the drapery within the traditional outline of the figure. These changes are at times very drastic and far-reaching. In San Marco, for instance, Abraham addressing his servants is depicted in long, patriarchal garments; in the Cotton Genesis, appropriate for the occasion, he is dressed in a short tunic, that is, a military dress, and he holds a lance. 15 Accordingly, in the Dura scene of Jacob's Blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh, Joseph is clothed in oriental garments of the Persian tradition, whereas in one of the Octateuchs he is dressed in the imperial chlamys and is wearing a pearl diadem (p. 21 and figs. 18, 19), notwithstanding the fact that both scenes agree in their compositional layout. 10. Process of transmission from one medium into another. It is, of course, more than unlikely that the fresco painter took the actual manuscript model onto the scaffold. He must have made working drawings to serve as the intermediary between the two media. The frescoes thus being twice removed from their basic source, additional changes must be accepted as a possibility. In the case of San Marco, it is indeed more than likely that the Cotton Genesis was actually in Venice at the time the mosaics were executed. At Dura, however, where more than one manuscript is involved, it is more than questionable whether a whole set of richly illustrated manuscripts was available in the small provincial town. The assumed intermediary drawings could have been made in a larger, probably metropolitan center where a representative collection of illustrated codices was available, and from there have been sent to the provincial town. What were the books involved? In dealing with the Septuagint, it must be made very clear at the outset that there never was a fully illustrated Septuagint in one volume in Early Christian times, but only individual books or groups of books. The only one that exists from the Middle Byzantine period, the cod. Vat. Reg. gr. 1 from the tenth century, is a pastiche with no older tradition behind it. 16 The reason for the lack of a fully illustrated Bible is obvious. The earliest illustrated Bible manuscripts of which we possess fragmentsthe Cotton Genesis, the Vienna Genesis, the Ashburnham Pentateuch, and the Quedlinburg Itala with fragments from the books of Samuel-were illustrated with such a prolific number of miniatures that on this scale a fully illustrated Bible would be a practical impossibility.

12

8

"Weitzrnann, "Genesis Mosaics of San Marco," p. 126 (scene 55). Weitzrnann and Kessler, Cotton Genesis, p. 75, p. 155 fol. 57r, and figs. 180-182. 16 K. Weitzrnann, "Die Illustration der Septuaginta," Munchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst 3/4 (195253), 96££. Translated and reprinted as "The Illustration of the Septuagint," in K. Weitzrnann, Studies in Classical and Byzantine Manuscript Illumination, ed. H. L. Kessler, Chicago, 1971, pp. 45££.

9

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

This evidence does not suggest the gradual growth of a few scenes into large cycles, but rather suggests the existence of the richest illustrated manuscripts at the very beginning. This, however, can only mean that book illustration as such did not start with the Bible, but that this kind of narrative art had existed before and that the first Bible illustrators had models from which they could adapt the system of large picture cycles. These models, as we have tried to demonstrate, were illustrated classical texts of the Hellenistic and Roman periods, especially the epic poems of Homer and the dramas of Euripides. 17 Perhaps the largest cycle ever invented for a single biblical book was that of Genesis for which we have the evidence of the two Early Christian fragments already mentioned, the Cotton Genesis 18 and the Vienna Genesis, 19 which belong to different recensions. A third tradition is incorporated within a larger unit, the Byzantine Octateuchs of the eleventh to thirteenth centuries. In these the part of Genesis illustrations is already abbreviated due to the largeness of the textual unit that is enriched by catenae. To this recension belongs, as we shall try to prove in detail, the model behind the Dura frescoes. Among the five Octateuchs with large narrative cycles the earliest one-belonging to the eleventh century-is cod. Vat. gr. 747, which unfortunately has not yet been fully published. 20 As we shall see, this Octateuch is far closer to the Dura frescoes than the twelfth-century ones. But on occasion the latter are more accurate in their relation to Dura, and thus they too make important contributions. The three twelfth-century manuscripts form a close group within which the one in the Seragli9, whose miniatures are completely published, is imperial and the most outstanding copy. 21 The second, on which we shall likewise draw in a few instances, is cod. Vat. gr. 746, still unpublished except for a few miniatures, while the third, in Smyrna, fortunately had been published before it was destroyed by fire. 22 The fifth Octateuch, the one in Vatopedi on Mount Athos of which only !he second half is left and which belongs to the thirteenth

century, does not concern us here. 23 However, our parallels with Dura extend only to the five books of Moses, since among the synagogue frescoes there are no scenes from Joshua, Judges, or Ruth. It is therefore uncertain-and even unlikely-that the model of Dura was an Octateuch. We would rather assume a Pentateuch, which was a more popular entity than the Octateuch during the Early Christian period. The second unit of manuscripts playing the largest and most decisive role in its relation to Dura encompasses the two books of Samuel and the two books of Kings, which in the Septuagint are counted together as the four books of Kings. There is only one Greek manuscript of the four books of Kings in existence with a richly illustrated cycle, namely, cod. Vat. gr. 333 from the eleventh/twelfth centuries. 24 Fortunately, wherever the parallel scene occurs in Dura, it proves to be of the same recension. Where there is no parallel for a given scene of Dura in the Vatican codex, the reason is simply that the latter had not fully copied an earlier model. In the Vatican manuscript even the first book of Samuel with its 118 scenes does not preserve the archetypal completeness. 1he second book of Samuel has an already greatly reduced cycle of thirty-nine scenes; the number of scenes in the first book of Kings shrinks drastically to nine and of the second book only a single scene is depicted. It can be proved that the illustrator had a much richer model at his disposal in which the number of scenes, particularly in the two books of Kings, must have been much greater and altogether be counted in the hundreds. There are quite a number of scenes from all four books in the manuscript of the Sacra Parallela of the ninth century in Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale cod. gr. 923, which we believe to have been written in Palestine, though this is still a debated question. 25 Where the scenes have a parallel in the Vatican codex, they agree basically in their iconography, and this proves that we are dealing with the same recension. Of the two books of Samuel there are fewer scenes in the Paris codex (only twenty-five for the first and twenty-three for the second), but of the two books of Kings it has more (twenty-nine for the first and eighteen for the second). 26 One must of course realize that the Sacra Parallela are a florilegium with only a limited number of quotations from the four historical books, and hence one can expect only stray scenes. Even if we combine the miniatures of the two manuscripts under consideration, the cycle would still fall short of that of the archetype on which the Dura frescoes illustrating these four books are based. For some of the other historical books of which traces exist in the program of the Dura frescoes, their relation with narrative illustrations in manuscripts can only be suggested and

Weitzmann, Roll and Codex, pp. 18££. and passim. Weitzmann and Kessler, Cotton Genesis. 19 F. Wickhoff and W.R. van Hartel, Die Wiener Genesis, Vienna, 1895; H. Gerstinger, Die Wiener Genesis, Vienna, 1931. 20 For the relationship among the Octateuchs, see my brief remarks in The Joshua Roll (Studies in Manuscript Illumination, 3), Princeton, 1948, pp. 30££. As for the Vat. gr. 747, see among others II Rotulo di Giosue. Cadice Vaticano Palatino Greco 431, facsimile, Milan, 1905, pp. 17, 37££., and pls. L-M; T. Uspenskij, L'Octateuque de la Bibliotheque du Serail a Constantinople, Sofia, 1907, pls. 7-10, 14; I. Hutter, "Paliiologische Ubermalungen im Oktateuch Vaticanus Graecu_s 747," Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen Byzantinistik 21 (1972), 139££. All these Octateuchs have catenae in the margins. See R. Stiebel, "Ausserkanonische Elemente in byzantinischen Illustrationen des Alten Testamentes," Romische Quartalschrift 69 (1974), 172. 21 Uspenskij, Octateuque du Serail. Lately, J.C. Anderson, "The Seraglio Octateuch and the Kokkinobaphos Master," Dumbarton Oaks Papers 36 (1982), 83££. (with further bibliography). 22 D.-C. Hesseling, Miniatures de l'Octateuque grec de Smyrne (Codices Graeci et Latini, suppl. 6), Leiden, 1909. 17

18

10

For the latest writing on this manuscript see J. Lowden, "The Production of the Vatopedi Octateuch," Dumbarton Oaks Papers 36 (1982), 115££. 24 The miniatures are completely published by J. Lassus, L'Illustration byzantine du Livre des Rois Vaticanus Graecus 333, Paris, 1973. 25 K. Weitzmann, The Miniatures of the Sacra Para/le/a. Parisinus Graecus 923 (Studies in Manuscript Illumination, 8), Princeton, 1979. 26 lbid., pp. 75££. 23

11

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

not proved with the same degree of certainty as in the case of the Pentateuch and the books of Samuel and Kings. As for the book of Esther, the picture of the Triumph of Mordecai (p. 114 and figs. 161-162) has some similarities with representations of the same event in Latin Bible manuscripts, German as well as Spanish, 27 but it has left no trace in any Byzantine manuscript. There is, of course, a chance and even a probability that these Western Bible scenes have Eastern iconographic roots. Yet another historical book, of which a comparatively rich pictorial heritage exists in Latin art, is the Book of Maccabees on which are based, we believe, two scenes at Dura, next to the Ezekiel panel (pp. 119-25 and figs. 166-167). Here, too, the assumption is justified that at least some Western examples hark back to lost Eastern prototypes (cf. pp. 123ff.). For the Prophets the evidence for parallels in manuscripts is not altogether lacking. It is true that the extant Greek manuscripts of the Prophets have mainly the title figure of the author, but it can be proved, nevertheless, that there had existed Prophet books with narrative cycles. Once more the Sacra Para/le/a manuscript in Paris fills the lacuna. Here, in addition to the repetitious author figures, narrative scenes exist for each of the four major prophets, and for that matter also for some of the minor prophets. 28 As in all analogous cases, one is justified in the assumption that such sporadic narrative scenes in this remarkable manuscript are excerpted from much fuller cycles. In the case of Ezekiel we believe that the Dura recension is reflected in a Byzantine miniature, in this case not one in the Sacra Para/le/a but one in the Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus, Paris cod. gr. 510 from the ninth century (pp. 138-39 and figs. 187-188). This is a miniature that surely was not invented for this text but had been taken over from an illustrated Prophet book. The Ezekiel panel of Dura is actually one of the very best examples of a pure narrative illustration in which one episode is depicted in several phases quickly following each other-a phenomenon that is the very essence of book illumination. Even the panels with the figures of Isaiah and Jeremiah (pp. 127ff. and figs. 170, 175) who, at first glance, have the appearance of author portraits, contain elements involving narrative illustration, and once more the Sacra Para/Lela manuscript gives the main proof for the existence of richly illustrated Prophet books in Byzantine art by which the Dura painter could have been stimulated. There is some indication that the book of Daniel, the fourth of the major prophets, is also involved in Dura. One scene that has been proposed to be an illustration of an episode from this book may or may not be the feast of Belshazzar (p. 139 and fig. 189). However this may be, the book of Daniel is of all the four major prophets the one that had a consid-

erable popularity already in the Early Christian period as far as its illustrations, especially in catacomb painting, are concerned; yet-and it may be a mere accident-the feast of Belshazzar is not among the preserved ones. Thus it could be demonstrated that the rich repertory of scenic illustrations in Dura is made up from illustrations of books of the Old Testament with a rich narrative content that lent itself to pictorialization. Events were chosen that depict the history and the vicissitudes of the Jewish people with a special emphasis on themes dealing with the covenant the Lord made with his chosen people and with various commandments. For such a line of thought, the Pentateuch and the historical books and the Prophets provided the widest possibilities of providing pertinent subjects. Of course, we should not forget that we possess only a little more than half of the original frescoes, and one wonders what may have been depicted on the now lost wall sections. One can only speculate that the missing parts were also covered with scenes from the same three major sections of the Old Testament-Pentateuch, historical books, and Prophets-inasmuch as the fourth and only missing part, the wisdom books, did not lend themselves to illustrations that would have fitted into the program. It is true that some wisdom books, too, existed with illustrations in the book of Job and to some extent also the Proverbs and the Wisdom of Solomon, 29 but there were few narrative events in them, and none involving the theme of the covenant, which could have attracted the painters or the person who had laid out the program and advised them. 29

lbid., pp. 11 lff.

G. Swarzenski, Die Salzburger Malerei von den ersten Anfiingen bis zur Blutezeit des romanischen Stils, Leipzig, 1913, pl. XLII; W. Neuss, Die katalanische Bibelillustration um die Wende des ersten Jahrtausends und die altspanische Buchmalerei, Bonn and Leipzig, 1922, pp. lOlff. 28 Weitzmann, Sacra Parallela, pp. 133ff. 27

12

13

The Individual Panels and Their Christian Parallels , The facts of the building of the synagogue, its destruction, and the distribution of the fresco panels over the walls have been told often by Kraeling and others and need not be repeated in detail. Suffice it to say that the building was destroyed in A.D. 256 by the Persians, and this sets a terminus ante quern for the frescoes. Some tiles of the ceiling bear the date A.D. 244-45, whereby a terminus post quern is given for the second layer of frescoes, the only one we will be concerned with here. There was an earlier layer confined to the wall around the Torah shrine, but these frescoes are purely symbolic and stand in another tradition (fig. 1); they are dealt with by Herbert Kessler in the final section. Near the west wall of the city, the defenders of Dura strengthened this fortification wall when the Persians approached and built a ramp against it, thereby saving one part of the building by burying it under the rubble and destroying the other lying outside the ramp. Thus it happened that the west wall, the one close to the city's fortification wall (figs. 2-5), is almost completely preserved, save for parts of the top frieze. The south and north walls (figs. 2, 6-7) are about half preserved, a little more remaining of the north than of the south; these are cut through diagonally, following the slope of the ramp. Of the east wall only a small strip is left at either side of the central entrance door (figs. 2, 8-9). Thus we must remain aware that only a little more than half of the frescoes are preserved, and there is no way of guessing what might be lost. Presumably most of the perished scenes were based on the same biblical books as the preserved ones, and one would not be surprised if the original program had included some more scenes, especially from the books of Samuel and Kings and perhaps also from the Prophets, but this is mere speculation. In taking up the panels one by one, there are two possible ways to establish a sequence. First, one could deal with them in the order in which they are arranged in the three superimposed friezes. This obviously would be the proper method if we were to center our discussion on the program and its guiding idea, although one must remain aware of the losses that prevent the establishment of a program's coherence in all aspects. The second possibility, the one we have chosen, is an arrangement according to the sequence of the literary sources on which the scenes are based. This approach, we believe, gives the best insight into the working process of the fresco painters and into the nature of the models they used. This is basically the same method we applied in describing the individual scenes in the previously

15

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

mentioned manuscript of the Sacra Parallela in Paris. In order to give a clearer picture of the sources used by the illustrator, we have arranged the scenes in the sequence of the biblical books, starting with the Octateuch and followed by the books of Samuel and Kings, and so on. We realize, of course, that such an arrangement obscures to some extent the intentions of the author of the florilegium, who had the illustrations attached to textual quotations in the alphabetical order of catchwords, just as in our discussion of the Dura frescoes scenes will be separated that ideologically belong together. But this disadvantage is, in our opinion, counterbalanced by a deeper insight into the iconographic history of the individual scenes and their original context. The second part of this study, by Herbert Kessler, which is devoted to a discussion of the program, will correct this shortcoming.

The Pentateuch [1]

Jacob's Dream at Bethel (Genesis 28:10-17) North, 1st zone. Figs. 7 and 10.

The only panel left in the top zone of the north wall, mostly destroyed in its upper part, depicts Jacob's dream at Bethel (fig. 10). To render the figures as large as possible in the space provided, thus making them easily recognizable at a distance from the viewer, the fresco painter resorted to the principle of condensation, quite extremely in this case. He limited the width of the panel just to the figure of the reclining Jacob and placed the vision of the ladder on top rather than alongside Jacob (cf. fig. 11). Being restricted also in the height of the panel, the artist had no choice but to render the ladder at an unusually low angle. As a result of this adjustment to the available space, it was impossible to place the feet of the two climbing figures on the rungs of the ladder; incongruously, their feet are

reminded him of such decoration on mattresses. If so, then the oval stone under Jacob's head may be associated in its shape with a pillow, the idea being that Jacob rests quite comfortably, as is indeed suggested by his relaxed attitude. The right arm, now lost, was raised above the head and most likely supported it, while the left arm is held alongside the body. The essential point is that the youthful, dark-haired Jacob is dressed in chiton and himation, that is, in garments of the Greek tradition. In contrast, the two men climbing the ladder are dressed in Persian costume with tightly fitting trousers and ornate, girdled, longsleeved tunics. But where one would expect, in conformity with the Persian dress, a lacerna, a mantle fastened over the breast, the fresco painter chose the chlamys of the Greek tradition. This is one of many cases in which the artist orientalizes the basically Greek tradition but is not altogether consistent in this process of adaptation to a local Mesopotamian tradition. There has been a controversy over the explanation of these men, who, according to the underlying Bible text, should be the angels who go up and down the ladder in Jacob's dream. According to Grabar, as cited and discussed by Kraeling, the climbing figures are to

16

17

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PENTATEUCH

be understood as the "princes" of the pagan nations (Babylonia, Persia, Greece, and Rome), referring to a passage in the Pirke of Rabbi Eliezer. In principle there is no objection to assuming the Pirke (or rather the sources on which it is based, since Eliezer lived in the tenth century) as a possible pictorial source. We have elsewhere demonstrated that this text was indeed the source of a biblical illustration of Genesis. 1 Yet Kraeling refuted Grabar's identification on two grounds: (a) that the Pirke passages would require four princes and, while it is not impossible that there may have been still a third climbing figure in the fresco, there surely was no space for a fourth and (b) because these princes were "climbing up and falling down," there would have to be at least one descending figure in the fresco. Kraeling was, we believe, right when he assumed that these men were meant to be the biblical angels who were dressed in an oriental court costume as members of God's heavenly host, just as in Byzantine art angels in such a context are dressed either in tunic and chlamys or, as archangels, clothed even in the imperial loros. Having spoken above about the condensation of the Dura panel, one might ask what an uncondensed representation of this subject would look like. The monument that comes closest to a postulated archetype, in which the compositional elements are aranged most naturally and at ease, is. the miniature in the ninth-century Gregory of Nazianzus manuscript in Paris, cod. gr. 510 (fig. 11),2 a parallel already mentioned by Kraeling as well as by Goodenough. Here the sleeping Jacob and the vision of the ladder are paratactically placed side by side as two separate entities. Here too Jacob lies on his back, slightly propped up as he rests his head on the stone, but the pose is more contrappostic and better reflects a good classical model like that of the sleeping Endymion. Compared with such a figure the Dura Jacob is stiffer, flattened and simplified in his pose. The painter was either unable or unwilling-or both-to cope with a Hellenistic model on which, nevertheless, the Dura figure is ultimately based. In the Paris miniature, a steep ladder placed to the right leads up into heaven. Two angels, as in Dura, are climbing up the ladder, however with their feet correctly on the rungs. A third, who has descended, stands on the ground and points at the sleeping Jacob. One can easily see that there was no space in Dura for this third angel, the one who establishes the contact between Jacob and his vision, and consequently he was omitted. The ladder in the miniature reaches into an upper zone. Kraeling thought that a ladder ending nowhere may also have been found in Dura. He pointed to a miniature in the Vatican Octateuch, cod. gr. 747 (fig. 12) 3 where the ladder leans against a segment of heaven that encloses a bust of Christ speaking with the angels, and he correctly excluded such a bust in heaven as a possible model for the Dura painter. Yet, what seems to us quite possible, and even likely, is the existence in the archetype of an arc of heaven without the bust. A segment of heaven studd~d only with stars occurs in the corresponding miniature in the Octateuch, cod. Vat. gr. 746 (fig. 13).4 So heaven was most likely depicted in the archetype of Dura as in the Octateuchs and is missing in the Paris Gregory miniature simply for lack of space. If

there was an additional element in the model of Dura it could, in our opinion, only have been a "Hand of God," a familiar motif elsewhere in Dura. In both Octateuch miniatures, too, a certain degree of condensation has taken place, though not as extensively as in the fresco, in that, as in Dura, Jacob lies under the ladder instead of alongside it. He is not as tightly fitted into the triangle underneath the ladder, however, but is placed at a right angle to it and thus has more free space around him. There are variations of the Jacob type within the same recension, and this should be a warning not to be too stringent in the reconstruction of an archetype. In Vat. gr. 747 the contrappostic attitude is more strongly emphasized, and in this point the figure agrees more with the Jacob in the Paris gr. 510. Although this feature is weaker in Vat. gr. 746, the derivation from the "Endymion type" is nevertheless still recognizable as it is in Dura, whose Jacob type is comparatively the closest to the miniature in Vat. gr. 746. It will be noticed that the descending angels in both Octateuch miniatures point with their right arms into space toward the left. This is the same gesture that the angel at the bottom in Paris gr. 510 makes as he points at the sleeping Jacob before him. Thus, this gesture clearly proves that the model of the Octateuch miniatures must also have had Jacob to the left of the ladder and thereby proves his transposition. In one point Vat. gr. 747 reflects the archetype more closely than Paris gr. 510 and Vat. gr. 746: the angels have no wings, and in this detail they follow an older tradition in Christian art. The wingless angels occur also in the scene of Jacob's dream in the fourth-century Via Latina catacomb in Rome (fig. 14 ). 5 In this representation-and typically it is again a fresco-we deal once more with a case of extreme condensation, comparable to that in Dura. Jacob lying in a relaxed contrappostic pose fills the triangle under the ladder rather tightly. This feature, however, does not necessarily mean the dependence of one on the other but simply that wherever a condensation is called for, artists will arrive at similar solutions. Even so, the Endymion-like pose of Jacob is indeed close to the Octateuch tradition. However, considering the possibility of variations of the Jacob type within the same recension, the connection of the Via Latina fresco with the Byzantine Octateuch recension may not be considered conclusive. Such a connection will, however, become clear in the next picture in which indeed the Octateuch tradition is closely connected with the Via Latina catacomb. Yet it must be mentioned, as has already been analyzed by Liselotte Kotzsche-Breitenbruch, that in the Via Latina catacomb frescoes in general, the Cotton Genesis recension is also involved, and one can only conclude that in metropolitan Rome both Eastern recensions were known. Even within the Jacob fresco both sources seem to be involved, for in the catacomb Jacob is depicted bearded as in some derivatives of the Cotton recension (figs. 15 and 17), while in Dura and the Byzantine miniatures he is beardless. Of the two wingless angels in the catacomb fresco, the lower one points once more toward the left to nowhere and thus confirms again the transposition of the figure of Jacob from left of the ladder to

18

underneath it.

19

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

In the Vienna Genesis the scene of Jacob's dream is not preserved and neither is it in the Cotton Genesis, where the leaf that no doubt had this scene is lost. The Millstatt Genesis provides a reflection of Cotton Genesis imagery, which may not be correct in every detail, but seems to have copied the original composition fairly well (fig. 15). 6 Here, as in the Paris Gregory (fig. 11), the dreaming Jacob and his vision are placed side by side, a fact that does not necessarily point to a common recension, but merely means that we have in both cases the most explicit narrative rendering. In contrast to the Octateuch recension, Jacob is not propped up and does not reflect the Endymion type, but he is lying flat on the ground, and this, as well as his beardedness, are seemingly the main recensional differences. The angel at the bottom of the ladder points to the sleeping Jacob as in the Gregory miniature (fig. 11), and he thus occurs in both recensions. The stretched-out Jacob occurred also in the lost fresco of San Paolo fuori le Mura in Rome, as we know from the seventeenth-century drawing in the Barberini codex (fig. 16). 7 Here he lies on a mattress, but because one has to reckon with changes when Cavallini overpainted the fresco in the thirteenth century, one cannot be sure about the fifth-century original. Thus the beardlessness of Jacob cannot be taken for granted as having been in the original. A monument surely derived from the Cotton Genesis tradition is the eleventh-century ivory plaque in Salerno, which at some time was mounted on an antependium (fig. 17).s Here we again have a case of extreme condensation, going so far that Jacob is not only squeezed into the triangle underneath the ladder, but curled up in a position that looks like an adjustment by the ivory carver and probably had no antecedent. Strangely enough, heaven is represented twice. This could well mean that in the model the first arc of heaven at the left was connected with the sleeping Jacob when, before his transposition, he was a separate iconographical entity and placed at the left; the second arc of heaven is related to the ladder leaning against it. In spite of the many changes that are involved in each of the representations of Jacob's dream, one still can make a distinction between two traditions, although not with the same certainty as in the next two instances. One tradition shows the youthful Jacob derived from the Endymion type and prevailing in the Byzantine miniatures, the Dura fresco, and the Via Latina catacomb fresco (although here Jacob is bearded, a fact that may be explained as an intrusion of the second recension). The second tradition, the outstretched type, is seen in the Millstatt Genesis and-with some reservation-in the San Paolo fresco, a type that represents the Cotton Genesis recension. In this second recension, as witnessed by the Millstatt Genesis and the Salerno ivory, Jacob is bearded. BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, pp. 28£. and pl. XIV,2. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. ?Off. and pl. XXVI. Goodenough,Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, pp. 166££. and vol. 11, pl. XIX and fig. 345. 1

See the scene in the Octateuchs in which the serpent, tempting Eve, is mounting a camel. Cf. Weitzmann, "Septuagint," p. 119 and fig. 26 (trans. p. 74 and fig. 56).

20

THE PENTATEUCH

H. Omont, Miniatures des plus anciens manuscrits grecs de la Bibliotheque Nationale du VI• au XIV• siecle, Paris, 1929, p. 23 and pl. XXXVII. E. R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, Princeton, 1953-68, vol. 10, p. 167 and vol. 11, fig. 296. 3 L. Kotzsche-Breitenbruch, Die neue Katakombe an der Via Latina in Rom, Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum, Erganzungsband 4, Munster, 1976, p. 68 and pl. 12e. • Unpublished. s A. Ferrua, Le pitture de/la nuova catacomba di Via Latina, Citta de! Vaticano, 1960, p. 49 and pl. XCVII. Kotzsche-Breitenbruch, Neue Katakombe, pp. 66££. and pl. 12a. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, p. 169 and fig. 351. 6 R. P. Bergman, The Salerno Ivories, Cambridge, Mass., 1980, p. 30 and fig. 90. 7 S. Waetzoldt, Die Kopien des 17. Jahrhunderts nach Mosaiken und Wandmalereien in Rom, Munich, 1964, fig. 345; Kotzsche-Breitenbruch, Neue Katakombe, p. 69 and pl. 13a. Bergman, Salerno Ivories, p. 38 and fig. 91. 8 A. Goldschmidt, Die Elfenbeinskulpturen aus der Romanischen Zeit, vol. 4, Berlin, 1926 (2nd ed. 1975), p. 39, no. 126, 19 and pl. XLIV. Bergman, Salerno Ivories, pp. 37££. and fig. 17. 2

[2]

Jacob Blessing Ephraim and Manasseh (Genesis 48:13-20) West, 2nd zone. Central panel lower right. Figs. 1, 3, and 18.

This panel was repainted several times; 1 on the top layer is depicted Jacob blessing Ephraim and Manasseh in the presence of Joseph. There are three essential features of this composition. First, Jacob, represented as youthful, with thick black hair and wearing a Greek himation, lies half erect on a couch and leans on a cushion. This pose is not quite in accordance with the biblical text, which says that Jacob "sat" upon his bed. Second, the two grandsons, dressed in short tunics with clavi, are standing frontally before the couch rather than turning to Jacob. Third, Joseph, dressed in Persian court costume, approaches from the right with his arms thrust forward, trying to remove Jacob's right hand from Ephraim's head over to Manasseh's. All three features occur in a very similar manner in the Octateuchs. In Vat. gr. 747 (fig. 2 19), as well as in the other Octateuchs, Joseph stands farther away and is not trying to correct the blessing hand of Jacob, but instead is raising his hand in a gesture of speech. Otherwise all the poses agree with those at Dura: the contrappostic leaning over of the half- _ erect Jacob, the frontality of the sons before the couch, and Joseph's approach from the right. Only the easily interchangeable garments are different. They are orientalized in Dura and Byzantinized in the miniature, where Joseph as well as his sons wear the chlamys with tablion, that is, the costume of the Byzantine imperial court. Neither costume was likely to have been in the common archetype, and we do not know what it may have been like there. In addition, Joseph wears a pearl diadem. One other difference is Jacob's white hair and beard in the miniature, which, in contrast to his youthfulness in Dura, indicate the old age

21

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PENTATEUCH

of the dying patriarch and are in agreement with the meaning of the Bible text and therefore, almost certainly, a feature of the common archetype. That there is a certain freedom within the same recension, especially in the costumes, becomes evident when we compare the miniature of Vat. gr. 747 with that of Vat. gr. 746 (fig. 20). 3 Here Joseph wears what looks more like a himation, not made altogether clear by the miniaturist. Underneath he wears a short tunic with an embroidered border, and the same type of tunic is worn by the grandsons. This means that Joseph and his sons are not dressed in quite as courtly a manner as in Vat. gr. 747, and this may well be the older tradition, since the short tunic for the grandsons agrees well with Dura. Indeed, in the~e two depictions, only the gesture of the arms disagrees. In the miniature the boys cross their arms, with their hands hidden under the elongated sleeves over their breasts. This gesture, apparently one of veneration, has a long history and, although it was not used in the present Dura panel, it has been used in such other compositions as the Anointing of David (cf. fig. Jacob's blessing occurs also among the frescoes of the Via Latina catacomb (fig. 21),4 where we see Jacob lying, once more on a kline and in a half-erect position, blessing Ephraim and Manasseh, who stand in front of the kline. Here only Ephraim at the right is facing the beholder, but at the same time he converses with Manasseh at the left, who turns around and likewise raises his right hand in a gesture of speech. But aside from this slight variation in the gestures of the grandsons, the compositional layout is so much like that of Dura and the Octateuchs that we must assume a common archetype-just as we postulated in the preceding scene with the dream of Jacob. The blessing Jacob is also depicted with white hair and beard in the catacomb fresco as in the Octateuch miniatures, and this supports our notion that this feature was typical of the archetype. That Joseph is not represented in the Roman fresco must be due to lack of space. The scene is depicted in similar fashion among the early fifth-century paintings in burial chamber 14 at Cimitile. 5 Jacob sits upright on a kline (his legs toward the right rather than the left) and, with arms crossed, blesses his grandsons. Dressed in long-sleeved tunics with clavi, the two boys face forward, while Joseph---entering from the right-pushes on their shoulders in an attempt to correct their positions. Stressing similarities with pagan subjects, Dieter Korol has suggested the possibility that Cimitile's correspondence with Dura may be due to independent appropriations of compositional elements from a common pictorial repertory rather than to a real relationship between the depictions. None of the parallels Korol cites, however includes such striking details as the frontally turned youths, their costumes, or Joseph's gestures. In our opinion, derivation from the same biblical illustration remains the likeliest explanation for the similarities. Despite the rather small differences in detail, a common archetype must be postulated for Dura, the Octateuchs, and the Early Christian frescoes. This becomes particularly evident if we compare the Dura composition with those in other Genesis recensions. In the Vienna Genesis (fig. 22), 6 white-haired Jacob is seated instead of lying on a couch, although

the painter does not make clear on what piece of furniture he is sitting, for neither a bed nor a bench/throne is indicated. But his feet rest on a footstool that, together with Jacob's erect and straight frontal pose, introduces a hieratic element into the composition. This element is strengthened by the poses of the grandsons, who are facing each other in a threequarter pose and together with Jacob form a pyramidal group. Joseph approaches from the left, rather than from the right, and tries to correct Jacob's blessing hands. He is dressed in a tunic with segmenta and a purple chlamys which he gathers up with his left hand. Around his neck he wears a torque. Moreover, Joseph is accompanied by his Egyptian wife Asenath-a unique iconography. Not a single feature agrees with Dura or the Octateuchs, and we realize that there existed other solutions for arranging the persons involved. It is still debated where the Vienna Genesis recension originated, and this is not the place to go into the problem. Suffice it to say that this recension became known in Constantinople, where in the tenth century some of its miniatures were copied directly in the ivories of an octagonal box whose fragments are in Dresden and London. 7 In a twelfth-century ivory plaque in the British Museum (fig. 23), 8 we see Jacob once more seated in an erect pose and blessing the grandsons, who are turning toward each other just as in the Vienna miniature. But here the contact is not as direct as in the above-mentioned reliefs of the box. One will notice that Jacob is depicted sitting not on a chair,9 but on the edge of his bed, which has the same shape, though somewhat shortened for compositional reasons, as the one on which the dead Jacob lies in the scene next to the Blessing. This is the only representation within the group of monuments mentioned here that illustrates most literally verse 2, "Uacob] sat upon the bed." This detail suggests that this ivory, in contrast to those mentioned previously, is not directly dependent on the Vienna Genesis but presumably is a witness of an earlier stage of the same recension. At the extreme left stands Joseph, who, as in the Vienna Genesis, approaches from the left and tries to remove Jacob's hand from the head of Ephraim and place it on that of Manasseh. Moreover, it will be noticed that three more of Jacob's sons are standing behind the bed, and this position points to a conflation with the next scene in which Jacob is blessing all twelve sons. The Cotton Genesis manuscript in London, which represents our third recension, still has the leaf on which this scene must have been depicted, 10 but the amorphous vestiges of paint that remain permit no interpretation. So once more we must resort to the Millstatt Genesis as a substitute in order to have some idea of what the Cotton Genesis miniature must have looked like (fig. 24).11 In contrast to the Vienna Genesis, Jacob looks as if he were standing and not seated frontally. Furthermore, there is a clear distinction in the poses of Ephraim and Manasseh, who are kneeling instead of standing as in the Octateuchs and the Vienna Genesis, and this stance we consider to be a distinct feature. There are, in addition, eight of the twelve sons of Jacob flanking the central composition, five at the left and three at the right. Just as in the London ivory, they belong to the next scene. Such a conflation of two subsequent scenes can happen twice quite independently of each other and is not necessarily an indication of mutual dependence.

22

23

110).

/

/

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PENTATEUCH

This scene of the blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh is the most striking example for the demonstration of three different versions and for a close relationship between the Dura fresco and the miniatures of the Octateuchs.

To the left of the Blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh, but on a slightly higher level, is a very similar composition with Jacob lying on his bed in exactly the same pose, leaning on a cushion. Standing behind the bed are his twelve sons, divided into two groups of six each. Clad in Persian costume in contrast to the Greek one worn by Jacob, they stand in rigid,

frontal poses. The meaning of the scene is obvious: Jacob has called his sons to his deathbed in order to give them last admonitions and his blessing. But in this hieratic composition there is no visible communication between Jacob and his sons, and he is neither talking to them nor extending his blessings. It comes as no surprise that the closest parallels are once more to be found in the Octateuchs. The basic points of agreement (figs. 26-27) are (a) that Jacob lies propped up in his bed, although in the opposite direction, looking to the right, (b) that the sons are placed behind the bed instead of in front of it-presumably for compositional reasons, to make Jacob fully visible, and (c) that the sons are also here divided into two groups of six. Only slight differences occur. In Vat. gr. 747 (fig. 26) 1 Jacob raises both hands, and in Vat. gr. 746 (fig. 27) 2 he lifts his right hand in a gesture of speech. Thus, contrary to Dura, Jacob addresses his sons so that contact is established between him and them. Based as it is on the biblical text, we would expect this to have been the case in the archetype. Thus we may assume that the almost exaggerated hieratic composition of Dura is an adjustment by the monumental painter, who thereby sacrificed an essential narrative element. In both Octateuch miniatures Joseph is singled out among the other brothers. Whereas they are dressed in simple short tunics, he is depicted with imperial regalia, wearing a pearl diadem and the purple chlamys with tablion. In Vat. gr. 747 Joseph addresses his brothers, but in Vat. gr. 746 he looks mournfully at the dying Jacob. This imperial emphasis on Joseph, heightened also by a nimbus (Jacob is also distinguished by a nimbus) may well be a later Byzantine development, and we feel fairly certain that it was not in an archetype that must have antedated Dura. It should be noticed that in Vat. gr. 746 there are two more figures added at the extreme right who are not in Vat. gr. 747, usually the more reliable copy as far as its relation to the archetype is concerned. One of them wears a tucked-up tunic and carries his mantle thrown around a rod on his shoulder. I have no sure explanation for these figures, except that they may repeat Ephraim and Manasseh from the preceding scene. But if so, they were hardly understood as such, for they should be smaller in size. How differently this event of the blessing of the twelve sons could be conceived in another picture recension can be illustrated by the Vienna Genesis (fig. 28). 3 Here Jacob sits at the left on a bench and faces his sons. They approach from the right, having passed through an open gate, and listen attentively to Jacob's admonitions while Joseph, isolated and frontal, stands between Jacob and his brothers. Here too he is dressed in the imperial purple chlamys, but instead of the diadem he wears the golden torque around his neck. Here the differences between two recensions are even greater than in the preceding scene. In the Cotton Genesis this scene existed on a page still extant but so thoroughly deprived of its paint that nothing is identifiable. 4 In the Millstatt Genesis, the derivative of the Cotton Genesis, the blessing of the twelve sons is, as we have mentioned, conflated with the blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh (fig. 24). 5

24

25

BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, pp. 51£f. and pl. XXIII. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 221£f. and pis. XXXIV and LXXIV. Goodenough,Jewish Symbols, vol. 9, pp. 105£f. and vol. 11, pl. IV and fig. 77. K. Weitzmann, "The Octateuch of the Seraglio and the History of the Picture Recension," Actes du Xe Congres d'Etudes Byzantines, Istanbul, 1957, pp. 183£f. and pl. XL, 111-12. (Here the miniature from the Seraglio Octateuch is reproduced.) - - . "Zur Frage des Einflusses judischer Bilderquellen auf die Illustrationen des Alten Testamentes," Mui/us: Festschrift fur Theodor Klauser, Munster, 1964, pp. 402f. (Reprinted in English translation, "The Question of the Influence of Jewish Pictorial Sources on Old Testament Illustration," in K. Weitzmann, Studies in Classical and Byzantine Manuscript Illumination, ed. H. L. Kessler, Chicago, 1971, pp. 77f. and figs. 57-58.) D. Korol, Die fruhchristlichen Wandmalereien aus den Grabbauten in Cimitile!Nola (jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum, Ergiinzungsband 13), Munster, 1987. 1

On the repainting, see K. Schubert, "Die Bedeutung des Bildes fiir die Ausstattung spiitantiker Synagogen," Kairos 17 (1975), llff. 2 K6tzsche-Breitenbruch, Neue Katakombe, p. 76 and pl. 16d. 3 Cf. Gerstinger, Wiener Genesis, pl. XX, fig. 105. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, published the corresponding miniature from the Smyrna Octateuch (vol. 11, fig. 91). •Ferrua, Via Latina, p. 50 and pl. XXV. Kotzsche-Breitenbruch, Neue Katakombe, pp. 74££. and pl. 16a. 5 Korol, Wandmalereien, pp. 100££. and fig. 33. 6 See Wickhoff, Wiener Genesis, p. 161 and pl. XXIII; Gerstinger, Wiener Genesis, vol. 1, p. 109 and fol. 23, pl. 45; Kotzsche-Breitenbruch, Neue Katakombe, p. 76 and pl. 16e. 7 A. Goldschmidt and K. Weitzmann, Die Byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen des X.-XIII. Jahrhunderts, vol. 1, Kasten, Berlin, 1930 (2nd ed., 1979), p. 28 nos. 13-15, and pl. VII. 8 lbid., p. 55 no. 96, and pl. LVI. 9 As was stated in the text of the corpus. 10 Weitzmann and Kessler, Cotton Genesis, p. 122, p. 233 fol. 133v. 11 Ibid., p. 123 and fig. 533.

[3]

Jacob Blessing All His Sons (Genesis 49:1-18) West, 2nd zone. Central panel, lower left. Figs. 1, 3, and 25.

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, p. 52 and pl. XXIII. Kraeling, The Synagogue, p. 222, pis. XXXIV and LXXIV and fig. 57. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 9, p. 105, vol. 11, pl. IV and fig. 77. Unpublished. Unpublished. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 11, fig. 92, published the corresponding miniature from the Smyrna Octateuch. 3 Wickhoff, Wiener Genesis, p. 161 and pl. XXVI. Gerstinger, Wiener Genesis, vol. 1, p. 110 and 2, fol. XXIV, pl. 46. •Weitzmann and Kessler, Cotton Genesis, p. 123, p. 234 fol. 215r. 5 The conflated miniature on fol. 76r is followed on 76v by one that depicts Jacob lying on a mattress and \ . three of his sons bending over him. Because the blessing of the sons is already contained in the previous miniature, it is not likely that the model had the scene twice. It is thus supernumerary, and it remains unclear how or whether at all this second miniature reflects an archetypal creation. Weitzmann and Kessler, Cotton Genesis, p. 123 and figs. 533-534. 1

2

[4]

The Infancy of Moses (Exodus 1:8-2:9) West, 3rd zone. Extreme right. Figs. 1, 5, 29, and 30.

The panel is divided into three sections that read from right to left. The first comprises only a piece of architecture, the second contains two superimposed narrative scenes, and the third a conflation of no fewer than four events that have to be disentangled to be understood fully. 1 One gets the impression that the fresco painter started out lavishly, then began to condense and, finally, when he realized he was going to run out of space, went to the extreme at the expense of iconographic clarity and pressed as much content into the remaining space as he was able.

THE PENTATEUCH

column inside the wall is prominently displayed. When one goes through the several hundred miniatures of this manuscript, one notices that in almost every case where a distinct city prospect or building is depicted, it is of topographical significance and identifiable. Thus, we conclude that also in this case the miniature goes back to a model in which the city was understood to be one of the treasure cities. The comparison with the Dura fresco reveals how a Hellenistic walled city was flattened and-in keeping with the oriental heritage-all perspective elements were avoided. How important this building episode could be to an Early Christian illuminator becomes very evident by bringing the seventh-century Ashburnham Pentateuch into the discussion (fig. 40). 3 Here the episode in which the new Pharaoh "made the lives (of the Israelites) bitter with hard bondage, in mortar and brick" (1:8-14) is depicted in two phases: (1) the enthroned Pharaoh gives the order for the suppression, and (2) a taskmaster oversees the actual building of a city, whereby some workmen make bricks and others lay them in courses on the city wall. The iconographic sources of the Ashburnham Pentateuch are still not defined;4 in any case they do not seem to be related to the Octateuch recension. So all our comparison proves is that the beginning of Exodus invited artists to depict a full narrative illustration of the events that included the treasure cities, which meant much to Jewish historical awareness. Therefore, the city prospects in Dura and in the miniature of the Vatican Menologion may well be remnants of narrative scenes, reduced to a symbolic rendering of the architecture.

The Treasure Cities (1: 11) At the right the frieze depicts a crenellated walled city with an open gate and a section of wall alongside it. Some scholars have taken this architecture simply to be a setting for the enthroned Pharaoh, but in the Dura frescoes, where the artist is so concerned about saving space, it is highly unlikely that a piece of architecture should be displayed merely for the sake of setting. We believe Kraeling was right when he considered it to be an element of iconographic significance and identified it as one of the treasure cities, Pithom or Raamses, built at the command of Pharaoh by the forced labor of the oppressed Israelites. This identification is strongly supported by a miniature in the Menologion of Basil II in the Vatican Library, cod. gr. 1613 (fig. 33),2 where, in a miniature of the exposure of the Moses child to be discussed later, an elaborate walled city with a building and a statue on a

Pharaoh's Command to the Midwives (1:15) The upper part of the second section shows Pharaoh ordering the Hebrew midwives Shiphrah and Puah to kill all Jewish male offspring. The enthroned Pharaoh is flanked by two courtiers, one the royal scribe writing on a diptych, and the other now holding a sword-an attribute perhaps misunderstood by the restorer and, according to Kraeling, more likely to have been a key. All three are in Persian dress as worn by all members of royalty and courtiers in Dura. Before them stand the two midwives who are dressed so much like Miriam and Jochebed in the scene to the left that it has been correctly argued that they are indeed meant to represent the sister and mother of Moses. For this identification Kraeling cited the Targum Jonathan as a source. The very same scene exists in the Octateuch Vat. gr. 747 (fig. 31),5 which, as said before, is the best witness with regard to the archetype, and this is borne out also in the present case. It is the only Octateuch that contains this scene while all the others have a scene of the Birth of Moses in its place (fig. 32). 6 Since the latter event is also told in Exodus (2:2), it theoretically could have existed also in the archetype. But the whole character of this scene is so outspokenly that of a New Testament representation of the Birth of Christ that we consider this representation rather as a substitute of the scene with Pharaoh and the midwives as depicted in Vat. gr. 747. It is one of the christological intrusions typical of the

26

27

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PENTATEUCH

Middle Byzantine period. In the miniature of Vat. gr. 747, Pharaoh is dressed in an imperial chlamys, and most likely he wore a pearl diadem-the head is unfortunately completely flaked. What Pharaoh looked like in the archetype we do not know; surely he was neither a Persian king nor a Byzantine emperor, but most likely he was clothed in a costume more in the Hellenistic tradition. This tradition has obviously survived in the chiton and himation of the midwives who approach the enthroned Pharaoh just as they do in Dura, where they likewise wear a dress that is ultimately Greek but somewhat modified in an orientalizing manner. The court officials who in Dura flank Pharaoh are, in the miniature, placed behind the midwives. The same scene is also represented in the Ashburnham Pentateuch at the upper right of the full-page miniature that illustrates the first two chapters of Exodus in great detail (fig. 40). In its main features, the composition, with Pharaoh seated at the right and the two midwives approaching from the left, agrees with Dura and the Octateuch miniature. But these are features that would have to be represented this way in any recension. Also, that Pharaoh sits on a faldstool and is differently dressed does not prove anything, because furniture and garments are variables that could change within a recension. The most essential difference is that in Dura and the Octateuch the midwives extend their arms in a gesture either of speech or compliance with Pharaoh's order, whereas the foremost midwife in the Ashburnham Pentateuch throws up her arms in despair, reacting to the horrifying command. This feature could be used as an argument for another recension, a problem that could be solved only by a multiplicity of cases the discussion of which goes beyond the limits of the present study.

proved by reflections in the Exodus miniature of the Carolingian Bible at San Paolo fuori le Mura (fig. 34 )9 which Du Mesnil du Buisson had already related to the Dura fresco, 10 though he did not go into any detail explaining this relationship. Joachim Gaehde was the first not only to see clearly the relationship between the Carolingian miniature and the Octateuch, but also to point out the consequences of this observation and to claim the existence of an earlier, more richly illustrated, but lost Octateuch. 11 In an upper zone of the Exodus picture, reading from left to right, several scenes of Moses' infancy are lined up on the shores of the river Nile that extends from one end to the other. In the first, Jochebed, as in Dura, is depicted leaning over the shore of the river and putting the casket-like ark into the Nile; in this instance, however, the lid is taken off in order to make the Moses child visible. Behind Jochebed is Moses' sister Miriam, depicted only as a bust and turning in the wrong direction, which is meaningless for she is supposed to watch the ark. In addition, in the upper corner a seated river god looks at the ark, doing what Miriam is supposed to do. This personification-and there are none in any Exodus miniature in the Octateuchs-we consider to be most likely a Carolingian addition that replaces a seated Miriam in just the same position. Such a hypothesis finds support in a fresco of the Via Latina catacomb (to be discussed later, fig. 37), where indeed Miriam is depicted in very much the same pose as the river god. By introducing the personification into the Carolingian miniature, the illustrator of the San Paolo Bible was forced to squeeze Miriam in as simply a bust behind Jochebed.

