[Title] A Barbarian King in Imperial Disguise
[Subtitle] The Relationship between the Iconography of the Last Supper Mosaic in the Sant’Apollinare Nuovo and Contemporary Customs at Theodoric’s Court (ca. 453‐526) in Ravenna
[Author] Milan E. van Manen
[Words] 4573 (excluding footnotes)
[Text]
Already in ancient times the idea was present that eating and drinking together was a pleasurable experience. For example, in the Book of Sirach in which the shared meal is compared to an enjoyable memory: ‘The remembrance of Josias is like the composition of the perfume that is made by the art of the apothecary: it is sweet as honey in all mouths, and as music at a banquet of wine’.1 During a
banquet people would not only eat and drink, but they would also be entertained with music and dance. They enjoyed one another’s company and the resulting conversation. A banquet could be delightful; a sweet enjoyment that can still be found in the modern ambiguous meaning of the Dutch word for ‘banquet’, referring both to a dinner and a very sweet pastry.
In the Sant’Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, the former palace church of Theodoric the Great’s palace complex, a banquet is depicted in mosaic placed in the highest part of the nave (fig. 1). Against a golden, sheeny background
thirteen figures recline at a table on which fishes are displayed. This mosaic (ca. 493‐526) narrates the Biblical story of the Last Supper. 2 On the left reclines
Christ, dressed in a purple robe and wearing a richly decorated cross nimbus. Of the other apostles, the majority are looking into the direction of the figure reclining on the rightmost side of the couch, the figure that in all probability represents Judas.
1 The Bible. 1611. Authorized. King James Version. Sirach 49:1. In the Vulgate the word ‘convivio’ is used for ‘banquet’.
2 Here will be assumed that the Last Supper mosaic has been commissioned and made between 493 AD, the year in which Theodoric conquered Ravenna, and 526, the year in which Theodoric died.
John Moorhead, Theodoric in Italy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992) 32. Herwig Wolfram, Geschichte der Goten (München: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1980) 408.
Deborah M. Deliyannis, Ravenna in Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010) 109, 136, 157, 343‐344.
The famous Byzantine historian Procopius’ mentions in his De bello Gothico that Theodoric killed Odoacar during a banquet: ‘Mit erheuchelter Freundlichkeit lud er [Theodoric] ihn [Odoacar] zu einem Gastmahl und ließ ihn dort niedermachen.’
In the following will be claimed that the iconographical rendering of the banquet on the mosaic of the Last Supper stems from the contemporary
ceremonies and customs of Theodoric the Great’s court in Ravenna (ca. 453‐ 526).3 By doing so I will argue that the iconography of the Last Supper is not
based on the imperial art from the Roman Empire, which, according to André Grabar, was the main source for the iconography of early Christian art.4 It was
Thomas Mathews who claimed that Christ’s rendering in early Christian art was not based merely on the imperial iconography and cult.5 Instead I contend that
the iconography of the Last Supper has its origin in contemporary court
practices; practices that are, in their turn, based on certain banquet traditions of the aristocratic milieu of classical antiquity.6
The Last Supper Mosaic and Its Commissioner
The Last Supper mosaic in the Sant’Apollinare Nuovo was made in all likelihood between 493 and 526 AD under Theodoric the Great: the first year being the year in which Theodoric conquered Ravenna and the second year the one in which he passed away. It is my opinion that the mosaic is most likely produced in this specific period, because it does not seem to have undergone subsequent changes
3 Moorhead, Theodoric in Italy (1992) 12‐13. 453: the year of Theodoric’s birth.
4 André Grabar, Christian Iconography. A Study of Its Origins (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968) xliii and 6. ‘And this leads us to the repetition of a fact that is indeed banal but must be pointed out (...): that from its beginnings Christian imagery found expression entirely, almost uniquely, in the general language of the visual arts and with the techniques of imagery commonly practiced within the Roman Empire from the second to the fourth century.’ (p. xliii) ‘(...) and it can be said that at its birth Christian iconography received no more powerful impact than that of the images of the “governmental” cycle, by which term we designate all the subjects that
represent the political, military, and judicial powers of the Emperor and the agents of the Roman state and that show its activities.’ (p. 6)
5 Thomas F. Mathews, The Clash of Gods. A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993) 179. ‘If we remove the incubus of the imperial interpretation that has encumbered his image, the Christ who emerges is far more vigorous and more versatile (...). His rightful place is among the gods of the ancient world.’
6 This paper will not focus on visual sources underlying the iconography of the Last Supper mosaic in the Sant’Apollinare Nuovo. Nevertheless, I would like to mention a few images that show similarities with the mosaic composition.
In the Vergilius Romanus we can find an image in which Dido and Aeneas are having dinner. They both recline and on the small table in front of them two fishes are lying. [5th century, Vatican Library: Vat. lat. 3867]
Lit.: Erwin Rosenthal, The Illuminations of the Vergilius Romanus. A Stylistic and Iconographical Analysis (Zürich, 1972) 54‐55.
Two images from purple‐dyed parchment codices: The Last Supper in the Gospel Book of
Rossano [6th century, Treasury of the Cathedral of Rossano] and the representation of the Meal in Herod’s Palace in the Gospel Book of Sinope [6th century, Bibliothèque Nationale Paris].
There is a lot of discussion where these two last‐mentioned Gospel Books are manufactured, but my preference is for Constantinople. The production of purple‐dyed codices was reserved for the emperor only. These two examples, being a representation of a dinner with a similar
composition, argue in favour of the idea that this was a common way of having/representing an important dinner in the Byzantine Empire.
