Personal appearance and physiognomics in early medieval Italy

Personal appearance and . . . 1 physlognomlcs m early medieval Italy

During Italy

of Carolingian

to write

effort

down

the lives

of several

cities.

cannot be ignored, but cribe it to a Carolingian hardly affected Italy 1975:489

and

Arnaldi

ascen-

was

made

in

and

deeds

of

Such

an effort

it is difficult to asRenaissance which at all (Brunholzl 1956:34).

And

since

the effort coincided with a renewed hagiographic curiosity in Rome and Naples, cities which became lively centres for the translation of Byzantine saints’ lives into Latin, one may speak of a period of fascination with biography and personality unprecedented in the peninsula. One side effect of the interest in biography and personality and the doings of great men was the amount of attention lavished on the personal appearance of the prominent figures of the period. The Gesta of the bishops of Naples, Rome, and Ravenna offer a convenient point of departure for the study of the physical descriptions in contemporary biographies. The present essay, therefore, examines the function and the meaning of

Starting with an analysis of the physical descriptions of bishops in the Italian episcopal Gesta, the paper proceeds to a consideration of the importance of personal appearance for early medieval leaders. Light is cast on these issues thanks to the use of late antique physiognomic theory. Physiognomic thinking, it is demonstrated, was current at least at an informal level amongst many authors in Itab, as well as being familiar even in non-literate social categories. The paper likewise uses physiognomies to explain the relationship between the literary physical descriptions and the paintings on which they were often based. History 14 (1988) 191-202 0 1988, Elsevier Science Publishers

period

a monumental

the bishops

Pa010 Squatriti

Journal of Medieval 0304-4181/88/$3.50

the

dancy,

the physical descriptions in the episcopal biographies. To do this it relies on late antique physiognomic manuals and attempts to set the descriptions within the broader context of portraiture and appearance in the early medieval period. Long-winded introductions are unfashionable, but before discussing the literary portraits in the Gesta, a note on how recent scholarship has treated the Gesta may be helpful. For to call the Liber pontzficalis, or the Gesta episcoporum neapolitanorum, or Agnellus’ idiosyncratic collection of lives of the bishops of Ravenna biographies is not accepted practice. The indefatigable Michel Sot, author of numerous works on Gesta in

B.V. (North-Holland)

191

medieval

Europe,

pilations

were not concerned

als or lineage,

considers

that these comwith individu-

personalities, but with episcopal with the see or the patria of the

pontijcalis of Rome was the prototype, followed more or less closely throughout Europe

by all Gesta writers.

nellus and the Neapolitan

Thus

redactors

both Aghad the

bishops, and with an assortment of political ends (Sot 1978:433-49; 1981a:97; 1981b;

Roman book in mind when they applied pen to parchment. (A scholarly consensus:

1985: 192). Sot, it is true, usually considers the Gesta of the entire middle ages together, and is bound to generalise and emphasise

Cilento 1969:56; Fasoli 1970:476; Aigran 1953: 177; GunenCe 1980:46; Brunhijlzl

common features, not individual traits. This point of view is mirrored in a recent article by T. F. X. Noble which spoke of the Roman Liber pontiJicalis as showing “the popes not as individuals but as faceless cogs impassively fulfilling in a great machine, their pastoral duties”, and called the monotonous Roman work a “relentlessly and rigorously impersonal narration of 1985:356-7). minutiae” (Noble routine Both these evaluations echo that of Laistner, who discussed the “ruinous decline” of biography in the earlier middle ages. For Laistner no writer of the period had “the degree of culture and expertness of style and necessary for biography, a composition” position he found uncomfortable when it came to explaining the miraculous presence of Einhard’s Life of Charlemagne in so desolate a time. Laistner, indeed, resorted to the lame explanation that “no early medieval writer more successfully imitated his classical models” (Laistner 1976:261, 73). A further reason for the widespread notion that the Gesta were not biographies is the recognition that the vitae of the bishops as described in these collections are standardized, follow precise canons of composition, and do not differ markedly one from another. In other words, the episcopal lives do not contain enough individuation to be considered biographies. Moreover, the Liber

192

Sot

1981b:7,

34;

Noble

1985:349-50;