Moses' Exposure in the Nile by Jochebed (2:3-4) Below and partly overlapping the preceding scene, we see a woman bending over and stretching out her hands toward an object that, like most of the lower strip of the panel, is destroyed. The context leaves no doubt that the woman is Jochebed, who puts the child in an ark amid the reeds on the shore of the Nile. Only Goodenough 7 did not accept this identification, seeing in this figure the "princess." This is unlikely not only for reasons of internal evidence but also because of the parallels in miniature painting, of which Goodenough, though otherwise quite concerned about parallels in manuscripts, was unaware. The miniature in the Vatican Menologion already cited for its depiction of the treasure city (fig. 33) 8 represents Jochebed in very much the same pose though in mirror reversal. She deposits the ark, which is shaped as in Dura like a little sarcophagus with a gabled roof (not in this scene, where it is destroyed, but in the subsequent one of the finding of Moses [fig. 30) ). This Menologion scene is, as such other Old Testament scenes as Joshua .~nd the angel, surely derived from an older Octateuch. It is true that it is not contained in the preserved eleventh- or twelfth-century Octateuchs, but must have existed in an earlier Octateuch whose picture cycle was richer than the one in the preserved copies. This can be

Pharaoh's Daughter Noticing the Ark (2:5) The third section of the Dura panel poses special problems in two respects. First, it can be demonstrated with the help of the Octateuch miniatures that we deal here with a case of extreme condensation, actually no fewer than four different actions that correspond to originally four separate scenes. Our main task is to disentangle the quadriform conflation. Second, the core of this part of the panel does not follow the Septuagint text but is changed under the influence of a Jewish legend to be found in the Targum Onkelos, 12 which recounts that it was Pharaoh's daughter herself who went into the Nile. She is represented only once and not even in her original appearance. The first of the four events, which follow each other in rapid succession, exists in the Octateuch Vat. gr. 746 (fig. 35). 13 Pharaoh's daughter, crowned and dressed like an empress, walks along the shore of the Nile followed by one of her maidservants and sees "the ark among the flags" (2:5). The daughter looks at the ark, which is shown open in order to make the Moses child visible. Miriam is seated on some rocks keeping watch over the ark. Basically the same composition occurs in a fresco of the Via Latina catacomb (fig. 37). 14 Here, too, Pharaoh's daughter, in richly embroidered garments that mark her royal status, is followed by two servants instead of one, and in this respect the picture is closer to the archetype, for the text speaks of maidens (plural). In this case, too, Pharaoh's daughter

28

29

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PENTATEUCH

looks into the open ark, which, however, has not the casket-like shape but is oval. In addition, some corpses of children killed by the Egyptians are floating in the Nile, for which no parallel is known to me. The closest agreement is with Miriam seated on the rocks as in the San Paolo miniature (fig. 34 ), which indeed seems to indicate that in this case also, as in some Genesis scenes (figs. 14 and 21), the catacomb fresco reflects the Octateuch recension. All that is left of this scene in Dura are the maidservants, here three in number, who had followed Pharaoh's daughter. They are rendered in frontal view and display ritual objects as Goodenough had correctly recognized: a pitcher, a fluted bowl, a box perhaps meant to be of ivory, and a shell-shaped vessel. Goodenough demonstrated with a series of examples 15 that such objects are commonly held by nymphs, but then he went one step too far by suggesting that these maidens were actually meant to represent nymphs. Surely in the present context they are meant to be the maidservants, though it seems indeed quite likely that the Dura painter used some representation of nymphs as models. Their peplos-like garments surely speak for an ultimately Hellenistic ancestry. A Greek model is also to be assumed for Pharaoh's daughter, depicted in frontal view and displaying her nudity conspicuously. Goodenough derived this type from that of the oriental goddess Anahita, 16 and once more he went one step too far in assuming that here in the synagogue of Dura the goddess Anahita herself was meant. From the formal point of view the type is surely derived from a Greek Aphrodite, and thus it is just as likely that the Dura artist copied a representation of her. For a viewer of the synagogue, this display of nudity was simply a symbol of paganism as such, and I very much doubt that a special oriental cult is here invoked, let alone an actual representation of an oriental goddess (clearly Pharaoh's daughter was meant, as the general context makes clear). So all that is left of the Septuagint illustration is the group of maidservants, who most likely carried no attributes in the model, but simply followed Pharaoh's daughter, their frontal view too being an alteration by the fresco painter.

one of the two scenes that were available. We mentioned the greater richness of the Octateuch archetype already in connection with the scene of the exposure of the ark in the Carolingian Bible of San Paolo (cf. p. 29 and fig. 34). Here the exposure scene is followed by one that agrees with the scene of Vat. gr. 747 to such a degree that once more there can be no doubt that we move within the same recension: Pharaoh's daughter-her royalty chiefly indicated by her purple shoes-gives the command to fetch the ark. But here two maidens are engaged in the rescue, one bending over and stretching out her arms toward the ark, exactly as in the Byzantine miniature, and a second also reaching with one arm toward the ark while attracting the attention of Pharaoh's daughter with the other. No formal element of this fetching scene has gone from a Septuagint illustration into the Dura fresco, but only the idea of fetching as such, which, following the Targum Onkelos, is done by Pharaoh's daughter herself; she displays the rescued child conspicuously, holding it in her left arm. Miriam Offers to Call a Nurse (2:7) In the miniature of the San Paolo Bible the same daughter of Pharaoh who commands the maid to fetch the ark is simultaneously confronted with Miriam who, stretching out her hand in a gesture of speech, makes the suggestion that she "go and call ... a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child ...." This is a case where here it is assumed that, in the model, that is, an older Octateuch, each of these two events had its own figure of the daughter of Pharaoh. The approaching Miriam may be compared with the one at Dura, where she is likewise facing Pharaoh's daughter, only in this case Miriam faces the daughter of Pharaoh standing in the river. All that is left of the original type is the outstretched right arm, the gesture of communication with Miriam. As for Miriam, she is another of those conflated figures involved in two actions simultaneously: speaking to Pharaoh's daughter and handing over to her mother Jochebed the Moses child whom Pharaoh's daughter had entrusted to her.

The Fetching of the Moses Child (2:5) Among the Octateuchs, this scene is depicted only in Vat. gr. 747 (fig. 36).17 Here we see Pharaoh's daughter in a dress, even more distinctly imperial than in Vat. gr. 746 (fig. 35), standing at the shore of the Nile and commanding her maidservant to fetch the ark. The maid, half immersed in the river, stretches her arms out to reach the ark in which, as in th~ other Octateuchs, Moses is partially visible. Her arms are bare, but otherwise she goes into the water dressed, as we presume was the case in the archetype. This makes the nudity of Pharaoh's daughter in Dura all the more conspicuous as a deviation from the Septuagint tradition. From behind the rocky landscape Miriam looks on, seemingly having been taken over from the previous scene and made much less conspicuous. The very fact that one Octateuch represents the previous scene, the finding, and this one, the fetching, makes clear once again that the archetype must have been much richer and that each copyist chose only

The Moses Child Given to Jochebed The final phase of this episode, Pharaoh's daughter handing over the Moses child to Jochebed, is preserved once again in the San Paolo Bible. Pharaoh's daughter, recognizable by her dress and especially the purple shoes, stands to the left and is handing over the child to Jochebed who is eagerly stepping forward and stretching out her arms toward the child. If we reason that this scene too most likely was in the postulated richer copy of an older Octateuch, we begin to realize how fragmentary the evidence of the extant Octateuchs is. The Jochebed, who in Dura is stepping forward to take the child into her outstretched arms, sh~wing here as well the forward movement though with greater restraint, may be compared with the corresponding figure in the Carolingian miniature. But the fact that in Dura the child is given to her by Miriam instead of by Pharaoh's daughter results from yet another

30

31

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PENTATEUCH

conflation whereby only one figure of Pharaoh's daughter is related to no fewer than four different actions. The evidence for the Dura scenes illustrating the Infancy of Moses points, just as do the scenes from Genesis, to the same recension as the Octateuchs. But also, as for the Book of Genesis, one may ask whether there existed other recensions for Exodus. We have already introduced the Exodus miniature of the Ashburnham Pentateuch (fig. 40) and hinted at the possibility of another recension. Moreover, there is in the ninth-century manuscript of the Sacra Parallela in Paris an illustration with Pharaoh's daughter giving the Moses child to Jochebed to nurse in the presence of Miriam (fig. 38). 18 Whereas throughout the manuscript the figures, save for the faces and the hands, are depicted in solid gold, here Pharaoh's daughter, in a manner different from the San Paolo Bible (fig. 34), is seated on a throne as she hands over the child. This difference seems to point to another recension; although this may not be enough evidence for such a far-reaching assumption, the establishm~nt of yet another recension for the book of Exodus is fortified by other scenes in the Sacra Parallela. In our opinion, Exodus scenes from this second recension can also be found in the marginal Psalters. 19 Although in the Latin West a recensional affiliation can be determined in some cases with the same accuracy as the Exodus miniature of the San Paolo Bible proves, the sense for distinctness in the iconographical tradition begins to weaken in Romanesque miniature painting. There are some scenes from the beginning of Exodus preserved on one of four English leaves with dense biblical illustrations, to be dated to the middle of the twelfth century (fig. 39), 20 and these quite certainly go back to an Early Christian tradition. The sequence of scenes illustrating the Infancy of Moses begins with Pharaoh giving the order to the midwives to have the Jewish male offspring killed. The basic elements of figures and composition are determined by the biblical text and hardly permit any variation among the various recensions (figs. 29, 31). A decidedly Romanesque element is the sword in the hand of Pharaoh, which is to be expected from a ruler in the advanced Middle Ages. But then there follows a scene for which there exists no parallel in any of the earlier monuments. Jochebed, on hearing of Pharaoh's order, holds the Moses child in her arms and hurries away to the shore of the Nile in order to hide the infant in an ark. Since the extreme density of phases within an episode is very much in the nature of the Early Christian biblical narrative cycles, we assume (though it cannot be proved) that this lively scene harks back to a very old tradition. Below we see the ark with the Moses child floating in the Nile, a feature we take to be an abbreviation of the exposure scene (see figs. 29 and 34). Then follows the fetching of the Moses child in the ark by a nude woman who has stepped into the Nile. It is tempting to think that we may have here a reflection of the model of the Dura fresco in which Pharaoh's daughter herself, as we have seen, has gone nude into the Nile. But since this figure is not particularly distinguished as a princess by ornaments, it may be doubted that the Romanesque miniaturist had such an identification in mind. Nevertheless, the pos-

sibility that this figure ultimately goes back to a similar Jewish source cannot entirely be excluded as a possibility, for the last scene of this infancy cycle, to be discussed later, is surely derived from a Jewish source. Still, the other possibility~that the figure in the water may be just one of the maidens and that her nudity was an invention of the Romanesque artist-cannot be excluded. But, as in the preceding scene of the exposure, the abbreviation of this scene, omitting Pharaoh's daughter and an additional maid, is such that the question of a redactional affiliation cannot even be raised. To the right, the Moses child is given to Jochebed by Pharaoh's daughter who is lying propped up on a couch, almost giving the impression that she has been in childbed. For this feature there exists no parallel, and once more the question of a distinct recension eludes us, as it is quite possible that this childbirth association might have been the invention of the Romanesque artist. Early Christian artists, more faithful to the biblical sources, would hardly have gone so far to make what looks like an iconographical blunder. Below there is a non-biblical episode whose source quite assuredly is the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (II.IX.7). 21 Here Thermuthis, as Pharaoh's daughter is called, brings the Moses child to Pharaoh who places a crown on his head. To the right Moses has taken the crown off his head and tramples on it, while the scribe tries to prevent him from doing so and Thermuthis, in turn, tries to restrain the scribe. This same episode occurs in the Vatican Octateuch gr. 746, in a scene below that of the finding of the Moses child (fig. 35). But here the preceding phase is depicted, in which the Moses child is ushered by Pharaoh's daughter toward the enthroned Pharaoh. It is tempting to think that the three phases of the same episode, the first in the Octateuch and the second and third in the English manuscript, ultimately go back to the same recension of an illustrated Flavius Josephus that became known in the East as well as in the West, but here we move in the realm of speculation. What is interesting is the fact that Jewish legends had a decisive impact not only on the Septuagint iconography in the Dura synagogue, but, independently, also on book illumination, East and West.

32

33

BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, pp. 120££. and pls. LI,2 and LIII,2. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 169££. and pls. LXVII-LXVIII. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 9, pp. 197££. and vol. 11, pl. I and fig. 338. K. and U. Schubert, "Die Errettung des Moses aus dem Wasser des Nil in der Kunst des spatantiken Judentums und das Weiterwirken dieses Motivs in der friihchristlichen und jiidisch-mittelalterlichen Kunst," Studien zum Pentateuch. Walter Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. G. Braulik, Vienna, 1977, pp. 57££. 2 Il Menologio di Basilio II. Cod. Vaticano Greco 1613, Turin, 1907, p. 6 and pl. on p. 13. 3 0. von Gebhardt, The Miniatures of the Ashburnham Pentateuch, London, 1883, p. 20 and pl. fol. 56a. 4 About the Ashburnham Pentateuch in general, see B. Narkiss, "Towards a Further Study of the Ashburnham Pentateuch (Pentateuque de Tours)," Cahiers archeologiques 19 (1969), 45££. and idem, "Reconstruction of Some of the Original Quires of the Ashburnham Pentateuch," Cahiers archeologiques 22 (1972), 19££. 5 Weitzmann, "Illustration der Septuaginta," p. 118 and fig. 25 (trans. p. 173 and fig. 55). Idem, "The 1

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PENTATEUCH

Study of Byzantine Book Illumination, Past, Present and Future," in The Place of Book Illum ination in Byzantine Art, Princeton, 1975, p. 52 and fig. 43. Idem, "Octateuch of the Seraglio," p. 184 and pl. XLl,5 . •Unpublished. For the parallel scene from the Seraglio Octateuch see Weitzmann, "Octateuch of the Seraglio," p. 184 and pl. XLI, 6. Also Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 9, p. 198 and vol. 11, fig. 174. 7 Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 9, p. 200. • See note 2 above. •J. E. Gaehde, "Carolingian Interpretations of an Early Christian Picture Cycle to the Octateuch in the Bible of San Paolo fuori le Mura in Rome," Fruhmittelalterliche Studien 8 (1974), 352 ff. and pl. XXVII. 10 Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, p. 124 and pl. Ia. l1 See note 9 above. 12 Kraeling, The Synagogue, p. 177. 13 Weitzmann, "Jiidische Bilderquellen," p. 409 and pl. 15b (trans. p. 83 and fig. 63). 1 •Ferrua, Le pitture, p. 51 and pl. XCIV. L. Kotzsche-Breitenbruch, Neue Katakombe, pp. 76f. and pl. 17a, also refers to Vat. gr. 746, p. 78 (pl. 17c). " Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 9, pp. 203ff. and vol. 11, figs. 186ff. 1•Ibid., vol. 9, pp. 200ff. and vol. 11, figs . 179-183. 17 Weitzmann, "Study of Byzantine Book Illumination," p. 50 and fig. 41. 18 Weitzmann, Sacra Para/le/a, p. 52 and pl. XIV, fig. 50. 19 lbid., p. 57. That the Sacra Para/le/a miniatures are based on a recension other than the Octateuchs and were rather related to the marginal Psalter, could be shown in the illustrations to the Joseph story. See Weitzmann, "Study of Byzantine Book Illumination," p. 16 and figs. 12-13. 20 M. R. James, "Four Leaves of an English Psalter of the Twelfth Century," Walpole Society 25 (1937), lff. and pl. 1. Weitzmann, "Jiidische Bilderquellen," p. 413 and pl. 17b (trans. p. 92 and fig. 68). M. Kauffmann, Romanesque Manuscripts 1060-1190. A Survey of Manuscripts Illuminated in the British Isles, London, 1975, no. 66. English Romanesque Art 1060-1200 (exhibition catalogue, Hayward Gallery), London, 1984, pp. 110111, no. 47. 21 Weitzmann, "Jiidische Bilderquellen," p. 406 and pl. 15b (trans. p. 83 and fig. 63).

A second of the narrow panels, flanking the central panel on the right above the Torah niche, represents Moses before the burning bush. It is one of the vertical sections that have been called portrait panels, because the available space is just wide enough to be filled with a single, more or less frontal figure. Yet the term portrait panel is not well chosen because we deal with a narrative scene turned into a semblance of a portrait. Moses, rather youthful with a short, dark, pointed beard, is dressed in a chiton with clavi and a himation. His head is placed within a square frame that seems to anticipate the square nimbus in Early Christian and medieval art; although one could not call this feature a nimbus, the purpose may well have been to single out the head for special distinction. The remaining space next to the

figure of Moses is filled with the tall burning bush and Moses' extended right hand, which, for lack of space, is overlapping the bush, thus giving the false impression that Moses, like Mucius Scaevola, is holding his hand in the fire. From the upper left corner the hand of God reaches out of a segment of the sky commanding Moses: "Draw not nigh hither; put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground" (3 :5). By putting Moses and the bush so close together, the painter conflicted with the text, which implies a certain distance to be kept between them. Moreover, the Lord's command also implies a second event in addition to the mere vision of the bush as mentioned in verse 2, namely, the taking off of the shoes. The fresco painter, aiming at extreme abbreviation, confines this second phase of the episode merely to the pair of high boots standing on the ground between Moses and the bush. Kraeling correctly recognized these boots as the caligae rusticae worn by farmers and shepherds, as, for example, are frequently worn by David when he plays the harp and pastures his flocks. Thus, there is no need to see in these boots, as Goodenough did, a specific oriental feature. Altogether this panel is an extreme case of condensation, omission, and conflationprinciples that all artists who turn a broad narrative scene into a high format had to apply. We find such a condensation also in the sixth-century mosaic panel at Mount Sinai (fig. 42), 1 where the artist is faced with a similar spatial problem. Here we deal with the second phase of the episode, the loosening of the sandals, which in Dura, as we have seen, is indicated only by the boots. What the two panels have in common is that in the mosaic also, as the result of the high format, the Moses figure and the bush are so close to each other that Moses would burn his hands. Moreover, there is still another and perhaps even more important parallel between fresco and mosaic. In both cases the Burning Bush scene is not only paired with that of Moses Receiving the Law (fig. 74), 2 but also the two are placed right and left above a central niche, in the synagogue above the Torah shrine, and in the Christian church above the apse. This parallel in the programmatic layout in the center part of a cult room can hardly be explained as a chance duplication but points to a common tradition. 3 The same parallelism occurs also in the two main illustrated manuscripts of the Christian Topography of Cosmas Indicopleustes, the ninth-century copy in the Vatican Library cod. gr. 699, which Goodenough already introduced in connection with the Dura fresco,4 and the eleventh-century copy at Mount Sinai (fig. 43). 5 The two miniatures, though stylistically different from each other, are iconographically almost identical and therefore interchangeable. Since in an illustrated Octateuch the two scenes would be separated by a considerable number of other scenes of the chapters from 3 to 50, their pairing in the miniature may well reflect the influence of a monumental composition. The artist of the Cosmas manuscript fuses the two scenes in a strange way by placing the burning bush-here changed into a chalice-like vessel containing the flames-in front of Moses receiving the law, thus

34

35

[5]

Moses and the Burning Bush (Exodus 3:1-6) West, 1st zone. Right wing panel. Figs. 1, 3, and 41.

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PENTATEUCH

separating it from the Moses figure at the left to which it belongs. What connects this miniature with the Dura fresco is the reduction of the scene of the loosening of the sandals to a prominently displayed pair of high boots quite similar to those in the fresco. The boots are inscribed uno6tjyµata, the term meaning sandals used in the Septuagint. In conformity with the Greek text, this form of shoes is usually shown in this scene. Thus a certain significance must be attributed to the rare use of the high boots, which may well suggest some redactional affiliation. There is one significant difference in this Cosmas miniature from all the other Burning Bush scenes here discussed: Moses is depicted in a short tunic, not in chiton and himation, and thereby is rendered as a shepherd pasturing his flocks that surround him. Since chapter 3 begins with the words "Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro, his father-in-law ... ," it is only logical that he should be depicted as a shepherd. This rendering of Moses, reminding one of a boukolos in Greco-Roman art, is thus quite likely close to the archetype, and the patriarchal chlamys is a prolepsis of his later status as a patriarch and prophet. If this is so, the alteration of the Moses type must have taken place at a very early period, that is, prior to Dura. The other alternative, that the shepherd type in the Cosmas manuscript replaces the chlamys type, is less likely, because it would presuppose that the type closest to the text and to the literal meaning would not be at the beginning of the development. Our notion that the Dura panel is basically a conflation of two phases of the same episode is confirmed by a double miniature in the Octateuch Vat. gr. 746 (fig. 44). 6 The upper one shows Moses in profile turning to the right and facing the burning bush and, above it, a segment of the sky in which the presence of the Lord is, however, not visualized. In the model one would have expected a hand of God just as in the Dura fresco. Whereas in the miniature a direct connection between Moses and the Lord is established, in the fresco Moses' frontal position destroys this relationship. In the miniature, Moses is wearing chiton and himation and is at the same time pasturing the flocks of Jethro, thus creating a dichotomy of which the miniature in the Cosmas manuscript is free. In other respects the miniaturist follows the text very closely when he shows Moses covering his face in compliance with verse 6, "And Moses hid his face." It also corresponds with the meaning of the text that Moses and the burning bush are placed quite apart, as implied by God's command (verse 5), "Draw not nigh hither." In the lower miniature, Moses, in profile as in the upper miniature, stands at the foot of Mount Horeb and, raising his right leg, loosens his sandal. The general layout of the composition is very much like that of the upper miniature, with the burning bush at the right, at a calculated distance from Moses. The only difference is that the segment of sky is replaced by a bust of a flying angel who communicates with Moses. According to the text, where the angel is mentioned already in verse 2, his place should actually be in the upper scene. Moses' pose and action are quite similar to those in the Sinai mosaic (fig. 42), except that Moses is loosening the sandal from his left foot while that from the right foot has

already been taken off and placed on the ground. Here, too, Mount Horeb is prominently depicted behind Moses' back. As in Dura, Moses is rendered with a dark beard, contrary to the tradition of the Octateuchs where he is without a beard. Moreover, in the mosaic Moses faces the hand of God in heaven, which we assume to have been an archetypal feature. In spite of the fact that he is explicitly mentioned in the text, the angel in the Vatican miniature seems to be the substitute for God's hand which, as will be recalled, is already represented in the Dura fresco. That the hand of God was indeed in the archetype of the Octateuchs is confirmed by the miniature in cod. Vat. gr. 747 (fig. 45),7 usually the best witness within the Octateuch recension, where, as in the Sinai mosaic, the hand of God in the sky is placed in the upper right corner. It thus is more than likely that the mosaic ultimately harks back to an archetype of the same recension as in the Octateuchs. However, in one point the miniature in Vat. gr. 747, which places the scene in the grandiose wilderness of Mount Horeb, differs from Vat. gr. 746: Moses' face is averted, as if to avoid looking into the burning bush, a feature that corresponds to the meaning of the Septuagint text. Once more, by stressing the high value of this manuscript as the most reliable witness, we presume that this feature faithfully reflects the archetype. This is confirmed by a fresco of the Via Latina catacomb (fig. 46), 8 where we find the same Moses type with his head turned and his left foot placed high on a rock to facilitate the loosening of the sandal. The catacomb depiction is different, however, in placing God's hand in the segment of the sky at the upper left, so that Moses, though averting his face from the burning bush, is turning his head to the hand of the commanding Lord. This may well be the original version, and the placing of the hand at the right in Vat. gr. 747 may have been the result of a conflation with the first scene (of Vat. gr. 746, upper zone), which, as we noticed, is missing in Vat. gr. 747. There is one additional feature in the Roman fresco that needs some explanation. The same hand of God, meant to communicate with Moses, holds a scroll. Though the fresco is partly destroyed, there can be no doubt that indeed a scroll is depicted, for the same motif occurs once more in the Via Latina catacomb where this scene is repeated with much the same Moses type (fig. 47). 9 This scroll certainly represents the law given to Moses according to chapter 33. The rendering of the law in the form of a scroll occurs not only in the Cosmas miniature at Sinai (fig. 43), but also in the Sinai mosaic, which forms the counterpart of the Burning Bush panel. 10 The replacement of the tablets by a scroll, an element that goes back to Jewish legends, 11 must have taken place at a very early time. The disentanglement of the conflated Dura fresco, which involves, as we have seen, both phases of the Burning Bush episode, has once more involved the Octateuchs and especially Vat. gr. 746, the only witness that has preserved the narrative version in its totality. To be sure, the changes the Dura painter made to squeeze as much content as possible into the high format are so far-reaching that the connection with the basic Octateuch tradition could hardly be made visually convincing were it not that the relation to the Octateuch

36

37

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PENTATEUCH

recension has been firmly established with more striking evidence in the Genesis scenes and, as we shall see, by later scenes from Exodus and the remaining books of the Pentateuch.

painter ran into difficulty. Whereas the first section at the right is a largely self-contained unit, the other three are organized so that the drowning in the Red Sea is made into something like the center of a triptych flanked by two wings: the one at the right depicts the approach to the Red Sea, and the one at the left shows the actual crossing, indicating that the Israelites are already safe on the other side of the Red Sea. The Red Sea is thus turned into a division between the African and Asian continents. However, such an arrangement led to the visual contradiction that the crossing of the Red Sea, which in time precedes the drowning of the Egyptians, is placed after it. In other words, the drowning and the crossing are interchanged in defiance of the temporal sequence in order to achieve the intended unifying effect. This transposition led to additional contradictions, which we shall point out later.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, pp. 4 lff. and pl. XIX. Kraeling, The Synagogue, p. 228 and pl. LXXVI. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 9, pp. 110££. and vol. 11, figs. 93 and 325. K. Weitzmann, in K. Weitzmann and G. Forsyth, The Monastery of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai. The Church and Fortress of Justinian, Ann Arbor, n.d. (1973], p. 15 and pis. CXXVI and CLXXXII, CLXXXIV, and CLXXXVI A. 2 Ibid., pis. CXXVII and CLXXXII, CLXXXV, and CLXXXVI B. 'Cf. G. Kretschmar, "Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem Verhiiltnis zwischen Jiidischer und Christlicher Kunst in der Antike," Abraham unser Vater. Festschrift fur Otto Michel, Leiden, 1963, pp. 295££. •Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 11, fig. 94. 5 K. Weitzmann, Die Byzantinische Buchmalerei des 9. und 10. Jahrhunderts, Berlin, 1935, pp. 58££. and pl. LXV, 391. Idem, "The Mosaic in St. Catherine's Monastery on Mount Sinai," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 110 (1966), 400 and fig. 15 (repr. in Weitzmann, Studies in the Arts at Sinai, Princeton, 1982, Study I, p. 13 and fig. 15). P. Huber, Heilige Berge: Sinai, Athos, Golgota-Ikonen, Fresken, Miniaturen, Zurich, 1980, p. 81 and fig. 54. D. Mouriki-Charalambous, "The Octateuch Miniatures of the Byzantine Manuscripts of Cosmas Indicopleustes," Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1970, vol. 1, pp. 51££. 6 K. Weitzmann, "The Psalter Vatopedi 761. Its Place in the Aristocratic Psalter Recension," The Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 10 (1947), 33 and fig. 18. 7 Unpublished. 8 Ferrua, Le pitture, p. 56 and pl. XXXIII,2. 9 lbid., p. 70 and pl. LXIV,2. 10 See note 1 above. 11 L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, Philadelphia, 1911, vol. 3, p. 119. 1

This is the most extensive panel in the whole synagogue, occupying the full width of the west wall between the Torah niche and the north corner. Here, as in the panel of the Infancy of Moses, the fresco painter tried to squeeze as many narrative elements as possible into a limited area, and once again he resorted to abbreviations (at times to mere tokens of a scene), omissions, condensations, and conflations to cope with the richness of the iconographic content. To introduce some structure into the frieze composition, he divided it into four sections instead of three as in the somewhat shorter Infancy panel. 1 The story reads from right to left, but in attempting to weld the different episodes, which in the model had their own spatial settings, into a unified panoramic view, the fresco

The Fourth and the Seventh Plagues (8:21-32, 9:22-24) The first section is filled with an imposing piece of architecture, a towered gate with an adjacent wall, both crenellated. Thus the story begins compositionally with a static element forming quite a contrast to the subsequent scenes with vivid actions. Most conspicuous is the large open gate with a tympanum crowned by a nude figure holding a spear and globe and flanked at the corners by acroteria consisting of Victories standing on globes. The statue has been differently interpreted. According to Andre Grabar,2 it portrays Baal Zephon, the god of the city of the same name which, according to the Targum pseudo-Jonathan, was a place of encampment before reaching the Red Sea. Kraeling3 rejects this identification, one of his reasons being the open gate suggesting that this structure is the "city of bondage" rather than the "city of encampment," and he interprets the figure as that of an emperor of a type familiar in Greco-Roman art. According to him we deal here simply with a symbol of a "royal city," in this case the city of Pharaoh. Goodenough 4 has still another explanation for the statue: he identifies it with Ares. However, the figure does not hold a shield, as we would expect from Ares, but a globe, an attribute more befitting an emperor, and thus the far-reaching conclusions that Goodenough draws from his identification become more than questionable. The identification of the architecture by Kraeling as the abode of Pharaoh has, in our opinion, the greatest probability, and this still for another reason. Du Mesnil du Buisson noticed two small creatures on the wall (fig. 50),5 which he identified as the flies of the fourth plague (8:21-32). When Kraeling saw the fresco later he could find only one creature, but he did not deny that years earlier Du Mesnil du Buisson may have seen two. Kraeling thought the one he saw to be a salamander (fig. 51). 6 That Du Mesnil du Buisson and Kraeling could interpret the creatures so differently suggests that small details in the admittedly faded fresco were no longer clearly recognizable. Moreover, taking into account the tendency toward stylization by the Dura artist, the issue cannot be settled by zoological arguments. On general grounds I favor the first identification for the three reasons that follow.

38

39

[6]

The Crossing of the Red Sea (Exodus 8:21-14:30) West, 1st zone. Right. Figs. 5, 48, and 49.

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PENTATEUCH

First, there is the matter of the plurality of the creatures; flies normally occur m swarms, that is, more than one, while the salamander is usually depicted singly and, in addition, in a fire, as seen in the illustration of the tenth-century Morgan Dioscurides. 7 Second, the creatures occur next to another plague, that of hail. This seems to indicate that the painter set out to illustrate a selection of the plagues, thus staying within the limits of the biblical text and not resorting to an extra-biblical source, which in such a small and obscure detail would hardly have been recognizable by most beholders. The third point seems to me the most important: the creatures are painted against the building, that is, Pharaoh's house. In Exodus 8:21 the Lord says, "I will send swarms of flies ... into thy houses; and the houses of the Egyptians shall be full of swarms of flies." This passage requires the depiction of some kind of architectural setting and, indeed, in the Vatican Octateuch gr. 746 (fig. 52) 8 a swarm of flies descends not only on a group of frightened Egyptians but upon a walled city (i.e., "the houses of the Egyptians" of the biblical text). Thus the flies and the city belong together. It is in conformity with the difference between the Greco-Roman tradition and its orientalization that in the miniature we find a typical circular walled city enclosing a few buildings, while in the Dura fresco the architecture is flattened. The same difference is seen between the city of Raamses in Dura (fig. 29) and that in a related miniature (fig. 33 ). In other plagues as well, like that of the frogs, the creatures invade houses, and in a representation of this plague a piece of architecture would likewise be appropriate. But the fact is that in the Octateuchs only the plague of the flies contains architecture and this, indeed, suggests that the plague of the flies was selected from all the plagues by the Dura artist. The one difference between the representations of the two cities under consideration is that in the fresco the gate is open, whereas in the miniature the gate is closed. This open gate supports Kraeling's argument that this is the city from which the Exodus starts. However, in the parallel miniature of Vat. gr. 747 (fig. 53), 9 our best witness, the gate is ajar-enough to suggest that people inside could have passed through it; this means that even in such a small but meaningful detail, Dura and the Octateuch tradition agree. The main difference between fresco and miniature is, of course, the omission of the frightened Egyptians in the former, meaning that the scene has been reduced to its most essential features. Equally reduced to the absolute minimum is the depiction of the seventh plague, that of hail and fire mingled with hail (9:18-25), where a cloud of hail mingled with tongues of fire is visible above the wall alongside the tower gate. In the Seraglio Octateuch (fig. 54 )10 and in other Octateuchs as well, we see Moses accompanied by Aaron before Pharaoh, who stands between two bodyguards and is accompanied by two of his magicians looking up in agitation to the sky from which hail is falling on the Egyptians. This is obviously a conflated scene combining Moses predicting the plague with the actual disaster taking place. According to the biblical text, the hail falls upon cattle and trees; and so the event is literally rendered in the ninth-century Chloudov Psalter in Moscow (fig. 55). 11 A conflation of such

a scene with that of Moses' prediction led in the Octateuchs to the obvious pictorial error of suggesting that the hail was falling on Moses and Pharaoh as they conversed. A fuller, earlier Octateuch may well have had both phases of this episode, and it must have been the second one, as preserved in the Chloudov Psalter, that was the ultimate source of the Dura painter. The Two Pillars (13:21-22) In front of the wall stand two isolated columns unconnected to any architectural structure. One is red and the other black. All scholars who have written about them have suggested, though with hesitation, that they represent the pillar of the cloud and the pillar of fire that guide the Israelites through the desert. One of their hesitations is based on the fact that, because the panel reads from right to left, these columns precede the Exodus proper. But we mentioned already that the march through the Red Sea and the drowning of the Egyptians are exchanged, and we will find other instances in this very panel where the strict sequence of events is not observed. The working process of the Dura painter explains this disregard for the logical sequence. Just as in the case of the plagues of the flies and the hail the artist omitted any human figures or animals and stripped a narrative scene to only those elements by which its content remains recognizable as such, so also in the case of the two columns the artist abandoned the group of marching Israelites behind the columns simply to avoid their repetition. Apparently the artist placed the columns wherever a small free area was available. By their distinction in color any beholder familiar with the Exodus story would be able to interpret them correctly. Another objection to the identification of these pillars has been made by Goodenough through reference to the Octateuchs, whose value for Dura he had clearly recognized. He pointed out that in the manuscripts the column of fire is rendered just as a tall flame (figs. 69 and 70), 12 not as an architectural column. Yet, we do find the column, not once but consistently, in various miniatures illustrating the march through the desert (fig. 5 6). 13 Here a column with base and capital and a flame on top is placed each time in front of Moses and clearly inscribed as the "column of fire." However, the column of cloud is, in contrast, depicted naturalistically as an actual cloud above the heads of the marching Israelites. This is an obvious dichotomy that makes us think that the ultimate model, in a fashion similar to Dura, had homogeneously two columns that in the course of later developments became replaced by a more naturalistic rendering, first of the column of the cloud by a segment of the sky as in the Cosmas miniature, and then of the column of fire by a tall flame. The Pentateuch scenes in the Cosmas manuscripts are closely related to and dependent on an Octateuch version earlier than that represented by the extant manuscripts. 14 A similar situation prevails with regard to the marginal Psalters, whose Old Testament scenes depend on an illustrated Pentateuch or Octateuch. Here in the ninth-century Psalter Pantocratoros cod. 61 we already find Moses and the Israelites being guided by the column of fire (fig. 57) 15

40

41

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PENTATEUCH

not unlike that in the Cosmas miniatures. This example strengthens the notion that the actual column indeed represents an older tradition than does the flame.

Sea, to close the waters. There should be only two Moses figures involved in the cleaving and the closing of the Red Sea, and the smiting figure with which we began our discussion may, in a certain sense, be termed supernumerary. Where does this latter Moses figure come from? The smiting of the rock is explicitly mentioned in Exodus 17:6, and we therefore believe that this Moses was invented for that passage and taken over into the Red Sea episode from a representation of that scene. Actually the smiting type occurs in the ninth-century Pantocrator Psalter (fig. 59), 18 where it illustrates Psalm 77:15-16 ( = 78:15-16). It was not invented for this verse but surely taken over from a Pentateuch or Octateuch illustration of Exodus 17:6.19 In the Psalter miniature, Moses holds his staff over his head in very much the same pose as in Dura, and this, we believe, confirms the_identification and derivative nature of the Dura Moses. Goodenough 20 derived this Moses type from a Heracles figure on the basis of the attribute, which he considered to be a club instead of a staff. However, the shapes of Moses' staff vary. While in many instances Moses carries what might be termed the wand of a miracle worker, in other instances, for example, in the Pantocrator Psalter miniature, the staff has a big knob at the end and suggests either a walking stick, as seen in the miniature from this Psalter previously shown (fig. 57), or a mace. Thus, the shape of this attribute alone is hardly enough to justify the association with Heracles. It is true, of course, that in some of his adventures Heracles swings the club over his head-when, for instance, he kills the Hydra or Geryon or, even better, when he smites a rock to obtain water to clean the Augean stables, all three scenes being depicted in the Roman floor mosaic from Liria now in Madrid (fig. 60). 21 To be sure, it is not a club with which Heracles strikes the rock in the scene of the Augean stable, but a pronged hoe; nevertheless, the posture and the very meaning of the action may have inspired the first Bible illustrator to use it as a model for a figure of Moses involved in a similar action. So Goodenough may be right, after all, that a Heracles figure is involved, although not because of his attribute alone and its far-reaching symbolism, but more concretely because a similar action is involved.