Lit. John Lowden, Early Christian & Byzantine Art (London, 1997) 84‐87.
in later times – unlike some other mosaics in the church that were altered during the time the building was re‐consecrated by the new orthodox rulers of Ravenna later in the sixth century. This strongly suggests that the mosaic was
manufactured during the reign of the Ostrogothic King Theodoric, whose capital and most important place of residence was Ravenna.7
A second argument in favour of this periodization emanates from the iconography and rendering of the scene itself. The Last Supper is an important narrative both in Arian thought – the theological teaching of which Theodoric was a follower – and in orthodox theology, and therefore the scene did not have to be removed or changed. Furthermore, the mosaic shows similar stylistic characteristics to contemporary Byzantine mosaics, a conformity that perhaps arose from Theodoric’s stay at the Byzantine court in Constantinople and his resultant knowledge of Byzantine art and visual culture.8
Theodoric had passed a large part of his youth at the Byzantine court after he had been brought to Constantinople as a collateral for a peace treaty between the Byzantine Emperor Leo I and the Ostrogothic people. At the court he probably received a good education and was able to move in imperial circles. He maintained a good relationship with emperor Zeno, the emperor who
invested him with several offices, including that of magister militum praesentalis. Theodoric had conquered northern parts of the Italian Peninsula in 493
defeating the Herulian king Odoacar – perhaps under orders from the Byzantine emperor – and afterwards built his palace with chapel (the later Sant’Apollinare Nuovo) in Ravenna.9
We thus can conclude that Theodoric must have been aware of the daily affairs at the Byzantine court. But can we infer from this that Theodoric saw the court in Constantinople as an example for his own court in Ravenna?10 Magnus
7 Mark J. Johnson, ‘Toward a History of Theoderic’s Building Program’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 42 (1988) 73‐96, 88.
Deliyannis, Ravenna in Late Antiquity (2010) 157.
8 Compare the Last Supper mosaic for example with the slightly later commissioned mosaic of Emperor Justinian in the San Vitale in Ravenna. Similarities are: the big staring eyes, the
hairstyle, the purple‐coloured robes of rulers (Emperor Justinian, Empress Theodora and Christ) and the golden backgrounds.
Deliyannis, Ravenna in Late Antiquity (2010) 343. Theodoric would have stayed for ten years in Constantinople.
Moorhead, Theodoric in Italy (1992) 13‐14, 89‐93. 9 Johnson, ‘Toward a History’ (1988) 73‐76, 79‐81. Moorhead, Theodoric in Italy (1992) 13.
The Sant’Apollinare Nuovo was under Theodoric probably dedicated to Christ (Gesù Cristo) and later to the Holy Martinus: San Martino in Caelo Aureo. The building was probably provided with a golden ceiling (caelo aureo: a golden heaven).
Gherardo Ghirardini, ‘Gli Scavi del Palazzo di Teodorico a Ravenna’, Monumenti Antichi 24 (1916) 737‐838, 816.
10 Already Friedrich Wilhelm Deichmann remarked that the mosaics of the Sant’Apollinare Nuovo seem to have Eastern iconographical roots.
Felix Ennodius (ca. 473‐521) wrote in his panegyricus (eulogy) of Theodoric the Great that his royal dignity radiated from him as a ‘purple glow’:
‘But also the beauty of his appearance should not be mentioned in the last place, because the gleam of purple of his royal face gives extra lustre to the purple of his dignity.’11
In this quote, Ennodius establishes an explicit link between Theodoric’s kingship and the Byzantine emperorship, because the colour purple was solely reserved for the Byzantine emperor.
Similarly Procopius (ca. 500‐560), the very famous Byzantine historiographer established a link between Theodoric’s kingship and the emperorship of the Byzantine ruler, when he writes about the Gothic War:
‘He refused to accept the insignia and the title of a Roman emperor. During his life he only allowed to be called ‘Rex’ – the name the Barbarians give their leaders – and he ruled over his subjects with imperial power. Thus was Theodoric (...) truly a real emperor (...)’12
Procopius thus states that although Theodoric did not appropriate the name and insignia of the Byzantine emperor, he did act as a true emperor. It seems unlikely to me that Procopius wanted to say that Theodoric’s court practices did not emulate the customs at the Byzantine court, by stating that the Ostrogothic king did not take over the imperial insignia. Both contemporary authors stress the imperial appearances of Theodoric’s dominion.13
According to Mark J. Johnson, the palace Theodoric commissioned in Ravenna resembled the imperial palace in Constantinople, as it would have looked like before the Nika‐uprising (532 AD). As corresponding features he mentions that the buildings are not situated in a straight, axial line; both palaces have a circus; and the main gate is situated in both palaces in the West and is named ‘Chalke’. Additionally, both palaces had a basilica with an entrance consisting of an arcade with three arches. Moreover, the mosaic floors of the palace rooms were decorated with similar the themes and topics.14 The
11 Christian Rohr, Der Theoderich‐Panegyricus des Ennodius (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1995) 260‐261 Panegyricus § 89. In Latin: ‘Sed nec formae tuae decus inter postrema
numerandum est, quando regii vultus purpura ostrum dignitatis inradiat.’ 12 Veh ed., Prokop Gotenkriege (1966) 13 Book V 26‐30.
‘Die Insignien und die Bezeichnung eines römischen Kaisers anzunehmen, lehnte er [Theodorik] ab. Zeitlebens ließ er sich nur “Rex” nennen – so heißen die Barbaren ihre Führer –, regierte aber über seine Untertanen mit kaiserlicher Machtfülle. So war Theodorich (...) in Wirklichkeit jedoch ein echter Kaiser (...)’ (Author translated German into English, the original was written in Greek.) 13 Johnson, ‘Toward a History’ (1988) 73‐76.