1975:493). This fact is quite evident despite the differences between the three Italian Gesta, and the Liber pontificalis itself followed a norm for the composition of its lives, so that Noble has called them “formulaic” (1985:350-l; also Sot 1981b:32-3). Students of the Gesta, however, may have underestimated the degree to which these were biographical and concerned with portraying each bishop as a distinct person. The episcopal lists are certainly histories of institutions, but the episcopal vitae they contain show traces of the authors’ attempt to provide each with a personalized complexion. The area left open to improvisation and interpretation in the introductory formula of each life (Noble 1985:350) almost invariably contains remarks on the character, past, and appearance of the bishop, all elements which distinguished him from his predecessors, successors, and prototype. A ninth-century leavening of biographical detail is discernable in the Liber pontzjkalis. There the traditional sobriety and concision were enhanced by more flowing Latin, greater harmony of composition (Arnaldi 1956:34; Leonardi 198 1:473), and greater attention to personal traits. Of the gestalists examined here, Agnellus was the most biographical; his bishops are individuals, differing from each other even in those cases about which Agnellus stated, in all candour,

“where I could find no records, what type their life was through or study, or any authority,

nor learn of aged men,

lest a gap should

This

may

raphies,

not suffice but

here

the

to make problem

Gesta biogis one

of

nomenclature.

The categories

appear in the succession of holy bishops . . . with God helping me thanks to your

hagiography,

and

prayers, I composed their lives” (HolderEgger 1878:297; see also Sot 1985: 194). Nor is the form of the account of the epis-

early middle

copal

H. Grundmann drew them in very black ink (Stammler 1967:1273-1337; see also Noble 1985:349), the fact must not be overlooked that these lines were blurred in the early medieval period. Anastasius the Librarian wrote two of the lives in the Liber pontzj?calis, then turned to writing and translating saints’ lives, unaware of his interdisciplinary leap. Anastasius’ writings are quite similar. Agnellus likewise was not writing hagiography but felt free to insert miracles and other supernatural events usual in saints’ lives in his work, as did the authors of the Neapolitan Gesta (HolderEgger 1878:291, 298; also Waitz 1878a:4234). Agnellus called some of the bishops “saintly”, and they may well have been

deeds

static

and

unchanging

(for-

mulaic). After Hadrian I the authors of the Liber pontzjkulis began noting the lineage of the popes in their biographies, a development which parallels the evolution in hagiography in this period. F. Bosl demonstrated clearly how in the seventh century a new sort of saint, the noble saint, had emerged to replace the antiquated, antisocial (but still revered) ascetic of earlier days, in response to new social and political demands (Boesch-Gajano 1976: 16 1; also De Geaffier 1977:145, 148; contra see Poulin 197 1: 137-8). This new hagiographical ideal affected the papal lives in the eighth century, a period of similar evolution for the lives of the bishops of Naples. The work of John the Deacon cannot be mistaken for that of the earlier author, whose poor biographical information is striking (Leonardi 1981:47 l-90; Cilento 1969:58, 68; Devos 1958: 151-87; Philippart 1977:43). John was concerned with family and education in his bishops, as well as with the splendor of their achievements. This is evidence of the close relationship between the two biographical genres, and is likewise a demonstration that the form of the accounts could, and did, evolve. The descriptions of the deeds and lives of the bishops are far more biographical than has been perceived, then, and they are not redundant, static, or bound to stereotypes.

today

by critics,

historical

of biography, works

had less relevance

ages. However

precisely

used in the mod-

ern scholarship may desire to draw lines of demarcation between literary genres, and

thought of as saints at Ravenna, even without the institution of any official cult or formal vita, a practice quite common in this period (Aigran 1953: 177). Another illustration of the commingling of genres is the interpenetration of history and biography, described by Sot as the most powerful tool in the hands of the gestalist (Sot 1981a: 95-6). The Gesta were edificatory biographical reading (or listening) with strong doses of chronicle or history added. The earliest, clumsy section of the Neapolitan Gesta, with its generous inclusion of entire passages from Bede and other historians, best exemplifies this. As Cilento remarked long ago (1969:55), history, hagiography, and

193

biography were not independent of each other in the middle ages. But few students of the Gesta have taken this observation account

(with the exception

of F-J.

into

Schmale

1985: 111-14). Other scholars continue to view the Liber pontzjkalis as “in no strict

Suetonius and Plutarch the description was a necessary part of their characterisation. To these authors it was a fact of luminous clarity that the spirit of a person expressed itself in the shape of the body and its various characteristics.

