Ivan Foletti The British Museum Casket with Scenes of the Passion: The  

Easter  

Liturgy  

and  

the  

Apse  

of  

St.  

John  

Lateran  

in  

Rome In the collection of the British Museum in London are four ivory plaques displaying a cycle of images of the Passion and Resurrection.1 On the right side of  

the  

first  

one,  

we  

find  

Peter  

denying  

Christ,  

while  

the  

left  

side  

depicts  

Pilate  

 washing his hands and the centre shows Christ carrying the cross with the help of  

Simon  

of  

Cyrene  

(Fig.  

1).  

The  

second  

ivory  

shows  

Judas  

hanging  

from  

a  

tree,  

 alongside  

the  

Crucifixion.  

Beside  

the  

cross  

stand  

Mary,  

John  

and  

Longinus  

(Fig.  

 2). The third relief presents the soldiers asleep after the Resurrection and the women  

at  

Christ’s  

tomb  

(Fig.  

3).  

The  

final  

plaque  

is  

decorated  

with  

a  

symmetrical  

 composition  

with  

Christ  

at  

its  

centre  

and  

a  

pair  

of  

apostles  

on  

each  

side.  

The  

first  

 disciple  

on  

the  

left  

touches  

the  

wounded  

side  

of  

Christ  

with  

his  

finger,  

and  

must  

 therefore  

be  

identified  

as  

doubting  

Thomas  

(Fig.  

4). Scholars concur in attributing these ivories to a single Roman workshop, dating it to the years 420-430.2 This attribution, based on formal considerations, includes the British Museum ivories in a relatively homogeneous group of reliefs  

characterised  

by  

figures  

which  

are  

stocky  

but  

executed  

with  

Hellenistic  

 refinement.3 The chronological and geographical limits of this group are furnished by three securely dated works whose geographical provenance is also known: the Diptych  

of  

Rufius  

Probianus  

(made  

at  

Rome  

after  

400  

AD),  

the  

left  

panel  

of  

the  

 Diptych  

of  

the  

Lampadii  

(sculpted  

in  

the  

West  

in  

the  

first  

half  

of  

the  

fifth  

century),  

 and the Consular Diptych of Flavius Felix (produced at Rome in 428 AD).4 In light of the great stylistic coherence of the British Museum ivories, vestiges of  

 joints  

 between  

 the  

 panels,  

 and  

 the  

 panels’  

 identical  

 dimensions,  

 scholars  

 consider them the four sides of a single casket (albeit one which has lost its lid).5 It  

is  

difficult  

to  

determine,  

at  

this  

remove,  

what  

the  

casket’s  

lid  

might  

have  

looked  

 like. It may have been decorated, since the only Roman ivory casket from the era which has survived intact – the Samagher casket – has a decorated lid.6 Given the 1. Each one measures 7.5 x 9.8 cm. 2. See the recent synthesis by Harley 2007 and Harley 2013. 3. Cf. Volbach 1976, nr. 116, p. 82. 4. Cf. Volbach 1976, nr. 62, pp. 54-55; Volbach 1976, nr. 54, pp. 50-51; Volbach 1976, nr. 2, p. 30. 5. This question has a unanimous answer. Cf. Harley 2007, p. 232; Kötzsche 1979. 6. Cf. Buddensieg 1959; Guarducci 1978; Longhi 2006. Ivan Foletti140 dimensions of our presumptive casket, the lid (at 9,8 x 9,8 cm) may have been the most important panel of the casket. Despite this lacuna, our casket is of primary importance, since it gives us one of the earliest surviving representations of the Crucifixion.  

Thus  

it  

is  

surprising  

how  

little  

the  

casket  

has  

been  

studied,  

and  

that  

 no monograph has been written about it.7 The objective of this essay is to make up for  

this  

neglect,  

and  

in  

particular  

to  

analyse  

the  

casket’s  

unusual  

iconography  

in  

 relation to the Liturgy. As  

a  

“narrative”  

monument,  

this  

casket  

is  

absolutely  

unique.  