The Departure of the Israelites (12:31-36) The second section of the panel shows in a bottom zone the departing Israelites, drawn in a scale that makes it believable that they have just left the city of bondage through the open gate. In order to make this connection visibly convincing, the last of the departing figures partly overlaps the wall of the tower gate. Rendered as a crowd three rows deep, the Israelites are all male and youthful, dressed in short girdled tunics and hurrying away from the city. The uniformity of this group is relieved by only two features. First, there are the attributes, the sacks some carry on their shoulders containing the kneading troughs with the unleavened bread (12:34) and a silver bowl held by one in his left hand, one of the objects of gold and silver of which they had "spoiled the Egyptians" (12:36). The other feature is a genre motif: one of the Israelites takes a little boy by the hand, and the child tries to keep step with the grownups. This motif may be explained by the phrase (13:8), "Thou shalt shew thy son in that day, saying, This is done because of that which the Lord did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt." Yet, from the formal point of view, this motif of taking a boy by the hand was not invented for this biblical passage but had its antecedents in such Roman processional reliefs as that on the Ara Pacis in Rome. Both of these specific features are found in the departure scene of the Octateuchs, for instance in Vat. gr. 746 (fig. 58). 16 The difference, however, is that the kneading troughs are not wrapped in a bundle as in Dura, but carried openly on the shoulders. This is a minor detail, however, and in the parallel miniature in the Paris Psalter Bihl. Nat. gr. 139, 17 for instance, as in Dura, the Israelites carry the troughs in shouldered bags. It is therefore not quite clear which of the two versions was in the archetype. A more basic difference is the figure of Moses and its position in the composition. In the miniature, Moses is one of the marchers in the midst of the crowd and turns around to talk with an elderly man, presumably Aaron. In the fresco, he is isolated from the group and is placed at its head, rendered about three times the size of the other figures. Here we find a typical feature of the ancient Orient for which many examples can be found in Egyptian as well as Assyrian and Babylonian art. Moses raises his staff over his head as if he were striking the Red Sea in front of him, and this is quite certainly the meaning that the fresco painter wanted to give to this figure. Clearly, then, the artist has conflated the scene of the departure with that of the arrival at the Red Sea. This is a case of an extreme conflation, since it leaves out the intermediary scene of the march through the desert, which, as we shall see later, existed in the model. The basic difficulty with the Moses figure is the motif of "smiting," contradicting the text, which states clearly that Moses "cleaved" the Red Sea. The cleaving Moses actually exists in the Dura fresco at the opposite side of the Red Sea. This second type turns his back on a third Moses figure who dips his staff into the Red

42

(

The Twelve Tribes (Numbers 10:14ff.) The rest of the second section above the departing Israelites and to the right of the gigantic Moses is filled solidly with three tiers of marchers. Above the civilians and at the top are files of marching soldiers, each, like the civilians, several rows deep, giving an effect of spatial depth within each unit that reveals a descent from the Hellenistic Greek tradition. These two files of soldiers flank a third tier of men of slightly larger size who are seen in a somewhat more frontal view but nevertheless take part in the movement to the left. They are dressed in chiton and himation. The isolation and size of each figure give them the appearance of individuality and importance. Kraeling considered them to be the Elders of Israel (12:21). But the fact that they are twelve in number suggests that they actually represent the twelve tribes who, however, are fully described not in the book of Exodus but of

43

.I THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PENTATEUCH

Numbers. The armor worn by the soldiers also fits better this later book of the Pentateuch. Kraeling, trying to explain everything in this panel by the book of Exodus, had to introduce extra-biblical sources to integrate the soldiers and the figures in between into the Exodus story. Artistically the two files of soldiers and the representatives of the tribes form a solid block and belong together. This block composition was taken over from an illustration in the book of Numbers for which, we believe, it was invented. We have seen that already in the case of the smiting Moses, the fresco painter did not hesitate to adapt a figure type from another place in the Pentateuch, in this case from a later chapter of the book of Exodus. Apparently using an illustrated Pentateuch as his model, the fresco painter found it easy enough to make use of a composition from Numbers. There are other panels in Dura (figs. 80 and 93) that illustrate Numbers and thus prove that an illustrated copy of this book was available. One piece of visual evidence for this idea of borrowing from Numbers is found in a miniature in the Octateuch Vat. gr. 747 (fig. 61), 22 properly accompanying the text of the tenth chapter. Here we see a block-like composition with three files of marchers; and, just as in Dura, the top and the bottom file are made up of marching soldiers. It should be mentioned that armed Israelites, as implied by the biblical text, occur for the first time in illustrations of Numbers, but nowhere in any Exodus illustration. The idea of the twelve tribes is rendered in the miniature by placing three representatives of each in a separate compartment. There is, however, the slight difference that not all of them are in the top and bottom file as in Dura, but only five in each while the remaining two are placed at the front and the rear of the middle zone. They flank a representation of the ark of the covenant carried by the Levites as Moses and Aaron march ahead. This feature was, of course, not usable for a picture centered on Exodus, for the ark did not yet exist at the time of the crossing of the Red Sea. It was only natural, then, that the Dura artist should replace this middle zone with representatives of the twelve tribes, thus infusing an idea which, in the miniature, was visualized by the twelve compartments with soldiers. Thus, the Dura artist, though using the compositional layout in three zones, the idea of the twelve tribes, and the marching soldiers from a Numbers miniature, sensibly replaced the carrying of the ark with a row of twelve impressive figures, and thereby put additional emphasis on the central idea of the twelve tribes. The Octateuch artist's concern with the twelve tribes is indicated by the fact that, later in the tenth chapter, he repeated the three-zone composition, albeit in a simplified form (fig. 62). 23 Each tribe is represented by only one soldier, in half figures above and below and in full figure at the left and right of the center, where, in much the same fashion as in the preceding picture, the carrying of the ark of the covenant is repeated. This later composition occurs also in the Smyrna 24 and in the thirteenth-century Vatopedi Octateuch, 25 whereas the

first and more elaborate composition connected with Dura occurs only in Vat. gr. 747. That the latter Octateuch is the key witness in any attempt to trace archetypal features need hardly be emphasized. Indeed, the full version of this composition has a long tradition, as the almost identical miniatures in the ninth-century copy of the Cosmas Indicopleustes manuscript in the Vatican as well as in the eleventh-century copy at Sinai (fig. 63) prove. 26 There can be no doubt that these miniatures go back to an Octateuch, 27 and the chances are that they entered the Cosmas text not long after it was written in the sixth century, since this text explicitly refers to its illustrations and consequently needs them. Compared with the first miniature in Vat. gr. 747 (fig. 61), the differences are small but important: the representatives of the tribes enclosed in compartments show soldiers more fully armed, wearing cuirasses and helmets. In this respect they are closer to the marching soldiers in Dura, who likewise wear helmets and presumably also cuirasses, though these are covered by the large oval shields. That the artist added a fourth soldier in the lateral compartments to the three in the upper and lower ones shows that he is concerned merely with depicting as many soldiers as space permits and that there is no significance attached to the number of three for each tribe. More significant is the difference of the central part. Instead of showing the Levites carrying the ark as in the Octateuch, the miniature in the Cosmas manuscript depicts the ark standing on the ground and the Levites grouped around it facing the beholder rather than engaged in carrying it. In Dura, the filling of the central file with the representatives of the twelve tribes may very well have been the invention of the fresco painter, but the use of frontal figures may have been inspired by a model which, as in the Cosmas miniature, had the frontally standing Levites in this place. In other words, the dichotomy between the marching soldiers moving sideways and the frontal standing figures in between may have been inspired compositionally by an illustration from Numbers as is best preserved in the Cosmas manuscripts. The extraordinary concern with the twelve tribes in the book of Numbers is nowhere better expressed than in the tenth-century Bible in the Vatican, cod. Reg. gr. 1, where several books of the Old Testament are prefaced by large frontispiece miniatures. Here the title miniature to the book of Numbers (fig. 64) 2 8 is divided into two zones. The upper one, in the manner of author portraits, shows Moses holding a scroll and turning toward Joshua, who is standing frontally and holding in his left hand an open book in which he is writing. The lower zone is densely filled by the twelve tribes. Nowhere else, except in Dura, are the tribes depicted not by individual arms bearers but by a whole army of innumerable soldiers. As in Dura, this army is divided in two files, each with a densely crowded front row behind which only heads appear, literally by the hundreds. Over these two crowds a grid is laid, indicating twelve compartments. Although slight indications of separations have been made, the soldiers are not too sharply separated from each other in subdivided groups as in the Octateuch and Cosmas miniatures. At the top of the upper and the bottom of the lower

44

45

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

compartments the name of each tribe is written, taking the place (which in Dura is occupied by the figures) of the twelve representatives of the tribes between the armies. In this particular rendering of the tribes by two large armies in two superimposed masses of figures, we sense that Dura and the Vatican miniature depend on the same tradition. The Dura artist is so obsessed with the tribal idea that he repeats, with slight modification, this compact group of army and tribal representatives once more in the fourth section at the extreme left. Suffice it to say that in this case he depicts only the lower file of the marching soldiers, because the representatives of the tribes hold labarum-like standards containing the names of the tribes reaching so high into the upper zone that there was no place left for a second file of soldiers. The Arrival at the Red Sea (14:16, 14:21) When Moses arrived at the Red Sea, the Lord commanded him (14:16), "Lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea and divide it ... ," and a few verses later (14:21), "Moses stretched out his hand over the sea." In the scene of the arrival in the Octateuch Vat. gr. 747 (fig. 65), 29 which follows one with Pharaoh and the pursuing Egyptians on bigas, Moses is represented in accordance with the first passage, lifting his rod and cleaving the Red Sea, which is rendered in cartographic view. In cod. Vat. gr. 746 (fig. 66), 30 the second passage is illustrated, for here Moses merely stretches out his left hand while inactively shouldering the rod in his right. Because the compositions are identical except for this detail, it cannot be assumed that the archetype had two scenes each with a slightly different Moses type. It seems more reasonable to assume that one scene represents the archetype, whereas the other is a variant. Normally Vat. gr. 747 preserved the more original version, and in this case also it quite likely reflects the archetype. This conclusion is now strongly supported by the Dura fresco, which, at the left of the Red Sea, shows Moses approaching and cleaving the Red Sea with the lifted rod in pretty much the same way as in the miniature of Vat. gr. 747. Actually the figure of Moses in the fresco should have been at the right side of the Red Sea while at the left one would expect to find Moses closing the Red Sea-a type that, as we shall see below, was used in Dura in the next section of the panel. This obvious confusion, we believe, is the result of having introduced in the place where one would have expected the "cleaving" Moses the supernumerary "smiting" Moses, and thus the two subsequent Moses types became removed from their original places. When Moses cleaves the Red Sea, he should be followed by the marching Israelites as is the case in the two Octateuch miniatures. In Vat. gr. 746 (fig. 66) one of the Israelites holds a child in his arms, a genre motif similar to that in the group of departing Israelites at Dura that have just left the city of bondage. Obviously the Dura painter eliminated this group of Israelites following Moses to save space, a consideration always uppermost in his mind. 46

THE PENTATEUCH

The Israelites Passing through the Red Sea (14:22) Immediately after the "cleaving," the Israelites pass through the Red Sea "upon the dry ground." In the Octateuch Vat. gr. 746 (fig. 67) 31 as well as in the other Octateuchs where this scene is depicted very similarly with only insignificant differences, we see once more the group of the marching civilian Israelites including the genre motif of a child taken by the hand and trotting along while other children are carried. A special feature is the transport of the bones of Joseph in a sarcophagus-like casket carried on the shoulders of two men mentioned in 13:19. For a second time, now, the group of marching Israelite civilians is omitted in Dura, or rather replaced. As we have already described, in their place the fresco painter repeats the marching soldiers and the representatives of the twelve tribes taken from an illustration of the book of Numbers. Obviously, the tribal idea was so important to the Dura painter that he preferred to repeat it instead of representing the march of the Israelite civilians headed by Moses and Aaron. That this substitution of the soldier group from Numbers was meant to depict the march through the dry ground of the Red Sea is indicated by one very important detail: behind the gigantic Moses with the lowered staff there are twelve earth-colored horizontal stripes separated from each other by blue bands. These are the twelve dried lanes through the Red Sea through which the twelve tribes marched separately, an idea expressed in various Jewish sources including the Targum pseudo-Jonathan. 32 This very motif occurs also in a miniature of the ninth-century Chloudov Psalter in Moscow (fig. 68), 33 which illustrates Psalm 105 :9 ( = 106:9). Surely the scene was not invented for the Psalter, but taken over from an illustrated Pentateuch or Octateuch. Here Moses leads the Israelites through the central lane, which had to be widened to accommodate the group of Israelites that includes, as in the tradition of the Octateuchs, the little boy taken by the hand. There are five lanes above the widened one and six below, as obviously the painter is very intent to depict the accurate number in accordance with the legendary text. The very fact that in this miniature the twelve lanes are rendered in exactly the same manner as in Dura leads to the conclusion that this feature must have a common source; and because the miniature, where this motif is depicted with much greater clarity and in its original context, obviously cannot be derived from Dura, we must assume that the common source was a miniature in either a Pentateuch or an Octateuch. This parallel in the Chloudov Psalter miniature also strengthens our belief that the archetype indeed had a group of civilian marchers passing through the lanes and · that these were replaced in Dura by the soldiers from Numbers. The Closing of the Red Sea and the Drowning of the Egyptians (14:26-28) We explained at the beginning that the main reason for the disturbance in the sequence of events was the transplantation of the drowning of the Egyptians from the left end of the frieze (where, logically, it should have been) toward the center to achieve as unified a panorama as possible under the circumstances. The result was that the center (i.e., the drown47

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PENTATEUCH

ing) became flanked on the one side by the "smiting" Moses and on the other by the "cleaving" Moses, while the proper "closing" Moses type was left in its original place. The third Moses "dips" the rod into a small strip of the Red Sea which, in order to clarify the locality of the closing, had to be repeated. As in the central panel, the water abounds with fish, to which Goodenough attaches symbolic significance, though this must remain doubtful. The type of Moses lowering his rod to close the Red Sea is the most common one in Byzantine art and to a large extent also in Western monuments. In the Octateuch Vat. gr. 746 (fig. 69),34 Moses is already turning away while he dips the rod and thus is involved in two simultaneous actions. He is depicted very similarly in Vat. gr. 747 (fig. 70); 35 the differences between the two miniatures are minor and do not affect the main action. In the first miniature Moses crosses his legs, whereas in the second he does not; the former pose may well be closer to the archetype since it agrees more with that of the "closing" Moses type in Dura. Of course this scene, too, requires a group of marching Israelites behind Moses, some of whom, as in the previous cases, would carry bundles and children. In Vat. gr. 7 46 Moses is in the midst of the crowd, but in Vat. gr. 747 (and this seems to be the more original version) he is the last when he closes the Sea. Thus we realize that in Dura-for the third time-the Israelites following Moses have been eliminated and, as before, for no other reason than to avoid duplication. The main difference between Dura and the Octateuchs is Moses' pose. In the Octateuchs Moses is moving away from the Red Sea; in Dura he is facing it. But this change in Dura seems to be the natural result of separating Moses from the drowning Egyptians. It must be mentioned, however, that Kraeling and Goodenough, as well as others, without being too sure about it, had raised the question whether the figure of Moses dipping his rod into the water could not be related to an altogether different episode, namely, that of sweetening the bitter waters of Marah (15 :23-25). What might speak in favor of such a proposal is the fact that the Marah episode immediately follows the Red Sea crossing and that the dipping Moses type would equally well fit this situation. Nevertheless, we do not favor this identification because the waters of Marah are fittingly depicted in the Octateuchs36 as a couple of small pools just like the twelve wells of Elim (15:27), and this obviously contradicts the long strip of water in Dura, which touches upon the twelve lanes at its right corner and thus is connected with the Red Sea. The idea of cutting up a certain scene and distributing its parts over different places in the composition, separating the "closing" Moses from the drowning Egyptians, for instance, is not quite as revolutionary an idea as it may seem at first. Certainly it is not unique within the Dura frescoes. We noticed already that in the right half of the panel the two columns of cloud and fire are separated from the marching Israelites whom they should guide and therefore precede. We shall see later that in the Ezekiel panel (pp. 132-39 and figs. 177-179), the correct sequence of events is not observed and that two scenes have been interchanged. One must realize that a fresco artist at times follows principles different from

those of a miniaturist. The former, having lifted a certain section out of the narrative of his manuscript model, feels free to rearrange parts of the basic compositions for the sake of a more concentrated and unifying program. Coming back to the crossing of the Red Sea as represented by the Octateuchs, where the closing of the sea and the drowning of the Egyptians form a pictorial unit, we find the same compositional arrangement not once but twice among the frescoes of the Via Latina catacomb in Rome (figs. 71 and 72), 37 whose close relation to the Greek manuscript tradition we have noticed before and which, in this particular case, has already been observed by Kotzsche-Breitenbruch. The unmistakable link is the figure of Moses who, while moving to the right, is turning his head back and dipping his rod into the Red Sea. It has correctly been stated that the representation in cubiculum C is the slightly earlier one not only for stylistic reasons but also because it includes among other details the motif of the carrying of the sacks with the kneading troughs. Both frescoes, however, have in common that Moses is the last to leave the closed Red Sea and is stepping forward without crossing his legs. In both these features the frescoes agree with Vat. gr. 747, and this is once more proof that it rather than Vat. gr. 746 provides the better version. Between the drowning Egyptians and the Moses figure both Via Latina frescoes show a series of stripes that were noticed by Ferrua 38 and Kotzsche-Breitenbruch. 39 Both authors raise the question whether they could represent the twelve passageways mentioned in Jewish legend but then express doubt about their suggestion; neither cites the Dura synagogue in this connection. However, when one compares these stripes with those in the synagogue fresco, where they are designed in the same manner and seen in the same cartographic view behind Moses closing the Red Sea, there can, in our opinion, be little doubt that indeed we are dealing in these Roman frescoes with the same motif. This is another and a very strong piece of evidence for linking with Dura the Roman frescoes and the Greek manuscripts where, as will be remembered, the same phenomenon appears in the Chloudov Psalter (fig. 68). It is true that in the first fresco (fig. 71) Ferrua counted only eight lanes, and whether there ever were the complete twelve or whether some brushstrokes have flaked, is an open question. Still, in our opinion, because of the strong similarity with Dura, this shortcoming does not invalidate our interpretation. We mentioned earlier that the drowning was made the very center of a triptych-like composition and that, therefore, the Dura artist must have attached a special importance to this event. It is all the more disturbing that this very section of the panel poses a problem for which no satisfactory solution has been found so far and for which, we must admit, we have none to offer. The astounding fact is that the drowned people are not in armor as one would expect for soldiers of the Egyptian army, but that all of them are youthful and either naked or dressed in short tunics. Moreover, one would expect chariots and the singling out of Pharaoh. All these features occur without exception in the known representations of this scene, East and West. To our knowledge Dura is unique. Goodenough 40 tried to solve this

48

49

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PENTATEUCH

problem by arguing that the drowned people are not Egyptians at all, but Israelites-those who were not considered worthy to be saved. But in our opinion it stretches the imagination to believe that in the very center of a panel which, like most of the panels of the synagogue, deals with the salvation of the chosen people, a group of drowned Israelites should be prominently depicted. We still believe that the very center must have the "victory" of the Israelites as its leading theme, although we must admit that this enigmatic representation of the drowning has not yet found a satisfactory interpretation. The manifold relationships between Dura and such Byzantine manuscripts as the Octateuchs, Cosmas, and Psalter as well as the Via Latina catacomb frescoes, have contributed to a clearer picture of the model and the way it was used to squeeze a great amount of detail into the limited space available to the fresco painter. However, in a way that is different from the book of Genesis, where the various recensions can be defined with reasonable certainty, such clear distinctions are, at least in the present state of our knowledge, not yet possible for the book of Exodus. In spite of the fact that these monuments are interrelated, whether they all belong to one recension or more must remain an open question. Yet, the many interrelations that do exist among the monuments cited so far must be seen in light of the fact that there exists at least one other traceable recension of Exodus illustration that is totally different and unrelated. This is the seventh-century Ashburnham Pentateuch, which gives very prominent space to a representation of the crossing of the Red Sea (fig. 73),41 occupying two-thirds of a full page. Instead of moving away from the very edge of the Red Sea (as is typical of Dura and all the other monuments discussed above), Moses, Aaron, and the Israelites are in a cartographic view surrounded on three sides by the waters of the Red Sea, leaving only the fourth side open as an escape route. In Dura, too, the Red Sea is rendered in a cartographic view forming a square panel, but the Israelites are placed outside of it. In the Ashburnham Pentateuch Moses is raising the rod over his head, a gesture that may be compared with that of the "smiting" Moses at Dura. Yet the meaning is very different: in Dura Moses approaches the Red Sea and is about to strike it with force, whereas in the Ashburnham Pentateuch Moses effortlessly touches the water over his head with his rod while he moves away. This indicates that the agreement as far as the lifting of the rod is concerned is based on different premises and hence is coincidental. The grouping of the Israelites, Pharaoh in a cart rather than on a biga, and such other details as the form of the "columna noctis" in the shape of a huge candle rather than an architectural column with base and capital, are all quite different. After having pointed out already the basic differences between the Ashburnham Pentateuch and the Greek manuscript tradition in the panel of Moses' infancy (p. 28 and fig. 40), this hardly comes as a surprise.

Cf. also U. Schubert et al., "Spiitantikes Judentum und friihchristliche Kunst," Studia Judaica Austriaca 2 (1974), 50££. 2 A. Grabar, "Le Theme religieux des fresques de la synagogue de Doura (245-256 apres J.C.)," Revue de l'histoire des religions 123 (1941), 143££. 3 Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 77££. and fig. 16. •Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, pp. 107££. 5 Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, p. 31 and fig. 26. •Kraeling, The Synagogue, p. 76 and fig. 15. 7 Pedanii Dioscuridis Anazarbaei De Materia Medica ... nunc inter Thesauros Pierpont Morgan Bibliothecae asservatus. Facsimile, Paris, 1935, vol. 2, part 2, fol. 381r. 8 Unpublished. • Unpublished. 10 T. Ouspensky, L'Octateuque du Serail a Constantinople, Sofia, 1907, pl. XX, fig. 110. 11 M. B. Tchepkina, Miniatures of the Chloudov Psalter (facsimile, in Russian), Moscow, 1977, fol. 77v. 12 Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 11, fig. 267 (from the Seraglio Octateuch). 13 Mouriki-Charalambous, "Octateuch Miniatures," pp. 63££. and fig. 40. Huber, Heilige Berge, fig. 61. 14 0n the problem of this relation in general see Mouriki-Charalambous, "Octateuch Miniatures." 15 5. Dufrenne, L'Illustration des psautiers grecs du moyen age, vol. 1, Pantocrator 61 , Paris gr. 20, British Museum 40731, Paris, 1966, p. 29 and pl. 14, fol. 103v. 16 Unpublished. 17 H. Buchthal, The Miniatures of the Paris Psalter, London, 1938, pp. 30££. and pl. IX. 18 Dufrenne, Psautiers grecs, p. 29 and pl. 14, fol. 104r. 19 1n the Octateuchs, as for instance the one in the Seraglio (Ouspensky, L'Octateuque du Serail, pl. XXIII, fig. 127), Moses does not "smite" the rock, but dips the rod into the water as in the closing of the Red Sea and, as in the latter scene, Moses is moving away and leaving the place with the Israelites already on the march. Obviously, we deal here with a conflation of two actions, smiting and leaving. We assume that there were originally two Moses figures, each with the appropriate action, and that the first figure, the smiting one, was omitted when the two actions were fused. 20 Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, pp. 119££. 21 G. Lippold, "Herakles-Mosaik von Liria," Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archiiologischen Instituts, 37 (1922), lff. and pl. I. K. Weitzmann, "The Heracles Plaques of St. Peter's Cathedra," Art Bulletin, 55 (1973), 9 passim and fig. 6 (repr. in idem, Art in the Medieval West and Its Contacts with Byzantium, London, 1982, study V) . 22 Unpublished. 23 Unpublished. 24 D.-C. Hesseling, Octateuque grec de Smyrne, fig. 224. 25 P. Huber, Bild und Botschaft, Zurich, 1973, fig. 17. "Mouriki-Charalambous, "Octateuch Miniatures," pp. 142££. For the miniatures in the Vatican copy, see Stornajolo, Le miniature della topografi.a cristiana di Cosma lndicopleuste, Milan, 1908, pp. 32££. and pl. 17. 27 For a detailed discussion of the relationship of the Cosmas miniatures to the Octateuchs, see MourikiCharalambous, "Octateuch Miniatures." 28 Miniature della Bibbia cod. Vat. Regina Gr. 1 e de/ Salterio cod. Vat. Palat. Gr. 3 81. Collezione Paleografi.ca Vaticana Faes. I, Milan, 1905, fol. 116r, pl. 9 and p. 7. 29 Unpublished. 30 Unpublished. 31 Unpublished. 32 Kraeling, The Synagogue, p. 85. 33 Tchepkina (see note 11 above), fol. 108r. For representations of the twelve lanes in later medieval man-

BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, pp. 30££. and pis. XV-XVIII. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 74££. and pis. Lll-LIII. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, pp. 105££. and vol. 11, pl. XIV and fig. 330.

50

1

51

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PENTATEUCH

uscripts see C. 0. Nordstrom, "The Water Miracles of Moses in Jewish Legend and Byzantine Art," Orientalia Suecana 7 (1958), 87ff. 34 Kotzsche-Breitenbruch, Neue Katakombe, p. 83 and pl. 19g. 35 lbid., p. 83 and pl. 19f. Weitzmann, "Psalter Vatopedi 761," p. 36 and fig. 23 . 36 As, e.g., in the Seraglio Octateuch, fol. 201 v. Ouspensky, L'Octateuque du Serail, pl. XXII and fig. 123. 37 Ferrua, Le pitture, p. 54 and pl. XXXVII, p. 81 and pl. CXV. Kotzsche-Breitenbruch, Neue Katakombe, pp. 79ff. and pis. 18b and d. W. Tronzo, The Via Latina Catacomb, University Park, Pa., 1986. 38 Ferrua, Le pitture, p. 54 note 1 and p. 81 note 2. 39 Kotzsche-Breitenbruch, Neue Katakombe, p. 79, note 101. "'°Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, p. 126. 41 Gebhardt, Ashburnham Pentateuch, p. 22 and pl. XVI.

The third of the so-called portrait panels, a counterpart to Moses before the Burning Bush (fig. 41), again depicts basically a narrative scene. The upper third of the panel is destroyed, but enough is left to identify the figure. Dressed in chiton and himation, a man is turning to the right, raising his hand and holding a square object. Quite correctly, Kraeling and others identified this scene as Moses receiving the tablets of the law. Previous attempts to identify the figure with Joshua have, in our opinion, convincingly been repudiated by Kraeling, and there is no need to repeat his arguments here. In front of Moses stands a pair of boots, the same we saw in the burning bush scene-a detail that helps to confirm the identification. The rising ground to the right clarifies the locality as Mount Sinai, which Moses climbed. The position of this scene as a counterpart of the burning bush recalls a similar location, in which these two scenes form a pair, that is, above the apse right and left of a dividing window in the Sinai monastery (fig. 75). 1 This comparison, too, favors the identification of the Dura panel. Moreover, both panels have in common the confinement of a large figure within a narrow space that prevents the figure from actually climbing the mountain in front of it. In Exodus the receiving of the tablets is mentioned three times, as Kraeling and others realized. But so far the question has not been raised as to which of the three passages underlies the Dura fresco. The clue comes from a comparison with the Octateuchs, where all three episodes are illustrated in more or less identical fashion in all copies, but each distinctly different from the others. This time we have chosen our examples from the Seraglio Octateuch, which preserves these scenes particularly well. The first miniature (fig. 76) 2

illustrates chapter 24:1-7, according to which the Lord speaks to Moses who " builded an altar under the hill" (verse 4) and "took the book of the covenant" and "read in the audience of the people" (verse 7). Both phases of the episode are literally illustrated. In the first, Moses stands on a hill raising his hands to the hand of God from which he receives the • various commandments, and in front of him is a burning altar. In the second, Moses holds an open scroll from which he reads to two groups of Israelites. Nothing is said about "tablets" and none are represented, and thus this passage is clearly not the basis for the Dura fresco. The second miniature (fig. 77) 3 illustrates 31:18, " ... and he gave unto Moses ... two tablets of testimony, tables of stone ...." This passage is most literally illustrated by Moses climbing the mountain and receiving with veiled hands the tablets from the hand of God, which is visible in the upper right corner. At the lower right are the waiting Israelites whom Moses had left behind when he ascended the mountain. The action thoroughly agrees with the Dura fresco, and thus we believe that the synagogue, too, represents the event as described in chapter 31. The third ascent takes place after Moses has smashed the tablets and the Lord has commanded him to make new ones. "And he hewed two tablets of stone like unto the first; and Moses rose up early in the morning and went up into Mount Sinai . .. and took in his hand the two tablets" (34:4). The third miniature in the Seraglio Octateuch (fig. 78) 4 follows this text closely. Moses holds the tablets, which he has brought up in his veiled hands, at a considerable distance from the hand of God in order to make clear that he is not "receiving" the tablets but "bringing" them. The rays issuing from the hand of God may well illustrate the phrase that the Lord wrote "upon these tablets the words that were in the first tables" (verse 1). Moreover, it will be noted that Moses averts his face and looks downward. This feature, too, is in accordance with the text: "And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth ..." (verse 8). These very features make quite clear that the passage from chapter 34 cannot be the underlying text for the Dura picture. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the second event, that based on chapter 31 (fig. 77), is indeed the one represented in the Dura fresco. The comparison between this miniature and the fresco makes us realize not only the agreements, but also the differences. A narrative scene requires the waiting Israelites, who in the miniature are seated on the ground at the lower right and who for obvious reasons of space limitations had to be abandoned in the fresco. Moreover, it will be noticed that in the miniature Moses is climbing Mount Sinai, an action implied by the Bible text, while in the fresco, again for reasons of space limitations, Moses is walking on a groundline. The "climbing" pose can be traced to an Early Christian tradition as may be seen in the sixthcentury ivory pyxides in Washington and Leningrad 5 and in the miniatures of the Cosmas manuscripts, the ninth-century copy in the Vatican 6 as well as the eleventh-century copy at Sinai (fig. 43 ), which, as mentioned before, stand in the tradition of the Octateuchs and preserve an earlier stage in the pictorial tradition. There is, however, a slight difference in the climbing pose: in the Cosmas manuscripts Moses puts his left leg forward, and in all the

52

53

[7]

Moses Receiving the Tablets of the Law (Exodus 31: 18) West, 1st zone. Left wing panel. Fig. 74.

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PENTATEUCH

Octateuchs his right. The Cosmas miniature apparently represents the older tradition, and this pose happens to be the same as in the Dura fresco. The Dura fresco has yet another important detail in common with the Cosmas miniature: the high boots that in the miniature stand right in the middle, between the Moses of the burning bush and the Moses receiving the tablets, apparently referring to both scenes simultaneously. A model of this kind might well have been behind the fresco, for it would explain the presence of the boots in the second picture where the text does not require them. Yet the idea, taken over from the burning bush scene, that Moses is once more taking off his shoes, is very common in Byzantine art where sandals, not boots, are usually depicted. In one detail, however, the Cosmas miniature follows a tradition different from that of Dura and the Octateuchs, which it shares with the Sinai mosaic (fig. 75): Moses receives a scroll from the hand of the Lord and not the tablets explicitly mentioned in the biblical text. According to some Jewish sources, Moses recarved not only the Ten Commandments but the whole Pentateuch written in tiny script on a stone that "can be rolled up like a scroll." 7 In Dura, Moses obviously receives the tablets, whose square shape can be clearly discerned despite damage to this part of the fresco. This apparently indicates that the biblical version is the original one and that the legendary version is a later infiltration. One more detail must be mentioned: if Gute's watercolor is correct, the fresco showed Moses receiving the tablets with his bare hands, while in all later examples his hands are covered. In this point also, Dura apparently represents the earlier version; the covering of hands in late antique and Early Christian art was introduced under the impact of court ceremonies that later were adopted for liturgical purposes in Christian art. Taking into consideration the condensations, abbreviations, and omissions that led to the simplified composition of the Dura artist, one should nevertheless remain aware that these restrictions are not a unique occurrence, but that under similar circumstances any artist, no matter what the medium, would arrive at a similar solution. Even in miniature painting, where the full narrative is usually illustrated (as in the Octateuchs) or derived from them (as in Psalter manuscripts), there is, for example, in a twelfth-century Psalter in the National Library at Athens, cod. 7 (fig. 79), 8 a scene of Moses receiving the tablets that fills the frame rather tightly, showing Moses placed against a gold ground that permits no accessories, not even an indication of the mountain. There is no need to assume a simplified model such as the Dura fresco. It is much more likely that the miniaturist repeated the process of stripping a richer model to its absolute essentials.

0uspensky, L'Octateuque du Serail, pl. XXIII, fig. 134. ' Ibid., pl. XXIV, fig. 142. •Ibid., pl. XXIV, fig. 145. 5 K. Weitzmann, Ivories and Steatites. Catalogue of the Byzantine and Early Mediaeval Antiquities in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection, vol. III, Washington, D.C. , 1972, pp. 3 lff. and pl. XVI, no. 18B, pl. XVII, fig. 23. 6 Stornajolo, Cosma Indicopleuste, pl. 25 and pp. 35£f. ' Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, vol. 3, p. 119 and vol. 6, p. 50, note 259. •P. Buberl, Die Miniaturenhandschriften der Nationalbibliothek in Athen, Vienna, 1917, p. 15 and pl. XVIII, fig. 43. A. Cutler, The Aristocratic Psalters in Byzantium, Paris, 1984, p. 16 and p. 129, fig. 6. 2

[8]

Consecration of the Tabernacle (Exodus, various chapters, and Numbers 7:89-8:2) West, 2nd zone. 2nd panel from left. Figs. 4 and 80.

This panel, in contrast to all the preceding ones, is not a unified narrative but a composite, made up of the implements of the temple and various figures connected with the temple rite. Yet this does not mean that an illustrated Septuagint, best known for its predominantly narrative illustration, must be discarded as a possible source for the fresco painter. On the contrary, we shall see that every single item has its parallel in the manuscript tradition and that the contacts are just as close as in all previous scenes for which a connection between fresco and miniature could be established.

Weitzmann, in Weitzmann and Forsyth, Church and Fortress of Justinian, p. 15 and pis. CXXVII, CLXXXIII, CLXXXV, and CLXXXVI B.

The Tabernacle and the Temenos It must be made clear at the outset that whatever parallels can be drawn are confined to the various implements and human figures involved and exclude the architectural setting of the fresco. This is to be expected because the setting has no biblical foundation. In Dura, the tent of the desert has been replaced by a Roman temple, and the enclosure made up of staves and curtains in between-described in great detail in the biblical text-has been replaced by a solid crenellated wall with three portals. These architectural features are in all likelihood the invention of the Dura painter, whose intention was to replace the biblical setting by solid structures conforming perhaps to his concept of what the destroyed temple would or should look like after its future re-erection. But how was the tent, which is described in Exodus 26, depicted in the manuscript tradition? The twelfth-century Octateuchs like the Seraglio Octateuch (fig. 81) 1 depict the tent in a rather abstract fashion as one piece of carpet-like curtain decorated with a checkerboard pattern and inorganically tied to the ground. This stylized form of the tent has an older tradition and is found closely paralleled in the corresponding miniature of the ninth-

54

55

BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, p. 46 and pl. XXI. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 230£f. and pl. XXXVI. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 9, p. 112 and vol. 11, figs. 93 and 324. 1

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PENTATEUCH

century Vatican Cosmas Indicopleustes where the identical pattern is used. 2 However, there is another type of the tent depicted twice in the Octateuch Vat. gr. 747, the first time as illustration to Exodus 29:4-5, where Moses ordains Aaron and his sons (fig. 82), and a second time in the subsequent miniature illustrating Exodus 29:18-23 where Moses gives instructions on how to sacrifice a ram (fig. 83). 3 Here we have a real tent threedimensionally drawn in convincing perspective and correctly fastened to the ground on the left side, but not quite accurately on the right. It is interesting to see that a reconstruction of the tent by Michael Levin-based on the text alone and without knowledge of the Vatican Octateuch-is surprisingly close to the miniature. 4 There can be no doubt that the tent in Vat. gr. 747 represents the older version, surely older than the simplified and abstract version found in the Cosmas tradition. Presumably this is the archetypal rendering of the tent which in Dura came to be replaced by the Roman temple. Lacking in Vat. gr. 747, which otherwise is so faithful to the rendering of the tent, is a depiction of the court enclosure. In this respect the Seraglio (fig. 81) and the other twelfthcentury Octateuchs are more detailed. Rows of pillars with blue curtains in between are rendered in cartographic view as a square that encloses the scene. This maplike rendering of the enclosure has a long tradition and is found, even more elaborately by marking the entrance gate with the curtain, in the so-called Codex Amiatinus in Florence, a Bible manuscript written around A.D. 700 at Vivarium in Calabria. 5 This Amiatinus miniature and those in the twelfth-century Octateuchs no doubt go back to the same source, which most likely reflects a very old and surely Eastern archetype. Obviously this abstract, spacedenying rendition of the precinct enclosure was unsuitable for the Dura painter and he therefore replaced it by a crenellated stone wall and introduced, apparently for mere decorative purposes, three gates where only one was required.

Bible text puts much emphasis on the temple curtains and even names the artist, Bezaleel (Exodus 35 :30); and the illustrators of the Septuagint paid special attention to the curtains by depicting the manufacture of one of them. In Vat. gr. 747 (fig. 85) 7 as well as in the other Octateuchs we see Bezaleel weaving one of the curtains, and in a subsequent miniature below, the finished product, an embroidered curtain hanging from the upper frame of what in the model may well have been the lintel of the entrance gate. Curtains play an important role also within the sanctuary proper, where the Ark of the Covenant is to be placed under a veil. The Dura artist, in order to make the ark fully visible, hung a drapery up behind it. This is one way to relate a curtain with the object to be hidden by it. Another solution for displaying curtains is found in the Octateuchs, as in Vat. gr. 746 (fig. 86), 8 where above the table with the sacred vessels on it (Exodus 38:9-12) a lifted drapery is seen slung over two hooks and taken up in the center by a hand. Both solutions are artistic conventions that, particularly in the case of the Dura fresco, are not quite in agreement with the Bible text, according to which the drapery was not hung up at all, but covered the ark proper. That the curtain hanging behind the ark is indeed an artistic convention becomes clear from the fact that four more such draperies are visible behind the figures left and right of the temple. They may be merely decorative: such curtains behind figures, the so-called "parapetasmata," are a frequent convention in classical art. Yet in a fresco like that of Dura, it is not very probable that such a feature is merely decorative, and it is more likely that the artist wanted to indicate a few of the curtains meant to be hung up between the poles of the precinct walls. In other words, the curtains are an iconographic feature introduced as a reminder of the enclosing wall of the tabernacle of the desert, just like the curtain at the entrance door in the wall.

The Curtains Whereas the solid structure obviously contradicts the biblical setting, the artist nevertheless retains one essential element from the original setting, the curtain at the main entrance (Exodus 27:16, 38:18), clearly marked as in the Amiatinus miniature. Even more pronounced is the curtain in the ninth-century marginal Psalter, Mount Athas, Pantocrator 61 (fig. 84), 6 which hangs in a large doorframe in front of the rectangular enclosure consisting of the pillars and the curtains in between. But while the enclosure is, as usual, represented in a cartographic, bird's-eye view, the portal is designed as an independent unit seen in frontal view. Obviously this Psalter miniature-as many other scenes in the marginal Psalters (cf. p. 47 and fig. 68)-is taken over from an Octateuch. It shares with the Octateuch the cartographic view of the court enclosure (fig. 81), though in the decisive detail of the pronounced entrance gate with the curtain it has preserved an archetypal feature lost in the later Octateuchs. This is of particular importance because this curtain at the entrance gate is the only feature from the enclosing wall that found its way into the Dura fresco. The

The Ark of the Covenant The Ark of the Covenant is depicted suspended at the front of the temple and without a clear spatial relation to it. It has the shape of a cabinet that can be opened by two pairs of valves, giving the impression that the interior may have two shelves. Moreover, the ark terminates in a semicircular top. This shape is very similar indeed to that found in the Octateuch Vat. gr. 747 (fig. 87), 9 illustrating Exodus 25:10-20. Here the two door valves are paneled, but are not separated into two pairs, which makes more sense and seems to reflect the archetype better. In a miniature of the Seraglio Octateuch we shall discuss later (p. 62 and fig. 92), the ark is simplified; its opening is only marked by a square without indicating the door valves. In both Octateuch miniatures two cherubim hover over the ark, a feature certainly belonging to the archetype but strangely omitted by the Dura painter. Moreover, in the Octateuch the ark is flanked by two priests, surely Aaron and one of his sons, who are not mentioned in the text passage of chapter 25. A miniature of this kind may well have inspired the Dura painter to place his Aaron figure close to the ark.

56

57

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PENTATEUCH

The Menorah The menorah, the seven-branched candlestick, is depicted below the ark and like the ark itself is suspended and without spatial relation to the temple entrance. That it seems to stand on the wall is accidental and not an intended effect. The stem, standing on three feet, and the seven arms consist of ovals and disks that recall an astragal pattern; on top of each arm a flame is visible. This is the traditional form of the seven-branched candlestick, and the identical pattern already existed in a plaster design of such a menorah found in an excavation in Old Jerusalem that can be dated to the time of Herod the Great. 10 But an even closer parallel to the Dura candlestick can be found in the Vatican Octateuch gr. 747 (fig. 88), where it correctly accompanies the passage Exodus 25 :31-32.11 Here the only slight difference is that the seven arms are, at the top, held together by a crossbar that does not exist in the earlier examples. As mentioned repeatedly, the pictorial tradition of Vat. gr. 7 4 7 nearly always represents the more original version, compared with the later Octateuchs. In the latter (e.g., fig. 92), we find a similar general form of the candlestick, but stem and arms consist of flowers making up a shave-grass pattern.

not between the altar and the figure of Aaron, as one might have expected, but at the lower left where it is quite out of context. Moreover, as has been commented on by several writers, the manner in which the garlanded heifer is led to the place of sacrifice by a man who shoulders a long-handled axe is not in accordance with the Jewish tradition, but is taken over from a Greco-Roman model. The motif of the heifer may well refer to Numbers 19:110, but it is more than questionable that in this case the artist had any specific text passage in mind, for the scene, in this classical form, could not have existed in an illustrated Bible. What the sacrifice of an animal would have looked like in the manuscript tradition may be seen in an illustration to Leviticus 3:12-14 in the Octateuch (fig. 89), 13 where a goat is slaughtered in front of an altar that is not the Jewish altar as depicted in the scene below (and also fig. 83 ), but a Christian altar in front of a ciborium. The slaughter-in this case of a goat-is here performed according to the-Jewish rite by cutting its throat with a knife. This type of sacrifice must have been in the model used by the Dura painter, but the frescoist discarded it in favor of a Greco-Roman sacrifice representation. Here the same mentality is reflected as in the panel of the birth of Moses, where the artist adapted a figure of Aphrodite for Pharaoh's daughter and nymphs for her maidservants (fig. 30). The classical derivation of the substitute group of the sacrifice is still clearly reflected in the spatial relationship between the youth placed more in the foreground and the animal seen in three-quarter view-quite in contrast to the other two sacrificial animals at the right, which are rendered in strict profile. This sharp formal contrast suggests that, indeed, the animals come from two different sources. Those at the right, as we shall see later, go back to direct biblical models.

The Altars and the Sacrifice To the left and right of the candlestick are two implements that Kraeling correctly identified as thymiateria. These incense burners do not correspond to the biblical text, however. First, their duplication can only be understood as an artistic license apparently deriving from the artist's desire to flank the menorah on both sides. Second, the Bible text speaks of an incense altar (Exodus 30:27), an object that surely does not correspond to the shape of a classical thymiaterion. Narkiss, quite correctly I believe, identified an object next to the candlestick in the above-mentioned plaster ·sketch as the altar of incense: a cubic, altarlike piece of furniture with horns. 12 It may well be that the manuscript source-be it a Pentateuch or an Octateuch like Vat. gr. 747-did include a special and, at the same time, faithful picture of the altar of incense, but why it was not used as a model by the Dura artist remains an open question. Next to this group of implements on the right is an altar on top of which an animal, presumably a ram, is burned. Such a sacrifice is recounted in Exodus 29:18-23 and depicted in the Octateuchs in this place as, for example, in Vat. gr. 747 (fig. 83). Here we see Moses standing at the left explaining how the sacrifice should be performed, and at the right stands a wicker basket filled with bread. The Dura painter discarded both the Moses figure and the basket. In the miniature the form of the altar is greatly simplified compared with that in the fresco, and it actually is reduced to a mere table with legs. And yet it is quite possible that the simpler form in the miniature comes closer to the archetype and that the Dura painter had chosen a current altar form from classical art, just as he had introduced classical forms for the thymiateria instead of a simpler block altar. Apparently for merely formal considerations the animal brought for sacrifice is placed

Aaron Very prominent in the composition as a whole is the mighty figure of Aaron labeled in Greek and seen in frontal view. Aaron's lower legs and feet, for lack of space, are overlapped by the precinct wall. All scholars who have described this figure of Aaron have clearly seen that his dress shows elements that are not in full agreement with the Jewish tradition as most fully described in chapter 28 of Exodus, and that the tiara and the "Persian" trousers especially show elements derived from an indigenous Mesopotamian tradition. Yet this Mesopotamian or Persian element should not be exaggerated since Aaron's priestly garments are in most details in agreement with the Jewish tradition, which, paradoxically, is comparatively better preserved in the Christian Octateuchs, especially in Vat. gr. 747. In this manuscript there is a miniature (fig. 90), not paralleled in any of the other Octateuchs, which shows in four separate squares the various garments and ornaments described in detail in the Bible text. 14 The sequence is slightly out of order: the first two squares are exchanged so that the shoulder mantle mentioned first (Exodus 28:6-12) appears in the second square. This cape-like mantle, the t:n:ooµC~ of the Greek text, is fastened over the breast like the Persian lacerna and shows shoulder patches that, according to the text, should be decorated

58

59

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PENTATEUCH

on each side by an onyx-stone inscribed with the names of the twelve tribes. Since, however, in a representation on such a small scale it would have been impossible to write out the names of the twelve tribes, the artist found an ingenious solution by replacing the names with stones-six on each shoulder patch-so that by the pictorial device of the stones, the number of the tribes is suggested. The artist got this idea from the textual description of the breastplate of judgment (Exodus 28:15-30), which, according to the text, is to be decorated by twelve stones, one for each tribe. The miniature does show the breastplate beneath the shoulder mantle, but it is an undecorated sheet of pure gold. So what happened is that the twelve stones of the breastplate were transferred by the miniaturist to the shoulder patches. Whether this transfer crept in during the process of copying or was already in the archetype is, of course, impossible to say, but the latter is not improbable in view of the Dura fresco, where we see a shoulder mantle of the same shape as in the miniature, fastened over the breast and held together by a brooch which, however, does not seem to be the one mentioned in the Bible text, where in verse 2 two brooches attached to the breastplate are mentioned. What is noteworthy is that the mantle is decorated by stones in a manner similar to the patches on the mantle in the miniature; however, there are only ten stones at either side instead of the twelve one would expect. This could only indicate that the original meaning of these stones was lost in the fresco and that the stones had become a mere decoration. The first square of the miniature depicts the full-length tunic, the ephod of the Hebrew tradition, and the urcobuu1c; of the Septuagint (Exodus 28 :31-35). It is short-sleeved and shows a broad embroidery down the middle and at the hem, where it is embellished by a row of bells explicitly mentioned in the text. In Dura Aaron also wears a long tunic, but without the characteristic features described in the text and visible in the miniature. So it does not seem likely that the painter used a biblical miniature for this garment: he was satisfied to have Aaron wear the typical Persian tunic seen in so many of the other Dura frescoes. The third square depicts the gold plate to be attached to the miter, a disk with jewel and pearls and a piece of cloth by which presumably the plate is to be tied around the miter. The fourth square contains the miter proper, in the Septuagint called the K(CapLc;, that is, a golden bonnet with pearls, which is crowned by a gold plate like that in the preceding square and on which, according to the text, the inscription "Holiness to the Lord" should be engraved. Underneath are depicted the golden shoes with long bands attached to them, presumably wrappings for the legs. How many of all these details were actually used in the Octateuchs for the rendering of Aaron as priest? In Vat. gr. 747, the scene of Aaron and one of his sons standing next to the ark (fig. 87) makes clear that practically every item was depicted. Aaron wears the shoulder mantle with the patches decorated by the twelve stones draped over the long tunic with the bells at its fringe, and in between part of the golden breastplate can be made out. On his head he wears a stemma-type crown topped by the gold plate suggesting-more

than accurately depicting-the bonnet, and emphasis is placed on the shoes. This Aaron figure stands in marked contrast to that in all the other Octateuchs (e.g., fig. 92), where the various items are corrupted and the Jewish tradition is lost: the shoulder mantle is turned into a chlamys, and so forth. The comparative exactness of Aaron's vestments, as seen in Vat. gr. 747, proves that there must have existed a tradition for them far more exact than what we see in the Dura fresco.

60

The Trumpet Blowers At the upper left and right stand four youths dressed in Persian costume, blowing trumpets. The text passage that describes the making and the blowing of the trumpets is Numbers 10:1-10. According to this text, only two trumpets of silver were made, and the fresco depicts four. But because the trumpets are blown on four different occasions, the painter apparently felt justified in representing the blowing four times, thus requiring four persons. That this indeed is the explanation, which at first thought might seem unlikely, is proved, as so often, by a miniature in the Octateuch Vat. gr. 747 (see p. 44 and fig. 61), which depicts the twelve tribes on the march after having broken camp in the wilderness, with the ark in the center of the composition. Each tribe is represented by three Israelite soldiers, except that in the four corner squares the third soldier is replaced by a trumpet blower. So here we have the same duplication of the original two blowers, placed as if they were blowing in the direction of the four cardinal points. Since it is hardly likely that such an interpretation of the biblical text was made twice independently, the conclusion may justifiably be drawn, as proved in so many other cases, that Dura and the Octateuchs hark back ultimately to the same archetype. It must be stressed that the four trumpet blowers occur only in Vat. gr. 7 4 7 and in none of the other Octateuchs.