Both had mastered

physiog-

sense biographical” and as having “nothing in common with biography’s early medieval

nomics, the science of discerning the personality of a person from outward appearance,

distant

a science

cousin,

hagiography”

(Noble

1985:349; see also Voss 1970:55). It is true that as biographies the lives of the bishops in question do not closely resemble Suetonius’ Twelve Caesars or even Sulpicius Severus’ Life of St Martin. Yet they retained some features of these masterpieces of biography. The most striking of these was the persistent inclusion in the Gesta of physical descriptions. In formal hagiography the description of the appearance and character of the individual under scrutiny would be less surprising. The Gesta, compared to most vitae, attenuated the importance of personality. But the episcopal lists from Rome, Ravenna, and Naples all contain some physical descriptions. These constituted the most reliable method available to the writers to distinguish between bishops who might otherwise have been lost in an amorphous mass, or lineage. And while the deeds and events of one pontificate necessarily differ from those of another, the description of the differing aspect of the bishops was instead not necessary; it implies a conscious attempt to personalise each biography. Certainly the descriptions were not endlessly diverse, repetition insinuating itself together with stereotypes. Nevertheless, they are important enough in the narrative of the Gesta te deserve study. Physical descriptions formed an integral part of ancient biography. For both

194

which

enabled

one to understand

a soul by examining a face. Suetonius had been the first Latin biographer to link biography to physiognomies. Hence he provided the norm for the ways in which Western biographers should analyse their subjects’ outward appearance in order for readers to understand their personalities. The Suetonian subdivision of physical descriptions into analysis of the entire body in general terms, analysis of a momentary expression caused by a fleeting emotion, and photographic analysis of the body in detail proved decisive for later biography. His predilection for the latter technique was also influential (Cox 1983:xi, ... 14-5; Misener 1924: 115-l 7; Luck x111, 1964:334, 341). Just as the science of physiognomies was not recondite or obscure in antiquity, it enjoyed great favour in the later middle ages. The early middle ages, however, were not rich in treatises and technical discussions on ways to discover personality from outIn part this may be ward appearance. explained by the fact that most of the authorities on the subject had written in Greek, a language few knew in the West. The authors of the Gesta probably had not read treatises on physiognomies; still their constant juxtaposition of moral character and physical aspect reveals physiognomical (Duchesne 1955a:368, 486; influence

195513352, 69, 71, 73, 87, 151, 191; also Holder-Egger

1878:283,

287-9,

292,

308,

337,

355, 366; Waitz 1878a:403-4). St Augustine, Isidore of Seville, and St Gregory the Great were considered learned in the science (P&y’s Realencycloph’die 39: 1068). Few authors

had

a wider

and

more

devoted

readership in the early middle ages; but their books were only one of the channels through which physiognomical thinking could be absorbed in the early medieval world. In the case of Italy, with which this essay is concerned, much evidence indicates that physiognomic thinking was current among people who had little opportunity to consult the Fathers. The Dialogues of Gregory the Great (Moricca 1924:40-l) contain the revealing tale of the humble monk Constantius whom a peasant judged unsaintly because of his looks. Gregory siezed this chance to condemn the foolishness of the common custom of evaluating inner qualities from the outward appearance of a person. The episode implies that in this period physiognomies was not only an erudite and formalised science but was practised even at a popular level. Once again, therefore, the two-tiered model of cultural development seems inappropriate for the early middle ages. Physiognomic theory, indeed, was a point of contact between educated clergy and the uneducated faithful. The pious uneducated pilgrim expected the saint to look saintly while the pope, Gregory, expected the good bishop to have a certain type of nose (Migne 1896:23-6). Both groups thought of appearance in physiognomic terms although some of their physiognomic notions were informal, not derived from books.

A

further

thinking

illustration

at the

comes from Lombard elite

countenance

were of Rothari’s

of physiognomic

non-literate

level

in Italy

law. For the Lombard

and general

appearance

extreme social importance. Edict the composition prices

In for

wounds

to the face or head that leave per-

manent

scars

are

meticulously

listed

for

freemen, not for the various subordinate classes. For all categories the teeth that are most visible “when laughing” were more important than molars, presumably bemore cause they affected appearance (Bluhme 1868:46-56, 80-6, 104-9, 127). The Lombard nobles’ interest in their appearance can also be detected engraved on their tombstones. These describe their occupants as “most florid and robust, he was of admirable shape”, or “beauteous amidst beautiful women, having a serene face and lively eyes” (Arslan n.d.:250, 264). These messages were directed at people who associated certain looks with certain qualities. At the literate, more formal, level it is worth noting that Byzantine hagiography was studied and translated at Rome and Naples during the Carolingian age. This hagiographical school had been influenced by Plutarch, one of the classical physiognomists (Misener 1924: 110, 120). The influential Life of St Anthony by Athanasius, translated into Latin in the late fourth century by Evagrius, contained passages such as “it was not his physical dimensions that distinguished him from the rest, but the stability of character and purity of his soul. His soul being free of confusion, he held his outer senses also undisturbed, so that from his soul’s joy his face was cheerful as well and from the movements of his body it was possible to sense and perceive the stable

195

condition

of

Athanasius

supported

ples

the

soul . ..“.