Veh ed., Prokop Gotenkriege (1966) 997‐999.
Bianca‐Jeanette Schröder, Bildung und Briefe im 6. Jahrhundert. Studien zum Mailänder Diakon Magnus Felix Ennodius (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2007) 1.
14 Johnson, ‘Toward a History’ (1988) 82‐85.
similarities in palace architecture between Constantinople and Ravenna, Theodoric’s knowledge of Byzantine court ceremonies and the way
contemporary authors spoke about Theodoric’s kingship, make it in my opinion feasible that Theodoric shaped his court after the imperial court in
Constantinople. This observation will prove of great value when returning to the Last Supper mosaic in Theodoric’s palace chapel.
The Banquet in the Ancient World
To say more about the way Christ and his disciples dine on the Last Supper mosaic, we will first concentrate on the classical banquet as it was held in Greek and Roman Antiquity. Besides the common dinner, the classical age also knew a more formal meal: the banquet. The banquet played an important role in the ancient societies of the Romans and the Greeks, because it served as an instrument or institute in which all kinds of social, political, cultural and cult proceedings could take place. An example of a social event that could occur during a banquet was the initiation of a young man into the adult world.15
The banquet was usually carried out according to certain conventions. Firstly, it was customary to eat in a reclining pose, instead of eating sitting upright. Figure 2 shows us a red‐figured kylix (ca. 470 BC), nowadays in the British Museum in London, on which we can see a few men reclining. The Greek presumably adopted the custom of reclining from the Assyrians16. Secondly, the
banquet was usually held in the evening. The most important meal in Greek Antiquity, the deipnon, was held in the early afternoon in the Archaic Period (ca. 750‐500 BC), and it was moved to the evening hours in the Classical Period (ca. 500‐330 BC). In Roman Times it remained customary to dine in the evening. The Romans gave this meal the name cena, a name still used in modern Italian.17
A man of means in Classical Antiquity could afford to build a special room in his home in which the evening dinner could be held. The Greek often situated this room, the andron18, close to the main entrance of the house, so guests (or
female and male prostitutes) could enter or leave the dining room unseen and undisturbed. In contrast to most other rooms in the classical house, the andron Deborah Mauskopf Deliyannis trans. and ed., Agnellus of Ravenna. The Book of Pontiffs of the Church of Ravenna (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2004) 77. 15 Dennis E. Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist. The Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2003) 13‐14.
16 Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist (2003) 18. 17 Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist (2003) 14‐21.
L. de Blois and R.J. van der Spek, Een kennismaking met de oude wereld (Bussum: Uitgeverij Coutinho, 2001) 73, 79 en 95.
Other classical images in which figures recline: Rolf Hurschmann, Symposienszenen auf
was often richly decorated and equipped with a mosaic floor. The Romans used to dine in a so‐called triclinium in which reclining couches, allowing three people to recline on the same couch, were often placed.19 The couches were positioned
along three walls, so the slaves could serve the reclining guests easily. The Greek
andron used to have reclining couches along all the four walls of the room.20
The mosaic floor of the triclinium in the so‐called ‘Villa of the Falconer’ in the Greek city of Argos is of interest, because it can be related to our mosaic in the Sant’Apollinare Nuovo. On this mosaic floor, dated to the late fifth or early sixth century, the contours of a semi‐circular table with surrounding reclining couches are visible (fig. 3). Such a table is called a ‘sigma‐table’ after the Greek letter s: ‘ς’. Following the floor’s patterns and placing reclining couches precisely on top of the contours, would create a stibadium. On these couches probably lay semi‐circular cushions. Besides the similarities concerning the shape of the couches and the table in both mosaics, we can also discern a plate with fish.21
A fourth characteristic of the classical banquet was the number of courses the guest would undergo (two) and the fact that wine was generously drunk by the participants. Wine was almost always diluted with water, perhaps to
postpone the moment of ultimate saturation. A fifth element of the banquet concerned the precise placing of people on the couches. In the Roman triclinium the host was placed at the extreme right – left for the viewer – of the couches. On the far left of the couches, the guest of honour would recline, because this place enabled somebody to converse with the host without being forced to turn their body. As we can see in the Gospel Book of Sinope (6th century) king Herod, being
the host of the dinner, is placed at the far right end of the reclining couches (fig. 4). In the Last Supper mosaic in the Sant’Apollinare Nuovo Christ takes this place.22
The classical banquet was not limited to one religious group or
population in classical Antiquity. Dennis E. Smith argues that the banquet took place according to fixed conventions among different ethnical and religious groups spread over the Mediterranean Area between roughly the years 300 BC
19 The word ‘triclinium’ can be divided in the components ‘three’ (Latin: tres, tres, tria) and ‘recline/bend’ (Latin: reclino). ‘Reclino’ is derived from the Greek ‘κλινω’, which means ‘to lie, to recline’.
20 Lisa Nevett, ‘Housing and Households. The Greek World’ in Classical Archaeology, eds. Susan E. Alcock and Robin Osborne (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2007) 216‐217.
Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist (2003) 25‐27.
For more information on dining rooms in classical Antiquity, see:
Katherine M.D. Dunbabin, ‘Ut Graeco More Biberetur: Greeks and Romans on the Dining Couch’ in: Inge Nielsen and Hanne Sigismund Nielsen eds., Meals in a Social Context. Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1998) 81‐ 101.