Very  

few  

cycles  

 from  

the  

fourth  

or  

fifth  

centuries  

are  

devoted  

to  

the  

death  

and  

Resurrection  

of  

 Christ. The best known are the Sarcophagus of theAnastasis (dated to the reign of Theodosius) and the mosaic narrative conceived under Theodoric for the Basilica of St. Apollinarus at Ravenna.8 In neither case is there a depiction of the central scene  

of  

the  

Passion,  

i.e.  

the  

Crucifixion.  

The  

only  

cycle  

which  

can  

be  

compared  

 to the British Museum plaques is the one on the doors of the Basilica of Santa Sabina in Rome, dated to the same years (Fig. 5).9 The interpretation of these doors, which put events from the Old and New Testaments side by side, is complicated by  

the  

fact  

that  

they  

have  

not  

survived  

complete,  

and  

the  

Crucifixion  

panel  

is  

just  

 as  

challenging  

as  

the  

rest.  

The  

small  

size  

of  

this  

Crucifixion  

scene  

indicates  

that  

 it was not intended as the centre of the cycle. Furthermore, on these doors the Passion and Resurrection were integrated into a longer discourse on the entire biography of Christ. This makes the London ivories the only surviving example of  

a  

fifth  

century  

narrative  

cycle  

in  

which  

Christ’s  

death  

and  

Resurrection  

are  

the  

 exclusive subject matter.10 Whoever conceived the images on the casket wanted to insist, in particular, on  

the  

“martyrial”  

function  

of  

the  

Cross.  

As  

depicted  

in  

the  

first  

two  

panels,  

the  

 cross is not a symbol of victory – as on the sarcophagi or in the apse mosaics of those years – but rather an instrument of the Passion. Even if this symbolism is not obvious in the via crucis scene, there is no denying it in the second panel, where  

the  

Crucifixion  

is  

directly  

juxtaposed  

with  

the  

hanging  

of  

Judas.  

This  

is  

a  

 shocking association of the two deaths, even if it is hinted at in the Bible, where Judas  

hangs  

himself  

in  

desperation  

at  

having  

betrayed  

the  

Christ.11 This choice must  

have  

emphasised  

by  

another  

factor  

as  

well:  

according  

to  

Kötzsche’s  

study  

of  

 the  

wear  

on  

the  

four  

ivories,  

it  

appears  

that  

the  

Crucifixion  

panel  

formed  

the  

front  

 of the casket. Interestingly, this does not square with what contemporary sources 7. What we have are mostly excerpts from catalogues or brief descriptions from much broader works. The only article (Kötzsche 1994) analyses merely one side of the composition. Cf. Harley 2007 and Kötzsche 1994, Avery-Quash 2000; Buckton 1994; Stutzinger 1983; Volbach 1976, p. 82; Delbrueck 1952, pp. 95-98. The only apparent exception is the article of Harley 2013, however in despite  

of  

the  

title  

“The  

Maskell  

Passion  

Ivories  

and  

Greco-­Roman  

art:  

notes  

on  

the  

iconography  

of  

 crucifixion”,  

the  

article  

is  

dedicated  

mainly  

at  

the  

question  

of  

the  

crucifixion.  

 8.  

Cf.  

Saggiorato  

1968;;  

Penni  

Jacco  

2004.  

 9.  

Cf.  

Spieser  

1991,  

pp.  

47-­81;;  

Jeremias  

1980;;  

Foletti,  

Gianandrea  

2016. 10.  

Cf.  

Felle  

2000;;  

Jaszai  

1994;;  

Schiller  

1968,  

pp.  

89-­110. 11.  

We  

are  

unaware  

of  

any  

other  

such  

juxtaposition.  