The Compositional Arrangement It has become clear from our analysis of this panel that we deal with items not lined up according to a coherent narrative, but that the various features go back to individual pictures found in different places in the model. Moreover, they were taken not only from the text of Exodus, where Kraeling tried to place everything in order to preserve the idea of textual unity. In this respect we cannot follow him. As already explained in the picture of the crossing of the Red Sea (see pp. 38-50 and figs. 48-49), such features as the twelve tribes had crept in from illustrations of Numbers into a picture predominantly derived from Exodus. At the outset the Dura painter had created a setting whereby the temple and the precinct wall-substituting for the biblical tent and temenos enclosure-became a backdrop against which the individual implements and figures were placed without any spatial relationship among the various items. In the assumed manuscript model, they were distributed over a whole series of separate miniatures. However, in the fresco these individual 61

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PENTATEUCH

items were not lined up from left to right or vice versa, but organized in a somewhat symmetrical fashion, placing the Ark of the Covenant, the menorah, and the entrance to the precinct with the distinct curtain on axis, with Aaron balanced by the temple and both flanked by the trumpet blowers, divided into pairs. In the lower level for reasons of symmetry two more gates were added, for which there is no iconographic explanation, and at the corners the heifer with the youth guiding it at the left and two more sacrificial animals, not yet mentioned, at the right balance each other. While much of this particular arrangement may well be credited to the fresco painter of the Dura synagogue, the very principle of composite pictures as such was not his invention. Such composites also occur in the manuscripts where, because of their non-narrative quality, one might not have expected them. There is in both Vat. gr. 747 (fig. 91) 15 as well as in the Seraglio Octateuch (fig. 92) 16 a composite miniature, simpler but in principle comparable to the fresco. As in the latter, the composition is laid out symmetrically with the Ark of the Covenant on axis; the seven-branched candlestick is placed alongside the ark instead of beneath it. Whereas in the fresco two sacrificial animals, a bullock and a ram, are placed one above the other at the right to counterbalance the heifer with the youth at the left, in the miniatures a ram and a goat are depicted flanking the ark. But what the bullock and the ram of the fresco have in common with the animals in the miniature is that they are rendered not in the act of being sacrificed, but simply as sacrificial animals per se, almost as part of a static temple inventory. In the Seraglio miniature the list of sacrificial animals is enlarged further by two doves. In both miniatures two cherubim hover over the ark, the one element strangely missing in the Dura fresco. In the miniatures, however, the setting is changed. Neither the tent, as in earlier Octateuch miniatures (cf. figs. 82 and 83), nor the temple, as in Dura, is depicted, but, standing for the sanctuary as such, is a ciborium. The ciborium is to be understood as an intrusion from a Christian church setting, just as in a previous scene (cf. fig. 89) it, together with an altar whose hanging is decorated with Christian crosses, was taken over from Christian art. This altar replaces the Jewish one as depicted in the scene below. In addition, the miniatures not only show Aaron alongside the ark as in Dura, but also turning around to Moses receiving orders. Above the cherub at the left, one notices a hand of God issuing from heaven and directed toward Moses. The hand illustrates very literally Numbers 7:89-8:2 to which the miniature is attached: "And when Moses was gone into the tabernacle of the congregation to speak with him [the Lord] then he heard the voice of one speaking unto him from off the mercy seat that' was upon the ark of testimony, from between the two cherubims: and he spake unto him. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: 'Speak unto Aaron... .'" In light of the comparisons between the Dura fresco and the miniatures, it is quite likely that the former was inspired by this or a similar collective miniature. In other words, the model behind the fresco was a composition anchored in a specific text passage, most likely from chapter 8 of Numbers.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, pp. 55ff. and pl. XXV. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 125 ff. and pl. LX. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, pp. 3ff.; vol. 11, pis. I, X, and fig. 332. Revel-Neher, L'Arche d'alliance. Le signe de la Rencontre dans ['art juif et chretien du second au dixieme siecles, p. 144 and pl. XVI, fig. 60.

62

0uspensky, L'Octateuque du Serail, here not reproduced. For the parallel miniature in Vat. gr. 746 fol. 242v, see E. Revel-Neher, "Du Codex Amiatinus et ses rapports avec les plans du tabernacle clans !'art juif et clans l'art byzantin," Journal of Jewish Art 9 (1982), 12 and fig. 8. 2 Stornajolo, Cosma Indicopleuste, fol. 49r, pp. 31ff. and pl. 15. Revel-Neher, "Codex Amiatinus," p. 12 and fig. 7. L. Brubaker, "The Tabernacle Miniatures of the Byzantine Octateuchs," Actes du XVe Congres International d'Etudes Byzantines (1976), Athens, 1981, p. 90 and figs. 8-9, where Vat. gr. 746 is compared with the Florentine eleventh-century Cosmas manuscript. 3 Both miniatures are unpublished. •Published in a Hebrew publication not accessible to me but quoted and reproduced again in Revel-Neher, "Codex Amiatinus," p. 8 and fig. 2. 5 Revel-Neher, "Codex Amiatinus," p. 6 and fig. 1 (here further bibliography). Idem, L'Arche d'alliance, p. 158 and pl. XX, fig. 74. 6 Dufrenne, Psautiers grecs, vol. 1, p. 34 and pl. 26, fol. 165r; eadem, "Une illustration 'historique' inconnue du Psautier du Mont Athos, Pantocrator No. 61," Cahiers archeologiques 15 (1965), pp. 83ff.; Revel-Neher, "Codex Amiatinus," p. 14 and fig. 10. 7 Fol. 120v. Unpublished. 8 Unpublished. For the parallel scene in the Seraglio codex see Ouspensky, L'Octateuque du Serail, pl. XXIV and fig. 147. In Vat. gr. 747 a leaf is cut out that must have contained this miniature. 9 Unpublished. 10 B. Narkiss, "A Scheme of the Sanctuary from the Time of Herod the Great," Journal of Jewish Art 1 (1974), 6ff. and figs. 1 and 6. 11 Fol. 106v. Unpublished. 12 Narkiss, "Scheme of the Sanctuary," figs. 1 and 6. tJ Fol. 125v. Unpublished. 14 Fol. 108v. Unpublished. However, these garments occur once more-this time in all the Octateuchs-in illustrations of Exodus 36:9-37:3 (fig. 92), where they are not specifically described in the text and, besides, are rendered in very summary fashion. The only purpose of showing them in this place is apparently the illustrator's desire to display Bezaleel's total weaving oeuvre. 15 Fol. 158v. Unpublished. 16 Fol. 333r. Ouspensky, L'Octateuque du Serail, pl. XXVI, fig. 161. 1

[9]

The Well of Be'er (Numbers 21:16-18 and additional passages) West, 2nd zone. 1st panel from left. Figs. 4 and 93.

Like the preceding panel, this one is a composite picture consisting of elements derived from various passages of Exodus and Numbers. 1 The narrative element is somewhat 63

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

stronger here, but no single episode can be considered predominant, so entitling the panel "The Well of Be'er" is not without a certain arbitrariness. The Well of Be'er The focal point of the composition is a cylindrical well, the typical puteal of classical art. Only one of the five water miracles of Moses (Marah, Exodus 15 :22-25; Elim, Exodus 15:27; Rephidim, Exodus 17:1-6; Meribah, Numbers 20:1-11; Be'er, Numbers 21:16-18) mentions a well, and this is the main reason why all scholars have associated this panel primarily with the well of Be'er simultaneously arguing that the passage mentioning it could not be the only source. One specific detail speaks in favor of Be'er. Kraeling noticed that the water had a wavy surface, which he took as an illustration of the phrase (verse 17), "Spring up, 0 well." Goodenough, however, took the wave lines for fish,2 claiming through some far-fetched reasoning that the well was derived from the sanctuary of the Sassanian palace,

in the center of whose throne hall was a "bottomless" lake. The specific feature connected with this central well is the presence of twelve streams that issue from it and reach out to the twelve tents framing the central court-like area. All scholars have realized that we deal here with a non-biblical element described in various Jewish legends as the "Well of Miriam," and Kraeling clearly stated 3 "that the legendary story of Miriam's well was well known to the paraphrasers and, what is more important, that they tended to associate the story with one specific episode of Biblical narrative, namely the story of the well at Be'er in Numbers 21." It should be considered almost a trick of fate that the miracle of Be'er is the only one of the five water miracles of Moses that is not illustrated in the extant Octateuchs. Thus we are deprived of the possibility of making an association between miniature and fresco such as we have been able to do in all panels discussed so far. This, however, does not necessarily mean that the scene did not exist in the archetype of the Octateuchs. In the case of Moses' infancy, for instance, we could clearly demonstrate that the scene in the Carolingian San Paolo Bible (p. 29 and fig. 34 ), which harks back to the same archetype, had more scenes than the corresponding episode in the Octateuchs, suggesting that the latter were reduced in the number of scenes. Yet this realization is little consolation for the fact that no parallel to the Be'er miracle can be found within the Octateuch tradition.

THE PENTATEUCH

by the fact that the rod is mentioned in only two of the water miracles, those of Rephidim and Meribah. However, since in the latter, as seen in the Seraglio Octateuch,4 Moses touches with his rod the rock, from which the water is flowing down, it is unlikely that this miniature, or rather its archetype, served as a model for the Dura painter. Moreover, the miracle of Rephidim, which scholars have repeatedly connected with the Dura fresco because of its importance in Jewish legends, is depicted in the Octateuch Vat. gr. 747 (fig. 94) 5 in a fashion comparable to the Dura fresco. In the miniature Moses stands in frontal view, but at the other side of the water, and dips the rod into the water as he does in the fresco. However, ruling out the other water scenes because the rod is not particularly mentioned in their texts is not a valid argument. In the miracle of Marah, the Seraglio codex6 and other Octateuch manuscripts as well show Moses likewise dipping his rod into the water in spite of the fact that the text explicitly says that Moses had cast a tree into the water. Obviously the rod or wand was the accepted pictorial convention to be used in this kind of action, and there is no reason to believe that-at least in this recension-there ever was an archetypal scene with Moses throwing a tree into the water. In other words, one cannot claim a pictorial archetype that agrees in every detail with the text, because of a painter's use of accepted convention. 7 Moreover, the Marah miracle in the Octateuchs shows a different Moses who is already on the move to the next event, the water miracle of Elim, which is enclosed within the same miniature frame. This second miracle shows the twelve wells and the palm trees but does not repeat the Moses figure, so that the one acting at Marah is also related to the scene at Elim and apparently for this reason is depicted in a moving pose. Thus, the pictorial evidence from the Octateuchs speaks in favor of the Rephidim miracle as the one from which the Dura painter drew his inspiration.

The Moses Figure Moses standing to the left of the well is, just as in the Exodus scene (figs. 48-49), depicted as a giant. Seen in near frontal view and dressed in richly decorated chiton and himation that convey a priestly quality, he holds a rod in his right hand which he dips into the water while he points with his open left hand toward the well. Since the text of the miracle of Be'er does not mention any particular action of Moses, this figure obviously must come from one of the other water miracles. Some scholars have tried to limit the possibilities

The Tents The center of the panel forms a court surrounded on three sides by twelve tents, obviously one for each of the twelve tribes. In front of each tent stands a representative of its tribe, with the exception of the second to last tent at the lower right, where the representative, for merely formal reasons, has been moved to a place in front of the representative of the last tent. 8 The artist has made quite clear that the tents are meant to be subdivided into four groups of three each. Two groups are arranged vertically next to the lateral borders, and the other two are placed above them in a diagonal order, flanking the tabernacle. The locus classicus for this division of tents into groups is the second chapter of Numbers, where the pitching of twelve tents is recorded in groups of three and where the tribes belonging to each tent are described in great detail. Furthermore, it is stated that the tents should be pitched "far off about the tabernacle of the congregation." This brings in the tabernacle in the Dura panel, but space did not permit its being placed far off. No miniature illustrating chapter 2 is preserved in any of the Octateuchs, whose illustration of Numbers begins only with chapter 5. Yet the possibility that an illustration of

64

65

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PENTATEUCH

chapter 2 existed in an earlier, more fully illustrated Pentateuch or Octateuch is, in itself, not unlikely and can actually be supported by pictorial evidence. The same twelfth-century English miniature that illustrates the infancy of Moses in great detail in a first register (p. 32 and fig. 39) illustrates in a second strip (fig. 95) 9 first the crossing of the Red Sea in two phases and in a third square a representation of tents, which must be understood as an illustration of the second chapter of Numbers. Compared with those at Dura the tents are somewhat simplified as they have no roofs, but the clearly marked crossbars at the top indicate that they are not meant to end in one point, but were made to resemble a house form. Although there are only seven instead of twelve tents, obviously for lack of space, the principle of dividing them into groups of three-the essential element of the Numbers passage-can still be discerned. The original group of three is visible at the upper left, while at the upper right and lower left one tent is missing. The fourth group of tents at the lower right has been omitted altogether for the obvious reason that its place has been taken by one tent singled out by its size, form, and crowning by a bird on a globe. This more luxurious tent must be the tabernacle, which should have its place in the center, as surely it had in a more spacious model. Although this tent did not preserve the original form of the tabernacle tent as we know it from the Octateuch Vat. gr. 747 (figs. 82 and 83), it at least still reflects the tent of the wilderness, which in Dura was replaced by a temple front. In this respect even the late Western miniature reflects an element of the original pre-Dura period. Left and right of the tabernacle tent are representatives of the tribes in conversation with each other as they may well have existed in the illustration of Numbers 2. They obviously differ from the orant figures in front of each tent in Dura. The latter actually fit the Be'er passage (Numbers 21:7) where "Israel sang this song, Spring up, 0 well." Thus we apparently deal in Dura with a fusion of elements from chapters 2 and 21.

cation is confirmed by the Octateuchs where, for example, in Vat. gr. 747 (fig. 96), 10 we see an object of the same form included among three displayed in the interior of the tabernacle. It is not inscribed, but in a parallel miniature in the ninth-century Vatican Cosmas manuscript an identical object is inscribed ft 11.uxv(a. 11 Here the object is obviously meant to depict the seven-branched candlestick, but for lack of space the illustrator used this simplified form. Now having this very form of candlestick used twice in the Dura fresco to flank a menorah can only mean that it has lost its original meaning and that the two have simply become part of a larger temple inventory, no longer associated with the tent tabernacle. Below the menorah one notices a metal table meant to be of gold. This should be either the altar of incense or the table of the shewbread. Kraeling, who had interpreted the two objects flanking the menorah as incense burners, preferred to identify it as the table of the shewbread. But since no breads are visible on top of it as one would expect, we rather believe that it represents the altar of incense, to be sure not in its original form as a block altar, but as a piece of elegant furniture in the Greco-Roman tradition. As we see it, this panel, like the preceding one, is basically a composition laid out by the Dura painter, but its individual elements are modeled on various illustrations from Ex-

The Tabernacle Between the tents and above the well is the tabernacle, whose presence is justified by the passage in the second chapter of Numbers (verse 2: "far off about the tabernacle of the congregation shall they pitch"). Most scholars have described its structure as an aedicula, but, in fact, it is nothing other than the front of the temple as depicted in the preceding panel (fig. 80). Lack of space forced the fresco painter to confine himself to the pediment supported by frontal columns, enriched by fluting. Also, the inventory of the tabernacle is not as fully depicted as in the Consecration picture, and the Ark of the Covenant is omitted altogether. This omission gave the painter the possibility of displaying the menorah all the more prominently, for it occupies the whole height of the entrance. It is flanked, as in the preceding picture, by two objects that Kraeling again calls thymiateria; their shape is different from the flanking objects in the previous panel, however: the long stems have the same astragal pattern as the menorah, and thus we believe them to be candlesticks. This identifi66

odus and Numbers. BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, pp. 64££. and pl. XXX. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 118££. and pl. LIX. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, pp. 27££. and vol. 11, pl. XII and fig. 331. •Cf. J. Milgrom, "Moses Sweetens the 'Bitter Waters' of the 'Portable Well': An Interpretation of the Panel at Dura-Europos Synagogue," Journal of Jewish Art 5 (1978), 45££. 2 Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, p. 30. 3 Kraeling, The Synagogue, p. 123. • Fol. 357r. Ouspensky, L'Octateuque du Serail, pl. XXVIII, fig. 172. 5 Fol. 93r. Unpublished. 6 Fol. 201r. Ouspensky, L'Octateuque du Serail, pl. XXII, fig. 123. 7 For the use of conventions, see Weitzmann, Roll and Codex, pp. 154££. sttere we follow Kraeling's interpretation (The Synagogue, p. 122) over that of Goodenough (Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, p. 28), who, without sufficient reason, doubts Kraeling's statement. 9See panel 4, p. 34, note 20, above for the bibliography. 10 Unpublished. 11 Stornajolo, Cosma Indicopleuste, p. 30 and pl. 13 (=fol. 46v).

67

The Historical Books [10]

Samuel at Shiloh (I Samuel 2:1-10, 3:1-18) North, 2nd zone. Right panel. Figs. 7 and 97.

Nowhere in the wall decoration of Dura is the cyclic method-the essence of book illumination-so well preserved as in the panels illustrating the books of Samuel and Kings (because we deal here basically with a Jewish tradition we prefer to call the books by these names, even though, following the Septuagint, the comparative material, the Byzantine manuscripts, counted them as the four books of Kings). Here the narrative principle not only occurs in single, self-contained panels like those of Moses' Infancy (figs. 29-30) or the Exodus from Egypt (figs. 48-49)-which include several successive phases of one episode in one frame-but it extends over a sequence of several panels. This permits us to propose an identification of the largely destroyed panel under discussion by restricting the possibilities of its interpretation to events that precede the subsequent, completely preserved panel. A series of these panels begins in the second zone of the north wall with the one preceding the capture of the ark by the Philistines as told in chapter 4 of the first book of Samuel (cf. p. 72 and fig. 101). Consequently, in trying to interpret the damaged panel one should look for a subject from the first three chapters. Hannah and Samuel At the right of a long city wall one notices the lower parts of two figures, the largescale one dressed in a long garment decorated with a checkerboard pattern that falls down to the feet, and the smaller one, obviously a boy wearing boots and Persian trousers. In the left half of the panel no details are recognizable, but significantly the background above the wall is painted black, a fact from which Kraeling correctly concluded that there must have been depicted an event that took place at night-a feature of paramount importance to the interpretation of the whole panel. Du Mesnil du Buisson and Kraeling interpreted the scene at the right, we believe correctly, as Hannah bringing the young Samuel to Shiloh. Although the bodies are shown in frontal view, the position of the legs suggests that the figures move to the left and apparently were to enter the city of Shiloh where Samuel is to be presented to Eli the priest. Rahel Wischnitzer, 1 on the other hand, preferred to see in the large figure the priest Eli because of

69

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

the checkerboard pattern worn otherwise only by Moses and Aaron in the Dura synagogue (figs. 80 and 93), although she left the question open as to whether the figure portrays Eli or Hannah. 2 We prefer Du Mesnil du Buisson's and Kraeling's identification of Hannah for three reasons: (a) Moses and Aaron, in both cases cited above, wear shorter mantles, while in Dura women usually wear garments that reach down to the ankles (e.g., fig. 30 and elsewhere); (b) in a program that emphasizes what is significant and liturgically important, the figure of Hannah must be considered a likely choice because of her prayer of thanksgiving (chapter 2); and (c) in the Vatican Book of Kings (cod. gr. 333), our main pictorial source for the illustration of this biblical book, as mentioned in the Introduction, there is a miniature depicting Hannah praying and Samuel, not yet born, shown proleptically as a half-grown boy (fig. 98). 3 The confinement of the Dura scene to Hannah and Samuel and the exclusion of Eli imply a model like that of the miniature. I would not even exclude the possibility that the figure of Hannah in the fresco was depicted with raised arms in a gesture of prayer. But in spite of the frontal view, she and Samuel are moving to the left, and this means they are on their way to Shiloh. Thus, we could well imagine a conflated composition that fuses both events, Hannah's prayer and her journey to Shiloh. I need only refer to the panel of Moses' infancy (figs. 29-30) to recall the extensive use of conflation by the Dura painter. In this case, the conflation would mean that such a merely episodical event as "Hannah and Samuel on the way to Shiloh" would not have been considered important enough in a program; unlike the postulated manuscript source, the fresco cycle has become selective, and the episode became acceptable only by its fusion with a much more meaningful Hannah who sings the praise of the Lord. It is significant that in the Vatican Book of Kings, Hannah on her way to Shiloh (fig. 4 99) is depicted in a scene where, having already entered the temple, she presents the child Samuel to the priest Eli. This makes us ask whether in the narrative model of the Dura fresco there ever was such an utterly insignificant scene as "Hannah on her way to Shiloh" or whether the presumed model was not more like the miniature, from which the Dura painter had dropped the figure of Eli. The Lord Calling Samuel As mentioned above, the left half of the panel must have depicted a night scene, that is, the Lord calling Samuel. This episode is depicted in Vat. gr. 333 (fig. 100)5 in two phases. At the right Samuel sleeps on a couch in the temple, rendered in abbreviated symbolic form by an arcaded structure that has no clear association with a temple building, and by a ciborium, which is borrowed from Christian tradition6 and stands for the interior of the temple. In the upper right corner the hand of God reaches out of heaven giving Samuel the order to waken Eli in the night. At the left Eli is seen lying on a couch and being awakened by Samuel, who rushes into the bedchamber to execute speedily the Lord's order. In Dura,

70

judging from the figure scale of the right half of the panel, there surely was space for only one of the two phases, and we have little doubt that it must have been the first one because the epiphany of the Lord to Samuel was, from the point of view of the Dura program, surely more significant than the mere episodical awakening of Eli. In order to get a proper perspective on the selective principle of the Dura artist, one should become aware of which scenes he omitted from an apparently densely illustrated manuscript model like the Vatican codex. Between Hannah's prayer of Thanksgiving and her presentation of Samuel at Shiloh there are no fewer than five intermediary scenes: (a) fol. Sr, Eli discoursing with Hannah (1:17); (b) fol. 5v, Elkanah and Hannah meeting in their house (1:19); (c) fol. 5v, Hannah giving birth to Samuel (1:10); (d) fol. 5v, discourse between Elkanah and Hannah (1:22-23); (e) fol. 6r, the slaying of a bullock (1:25). 7 Moreover, between the presentation of Samuel at Shiloh and the Lord commanding Samuel there are no fewer than six events omitted: (a) fol. 6v, two sons of Eli taking away flesh from a cauldron while Eli prays (2:13-17); (b) fol. 7r, Eli blessing Elkanah and Hannah (2:20); (c) fol. 7r, Hannah giving birth to three sons and two daughters (only one birth is represented) (2:21); (d) fol. 7r, Eli and Samuel praying in the temple (2:21); (e) fol. 7r, Eli reproaching his sons (2:22-25); and (f) fol. 7r, a prophet speaking with Eli (2:27-36). 8 In view of this density of scenes from the first two chapters, it becomes all the more apparent why the Dura artist chose the two events he did: they are epiphanies and thus stand out against all the other scenes, which are of a mere storytelling nature. BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, pp. ?Off. and figs. 52-54. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 93ff. and pl. XXIX. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, pp. 170ff. and vol. 11, pl. XX and fig. 346. R. Wischnitzer-Bernstein, "The Samuel Cycle in the Wall Decorations of the Synagogue at DuraEuropos," Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 11 (1941) , 87. 2 Goodenough, without pertinent reason, rejected the interpretation of the panel as Samuel or Hannah altogether, and he did not deal with the left half of the panel, which, after all, contains some clue for the interpretation as a whole. 3 Lassus, Livre des Rois, pp. 31ff. and pl. I, fig. 2. K. Weitzmann, "The Ode Pictures of the Aristocratic Psalter Recension," Dumbarton Oaks Papers 30 (1976), p. 73 and fig. 10. •Lassus, Livre des Rois, p. 34 and pl. II, fig. 4. ' Ibid., p. 36 and pl. III, fig. 7. 6 For the use of a ciborium for the representation of the tabernacle, see also the Consecration picture, p. 57 and fig. 92. 7 Lassus, Livre des Rois, pp. 3 lff. and pis. I, fig. 2-11, fig. 4. 8 lbid., pp. 34ff. and pl. II, figs. 5-6. 1

71

[11]

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

The Battle of Eben-ezer and the Capture of the Ark (I Samuel 4:1-2 and 11) North, 2nd zone. Left panel. Figs. 1, 7, 101, and 103.

the presence of riders in fresco and miniature may be more than just a coincidence. But, although both depictions of the battle have the same compositional ingredients, there are two decisive differences: (a) in the miniature all fighters are moving on one groundline, for obviously the illustrator was less confined to lateral limitations and could afford to spread out, and so preserve a convincing spatial relationship; (b) not only are there two groups of riders instead of solitary ones, but there also is a clear distinction between victors and vanquished, that is, attacking riders and those in full flight. Thus the miniature has a greater stylistic unity and, by distinguishing between victors and vanquished, is more in agreement with the biblical narrative. There seems to be a reason that the Dura artist replaced the rider groups by the single conventional combat: it takes the sting out of the humiliating defeat of the Israelites, an element not objectionable in a full narrative illustration of a biblical book, but to be avoided as far as possible in a fresco program where the triumph of Israel is the keynote. The only distinction in the single combat is the differentiation of the colors of the horses: one is white and the other is black. Here Goodenough, in our opinion correctly, has seen a symbolic use of color, relating the white horse to good and the black to evil. If this is the case, the rider on the white horse would be an Israelite who, despite his defeat, is fighting for a just cause, that is, the saving of the ark, and the rider on the black horse a Philistine, whose victory (ultimately in vain) leads to the capture of the ark, depicted in the left half of the panel.

Following the depiction of Samuel at Shiloh is a long panel showing two separate events united by a common frame.

The Battle of Eben-ezer The right half depicts the battle between the Philistines and the Israelites at Eben-ezer. In the tradition of Greek battle ethos, it is not made clear at first glance who are the victors and who the vanquished. The fresco artist, as so often, was limited by the width of the panel and therefore resorted to the principle of superimposing in striplike fashion elements that, in the model, must have been in a more natural spatial relationship. At the bottom one notices three pairs of soldiers engaged in mortal combat and displaying most vivid actions. The middle strip is occupied very prominently by only two riders attacking each other with lowered lances. While the horseman at the left takes off from the ground strip, the one at the right is slightly elevated. Though there are no overlappings, the two strips can still be conceived of as being in a convincing spatial relationship. However, the strip at the top, which depicts two groups of foot soldiers attacking each other, is suspended in midair. Of course this abandoning of natural spatial relationships is a common phenomenon in late antique art-one need only refer to the Helena sarcophagus in the Vatican as a characteristic example, 1 where it is not, as at Dura, conditioned by lateral limitations.

In a unified composition one would expect a cavalry charge in the center instead of the two single riders, homogeneous in character to the fighting foot soldiers. The Vatican Book of Kings (fig. 102) 3 indeed illustrates the battle of Eben-ezer in this way. Here we see the same three components as in Dura: foot soldiers attacking each other, separated by the charging cavalry; riders pursuing other riders already in full flight; and, on the ground, the fallen soldiers. It has, of course, been noted that the biblical text does not mention any cavalry, which at that time apparently did not yet exist as part of the Israelite army. Thus

The Capture of the Ark Like the scene just discussed, the one depicting the capture of the ark (fig. 103) is also organized in three strips: in the center we see the ark being carried away and above and below Philistine soldiers flanking the ark on either side. As in the battle scene, the central and the lower strip could easily be placed on the same groundline, while the figures at the top are depicted suspended in midair. The ark is carried away by four youths dressed in the Hellenistic manner in short tunics with clavi. Because the text (verse 11) states only very tersely "and the ark of God was taken," it leaves open the identity of the carriers, and this ambiguity has led to different interpretations. Some commentators have argued that the men in the fresco are the Levites, but others rejected this identification on the grounds that the Levites would have to be represented in a more distinct dress, as they are in the other picture of the carrying of the ark to be discussed later (p. 94 and figs. 134-135). However, the idea that the Philistines are carrying the ark is not satisfactory. After all, the Philistines are involved only as battling soldiers, and this would leave the question open as to where the Philistine civilians came from. So the best guess, in our opinion, is that the carriers were Israelites who were forced by the victors to carry the ark for them. It will be noticed that the four Philistine soldiers at the top and the two in the foreground are depicted with drawn swords, in most cases

72

73

But there is still another and very essential formal element involved, namely, a noticeable discrepancy between the three strips. While the soldiers at the top and at the bottom are rendered in lively combat, the two riders look like a heraldic group almost frozen in their action. Kraeling and Goodenough correctly argued that these two riders are derived from the Persian tradition, and Goodenough introduced a rock relief from Naqsh-i Rustam as a fitting parallel.2 The overall artistic effect is very similar to that in the panel of the Israelites leaving Egypt (fig. 48), where the twelve tribes are represented in a middle strip in stiff frontal poses and isolated from the Israelites above and below who are moving to the left. In both cases the middle strip is an intrusion whereby stylistic unity is willfully abandoned for the sake of a special emphasis on the central zone.

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

lowered but in one instance raised. Because the soldiers are not engaged in battle, such gestures could be understood to be driving the Israelites on to the humiliating task. This scene, too, is preserved in a miniature of the Vatican manuscript (fig. 104). 4 As would be expected, the scene takes place in a unified plane, and this means that the Philistines, instead of flanking the ark' on both sides, are depicted following it. Two of them clearly raise their arms and hold some object that seems to be a stick rather than a sword; this would be more proper since the Philistines here-contrary to the text-are not dressed as soldiers but as civilians. But their action is quite clear: they drive the carriers of the ark on, just as the Philistine soldiers in the fresco do. In the miniature the effect is even more drastic, as the carriers clearly are being hurried along. One difference, however, is the shape of the ark: instead of the cabinet, which in Dura is studded with jewers and decorated with a garland, the miniature shows the shape of a huge reliquary shrine. The same shape appears in the Octateuchs, adapted for the book of Joshua,5 while in the Pentateuch part of the same manuscripts the ark is depicted in the original cabinet form as in Dura. This means that the change from cabinet to shrine took place within the same manuscript. On the other hand, the ark in the Vatican miniature shows one original element lost in Dura: the cherub on the lid of the shrine which is referred to in verse 4 as the "ark of the covenant of the Lord of Hosts, which dwelleth between the cherubims." If the Dura fresco gives the impression that the carrying away of the ark was the immediate consequence of the defeat at Eben-ezer, it is not quite in agreement with the text. There is an intermediary episode in which, as the text tells us, the Israelites, after their defeat at Eben-ezer, bring the ark from Shiloh into the camp and begin to shout, expecting that the presence of the ark will boost morale and that thereby they might frighten their enemies. But the Philistines were not deceived: they attacked the Israelites and defeated them a second time. Both these events are depicted in the Vatican manuscript (fig. 102). In the scene at the left, the ark with the cherub stands on the ground and alongside it one notices a group of shouting Israelites; at the right an army of the Philistines, this time consisting of only foot soldiers, attacks the Israelites and defeats them a second time. Once more we get the impression that the Dura artist made a selection from a fuller cycle, chosing only those scenes that fitted the overall theme of the program, that is, the triumph of Israel, here contrasted with the temporary setback that is followed by an even more decisive triumph. He had left out those scenes of mere narrative character that he must have considered unimportant for the overall program. BIBLIOGRAP!jY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, pp. 72ff. and pl. XXVI, 13, XXXII-XXXIII. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 95ff. and pls. LIV-LV. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, pp. 171ff. and vol. 11, pl. XIX and fig. 346. Revel-Neher, L'Arche d'alliance, p. 141 and pl. XV, fig. 58.

74

' G. Rodenwaldt, Die Kunst der Antike, He/las und Rom (Propylaen-Kunstgeschichte, 3), Berlin, 1927, pis. on pp. 687-88. 2Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, p. 172. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 96-98. J Lass us, Livre des Rois, p. 3 7 and pl. III, fig. 9. •Ibid., pp. 38ff. and pl. III, fig. 10. sK. Weitzmann, The Joshua Roll, p. 9 passim and figs. 5-7, 11-12, 14, 17.

[12]

The Ark and the Temple of Dagon (I Samuel 5:1-5, 6:1-12) West, 2nd zone. First panel from right. Figs. 1, 5, and 105.

Like the preceding panel, this one comprises two narrative scenes that read from right to left; but it differs from the former in that the two scenes are artistically not self-contained entities but are conflated in such a way that the Ark of the Covenant, a feature of both episodes, is depicted only once close to the center of the panel.

The Destruction of Dagon According to the biblical text, the Philistines placed the captured ark in their temple of Dagon at Ashdod, and as a result the statue of Dagon fell to the ground. The Philistines set the statue back up the next morning and "behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the ground before the ark of the Lord, and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off upon the threshold." At the top right of the picture, we see "the house of Dagon" depicted as a Greco-Roman temple where, in order to avoid any foreshortening, the colonnaded side walls of the cella are rendered on the same plane as the open-gabled front. Basically the same principle governed the depiction of the tabernacle panel (fig. 80), except that there only one side wall of the temple is shown next to the wide front side. In the black interior of the temple one sees two cubic pieces of stone or marble, which Du Mesnil du Buisson interpreted as altars, but Kraeling's identification of them as the bases of the statue of Dagon is more convincing. Rationally, there should be only one pedestal for there is only one statue involved. The repetition of the pedestal is the painter's device for visualizing the event, suggesting that the statue was put back into the temple after the first fall and then fell a second time. In this way two successive events are conflated. Although Du Mesnil du Buisson and Kraeling were aware of what we consider to be just another example of conflation and drew the correct conclusion that only one statue and one god is involved, Goodenough, quite unaware of the artistic principles involved, went astray by claiming reference to two different statues and two gods, and he went to great lengths to identify the gods as Iarhibol and Aglibol.

75

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

Between the two pedestals is a piece of furniture that has been interpreted differently. Du Mesnil du Buisson thought it to be a couch. His underlying idea was that the fallen statue resembled that of Adonis, and that the shrine was to be associated with the cult of Adonis. Kraeling took this piece of furniture to be a table, and he thought that the Ark of the Covenant was supposed to stand on it. We agree with his identification as such, but the table does not seem stable enough to be a stand for the ark. In this case Goodenough was more convincing: he suggested that on this table had been placed some of the altar implements that had tumbled down and are lying on the ground in front of the temple. He introduced as a good parallel to such a table laden with implements a stucco relief from the Basilica di Porta Maggiore in Rome. 1 The implements on the ground, accounted for in detail by Kraeling, 2 need not be described here in detail. Suffice it to say that some of them, such as the candlesticks and the thymiateria, are very much the same as those connected with the Jewish temple (figs. 80 and 93) and that the fresco painter for the most part had made no attempt to distinguish between pagan and Jewish cult objects. In the midst of these implements the fallen statue of Dagon is shown twice, in one case with the head separated from the body and in the other with a foot broken off. For reasons of condensation, the statues are placed one above the other instead of side by side as would have been more proper, so that each would have been placed below the pedestal from which it had fallen. Du Mesnil du Buisson recognized the similarity of the statue and a figure in the fresco from the nearby Adonis temple in Dura. 3 The synagogue painter could not possibly have had any knowledge of what the biblical statue of Dagon would have looked like, and therefore he had no choice but to take as model the depiction of any pagan idol that seemed to fit his purpose and was available. Thus it seems only natural that he might have looked into the temple of Adonis and copied the image from there. But the use of the pagan model was merely formal, and does not imply, as Du Mesnil du Buisson thought, that any ideas of the Adonis cult were taken over into the synagogue fresco. Basically, we deal here with a case similar to that of the adaptation of an Aphrodite type for Pharaoh's daughter, and of some nymphs for her handmaidens (p. 30 and fig. 30). In these cases, too, if we are not mistaken, classical models were copied for merely formal reasons. Precisely the same event as depicted in the right half of the Dura panel occurs also in the Vatican Book of Kings (fig. 106). 4 Here, too, we see the temple of Dagon in a drastically abbreviated form but, differently, it consists of a double-arched front and similarly, to the left, the beginning of what may be understood as a side wall is projected into the same plane as the front wall. However, in full agreement is the depiction of the two pedestals whereby, in the same way as in the fresco, the repeated action is made pictorially suggestive. Because it is hardly likely that the same artistic device was made twice independently, we see in this coincidence strong evidence that the two representations ultimately go back to the same archetype. But in the miniature only the right pedestal is empty, while on the left there still

stands a statue of Dagon before its first fall. In the color plate of the Dura painting published by Kraeling, there is also a statue of an idol clearly visible on the left pedestal, and this had led me in an earlier piece of writing to see in this coincidence with the miniature an additional strong argument for a common archetype. 5 However, Kraeling is quite firm in his statement that there is no such statue on the left pedestal and that a few scratches had wrongly been interpreted as a statue by Gute in his watercolor copy. If one looks at the color photograph in Goodenough's publication, made later on the spot by Fred Anderegg, it confirms Kraeling's statement that there are indeed only scratches. Yet the agreement between fresco and miniature is not confined to the two pedestals; it extends also to the two fallen statues lying diagonally. However, in the miniature these are not placed one above the other as in the fresco but, much more sensibly, one is placed between the ark, which toppled the statue, and the columnar pedestal, and the other to the right, closer to the second pedestal. One may speculate why the fresco painter, unlike the miniaturist, did not depict the statue on the left pedestal before it fell. There may have been two reasons, one formal and the other ideological. A statue on the pedestal would have had to be extremely small compared with the two statues on the ground. Such change of scale would have meant the use of perspective, which is alien to the Dura painter. Moreover, unlike the miniaturist, the Dura painter was not interested in a full narrative account but only in the effect of the power of the ark, that is, the destruction of Dagon. The fuller narrative of the miniature is not confined to the statue of Dagon on the pedestal but is evident also in the display of the ark, which is shown standing on the ground and partly overlapping the temple front, suggesting that it is meant to stand in the interior. Furthermore, one notices at the left, in front of an arcade that may suggest the temple court, a group of weeping Philistines bemoaning the disaster that has befallen their god Dagon. It is thoroughly understandable that the Dura artist, concentrating on the theme of the triumphant ark, had no use for this group of mourning Philistines, which was part of the archetypal illustration of this event.

76

77

The Departure of the Ark As already mentioned, the ark is related to two events simultaneously: the destruction of Dagon and the ark's return. But this fusion has caused a conflict with the biblical narrative, because the fresco gives the impression that the ark was returned from Ashdod, the place of Dagon. However, after the disaster at the temple of Dagon, the ark had been taken to different places, first to Gath and then to Ekron, and it was from the latter place that it was finally returned. The artist of Dura may well have been aware of this discrepancy; he obviously was not interested in historical accuracy, but only in the triumph of the ark as such. In the Vatican Book of Kings the two events depicted in Dura are separated from each other by still another miniature illustrating verses 6-8 (fig. 107),6 "But the hand of the Lord was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them and smote them ... ," whereby

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

the Philistines held a council in which they decided that the ark should no longer abide with them. The miniature painter depicted fire from heaven as the means of their destruction. As in previous cases, the Dura artist was not interested in the fate of the Philistines but only in the destiny of the ark. In Dura the ark is depicted basically in the same form as in the previous instances (figs. 80 and 103), that is, as a cabinet with a rounded top, and it is placed under a canopy on a cart drawn by two bullocks, one white and the other brown. According to the text, these animals should be milk-kine, but they are rendered sexless with no teats or testicles, and one can only draw the conclusion that the artist did not particularly care. The carriage rests, rather precariously, on two wheels. Du Mesnil du Buisson assumed that the model behind this carriage was a two-wheeled funerary cart, but as there is no funerary function involved in the present case, it is much more likely, as Kraeling and Goodenough suggested, that the model was a four-wheeled cart seen from the front, with room for the depiction of only two wheels. One may raise the question why the carriage was rendered in frontal view and the two bullocks in profile. Some have interpreted this double view as an artistic attempt to indicate that the procession made a turn at this point and changed direction. But this seems to me a highly unlikely explanation because it would involve a spatial concept foreign to the Dura painter, who always tried his utmost to project everything on a two-dimensional plane. There are two different reasons for the frontal rendering of the cart, one formal, the other ideological. Because of the pressure on the artist to condense in width, a four-wheeled cart in side view would have taken more space than was available. Moreover, the frontal view of the ark relates better to both scenes-the presence in the temple of Dagon and the departure. In one decisive point the fresco disagrees with the Bible text, where it is clearly stated that the cart was not to be guided by drivers but (verse 9) that the milk-kine on their own chose the right direction, going "unto the border of Bethshemesh." Here, contrary to the text, they are guided by two men in the usual Persian costume, one leading the oxen by a yoke and the other driving the animals from behind. In this case, I believe Goodenough did find the correct solution. He brought into the discussion a second episode, told in II Samuel 6:1-19, in which a new cart was built to bring the ark to Jerusalem. On this occasion the two sons of Abinadab, Uzzah and Ahio, are named as the drivers. Ahio is mentioned as the one who "went before the ark" and must therefore be identified with the youth who holds the yoke, while Uzzah has his place close to the ark. According to the text Uzzah touched the ark, whereupon God smote him. The fresco painter did not render this detail in order not to detract. He apparently had only one interest in the introduction of Ahio and Uzzah: to hint at the final destination of the travels of the ark-not Bethshemesh at the border of the Philistine country, but Jerusalem. The intrusion of such an anticipatory element is not unique among the Dura synagogue frescoes. We have noticed a similar phenomenon in the panel of the Exodus (pp. 38££. and figs. 48-49), where the lined-up representatives of the twelve tribes were taken over from Numbers. 78

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

At the upper left, above the bullocks and alongside the ark, are three men clad in chitons and himations who have usually been identified, we believe correctly, as the princes of the Philistines who accompanied the ark as far as the border of their country. According to the text (verse 12)-"and the lords of the Philistines went after them [i.e., the kine]"they should follow the cart, but because the cart with the ark had to be related simultaneously to the temple of Dagon there was obviously no place for them to march behind the ark, and the fresco painter transferred them to the only spot left free in the composition, the upper left. Moreover, the text mentions five lords but only three are shown. To the Dura artist, the exact number apparently did not matter, since the lords are not individualized in the Bible text. In our opinion, lack of space is the only reason for restricting the number. The lords are placed in midair, whereby any rational spatial relationship is abandoned, a phenomenon we have also seen in other panels at Dura. One need only recall the preceding panel with the battle of Eben-ezer and the capture of the ark (figs. 101 and 103). Only Goodenough denies the identification of the three men with the princes of the Philistines and proposes "that the three men who walk beside the Ark were originally those of Abraham's encounter with God . . .." 7 This kind of symbolism seems to us farfetched and unconvincing, and there is no textual basis for such a parallelism between the princes of the Philistines and the three men of the Abraham story. The Departure of the Ark is also depicted in the Vatican Book of Kings (fig. 108), 8 separated from the destruction of the temple of Dagon by the aforementioned miniature showing the smiting of the Philistines (fig. 107). In the departure the composition is not impeded by the necessity of confining its width, and unfolds freely in one plane. The milkkine draw a four-wheeled cart, seen correctly from the side, on which is placed the ark in the form of a huge chest decorated with a cherub as is typical for this manuscript. Behind the ark to the right are two groups following it, first the princes, distinguished, in contrast to the fresco, by the loros, the imperial dress, and then a large crowd of Philistines in short tunics. This expansion of the followers of the ark is not quite in agreement with the Bible text, which speaks only of the five lords. Apparently it was the illustrator's intention to let the Philistine people also take part in honoring the ark. One may speculate whether the neutral garment of the three men in the Dura fresco, chiton and himation, is not a conscious attempt to render them simply as Philistines with no distinction of rank. In comparing the miniature with the fresco, one becomes all the more conscious of how a spatially correct composition in the Greco-Roman tradition was altered by the necessity of saving space by depicting the cart in frontal view and turning the followers of the ark into space-fillers above the cart. Goodenough's identification of the cart drivers with Ahio and Uzzah is also supported by the Vatican Book of Kings (fig. 109).9 In a miniature of the transport of the ark to Jerusalem, the four-wheeled cart drawn by two oxen on which it rides is very much like the cart on its way to Bethshemesh. Such similarity must have struck the fresco painter and made it easy for him to transfer from a common narrative model two figures from one 79

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

composition into the other. In the miniature also Ahio is depicted leading the team of oxen, but not alone. Most prominent is the Israelite in the middle of the group who-as in the fresco-turns his head around, looking at the misdeed of Uzzah. Close to the ark, which he erroneously has touched, we see Uzzah being killed by an angel. This specific feature was of course not transferable into the Bethshemesh scene, but nevertheless it should be noted that in the fresco, too, Uzzah is behind Ahio and close to the ark; his specific mischief, touching the ark, is replaced by another one, driving on the oxen, which-and this is the essence of the story-should find their way without guidance.