21 Gunilla Akerström‐Hougen, The Calendar and Hunting Mosaics of the Villa of the Falconer in
Argos (Stochkholm and Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeriet, 1974) 9‐11, 101‐103 and fig. 7:2. 22 Akerström‐Hougen, The Calendar and Hunting Mosaics (1974) 101‐102.
until 300 AD.23 From this we can conclude that a banquet could be organised at
important social, cultural or political events among Greeks, Jews or Christians. The classical banquet was a custom typical for the Ancient Greek and Roman World and within this world it crossed cultural and ethnical boundaries. But how did this world influence the event of Christ’s Last Supper?
The Last Supper as Classical Banquet
The New Testament gives us important indications about the way the Last Supper was held by Christ and his disciples. But before we examine these indications, we will first focus on the Jewish Feast of Pesach. All four gospels place the meal of Christ and his apostles in the tradition of this Jewish feast.24
The Feast of Pesach, commemorating the exodus from Egypt (Exodus 12), took place according to a number of standard conventions. The so‐called Mishnah description, which finds its earliest origins in the second century AD, but probably goes back to pre‐existing (oral) traditions, gives us an idea of how the
Pesach Feast may have taken placed. A large number of characteristics from the
Mishnah description of the Passover meal corresponds to the previously discussed characteristics of the classical banquet: the dinner was held in the evening, the guests would recline, the diner consisted of two to three courses and wine was drunk. It seems likely that Jews in the Hellenistic‐Roman Period shaped their Passover meal as being a classical banquet.25
Before concentrating ourselves on the characteristics of the Last Supper as recounted in the four Gospels, we will focus shortly on Theodoric the Great and the way he conceived the texts of the Gospels. In which language did
Theodoric read – or was read to him – the accounts of the four evangelists? Was it Greek, the language spoken at the Byzantine court, or perhaps Latin, the
23 Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist (2003) 14. 24 The Bible. 1611. Authorized. King James Version.
All four the gospels relate the Last Supper to the Jewish Pesach Feast:
Matthew 26:17: ‘Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?’
Mark 14:12: ‘And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?’ Luke 22:1: ‘Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.’ John: 13:1: ‘Now before the feast of the passover (...)’
In the Vulgate the word pascha is used for ‘eastern meal’ (see: Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:1 and John 13:1 (in genitive). Vulgata Clementina. 1592. Biblia Sacra juxta Vulgatam
Clementinam.
Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem Bonifatio Fischer, Iohanne Gribomont, H.F.D. Sparks, W. Thiele, Robertus Weber introduced and eds. (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt Stuttgart, 1969).
25 Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist (2003) 147‐150.
David Noy, ‘The Sixth Hour is the Mealtime for Scholars: Jewish Meals in the Roman World’ in: Inge Nielsen and Hanne Sigismund Nielsen eds., Meals in a Social Context. Aspects of the
Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1998) 134‐ 144, 138.
language spoken by the rulers (e.g. consuls) of the Italian Peninsula? Already in the second half of the fifth century a Latin translation of the New Testament existed, the so‐called Vulgate, translated by the famous church father saint Jerome. It was therefore no longer necessary to read the Gospels in their original language: Greek.26
As stated earlier, Theodoric spent roughly ten years at the imperial court in Constantinopel during his youth. Ennodius writes the following about this in his panegyricus: ‘Educavit te in gremio civilitatis Graecia praesaga venturi’.27 The
word ‘educavit’, as Deborah M. Deliyannes already points out, can be translated as both ‘educating’ and ‘nurturing’.28 In all likelihood he was trained in writing
and reading Greek. Even if he was not fluent, the number of years at the
Byzantine court indicates that he at least had a passive proficiency in the Greek language and was self‐reliant in at least verbal communication.
Because it is difficult to determine the language in which Theodoric – the commissioner of the Last Supper mosaic – read or heard the text of the New Testament, will we use here, for the sake of completeness, both the Greek and the Latin (the Vulgate Version) passages of the Last Supper story. In my opinion it is important to examine the Greek and Latin passages, because specific words may change in meaning when being translated and, consequently, alter
Theodoric’s mental image about how the Last Supper must have taken place. In the following we will examine whether the Gospels also talk about ‘reclining’ in relation to the Last Supper in their Greek and Latin versions, as we have seen in the English translation.29
The Gospel of Matthew describes the beginning of the supper as follows in Greek: ‘Οψιας δε γενομενης ανεκειτο μετα των δωδεκα’ (‘When the evening had arrived, he reclined with the twelve’).30 The word ‘ανεκειτο’ refers to the way the
26 Wim Blockmans and Peter Hoppenbrouwers, Eeuwen des Onderscheids. Een geschiedenis van
middeleeuws Europa (Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Bert Bakker, 2008) 78. 27 Rohr, Der Theoderich‐Panegyricus (1995) 202 Panegyricus § 11. 28 Deliyannis, Ravenna in Late Antiquity (2010) 343 note 4.
D.A. Kidd et.al., Collins Latin Dictionary (Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997) ‘educo’ can mean: ‘to nurture, to produce or to train’. ‘Educator’ means among other things: ‘teacher, foster father’.
29 Bible De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling (2005).
Matthew 26:20: ‘When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve.’
Mark 14:17‐18: ‘When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me.”’ Luke 22:14: ‘When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table.’
John 13:23: ‘One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him.’