Normally,  

the  

hanging  

of  

Judas  

is  

seen  

in  

 manuscripts and is treated as an isolated event. Cf. Leclercq 1928. The British Museum Casket 141 tell us regarding the devotion of worshippers in those years. Those sources indicate with insistence that the shame of the Cross wounded the sensibilities of the faithful. The arrangement of our Roman casket thus appears disconcerting.12 A Strange Iconography The  

panel  

which  

comes  

first  

in  

a  

chronological  

ordering  

of  

the  

scenes  

is  

no  

 less surprising in the way it shows Pilate, the Via Crucis, and  

Peter’s  

denial  

of  

 Christ. These episodes are not arranged according to the story. This re-ordering may have been motivated by a desire for symmetry or in order to put Christ in the centre of the composition. But the very idea of associating these three scenes is  

unique,  

as  

is  

the  

inversion  

of  

the  

various  

figures’  

roles.  

Usually  

we  

see  

the  

 dialogue between Pilate and Christ – as on the Brescia Lipsanotheca or in the Rossano Gospels (Fig. 6), while the scene of Peter with the rooster is elsewhere found either as an isolated image – e.g. in the Brescia Lipsanotheca (Fig. 7) – or showing  

the  

moment  

where  

Christ  

predicts  

Peter’s  

denial  

–  

e.g.  

on  

the  

doors  

of  

 Santa  

Sabina  

or  

Sant’Apollinare  

Nuovo  

(Fig.  

8).13 On the British Museum casket, on the other hand, Pilate washes his hands alone, since Christ has already turned away and, in the presence of Simon, is already on his way to Calvary. At the same time, Christ is clearly communicating with Peter, to whom he has turned his attention. Peter extends his arms in response. Even if this last scene can be found  

in  

the  

Gospels  

–  

Peter  

and  

Christ  

exchange  

a  

glance  

after  

Peter’s  

denial,  

its  

 iconography is absolutely unique among surviving works (Luke 22, 61). The scene of the women at the tomb, the third panel if we follow chronological order, is less extraordinary.14 In accordance with a tradition developed at the beginning  

of  

the  

fifth  

century,  

we  

find  

the  

women  

shown  

beside  

a  

round  

tomb  

 with open doors attesting to the Resurrection.15 Kötzsche, however, has called our attention to some particular choices here.16 Unlike in other depictions from Late Antiquity – say, this one from the Museo d’arte antica at Milan (Fig. 9),17 the women are not part of any dynamic movement, but rather seem blocked in a meditative and suffering pose. Kötzsche explains this difference by pointing out similarities to pagan models; in pagan art, the women present at a death or a 12. Felle 2000; Leclercq 1957 recalls a passage in Gregory of Tours, Gloria martyrum, 1, I, XXIII. Here Gregory describes the reaction of his faithful upon seeing, at the end of the fourth century, an image of the Passion: they forced the bishop to cover it. At Rome, furthermore, Leo the  

Great  

speaks  

of  

the  

“scandal  

of  

the  

cross”.  

Cf.  

Leo  

the  

Great,  

Sermons, 38, 3, 2, ed. Montanari, Pratesi, Puccini 1999; p. 255. 13. For Christ before Pilate cf. Schiller 1968, pp. 71-73. For Doubting Thomas cf. Schiller 1968, pp. 69-71. 14. Cf. Perraymond 2000. 15. Kondakov, long ago, perceived here a type of iconography formed in the Holy Land, since he  

considered  

it  

a  

reference  

to  

the  

Church  

of  

the  

Holy  

Sepulchre  

in  

Jerusalem.  

Cf.  

Kondakov  

1914,  

 p. 208. This idea was recently taken up anew by Ross 1996. 16. Kötzsche 1994. 17. n. 313, in Ensoli, La Rocca 2000, p. 612. Ivan Foletti142 funeral are always paralysed by suffering. In this case, we may be looking at an attempt to re-compose a familiar scene. Stranger still is the last scene, which depicts Doubting Thomas.18 This is an exceptional subject known in only three other antique versions: the sarcophagus of St. Celsus at Milan (dated to 370-380AD – see Fig. 10), a fragment of an early- fifth-­century  

sarcophagus  

from  

Ravenna,  

and  

finally  

one  

of  

the  

mosaic  

panels  

in  

 Sant’Apollinare  

(Fig.  