(Gregg

1980:67).

physiognomic

technique

with

statements

biblical

Such

usage

in the great

the Ravennan

examof

biog-

raphical models of Latin literature and in the early saints’ lives, mostly written in the fourth

century

method enjoyed had an impact

when

the

physiognomic

its apogee (Evans 1935: 15)) on the way the writers of

Gesta framed their accounts. Of the gestalists dealt with here, Agnellus of Ravenna was the most overt user of physical descriptions framed in physiognomic terms. Perhaps influenced by him a later poet described Agnellus as “shapely of face . . . with small limbs . . . of small body” (Holder-Egger 1878:276). This physiognomic comparison of talent and size may be accidental, but the small Ravennan himself skilfully employed all three of the Suetonian physiognomic techniques of analysis known to classical authors. His accomplished descriptions are the most photographic of those in the Gesta. He dwelt especially on the face, the eyes, and the hair of his bishops; indeed baldness was one of his Often Agnellus infavourite elements. formed his readers that a bishop modice calvus fuit or that he was recalvatus modice, and this interest can be linked to ancient literary portraits (Vogt 1934:9). Pseudo-Aristotle, the leading authority in the field, had enunciated a basic physiognomic theory that “the most crucial area is that around the eyes and the forehead and the face” for in those places the spirit was most visible (Foerster 1893:91). The large eyes that Agnellus attributed to several bishops were for Pseudo-Aristotle bovine and a sign of tranquillity (Foerster 1893:69), so it is normal that these bishops never appear irascible in

196

account.

Agnellus also made general assessments of the whole body of the bishops, although these

are almost

the pulchritude

always

of these

positive, men.

Their

extolling beauty

was a reflection of their impeccable upright conduct. The one exception was the hapless bishop Theodore iquitous prelate”

(died 693), “a most inwho inevitably was “of

horrible shape, horrible appearance, and full of all wickedness”. Agnellus applied descriptive censorship to him by omitting to read his epitaph, an invaluable source of information; similar reticence was accorded to the schismatic Maurus (died 673) (Holder-Egger 1878:360, 349). The other bishops are notable for their balanced proportions, proportions which manifested to the physiognomist the integrity of their character. Indeed, that nothing in the looks of the good man should be extreme in size or colour was a pillar of physiognomic theory (Foerster 1893:49, 9 1). When Bishop John is described as mediocris statura, net satis longa habuit net breve tenuit. Optimus corpore, net macilentus, net multum pinguis he is typifying the proportions preferred by physiognomists. They interpreted such proportions as a sign of moral rectitude (Evans 1935:44-5). Agnellus’ skilled pen also sketched fleeting expressions on his bishops’ faces. This was one of the Suetonian methods of describing a person’s appearance so as to reveal character. The most common sort of momentary expression in the Ravennan Liber pontzjkalis was the jovial face with which the gallant bishops confronted so many vicissitudes. It need not have been mere political expediency or publicity, for it was also, in physiognomical terms, a sign of patient acceptance of any fate and of benign

disposition. From the sixth century pontzjkalis pope’s

proper

death,

was

literary onward, updated

the Liber at

or even, with lugubrious

each an-

ticipation, before the event. Thus the Roman writers relied on local traditions or perhaps personal observation of the popes during their pontificate to describe them. In this they differed from Agnellus. Nevertheless the Roman descriptions were vague and flat compared to the Agnellian ones, although the gap closed slightly in the ninth-century lives. The Romans preferred the first, general physiognomic method, with concise general descriptions of appearance rather than minute analysis. These accounts were blended into the earlier and least structured section of the biography: before the narrative truly began, a physicalmoral sketch fixed in the reader’s (or author’s) mind the essentials of the pope’s personality, preparing thus to launch into the events of his pontificate. Such an arrangement, first adopted in the biography of Eugenius (Duchesne 1955a:341), later enjoyed favour at Naples and Ravenna. The redactors of the Roman book insisted more on the qualities of character, yet Pope Conon, who died in 687, was depicted as being “of angelic appearance, with venerable greyness of hair” (Duchesne 1955a:398). A host of other popes received equally flattering and detailed treatment. Amongst these, Pope Hadrian, famous for his relations with the Carolingians, is particularly interesting. This elegans et nimis decorabilis persona (Duchesne 1955a:487) was an aristocrat; for physiognomists milieu affected appearance and Hadrian’s family background is certainly reflected in his portrait. Throughout the Liber pontzjkalis the