30 The Greek New Testament, Kurt Aland et.al., Third Edition (Münster/Westphalia: Institute for New Testament Textual Research and United Bible Societies, 1978) Matthew 26:20.
people were situated around the table: ‘ανα’ is a preposition meaning ‘above, on, to’ and ‘κειτο’ comes from the verb ‘κειμαι’ meaning ‘to lie’.31 There is no doubt
about the fact that the Gospel of Matthew writes that Christ reclined together with his twelve disciples during the Last Supper. In the Gospels of Mark and John the same word is used, respectively: ‘ανακειμενων’ (Mark 14:18) and
‘ανακειμενος’ (John 13:23).32 Luke uses the word ‘ανεπεσεν’ (Luke 22:14).
‘Πεσεν’ is related to ‘πεσεειν’, which is the infinitive form of the verb ‘πιπτω’, meaning: ‘to lie, to recline’.33
In the Vulgate Matthew tells us the following about the beginning of the Last Supper: ‘Vespere autem facto discumbebat cum duodecim discipulis’ (‘When the evening came, he reclined with the twelve disciples’).34 The word
‘disumbebat’ is a form of the verb ‘discumbo’ (first person singular), which means: ‘to recline, to go to bed’.35 The other three Gospels make use of the same
verb: ‘discumbentibus’ (Mark 14:18), ‘discubuit’ (Luke 22:14) and ‘recumbens’ (John 13:23).36
Combining the possibility that the Jewish Pesach meal could have taken place as a classical banquet with the phrases used in the Greek and Latin
versions of the New Testament concerning the Last Supper, makes it likely that Christ, following a classical tradition which in all likelihood was also
appropriated by Jews, would have reclined with his twelve disciples at the eve of his Passion. In the following we will deal with contemporary and later sources
For more information about the sources used for this translation, see: xi‐liii. See also the second book with comments on this translation of the New Testament:
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament Bruce M. Metzger et.al., Third Edition (London and New York: United Bible Societies, 1975) xiii‐xxxi.
Matthew 26:20: the first part of the sentence (until ανεκειτο) seems to be the same in all sources. Only about the second part of the sentence different readings exist, e.g. μετα των δωδεκα
μαθητων αυτου (used by Origenes). Because there is no discussion about the first part of the sentence, we will conclude here that already in early times consensus was about the word ‘ανεκειτο’ (p. 102).
31 G.J.M. Bartelink, Prisma Woordenboek Grieks – Nederlands (Houten and Antwerpen: Uitgeverij Unieboek and Het Spectrum bv, 2011):
‘ανα’ = ‘above, on, to’ and ‘κειμαι’ = ‘to lie, to rest’.
32 The Greek New Testament, Kurt Aland et.al. (1978) Mark 14:18 and John 13:23. There seems to be no discussion about both passages. The words ‘ανακειμενων’ and ‘ανακειμενος’ seems to be used in the oldest versions of these passages.
33 The Greek New Testament, Kurt Aland et.al. (1978) Luke 22:14. There is no discussion about this passage.
Bartelink, Prisma Woordenboek Grieks – Nederlands (2011) ‘πεσεειν’ is the infinitive aoristus of ‘πιπτω’ meaning among other things: ‘to fall, to perish, to recline’.
34 Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem (1969) Matthew 26:20. 35 Kidd et.al., Collins Latin Dictionary (1997) ‘discumbo’.
36 Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem (1969).
Mark 14:17‐18: ‘Vespere autem facto venit cum duodecim et discumbentibus eis et
manducantibus ait Iesus amen dico vobis quia unus ex vobis me tradet qui manducat mecum’ Luke 22:14: ‘et cum facta esset hora discubuit et duodecim apostoli cum eo’
that can tell us something about meal customs and ceremonies at the Byzantine – and perhaps also at Theodoric’s – court.
The Court Banquet as Classical Banquet
To find out in which manner Theodoric held his court dinners we will here look into primary historical sources containing information about the Ostrogothic and the Byzantine court. The fact that, besides looking into Theodoric’s court, we also focus on the Byzantine court in Constantinople has to do with the
aforementioned notion that Theodoric used the Byzantine court as a model for his own dominion. The first source will tell us something about dinner customs in the late Roman Empire of the West.
Gaius Sollius M. Apollinaris Sidonius (ca. 430 – ca. 479) was, besides being bishop of Clermont, a poet and he held positions at the Western imperial court during the final years of the Western Roman Empire. In one of his letters to a friend called Montius, Sidonius describes a banquet held by emperor Majorianus (r. 457‐461) in Arles.37 Sidonius writes about the dinner the following:
‘The next day Augustus [emperor Majorianus] invited me [Sidonius] to take part in his banquet on the occasion of the sports of the circus. The first place on the left horn of the couch [the place of the guest of honour] was occupied by Severinus, consul of the year (...) Last came I, placed where the left side of the wearer of the purple [the emperor] reposed on the right extremity of the couch [the place of the host]’.38
In the original Latin text the words ‘primus iacebat cornu sinistro’ are used for the description of: ‘the first place on the left side was occupied by’. The word ‘iacebat’ is a form of the verb ‘iaceo’, which means ‘to lie’. Subsequently the Latin ‘porrigebatur’ is used for the word ‘reposed’ in the above‐mentioned quote. The verb ‘porrigo’ means ‘I stretch, I stretch out’. Therefore, the word ‘porrigebatur’ also implies that the guests were reclining, instead of eating sitting up.39
The letter of Sidonius strongly suggests that in the middle of the fifth century AD the practice of reclining was still customary at the imperial court of the (Western) Roman Empire. Can the same be concluded for the court in the Eastern Roman Empire? Unfortunately, not much source material has been handed down to us from the fifth and sixth centuries containing information on
37 Blockmans and Hoppenbrouwers, Eeuwen des Onderscheids (2008) 28‐29.
W.B. Anderson trans. and ed., Sidonius. Poems and Letters (Cambridge (US): Harvard University Press, 1963) xxxii‐lii, 395.
