Auxentius und Ambrosius: Ein Beitrag zur fruhchristlichen Kunst Mailands zwischen Haresie und Rechtglaubigkeit (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Auxentius und Ambrosius: Ein Beitrag zur frühchristlichen Kunst Mailands zwischen Häresie und Rechtgläubigkeit Kenneth B. Steinhauser Reiner Sörries. Auxentius und Ambrosius: Ein Beitrag zur frühchristlichen Kunst Mailands zwischen Häresie und Rechtgläubigkeit. Christliche Archäologie, 1. Dettelbach: Verlag J. H. Röll, 1996. Pp. 127. DM 28.00. This study of the relationship between early Christian art and theology grew out of a seminar which took place during the summer semester of 1994 at the theology faculty of the University of Erlangen with an accompanying excursion to Milan. Sörries is no stranger to the theme of Arianism and the method of contrasting Arian and anti-Arian works of art to uncover the artist’s program and theological message. In an earlier and more lengthy work published in 1983, he investigated the art of sixth century Ravenna. On one hand, the subordination of the Son to the Father is clearly manifested in the Arian baptistery at Ravenna taking its cue from Mt 3.17: “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” On the other hand, the anti-Arian theme is obvious in presentations of the reigning Jesus, for example in San Michele in Affricisco, proclaiming: “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10.30) and “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (Jn 14.9). What Sörries did for sixth century Ravenna, he now attempts to do for fourth century Milan. Unfortunately the peculiarly Arian or anti-Arian characteristics of the art of Milan are not as obvious as those of Ravenna. Architectural masterpieces, large mosaics and smaller artifacts of the period do not allow themselves to be readily categorized as Arian or anti-Arian internally through their theological themes, which in all cases are neither distinctively Arian nor distinctively anti-Arian. Works of art must be identified as heterodox or orthodox through either dating or patronage. With the edicts of Galerius in 311 and Constantine in 313 the tension between paganism and Christianity dissolves with a new tension between Nicean orthodoxy and Arian heresy taking its place. This dichotomy manifests itself in a variety of ways. It may be seen in the conflict between the orthodox see of Rome and the Arian see of Milan. It may be seen within the royal family itself as the sons of Constantine adopt opposing views with Constantine II being Nicean and Constantius II Arian. It may also be seen in the contrast between the orthodox Ambrose and his Arian predecessor Auxentius. While the theological, historical and political aspects of these developments have been treated at great length elsewhere, particularly in the two very recent books on Ambrose by Daniel H. Williams and Neil B. McLynn, Sörries investigates the art of the period as expressions of orthodox and heterodox faith, a task undone until now. The churches of Milan built prior to Ambrose’s episcopacy are surveyed including San Eustorgio, Sto. Stefano alle fonti, San Giovanni alle fonti and San Lorenzo Maggiore. The mosaics of San Aquilino, a mausoleum adjacent to San Lorenzo, are a high point of the study. Through comparison with the sarcophagus of Stilicho the author skillfully reconstructs the illustrative program of San Aquilino with precise logic. His point of departure is a mosaic of Jesus teaching the [End Page 157] apostles in an apse of the structure, which he interprets as a portrayal of the Ascension of Jesus. Although the mosaic hardly appears to be a representation of Jesus’ Ascension, Sörries’ argument is compelling due to the portrayal of the Ascension of Elijah in a symmetrically corresponding apse. Peter and Moses are presented in separate mosaics as givers of the new and the old law. Arian content as such is not at all apparent, leaving the possibility open in subsequent years for both heterodox and orthodox Christians to interpret the artistic program to their own advantage. Since San Aquilino was built by the Arianizing Constantius II while the Arian Auxentius was bishop of Milan and his advisor, Sörries concludes that the mosaics are Arian. Upon taking possession of his diocese, Ambrose embarked on a building program. In 386 he newly discovered...