portraits

mirror

sonalities. The popes were described

the

popes’

as jocund

permen,

often smiling. Hilaritas prevailed especially after 800, but Zachary, Leo III, Paschal, Sergius, ing

and Stephen

(respectively,

are all described Duchesne

smil-

1955a:428;

1955b:l, 52, 86-7, 191). The benign smile was usually associated with acts of charity but could also appear when hospitality was being extended to Lombard kings. As Duchesne remarked ( 1955a:437), the author must actually have seen Zachary eating with Liutprand. All these descriptions are examples of the second physiognomic method of analysing the effect of events on a person’s countenance. Although the biographers sometimes implied that it was permanent, the hilaris vultu was a fleeting one. It was a type of smile which did not, of course, detract from the impassivity and stateliness of behaviour and appearance so important for the prelates. Their dignified stability of expression and behaviour was emphasized in several descriptions (Duchesne 1955a:367, 369, 388, 396, 426, 440, 486; 1955b:l, 140, 151), designed to impress upon the public how unshaken the popes remained on all occasions. A smile was important enough to be recorded in the Liber pontzjkalis because it signalled the benignity of the popes to a public versed in the science of understanding character from appearance. The subvesuvian biographers relied on tradition, written or oral, for their meagre physical descriptions. At Naples the descriptions did not gain tenor or precision as the time of redaction approached the lifetime of the bishops described; the acute John the Deacon did not bother to describe

197

the looks of the bishops of his time, only their moral outlines. As at Rome, the first

1878b: 174, 109). A person’s physical appearance mattered enormously in early

type of physiognomic

medieval

description

was pre-

Italy,

and despite

Vogt

(1934:53)

ferred by the Neapolitans. One of the earliest bishops, Ephevus, was “beautiful in body, still more in mind”. Yet it was the

words such as “pleasant looking” or “beautiful” were not meaningless in the literary

probity,

graved

saintliness

moderation,

vigour,

in the abstract

often recorded

(Waitz

severity,

that

1878a:403,

were

and more

404,406).

The juxtaposition of physical and moral characteristics is typical of physiognomies, for one mirrored the other. Although the Neapolitan vitae were less concerned with physical appearance, their sketches serve to individuate the bishops even in the absence of minute descriptions. Since biography is “evocative, not descriptive” (Cox 1983:xiii), the early medieval authors sought to evoke the memory of a bishop using details of description with more literary import than photographic accuracy. The talented writer was more concerned with the literary (physiognomical) efficacy of his account, with its capacity to evoke an idea of the bishop and his behaviour, than with absolute fidelity to reality. Another great writer of this period, Paul the Deacon, who was certainly not writing biographies, included some physical sketches of the characters in his history in a similar way, to give his audience a more tangible sense of their presence and of their disposition. In the Historia Langobardorum, a powerful king looked powerful, as did Authari and Grimoald (Waitz 1878b:109, 155). And a queen who did not look queenly worried about her rustic appearance enough to tell her husband to find himself a more suitable wife. The forma of Authari’s wife, instead, was such that she could justly be queen of the Lombards (Waitz

198

descriptions. on

They

upper echelons essential,

were, after all, even en-

tombstones.

Especially

of society a certain

as a brief examination

in the look was

of the Lom-

bard laws on facial mutilation reveals. A beautiful face was an asset to be guarded and used even by non-Lombards; Pope Conon’s appearance was said to have actually contributed to his election (Duchesne 1955a:368; 1955b:71). In this period physical beauty and beauty of soul were intimately related, so Conon reassured his electors about his piety merely by looking angelic (Ladner 1984:33 1). The descriptions in the Gesta and other literature informed the audience of the character behind the face and justified social and political status. To achieve this end the descriptions could include stereotypes and embellishments and still remain correct or authentic for the early medieval public. The next question in need of examination is the very prickly one of the quality of the sources the gestalists used for their descriptions. Very few of the bishops described had been seen by the authors of their lives. But actually, as Vogt pointed out (1934:62, 70), the physical descriptions did not depend on what we consider authentic, reliable information (with the possible exception of those papal lives composed by eye-witnesses). Still, the conclusion need not be that the physical descriptions are fantasies devoid of significance, based on the whim of the describer. For the problem is not to discover “to what degree the descriptions are life-

like”, as F. Graus put it (Boesch-Gajano 1976: 158). They were entirely life-like to

the

people

and

who considered

them

signs

of per-

Liber

pontificalis,

such pictures

noted

(for example

Duchesne

1955a:385;

and

described

Waitz

1878a:405

1955b:80,

111).