Akerström‐Hougen, The Calendar and Hunting Mosaics (1974) 103.
38 Anderson trans. and ed., Sidonius. Poems and Letters (1963) 404‐407. The quote can be found here: ‘The Letters of Sidonius’: Book I. xi. to Montius 395‐413.
The quote in Latin: ‘Postridie iussit Augustus ut epulo suo circensibus ludis interessemus. Primus
iacebat cornu sinistro consul ordinarius Severinus, vir inter ingentes principum (...) Ultimus ego iacebam, qua purpurati latus laevum margine in dextro porrigebatur.’ (p. 404, 406)
practices and ceremonies at the Byzantine court in Constantinople from this period. However, there are some sources from the tenth century that might shed a light on the banquet customs, because Byzantine ceremonies seem to be
enduring. 40 This is not to say that they were not subject to change. 41 Yet tenth‐
century Byzantine authors over and again stress the continuity between Byzantium and the classical, Roman past.42 As C. Mango and McCormick both
argue, the imperial banquet traditions were probably based on (late) classical examples.43
The Kletorologion is a text, compiled during the reign of emperor Leo VI (r. 886‐912)44, that provides information about the different authorities of the
empire and the several functions within. Although it must once have been a separate document, it is handed down to us as a part of the tenth‐century Book of Ceremonies. Philotheos is introduced in the beginning of the tractate as
‘ατρικλινης’ (atriklines). The atriklines was in charge of the imperial banquets and he had to ensure that the right people would end up on the right places at the table. In order to achieve this, the atriklines used guest lists on which all the places were marked. Such a list was called a ‘κλητορολογιον’, the word that would become the title of the whole text.45
The ceremony in which the birthday of Christ is celebrated, is described in the Kletorologion in the following way:
40 J.B. Bury, The Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth Century. With a Revised Text of The
Kletorologion of Philotheos (New York: Burt Franklin [1911]) 7‐9.
Paolo Squatriti trans. and ed., Liudprand of Cremona. The Complete Works of Liudprand of Cremona (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007) 3, 8‐9.
Averil Cameron, ‘The construction of court ritual: the Byzantine Book of Ceremonies’ in: David Cannadine and Simon Price eds., Rituals of Royalty. Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987) 106‐136, 106.
Katherine M.D. Dunbabin, The Roman Banquet. Images of Conviviality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003) 202.
41 McCormick, ‘Analyzing Imperial Ceremonies’ (1985) 16.
Michael McCormick writes about this, relying on Cyril Mango: ‘Whatever else it was and meant, the Byzantine state banquet of the tenth century, with its complex rules for drawing up guest lists, its seating precedence, archaic reclining couches, ritualized dress codes and acclamations, was surely an imprialized and fossilized avatar of the Roman dinner party.’ (p. 16).
42 Cameron, ‘The construction of court ritual’ (1987) 106‐136, 136.
Averil Cameron writes about Byzantine ceremonies in relation to Roman Antiquity the following: ‘Accordingly, imperial ceremonial in the tenth century had two aspects: its debt to a long and steady process of development with its roots in the Roman empire and even earlier, and its relation to the particular circumstances of recent history. (...) For contemporary imaginations, imperial ceremony represented one element of real continuity with the Roman past.’ (p. 136). 43 McCormick, ‘Analyzing Imperial Ceremonies’ (1985) 16.
Michael McCormick writes about this, relying on Cyril Mango: ‘Whatever else it was and meant, the Byzantine state banquet of the tenth century, with its complex rules for drawing up guest lists, its seating precedence, archaic reclining couches, ritualized dress codes and acclamations, was surely an imprialized and fossilized avatar of the Roman dinner party.’ (p. 16).
44 Lyn Rodley, Byzantine art and architecture. An introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) 353.
45 Bury, The Imperial Administrative System [1911] 9‐12.
‘Le jour de la Nativité, où on commence à servir les repas des XIX Lits [dit is het Triclinium van de Negentien Aanligbanken in het paleis te Constantinopel]. (...) A la table d’honneur des XIX Lits, il vous fait inviter deux magistroi, six parmi les anthypatoi, patrices et stratèges, deux amis Bulgares et deux offikialioi du rang du logothète du stratiôtikon ou d’un rang inférieur: douze amis qui vont s’allonger avec l’empereur comme les douze apôtres (...)’46
The ceremony thus took place in the Triclinium of the Nineteen Reclining Couches. In this dining hall the emperor would recline together with twelve guests. Thus, the emperor followed the description of the Last Supper as was given in the New Testament. He would dine with his guests in the same manner as Christ did on the mosaic of the Sant’Apollinare Nuovo. In the original Greek text of the above‐mentioned quote the word ‘συνανακλιθηναι’ is used for ‘allonger’, which roughly translated means ‘reclining together’.47
In the Book of Cermonies, the part in which is spoken about ‘reclining’, is probably derived from the Kletorologion of Philotheos. It is therefore not surprising that this is the part in which the ceremony celebrating the birth of Christ (γενεθλιος του Χριστου) is recited.48 The Greek word used here for
‘reclining’ is ‘συνανακληθηναι’, a word quite similar to the above‐mentioned ‘συνανακλιθηναι’. On many other places in the Book of Ceremonies the word ‘accumbo’ is used in the Latin text, which means ‘I recline’. This is a translation of the Greek ‘καθεζονται’, a word that can mean ‘sit (down)’. Moreover, the Latin ‘accumbo’ can also mean ‘I sit (next to)’.49 Since it does not become clear from