The clear, simple composition of the Anointing of David is one of the most striking examples in monumental art of a transformation from a narrative scene to a hieratic composition. The artist achieved his goal by applying a variety of principles. Samuel, standing at the left, pours oil upon the head of David, who stands in the midst of his brothers. The first thing the artist did was to place David in the very center of the composition, thereby making it difficult for Samuel to reach him with the horn, which he rendered in a horizontal position, and so the act of pouring seems unconvincing. Second, the artist contradicted the text's statement that, when he was first presented to Samuel, David was a boy. He depicted David not only as a grownup equal in size to his brothers, but also overlapping all the others as the only one who is fully visible. Furthermore, David is dressed in a purple garment, the

prerogative of a king, which proleptically indicates his royal status. We have noticed that the artist uses the device of prolepsis in other cases as well, including the preceding one (fig. 105) in which the cart with the ark is led by Ahio and Uzzah. All these changes from the narrative illustration of this event into a monumental composition become particularly clear when the fresco is compared to a miniature painting. In the ninth-century manuscript of the Sacra Parallela (fig. 111) 1 the scene accompanies the proper passage from I Samuel and is rendered in a very condensed form due to the necessity of squeezing it into the margin; nevertheless, it has preserved all the essential elements. Samuel stands at the left in the same pose as in the Dura fresco, though he is Christianized by the addition of a nimbus. As one would expect from a purely narrative illustration of this event, David confronts the prophet directly. Samuel holds the horn vertically, as in all Byzantine examples, with its pointed end directly over David's head, so that only by its overflowing could the oil be poured out. As Stichel has shown, this corresponds to a Jewish tradition. 2 This position of the horn was surely also found in the model of the Dura painting; here the horizontal position, as we have said earlier, is not another iconographical type, but simply the fresco painter's adjustment to the change in the compositional layout. Moreover, David is depicted as a small boy, and he wears a short tunic that characterizes him as a shepherd who has just come from pasturing his flocks. Furthermore, he is extending his bare hands toward Samuel, a feature that makes one aware that in Dura the crossing and covering of the hands under the purple cloak, a gesture Kraeling and others explained as one of worshiping a deity, is yet another of the fresco painter's alterations to enhance the hieratic quality of the panel. Finally, in the miniature, the brothers behind David are led by their father, Jesse, and this reveals yet another alteration by the fresco painter: the omission of Jesse. Jesse is required by the text, and his absence in the fresco was surely a deliberate act, for which there must have been a reason. In our opinion the reason must be sought in the artist's endeavor to concentrate on the act of anointing and proleptic coronation as king (implied by the purple garment). Thus the artist stripped the composition of all narrative elements not essential to the exaltation of David. There is a further difference in the number of the brothers. The fresco shows six and the miniature seven. The latter number is justified by the passage in I Samuel, but six are mentioned in I Chronicles 2:13. There is, of course, the possibility that the fresco is based on this latter passage; on the other hand, the total number of seven, including David, is by far the most common in the rendering of this event, and the illustrators were most likely no longer aware which of the two passages provided the textual basis. In the case of Dura a formal consideration may have played a part in the restriction to six brothers. It will be noticed that the last brother at the right has to be content with less space than the three between him and David. There simply was not enough space left for an additional figure, and any attempt to squeeze him in would have endangered David's central position, which was uppermost in the mind of the painter. Although the identical rendering of the brothers

80

81

BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, pp. 75ff. and pl. XXXIV. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 99ff. and pl. LVI. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, pp. 74ff. and vol. 11, pl. XIII and fig. 339. Revel-Neher, L'Arche d'alliance, p. 142 and pl. XV, fig. 59. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 11, fig. 247. Kraeling, The Synagogue, p. 101 and fig. 30. 3 Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, p. 77 and Goodenough,Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, p. 75 and vol. 11, fig. 1

2

149. • Lassus, Livre des Rois, pp. 39ff. and pl. III, fig. 12. 5 Weitzrnann, "Jiidische Bilderquellen," pp. 403ff. and pl. 14a-b. 6 Lassus, Livre des Rois, p. 40 and pl. IV, fig. 13. 7 Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, pp. 91ff. and especially pp. 95-96. 8 Lassus, Livre des Rois, p. 40 and pl. IV, fig. 14. 9 Lassus, Livre des Rois, pp. 71£. and pl. XXV, fig. 85.

[13]

The Anointing of David (I Samuel 16:13) West, 3rd zone. Right of Torah niche. Figs. 1, 5, and 110.

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

has a rhythmic quality, the only slight individualization is achieved in the case of the first brother to the left who, as the only bearded one, is characterized as the eldest whose name, according to the passage in Chronicles, is Eliab.

itan Psalters as those to be discussed in the following lines. Here Samuel approaches from the right instead of the left, Jesse is prominently placed at the other side of David-compositionally balancing the figure of the prophet-and the brothers are placed behind his back. Whereas in the case of all previous panels we first consulted the Vatican Book of Kings, cod. gr. 333, we have good reason for not doing so in the present case. In the Vatican manuscript, the scene of the anointing (fig. 114) 6 obviously does not reflect the archetype as closely as the others but has undergone some changes that become clear by comparing it with the scene in the Sacra Parallela (fig. 111). 7 First of all, Samuel is depicted approaching from the right and Jesse, balancing him, wears a toga with his right arm in a sling like a classical rhetorician. Between him and David is added a personification who turns her head around toward Jesse and points with her right hand at David. Moreover, the scene-which according to the Bible text should take place in the open field where David has just been pasturing his flocks-is set in front of the complex gabled architecture of a temple or palace or both. There can be no doubt that these changes are due to use of the well-known tenthcentury Paris Psalter, Bibliotheque Nationale cod. gr. 139 (fig. 115),8 as the model. Here we see not only Samuel standing at the right and Jesse in the classical toga at the left of David, but most significantly, the personification inscribed Praotes (gentleness) is rendered in a much more classical style, and behind her one notices a much more elaborate classicized architecture. Obviously the illustrator of this Book of Kings was attracted by this splendid miniature, a product of what we like to call the Macedonian renaissance, and he copied it, most likely directly, while simultaneously simplifying it. It must be pointed out that, whereas in the Paris Psalter there is an abundance of personifications, often two or three in one miniature, the uninscribed personification in the Vatican Book of Kings is the only one in the whole extensive cycle. Thus there can be no doubt that the entire composition, including the personification, is an intrusion from a luxurious Psalter manuscript. This, then, explains why in this particular case the agreement between the Vatican manuscript and Dura is not as close as in other instances. Both Kraeling and Goodenough have referred to the Paris Psalter as a parallel to Dura, but our investigation has shown that other Byzantine Psalter miniatures have much closer affinities to the synagogue fresco.

Moreover, the frontality of all the brothers strikes the beholder immediately; all face the observer rather than turning toward Samuel. Even the prophet, despite his involvement in an action directed toward the right, is seen essentially in frontal view, whereby the attitude of the outstretched right arm with the horn becomes somewhat unnatural. Here we encounter a stylistic feature confined neither to this scene nor to the Dura painter in general, though he makes the widest use of this device. It is a fundamental principle of ancient oriental art in contradistinction to the Hellenic tradition in which the figures more often than not are arranged in a frieze-like fashion with the figures related to each other, moving parallel to the picture plane in disregard of the beholder. The anointing of David belongs to those episodes of his life taken over from an illustrated Book of Kings manuscript into an abbreviated cycle of his life that prefaces the Byzantine Psalters of the so-called aristocratic recension. Among the very numerous copies there is one of the eleventh century in the Athas monastery Vatopedi, cod. 761, which shows a non-Constantinopolitan style and, since the miniatures are accompanied by inscriptions in Armenian, its origin must be sought in one of the Eastern provinces. 3 The miniature with the anointing of David (fig. 112) 4 is quite close to that in the Sacra Parallela in several details: Samuel approaches from the left and holds the horn by its pointed end over the head of David who, rendered as a boy, stands with bare extended hands before the prophet. But the group of the brothers is not as condensed as in the Sacra Parallela; they are lined up and, as in Dura, stand in frontal position. Note in particular that the three brothers in the front row have their hands crossed and covered much as David's hands in the Dura frescoa gesture which, as mentioned above, is the old oriental manner of worshiping a deity. Behind the brothers at the upper right appear the white-haired head of Jesse and that of a veiled woman, not mentioned in the text, surely meant to represent his wife. They converse with each other and seem almost unaware of the anointing. This is a unique feature since in all other representations of the event Jesse heads the group of brothers. The figures of David's parents seem almost an unintegrated afterthought. Without them the composition would be quite close to what we expect the narrative rendering of the scene must have been before it was hieraticized. Another variant of the anointing is to be found in the Vatican Psalter, cod. gr. 1927 from the first half of the twelfth century (fig. 113),5 which, with regard to its iconography, is in many respects unusual. The most striking features are the placement of David in the very center of the composition, his frontal view, and the crossing of his hands-all three features, as we have seen, typical of the Dura fresco. This coincidence is difficult to explain inasmuch as the miniature obviously does not go back to Dura and yet does not seem to reflect just another monumental composition. Otherwise, the Vatican miniature is in the tradition of the most common rendering of the event as known from such Constantinopol-

82

BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, pp. 126££. and pls. LI, 2 and LIV, 1. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 164££. and pl. LXVI. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 9, pp. 187££. and vol. 11, pl. VII and fig. 337.

Weitzmann, Sacra Para/le/a, pp. 77££. and pl. XXXI, 117. Stichel, "Ausserkanonische Elemente," p. 170 and pl. 7b, introduced the miniature of the so-called Barberini Psalter, Vat. gr. 752, fol. 152v, as a striking example. 3 Weitzmann, "Psalter Vatopedi 761," pp. 20££. Cutler, Aristocratic Psalters, pp. 26££. and figs. 61-77. 1

2

83

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

•Weitzmann, "Psalter Vatopedi 761," p. 23 and fig. 5. Cutler, Aristocratic Psalters, p. 27 and fig. 64. ' E.T. De Wald, The Illustrations in the Manuscripts of the Septuagint. Vol. 3, Psalms and Odes, Part 1, Vaticanus Graecus 1927, Princeton, 1941, p. 43 and pl. LXV, fol. 264v. 6 Lassus, Livre des Rois, p. 51 and pl. XI, fig. 40. 7 Weitzmann, Sacra Parallela, pp. 95ff. 8

There is no need for an extensive bibliography on this manuscript or a discussion of the controversy about its date. Suffice it to cite the basic study by H. Buchthal, Paris Psalter, London, 1938, pp. 18ff. and pl. III.

[13a]

David Decapitating Goliath (I Samuel 17 :51) Baptistery in the Christian Building at Dura. South Wall. Fig. 116.

Two blocks away from the Dura synagogue is a Christian building that includes a baptistery decorated, like the synagogue, on all walls with frescoes belonging to the same period, the middle of the third century. As is to be expected, almost all the frescoes depict Christian subjects, but there are two exceptions: one depicts Adam and Eve-a subject hardly surprising in Christian surroundings-and the other the decapitation of Goliath by David, a choice rather unexpected in a Christian baptistery and not easy to explain. Though very fragmentary and badly preserved, the second fresco is nonetheless clearly identified by the two inscriptions David and Goliath. The iconography is rather unusual; Goliath lies on his back and David approaches from behind brandishing in his right hand a sword with which he is to sever the giant's head. A large part of David's body is lost, but one would expect that with his left hand he held Goliath's head. 1 Goliath's legs are also lost, and it is difficult to imagine how they could be cramped into the narrow space available unless they were dangling down. Equally unclear is what filled the space behind David's back. ' Still, the outline of the composition is unmistakable and, while uncommon, it is not unique. As a matter of fact, the peculiar features of David approaching from behind and Goliath having fallen on his back appear in one of the earliest representations of this subject, on one of the seventh-century silver plates from Cyprus now in the Metropolitan Museum 2 (fig. 117). Here the scene is reversed; otherwise the main difference is that David is actually severing the giant's head, while in Dura he is brandishing the sword and just about to strike. Although Goliath's position on his back is a sufficient indication that ultimately the same archetype is involved, we would surmise that the severing of the giant's head as depicted in the silver plate is the more original rendering because it represents the scene more imaginatively. David holding the giant's head with his left hand foreshadows his later triumphal return to Jerusalem, when he carries the head on the point of the captured lance. Moreover, 84

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

most of the other examples show the motif of grasping the giant's head, just as we expect existed at Dura. That Goliath throws up his legs in the silver plate is the result of the artist's attempt to fit the scene into the exergue of the plate. An important iconographic feature are the weapons thrown away by Goliath. Every artist felt free to make his own arrangements as he saw fit to fill the space. In Dura the shield is visible behind Goliath's right side and the lance is stuck into the ground at his feet. 3 In the silver plate the weapons decoratively fill the righthand corner of the exergue: a huge shield, helmet, and lance occupy empty space counterbalanced at the left corner by David's sling and a few stones. Although there is good reason to assume that the Cyprus silver plate was manufactured in the classicizing style prevailing in Constantinople at the time of the emperor Heraclius, it must be stated that the particular iconography of the killing of Goliath does not occur in later Constantinopolitan art where, as we shall see later, it is replaced by another scheme. However, the iconography of the silver plate does continue in a few examples whose origins lie in the Eastern provinces. There is in the Palazzo Venezia in Rome an ivory casket, all five sides of which are covered with scenes from an extensive David cycle, including David decapitating Goliath (fig. 118).4 Here the composition is basically the same as in the silver plate with insignificant variations. David, who still carries the sling with a few stones around his shoulder, grasps Goliath's head even more explicitly, and the shield and the helmet are used as space fillers above the giant's corpse. Moreover, the composition is more complete, including behind David a group of approving Israelite soldiers and behind Goliath a group of Philistine soldiers raising their hands in despair. This inclusion raises the question whether the empty space behind David in the Dura fresco-not large enough for another scene-could have been occupied by a group of rejoicing Israelites. Of course this is only a suggestion and must remain a hypothesis. In the ivory corpus, the casket has been dated in the tenth to eleventh century and on stylistic grounds has been ascribed to Armenia. While date and provenance still remain open to debate, one thing is certain: the casket is not a Constantinopolitan product, and its origin must be sought somewhere in an Eastern province, Armenia being a strong possibility. Another non-Constantinopolitan example is a miniature in the Vatopedi Psalter, cod. 761 (fig. 119),5 in which David-here nimbed-cuts off the head of Goliath, who lies on his back with legs crossed. Shield and lance lie below him on the ground, while at the right, only half visible, is the giant's horse, a peculiar and rather unique feature of this painter who in the preceding miniature depicts Goliath attacking David on horseback. Armenian titles on top of some of the miniatures suggest that this manuscript, like the ivory casket, originated in an East Byzantine province. 6 In describing the previous panel with the anointing of David we noticed that the parallel representation in the same Vatopedi Psalter has significant affinities with the corresponding scene in the Dura synagogue. This similarity does not seem accidental but suggests that ultimately these two Psalter miniatures hark back to the same archetype on which also the frescoes of the synagogue and the Christian baptis-

85

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

tery are based. In other words, there is some evidence that a common source is involved. If this proposition is accepted, we would have established one of the earliest instances in which a Christian monument is dependent on the same source as the synagogue frescoes. It must be reiterated that the motif of Goliath lying on his back occurs (with one possible exception, the Cyprus silver plate) predominantly in works of art created in the Eastern provinces. There existed another, even much more popular type of decapitation of Goliath in which David faces the giant, who has fallen on his knees before him. Of this type, one of the earliest examples is in a miniature of the ninth-century Sacra Parallela in Paris, cod. gr. 923 (fig. 120). 7 David grasps Goliath's head, which is turned around, and in his right hand he holds the drawn sword with which he is about to sever the giant's head. Because most of the marginal illustrations seem to go back to pre-Iconoclastic sources, this type too must be quite old; and because the manuscript is, in our opinion, a Palestinian product, it likewise must have been known in the East Byzantine provinces. Less individualized than the decapitation scene in the Dura baptistery, it reflects a scheme very common in Christian martyrdom scenes. It is true that normally the executioner stands behind the victim when he brandishes his sword, but the other type, where the executioner faces the victim, occurs fairly frequently-for instance, more than a dozen times in the well-known Menologion of Basil II in the Vatican, cod. gr. 1613. 8 Thus it is quite likely that the scheme as depicted in the Sacra Parallela is a somewhat later development under the influence of a Christian martyrdom scene. In this form the decapitation becomes most generally accepted in Constantinopolitan art; for example, in the Vatican Book of Kings (fig. 121), 9 David steps forward and grasps the head of the kneeling giant and cuts it off. This vehement action of David is found similarly in the tenth-century Paris Psalter, gr. 139 (fig. 122), 10 and there can be little doubt that in this case, just as in the aforementioned anointing scene, the artist of the Vatican codex does not rely on the older Book of Kings which he normally follows, but on the Psalter tradition such as that of Paris 139; quite possibly it was this very miniature that he copied. We have here one of the exceptional cases where a Psalter miniature, itself ultimately based on a Book of Kings miniature, was changed and embellished under the impact of the Macedonian renaissance and then exerted a retroactive influence on a Book of Kings. BIBLIOGRAPHY C. H. Kraeling, The Christian Building, The Ex cavations at Dura-Europos. Final Report, vol. 8, part 2. Ed. C. B. Welles, New Haven, 1967, pp. 69££. and pis. XXII, XLI, 1-2. C. ~raeling, The Christian Building at Dura-Europos (Final Report, vol. 8, part 2), New Haven, 1967, p. 70, believes that, contrary to Hopkins' observations (see Kraeling), David held the sword with both hands. Yet it rather seems to have been part of the iconographical tradition that David held Goliath's head with the left hand. 2 K. Weitzmann, " Prolegomena to the Study of the Cyprus Plates," Metropolitan Museum Journal 3 (1970), 97££. and esp. 103, fig. 7. This is not the place for a more complete bibliography on the Cyprus plates. 1

86

See the exhibition catalogue, The Age of Spirituality, Metropolitan Museum, New York and Princeton, 1979, pp. 475££. (H. L. Kessler), where all plates are reproduced. 3 The lance is not in the drawing published here, but Kraeling saw it and drew it in (Christian Building, p. 71 and pl. XLI, 2). •Goldschmidt and Weitzmann, Byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen, vol. 1, Kasten, pp. 63f. and pl. LXXI, 123d. Weitzmann, "Psalter Vatopedi 761," p. 24 and fig. 7. Cutler, Aristocratic Psalters, p. 27 and fig. 66. •There is still another Psalter miniature, Leningrad, Public Library, cod. gr. 274, from the thirteenth cen· tury, which shows Goliath on his back while being decapitated. Weitzmann, "Prolegomena," p. 100 and fig. 4. 5

Cutler, Aristocratic Psalters, p. 45 and fig. 158. 7 Weitzmann, Sacra Para/le/a, pp. 78ff. and pl. XXXII, 19.

• Menologio di Basilio II. 9 Lassus, Livre des Rois, p. 53 and pl. XII, fig. 43. 10 Buchthal, Paris Psalter, pp. 21ff. and pl. 4.

[14]

David and Saul in the Wilderness of Ziph (I Samuel 26:2-25) East, 3rd zone. Left panel. Figs. 8, 123, and 124.

Of the mostly destroyed east wall only the first zone above the dado is preserved and even this only in its lower part. But enough remains to identify the subject matter with certainty. The frieze depicts the narration of an episode that moves from left to right and consists of three distinct phases. We should like to start our description with the central scene, because it is the one that has the most distinct details on which its certain identification is based. 1 In the foreground lies a huge figure clad in an embroidered Persian costume as worn in other Dura panels by kings or court officials. He is asleep and stretched out on a rocky ground, supporting his head with his left arm. Above him are two small crouching figures, likewise asleep, and above them a small and badly destroyed figure of a man apparently in a sleeping position similar to that of the man in the foreground. The sleepers are approached by two striding men, also dressed in Persian costumes, one thrusting out his arm as if to grasp an object and the other holding a jar. After some initial attempts to identify the scene with various biblical subjects, which need not be reported here, recent scholarship has been unanimous in identifying the scene as the encounter of Saul and David in the wilderness of Ziph. In the Bible account David and Abishai surprise the sleeping Saul and take from him his spear and water cruse. Beyond the identification of the scene as such, scholars disagree on details. The main difficulty arises right away with the naming of the huge sleeping figure in the foreground. While Kraeling's first impulse was to call him Saul because of his size and royal garments, after much delib-

87

l

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

I 1'

I I

eration he decided otherwise and called him the "giant Abner," the captain of Saul's host. The reason for this change of opinion was that the smaller figure higher up sleeps on a litter, and Kraeling could not conceive that King Saul could be represented sleeping on the rocks and his general on a comfortable litter. So the issue is which of the two iconographical features is the more important and decisive: the litter or the size of the figure. I disagree with Kraeling and Goodenough, who accepted his opinion, for the following three reasons: (a) the depiction of a king or ruler in larger size was, since ancient Egyptian times, an accepted convention, which is also used in Dura for Moses and for kings, and it is hard to believe the artist would have abandoned such a firmly established tradition in this case; (b) within our frieze Saul occurs, as we shall see, altogether three times, and in each case he is represented larger than the people around him; and-and this represents the most decisive evidence-(c) Saul is represented sleeping in the foreground in a representation of the same text passage in the Vatican Book of Kings (fig. 125). 2 But if we adhere to the original identification of the figure in the foreground as Saul, how then is the litter to be explained, on which we must assume Abner is lying? According to the biblical story, Abner was guilty of negligence in not guarding Saul, his sleeping master. So the emphasis in the representation of Abner is on his impermissible sleep. Could it be that to stress this point the painter depicted Abner in a comfortable bed instead of on the rock like Saul? This, admittedly, is merely hypothesis, but whatever the correct explanation, we still prefer the identification of the figure in the foreground as Saul, despite another argument that Kraeling advanced in identifying him as Abner, referring to a tradition in Jewish legends which speaks of Abner as a giant. This reference occurs in very particular episodes in connection with a spider web and a wasp 3 of which no details are noticeable in the fresco, and thus it seems unjustified in this case to involve unrelated legendary elements. The above-mentioned miniature (fig. 125) depicts precisely the same moment in which David is removing the lance, stuck into the ground near Saul's head. The lance is no longer visible in the fresco but the miniature confirms its place close to Saul's head. Although approaching from the other side, David takes a similar wide stride and puts his raised foot on the elevated ground on which Saul is lying. But the miniaturist was pressed by the narrowness of space and omitted Abishai, David's companion who, for textual reasons, should not have been left out since it was he who proposed to kill Saul, but was refuted by David. Thus, in the miniature David not only grasps the spear but also holds the cruse of water, the two objects which, in the fresco, are distributed so that David holds one and Abishai the other. On the other hand, there is in the miniature a group of soldiers depicted behind David which does not appear in the fresco. In verse 6 David selects from a group the man who is going with him into Saul's camp and thus the soldiers may be "the group" mentioned in this verse. Moreover, the miniature shows a whole group of sleeping soldiers to the right of Saul, none of whom is clearly distinguished as Abner, unless he is the most prominently displayed soldier closest to Saul.

In spite of these differences, the decisive moment-the capture of the spear-is so close in miniature and fresco that in this case also we assume ultimately a common archetype. Of course, as always, there is the difference in clothing: David in the miniature is clad in a tunic and Saul in a Greco-Roman cuirass, whereas all figures in the fresco wear Persian costume. Moreover, Saul wears a stemma crown which, like the halo, surely is a later Byzantine addition. Neither crown nor halo could have been in the archetype. Preceding the central scene in Dura an army on horseback is shown moving to the right. This can only be understood as an illustration of verse 2, according to which Saul set out with three thousand soldiers to pursue David. Singled out is a rider of huge size in rich Persian court dress riding on a huge white stallion. This must be Saul himself, and his stately appearance in such a prominent fashion fortifies the argument that the reclining figure in the central foreground likewise represents Saul. Riders of smaller size before and behind Saul are dressed the same way and also ride white horses. Two hunting dogs emphasize that Saul is pursuing a fugitive. There is, in our opinion, no need to interpret this clearly narrative scene in a symbolic way as Goodenough has done, seeing in these riders "the army of heaven." Verse 2 is not illustrated in the Vatican Book of Kings, but there is on folio 19r an illustration of chapter 14, verses 20ff., with Saul on the march to battle the Philistines (fig. 126),4 whose composition resembles amazingly that of the fresco. In this miniature Saul, prominently occupying the center, rides in parade step on a white stallion, followed and preceded by the Israelite cavalry. Yet the white horse is not to be understood as a royal prerogative, since most of the other riders (though not all, as in the fresco) have white horses. We have repeatedly pointed out that the Vatican Book of Kings, rich as it is, is already abbreviated and harks back to a richer archetype. Thus, we believe it quite possible and even likely that the archetype contained an illustration of Saul pursuing David, but to avoid duplication the scene was omitted in the Vatican manuscript. The Dura fresco indeed supports such an assumption, for both miniature and fresco, we believe, go back to the same archetype. The third scene at the extreme right remains to be explained. Because of its fragmentary condition, Kraeling and all other interpreters were at a loss to identify the subject. Kraeling could not find a proper event within our episode, and he turned to an earlier event that also took place in the wilderness of Ziph, the meeting of David with Jonathan (23:15-18). What a priori speaks against this identification is the sequence of scenes that obviously reads from left to right. It would be most natural to look for a scene that immediately follows the capture of Saul's spear and cruse, and there one event offers itself most readily: David showing the spear and cruse to Saul (26:17-25). The fresco shows traces of the lower parts of two men: the one at the left, in Persian trousers, is of larger size than the other and therefore should be Saul, in accordance with the convention observed in the other two scenes. He is con-

88

89

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

fronted by a man of whom only the lower part of the legs is preserved. The legs are far apart and thus indicate a wide stride; furthermore, the right foot is higher up than the left. These legs must belong to the figure of David ascending the hill of Hachilah where he has been hiding (verse 2). Of course, in terms of spatial relationship, there should be a considerable distance between Saul and David, but artists of the time were concerned only with the convincing actions of the human figures and not with space. Such negligence of spatial considerations is fully borne out by the miniature in the Vatican Book of Kings, which illustrates the same passage (fig. 127) 5 in such close compositional agreement that once more we suggest fresco and miniature hark back to the same archetype. Here, too, Saul and David face each other very closely, while the hill of Hachilah, which should logically separate the two, is relegated to the background as a mere iconographical feature. David's wide ascending step is immediately noticeable, even though there is no elevated ground under his right foot. Dressed in a short tunic, he displays the spear in his right hand and holds the cruse in his left. Some of his soldiers, for whom there was no space in the fresco, are behind him. Different, however, is Saul, who in the miniature sits on a faldstool and rests his feet on a footstool; three bodyguards stand behind him. It surely contradicts the meaning of the text that Saul sits on a throne in the midst of the wilderness, wearing imperial Byzantine robes and a stemma crown. The whole left half of the composition is a conventional rendering of the enthronement of a Byzantine emperor and could hardly have existed in the archetype. We thus assume that the figure of Saul enthroned is a substitute by a later Byzantine illustrator for a figure of Saul who must have been standing when he conversed with David in the wilderness; in this respect the fresco is surely closer to the archetype than the miniature. The Ziph panel is just another of the pure narrative panels in which Dura is so rich. In three different phases, clearly separated from each other, the episode moves from left to right. Although the main action is in the center, the scene to the left is introductory, so to speak, to the main event, and the one to the right stresses the triumph of David that results from the central action. It glorifies the magnanimity of David and thereby becomes an eminently fitting subject for the Dura program.

[15]

David, King over All Israel (II Samuel 5: 1-5) West, 1st zone. Central panel. Figs. 3, 128, and 129.

The focal point of the synagogue decoration is the panel above the Torah niche, which was painted several times, each layer above the other, so that today it resembles a palimpsest. In the first stage, before the narrative program was devised for the four walls of the building, this central panel was decorated with a symbolic image, a huge tree, which is discussed below by Herbert Kessler (pp. 158-62). When the walls were divided into three zones in order to accommodate a wealth of narrative episodes, the central panel was partitioned accordingly, although only into two zones, because the third, the lowest one, could not be incorporated, its space being occupied by the top of the Torah niche. The introduc1 tion of figural compositions into the central panel took place in two phases. In the first stage, the zone at the top contained only three figures. The central one, dressed in a richly embroidered garment, typical of a ruler or court official, is seated on a throne and stretches out his right arm. Below are two frontal standing figures of noticeably smaller size dressed in chiton and chlamys, that is, the Greco-Roman costume, which in the Dura frescoes is normally worn by prophets like Moses (figs. 48-49 and elsewhere), Samuel (fig. 110), Elijah (fig. 152), and others, in contrast to most of the other human figures who are depicted in Persian dress. . For the enthroned figure, Du Mesnil du Buisson once proposed Moses, but Kraelmg suggested the correct identification, David, and this identification has widely been accepted, though some scholars take him to be the Messiah. In order to do justice to this three-figure composition it must be stressed that its character does not point to a narrative event, but to a rather static, or one may say hieratic representation not bound by space and time. In the synagogue, it occupies a place similar to that of an apse decoration of a Christi~n church, depicting either Christ or the Virgin enthroned and flanked by any two or sometimes more figures. According to Kraeling, David is rendered as being elevated as ruler over All Israel. In the Bible text, David was made king no fewer than three times, being (1) anointed by Samuel (I Samuel 16:13), (2) acclaimed king by the men of Judah (II Samuel 2:4), and (3)

For better recognition of the details, we reproduce the right half of the frieze in a line drawing instead of a photograph, being well aware that aesthetically the juxtaposition of a photo and a drawing of the same panel is unsatisfactory. 2 Lassus, Livre des Rois, p. 63 and pl. XX, fig. 67. 3 Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, vol. 4, p. 91 and vol. 6, p. 253 note 48. • Lassus, Livre des Rois, p. 48 and pl. VIII, fig. 32. ' Ibid., p. 63 and pl. XX, fig. 68.

acclaimed by the tribes oflsrael (II Samuel 5:3). Who, then, are the two figures dressed in the chlamys below David enthroned? Kraeling deals with them rather casually in a footnote and simply calls them counsellors. In our opinion two reasons speak against this identification: (a) in such a focal location as the central panel and confined to three persons only, one expects each figure to be an important character, and (b) in the parallel cases referred to by Kraeling, such as the Ahasuerus panel (fig. 162), the counsellors are dressed in Persian costume as is to be expected of court officials, and furthermore they stand behind the ruler and are not as prominently displayed as the two figures in our panel. Because the emphasis here is on David's kingship, we suggest that the two figures in the costume of prophets are indeed prophets, namely, the two who were or at least could have been involved in the anointing and proclamation of David as

90

91

BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, pp. 103££., figs. 74-78 and pl. XLV. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 202££. and pls. XXXII, LXXIII. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, pp. 162££. and fig. 20; vol. 11, pl. XVII and fig. 344. 1

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

king. One would, of course, have to be Samuel who anointed him in the first place, and the other we assume to be Nathan, whose presence, it is true, is not mentioned in the Bible text, but who, after Samuel's death, was the prophet living at the time of David's proclamation as king. To have these two prophets standing side by side is, of course, an anachronism, but in an apse-like composition, disregard of the time factor would not be objectionable and there are innumerable parallels in Christian apse compositions where Christ and the Virgin are surrounded by contemporary or historical figures of a subsequent century. Somewhat later, twelve frontal standing figures were added flanking the central triad, seven on the groundline2 and five higher up in a second row; all are dressed in Persian costume. They represent the twelve tribes of Israel as Kraeling correctly recognized. It is this addition that lifts the central triad out of its timelessness and grounds it in a historical event, the proclamation of David as king as told in chapter 5, verse 1, "They came all the tribes of Israel to David unto Hebron ... ," and verse 5, "So all the elders of Israel came to the King in Hebron ... and they anointed David King over Israel." It is hardly accidental that the change from a more symbolic concept into a more historical rendering resulting from the addition of the twelve tribes took place when the four walls were covered with narrative scenes. In these narrative scenes, too, one finds already a heavy emphasis on the twelve tribes, especially in the panel of the crossing of the Red Sea (figs. 48-49) where they had been proleptically introduced. Now, if we are right that the representation of the Dura fresco is grounded in the event told in chapter 5 of II Samuel, then the question must be asked, how was it rendered in an illustrated Book of Kings? This time the Vatican manuscript provides no help; for the first illustration of the beginning of chapter 5 it has a composition that surely was not in the tradition of the Book of Kings illustration, but must be understood as a replacement of a later period. It depicts David being raised on a shield (fig. 130),3 a composition ultimately derived from a historical chronicle because the shield-raising was a Byzantine imperial ceremony introduced by Julian the Apostate in the fourth century, that is, later than we assume the archetype of the books of Samuel and Kings to have been illustrated for the first time. In the only richly illustrated Byzantine chronicle still extant, that of John Skylitzes, a twelfth-century manuscript in Madrid, there is a depiction of Leo Tornikios, an Armenian general who in 104 7 led an unsuccessful uprising against Constantine Monomachus (fig. 131), being raised on a shield. 4 This iconography we assume to have been quite a common feature in chronicles earlier than that of Skylitzes. Yet it is hardly likely that the scene in the Vatican Book of Kings is taken over directly from a chronicle, but more probably from an illustrated Psalter manuscript. We have previously seen in the representation of David's anointing (fig. 114) how the illustrator had taken over the personification of Praotes from a model like that of the famous Psalter Paris gr. 139 (fig. 115),5 and it is significant that this very Psalter does have a miniature with David raised on a shield. Here a classical Victory is crowning David, but in another Psalter from the eleventh century, cod. Vat. gr. 752, the 92

beginning of Psalm 26 is accompanied by a miniature (fig. 132) 6 in which David on the shield is not crowned as in the Paris Psalter but is anointed by the prophet Nathan as the inscription unmistakably states, even though the Bible does not mention Nathan as being present during David's proclamation as king. Yet Nathan's involvement in the Vatican Psalter miniature strengthens our hypothesis that in the Dura fresco one of the two figures we take to be prophets could very well be Nathan. But if, as we assume, the raising on the shield is indeed a later substitute in the Book of Kings illustration, what did the representation in the postulated archetype look like? A reflection of it seems to be preserved in the tenth/eleventh-century ivory casket in the Palazzo Venezia in Rome (fig. 133). 7 In the striplike composition of one of the lid friezes David, in imperial Byzantine dress, stands frontally at the center of a group of young people, and is crowned by a prophet who, in analogy to the just-discussed Vatican miniature, we take to be Nathan. The crowning is obviously a substitution for the anointing with the horn as depicted in the miniature. Left and right of the central group are represented eleven men, all standing frontally and dressed in short tunics. As in the Dura fresco we take them to be the representatives of the twelve tribes of Israel, one having been omitted simply for lack of space in order to allow enough room for the scene at the left. The lining up of the twelve figures in one row as depicted in the ivory may well represent the original rendering. The superimposition in two rows as seen in Dura apparently reflects the inclination of the fresco painter who, repeatedly pressed by the necessity of restricting his composition in width, finds a solution by cutting up friezes with lined up figures and superimposing their parts. It will be remembered that we introduced the Palazzo Venezia casket already in the scene of David killing Goliath (p. 84 and fig. 118), whose iconography with Goliath lying on his back reflects the same older version we have seen in the fresco of the Christian baptistery at Dura (fig. 116). Thus we may assume that again in the case of David being made king, in spite of the adjustment in keeping with the Byzantine coronation rite, the ivory casket has preserved from the archetype the lining up of the twelve tribes. In this postulated archetype David may have been represented just being acclaimed, and neither anointed nor crowned. The style of the ivory casket, which is not Constantinopolitan but, in our opinion, reflects a more Eastern style akin to the Armenian, makes the preservation of an old tradition, traceable as far back as the Dura fresco, all the more plausible. Were it not for the addition of the twelve tribes, the composition should not even have been included in our study, which concerns only the relation of the Dura frescoes to narrative biblical cycles. It is for this reason that we shall not deal with the problem of the lyre player in the zone below and with the question of whether he represents David or Orpheu~, since the miniature tradition, where David as a lyre player occurs only as an author portrait and not as part of a narrative scene, cannot help to solve the problem of the identity of the lyre player in the Dura fresco. 8

93

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, pp. 43££., fig. 37 and pl. XX. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 225 ff. and pis. XXXV and LXXV. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 9, pp. 83ff.; vol. 11, pl. IV and fig. 323. 1

The drawings in Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, figs. 73-77, give a good impression of the successive

stages. 2

The drawing published by Du Mesnil du Buisson (Peintures, pl. XX) shows a fourth figure in the bottom row at the extreme right, but Kraeling is very sure that there never was a figure in this place. 3 Lassus, Livre des Rois, p. 70 and pl. XXIII, fig. 83. •Weitzmann, Roll and Codex, p. 178 and pl. LII, fig. 185. A. Grabar and M. Manoussacas, L'Illustration du Manuscrit de Skylitzes de la Bibliotheque Nationale de Madrid, Venice, 1979, p. 118 and fig. 269. 5 H. Buchthal, The Miniatures of the Paris Psalter, London, 1938, p. 24 and fig. 6. 6 DeWald, Illustrations in the Manuscripts of the Septuagint, Vol. 3, Psalms and Odes, Part 2, Vaticanus Graecus 752, Princeton, 1942, p. 16 and pl. XXIII, folio 82r. 1

Goldschmidt and Weitzmann, Byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen, Vol. I, Kasten, p. 63 and pl. LXXI,

123d. 8

Cf. P. C. Finney, "Orpheus-David: A Connection in Iconography between Greco-Roman Judaism and Early Christianity," Journal ofJewish Art 5 (1978), 6ff.

[16]

Transport of the Ark to Jerusalem and into the Tabernacle (II Samuel 6:12-15 and I Kings 8:1-11) South, 2nd zone. Right panel. Figs. 6, 134, and 135.

Less than half of the frescoes of the second zone of the south wall are preserved (fig. 6). Some scholars have taken it more or less for granted that the scene we are going to discuss filled the whole width of the wall, but this is by no means certain, and it is just as likely that at least one more scene or perhaps even three altogether filled the wall, considering that the zone below has no fewer than four scenes. The subject is the carrying of the Ark of the Covenant in a procession that moves from right to left. Although hardly anything of the ark proper remains, it cannot be doubted that the ark was there because of the four men who carry long poles on their shoulders on which the ark rested. Moreover, there are four figures of smaller size clad in ornate tunics, two of whom follow the ark and surely carry branches in their hands. The procession is preceded by two men. All of the adults are clad in the familiar Persian costume. As Kraeling realized, two episodes come into play for the identification of this procession. The first recounts: "David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom into the city of David with gladness," that is, into Jerusalem (II Samuel 6:12-

94

15). The second event describes how Solomon brought the ark and deposited it in the temple of Jerusalem, which he had dedicated. "And all the elders of Israel came and the priests took up the ark. And they brought up the ark of the Lord, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle, even those did the priests ~nd the Levites bring up" (I Kings 8:3-4). After pondering both possibilities, in the end Kraelmg opted for the second alternative, Solomon's transfer of the ark into the tabernacle, mainly because of the festive character of the procession. He rests his case chiefly on the plants and palm bra~ches in the hands of the two children following the procession; palm branches play a vital role in the feast of the tabernacle. As a sign of heightening the impression of the special festivity, he noted that the ark-bearers wear flowers in their hair. Moreover, the bearers are distinguished from those in an earlier scene where they wear simple tunics (fig. 103). Their more distinguished Persian costume in our fresco speaks for men of some elevated position. The text mentions that the priests took up the ark, and it seems possible that they were represented in this case; the other alternative, which is just as plausible, would be that they were the Levites. In any event, they are not ordinary people, and this speaks indeed for the festival procession according to the passage of I Kings. It may be mentioned in passing that Goodenough took the small figures with branches in their hands, whom Kraeling called children, to be priests because of specific features of their elaborate garments. However, it seems to me highly unlikely, not to say impossible, that artists would depict priests on such small scale, and we believe that Kraeling is right in calling these figures children. Kraeling overlooked two features. The color plates in both Kraeling's and Goodenough's publications show quite clearly that between the ark bearers the child at the right is blowing a transverse flute. Not only is the instrument clearly identifiable, but the way in which the arms are held across the breast is very typical of the playing of this instrument and also the inclination of the head, at precisely the right angle to the flute, is distinct and in contrast to the erect heads of the branch bearers. Also the manner in which the branches are held one in each hand, one up and one down, characteristic for carrying palm branches, is in contrast to that of holding the musical instrument that requires the crossing of the breast.1 Now, the making of music while the ark is carried is explicitly described in the passage of II Samuel 6:5, "And David and all the house of Israel played before the Lord on all manner of instruments made of fir wood, even on harps, and on psalteries, and on timbrels, and on cornets, and on cymbals." On the other hand, nothing is said about music in the second passage from I Kings, which emphasizes another aspect in 8:4, "And they brought up the ark of the Lord, and the tabernacle of the congregation and all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle, even those did the priests and the Levites bring up." On the basis of this passage one would expect the bringing up of the vessels, but there is no indication of them in the fresco. Kraeling, realizing this difficulty, thought that the vessels

95

/

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

might have been in the left part of the fresco which is gone. It seems to me not very likely that the vessels were taken into the temple before the ark was brought in, though this point remains questionable. Our case that the transfer of the ark by David is at least involved in the fresco, rests not only on the making of music, but on an even more important detail. It will be noticed that the leader of the procession makes a wider step than any other figure, a step that suggests a motion of dancing. In his earlier writing Kraeling was quite aware that such an attitude would be fitting for David as described in II Samuel 6:14, "And David danced before the Lord with all his might." But then he remarks, "Whether the unpleasant association of David's 'dancing before the Ark' would have deterred the artist from depicting the scene described in II Sam. is hard to say." 2 At any rate, in the Final Report, Kraeling no longer ponders this possibility and opts for the event in I Kings as the basis for the fresco. That artists did not shrink from representing David dancing is assured by two miniatures depicting this event in an unmistakable form. In the Vatican Book of Kings (fig. 136),3 David is, indeed, depicted making a wide dancing step, quite comparable to that in the Dura fresco. In front of him is a musician playing a lute in accordance with the passage cited above that the transfer of the ark was accompanied by much music. However, in one respect the miniature deviates from the Bible text, namely, that the ark is transported on an oxdrawn cart. Such an oxcart is described at an earlier occasion when the ark was taken to the house of Obed-edom (p. 79 and fig. 109), but verse 13 makes it clear that "they that bare the ark of the Lord" from Obed-edom to Jerusalem had discarded the oxcart on the last stretch of the journey and carried it themselves. We can only assume that the illustrator repeated the motif of the oxcart from the earlier miniature quite mechanically. This assumption is supported by two miniatures in the Sacra Parallela manuscript in Paris, where the same two events are depicted and more clearly distinguished from each other. In the first 4 (fig. 137), in spite of the damaged state of the miniature, the oxcart can be made out quite clearly by its wheels which, because of lack of space within the narrow margin, were drawn disconnected, one above the other, and the oxen, seen in frontal view, can be made out in front of the ark. In the miniature depicting the second event, the transport of the ark from Obed-edom to Jerusalem (fig. 138),5 the ark is carried, as the text implies, on the shoulders of bearers in long garments, presumably the Levites. What is most significant is that the harp-playing David, represented here as also sometimes in Dura (fig. 129) larger than lifesize, makes a wide dancing step. In this figure of David, which overlaps all the others, the dancing is the dominant motif. It is not surprising that the Sacra Parallela, being earlier than the Vatican Book of Kings and rooted in a Palestinian tradition, should represent the events connected with the ark more faithfully than does the Vatican Book of Kings. Thus we believe, on the strength of the miniature tradition, which-as we have seen repeatedly-reflects the same tradition as the Dura frescoes, that the leader of the procession in the fresco is indeed David.

96

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

If this interpretation is accepted, then we are faced with a single scene containing elements taken from two different events. This is a conflation not of the ordinary kind, where successive phases of the same episode are joined, 6 but where elements from different chapters, indeed from different books, are fused. It has been demonstrated that the fresco painters of Dura have on several occasions made use of this more sophisticated form of conflation. It will be remembered that in the Exodus scene of the crossing of the Red Sea (pp. 38ff. and figs. 48-49) a representation of the twelve tribes, based on Numbers, was introduced twice in an anticipatory manner into the Exodus panel in order to underline their importance. Perhaps the most striking case is the depiction of the Consecration of the Tabernacle (pp. 55ff. and fig. 80), where elements from various chapters of Exodus and Numbers were combined in one "collective" picture. Furthermore, in the panel depicting the Well of Be'er (p. 63 and fig. 93) features from Exodus and Numbers have again been combined or conflated. These two are the most striking cases where elements were taken from different books; more frequent are illustrations in which elements from the same book, but not following each other consecutively, were fused. Thus it can hardly come as a surprise that this method of conflation is applied in the case of the transport of the ark. In fusing the two events, the journey and the deposit of the ark in the temple, the fresco painter apparently perceived the former as the basic one from which he started out. The emphasis is on the travel of the ark which is led by David; the musician also belongs to the original layout. On this compositional scheme are superimposed only such few details as the palm branches in the hands of some of the accompanying children and the flowers in their hair, details sufficient to give this scene a special festive character, connected with the feast of the tabernacle. It may of course be an accident that no representation is otherwise known depicting the transfer of the ark into the temple in the time of Solomon. Wherever the feast of the tabernacle is depicted, it is a static composition showing the ark already in the Holy of Holies together with all the implements that were deposited at that time in the temple.7 A conflation of the transport of the ark and its deposit in the temple may be seen in the eleventh-century Psalter in the Vatican, cod. gr. 752. 8 BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, p. 69 and pl. XXXI, 1. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 113ff. and pl. LVIII. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, pp. 144ff. and vol. 11, pl. XVI and fig. 339. 1 My observations are contradicted by Kraeling's drawing (The Synagogue, p. 116 and fig. 36), where the figure under consideration holds what looks like a branch. But the attitude and the higher position of the arms in this drawing are obviously not in agreement with the photographic reproductions, and we have relied on the latter as the more objective record. 2c. H. Kraeling, Preliminary Report of Sixth Season of Work, 1932-1933, New Haven, 1936, p. 355. 3 Lass us, Livre des Rois, p. 72 and pl. XXVI, fig. 86. •Weitzmann, Sacra Parallela, p. 82 and pl. XXXIV, fig. 129.

97

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

5

lbid., p. 83 and pl. XXXV, fig. 130.