11).19  

In  

the  

first  

two  

versions  

cited,  

we  

see  

the  

dialogue  

 between  

Christ  

and  

Thomas  

while  

the  

latter  

confirms  

the  

Resurrection  

by  

putting  

 his  

hands  

on  

the  

wounded  

side  

of  

the  

Lord.  

In  

Sant’Apollinare,  

the  

verification  

 has already taken place, in the presence of the other disciples, and while Christ shows  

his  

wounds,  

Thomas  

bows  

before  

Him  

and  

professes  

“My  

Lord  

God”!  

 (John  

20,  

28).  

The  

British  

Museum  

ivory  

shows  

the  

verifying  

gesture  

of  

Thomas,  

 but  

three  

other  

apostles  

are  

also  

present.  

What  

is  

more,  

the  

movement  

of  

Thomas’  

 hand is indistinguishable from the gestures of the other three apostles. Another surprise,  

 especially  

 in  

 comparison  

 to  

 the  

 Sant’Apollinare  

 mosaic,  

 is  

 that  

 the  

 British Museum ivory does not make Thomas stand out from the other apostles. This  

is  

odd  

if  

we  

consider  

how  

easy  

it  

is  

to  

read  

the  

casket’s  

other  

scenes. Images and Liturgy We  

have  

now  

seen  

that  

the  

iconography  

of  

the  

British  

Museum’s  

casket  

is  

 nothing if not unusual. If we consider the choice of scenes, intrinsically tied to the mysteries  

of  

Easter,  

I  

think  

we  

can  

find  

the  

explanation  

in  

the  

Easter  

Liturgy.  

Before  

 we proceed, we should therefore recall what we know about the celebration of the Holy  

Week  

in  

Rome  

in  

the  

fifth  

century.  

Even  

though  

we  

have  

but  

scarce  

information,  

 we know that the rites were centred on the Lateran and its surroundings.20 At the beginning  

of  

the  

fifth  

century,  

only  

one  

exceptional  

liturgy  

was  

celebrated  

in  

the  

 course of the Triduum, namely the Easter vigil. (On Good Friday and Holy Saturday the faithful had to content themselves with an instructive and meditative sermon).21 During the rest of the year, there was a stational liturgy which took place at various sites in Rome and had its origins in the fourth century, but the Easter Vigil itself was held  

only  

at  

the  

Lateran,  

confirming  

the  

primacy  

of  

this  

cathedral.22 Over  

 the  

course  

of  

the  

fifth  

century,  

the  

Easter  

celebrations  

were  

greatly  

 expanded: Palm Sunday was added (and assigned to the Lateran), and a penitential rite began to develop in the Lateran Baptistery on Holy Thursday.23 The Good Friday prayers were assigned to Santa Croce, perhaps as early as the end of the 18. Leclercq 1957b. 19.  

Cf.  

Brandenburg  

1987,  

pp.  

95-­97,  

Fig.  

109;;  

Bovini  

1954,  

pp.  

26-­27,  

Fig.  

17;;  

Penni  

Jacco  

 2004, pp. 61-62. 20. De Blaauw 1994, p. 42. 21. De Blaauw 1994, p. 147. 22. Baldovin 1987, pp. 147-156. 23.  

De  

 Blaauw  

 1994,  

 p.  

 148.  

The  

 first  

 known  

 occurrence  

 of  

 this  

 liturgy  

 is  

 mentioned  

 by  

 Innocent I (402-417) in a letter to Bishop Decentius of Gubbio, cf. Cabié 1973, p. 49.