46 Oikonomidès, Les listes de préséance Byzantines (1972) 164‐169.
‘Ἠ γενεθλιος του Χριστου ημερα, εν η προτιθονται αι των ιθ᾽ακκουβιτων εκθεσεις. (...) Ἐω δε τη των ιθ ακκονβιτων τιμιωτατη τραπεζη δει υμας καλειν μαγιστρους δυο, ανθυπατους,
πατρικιους, στρατηγους, εξ, Βουλγαρους φιλους δυο, οφφικιαλιους απο της του στρατιωτικου λογοθετου ταξεως και κατωτερω δυο, προς το συνανακλιθηναι τω βασιλει εις τυπον της αποστολικης δωδεκαδος φιλους τον αριθμον ιβ᾽.’ (p. 165 and 167).
47 Bartelink, Prisma Woordenboek Grieks – Nederlands (2011) ‘συν’ means ‘together (with)’ and ‘κλινω’ means ‘to lie’.
Featherstone, ‘Emperor and Court’ (2008) 514‐515.
Featherstone tells us here that twelve days around Christmas banquets were held in the
Triclinium of the Nineteen Reclining Couches and that the guests would recline in a classical way on these occasions.
48 Johann Jacob Reiske, ‘Constantini Porphyrogeniti imperatoris De ceremoniis aulae Byzantinae libri duo Graece et Latine’ (Bonnae: Impensis Ed. Weberi, 1829) 741.
The title of the part in which is spoken about the ceremonies concerning the birthday of Christ is (in both Greek and Latin):
‘‘Η γενεθλιος του Χριστου ημερα, εν η προτιθονται αι των ιθ᾽ακουβιτων εκθεσεις’ and ‘Festum nativitatis Christi, in quo XIX. accubituum dapes proponuntur’.
49 Reiske, ‘Constantini Porphyrogeniti’ (1829) 79 and 90.
The Latin text on page 79: ‘(...) Imperator autem cum patriarcha mensae accumbit (...)’. In the Greek text ‘accumbit’ is used for ‘καθεζονται’, a word that shows similarities with ‘καθ‐εζομαι’ (= to sit (down)).
The Latin text on page 90: ‘(...) Imperator aureae ac venerandae mensae cum proceribus, quos vocari eo die iussit, accumbit.’ For ‘accumbit’ the Greek ‘καθεζεται’ is used.
these examples whether the guests were eating sitting up or in a reclining pose, the Book of Ceremonies will be disregarded here.
The third textual source that can tell us something about banquet traditions at the Byzantine court is the Antapodosis by Liudprand van Cremona (ca. 920‐972). Liudprand was bishop of Cremona, a city in the north of the Italian Peninsula. During his life he travelled three times to Constantinople by order of emperor Otto the Great.50 Liudprand writes about a Byzantine courtly dinner:
‘(...) on the birthday, according to the flesh, of our Lord Jesus Christ, ten and nine tables are placed inside the residence [Decanneacubita51], at which the emperor,
and equally his guests, do not eat sitting up, as on other days, but reclining on curved couches; and on those occasions they are served not with silver but only from gold dishes.’52
In this quote from the Antapodosis (Book 6, part 8) Liudprand describes a ceremonial dinner, of which two characteristics are important here. Firstly, as we have seen before, a link is made between the act of dining in a reclining pose and the person of Christ. Secondly, Liudprand stresses the fact that this
ceremony is extraordinary, which could perhaps imply that it was unusual to recline.
The last primary source is not a textual source, but an archaeological one. It is a plan of the palace complex of Theodoric the Great in Ravenna based on excavation works carried out between the years 1908 and 1914 (fig. 5). It shows us a palace complex built in several phases in different periods.53 The Triclinium,
room ‘S’ on the plan, is a hall whose function can be derived from an inscription in the floor mosaic54 and was probably built during the reign of Theodoric the
Great.55 The shape of this room – being a square hall with three big apses –
makes it likely that Theodoric would have reclined when having dinner in this hall. Inge Nielsen writes that the stibadium, the semi‐circular reclining couch that we can see on the Last Supper mosaic and which allowed five to twelve persons to recline on the same couch, was often placed in the circa six meter wide apses
50 Squatriti trans. and ed., Liudprand of Cremona (2007) 3‐18. 51 Squatriti trans. and ed., Liudprand of Cremona (2007) 199.
Book 6: 8: Liudprand writes here about the Decanneacubita, the earlier mentioned:
‘Triclinium of the Nineteen Reclining Couches’. ‘Deca’ is Greek for ‘ten’ and ‘ennea’ is Greek for ‘nine’. The word ‘cubita’ is derived from ‘to lie’ (= ‘cubito’).
Kidd et.al., Collins Latin Dictionary (1997) ‘cubito’.
52 Squatriti trans. and ed., Liudprand of Cremona (2007) 199 (Book 6, part 8). 53 Johnson, ‘Toward a History’ (1988) 81 (note 95), 82‐82.
54 Johnson, ‘Toward a History’ (1988) 84 (note 119).
Johnson tells us that an inscription in the floor mosaic of this room reveals to us the function of this room. The inscription reads: ‘Sume quod autumnus quod ver quod bruma quod aestas. Alternis reparant totoque creantur in orbe.’ (p. 84, note 119).