sonality and behaviour. T,he various sources of the literary portraits demonstrated their quality when the bishops’ behaviour mirrored the physiognomic signs in his appear-

In early medieval Europe they were not exceptional, for Ermoldus Nigellus gave a lov-

ance.

contemporaries

In this sense all the sources

cellent. Today sources remains

were ex-

only one of the avowed available for inspection and

study, namely the pictures. Often in this period wall decorations were described and admired by the literate, an indication that Gregory the Great’s famous definition of pictures as the Scriptures of the illiterate (slightly later John Damascene echoed him) was too restrictive. The gestalists, who were definitely a literate group, scrutinised old and recent murals with very keen interest, so keen in fact that it has been called archeological (Guente 1980:85-g 1) . Both the Neapolitan and the Roman episcopal lists described mural portraits, though not as thoroughly as Agnellus. At Ravenna Agnellus had the opportunity to scrutinise the faces of former bishops in mural decorations. He was self-conscious enough to explain the origin of his physical descriptions. He said “if you wonder how I could learn about their true appearance, know that pictures taught me, for in those days they always made pictures realistic”. To further defend the authenticity of his descriptions he used the fortifying authority of St Ambrose, who had also described his own hero without ever having seen him (Holder-Egger 1878:297, 348). Such reliance on mural portraits raises the complex question of the relationship between literary and artistic portraits. The redactors of the Neapolitan Gesta, as those of

ing account (Brunholzl

of the frescoes at Ingelheim 1978:391-2) and many other mention

pictures

they saw.

Indeed, a comprehensive review of this evidence would be fruitful and might answer important questions on how the early medieval public understood pictures and portraits. (For a later period G. Ladner’s delicate research casts some light on the relationship between literary and mural portraits: Ladner 1964). Of course the matter cannot be settled here, but it should be noted that these two types of portrait functioned in a similar fashion. Researchers are now beginning to appreciate the subtlety of western theologians’ understanding of religious images in the iconoclastic period. The Carolingian document known as the Libri carolini maintained that although pictures represented only exterior traits they could recall the real existence of the person they reproduced (Chazelle Parallel thinking was 1986:173, 178). applied to the literary portraits. The accounts of appearance summoned a presence and were a vivid mnemonic device for the readers whether they were based on a mural portrait or on tradition or on the author’s reconstruction. The authenticity of the gestalists’ description, that is, the resemblance of the description to the person, was to them of secondary relevance; to them it evoked a underlined the status real personality, (since everyone looked his part) and suitability to his role of each individual, and enhanced the individuality of each biography.

199

Agnellus considered the murals a source of the first order but he subordinated his observation of them to literary exigencies, so that his physical descriptions are strikingly different

from the portraits

that scho-

lars take to have been his models 1974: 1 l-l 2). marked

Gerhard

Ladner

how the first physical

(Nauerth

instead

re-

descriptions

in the Liber pontzjkalis coincided with the first signs of verism in the mural portraits of the popes, although the description of Pope Conon preceded Hadrian’s by a century (Ladner 1941:110-l 1). Neither type of portrait was a faithful rendition of the in terms of photobishops’ appearance graphic verism, a fact remarked on but not analysed by Ladner (1941: l-4). However, to the medieval audience a painting with large eyes or a literary description along the same lines was realistic because both signalled a certain real personality and both evoked a tangible presence. This is what Agnellus meant when he called a Justinianic mosaic realistic: his understanding of realism was nurtured in physiognomic thought. If the literary descriptions were veristic it would be natural for them to record some alterations over time, for age alters appearance. Amendments to the initial accounts were never provided. For a pope of limited longevity, Valentinus for instance, a static or constant appearance could be justified. Some pontificates, however, extended over twenty years, and the Neapolitan bishops, as a genus, demonstrated formidable good health. Even when (and this was another ninth-century speciality) childhood and upbringing were related in the biography (for Duchesne 1955a:363, the child prodigies, 440; 1955b:l, 49, 52, 71, 86, 140, 151. Also