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

Of this very badly damaged panel in the top zone only the lower parts of several male figures are preserved up to their knees. Kraeling has classified this panel under "unidentified

scenes." Yet because of the distinct layout of the composition with the main figures turning in different directions and the differentiations of clothing of the various figures, the subject can be identified with certainty. Starting at the extreme right we see the lower part of a figure moving with an energetic step to the left. He wears a tunic with broad clavi and a himation. In the pictorial vocabulary of the Dura painter this means that he is a prophet. Next to him is a figure in the Persian dress worn by high court officials or kings. He is in frotal position and, since all figures to the left move toward him, he is quite obviously the most important figure and the center of attention. At the left, somewhat removed from the man in Persian costume and likewise distinguished by his dress, is a man who is only faintly visible, and like the prophet on the right, he approaches the court official or king from the left. He wears a garment that falls below his knees and has a broad border at the hem. It is too stiff to be a Greek tunic, and if it were the usual Persian tunic, Persian trousers should be visible underneath. We presume this to be the ephod of the priest (figs. 80 and 90 at the left). These three figures, obviously related to each other, form a group dearly distinguished from the rest of the composition, which consists of a group of men moving to the right, probably wearing short tunics although the panel is too badly destroyed in this area to be sure. However, one feature is dear: the leader of the group is treated more prominently by showing his legs overlapping those of the men following him, by the darker color of his leggings, and by his depiction in larger size. Kraeling remarked: "Among the many episodes of this period, the Anointing of Solomon as told in I Kings 1:38-40 should not be overlooked, particularly in view of the subject matter of the next panel to the right, Solomon receiving the Queen of Sheba" (fig. 143). Following this suggestion, the group at the right would represent Zadok, the High Priest, accompanied by the prophet Nathan (at the extreme right of the panel) and by Benaiah, who appears also in the next scene. It would then be necessary to assume that Solomon headed the group in the left part of the composition, the others being those who acclaimed him at his consecration. But while Kraeling was quite unsure about this interpretation, and classified the scene as "unidentified" (and Goodenough shared the view that attempting any identification is hopeless), he was, in our opinion, on the right track and correctly guessed the subject, though in some details our description will deviate slightly from his. What makes us feel sure that the scene indeed represents the anointing of Solomon are (a) the layout of the composition, which fits t4e occasion in every detail; (b) the precision of the figure types according to the costumes they wear; and (c) the existence of parallels in miniature painting which, if we are not mistaken, hark back ultimately to the same archetype. We agree with Kraeling that the figure at the extreme right in the costume of a prophet is indeed Nathan. However, the figure next to him in the costume of a court official or king we take not to be Zadok as Kraeling suggested, but Solomon, not only because of his costume, but also because of the dominant position he occupies. Zadok, then, would in our opinion be the figure flanking Solomon from the other side, that is, the one who wears the priestly ephod. Within the panel these figures form a typical three-figure group that repre-

98

99

6

For the principle of conflation in general, see Weitzmann, Roll and Codex, pp. 24££. and passim. 7 For the fullest and most up-to-date record of the representation of the tabernacle including that of the transport of the ark, see E. Revel-Neher, L'Arche d'alliance. 8 DeWald, Septuagint, vol. 3, part 2, pl. IX, fol. 7v.

[17]

The Walls and the Temple of Jerusalem (II Samuel 5 :9 and I Kings 6) West, 2nd zone. 1st panel right of center. Figs. 5 and 139.

This is the only panel in the whole wall decoration of the synagogue that shows no human figure and hence cannot be related to any distinct biblical episode. For this reason it might well have been omitted from our study altogether were it not that the elements are nonetheless based on the Bible text. There are basically two elements involved: the wallsnot just one but seven-and the temple. Du Mesnil du Buisson tried to relate the temple to that of the Sun at Bethshemesh (I Samuel 6:12-21), 1 but this was contradicted by Kraeling who, as has been generally accepted, identified both elements with Jerusalem, with the city walls built by David (II Samuel 5 :9) and the temple erected by Solomon (I Kings 6). Such ~tatic pictures as this are hardly ever included in a narrative cycle, and thus it is not surprismg that we find comparable illustrations in the above-cited chapters neither in the Vatican Book of Kings nor in the Sacra Para/le/a. What, however, is of special interest is the fusion of two elements from different passages of different books of the Bible. Here we meet the same phenomenon as in the preceding scene with the transport of the ark where-as it happens-the elements are likewise from II Samuel and I Kings. BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, pp. 84££. and ~I. XXXV. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 105££. and pl. L'iJI. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, pp. 42££. and vol. 11, pl. XI. 1

Du Mesnil du Buisson, "Un Temple du soleil clans la synagogue du Doura-Europos," Gazette des beauxarts 26 (1936), 83££.

[18]

The Anointing of Solomon (I Kings 1:34-39) West, 1st zone. 1st panel from the left. Figs. 4 and 140.

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

sents the act of the anointing. But which of the two flanking figures is actually perform· g the rite of anointing? The text is not clear on this point. Verse 34 says: " ... and let Za ok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there King over Israel." Though bot~ are involved, only one could be represented holding the horn with oil over the head of the new king. In the fresco Nathan, at the right, approaches with an energetic step and is do er to Solomon, and this suggests that he is the one who performs the rite, whereas the p~1est at the other side is more removed from Solomon, stands in a pose that suggests no actidn, and thus is a mere bystander. The leader of the group occupying the left half of the panel comprising the "Cerethites and Pelephites" quite surely must be Benaiah who, according to I Kings 1:32, was likewise sent by David to Gihon where the anointing took place. "And King David said, Call me Zadok, the priest, and Nathan, the prophet, and Benaiah, the son of Jehorada." Whether the group of Israelites behind Benaiah was represented with gestures of acclamation or blowing trumpets (according to verse 34, " ... and blow ye with the trumpet") is a question that cannot be answered, for both actions are implied by the text. Although in the Vatican Book of Kings the illustration of the third book (our I Kings) is drastically reduced to only seven miniatures, the Anointing of Solomon is fortunately one of them (fig. 141). 1 The basic layout of the composition is the same as we have envisaged it in the Dura fresco. From the right approaches the figure who pours oil out of a horn onto the head of the new king, who stands frontally while leaning over to the right and is marked as the dominating figure in this composition. As is to be expected, Solomon is represented in the Byzantine imperial chlamys with tablion. But neither this costume nor the Persian one of the Dura fresco was, we assume, worn by Solomon in the postulated archetype, and we have to admit that we have no suggestion as to how in the ultimate model Solomon was clothed. We must be reminded of the fact that costumes are the first things to be changed in the process of copying. 2 In the miniature the figure performing the act of anointing is inscribed Zadok. But it will be noticed that he is dressed like a prophet and not as a priest, and the scroll he holds in his left hand is a typical attribute of a prophet and unsuitable for a priest. This can only mean that in the model the figure must have represented Nathan and that the copyist added the inscription "Zadok," perhaps not just by mistake but because he had dropped the figure of the high priest to the left of Solomon from the model for lack of space and had tried to remind the beholder of his presence by adding his name to the figure who in the model was the prophet Nathan, thus conflating the two figures into one. At the left there is a group of acclaiming Israelites, quite likely of the same type and with the same gestures we assume to have existed in the Dura fresco. The leader may also in this case be Benaiah, but he is not as distinct from the others as in Dura. The baldachin (i.e., the ciborium with the altar on a platform four steps high) is of course the result of a Christianization of the event, suggesting that the prophet-priest standing on the steps leading to the altar is performing the rite within the apse of a church. In the Vatican miniature we indeed deal with a contraction of a once larger composi100

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

tion, which becomes quite clear if one looks at a second miniature, one that adorns the Carolingian Bible made about A.D. 870 for Charles the Bald presumably at Reims and kept today in San Paolo fuori le Mura in Rome (fig. 142). 3 In this miniature, the frontispiece to Proverbs, a representation of Solomon's Judgment occupies most of the picture area, while a frieze at the top with two spandrels below depicts the anointing of Solomon. Here the young king, clad in tunic and royal chlamys, is flanked by two white-haired men in the costume of prophets. The distinction between prophet and priest is lost, and although the figure at the right performs the rite of anointing by pouring oil on Solomon's head, we cannot be sure whether he is Nathan or Zadok. Yet the pictorial tradition, which can be traced back as far as the Dura fresco, rather suggests that he is Nathan, who, then, would have been represented in his proper garment, while the distinction of the other as priest is lost. Down below in the right spandrel there is a group of hornblowers and in the left is a group of Israelites with gestures of acclamation. In these details we have, as we presume, the fullest rendering of the archetype, even surpassing the Dura fresco, in which only one or the other group of rejoicing Israelites could have been represented. Moreover, this Carolingian miniature is important in still another respect. The anointing is preceded by an illustration of verse 33: "The king also said ... cause Solomon my son to ride upon my own mule, and bring him down to Gihon." In the miniature, as in a typical Roman adventus scene, Solomon is seen riding on David's mule preceded by Nathan and Zadok, both moving energetically to the right, simultaneously turning their heads back toward Solomon, and being followed by an acclaiming crowd of Israelites. This scene suggests that the anointing was only one phase of an episode that was more extensively illustrated by at least two pictures in typical narrative fashion. The illustrator of the Carolingian Bible must have had an illustrated model available which, particularly for book 3 of Kings (according to the Septuagint numbering) was more profusely illustrated than the muchreduced Vatican copy. Thus we meet here a situation similar to that of the panel with the Infancy of Moses (pp. 26££. and figs. 29-30), where we already had occasion to introduce the San Paolo Bible and discovered that its illustration of that episode (p. 29 and fig. 34) is illustrated in much greater detail than in the Octateuchs (pp. 29££. and figs. 35-36), a fact which led to the conclusion that the pre-Iconoclastic archetype of the Octateuchs must have been much more fully illustrated than any of the extant copies. The Book of Kings is thus a parallel case where, on the basis of the San Paolo Bible, a fuller archetype must be postulated. A fully illustrated Book of Kings we presume must have existed already in the time of the Dura synagogue, and its painters must have been able to choose from an extensive cycle those items that best fitted into the synagogue's program. BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, p. 48 and pl. XXII, 2. Kraeling, The Synagogue, p. 86 and pl. XXVII. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, pp. 98££. and vol. 11, fig. 328.

101

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

/

1

Lassus, Livre des Rois, p. 79 and pl. XXVIII, fig. 97. Weitzmann, Roll and Codex, pp. 157££. 3 J. E. Gaehde, "The Pictorial Sources of the Illustrations to the Books of King , Proverbs, Judith and Maccabees in the Carolingian Bible of San Paolo fuori le Mura in Rome," Fruhmittelflterliche Studien, ed. K. Hauck, vol. 9, Berlin and New York, 1975, pp. 372££. and fig. 92. For a color reproduction see F. Miitherich and J.E. Gaehde, Carolingian Painting, New York, 1976, pl. 44.

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

The panel next to the anointing of Solomon clearly shows a subsequent scene from the king's life as is evident from the six-stepped throne with crouching lions and eagles and from the-slightly corrupt-inscription Solomon. No doubt Solomon was depicted seated on a throne atop these steps though no traces of a figure are left. We presume that he was represented in Persian court costume just like David (fig. 129) and Ahasuerus (fig. 162). At the foot of the steps are seated two men in Greek costume, generally, and I believe quite correctly, interpreted as counsellors, representing, as Kraeling believes, the Great Sanhedrin. There is the inscription CYNKA0A~PO(C or I, depending whether the inscription refers only to the seated figure at the left or to both) under the folding chair at the left. Although this throne composition occupies more than half the panel area, the smaller half at the left is filled with three figures-two women in long and richly embroidered garments, and a male figure dressed in Persian costume as worn by high court officials. From the very beginning two alternatives have been proposed for the identification of this fragmentary scene where, as in the preceding panel, the figures are preserved only up to their knees. One is the judgment of Solomon (I Kings 3:16-27) and the other the visit of the Queen of Sheba (I Kings 10:1-13). Du Mesnil du Buisson thought that the splendid long dresses of the women were not quite suitable for harlots, but nevertheless favored Solomon's judgment. Kraeling, on the other hand, took the question of the women's dresses more seriously, and chiefly on the basis of the unusual splendor and inequality of their long robes, considering those of the foremost woman as outdoing those of the second in richness, came to the conclusion that the scene definitely depicts the visit of the Queen of Sheba. The queen then would be the leading figure and the one behind her an attendant, a lady-in-waiting so to speak. This subtle point has been questioned by Goodenough, who decidedly preferred to identify this scene as the judgment of Solomon. He believed that the difference of the dresses is not so great, but that they are of "approximate equality," thus finding no objection in calling the women harlots.

Although we believe that Kraeling is right, the case does not rest exclusively on the dresses of the two women but on several other points, as becomes clear when we compare the Dura fresco with an assured representation of the judgment of Solomon in the ninthcentury manuscript of the Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus, Paris cod. gr. 510. 1 Here the layout of the composition is quite similar to that in the Dura fresco but in mirror reversal: Solomon on the throne sits at the left and turns to the right; in front of him is the executioner and at the extreme corner the two harlots. These are dressed in similar and quite simple garments. The executioner is properly dressed in a short, tucked-up tunic. Now we realize that the corresponding figure in the Dura fresco in Persian court dress wears a costume utterly unsuitable for an executioner. Moreover, in the miniature the dead child lies on the ground; it could not be missed in any depiction of the judgment scene and is absolutely indispensable for understanding the scene. We believe that Kraeling was correct in identifying the figure in Persian dress as Benaiah, who appears in the Bible as chief of the host, and in later Jewish tradition as chief of the palace guards and president of the Great Sanhedrin. Kraeling believed that what seems to be an empty throne in the form of a sella curulis at the extreme right corner was reserved for him. In this point, however, I cannot follow him. Goodenough had already objected to this and assumed that what we see is merely an extension of a bench. Indeed, the object is much too narrow for a figure to sit on if one compares it to the way in which the two counsellors are occupying their broad chairs. In calling the man between the women and Solomon's throne Benaiah there is no conflict with the preceding panel (fig. 140), where we believe Benaiah was depicted as the leader of the Israelites, though in a simpler dress. But this is easily enough explained by the fact that at the moment of Solomon's anointing he was not yet raised by the new king to the exalted position of chief of the host. Unfortunately, neither the Vatican Book of Kings nor the Sacra Para/le/a in Paris, the two chief witnesses for an early rich picture cycle, contains a representation of the Queen of Sheba before Solomon, but that this scene existed in the common archetype of these two copies can hardly be doubted. The Sacra Para/le/a does represent the visit of the Queennot her arrival, however, but her departure (fig. 144). 2 Solomon crowned sits on a throne and talks to the Queen, who is rather simply dressed but characterized as a queen by a diadem similar to that worn by Solomon. She is turning around and looking back at Solomon, and obviously she is just about to leave. Such a scene can only be understood as a phase-and not one of primary importance-within a richer narrative cycle that must have included as the primary event the Queen's arrival as depicted in the Dura fresco. Why this latter scene is not represented in the Sacra Para/le/a is explained simply enough: the passage, to which the scene of the departure is attached in the margin, comprises I Kings 10:6-8, though the actual departure is mentioned only in verse 13. The compiler of the florilegium text did not include 10:1-5, which describes the arrival of the Queen, and this is the reason why no representation of this passage was taken over into the Sacra Para/le/a. What is

102

103

2

[19]

Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (I Kings 10:1-13) West, 1st zone. 2nd panel from the left. Figs. 4 and 143.

/

THE FRESCOES OF T~

DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

important with regard to Dura is the fact that once more the frescoes of the synagogue are rooted in a broad narrative traf tion from which the painter could choose whatever fitted into his special program.

l

It must be considered mer ly an accident that in view of the popularity of the story, no illustration of the Solomon an Queen of Sheba story has come down to us in any Greek manuscript, while in Western m dieval art pictures of their meeting occur quite frequently in manuscripts, stained glass win ows, and cathedral sculpture. In most cases Solomon and the Queen are depicted standing or eated alongside each other as synthronoi. In such compositions no older tradition is recogn·~ ble, and they do not bridge the gap between them and the postulated scenes of an Eastern ~ dition, as reflected in the Sacra Parallela, which we believe to be a product of Palestine. That the Queen of Sheba story had a tradition in the Near East, even with features taken from popular Jewish legends, can be documented by a miniature in a Persian manuscript in Oxford, which contains the Assemblies of Lovers by Sultan Husayn Mirza (fig. 3 145). According to one of these legends, Solomon was eager to see the queen's legs and therefore received her in a palace where a fish pond was built covered with glass. The Queen was deceived, and not recognizing the glass cover, assumed that she had to wade through the water, and therefore lifted her skirt, allowing Solomon to see her beautiful legs. 4 In this miniature, seated with his counsellors and some demons not in a palace but behind a mountain, Solomon looks down at the approaching Queen, lifting her skirt while seemingly wading through shallow water. Whatever the iconographic source of this picture within the repertory of Bible illustrations may have been, it is thoroughly orientalized so that it is useless to speculate about it. The picture falls outside the framework of the comparative material used otherwise in our study. It is here introduced merely to make the reader aware of a biblical scene into which Jewish elements are infused as in so many of the Dura frescoes, and of the losses of apocryphal illustrations of which this Persian miniature is only an accidental, late, and transformed survival. BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, p. 46, fig. 38 and pl. XXII. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 88ff., figs. 26-28 and pl. XXVIII. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, pp. 99ff. and fig. 19; vol. 11, pl. X and fig. 329. 1 2

0mont, Miniatures, p. 23 and pl. XXXIX (fol. 215v). Weitzmann, Sacra Parallela, p. 88 and pl. XL, fig. 153.

3

T. W. Arnold, Painting in Islam. A Study of the Place of Pictorial Art in Muslim Culture, Oxford, 1928, p. 108 and pl. XXXIII. •See also Ginzberg, Legends, vol. 4, p. 145.

104

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

[20)

Ahab and Elijah (I Kings 17:1-3) South, 3rd zone. 1st panel from left. Figs. 6 and 146.

All that remains of this panel is a pair of feet in the lower right corner and, on this evidence, it is of course hopeless to suggest any particular scene. Nevertheless, a suggestion can be made on the basis of the general context. Kraeling has already made it quite clear that this panel is the first in a series of altogether five scenes, four of which depict clearly identifiable episodes from the life of the prophet Elijah; and he concluded, in our opinion correctly, that the first, almost completely destroyed panel must have contained the beginning of the Elijah cycle. Since the next panel contains the episode of the widow of Zarephath (17:9ff.) and the story of Elijah begins only with chapter 17, it follows that the first panel must have depicted an episode from 17:1-8. The only event told in these verses is the meeting of Elijah with King Ahab in which the prophet foretells a drought. Consequently we would assume that there was a scene in which the enthroned king, perhaps flanked by bystanders, faces Elijah standing in front of him. Kraeling explained the feet in the corner as belonging to a figure who, to judge from the position of the feet, was about to leave. This would once more be Elijah, about to depart for Cherith as the Lord had commanded him to do (verse 3 ). While there seems to be no representation of this passage left in Byzantine miniature painting, there is a representation of Elijah before Ahab preserved in the Sacra Parallela manuscript (fig. 147). 1 This scene, however, accompanies chapter 18:17-18, where Elijah challenges King Ahab to a contest on Mount Carmel to determine the true God. In this miniature the white-haired prophet, dressed in the fur-trimmed mantel, the so-called melote, stands with his right hand extended before the enthroned king, who wears the imperial chlamys but no crown. It seems quite likely that in a profusely illustrated archetype the beginning of Chapter 17 was illustrated in like fashion, but did not enter the Sacra Parallela because the passage from chapter 17 is not quoted here. The scene of Elijah before Ahab occurs a second time in Byzantine book illumination in the tenth-century, so-called Leo Bible in the Vatican, cod. Reg. gr. 1, where, out of place, it forms a full-page frontispiece before II Kings (=IV of the Septuagint) (fig. 148). 2 Because the scene is cut off from its original place within the text, it cannot be ascertained whether the picture was meant to illustrate the appearance of Elijah before Ahab as told in chapter 17 or chapter 18, but iconographically this does not matter, since it is more than likely that the illustrations in these two places were more or less identical. The composition is pretty much the same as the scene in the Sacra Parallela, but considering that we deal here with a rather conventional grouping of the chief characters this is not surprising: there is hardly any alternative for the pictorialization of a meeting between a ruler and a man approaching him. Yet there are small differences in that Elijah in the Vatican miniature wears a normal Greek himation and not the melote as in the Sacra Parallela. Furthermore, the king in the

105

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

Vatican miniature is accompanied by two bodyguards. In both these features it is quite likely that the latter miniature is closer to the archetype we envisage for the Dura fresco, because in the subsequent frescoes (fig. 149) Elijah is depicted like all other prophets in a himation and not the melote. Moreover, if indeed the Dura panel under consideration contained the episode of Elijah before Ahab there would be plenty of space for the king to be flanked by bystanders, either counsellors or soldiers. Such an expanded rendition would have been in conformity with the Dura painting in which Pharaoh (fig. 29), Solomon (fig. 140), and Ahasuerus (fig. 162) are flanked either by counsellors or prophets. BIBLIOGRAPHY Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 134ff. and pl. XXX, 1. 1

Weitzmann, Sacra Para/le/a, p. 89 and pl. XLII, fig. 159.

2

Miniature de/la Bibbia cod. Vat. Regina Gr. 1 e de/ Salterio cod. Vat. Pa/at. Gr. 381 (Collezione Paleografica Vaticana, Fasc. 1), Milan, 1905, p. 11 and pl. 14.

[21]

Elijah at Cherith and Zarephath (I Kings 17:5-16) South, 3rd zone. 2nd panel from the left. Figs. 6 and 149.

Of this panel only the damaged right half is preserved to an extent that makes the identification absolutely certain. It depicts the episode in which Elijah meets the widow at Zarephath, asks her to prepare a meal for him with the flour and the oil she still has, and prophesies to her that flour and oil will miraculously be provided continuously as long as the drought plaguing the city of Zarephath lasts. In front of the city gate the widow bends over in a pose of pronounced reverence; behind her the jar for the flour and the cruse for the oil are prominently displayed. She faces Elijah, who is dressed in the usual prophet's garments. He moves toward her extending his right hand in a gesture of speech, indicating that he is asking for the meal. In Gute's watercolor, reproduced here, a second figure is visible behind Elijah, and rendered in the same pose. Although the Bible text mentions Elisha for the first time only in chapter 19:19-21, Kraeling rightly suggested that this companion of Elijah can only be Elisha, pointing out that in Jewish legend Elisha is connected with Elijah already at an earlier time at Mount Carmel. 1 In our opinion it is not absolutely necessary to find a text passage according to which Elisha was already associated with Elijah at Cherith. His appearance at this point can be explained as a prolepsis by the fresco painter, who uses this device repeatedly as we have seen-to mention only one of several examples-when he proleptically introduces the twelve tribes, mentioned for the first time in Numbers, in the Exodus picture (p. 43 and pis. 48-49). Unfortunately Byzantine miniature painting has nothing to contribute in the present 106

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

case since the episode of the widow of Zarephath is preserved neither in the Sacra Para/le/a nor in the Vatican Book of Kings; to be sure, it is more than likely that it existed in the more fully illustrated archetype. The scene that filled the left half of the Dura panel is almost totally destroyed, and yet the few traces visible in Gute's watercolor are quite revealing. Kraeling noticed the outlines of a foot in frontal position. Actually the watercolor also shows the trace of a second foot to the left. The angle of these two feet permits the conclusion that this figure must have been seated in a frontal pose. Kraeling had correctly concluded from its location to the left of the widow episode that the scene must have depicted the preceding event of Elijah being fed by the ravens at Cherith. Fortunately this scene does exist in the Vatican Book of Kings (fig. 150).2 Here Elijah is seated frontally with legs converging toward his ankles in a pose corresponding very well to that postulated for the figure in the Dura fresco. In still another point fresco and miniature agree: in both cases the figure is placed not on the groundline, but higher up, that is, seated on a hillock. Thus we can well envision an Elijah figure in the fresco that corresponds to a well-established tradition for this scene in which the prophet supports his head on his right arm and looks up to two ravens, of which one holds a round loaf of bread in his beak and the other what may represent water in some kind of bag. This image of the frontally seated Elijah with his head resting on his right arm occurs also in such miniatures as that in the eleventh-century codex with the Lives of Saints, Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale gr. 1528 (fig. 151),3 where the composition is almost identical. Here the picture heads John Chrysostom's homily In SS. Petrum et Eliam, but there can hardly be any doubt that this miniature was not invented for this homily but taken over from an illustrated Book of Kings like that in the Vatican for whose archetype this image was conceived. It also occurs in this form frequently in Byzantine icon painting, where it gains what one might call a canonical status. Kraeling noticed as the only other trace in the fresco a piece of drapery, which he connected with a figure of Elisha, reasoning quite convincingly that as in the subsequent scene with the widow he was associated with Elijah in this scene as well. This is just another example of a prolepsis that quite likely originated with the Dura painter and could very well have been his invention. BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, p. 108, fig. 80 and pl. XLVI. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 135ff. and pl. XXXI. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, pp. 148ff. and vol. 11, pis. XV, 2 and fig. 340. Kraeling, The Synagogue, p. 143 note 517. Lassus, Livre des Rois, p. 81 and pl..XXX, fig. 103. 3 Unpublished. But a few miniatures of this manuscript are published, as, e.g., in S. Der Nersessian, "The Illustrations of the Metaphrastian Menologium," Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of A. M. Friend, Jr., Princeton, 1955, pp. 224, 230, and pl. XXV, fig. 9. 1

2

107

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

[22]

Elijah Reviving the Widow's Son (I Kings 17:19-23) West, 3rd zone. 1st from the left. Figs. 4 and 152.

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

The widow at the left holds the dead child in a pose that requires handing it over to Elijah according to verse 19, "And he said unto her, Give me thy son. And he took him out of her bosom and carried him up into a loft...." Thus this first phase would require a standing figure of Elijah taking the child out of the widow's arms. But he is not there! The second phase illustrates verse 21, "And he stretched himself upon the child three times," but such an action would require another type for the prophet engaged in the act of bringing the child back to life. Here the artist seems to have replaced a more literal rendering of the scene by introducing for Elijah a type which, as Goodenough suggested, might well have been a reclining Adonis or Dionysus or some other pagan deity. This substitution of the figure of a classical divinity for a biblical personage is not an isolated case at Dura. One

need only recall the adaptation of a classical Aphrodite type for Pharaoh's daughter (p. 30 and fig. 30). The second phase is complete in itself and there is nothing missing except the architectural setting, that is, the loft mentioned in the text. The third phase shows the widow with the child in her left arm and extending her right in a gesture of speech. This illustrates verse 23, "And Elijah took the child, and brought him down out of the chamber into the house, and delivered him unto his mother." A precise illustration of this phase of the episode would require another Elijah figure in the act of handing over the child to the widow. What we encounter in our panel is the conflation of three phases through the application of the principle of the "simultaneous method." 2 To demonstrate this method I should like to introduce a case from ancient art where three separate scenes in one monument are conflated into one scene in another. In an Alcestis sarcophagus in Cannes (figs. 153a-c),3 the central scene of Alcestis lying on her deathbed 4 is followed by three more phases of the story dearly separated from each other. In the first, on the left end of the sarcophagus Alcestis appears before Pluto, the god of the lower world (fig. 153a). On the opposite short side Alcestis is depicted being brought back to the upper world by Heracles (fig. 153b). The third scene is on the front side of the sarcophagus at the right of the dying Alcestis and shows Heracles' farewell to the reunited couple, Alcestis and Admetus. In another sarcophagus, now in the Vatican (fig. 154),5 the center of the front side is occupied once more by Alcestis on her deathbed, but for the three subsequent phases of the story, the same ones as in the preceding sarcophagus, the artist made no use of the short sides but rather conflated and compressed the phases in the only available space, at the right of the center of the front side. Here we see at the extreme right Alcestis before the gods of the lower world, corresponding to our fig. 153a. But she is not facing Pluto and listening to him; she has already turned around and follows Heracles, and thus is simultaneously involved in two different actions. Moreover, the same Heracles who is leading Alcestis out of the lower world is already engaged in the next action, bidding farewell to Admetus with whom he shakes hands. The panel in Dura, we believe, is the result of a conflation process which, in principle, is analogous to that in the two sarcophagi. In order to disentangle it and reestablish the original state of an intelligible narrative section of a cycle we would expect that there would have been in the model (i.e., a miniature in an illustrated Book of Kings) a figure of Elijah receiving the dead child. This figure was dropped in the Dura fresco, and thus the widow became conflated with the next Elijah, that is, the one on the couch in the second scene, just as in the sarcophagus one Alcestis figure was dropped and conflated with the Heracles of the subsequent scene. Moreover, in the fresco, as the result of such a conflation, the artist had to abandon all indications of locality for the text explicitly says that Elijah took the child "up into a loft." Moreover, we expect, as already indicated, that the model depicted Elijah a third time in the action of returning the revived child, just as in the Vatican sar-

108

109

Though this panel continues the story of Elijah at Zarephath depicted in the preceding panel, it does not follow it physically. It is placed on the west wall and is separated from the Zarephath panel by two others representing the story of Elijah on Mount Carmel. Kraeling, Goodenough, and others have given reasons for this separation, but this is a problem of the overall program that is not to be discussed in the present context. The subject has been correctly identified as Elijah reviving the widow's dead child. There is a very similar story told in II Kings 4:18-37, according to which Elisha revives the dead child of the Shunamite woman, but the fact that our panel is inscribed Elijah leaves no doubt that the first of the two reviving scenes is represented. Moreover, the correct identification depends not only on the inscription, but on certain iconographic details. At the left we see the woman holding the dead child in her outstretched arms, eager to hand it over to Elijah. In the Elisha story (verse 21), "she laid him [the dead child] on the bed of the man of God," and Elisha finds him there later; thus no handing over is involved. The story is illustrated in three consecutive phases. In the first, the widow, with her breast bare as a sign of mourning, holds the limp, dead child in her outstretched arms. In the second, Elijah, in the usual dress of a prophet, holds the child up in his arms and toward the hand of God, which issues from the sky and, as the symbol of lifegiving power, points at the child. In the third, the widow, now in a colorful gay garment (in contrast to the dark 1 one she wears in the first scene as a sign of mourning), holds the revived child in her left arm while she stretches her right hand out toward the prophet. All scholars describing this panel have emphasized its balanced composition with the chief person, the prophet Elijah, occupying the center in a prominent fashion, lying on a very elaborate couch in a conventional hieratic pose. Such a pose is comparable to the deceased in pagan banquet representations, chiefly funerary ones. 1 But for this "balanced composition" the artist paid a high price, sacrificing a good deal of iconographic clarity in the various phases of the episode.

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

cophagus the Heracles who says farewell to Admetus is not repeated but is conflated with the Heracles of the preceding scene. Unfortunately this Elijah episode occurs neither in the Vatican Book of Kings, although we presume that it was in its archetype, nor in the Sacra Parallela. But the comparison with the Alcestis story helps us to visualize what the original narrative cycle, on which the conflated Dura panel is based, must have contained. That in other cases the Dura painter would follow a narrative illustration more explicitly and did not hesitate to repeat the chief protagonist will be demonstrated in the Ezekiel panel in which the prophet is repeated no fewer than five times in succession (pp. 132-39 and figs. 177-179). BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, pp. 113ff., figs. 82-83 and pl. XLIX. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 143ff. and pl. LXIII. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 9, pp. 227ff. and vol. 11, fig. 335 and pl. VIII. 1

See the example in Goodenough, vol. 11, figs . 218-225. About this principle see Weitzmann, Roll and Codex, pp. 13ff., 17, 25ff., 33ff. 3 lbid., pp. 24ff. and pl. VIII, figs. 18a-c. • Ibid., fig. 18a, reproduces the total front side of this sarcophagus. 5 Jbid., fig. 19. 2

[23-24]

The Sacrifices of the Prophets of Baal and of Elijah on Mount Carmel (I Kings 18:26, 30-38) South wall, 3rd zone. 3rd and 4th scenes from the left. Figs. 6, 155, and 156.

e two scenes portraying sacrifices on Mount Carmel are parts of a consecutive narence the dividing border between them is superfluous and a deviation from the habit of e fresco painters of Dura where no such interruptions occur in cases of continuous narra ive, for example, in the Exodus (figs. 29-30) or the Ezekiel panels (figs. 177179). fore in this one case we may discard the dividing border and treat the two panels as one um.

Tler

In t e first we see a centralized composition with an altar in the middle on which a gar~ , ed bullock is placed in the expectation that it will be consumed by a fire falling from h,, en. However, in spite of the prayers of the prophets of Baal, no fire comes down. The prophets, four on either side of the altar, are dressed in Greek garments in much the same way as the Israelite prophets. But instead of lifting up their hands in prayer, their arms are held downwards. Such gestures may well be an artistic formula suggesting dejection as the consequence of the unfulfilled prayer for fire. The number four chosen by the painter for 110

I

each group may well have been inspired by the biblical text, which in verse 19 counts, "the prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty, and the prophets of the groves four hundred." Thus each figure would stand for a hundred. The altar shows an opening in which stands a small figure in a Persian costume. Kraeling and all scholars describing this scene identified him as Hiel, the man who had rebuilt Jericho (I Kings 16:34) and who, according to the Jewish legends as told in the Midrash Rabbah and the Yalkut Shimebni, tried to ignite the faggots placed on the altar from underneath the sacrificial bullock when no fire descended from above. This plan was frustrated by the Lord, however, who sent a serpent to destroy Hiel, and so we see in the fresco a huge serpent moving toward Hiel and killing him with a poisonous bite on his side. The rather hieratic pose of the prophets of Baal had been commented on by Goodenough, who argued that such a quiet pose was contrary to the Bible text, which states in verse 26 that "they leaped upon the altar," and thus he concluded that the fresco artist did not base his representation on a biblical narrative. He tried to fortify this argument against the biblical textual basis with other details, such as the bullock on the altar that is not cut in pieces as verse 23 suggests. This denial of the "narrative" basis for the Dura frescoes runs throughout Goodenough's writing since he is exclusively concerned with the symbolic interpretation of every pictorial element at the expense of its grounding in the biblical text. However, in this particular case it could be argued that the artist illustrated -the earlier part of verse 26: "they ... called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon ... ," that is, a phase of the episode before the prophets started leaping as the result of their fruitless attempts to invoke the fire. But apart from this different interpretation of the exact moment, we are faced here with one of the basic misconceptions that run through Goodenough's book, namely, his claim that a narrative illustration must in every detail be true to the Bible text. This overlooks the fact that the inventor of a narrative cycle-and this applies to classical texts as well as the Bible-freely uses "pictorial conventions" current in contemporary art in disregard of many little details of the text he is to illustrate. 1 The use of conventions applies also to the representation of the altar in both fresco panels and to the depiction of the bullock on top of it being whole rather than cut up as the text suggests. Goodenough introduces fitting parallels in pagan art for the lining up of priests left and right of an altar2 and for the shape of the altar proper. 3 But all these conventions could just as well have existed already in the narrative Bible illustrations. The second panel reading from right to left conflates two distinct phases of the Mount Carmel episode. Though once more this method is used, it is not employed to the same extent as in the preceding panel with the reviving of the widow's son (fig. 152). In the first, illustrating verse 33-"and [Elijah] said, Fill four barrels with water and pour it on the burnt sacrifice" -are depicted four water carriers about to pour water on the altar. In the second, according to verses 36-37, Elijah is praying to the Lord asking for the fire to descend on the sacrificial animal on the altar. Being restricted in width, as so often in Dura, the fresco artist used two devices in condensing the two events. First he eliminated one altar

111

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

although each of these two phases requires its own, the first for the drenching with water, and the second for the descending fire. The conflation of these two events resulted in an iconographical contradiction: it looks as if the pouring of the water was done in order to extinguish the flame-a result that misses the essence of the story according to which first the water was poured and only afterwards was the fire called from heaven. The second alteration resulting from insufficient width was the superimposition of the figures in two rows, figures meant to be lined up in single file on a common groundline. This device is one of the most frequently used by the Dura painter in order to cope with the problem of insufficient width as, for example, in the crossing of the Red Sea (figs. 48-49), the battle at · Eben-ezer (fig. 101), and the return of the ark (fig. 105), to cite only the most striking examples. In the presumed model, in which the figures must have had a natural spatial relationship, we would thus expect the four water carriers to have approached the altar in single file. In such a composition only the first one closest to the altar was in a position to empty his amphora, as is clearly depicted in the fresco; the second following him has already lowered the amphora from his shoulder and will pour the water as soon as he reaches the altar, thus representing an intermediary stage, while the third and the fourth in the postulated model still at a certain distance from the altar, have not yet prepared for the act of pouring. Thus the original composition must have had a noticeable crescendo effect now lost. Moreover, if the first carrier to approach was immediately in front of the altar, then there was no room for the man in tunic and himation who now takes that place in the fresco. We believe, as have most scholars, that with his hand raised in what we should like to interpret as a gesture of speech, he represents Elijah giving the order to bring the water. In the model his place would presumably have been on the other side of the altar, and there he would of course be reversed and turn to the right. His dislocation became a necessity when the place to the left of the altar was taken up by the figures that make up the next phase of the episode. Here we see three men raising their hands toward heaven, obviously Elijah being the one at the head of the group who is imploring the Lord to have fire fall on the burnt sacrifice. The immediate fulfillment of the prayer can be seen by the fire consuming the bullock. Deviating slightly from the text, the fire does not fall from heaven but rather ascends from the altar. Here again we have one of the conventions from a classical model ' which a fire rising from the altar. Of the two other Israelites behind Elijah, once more one may be lisha, whom we saw already in the Zarephath scene united with Elijah (fig. 149), but this r ains an open question inasmuch as he is not distinguished from the third worshiper; more "kely both, treated as equals, are just anonymous Israelites. Goodenough, in his pursuit of a eeper symbolic meaning for every element of Dura, calls these three figures The Great 'I', ree, that is, the Logos and Two Powers. He bases this explanation to some extent on the H"eratic pose and size of these figures in contrast to those on the other side of the altar. But we have seen, this differentiation in size is the result of compositional necessity and not of value judgment. Besides, an explanation as the Great Three would deprive these figures f the clear narrative context of imploring the Lord for fire. Moreover,

while the three figures are indeed larger than those on the right side of the altar, they are still considerably smaller than the prophets of Baal in the preceding panel who are equally imposing-or hieratic if one prefers this term-and yet, as the end of the episode tells us, are ridiculed by Elijah and condemned to death. We expect that an episode so full of dramatic details would have been illustrated extensively in the archetypal Books of Kings. While the miniatures in the Vatican copy as mentioned before peter out after the initial chapters of I Kings, there exist no fewer than three miniatures of the Mount Carmel episode in the Sacra Parallela manuscript, of which, however, only one overlaps with the Dura frescoes, so that altogether we arrive at a cyclic rendering in no fewer than five distinct phases: 1. Elijah challenges King Ahab to hold a contest to make clear who is the true God (verse 19). This encounter is depicted in the Sacra Parallela alongside the passage of verses 17-18 of chapter 18 (fig. 147). We have already used this picture as a substitute for a similar one that must have illustrated the earlier encounter at the beginning of chapter 17 (p. 105). 2. The abortive sacrifice of the prophets of Baal is portrayed, as seen in the first of the two Dura panels. 3. Water is poured over the sacrificial animal at the order of Elijah in the right half of the second panel. 4. Elijah implores the Lord to let fire fall on the sacrificial animal in the left half of the second panel. This event occurs in a very abbreviated form in the Sacra Parallela (fig. 157) 4 alongside verses 18:36 and 38. The margin only allowed for the figure of the praying Elijah who, just like the parallel figure in the Dura fresco, raises both arms but in this case toward the hand of God issuing from a segment of heaven. Here the miniature actually preserves a motif that we believe was in the archetype. One wonders why the hand does not appear in the fresco since the Dura painters otherwise make much use of this motif. One need only look at the Ezekiel panel where the hand is repeated no fewer than five times (figs. 177179). The only reason for its omission in the Elijah panel seems to be lack of space since the place where the hand would have to be is taken by the flames consuming the bullock. That Elijah, as in all miniatures of the Sacra Parallela, is depicted white-haired is in conformity with a general tendency in subsequent centuries to replace youthful prophets with bearded ones. 5. The fifth phase is the slaying of the prophets of Baal. This event is illustrated in the Sacra Parallela alongside verse 18:40 (fig. 158). 5 The miniature shows Elijah giving the order to have the prophets of Baal slain, an order executed by three Israelites who pierce the necks of two prophets with spears. The miniature is condensed in the margin, and it is more than likely that the model showed (a) more prophets and (b) the executioners on the same level as the prophets. In my description of this miniature elsewhere I pointed out that the picture contradicts the Bible text, according to which Elijah himself did the slaying, although Flavius Josephus reports that the prophets were killed by Israelites at the behest of Elijah. Collecting all this evidence one gets the impression that the Elijah episode-like the

n

112

113

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

other episodes within the books of Samuel and Kings-was illustrated in a dense sequence of phases and that the Dura painter in this case could make a choice and select what fitted into his program. Actually, with the slaying of the prophets of Baal this particular episode of Elijah's life has not yet come to an end, nor has its illustration. The Sacra Parallela manuscript has two more scenes showing the after-effect of Elijah's deed. In the first (fig. 159),6 Ahab's wife, Jezebel, angered by Elijah's slaying of Baal's prophets, gives an order to a messenger to have Elijah killed. Seated on a pearl-studded throne, she addresses the messenger who stands with veiled hands before her (19:2). Directly thereafter, illustrating the next verse (fig. 160), 7 we see the messenger speaking with Elijah, obviously warning him, whereupon the prophet immediately turns to flee into the wilderness. Now nimbed, he is dressed in the melote, the fur-trimmed mantle appropriate for a life in the wilderness of Sinai. The prophet's importance is indicated by his large size as well as by the nimbus. This illustration of the Mount Carmel episode, like many scenes in Dura-the Crossing of the Red Sea (pp. 38ff. and figs. 48-49) or the ark in the land of the Philistines (p. 75 and fig. 105), to mention only two-shows once more in all clarity the principles that the fresco artists apply. These include not only condensation and conflation, but omission of whole scenes from the rich cycle of a densely illustrated model. BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, pp. 1 lOff. and pis. XLVII-XLVIII. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 137ff. and pis. LXI-LXII. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, pp. 149ff. and vol. 11, pis. XV, 3 and XVI, 2, figs. 341-342. About the use of conventions see Weitzmann, Roll and Codex, pp. 154££. and especially 156ff. for Christian art. 2 Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 11, fig. 285. 3 lbid., fig. 283. •Weitzmann, Sacra Parallela, p. 90 and pl. XLII, fig. 160. 5 lbid., p. 90 and pl. XLII, fig. 161. 6 lbid., p. 90 and pl. XLII, fig. 162. 7 lbid., p. 90 and pl. XLIII, fig. 163. 1

[25]

The Triumph of Mordecai (Esther 6:11); Ahasuerus and Esther (Esther 9 [?]) West, 3rd zone. 2nd panel from left. Figs. 4, 161, and 162.

