Petition, Prostration, and Tears: Painting and Prayer in Roman Catacombs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article examines the act of prayer (broadly defined) in the catacombs of early Christian Rome, focusing on depictions of prayer (the popular figure of the orant) and on the poems of Prudentius, which seem to describe the encounter between pilgrim and tomb shrine. The article is generally well written, and cites a good range of primary and secondary sources (though with a few crucial ones missing--see below). The author seems to be aware of most of the major developments in scholarship on the issues raised.

My main concern here is one of argument: at the conclusion of the article, I am left unclear as to its original contribution to scholarship. The development of the catacombs (and associated basilicas), the birth and evolution of catacomb painting traditions (pagan/polytheist, Christian, Jewish), the traditions of prayer in the catacombs (which are underdescried here--pilgrim graffiti mentioned only in passing, and other forms of pilgrim engagement e.g. ex votos not discussed) and Prudentius' visualisation of prayer at early Christian shrines have all been explored more extensively by others. The author is correct that in a sense it doesn't matter if the painting of Cassian described by Prudentius was physically real--at any rate, it is evidence of the types of visualisation (mental or optical) that pilgrims were expected to practice when in the catacombs--but this is a topic that has been treated already (e.g. by Cillian O'Hogan and Christian Kaesser--see below). The author needs to consider what their novel contribution to the scholarly discussion is--perhaps this might become clear if the author reframed the discussion in terms of those emotions (tears etc) using some of the extensive literature on the history of emotion, or on embodied religion (which differs somewhat from 'material religion' as a frame).

While generally well referenced, at some key points, the author has not engaged with some of the key secondary bibliography on some of the (many) points that they raise. In the context of work on Prudentius, particularly on the poet's engagement with early Christian visual traditions, Cillian O'Hogan's book Prudentius and the Landscapes of Late Antiquity is vital (also Christian Kaesser's article 'The Body is Not Painted On: Ekphrasis and Exegesis in Prudentius' Peristephanon 9', Ramus 2002); on martyrs' cults and on the debate between relic and , Lucy Grig's essential Making Martyrs in Late Antiquity; on catacomb paintings, Robin Jensen's Understanding Early Christian Art; and on the catacombs and their fourth- and fifth-century development generally, the important critical work of Nicola Denzey Lewis, The Early Modern Invention of Late Antique Rome, which challenges some of the traditional narrative (recited here) about how systematic the monumentalisation and centralisation of the Roman catacomb 'route' were the period. Engagement with some of these works might help the author sharpen that sense of novelty.

Author Response

Thank you for this helpful and instructive critique. I was not aware that the goals and focus of the article were so unclear, and have rectified that with a new title, new abstract, and extensive revisions (they are much more specific than it appeared to you). The references to Rebillard's book and the article by Kaesser were very helpful and helped shape the revisions. I managed to insert references to Jensen, O'Hogan, and Grig, though I completely disagree with O'Hogan's thesis of Prudentius's feelings about art (he obviously has never been in Rome, or hadn't been when he wrote his book). Denzey Lewis's book (which I think is poorly framed) is not relevant. The discussion of Prudentius's (fictional) painting of Hippolytus is now much longer and includes important information about his supposed residence at the temple of Diana at Nemi, which seems key to the interpretation of the poem. All this took a great deal of extra time and work, but I do think the article is much the better for it.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This essay is publishable as is.

Author Response

Thank you!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Stimulating material and interesting approach.  Just needs a bit more theoretical context.

Author Response

Thank you. My intentional was not to be theoretical, and I have greatly clarified my approach in the revision.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text is very interesting, but perhaps a bit partial in its selection of literary texts and images. I would suggest, in the future, expanding the sample size to strengthen (or not) the current conclusions.

Author Response

Thank you. I have clarified the (very specific) goals of the paper in the revision, which I hope will explain the relatively limited choice of texts and images. I did expand the choice of literary texts in the (much expanded) discussion of Prudentius's painting of Hippolytus, and this did, I believe, enhance the value of this part of the paper.