200

Waitz 1878a:427,430,433), the physical descriptions provided a single, immutable image. This immutability was important since the days of Sulpicius made a saintly episcopal

prerequisite

biographies

Severus,

who had

of constantia. The described the

bishop’s life as an apex (Cox 1983:25, 27, Poulin 197 1: 107)) a prolonged, uninterrupted state of perfection or grace, reflected in his consistent pleasant outward appearance (Theodore of Ravenna was consistently depraved and immutably ugly, too). Such a man had no need to evolve in personality and therefore was endowed with static appearance. The episcopal biographers of the ninth century espoused the hagiographic topos of the precocious, serious child predestined to an excellent life, thus maximising the stagnation or constantia of the bishops’ characters. In consequence the gestalists felt no need to update the physical description which, in any case, mirrored the immutable character. Indubitably the collections of episcopal biographies discussed here are institutional histories with a purpose. They served to maintain the position of the local church on various subjects, often of political import. Anti-Byzantinism was their normal political hue, especially at Rome (Noble 1985:351-2; Bertolini 1970:431, 434, 444-6, 451, 455; Leonardi 1981:479); at Naples local magnates preoccupied the clergy more than did the Byzantines, who were not viewed charitably either (Waitz 1878a:424-435; Cilento 1969:49); and Agenllus, scandalized by his bishop’s servile attitude before the emperor, wrote to assert the autonomy of the clergy (Dizionario biog. degli Italiani 1969:429-30). The patria, whether Roman, Ravennan, or Neapolitan, was shepherded through the

ages by the pen of the authors, beginning in The Neapolitans and Apostolic times. Ravennans,

perhaps

because

they lived

in

ports, displayed a degree of cosmopolitan _ interest in foreign affairs, and did not merit the title “parochial”

which instead

has been

attributed to the Romans (Noble 1985:351). All these other preoccupations of the Gesta did not cause the bishops to be portrayed as anaemic characterless automatons. The Gesta were biographical as well as institutional accounts which focused on individuation enough to incorporate hagiographic and other methods in order to recreate as vividly as possible a sketch of a bishop. Of these methods, that of mingling a physical description with a moral portrait was the most effective. And although it is not possible to demonstrate the gestalists’ direct use of physionomic works, there is ample evidence that behind the smiling countenance, greyish hair, and large eyes, the authors saw illumined placid souls. As demonstrated here it would be worthwhile for scholars to re-examine the role of physiognomic theory in early medieval portraiture, literary and pictorial. If physiognomies cast some light on the use of literary portraits in the Italian episcopal Gesta it could serve a similar function in other areas of early medieval culture.

Literature Aigran, R. 1953. L’hagiographie, ses sources, ses methodes, son histoire. Paris. Arnaldi, G. 1956. Giovanni Immonide e la cultura a Roma al tempo di Giovanni VIII. Bollettino dell’Istituto Storico Italian0 per il medio evo 68:33-90. Arslan, E. (ed.) n.d. Arte de1 primo millennio. Torino. Bertolini, 0. 1970. 11 Liber pontilicalis. Settimane di

studio 17:387-455. Spoleto. Bluhme, F. (ed.) 1868. Edictus Rothari. MGH Legum 4: 18-30. Hannover. Boesch-Gajano, S. (ed.) 1976. Agiografia altomedievale. Bologna. Brunholzl, F. 19751 Geschichte der Lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, 1. Von Cassiodor bis zum Ausklang der Karolingischen Erneuerung. Miinchen. Chazelle, C. 1986. Matter, spirit, and image in the Libri carolini. Recherches augustiniennes 2 1: 163-84. Cilento, N. 1969. Civil& napoletana de1 medioevo nei secoli VI-XIII. Cava dei Tirreni. Coussin, J. 1953. Suetone physiognomiste dans Les vies des XII cesars. Revue des etudes latines 31:234-56. Cox, P. 1983. Biography in late antiquity. A quest for the holy man. Berkeley. Devos, P: 1958. L’oeuvre de Guarimpotus, hagiographe napolitain. Analecta Bollandiana 76:151-87. Duchesne, I. (ed.) 1955a and b. Liber pontificalis. 2 ~01s. Paris. Evans, E. 1935. Roman descriptions of personal appearance in history and biography. Harvard studies in classical philology 46:43-84. Evans, E. 1969. Physiognomies in the ancient world. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 59:5-101. Fasoli, G. 1970. Rileggendo il Liber pontificalis di Agnello Ravennate. Settimane di studio 17:457-95. Spoleto. Foerster, R. (ed.) 1893. Scriptores physiognomici graeci et latini. Leipzig. GaifIier, G. de. 1977. Recueil d’hagiographie. Bruxelles. Gregg, G. (ed.) 1980. Athanasius. Life of Anthony. New York. Guente, B. 1980. Histoire et culture historique dans l’occident meditvale. Paris. Holder-Egger, 0. (ed.) 1878. Liber pontificalis ecclesiae ravennatis. MGH Scriptores rerum langobardicarum. Hannover. Ladner, G. 1941. Die Papstbildnisse des Altertums und des Mittelalters, 1. Roma. Ladner, G. 1964. Das alteste Bild der hl. Franziskus von Assisi. Ein Beitrag zur mittelalterlichen Portratikonographie. In: P. Claussen and P. Scheibert (eds.), Festschrift P. E. Schramm 1:449-60. Wiesbaden. Ladner, G. 1965. Ad imaginem Dei. The image of man in medieval art. La trobe, Pennsylvania. Ladner, G. 1984. Die Papstbildnisse des Alterturns und des Mittelalters, 3. Citti de1 Vaticano.