There is no question about the correct identification of this long panel depicting two scenes ~~ of Esther. An inscription establishes that the royal figure on a white steed is Mordecai beiil honored with the highest position by King Ahasuerus (6:11) as a 114

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

reward for having saved his life on an earlier occasion (6:2). Mordecai is dressed in a royal Persian costume, essentially no different from that of King Ahasuerus in the second scene. The horse is led by Haman, who had himself aspired to be honored the way Mordecai was and who, after his treachery was revealed, was humiliated by the king and asked to lead Mordecai through the streets of Susa. There is an incongruity between the wide energetic step of the advancing Haman and the motionless attitude of the horse, which plants its two front legs firmly on the ground as if refusing to move. All scholars, including Kraeling and Goodenough, have commented on the static quality of this horseman and correctly concluded that we deal here with a fixed type of an Iranian ruler as known from rock reliefs and numerous other monuments. 1 We encounter here the same kind of dichotomy we noticed in the panel of the battle of Eben-ezer (p. 72 and fig. 101), where amidst fighting soldiers in various positions there is in the center a single combat group consisting of two riders with lowered lances who attack each other in a way that gives the impression of a heraldic group with rather fixed motions. In that case as well we suggested that the group was taken from an Iranian model inserted into an otherwise Hellenistic battle scene. In analogy we would expect the hieratic figure of Mordecai also to replace a more narrative image in which the horse would have been depicted in motion. As far as Haman is concerned, Kraeling commented that he is dressed like a stable boy. Such deliberate humiliation is not suggested by the Bible text, according to which one would expect Haman to be dressed like the court official he is, and Kraeling pointed out a passage in the Midrash Rabbah that fully justifies this concept of degradation. This point becomes very obvious when, later, we compare the fresco with a medieval miniature where indeed Haman is dressed in a splendid robe (cf. fig. 163). In front of Mordecai and Haman stand four men raising their hands in a gesture of acclamation. The biblical text does not mention any "bystanders," but they are justified by a passage in the Targum Sheni, as Kraeling pointed out. Yet I do not believe it necessary in this case to look for a textual source to account for the presence of such bystanders. They can be explained easily enough as a pictorial convention of a kind already part of an Adventus representation in ancient art. Moreover, one need only point to later representations of Mordecai's triumph (figs. 163-164) to confirm that the bystanders are an integral part of the composition. Goodenough, in his usual way, contests the concept of mere bystanders and, because of their large size and hieratic character, sees a deeper symbolic meaning in them, taking them as "the symbol of justice." But we have repeatedly pointed out that difference in size is not necessarily connected with importance in rank at Dura. I need only refer to the despised prophets of Baal who, likewise, are very hieratic and larger than Elijah, and to the praying Israelites in the subsequent scene of the same panel (figs. 155-156). The scene to the right depicts Ahasuerus sitting on a throne that obviously is copied from that of Solomon (fig. 143), and Kraeling pointed out a passage in the Targum Sheni that indeed says that Ahasuerus was in possession of Solomon's throne. The king is ap115

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

proached by a man in Persian costume who advances with a quick step and delivers a document in papyrus or parchment, which Ahasuerus receives with an open hand. There is no certainty which document is being handed over to the king, and therefore one cannot point to any particular Bible verse. One of several proposals 2 needing serious consideration refers to passage 6:1-3, when the "book of records of the chronicles" was given to the king, a book in which it was written that Mordecai was never rewarded for saving the king's life. But this event happens to take place when the king could not sleep, that is, in his bedroom. That a literal illustration would require such a setting is, as we shall see later, supported by a medieval miniature (fig. 163 ). Kraeling believes "that the action depicts the episode narrated in Esther 9: 11-14," according to which Ahasuerus granted by decree to Esther permission to destroy Haman's sons. While this explanation has much in its favor since it alludes to what will become the feast of Purim, there are still a few unsettled points. The document is being handed over to the king, not by the king, as one would expect with a decree issued by the king. Moreover, his dress speaks against Kraeling's identification of the carrier of the document as Mordecai. The garments are different from those of Mordecai in the scene showing him riding on the steed, and it is hardly likely that the same person would be depicted in a different status within the same panel. He seems to be simply, a courtier who acts as a messenger. Ahasuerus, in rich Persian costume, wears a soft cap and holds a sword in his left h;md. He is thus represented in a fashion quite similar to that of Pharaoh in the panel of Moses' infancy (fig. 29) and like Pharaoh he is accompanied by two officials, one of whom (a scribe) is holding a diptych and the other is holding what Kraeling interprets as a key, though the identification of the object is not quite certain. It must be noticed that the two officials do not flank the king as one would expect and as they do in the Moses panel, but that both are at the right side of the king. The scribe has obviously been displaced from the left side by the figure of Queen Esther who looks very much like an intrusion, having been squeezed together with an accompanying handmaid in what space was still available. The queen sits on a throne, suspended in midair, slightly higher than the king himself. Goodenough commented on the statuesque quality of this type and compared her, because of the mural crown on her head, with classical types of Tyche; 3 on the other hand Wischnitzer adduced a parallel in Durene sculpture. 4 Here a classical model was introduced in the manner in which the Dura artist has on other occasions made use of ancient sources, as for example when he opted for an Aphrodite type for Pharaoh's daughter (fig. 30). Since the presence of the queen is not required when the king receives or issues documents, we deal here apparently with one of the many conflations whereby the artist combines elements of different scenes. Here, however, the conflation does not really involve two different scenes, but only one, to which a rather static figure, not involved in any action, is added and artistically not integrated in a satisfactory fashion. The artist may have wanted this figure to be understood as a visualization of Esther as the ruling queen. Yet she is not taken from a narrative coronation scene

described in the text (2:27) and existing in later illustrations (figs. 164-165). The composition in the fresco was not conceived as an audience scene in which king and queen jointly participate, but only turned into one by the frescoist who did not really succeed in harmonizing the figures of the king and the queen, derived from different contexts. The book of Esther is the only one from the Old Testament among those used as textual basis for the Dura painters of which no trace seems to be left in any Greek manuscript. Although the book of Esther never had the same importance in the Christian world that it did in Judaism, where it became the center of the feast of Purim, evidence that it existed with illustrations comes from the Latin West in copies where a derivation from Eastern models is quite possible. However, in the two cases we shall discuss, the iconography and its sources have never been investigated systematically. In a richly illustrated Bible from the monastery of St. Gumpert in Ansbach and now in the University Library of Erlangen, executed between 1175 and 119 5 in Bavaria under the impact of Salzburg, there is a miniature heading the book of Esther that is very revealing in its comparison with the Dura fresco (fig. 163).5 Here the illustrator was faced with a problem similar to that confronted by the fresco painter, namely, to choose a section from a richer cycle of the Esther story and to accommodate it in a single striplike composition. In both cases the artists chose the same episode as the center-the elevation of Mordecai, which must have seemed to both painters the most important event. As in the fresco, Mordecai riding on a horse is led by Haman, but in a more narrative manner the horse is not arrested in its movement, but is moving ahead, as implied by the text, through the streets of Susa. Mordecai is dressed in a long embroidered undergarment and, in Byzantine fashion, in a chlamys instead of the Persian dress. In both cases the garments may not reflect the archetype but merely indicate the adjustment of the time and surroundings. Noteworthy is the dress of Haman, who is clothed in royal garments similar to those worn by Mordecai, and this is in agreement with the meaning of the biblical text according to which Haman had a high position at the king's court, equal to that of Mordecai. Such a rendering of Haman supports Kraeling's idea that the dress of a "stable boy" in Dura is a deviation from the Bible text under the influence of a Jewish legend. Moreover, behind Mordecai are three men, the two more fully visible ones raising their hands in a gesture of acclamation just like the men facing Mordecai in the fresco. Obviously we deal in each case with the same "bystanders," and it is of no significance that in the miniature they follow the horse, rather than face it, and that for want of space their number is reduced to three. The preceding scene is a very literal illustration of Esther 6: 1 showing the sleepless Ahasuerus lying in bed while two high court officials sit in front of him holding the books "of records and chronicles" in their laps from which they read to the king. This iconography, following the text closely, helps to support !(raeling's argument, contrary to that of other scholars, that the right-hand scene of the fresco does not represent the same event, which requires a sleeping king. The third scene in the miniature-the one at the right-

116

117

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

depicts very literally verse 8 of chapter 7: "As the word went out of the King's mouth, they covered Haman's face." The crowned Ahasuerus stands in front of Haman, lying on a couch, and watches as a man is about to cover Haman's face. Being eager to illustrate also the next phase of the episode, for which there was no space in the strip, the artist depicted the hanging of Haman (7:10) in the initial I. This extension of the story into the initial clearly indicates that there existed a richer cycle in which the hanging of Haman must have been shown in a more elaborate scene like the others. That indeed there existed full cycles with illustrations of the book of Esther is proved by the Catalan Bibles. In the eleventh-century Bible from Santa Maria de Ripoll, now in the Vatican Library, the book of Esther is headed by a collective miniature in five strips, one above the other (fig. 164), 6 which cover more or less the whole book, starting with the crowning of Esther (2:17) and ending with the hanging of Haman (6:10). A scene of the crowning like that in this miniature may very well have inspired the Dura artist conceptually to depict a crowned Esther, although, as we tried to make clear, he did not use a narrative scene as model, but preferred a statuesque type, independent of any narrative connotation. The elevation of Mordecai shows basically the same composition as in Dura and the Erlangen Bible but, closer to the latter, has Haman clothed like Mordecai in a royal chlamys leading the horse and the acclaiming bystanders following the horse. However, in this case there are four bystanders, just as in Dura, but we do not believe that there is any significance in the number. The second Catalan Bible from Sant Pere de Roda, now in Paris and executed around the year 1000, shows no fewer than ten scenes in three miniatures,7 one of them (Ahasuerus' sleeplessness) being associated with the second writing of the book of Esther. Note that the first six scenes cover only the first two chapters of Esther, and this fact points to an archetype that must have been extremely rich and with which the later Catalan copyist could not keep pace, but became more selective in the subsequent chapters. We meet here the same phenomenon as in the Vatican Book of Kings, which started out so prolifically with book I and ended with a single scene for book IV (p. 11). Thus the initial banquet scenes are lavishly and elaborately illustrated, whereas toward the end the all-important events of the Haman episode are very condensed (fig. 165). At the very end of the cycle we see the elevation of Mordecai who, riding on his steed, is facing Ahasuerus and Esther and hailing them, but there was apparently not space enough for Haman to lead the horse. Haman hanged on the gallows is just squeezed in behind Mordecai. The only excuse for our having dealt with the Western copies of the book of Esther so extensively is the fact that they prove the existence of a rich cycle of which no traces are left in Eastern miniature painting. Whereas in the cases of the Pentateuch and the books of Samuel and Kings we were able to recognize the same recensions as in the frescoes and miniatures, this question cannot be raised with regard to the book of Esther, where the roots of the Latin cycles have not yet been systematically investigated. Swarzenskis detected 118

\

in the Gumpert 'Bible Byzantine influence, which, in general, is very strong in the Salzburg school of illumination. There may well have been a Byzantine model behind its Esther picture, but for the time being this point must remain an open question. Many suggestions have been made as to the roots of the iconography of the various miniature cycles of the Catalan Bibles, and ultimately Eastern sources have been proposed as having influenced the old Spanish models behind the present Bibles, but here is not the place to pursue this problem. BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, pp. 116££., figs. 84-88 and pis. LI and LIL Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 151££., figs. 43-45 and pis. LXIV-LXV. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 9, pp. 177££. and vol. 11, pis. I, VI, and fig. 336. For example, see Goodenough,Jewish Symbols, vol. 9, figs. 163 and 164. They are all discussed by Kraeling, The Synagogue, p. 162. 3 Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 9, p. 179 and vol. 11, fig. 160. •R. Wischnitzer, "From My Archives," Journal of Jewish Art 6 (1979), 14£., figs. 1 and 2. 5 Swarzenski, Salzburger Malerei, vol. 1, pp. 129 and 134, and vol. 2, pl. XLII, fig. 132. 6 Neuss, Die Katalanische Bibelillustration, Bonn, 1922, pp. 16££., 101££., and pl. 43, fig. 126. 7 lbid., pp. 10££., 101££., and pl. 40, figs. 119-121. 8 Swarzenski, Salzburger Malerei, vol. 1, p. 137. 1

2

[26]

Mattathias and the Idolaters (I Maccabees 2: 15 and 24-25) North, 3rd zone right. Figs. 7, 166, and 167.

The two scenes next to the Ezekiel panel (p. 132 and figs. 177-179) are the most controversial in the whole Dura decoration; for no other scenes have so many different identifications been suggested. A much-discussed and formal aspect is that they are not separated by an ornamental border from the Ezekiel panel to their left, and consequently repeated attempts have been made to link them directly with the latter and to interpret them as part of the Ezekiel cycle. But how decisive is this formal detail in view of the fact that in another case two scenes of the Elijah story (figs. 155-156), which are successive events of the same episode and should therefore not be interrupted, are separated by an ornamental border where it is hardly called for? It seems to me that not too much should be made of the omission or addition of a dividing border. In fact, most interpreters have looked for an interpretation outside the book of Ezekiel, suggesting that there may nevertheless be an ideological connection even if the scenes were based on another book of the Bible. But the assumption of such a connection is in itself problematic. 119

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

Two distinct phases of one episode are depicted. At the left one sees a man in Persian costume kneeling in front of an altar and stretching out his hands toward it. Behind him stands a soldier in heavy armor and wearing a crested helmet; the soldier leans forward and puts his hands-only the left is visible-on the man's shoulders. It is at this point that almost all interpreters make the mistake, on the basis of a preconceived idea, of describing this scene as the attempt of a soldier to remove the kneeling figure from the altar as if the man had taken refuge at it. Tearing a figure away from the altar should show the soldier moving in the opposite direction. For such an action classical art had invented a fitting formula, as can be seen in a first-century Iliac tablet that, illustrating the Iliupersis of Stesichorus, shows Aias dragging Cassandra away from the temple of Athena. The pose makes unmistakably clear the movement in the opposite direction, 1 while Cassandra is rendered kneeling at the steps of the temple and stretching out her arms, not unlike the man in the Dura fresco. Above the altar is a tent-like structure reminiscent of the tabernacle, but much simplified. The open front shows such temple implements as the candelabrum and other objects, but the structure has neither the distinction of the Jewish tabernacle, which includes the seven-branched candlestick, nor that of a pagan temple, like the temple of Dagon (fig. 105) with its statue of a deity or at least a pedestal for it. The right half of the panel shows a man in Persian costume wielding his sword to decapitate a man clothed likewise in Persian costume, whom he grasps by the hair. It has been observed that the latter figure has been overpainted and that originally the victim was an upright figure moving to the left, his hands stretched out toward the altar with the tabernacle above it (fig. 167). At this state of the revision an addition has been made in the background-four soldiers in heavy armor. This looks very much like an intentional change in the program, and we shall try later on to find an explanation for this change. It seems understandable that attempts would be made to explain the decapitation as that of the prophet Ezekiel, and Goodenough foremost went to great lengths to support this idea, pointing not only to such literary sources as Isidore of Seville (it is later and Western but may have Eastern antecedents now lost), but also to a pictorial tradition. In the eleventh-century Catalan Bible from Sant Pere de Roda there is indeed a scene of the prophet's decapitation 2 at the end of a pictorial cycle from the life of Ezekiel. Yet two reasons, among others, speak against this identification. First is the Persian clothing of the victim. It is true that at the beginning of the Ezekiel panel the prophet is indeed rendered in Persian costume (figs. 177-178), but later the costume is changed to the traditional chiton and himation of a prophet, and it is highly unlikely that after this change the artist would revert to the earlier Persian costume in the decapitation scene. The second point, even more decisive, is that this explanation leaves unexplained the first scene, with the figure kneeling before the altar. Among the many other proposed identifications Kraeling took three quite seriously, seemingly accepting some points but in the end rejecting all of them. Du Mesnil du Buisson had explained the episode as that of Benaiah killing Joab (I Kings 2:28-34), first dragging

him away from the altar and then decapitating him. But, as Kraeling realized, it is not likely that Benaiah would be represented differently, first in heavy armor and then in Persian costume. Even more decisive seems to us the fact, remarked on previously, that the soldier is not dragging the kneeling man away. Moreover, being unarmed, this soldier does not appear about to kill the kneeling man. Jacob Leveen believed he found the solution within the book of Ezekiel, 3 citing the episode from chapter 9 where the prophet speaks of six armed men, including one in white linen and with an inkhorn, slaying the idolaters. But the difficulty with this proposal is that there is no man in white linen with an inkhorn, and furthermore the number six does not correspond with the five in the fresco where, in addition, the executioner and the soldiers are persons of different types. Still another identification was made by E. L. Sukenik, who suggested that the slaying of Zechariah in the Temple (II Chronicles 24:20-21) was represented here. 4 However, the fact that Zechariah was stoned and not killed by the sword rules out this possibility. Kraeling himself came up with a new proposal. According to him the scene is not biblical but can only be explained by Midrashic sources, according to which Jehoiakim (mentioned in II Chronicles 36:6) was carried off in fetters to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar and killed by him. Kraeling saw the advantage of his interpretation in the possibility of explaining the two scenes as a succession of two phases of the same episode, "The first in which the one royal person comes up behind the other with his sword ready to deal the fatal blow reflects the unexpected nature of the attack, while the second in which Nebuchadnezzar grasps Jehoiakim's head emphasizes with equal brutality the assault." 5 But because of the difference of costume, the figure at the right with the raised sword and the one at the left bending over the kneeling figure cannot be the same person, that is, Nebuchadnezzar. Kraeling, realizing the difficulty, believed that the heavily armed soldier was Nebuzaradan, Nebuchadnezzar's "captain of the guard." This is obviously a forced solution. The Jehoiakim story might explain the right-hand scene, but leaves unexplained the left-hand one, that is, the man kneeling before an altar who is not going to be killed at this moment. We do not accept Kraeling's interpretation, ingenious as it might be. Moreover, it must be emphasized that not a single interpretation proposed so far has dealt with the problem of the altering of the pose of the victim within the second scene. There is one more proposed identification to be discussed, which in our opinion is most likely the correct one. In an article in 1962, 6 Henri Stern proposed that the executioner in the right-hand scene is Mattathias, who, infuriated by the idolatry of his coreligionists, slays one of the Jews worshiping pagan gods (I Maccabees 2); this identification has recently been endorsed by Gutmann. 7 We agree that the man with the sword raised to kill his victim is indeed Mattathias, but beyond this basic discovery almost all details of Stern's interpretation require correction. It is most interesting that Stern arrived at his identification on the basis of parallels in later medieval miniature paintings, thus implying the same method we are using throughout in this study. Among the numerous miniatures he introduced, twq are of special importance, one in a tenth-century manuscript of the Maccabees from St. Gall in

120

121

/

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

the University Library of Leiden, cod. Perizoni 17 (fig. 168), 8 which contains the first book of the Maccabees illustrated with a narrative picture cycle that covers twenty-eight full pages, most of them containing two scenes. This is the only fully illustrated book of Maccabees from the earlier Middle Ages that has come down to us, and there is good reason to assume it has an older tradition behind it, in which the individual scenes were intercalated in the text and thus more closely related to it.9 In the Leiden manuscript (fig. 168),10 the Mattathias story is illustrated in two phases. First Mattathias, in a state of utter excitement, approaches from behind a worshiping idolater who holds a pig as an offering and, grasping the man's hair, is about to decapitate him with the raised sword. This is a literal depiction of 2:24, "Mattathias could not forbear to shew his anger ... and slew him upon the altar." The action above illustrates the next verse, 25: "Also the king's commander, who compelled men to sacrifice he [Mattathias] killed at that time." So Mattathias slew two people and the problem is, then, which of the two is depicted in the Dura fresco. In our opinion both are involved. It has been mentioned that the figure of the victim has been overpainted and corrected in its attitude. The first version shows a man standing upright. and moving to the left with outstretched arms in a pose of worship (fig. 167, left). This, then, would be the idolatrous Jew of verse 24 who, as in the Leiden miniature, is striding toward the altar, while Mattathias attacks him from behind. But when the fresco painter made his change he turned the victim around toward Mattathias so that, grasping the man's head, Mattathias could pull it down in order to sever it more readily (fig. 167, right). This altered pose of the victim corresponds very well with that of the king's commissioner in the Leiden miniature, who is depicted as the leader of the king's army (amassed behind him), bent over and grasped by the hair by Mattathias who is about to decapitate him. On the basis of this identity of types in miniature and fresco, we believe that both represent the commander and that the fresco painter purposely changed the figure in order to substitute the king's commissioner for the idolatrous Jew. To make this change plausible to the beholder he made one additional alteration: he added behind the victim four soldiers in full armor, by which the commissioner was identifiable as the leader of an army. That soldiers were in this place in the model is evidenced by the Leiden miniature, where the leader and the army form a solid group. Here we deviate from Stern's interpretation, which took the soldiers to be some of the sons of Mattathias. Aside from the fact that an identification as the army of Antiochus is supported by the Leiden miniature, it seems to us highly unlikely that the sons should be dressed differently from Mattathias, who wears the Persian costume common for Jews throughout the Dura frescoes. But why should the Dura painter make this change? We can only speculate on his motive. Perhaps the worshipers in the synagogue took offense at a scene in which a Jew ·kills a Jew, an action so obviously against the Mosaic law. Thus, it does not seem unlikely that the fresco painter was ordered to change Mattathias' action to that of having the commander killed, instead of a Jewish compatriot. How, then, is the scene at the left to be explained? According to Stern it depicts one of

the sons of Mattathias pulling away a Greek officer seeking refuge at the altar. Various reasons speak against this identification. First, we do not believe, as we said before, that a son of Mattathias would be depicted as a soldier in heavy armor; second, the kneeling figure in Persian costume can hardly be a Greek officer but resembles rather the Jew of the first version of the second scene and in fact is most likely the same person. Third, as stated several times, the soldier is not pulling away the kneeling figure. In our opinion this group is an illustration of verse 16, according to which "the king's officers such as compelled the people to revolt, came into the city Modin, to make them sacrifice." As we interpret this scene, the soldier, an officer of Antiochus' army, is not trying to tear a Jew away from the altar but, on the contrary, is bending over and forcing him onto his knees to compel him to worship idols. Such a scene would be much in the spirit of the text, according to which force is used to compel the Jews to idolatry. Moreover, it would make a perfect counterpart to the first version of the second scene, where the same Jew is punished by Mattathias for abandoning the religion of his fathers. Thus the subject of the panel is crime and punishment, at least as the scene was originally conceived (i.e., before the change in identity of the decapitated person, whereby the original forcefulness and moral lesson is lost). Artistically, the original composition was more balanced when both figures of the idolatrous Jew were converging toward the altar in the center, creating a kind of balanced triptych effect, a compositional principle used again and again in the Dura decoration, most notably in the panel with the vision of Ezekiel (figs. 177-179), where the fourth figure of the prophet is the center toward which the others converge. To emphasize this compositional layout of the long panel as two units, each with its own focus, is of considerable importance in view of the fact that Kraeling had attempted to see the Ezekiel panel and this one as one compositional unit with the fifth figure of Ezekiel-and not the fourth-being the center of the whole, an attempt we reject (p. 133 ). The close connection of the two killings by Mattathias in the Dura fresco with the Leiden miniature suggests not only that there existed a tradition for a rich narrative cycle of the first book of Maccabees, but also that quite likely both monuments ultimately went back to the same archetype and that we have here another case of a long tradition of a narrative picture cycle, parallel to that of the Pentateuch and the books of Samuel and Kings. Yet, although the Leiden manuscript is by far the richest cycle we have of the book of Maccabees, it is neither the only nor the earliest one. There is a full-page miniature in the Carolingian Bible of San Paolo fuori le Mura in Rome that depicts scenes from the first book of Maccabees in four strips (fig. 169).11 It should be noticed that with the exception of the last scene in the lower right corner, which illustrates a scene from chapter 9, the four strips cover events from only the first two chapters and in much greater detail than the first two miniatures of the Leiden codex. This can only mean that the model behind the Carolingian miniature was even more extensive than might have been suggested by the Leiden codex, and that the copyist started to copy it in full, but when he saw that he would run

122

123

\

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

out of space he selected only one more scene from the rest of the book. We meet here the same phenomenon we pointed out in connection with the Vatican Book of Kings (p. 11). The killing of the idolatrous Jew by Mattathias is depicted in the third register at the right, where it follows a scene in which Mattathias, surrounded by his sons, receives three soldiers sent by King Antiochus to force the Jews to sacrifice-a scene that is not included in the Leiden cycle. In the scene that concerns us Mattathias raises his sword, and is just about to decapitate the Jew, who is stumbling forward. Both figures are closer to those in the first version of the Dura fresco (fig. 167b) than the corresponding figures in the Leiden miniature: Mattathias swings the sword over his head, and the Jew in front of him stretches out his arms in the direction of the idol and holds no offering in his hands (the pig in the hands of the Jew in the Leiden miniature may well be a medieval addition). Thus, there is good reason to assume that the Carolingian miniature reflects the postulated common archetype even more closely. This parallel also suggests that the scene was more complex in the archetype than in Dura; the miniature shows a figure clad like Mattathias facing him, quite surely one of his sons, while on the ground lie two slain idolaters (one is also seen in the Leiden miniature). To confine the scene in the fresco to the most essential elements is quite in accordance with the tendencies of monumental painting. It can hardly be a surprise to find the more original version in the San Paolo Bible, considering the fact that two other miniatures of this Bible, one with the Infancy of Moses (fig. 34) and the other with the Crowning of Solomon (fig. 142), are extremely close to the corresponding scenes in Dura (figs. 29 and 140). One difference between miniature and fresco is the orientation of the scene: in the miniature the action moves from left to right, quite in accordance with the nature of narrative book illumination, while in the fresco the two scenes are converging, obviously in order to create a balanced, symmetrical, and triptych-like composition. In view of the fact that there is rich evidence for the illustration of the first book of Maccabees-there are also abbreviated cycles on full-page miniatures in the two eleventhcentury Catalan Bibles 12-and that its archetype must have possessed a very prolific cycle, comparable in density of scenes to the books of Samuel and Kings, and that it must have enjoyed considerable popularity, it can hardly be a surprise to find in Dura the one episode from it that must have had a great appeal to Jewish national consciousness.

JJ. Leveen, The Hebrew Bible in Art. The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1939, London, 1944, pp.47a " l f •E. L. Sukenik, "The Ezekiel Panel in the Wall Decoration of the Synagogue of Dura-Europos, Journa o

the Jewish Palestine Oriental Society 18 (1938), 57££. sKraeling, The Synagogue, p. 201. 6H. Stern, "Quelques problemes d'iconographie paleochretienne et juive," Cahiers archeologiques 12 (1962) , 99££. . . . " ,. . 1J. Gutmann, "Early Synagogue and Jewish Catacomb Art and Its Relation to Christian Art, Au,stteg

und Niedergang der romischen Welt, part 2, vol. 21.2, Berlin, 1984, p. 1319. sA. Merton, Die Buchmalerei in St. Gallen, Leipzig, 1912, pp. 64££. and pis. LV-LXI. Weitzmann, Roll and Codex, p. 93 and fig. 75. Stern, "Quelques problemes," p. 108 and fig. 8. . .. .. . 11 J. Gaehde, " Pictorial Sources," Fruhmittelalterliche Studien . Jahrbuch des Instttuts fur Fruhmtttelalter-

9

10

forschung der Universitiit Munster 9 (1975) , 384££. and pl. XLIII, fig. 100. 12Neuss, Die Katalanische Bibelillustration, pp. 106££. and figs . 130-135.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, pp. 100££., figs . 69-72 and pl. XLIV. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 194££., figs . 53-54 and pl. LXXII. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, pp. 185££. and fig. 21 , and vol. 11, pl. XXI and fig. 349. 10. Jahn, Griechische Bilderchroniken, Bonn, 1873, pp. 32£. and pl. I. K. Weitzmann, Ancient Book Illumination, Cambridge, Mass., 1959, pp. 49£. and pl. XXIV, fig. 56. A. Sadurska, Les Tables lliaques, Warsaw, 1964, pp. 28-29 and pl. I. 2Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, p. 189 and vol. 11, fig. 309. W. Neuss, Die Katalanische Bibelillustration, p. 88 and fig. 96.

124

125

The Prophets [27]

Isaiah 26:19-20 and Isaiah 56 West, 2nd zone. Left wing panel. Fig. 170.

The lower left wing panel, beneath the one depicting Moses receiving the law, represents a frontally standing white-haired figure clad in chiton and himation. The veiled hands are crossed in a gesture that Kraeling, fittingly, explained as one of adoration or supplication. For no other figure or scene-with the exception of the counterfigure in the lower right wing panel-have so many different identifications been proposed, including Abraham, Joshua, Moses, and Jacob. Kraeling dealt with these different proposals and correctly discarded Joshua, Moses, and Jacob for reasons that need not be repeated here. He accepted Abraham, implying the event according to which the Lord promised Abraham progeny as numerous as the stars in heaven. This identification was first made by Du Mesnil du Buisson, and I myself until recently accepted the opinion of these scholars. The dominating feature, in addition to the human figure, is the starry heaven with sun and moon which, indeed, seemed fully explained by Genesis 15 :5. Because such a vision is thought to have taken place at night when the stars were visible, the black square behind the figure's head can be explained as an indication of night. Moreover, such an identification would find parallels in the Octateuchs and was a popular scene within the illustration of the book of Genesis. An even more convincing explanation of this panel has recently been proposed by Herbert Kessler, 1 who sees in this figure the prophet Isaiah, for both iconographic and ideological reasons. He made the sharp observation that the stars in heaven are seven in number and all on one side of the segment of heaven, a fact that does not quite fit the Abraham story, which speaks of "innumerable" stars. The placing of all the stars on the right side next to the moon indicates a juxtaposition of night and day, the latter being depicted by the sun with rays to the left. Moreover, Kraeling and other writers described the cast shadow projecting from the feet of the figure, but only Kessler draws the right conclusion that this very prominent shadow presupposes the falling of light on the figure, in juxtaposition to night, which is indicated by the black square behind the prophet's head. However, it will be noted that this shadow comes from a source of light that should be located at the lower left. The sun at the upper left could not have cast this shadow when it was at its zenith. We actually deal here 127

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PROPHETS

with two light phenomena, the -one depicted by the conventional rendering of heaven, in which .the sun is traditionally placed at the upper left and the moon at the upper right within a sphere filled with stars, and the other indicated by the lengthy shadow, implying an early morning sun. Thus, we deal here with the conflation of two different visions. Light and Darkness as visualized by sun and moon and stars are a central theme in the book of Isaiah, and Kessler has related the Dura fresco especially to passages in chapters 56-60. 2 On the other hand, the juxtaposition of early morning and night is best explained by Isaiah 26:920, which contains the well-known prayer that later became an Ode attached to the Psalter, "With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea with my spirit within me will I seek thee early." This passage has frequently been illustrated, once in a book of Isaiah proper and more frequently in Psalter manuscripts, where a picture of the praying Isaiah accompanies the Ode, 3 and it can be taken for granted that the picture was not invented for the Ode, but came from the same source as the text, that is, from an illustrated book of Isaiah. 4 In the illustrated book of Isaiah, Vat. gr. 755, from the end of the tenth century,5 one of the three full-page miniatures depicts the praying prophet in profile, raising his head and hands toward the hand of God issuing from a segment of heaven (fig. 171). He is flanked at the left by a Nyx, a personification of night with a lowered torch in her left hand and holding a billowing veil in her right, and at the right by a boy who holds an upright burning torch and looks back and up to the prophet. He personifies Orthros, the morning dawn. Here we deal with typical elements of the Macedonian renaissance, 6 which were additions of the tenth century, a period that had not, it is true, invented accompanying personifications, but added many in the wake of the renaissance movement. If we then assume that there existed a pre-renaissance representation of the prayer of Isaiah illustrating chapter 26, it is quite likely that Night and Dawn were represented more literally as in the Dura fresco, and that the classicizing figures in the Byzantine miniature were substitutes of originally simpler and more realistic features, such as the black square behind the prophet's head and the lengthened shadow. Kraeling made the keen observation that in Dura the prophet's left leg is depicted in profile in a rather odd way. This, in our opinion, indicates that the model was a figure in profile as in the Vatican miniature, and that the fresco painter of Dura turned it from a profile into a frontal figure, thus giving the appearance of a portrait panel to a basically narrative scene. This is the same method the artist used in another of the so-called portrait panels, namely, that of Moses and the Burning Bush in the upper right, flanking the center panel from the right (p. 34 and fig. 41). If we are correct that the Dura panel of Isaiah conflates two vision scenes, then we must assume that behind this figure stands a cyclic illustration of a Prophet book that contained both vision pictures. That such illustrated Prophet books existed is not merely an assumption, but proved by the very same Vatican Isaiah codex, which has altogether three

full-page miniatures, a second being the title miniature (fig. 172) 7 showing Isaiah, flanked by the medallions of four commentary writers, in a frontal position and holding a scroll in a pose typical of an author portrait. At the same time he raises his right hand toward a hand of God in heaven, to which he is looking up. This implies communication with the Lord or a vision (i.e., a narrative element). We have here an analogous case involving the same methodological principle as in our Dura panel: the conversion of a narrative scene into a frontal portrait figure. This device makes us aware that the Dura panel is not an isolated case but reflects the application of a common artistic convention. The best witness, however, for the existence of an illustrated book of Isaiah, surpassing in numbers of scenes by far the cod. Vat. 755, is the Sacra Parallela manuscript in Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale cod. 923 of the ninth century, in which no fewer than sixty-nine passages of this Prophet book are accompanied by marginal illustrations. 8 They are enough to give an insight into what a fully illustrated Prophet book, from which these stray miniatures were excerpted, must have looked like. Essentially there are four categories of miniatures-and this holds true for all Prophet books: (a) author portraits (either full figures, half figures, or busts); (b) the prophet making the gesture of addressing listeners (although the listeners themselves have been omitted in the abbreviated narrow marginal scenes); 9 (c) visions in which the prophet communicates with the Lord; and (d) historical events which, compared with historical books like those of Samuel and Kings, are much rarer. An example of the latter in the book of Isaiah is the prophet healing King Hezekiah. 10 Of the two visions, one is depicted in full, showing the vision of God's glory (Isaiah 6:1-3; fig. 174).11 The prophet is standing frontally and simultaneously turning to the right-as we assumed was the case in the model of the Dura fresco. He has his hands veiled as in Dura, but, differently, raises them toward the vision that shows "the Lord sitting upon a throne" supported by the seraphim. One can only speculate that an illustrated Prophet book, which we assume was available to the Dura painter, would have depicted a hand of God instead of the Lord upon the throne, in a vision much like the Ezekiel vision (figs. 177-179). A second vision is implied in the depiction next to Isaiah 1 :2 of a half-length figure of the prophet (fig. 173 ), 12 whose eyes are directed upward, presumably to a hand of God, and who has one hand veiled. This would indicate that the fully illustrated book had started with a scene of a vision, and since the book is filled with visions, it is more than likely that this or a very similar type of illustration was repeated from time to time and was, in fact, the focal illustration not only of the book of Isaiah but of most Prophet books. Thus, we imagine that the two vision scenes involved in Dura, illustrating chapters 26 and 56ff., were only a selection of numerous similar vision scenes.

128

129

BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, pp. 53£f. and pl. XXIV. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 235£f. and pis. XXXVI, 2 and LXXVIII. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 9, pp. 115£f. and vol. 11, pl. V and fig. 102.

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PROPHETS

H. L. Kessler, "Prophetic Portraits in the Dura Synagogue," jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum 30 (1987), 149ff. 2 lbid., p. 151. ' The best-known example is that of the Psalter Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale cod. gr. 139. Buchthal, Paris Psalter, p. 42 and pl. XIII. •K. Weitzmann, "The Ode Pictures," Dumbarton Oaks Papers 30 (1976), 75f. and fig. 18. 5 Munoz, I codici greci miniati de/le minori biblioteche di Roma, 1906, p. 24 and pl. 6. Weitzmann, Byzantinische Buchmalerei, p. 12 and pl. XII, fig. 62. 6 K. Weitzmann, "Der Pariser Psalter ms. grec 139 und die mittelbyzantinische Renaissance," Jahrbuch fur Kunstwissenschaft (1929), 178ff. 7 The third miniature in Vat. gr. 755 depicts the martyrdom of Isaiah, which is not biblical. •Weitzmann, Sacra Para/le/a, pp. 145ff. and pis. LXXVII, 343-LXXX, 360. •For example, ibid., p. 147 and pl. LXXVIII, 352, and p. 148 and pl. LXXIX, 355. 10 Ibid., p. 148, pl. LXXIX, 357. 11 Ibid., p. 146, pl. LXXVIII, 349. 12 Ibid., p. 145 and pl. LXXVII, 344.

would expect to find as his attribute either a scrinium with scrolls in it, sticking out of the round box as we see it depicted in some evangelist pictures, 1 or a cupboard displaying codices, as in the famous Ezra miniature in the codex Amiatinus in the Laurentian Library in Florence, written about A.D. 700.2 In an attempt to find a proper explanation for the Ark of the Covenant, Kessler identified the figure as Jeremiah, because he is the only prophet connected with the ark. 3 In II Maccabees 2:4, the following story is told: "It was also contained in the same writing that the prophet [i.e., Jeremiah] being warned by God, commanded the tabernacle and the ark to take with him, as he went forth into the mountain, where Moses climbed up, and saw the heritage of God." It is by no means impossible-though it must remain speculationthat there existed an illustration of this passage showing Jeremiah and the Ark of the Covenant hidden in a cave. Dura itself provides evidence that illustrated books of Maccabees had been used as a model for the panel depicting the story of Mattathias and the idolaters (p. 119 and fig. 166). The most prominent feature in the Dura panel is the ostentatious display of the unrolled scroll in the hands of the prophet, which Kessler, correctly we believe, connects with the delivery of the "new covenant" by Jeremiah, referring to Jeremiah 31:31, "The time is coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with Israel and Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand and led them out of Egypt." This passage refers to Moses with whom the Lord had made the first covenant, a scene depicted in Dura in the wing panel at the upper left. Here Moses receives the tablets of the law (fig. 74). There was also a tradition according to which Moses had already received at Sinai the law in the form of a scroll, as we have seen in the mosaic at Mount Sinai (p. 52 and fig. 75). So the association of the scroll with the law had started already with Moses. We have also in the Jeremiah panel a conflation of two scenes, one involving the hidden ark and the other the proclamation of the new covenant. This is by no means a unique case in which the Dura artist combines within one panel visual elements from two different books of the Old Testament. One need only refer to the Exodus panel, where elements from Numbers enrich a basic illustration from Exodus (p. 44 and figs. 49-50), or to another example, the transport of the ark to Jerusalem by David and Solomon (p. 94 and fig. 134 ), which is based on passages from II Samuel and I Kings. The existence of a richly illustrated book of Jeremiah, like that of Isaiah, is once more proved by the Sacra Parallela manuscript. 4 Not surprisingly we find examples of the same categories among the forty-nine passages that are accompanied by marginal illustrations: (a) author portraits of various types; (b) two standing prophet figures with raised hands communicating with the Lord; 5 (c) a vision of the lamenting Jeremiah weeping over the destruction of Jerusalem; 6 and (d) historical events like the execution of Zedekiah and his son. 7 The passage Jeremiah 31:31, which most likely was the basis of the Dura fresco, is unfortunately not contained among the passages incorporated in the florilegium of the Sacra

1

[28]

Jeremiah 31:31 and II Maccabees 2:2-4 West, 2nd zone. Right wing panel. Fig. 175.

The fourth of the wing panels, the one at the lower right, depicts a dark-haired and bearded man dressed in the garments of a prophet, the chiton and himation. In his hands he holds ostentatiously a scroll that he unrolls much more than would be practical for reading purposes. The fact is that he does not read; he shows the scroll to an imaginary beholder or, more likely, a group of beholders. His head is set against a square as in the case of Isaiah, where it is black and suggests night, but in this case the light-colored square does not seem to have a corresponding reference to day, and may be rather a sign of distinction. At the lower left there is an object that Du Mesnil du Buisson recognized on the basis of its shape, in our opinion correctly, as the Ark of the Covenant. As in the other panels, like the Consecration of the Tabernacle (fig. 80), it has a rounded top and two feet and is covered by a veil that, in the just-cited parallel, is hung up behind the ark but surely is meant to cover it as it does in the panel with which we are concerned here. Kraeling pondered two likely identifications of the figure, Moses and Ezra, both of which are connected with the writing of the Pentateuch, and he discarded with good reasons such other proposals as Samuel and Josiah. In the end he opted for Ezra. I myself had accepted Kraeling's identification, although I felt somewhat uncomfortable with it. I was troubled by the object, whose similarity with the Ark of the Covenant Kraeling realized, although he did not draw the conclusion that the ark's relation to the prophet figure would have to be explained. As for Ezra, as the writer of many books of the Old Testament, on_e 130

••

131

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PROPHETS

Parallela. There exists only a medallion bust of Jeremiah accompanying a passage five verses earlier (i.e., verse 26). That such richly illustrated Prophet books indeed existed in the time of Dura is demonstrated, as we shall see, by the subsequent Ezekiel panel, which presupposes as its model a picture cycle of extraordinary density. The type of a Jeremiah holding the wide-open scroll is not included among the miniatures of the Sacra Parallela, although it may have existed, of course, in the model, that is, a fully illustrated Prophet book. The type did survive in the sixth-century mosaic decoration of San Vitale in Ravenna (fig. 176). 8 Here Jeremiah, inscribed, is rendered likewise in frontal pose holding in his hands a scroll that is just as widely opened as in the Dura fresco; the only difference is that he is white-haired, a feature more in accordance with the later tradition, including the numerous portraits in the Sacra Parallela. Most important, as Kessler discusses in detail below (p. 169), is the fact that in San Vitale Jeremiah is not paired with Isaiah but the two prophets are confronted with precisely the same two Moses scenes that in Dura are placed above the prophets: the Burning Bush and the Receiving of the Law. Thus the four wing panels of Dura are ideologically closely related to each other and form a unit.9 This fact is among the strongest evidence for the identification of the figures in the lower panels as the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah.

The panel that fills about two-thirds of the bottom of the North wall represents, beginning at the left, the story of the vision of Ezekiel in the Valley of Dry Bones. The last third

at the right depicts two scenes that we interpreted as an illustration of the first book of Maccabees (p. 119 and figs. 166-167). In the previous discussion a point was made of the fact that there is no dividing border between the two sections, and we considered whether this proves the unity of the whole panel or whether the artist might have omitted a division where it was perhaps called for. Kraeling argued for a unity, trying to support this view by analyzing the composition as a balanced whole that has its focus in the fifth Ezekiel figure (fig. 178, right), the one presenting him for the first time in the garments of a prophet. 1 This argument is based on ideological grounds and contradicts the visual evidence. The conspicuous artistic center is the fourth Ezekiel figure (fig. 178, left). The artist achieved this focus by two means. First, this is the only one of the six Ezekiel figures who is in strict frontal position, and second, the third figure at the left (fig. 177, right) and the two at the right (figs. 178-179) are moving toward him. By this means the monumental artist turned a narrative illustration, in which the figures usually move from left to right in order to create a sense of uninterrupted continuity, into a balanced, centralized composition. This principle of axial symmetry occurs also in the preceding Maccabees panel (fig. 166) and in other Dura frescoes such as in the Exodus panel (figs. 48-49) in which the Red Sea is made the axis of the composition and is flanked at either side by a Moses figure converging on it. Also, the panel with the revival of the widow's son (fig. 152) shows a strong axiality, with the widow flanking the central and frontal Elijah figure from either side. One should not understand the adaptation of this principle as an invention of the Dura artist. It is rather a general principle applied wherever a narrative miniature, in which the figures move normally from left to right, is translated into a separate monumental composition. Ezekiel is depicted six times, illustrating one single episode comprising only half of a biblical chapter. One normally finds such density, surpassing in this respect any of the other narrative panels of Dura, in illustrated manuscripts, but rarely in monumental art. In spite of the axiality of the composition as a whole, the sequence of the various phases of the episode proceeds from left to right beginning with a literal illustration of verse 1, "The hand of the Lord was upon me and carried me out in the spirit of the Lord and set me down in the valley which was full of bones." The prophet, dressed here and in the following three scenes in Persian costume, has just been let down by a hand of the Lord which grasps his hair, an action not necessarily suggested by the phrase, "the hand of the Lord was upon me." At an earlier occasion the text is more explicit. In chapter 8, verse 3 it is said, "he put forth the form of an hand and took me by a lock of mine head." In a fully illustrated book of Ezekiel this passage might well have been illustrated in this place and might have inspired the Dura painter. The dangling arms suggest that the figure is still in flight, while the position of the feet makes it certain that he is standing on firm ground. One expects this first Ezekiel figure to be surrounded by dry bones; contrary to the text he stands between heads and limbs already covered with flesh, depicting the subsequent stage. However, what has been overlooked by some scholars who believe tpat the "bones" were omitted 2 is the fact

132

133

BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, pp. 92££., figs. 66-67 and pls. XXXVII-XXXVIII. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 232££. and pl. LXXVII. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 9, pp. 115££. and vol. 11, pl. V and fig. 326. 1 See, e.g., the miniature of the Evangelist John in the tenth-century Gospel book at Stauronikita, cod. 43 on Mount Athos. Weitzmann, Byzantinische Buchmalerei, p. 23 and pl. XXX, fig. 172. 2 R. L. S. Bruce-Mitford, "The Cassiodorus Ezra Miniature in the Codex Amiatinus," in T. D. Kendrick et al., Codex Lindisfarnensis, Olten and Lausanne, 1960, pp. 143££. 3 Kessler, "Prophetic Portraits," p. 152£. •Weitzmann, Sacra Parallela, pp. 151££. and pls. LXXX, 361-LXXXIII, 374. ' Ibid., p. 51, pl. LXXX, 361 and pl. LXXXI, fig. 362. •Ibid., p. 151 and pl. LXXXI, 364. 7 lbid., p. 153 and pl. LXXXII, 370. 8 F. W. Deichmann, Ravenna. Geschichte und Monumente, Wiesbaden, 1969, p. 245 and pl. 320. 9 lbid., p. 245.

(29]

Ezekiel in the Valley of Dry Bones (Ezekiel 37:1-10) North, 3rd zone left. Figs. 1, 7, and 177-179.