201

Laistner, M. 1976. Thought and letters in western Europe, AD 500-900. New York. Leonardi, C. 1981. L’agiografia romana nel secolo IX. In: Hagiographie cultures et societes, IV-XII s., 471-90. Etudes augustiniennes. Paris. Luck, G. 1964. Die Form der suetonischen Biographie und der friihen Heiligenviten. In: Mullus. Festschrift T. Klauser, 230-41. Miinster. Migne, J. (ed.) 1896. Regula pastoralis Gregorii magni. PL 77. Paris. Misener, G. 1924. Iconistic portraits. Classical philology 19:97-123. Moricca, U. (ed.) 1924. Gregorio Magno. I dialoghi. Roma. Nauerth, C. 1974. Agnellus von Ravenna. Untersuchungen zur archaeologischen Methode des Ravennatischen Chronisten. Miinchen. Noble, T. 1985. A new look at the Liber ponlificalis. Archivium historiae pontificiae 23:347-58. Noble, T. 1987. John Damascene and the iconoclastic controversy. In: T. Noble and J. Contreni (eds.), Studies in honor of R. Sullivan, 95-116. Kalamazoo, Michigan. Philippart, G. 1977. Les legendiers latins et autres manuscrits hagiographiques. Tournhout. Picard, J-C. 1981. Conscience urbaine et culte des saints. De Milan sous Liutprand a Verone sous P epin I d’Italie. In: Hagiographie cultures et societis, 455-69. Etudes augustiniennes. Paris. Poulin, J-G. 1971. L’ideal de sainett dans I’Aquitaine carolingienne d’apres les sources hagiographiques, 750-950. Quebec. Schmale, F-J. 1985. Funktion und Formen mittelalterlichen Geschichtsschreibung. Eine Einfuhrung. Darmstadt. Sot, M. 1978. Historiographie episcopale et modtle familial en occident au IXe sciecle. Annales ESC 1978:433-49. Sot, M. 1981a. Arguments hagiographiques et historiographiques dans les Gesta episcoporum. In: Hagiographie cultures et societes, 95-104. Etudes augustiniennes. Paris. Sot, M. 1981b. Gesta episcoporum, Gesta abbatum. Tournhout. Sot, M. 1985. Rhitorique et technique dans les prefaces des Gesta episcoporum (IX-XII s.). Cahiers de civilisation meditvale 28:181-200. Stammler, W. (ed.) 1967. Deutsche Philologie im Aufriss, 3. Second edition. Berlin. Vogt, H. 1934. Die literarische Personenschilderung des friihen Mittelalters. Leipzig. Voss, B. 1970. Beriihrungen von Hagiographie und

202

Historiographie in der Spitantike. Friihmittelalterlichen Studien 4:53-69. Waitz, G. (ed.) 1878a. Gesta episcoporum neapolitanorum. MGH Scriptores rerum langobardicarum 398-436. Hannover. Waitz, G. (ed.) 1878b. Paulus Diaconus. Historia Langobardorum. MGH Scriptores rerum langobardicarum 12-187. Hannover. Wiischer-Becchi, E. 1900. Sulla recostruzione di tre dipinti descritti da Giovanni Diacono. Niovo bollettino di archeologia cristiana 6:235-5 1.