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

that some bones are represented, namely, four ribs, at the foot of the mountain, out of place, next to the third Ezekiel figure. This merely means that the fresco painter fused what were originally separate scenes and set them on a continuous background, and, feeling free to distribute bones and limbs at will, he gave preference to the heads and limbs already covered by flesh because they are more conspicuous and illustrate more explicitly the miracle of the reconstitution. Standing close to the first figure of the prophet is the second, who raises his left arm toward the hand of God while his right arm points down to the bones, illustrating verses 4-6, " ... Prophesy upon these bones and say unto them, 0 ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord.... And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you and cover you with skin ...." In conformity with this passage we see limbs and skulls covered with sinews and flesh spread over the ground and related not only to this figure and the preceding one, but also to the following Ezekiel figure. Due to the limited space the painter moved the hand of God so far to the left that it does not meet the prophet's left arm. This lack of sufficient space is typical when monumental art accommodates an extensive narrative. The most striking parallel to this phenomenon are the mosaics of San Marco in Venice. In the Abraham cupola only as much space is allotted to the patriarch speaking with the Lord as is filled by the figure proper, and the hand of God reaching out of heaven is placed above the preceding scene. 3 In its model, which we know to have been the Cotton Genesis,4 Abraham stands in a wide open space confronting the hand of God in heaven. Similarly, we would also expect a model for the Dura prophet in which he could move more freely. The third Ezekiel illustrates verses 7-8, " ... as prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the human bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above ...." This time the prophet raises his right arm, to speak with the commanding hand of the Lord while extending his left arm toward the miracle he is just performing. He stands in front of a high mountain that is cleft in the middle; the gap is filled with black, suggesting the inner earth which has given up the bones. Heads and limbs are strewn about together with the above-mentioned ribs. At the lower right we see three of the reconstituted bodies lying lifeless on the ground. Above these bodies one notices an architectural structure which has been variously described and interpreted, but which actually is the standard type for a Greco-Roman walled city, characterized by its crenellations, open gate, and a window opening. 5 The tumbling position of this structure has generally and correctly been associated with an earthquake, thus illustrating the "noise and ... shaking" mentioned in the Bible text. To turn a building upside down has apparently been the artistic convention for depicting an earthquake, as may be seen in a ninth-century miniature of a Gregory of Nazianzus manucript in Milan, in which the earthquake that took place in A.D. 368 in Nicaea is represented (fig. 180).6 In the homily addressed to his younger brother Caesarius, treasurer of Bithynia, 134

THE PROPHETS

Gregory describes this earthquake from which Caesarius, who sits among the ruinJ of the destroyed city, narrowly escaped. But if, indeed, we deal here as in Dura with an apparently widely understood convention, there seems to be no need to attach any symbolic meaning to the building in Dura, which several scholars have interpreted as the "house of Israel" mentioned repeatedly in the Bible text. If it were, indeed, the "house of Israel," would it not seem strange to depict it upside down? Very conspicuous is the rendering of the high mountains, which reach almost to the upper frame. "Noise" and "shaking" do not necessarily involve a mountain, which, as in the parallel case of the destruction of Nicaea mentioned above, is not part of a rendering of an earthquake. Although mountains are not mentioned in connection with the present passage, they do play a considerable role in the two preceding chapters, 35 and 36. "Son of man, set thy face against mount Seir and prophesy against it (34:2)" and "Also, thou son of man, prophesy unto the mountains of Israel, and say, Ye mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord" (36:1). Considering the iconographic importance of the mountain, it seems quite likely that a more fully illustrated book of Ezekiel contained miniatures for these two chapters in which the prophet faces the mountains. If so, then the Dura artist, trying to condense as much content as possible into the limited space available to him, transplanted them into the illustration of chapter 37. It would be a case analogous to the first type of Ezekiel, whom we connected with one most likely invented for chapter 8. The fourth Ezekiel, who takes such a prominent position in the composition as a whole, is involved in two actions. His right hand is raised to the hand of the Lord reaching out of the sky and commanding the prophet, and the left hand translates that command into action. He points at three bodies lying on the ground and being restored to life, the same three we saw in the preceding scene, where they were reconstituted. The present case involves the next step in the resurrection story. Here a life-sized female with butterfly wings, characterizing her as Psyche, is bending forward and holding the head of the topmost of the three bodies. This Psyche is one of four, the other three flying down from Heaven above her head, and they have correctly been associated with the four winds, illustrating verse 9: " ... Thus saith the Lord God; Come from the four winds, 0 breath, and breathe upon these slain that they may live." However, the Psyche approaching the dead is not "breathing upon these slain." How is her seemingly strange gesture of holding the head to be explained? We deal here with a type that is borrowed from another creation story, indeed the primary one, that of Adam, where one can clearly distinguish the process of creating man and bringing him to life in three phases: first the forming out of clay, then the enlivenment, and then the animation. These three stages existed in the so-called Cotton Genesis, as reflected in copies that derive from this badly destroyed late fifth-century manuscript. 7 The second and third phase have direct bearing on the Dura fresco. In the Carolingian Bible from Tours in the British Library, which is derived from the Cotton Genesis recension (fig. 181),8 we see Adam 135

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

in the act of enlivenment, lying stiffly on the ground, and the Creator bending over him from behind, holding his head with both hands. It is very obvious that the Psyche at Dura takes the place of the Creator, and that she performs the very same act, enlivening a dead body by the touch of her hands. Her unusual size is also explained by this parallel: she is as large as the Creator in the Adam scene, and larger than figures of Psyche usually are. The action of animation, following the enlivenment, is not depicted in Dura as a separate action but is merely implied by using the figure of a Psyche as the agent who simultaneously enlivens and animates. Thus we are dealing here with a conflation of the model's two distinct actions. In the San Marco mosaic in Venice (fig. 182), which, like the Touronian Bible, reflects the Cotton Genesis,9 the Creator holds a little Psyche in his right hand to be induced into Adam's body through the mouth. This is the classical tradition whereby Psyche enters and-after death-leaves the body through the mouth, and it explains her diminutive size. In Dura the three Psyches flying down from heaven are approximately the size of the figures that enter the body through the mouth; they are meant to enter the three bodies lying on the ground. In front of these three flying Psyches stands the fifth figure of Ezekiel, who now is dressed in chiton and himation like a prophet, and he raises his hand in a gesture variously interpreted, but which can hardly mean anything but calling the Psyches from heaven, since it is directed toward them. He takes the place occupied in the San Marco mosaic by the Creator, the only difference being that in San Marco he actually holds a Psyche in his right hand, while in Dura he calls for them. Thus, we deal here with a conflation of two distinct actions, each with its own protagonist: the commanding prophet and the Psyche in between who relates to both actions, the enlivenment and the animation. That the Dura painter used as a model the creation of Adam with its very similar phases of constituting, enlivening, and animating a human body is hardly surprising. The creation of Adam was the best known and pictorially most widespread rendering of bringing a human being to life, and it is consistent with the habits of Early Christian and medieval artists to look for fitting models illustrating related subject matter. The Dura artist actually did the same thing that the first painter of the creation of Adam had done before him, who likewise had not created the three actions ex nihilo but had been inspired by representations of the creation of man by Prometheus in classical art, which already had been conceived in the three stages of forming, enlivenment, and animation. 10 The sixth and last phase of the story illustrates verse 10: " ... and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army." Here Ezekiel is depicted in a manner almost identical to that of the preceding scene, except that his hand is not raised toward the hand of the Lord in the sky but is extended toward a group of ten resurrected Israelites, of whom only four stand firmly on the ground while the others are suspended in two rows, one above the other as the result of the usual device for saving width. They are raising their hands toward the prophet, and each is dressed in chiton and himation. This clothing of the resurrected is not implied by the text but is apparently the artist's interpretation to show the Israelites being reintroduced into daily life. 136

THE PROPHETS

Between the resurrected men and the prophet one notices once more a head and some limbs that are here out of place, the reconstitution already having occurred. They can hardly be explained as a spilling over from the first scene but must instead be related to verse 12 where, after the reconstitution, the resurrections are mentioned once more, " ... Behold, 0 my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves ...." A literal illustration would, of course, require the representation of graves, and one can only surmise that for want of space no graves could be accommodated between the resurrected and the prophet. That indeed the resurrection out of tombs was in the repertoire of Ezekiel illustration is confirmed by a tenth-century Byzantine ivory in the British Museum (fig. 183).11 Here three naked figures come out of a sarcophagus, as the resurrected do in representations of the Last Judgment. It must remain an open question whether there were sarcophagi in the model of the Dura painter, but in any event, we deal with an illustration of verse 12, and this means that we have here another case of a prolepsis, the device repeatedly used to cope with a model richer than could be absorbed. The Dura panel with the episode of Ezekiel's vision in the Valley of Dry Bones is not ; unique in the Early Christian period, but occurs in very similar fashion on a Roman sarcophagus of the Constantinian period (i.e., less than a century after Dura), which is in the possession of the Museo Pio Cristiano in the Vatican (fig. 184) and which had already been related to our fresco panel by Goodenough. 12 It reflects the same cycle but is rendered in a very conflated form that has to be disentangled in a way similar to the Alcestis representation on the sarcophagus in the Vatican (p. 109 and fig. 154). There the conflated composition actually involves three separate scenes, as shown on the sarcophagus of Cannes (figs. 153a-c). In the present case, the sarcophagus relief conflates four of the six scenes depicted in Dura. There is one Ezekiel figure, which is related to the first three events of Dura. On the ground lies a skull that stands for the bones and next to it a head covered with skin and hair, just as we see a certain number of such heads in Dura. At the bottom there is a lifeless, stiff body lying on the ground in the same position as the three next to the cleft mountain. Contrary to Dura, however, in this phase of the resurrection Ezekiel is already clothed in prophet's garments. But, because in Dura Persian dress is often used where one might expect the Greco-Roman dress of chiton and himation, in this respect the sarcophagus relief may well represent the more original version. In one important respect the relief is different: the prophet holds a wand as the instrument for performing the miracles. This is clearly an intrusion from miracle scenes as performed by Christ, and thus has its origin in Christian iconography. Omitting the fourth and fifth scenes, the enlivenment and animation, the Roman sculptor depicted the sixth scene with Ezekiel, represented here a second time standing behind the first. He addresses the "exceeding great army," here rendered as two upright men who, in contrast to the Dura fresco, are naked. This depiction, in a way, is more in conformity with the text and may well represent the earlier version. This sarcophagus relief is so important because it proves that the same cyclic representation of the Ezekiel vision exists in Jewish as well as Christian art in a fashion suggesting a common archetype. However, it 137

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

THE PROPHETS

must be admitted that the evidence for the Prophet books with regard to a common archetype is not as strong as in the cases of the Pentateuch, Samuel, and Kings. The existence in an early period of a more fully illustrated book of Ezekiel is once more confirmed by the Sacra Parallela manuscript. From such a Prophet book one does not of course expect an illustration as dense as that in the Pentateuch or the books of Samuel and Kings with their extensive cycles of pictures full of lively action. It is true that the story of Ezekiel in the Valley of Dry Bones equals in the density of its narrative illustration any part of the previously mentioned biblical books. But such dramatic action is rather an exception in a Prophet book, which is mostly filled with prophecies and pronouncements to groups of listeners. Consequently, one would expect foremost a figure of a prophet either speaking with the Lord and taking orders from him or facing a group of listeners in front of him. As a matter of fact, these are the two types used throughout the section of chapter 3 7 depict~d in Dura, but for the rest of the book they quite likely appeared less frequently. It is thus symptomatic that in the Sacra Para/le/a precisely these two types occur as the only narrative events, along with quite numerous portrait figures, busts, and medallions. In one of them (fig. 185) 13 Ezekiel with bent knees faces the hand of the Lord in the sky and receives the command: "I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me" (2:3 ). Since the book of the prophet is filled with such commandments one expects to find this kind of illustration repeated from time to time. The second scene (fig. 186) 14 shows Ezekiel with a scroll in his hand, marking him as teacher. He is warning the righteous men (3:21) who, in the fuller model, must have been represented facing him. Although it does not exist in the Sacra Para/le/a, the story of the Valley of Dry Bones does occur in Byzantine book illumination in a very splendid miniature in the well known ninthcentury manuscript of Gregory of Nazianzus in Paris, cod. gr. 510 (fig. 187). 15 Here in a full-page miniature is depicted a conflation of three phases of the episode that have their counterparts in the Early Christian sarcophagus relief (cf. fig. 184). From the first phase only the dry bones are visible, several leg bones and skulls, but the prophet let down into the valley is omitted. The Ezekiel who raises his hands to a hand of God and simultaneously faces the high split mountain corresponds to the third prophet in Dura (fig. 177). We remarked that these mountains are not mentioned in chapter 37 and that they are presumably taken over from chapter 35 or 36. Was such a harkening back to an earlier chapter made twice independently, or is it not rather more likely that both representations ultimately hark back to the same archetype? Moreover, the close relation between the two monuments does not rely solely on this one detail. At the lower right Ezekiel is repeated once more. He looks upward, his face meant to be directed toward the same hand of God to which the first Ezekiel figure is directed. This means he is reacting to the Lord's command, whose execution is made clear by an accompanying angel, pointing to the resurrected "exceeding great army" ('"'.erse 10) at the lower left. Thus the prophet figure corresponds to the sixth and last Ezekiel figure of the Dura fresco (fig. 179, right), while the angel is obviously a later Christian intrusion. The six

resurrected Israelites raise their hands toward the prophet. Though they are much destroyed in the miniature, an old lithograph (fig. 188) 16 shows the resurrected very clearly, dressed in tunics and mantles. In this point they agree with the Dura fresco, in contradistinction to the resurrected in the sarcophagus relief (fig. 184), where they are naked. Although previously we assumed that their nakedness corresponded more closely to the meaning of the Bible text, one has to ask whether the clothing was invented twice independently or whether this feature, too, points to a common archetype. Though this detail may not be considered sufficient to prove such a common archetype, it must at least be seriously considered.

138

139

BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, pp. 94££., fig. 68 and pls. XXXIX-XLIII. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 178££. and pls. LXIX-LXXI. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, pp. 179££., vol. 11, pl. XXI and figs. 348-349. 1

Kraeling, The Synagogue, p. 180, draws a scheme in which this figure, marked B2, is pointed out as the

center. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, p. 182. K. Weitzmann, "Narration in Early Christendom," American Journal of Archaeology 56 (1957), 88 and fig. 11. •Ibid., fig. 10. 5 F. Biebel, "The Walled Cities in the Gerasa Mosaics," in Gerasa, City of the Decapolis, ed. C.H. Kraeling, New Haven, 1938, pp. 341££. and pls. LXXXVI-XCIV. 6 A. Grabar, Les Miniatures du Gregoire de Nazianze de l'Ambrosienne, Paris, 1943, pl. VII, p. 78. 7 Weitzmann and Kessler, Cotton Genesis, p. 52, p. 130 fol. 7r and figs. 22-24. 8 Weitzmann, Roll and Codex, p. 176 and fig. 178. 91bid., fig. 179. IOJbid., figs. 180-182. 11 Goldschmidt and Weitzmann, Byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen, vol. 2, Reliefs, Berlin, 1934 (2nd ed., 1979), p. 29 and pl. IV, fig. 16. See also Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, p. 185 and vol. 11, fig. 305. 12 Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, p. 182 and vol. 11, fig. 301. F. W. Deichmann et al., Repertorium der christlich-antiken Sarkophage, vol. 1, Rom und Ostia, Wiesbaden, 1967, text vol. p. 5 and pl. vol. pl. 1, fig. 5. 13 Weitzmann, Sacra Parallela, p. 155 and pl. LXXXIII, fig. 375. 14Jbid., fig. 377. 15 0mont, Miniatures, p. 30 and pl. LVIII. 16 W. Neuss, Das Buch Ezekiel in Theologie und Kunst bis zum Ende des XII. Jahrhunderts, Munster, 1912, p. 187 and fig. 25. 2

3

[30]

Belshazzar's Feast (Daniel 5:lff.[?]) East, 3rd zone. Right panel. Figs. 9 and 189.

The last panel to be discussed is most fragmentary, and the few traces left occupy less than the left half of the panel. The most accurate description, as is to be expected, is that of

THE PROPHETS

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

Kraeling, who noticed the vestiges of a couch with a mattress and some lines that he interpreted as parts of the drapery of a figure assumed to be reclining. At the bottom line is the trace of a turned leg just under the right edge of the couch. Underneath the couch are three objects: a rhyton or horn, a slender vase, and what, to judge from the surface treatment, looks like a basket. An oval form toward the right could be a table, and one more object of square shape at the bottom Kraeling takes to be a footstool although its shape would be unusual. Further to the right are two long-legged birds and above them a curved line that Kraeling understood to be the seam of a woman's garment. The less of a scene is preserved, the more numerous are the proposals for its identification. Kraeling enumerated five, all of which he repudiated with good reasons, and because we agree with him, we can be brief on this point. Du Mesnil du Buisson and Hopkins proposed the drunkenness of Noah, but this leaves unexplained, as the main counterargument, the vessels under the couch. Because of the birds Kraeling himself in his earlier writing suggested the ravens that fed Elijah, but this is out of the question because that scene is already depicted elsewhere in the synagogue (fig. 149). Leveen's suggestion of Abraham frightening away birds (Genesis 15: 11) can be repudiated because Abraham would not be lying on a couch and because it leaves the vessels once again unexplained. Grabar was on the right track when he recognized the importance of the vessels as those of the Jewish Temple. According to him, they are the ones not yet returned to Jerusalem under Cyrus but only later by Elijah. But this particular event does not explain the reclining figure on the couch. So far the most convincing solution to the problem is still that of Kraeling in his final publication, because it explains both the couch with the reclining figure and the vessels underneath. According to him, the scene represents the feast of Belshazzar (Daniel 5) where, during a banquet, the guests blasphemously drank out of the sacred vessels of the Temple of Jerusalem, which Belshazzar's father Nebuchadnezzar had brought to Babylon. Up to this point we are prepared to accept Kraeling's interpretation, but for the rest of it we have our doubts. There are the two birds which, because they are turned to the right, Kraeling assumed belonged to another, subsequent scene. On the other hand, he related the figure above the birds, of which a hemline, apparently of a woman's garment, is recognizable, to the Belshazzar scene, suggesting that this might be the queen who persuaded the king to-call Daniel for an explanation of his troubling dreams. The two birds Kraeling connected with a passage in Jeremiah (50:39) where ostriches, along with other wild beasts, dwell in desolated Babylon. Aside from the fact that two birds are hardly enough evidence to indicate a specific passage in the Bible, the main objection in this case is formal. Kraeling's interpretation would mean that two scenes from biblical books were interwoven in a way that has no parallel anywhere among the Dura frescoes, where two distinct events, unless they are part of a continuous narrative, are always separated, normally by a decorated border (or in the one case where the border is omitted, the 140

Maccabees panel [fig. 166], the two neighboring scenes are clearly separated from. each other by an imaginary vertical line and without any overlapping). We have no suggestl~n to make as far as the two birds are concerned and rather prefer not to speculate what the nghthand part of the panel may have contained, for it is simply too fragmentary. The question may be raised whether in the postulated model the Belshazzar scene. was part of a larger cycle from the book of Daniel, just as we have evidence for another illustrated Prophet book, that of Ezekiel, where some agreements between the Dura fresco and miniatures could be established (p. 138). Although as far as my knowledge goes no parallel to the Belshazzar scene is known in Byzantine miniature painting, we do possess a sequence of three connected scenes from the preceding chapter (Daniel 4:26-34) in the Sacra Parallela manucript, cited in many cases as the only surviving source of some rare biblical il~ustrations. In the first, Nebuchadnezzar hears the voice of the Lord, prophesying that he will lose his kingdom (fig. 190, top).1 This is followed by the naked hairy king eating grass (fig. 190, bottom) and finally by Nebuchadnezzar, his kingdom restored to him, praying to the Lord (fig. 191). It seems more than likely that a fully illustrated book of Daniel, which illust~ated the Nebuchadnezzar episode in such detail, would have contained the Belshazzar episode just as dramatically depicted and probably also in more than one phase. A fully illustrated 2 book of Daniel is preserved only in the two Catalan Bibles of Ripoll and Roda, and in the latter the cycle extends over five full pages, each with several zones, making the ~ook of Daniel the richest-illustrated Prophet book. The fullness of illustration can be explamed by the richness of its dramatic events calling for pictorialization and by its great popularity. We must emphasize again that the iconographical sources of the Catalan Bibles that surely, as Neuss has emphasized again and again, hark back to Early Christian roots, have not yet been sufficiently investigated. Thus their relation to a possible Eastern recension must, for the time being, remain an open question. Nevertheless, in both Catalan Bibles the Neb~chadnezzar episode from chapter 4 and Belshazzar's feast from chapter 5 are both prominently illustrated. BIBLIOGRAPHY Du Mesnil du Buisson, Peintures, p. 107 and fig. 79. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 208££. and pis. XXIII and XXX, 2. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 10, p. 160 and vol. 11, pl. XVIII and fig. 343. ' Weitzmann, Sacra Parallela, p. 158 and pl. LXXXV, figs. 389-391. 2Neuss, Die Katalanische Bibelillustration, pp. 89££. and figs. 98-102.

141

Conclusions The aim of the present study has been threefold: to demonstrate (a) that the basic character of the majority of the Dura panels is essentially narrative; (b) that this distinctive feature links them to miniature painting, in which this mode of pictorialization originated and found its most pervasive expression; and (c) that the connection between the Dura frescoes and some later, chiefly Byzantine, miniatures is so close that a common archetype must be assumed. In most cases where far-reaching similarities exist, the frescoes show abbreviated, condensed, or conflated versions of scenes, whereas the corresponding miniatures normally show the individual scenes in their completeness. 1 It follows, therefore, that the archetype was an illustrated manuscript and that the frescoes, so far as their compositional layouts are concerned, are derivative. This, then, raises the question of the nature of the illustrated books that we postulate to have been at the root of the Dura frescoes. The extant examples that we introduced as parallels are all later than Dura, and this fact leads to the conclusion that the postulated archetype, or rather archetypes, must have existed before the middle of the third century, the date of Dura. From this period, admittedly, no illustrated manuscripts are preserved. What were these lost models? There surely was no fully illustrated Old Testament in one volume in existence at such an early period. The model could only have been individual books or groups of books that existed with extensive miniature cycles, too large to be accommodated in a complete Septuagint. 2 Yet individual books like the Pentateuch, the books of Samuel and Kings, some other historical books, and the major prophets were the units with which one has to deal. All scholars agree that the Torah roll was never illustrated. Yet the Septuagint, a translation into Greek made in the second century B.C. with illustrations, could well have been available to Jews and Christians alike. The wealth of legendary material in the Dura frescoes, on the other hand, makes clear that an illustrated Septuagint could not have been the only source. One possibility may have been midrashic and targumic writings, which have been proved to be the source of some of 1

2

On the principles of conflation, see Weinmann, Roll and Codex, pp. 24££. and passim. Weitzmann, "Illustration der Septuaginta," pp. 96££. (repr. in Weitzmann, Studies, pp. 45££.).

143

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

CONCLUSIONS

the legendary elements in the Dura frescoes and have frequently been quoted and explained by Kraeling3 and other writers. Another possibility is an illustrated Flavius Josephus manuscript, for which there is some evidence in later medieval biblical manuscripts. There are some scenes dealing with the infancy of Moses (p. 33) that are surely based on the text of his Antiquitates Judaicae. 4 Old Testament stories, particularly those based on the Pentateuch, were told in several paraphrases, in Greek as well as in Hebrew, and both sources are possible with regard to the Dura frescoes, where one finds inscriptions in both Hebrew and Greek, making evident that the hellenized Jews of that period were versed in both languages. One paraphrase of Old Testament stories written in Hebrew is the Pirke of Eliezer, which, although it originated only in the tenth century, is generally assumed to go back to early sources. 5 It is rich in legendary material, and there is, for instance, the story of the temptation of Eve according to which the serpent had mounted a camel, and this is illustrated in the Octateuchs. 6 This is not the place to try to enumerate all Hebrew or Greek texts containing Old Testament stories that might have existed with illustrations in the Late Antique period. It may suffice to mention two more that were written by Jewish poets in Greek. One is an epic poem, IlEQL 'Iou6aCwv, written by a certain Theodotus in Homeric hexameter, and the other a drama, 'E~aywY'l, by the poet Ezekiel/ written in the style of a Euripidean drama. A passage in the Praeparatio Evangelica of Eusebius tells us how Moses, in a monologue, informs the audience how his nurse had told him the story of his finding in the Nile-a typical Euripidean messenger report. Since there is rich evidence in numerous Hellenistic and Roman monuments in a variety of media that presupposes the existence of richly illustrated epic poems of Homer and dramas of Euripides, 8 the Jewish poets Theodotus and Ezekiel could very well have had access to such illustrations and been inspired by them to use the same system of illustration for their works. The theory that any of the texts by the Jewish authors we cited or others might have existed with illustrations at the time of Dura has been disproven for a number of reasons by several scholars, among them Georg Kretschmar, 9 Rainer Stiebel, 10 and Joseph Gut-

mann. 11 Among their reasons was that most of the elements of Jewish legend could also be found as quotations in Christian homiletic texts, and they argued that the pictures accompanying these quotations were quite likely invented for the patristic texts. Such a concept raises a very basic question: In what kind of texts did narrative miniatures of biblical stories originate? In Roll and Codex I made the distinction between "basic" and "derivative" texts, the Bible belonging to the first, and homiletic writing to the second category, 12 and I argued that narrative illustrations originated in the former, whereas in the latter pictures are "quotations" harking back to the same source as the textual quotations. We can illustrate this point by extant illustrated homiletic texts. The best known are the homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus as preserved in the copy in Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale cod. gr. 510 of the ninth century. In this manuscript the Old and New Testament events to which the text alludes were surely not invented for the homily text but were taken over from various illustrated books of the Bible and can in most cases be traced to very specific picture recensions. 13 They are "quotations" just as are the text passages they illustrate: In other words, there is no reason to assume that for those patristic texts quoting episodes based on Jewish legends, the illustrations were invented ad hoc, but it is much more likely that they were excerpted from larger cycles in basic texts. Yet by far the most important evidence for the existence of early Jewish book illustration is not the miniatures illustrating Jewish legends that are found in later Byzantine manuscripts, but Dura itself which, as we have tried to demonstrate, cannot be explained without the use of richly illustrated manuscripts as models, evidence that has been neglected or ignored in most discussions dealing with the problem of the existence of early Jewish book illumination. Moreover, there is reason to believe that illustrated biblical manuscripts were used as models not only by the painters of the synagogue of Dura, but also by the painters of the .Christian chapel. We pointed out that in the latter the scene of David killing Goliath (p. 84 and fig. 116) harks back to the same recension of an illustrated book of Samuel as the anointing of David in the synagogue (p. 80 and fig. 110), because distinctive iconographical features in both scenes occur in one particular Byzantine Psalter, which on the evidence of the style of its miniatures and its Armenian inscriptions points to an origin in the East Byzantine provinces (pp. 82 and 85 and figs. 112 and 119). A model containing both these

Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 35££. •Weitzmann, "Jiidischer Bilderquellen," p. 406 (repr. in Weitzmann, Studies). 5 G. Friedlander, Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, London, 1916, p. 92. 6 Weitzmann, "Illustration der Septuaginta," repr. in Studies, p. 74 and fig. 56. 7 Fragments of both the poem and the drama are preserved in the Praeparatio Evangelica of Eusebius: 47 hexameters of the former (Praep. 9, 22) and 269 iambic trimeters of the latter (Praep. 9, 28, 29). Gaisford, Oxford, 1843, vol. 2, 385ff., 404ff. •Weitzmann, Roll and Codex, pp. 18££. and passim. Idem, Ancient Book Illumination, Cambridge, Mass., 1950. 9 G. Kretschmar, "Ein Beitrag," p. 300 (repr. in No Graven Images, ed. J. Gutmann, New York, 1971, p. 161). 10 Stichel, "Ausserkanonische Elemente," 150££., and other writings by the same author. 3

144

Among Gutmann's many writings I refer to one of his latest, "The Illustrated Midrash in the Dura Synagogue Paintings: A New Dimension for the Study of Judaism," American Academy for Jewish Research (Proceedings) (Jerusalem) 50 (1983), pp. 91££. and esp. 100. 12 Weitzmann, Roll and Codex, pp. 130££. and passim. 13 A typical example is the Paris Gregory of Nazianzus, cod. gr. 510 (Omont, Miniatures, p. 30, pl. LVII) where the homily "In illud Evangelii" is prefaced by a miniature in four parts that is copied from a Psalter manuscript. There the scenes illustrated four different Odes and ultimately were connected with the basic texts from which the Odes were taken. See also Weitzmann, " Ode Pictures," pp. 67££. 11

145

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

CONCLUSIONS

scenes might very well have been available to the painters of the synagogue and the Christian chapel in the middle of the third century. When were biblical books illustrated for the first time? This question we cannot answer. The only fact is that they must have existed by the middle of the third century andas especially the synagogue frescoes indicate-were already fully developed. Yet they may not have existed long before this date, and the only evidence Dura provides is that they not only existed among the Jews and the Christians, but also that both religious communities had access to and could exchange them. The question of priority is not so important, for both Jews and Christians could have used as the main and primary source an illustrated Septuagint (i.e., the Bible in Greek), which was equally accessible to Hellenistic Jews and to Christians. Thus there was no independent Bible illustration for Jews and Christians, but they shared the same from the very beginning. The method of illustrating books had, as mentioned above, started with the Greeks, and illustrated rolls of classical texts were easily available for adaptation by both Jews and Christians. If, as we believe, this common source were indeed illustrated manuscripts, how did not only an illustrated Pentateuch and books of Samuel and Kings, but also all the other manuscripts copied by the Dura fresco painters become known to provincial artists in such remote places? It is highly unlikely that a small garrison city had a sizeable library with richly illustrated books of the kind we have postulated. Such a library could have existed only in a large metropolitan center where manuscripts with illustrations could either be consulted or sketched and collected in a kind of model book. Another possibility would be to lend out the original manuscripts for a certain time. Instances are known from the Western Middle Ages where monasteries lent out even the most precious manuscripts to be copied in other monasteries and then returned. What would have been the most likely and nearest center to Dura to have had a big and renowned library with richly illustrated manuscripts that could satisfy the needs of the Dura painters? For various reasons we believe that this center was Antioch, a metropolitan city and at the same time a spiritual center of Judaism and early Christianity. 14 First, a desert road leads straight east from Antioch to Dura, thus establishing easy geographical communication. Second, the availability of the same model with David scenes in the synagogue and the Christian chapel speaks for the existence of a climate in which Jews and Christians were on good terms with each other. Such conditions we know to have existed in Antioch. In a fascinating study about the Jewish community at Antioch, Carl Kraeling described vividly how Christians were attracted by the Jewish synagogue and found their "judicial tribunal solemn and impartial," 15 to mention only one of many aspects of a harmonious coexistence. By the fourth century the situation had changed, with Christians no longer persecuted and

Christianity having become the state religion. At that time John Chrysostom wrote his homily "Adversus Judaeos." The third and most cogent reason to relate the art of Dura to Antioch is the realization of the close iconographical connection between quite a nu~ber of the synagogue panels and miniatures of the Octateuchs: there is good reason to believe that the archetype of the latter originated at Antioch. One Octateuch scene in particular, depicting Joseph in prison explaining the dreams of the baker and the butler, is iconographically so similar to a seventh-century marble relief found in the Martyrion of Antioch 16 that a common Antiochene archetype must be assumed. The impact of Antioch on Dura not only may be seen iconographically but also is likely stylistically. We know from the floor mosaics at Antioch that from the first to the fifth centuries a Hellenistic Greek style had been predomin~nt! ~nd the same tradition is manifest and surviving in the Octateuchs. It has been noticed by most scholars that the style of the synagogue frescoes reveals a dichotomy. Two traditions are involved and often seem to clash with each other: one is the Greek Hellenistic, and the other the oriental, in this case Mesopotamian. However, the mixture of these two styles did not take place at random nor was it the whim of individual artists. It will be noticed that the Hellenistic mode is applied to figures in action moving to the left and to the right parallel to the picture plane, and this is the mode we find in the Octateuch miniatures. On the other hand, the oriental element can be seen in figures in frontal position with little or no movement. These two modes are not always sharply separated, and the same figure is, in many cases, both swaying and turning frontally, as, for example, the Philistines who are placed above the ark instead of following the cart (fig. 105). Wherever a figure or a group of figures agrees with Byzantine miniatures it shows the Hellenistic mode, and where it differs usually the oriental mode is used. For this distinction we should like to cite a few examples. In the Crossing of the Red Sea, for example (fig. 48), the Israelites on the march leaving Egypt show specific elements, like the child being taken by the hand, which are paralleled in the Octateuchs (fig. 67), and the leader Moses rendered in a wide stride is paralleled by another Octateuch figure that illustrates Moses striking the rock (fig. 59). Set between the rows of marching Israelites are the twelve frontally standing representatives of the twelve tribes. The idea is taken from Numbers, where they are depicted, but on the march (fig. 61). The Dura painter changed the types by using strictly frontal figures. By doing so he created a static and, at the same time, hieratic effect. It is for this reason that the painter used the orientalizing mode, whereby the figures become isolated and are no longer integrated into the great mass of the Israelites leaving Egypt. The same alteration and intrusion are repeated in the left half of the Exodus panel, where the representatives of the twelve tribes are again shown in frontal position,

•0. Eissfeldt, "Dura Europos," Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum 4 (1959), cols. 1358-1370. HKraeling, "The Jewish Community at Antioch," Antioch Index Publications, 1, New Haven, 1932.

16 K. Weitzmann, "Iconography of the Reliefs from the Martyrion," Antioch-on-the-Orantes, vol. 3, The Excavations 1936-1939, ed. R. Stillwell, Princeton, 1941, no. 390, pp. 138-39 and pl. 20. S. Curcic and A. St. Clair, ed., Byzantium at Princeton, catalogue of an exhibition at Firestone Library, Princeton University, Princeton, 1986, p. 45, no. 7 with fig.

146

147

1

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

CONCLUSIONS

this time holding standards with the names of the tribes written upon them, thereby increasing the hieratic effect. Another example of the dichotomy of styles is the panel with the battle at Eben-ezer and the capture of the ark (fig. 101). In the battle scene, the foot soldiers fighting in a great variety of positions reveal the same diversity of poses as those in the corresponding miniature of the Vatican Book of Kings (fig. 102), whereas the two riders in a middle zone are rendered in frozen positions and obviously are an intrusion like the twelve tribes in the Exodus picture. But in the battle picture, the Dura painter did not use frontality to achieve an orientalizing effect; rather he applied standardized, fixed types, employing Sassanian models and contrasting them with the free motion one finds in the attacking riders in the Byzantine miniature. In the scene of the Capture of the Ark (fig. 103), for the lower zone with the actual carrying away of the ark by lively figures, one could point to a parallel miniature in the Vatican Book of Kings (fig. 104), whereas the frontal standing warriors in the upper zone, reflecting the oriental mode, are substitutions for those who in the miniature are rendered marching behind the ark, that is, on the same level as the carriers and driving them on. By superimposing the two parts of the composition, the fresco painter lost the spatial relationship and with it the meaning of the driving on. Basically the same alterations in composition leading to the abandonment of natural relationships, the hallmark of the Hellenistic tradition, are eyident in the panel with the ark in the land of the Philistines (fig. 105). Here, in a similar fashion the fresco painter has moved the Philistines following the ark into an upper zone and turned the marchers into frontal, static figures, adopting for them an oriental mode. At the same time, there are panels in which the fresco painter confined himself entirely to the Greek Hellenistic mode and thus preserved the dramatic effect of the various actions involved, as, for example, in the panel with Saul and David in the Wilderness of Ziph (figs. 123-124). In such a case the connection with the corresponding miniatures in the Vatican Book of Kings is especially close. The orientalizing element is evident not only in the more static poses of some figures, but in their costumes. It has been noticed that persons of high rank wear Persian dress.17 The inference is that in many such cases it replaces the Greek garment worn by persons like Pharaoh in the scene of the infancy of Moses (fig. 29), a scene that otherwise is filled with figures wearing Greek costumes. The intention was quite likely to emphasize the importance of the figure by a garment whose decorative borders convey a festive character that could hot be matched by Greek dress. The mixture of the two styles-the Greek Hellenistic and the oriental-is to be expected from a Mesopotamian monument of that period. What makes the Dura frescoes so interesting in this respect is that, with the help of Byzantine

miniatures, one is in a position to separate the two elements clearly, with regard both to the compositional arrangements in general and to an element such as costume in particular. Our emphasis on the narrative tradition as reflected in the Dura synagogue frescoes has implications that reach far beyond this particular monument. It touches upon the general and very fundamental question of the origin of narrative art, by which we mean cyclic art, that is, the method of illustrating an episode in successive phases. Our contention, that at the time of Dura this kind of narrative art was fully developed, deviates from the opinion widely held by Christian archaeologists, especially those concerned with the art of Rome, that it did not develop before the early fourth century. Ernst Kitzinger, 18 Hugo Brandenburg, 19 and many others believe that Christian art started with a symbolic art in the form of what Theodor Klauser has called "abbreviated scenes" (Kurzscenen), 20 and that the narrative mode grew out of it by accretion. This view is based primarily on funerary art, especially catacomb painting and sarcophagi. The Dura frescoes prove, however, that already in the middle of the third century the narrative mode not only existed but had reached its fully developed state. This means that outside funerary art, monuments in other media must have existed that applied this mode, and that only by the fate of history have no other fresco cycles like those at Dura survived from the third century. There is nothing primitive about the Dura frescoes, which, for reasons given repeatedly in this study, point to the existence of an established tradition for Old Testament representations that we believe were rooted in illustrated manuscripts. This, then, would mean that the mode used for funerary art was not the only one current in the third century. Moreover, the two modes, the "abbreviated" and not always fittingly called the "symbolic" on the one hand, and the "narrative" on the other, were not always sharply separated from each other but sometimes used side by side within the same work of art, and they may penetrate each other and become fused. In Dura the narrative scenes were in some instances so reduced and compressed that they resemble symbolic scenes. This is particularly evident in the four so-called portrait panels with Moses before the burning bush (fig. 41) and receiving the law (fig. 74 ), the visions of Isaiah (fig. 170), and Jeremiah with the hidden tabernacle expounding the new covenant (fig. 175). All four resemble portrait figures but actually are, as we have tried to demonstrate, in each case a conflation of two narrative events. A similar ambiguity as to whether a scene was invented as a symbolic one or derived

B. Goldman, "The Dura Synagogue Costumes and Parthian Art," in J. Gutmann, ed., The Dura-Europos Synagogue: A Re-evaluation (1932-1972), Missoula, Mont.,.1973, pp. 53ff.

Kitzinger, in his Byzantine Art in the Making, London, 1977, does not even mention the Dura synagogue frescoes when he discusses the origin of narrative illustration. 19 H. Brandenburg, "Uberlegungen zum Ursprung der friihchristlichen Bildkunst," Atti de[ IX Congresso lnternazionale di Archeologia Cristiana (1975), Vatican City, 1978, vol. 1, pp. 331f. He does deal with the frescoes of the Dura synagogue, but denies any connection of their iconography with Christian monuments. 20 T. Klauser, "Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der christlichen Kunst," Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum 4 (1961), 136ff.

148

149

17

18

.. THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

from a narrative can be seen in Roman catacomb painting, especially in depictions of the Jonah and Susanna stories. Each story was depicted in quite a number of different phases, and if they are lined up one realizes that they form a "section of a cycle," with each scene based on an identifiable verse of the biblical text. This speaks for the existence of a full narrative cycle of pictures from which the catacomb painter could excerpt what fitted his purpose. It must be realized, however, that the narrative method as we understand it (i.e., the pictorialization of a story in a quick succession of phases) was invented neither by the Jews nor by the Christians, but that it existed already in the late Hellenistic, pre-Christian era. The so-called Megarian bowls, variously dated between the third and first century B.C., that is, surely in the pre-Christian era, employed in the illustrations of Homeric poems and Euripidean tragedies the method of telling a story in a sequence of pictures following the text often in very short intervals. 21 In other words, there was no primitive invention of this method by either the Christians or the Jews. Moreover, it can be demonstrated that many biblical illustrations, wherever the subject lent itself, were cast in classical forms either in compositional layout or in formal details. The creation of Adam in three phases-shaping, enlivenment, and animation-which clearly used as model the creation of man by Prometheus, rendered in classical art in the same three phases,22 is only one of many examples of the adaptation of classical compositional layouts in biblical art. In other words, there was no break between classical art on the one hand and the Jewish and Christian on the other. Seen in this perspective, the agreements of the Dura synagogue iconography with that of miniatures in various Byzantine manuscripts and the dependence of both Jews and Christians on a common Greek Hellenistic tradition frees the art of the Dura synagogue of its splendid isolation and integrates it into the mainstream of biblical art shared by Jews and Christians alike. 21 22

Weitzmann, Roll and Codex, pp. 24 and passim. Idem, Ancient Book Illumination, chapters 2, 3, 4. Weitzmann, Ancient Book Illumination, pp. 177££. and figs. 177-182.

150

PART II: Herbert L. Kessler

Program and Structure The moment paintings at Dura-Europos began to emerge from Syrian sand, connections were made between them and Christian art. 1 Initially, the perceived relationships were, perforce, stylistic. With the discoveries-first of the Christian chapel and then of the synagogue-however, the putative ties were extended to connect specific imagery at Dura, and even the whole system of cult room design, to monuments of Jewish and Christian art from other areas and later times. Preserving as it did pagan, Jewish, and Christian monuments from the half-century during which Christian art apparently was formed, Dura-Europos seemed to be a laboratory in which the earliest experiments could still be observed. Even more than the Christian building, the synagogue appeared to hold the key to an understanding of the formation of Christian imagery; it still does. Not only are the synagogue frescoes more elaborate than those of the nearby baptistery and richer in borrowings from pagan imagery, they also reveal ties to diverse Jewish works, thereby attesting to a widespread Jewish artistic culture in late antiquity. Moreover, they offer parallels to specific motifs in later Christian works, strongly suggesting that Jewish art was a basis for some of the Christian development. The frescoed synagogue also resembles Christian churches in the placement and operation of much of the imagery. In it (fig. 192), as in many churches, an assembly of aniconic symbols adorns the focal area; indeed, some of the very same emblems of messianic hope used later by Christians appear in this spot. Portraits of standing prophets-in fact, portrayals of Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah-flank the central ensemble at Dura as in certain Christian buildings, and these recall analogous pictures of saints in the same location in some churches. And extended narratives drawn from the Old Testament in the synagogue offer parallels to those on the walls of Christian basilicas, at Dura as in the Christian buildings serving as a means of asserting the reality and continuity of the Abrahamic covenant and of foretelling the establishment of a new Jerusalem. As in Early Christian basilicas, these are organized around a central emblematic image and make their point, in part, through the interpolation of motifs taken from legend and exegesis. Cf. J. H. Breasted, The Oriental Forerunners of Byzantine Painting, Chicago, 1924, and C. Hopkins and R. du Mesnil du Buisson, "Communication. La synagogue de Doura-Europos," Comptes rendus. Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres (1933), 243££. 1

153

THE FRESCOES OF THE DURA SYNAGOGUE AND CHRISTIAN ART

PROGRAM AND STRUCTURE

Despite the apparent connections between the Dura synagogue and later church decorations, few scholars have taken up the question of the functional and structural relationship of the one to the others. 2 To do so is the task of this section.

the Christian building undoubtedly resulted from a parallel but independent borrowing from the same pagan material. Even so, the similarity of the program of zodiac, temple instruments, and Sacrifice scene to such later Jewish monuments as the synagogue at Beth Alpha 4 indicates that the Dura decorations were likely not local, ad hoc inventions, but rather, part of an extensive tradition of synagogue decoration. The principal decoration, that of the Torah shrine (fig. 193), comprises two parts, the "temple panel" of the aedicula itself and the area of the wall directly above it. Against a light-blue field that must refer to sky 5 and, hence, to the celestial venue of the iconography, the temple panel presents the seven-branched menorah, a lulav and ethrog, and the temple in Jerusalem-all depicted in gold to suggest their eschatological status-and at the right, the Sacrifice of Isaac. The essentially symbolic meaning of the imagery need not be argued here; 6 it has been accepted by most interpreters, some finding reference only to the lost Temple in Jerusalem, others to eschatological promises. Important for the question of Christian linkages are three characteristics of the decoration: (a) the use of symbols in the focal area of the cult room,7 (b) the recurrence of related iconography in later synagogues, and (c) the unusual narrative rendering of the Akedah. Whereas the specific symbols found in the Dura temple panel 8 were, of course, never adopted in Christian churches, many of the latter do show a similar avoidance of figural

Images of Absence Ties between the austere first decoration of the Dura synagogue and Christian art have generally been overlooked. They are significant, however, and preliminary to any understanding of the connections with the later program. Comprising a geometric dado and, at the four corners, imitation pilasters, the first decoration featured an ornamented Torah shrine-including the area of wall directly above the niche-and figural ceiling tiles. 1 It was severely restricted and essentially aniconic; the human face appeared only in a few personifications on the ceiling and was entirely avoided in the focal area where, even in the narrative scene of the sacrifice of Isaac, figures are shown only from the back. Had these decorations alone survived, and not the extensive reworkings undertaken about five years after they were completed, the synagogue would be viewed today simply as an example of Durene artistic syncretism conforming to the injunctions of Jewish laws against idolatry. The debt to pagan traditions, in fact, is not to be underestimated. The fundamental ordering of the interior with an imitation opus sectile dado and painted corner pilasters is encountered in many Roman structures; the recently unearthed "Hanghauser" at Ephesus offer striking parallels, even to the way the pilasters turn the corner. 2 The ceiling presented an image of fecundity and natural order constructed largely from a pre-existing repertory of tile designs, showing that the Durene Jews drew comfortably on the art of their neighbors. And even the Torah shrine itself was adapted from pagan structures where inset baldachins sheltered cult statues. Sanctuary K in the Temple of Bel at Dura offers a close analogy, with its two columns and tall upper panel, but other examples also are known. 3 The baldachin structure in

Cf. Kraeling, The Synagogue, pp. 39££. and Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 9, pp. 59££. Cf. V. Strocka, Die Wandmalerei der Hanghiiuser in Ephesus (Forschungen in Ephesus VIII/I), Vienna, 1977; and Tronzo, Via Latina Catacomb, pp. 36£. and passim. 3 Cf. F. Cumont, Fouilles de Doura-Europos 1922-1923, Paris, 1926, pl. XXIX.

•Cf. recently John Wilkinson, "The Beit Alpha Synagogue Mosaic. Towards an Interpretation," Journal of Jewish Art 5 (1978), 16££. and Marilyn Chiat, "Synagogues and Churches in Byzantine Beit She'an," Journal of Jewish Art 7 (1980), 6££. The sixth-century mosaic pavement in the synagogue at Beth Alpha presents counterparts to nearly every element of the Dura scheme, including the temple fa