55 Johnson, ‘Toward a History’ (1988) 84 (note 114 and 116).
of Roman Triclinia.56 Using the scale provided with the map published in
Johnson’s article, offers the possibility that each apse would have been roughly five meters in width. Together with a length of roughly 4,5 meters, the apses would have been perfectly suited for the placing of the stibadia.57
An Imperial Banquet or a King Unmasked
According to the Gospels, the Last Supper could have been a classical banquet. This does not come as a surprise, because the classical banquet was a custom known to different ethnical and religious groups spread over the whole Antique World. Moreover, the Last Supper belongs to a tradition of the Jewish Pesach feast, a feast that could have been celebrated in the Antique World with a classical banquet. The examined contemporary and later written sources informing us about the customs at the court of Theodoric the Great and the Byzantine court suggest that Theodoric dined (on special occasions) in this classical way. And it is my contention that these classical court banquets underlie the iconography of the Last Supper mosaic in the Sant’Apollinare Nuovo. An iconography that shows Theodoric’s wishes to emulate the Byzantine emperor. Can we conclude from this that the iconography of the church mosaic is based on the imperial Roman iconography? Do imperial images underlie the Last Supper mosaic? I do not believe so. Firstly, the practice of reclining or the
depicting of a classical banquet was not reserved for the Roman emperor only. We can see such images appearing on objects of the wealthy upper classes in classical Antiquity.58 Secondly, the New Testament had given the classical
banquet a new meaning: the king or the emperor could follow in the footsteps of Christ.
Christ is depicted on the church mosaic as Theodoric: a king in imperial disguise. In the other narrative mosaics in the Sant’Apollinare Nuovo Christ is depicted in a similar way: dressed in a long purple robe.59 Theodoric must have
56 Inge Nielsen, ‘Royal Banquets: The Development of Royal Banquets and Banqueting Halls from Alexander to the Tetrarchs’ in: Inge Nielsen and Hanne Sigismund Nielsen eds., Meals in a Social Context. Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1998) 102‐133, 107.
57 Johnson, ‘Toward a History’ (1988) figure 11.
When we measure the width of one apse in the map of figure 11 it will be roughly five
centimetres. The scale tells us that 1 centimetre is equal to 1 meter in reality. So every apse was around five meter in width. The length of each apse would be roughly 4,5 meters.
58 Several examples of Greek and Roman images of the classical banquet that prove the non‐ imperial depicting of this classical phenomenon:
William J. Slater ed., Dining in a Classical Context (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1994) fig. 19 – fig. 21.
These images show us Attic (Greek) representations of the classical banquet.
Dunbabin, The Roman Banquet (2003) Plate I, Plate II, Plate III, Plate VII, Plate VIII, Plate XII, Plate XIII, 73 fig. 36 en 80 fig. 40.
These images show us Roman depictions of the classical banquet. See for example Plate II on which we can distinguish a banquet in the open air of Pompeii.
been aware of the way in which Christ had dined during the Last Supper. The already discussed sources that narrate about the ceremony at the Byzantine court whereby the birthday of Christ was commemorated support this idea: the guests recline, like Christ, thirteen in number. The form and execution of this Christian meal, the Last Supper, can find its origin in the classical tradition of the banquet.
When we are standing in the Sant’Apollinare Nuovo and look up, we can see Christ reclining in beautiful garments with his disciples, all situated in front of a sparkling golden background. Despite the significance and weightiness of the moment, it must have been a pleasure to dine in this classical way. However, this pleasure is also expressed by the material in which the scene has been made: mosaic. When light slides over the surface of the mosaic, it is reflected in different directions. The image shines, sparkles, glitters and moves. It is this movement that animates the scene and granting it a timelessness. The banquet renders eternity and richness: it seems a heavenly pleasure. Perhaps the mosaic embodies the idea Christ had of the meal waiting for him in the Kingdom of his Father: ‘But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you [the apostles] in my Father's kingdom.’60
Giuseppe Cortesi, Sant’Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna (Ravenna: Longo Editore, 1975) 41 (The multification of the breads and fishes), 42 (The vocation of Peter and Andreas), 44 (The Samaritan female at the well), 45 (The Raising of Lazarus), 62 (The Prayer in the Garden of Getsemane), 63 (Christ before the synedrion), 64 (The Denial of Peter), 66 (Christ before Pilate) and 67 (Christ ascends Cavalry).
Bibliography
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament Bruce M. Metzger et.al., Third Edition (London and New York: United Bible Societies, 1975).
Akerström‐Hougen, Gunilla, The Calendar and Hunting Mosaics of the Villa of the Falconer in Argos (Stochkholm and Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeriet, 1974).
Anderson, W.B. trans. and ed., Sidonius. Poems and Letters (Cambridge (US): Harvard University Press, 1963).
Bartelink, G.J.M., Prisma Woordenboek Grieks – Nederlands (Houten and Antwerpen: Uitgeverij Unieboek and Het Spectrum bv, 2011).
Beckwith, John, Early Christian and Byzantine Art (London and New York, 1979).
Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem Bonifatio Fischer, Iohanne Gribomont, H.F.D. Sparks, W. Thiele, Robertus Weber introduced and eds. (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt Stuttgart, 1969).
Blockmans, Wim en Peter Hoppenbrouwers, Eeuwen des Onderscheids. Een geschiedenis van middeleeuws Europa (Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Bert Bakker, 2008).
Bury, J.B., The Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth Century. With a Revised Text of The Kletorologion of Philotheos (New York: Burt Franklin [1911]).
Cameron, Averil, ‘The construction of court ritual: the Byzantine Book of
Ceremonies’ in: David Cannadine and Simon Price eds., Rituals of Royalty. Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987) 106‐136.
Cortesi, Giuseppe, Sant’Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna (Ravenna: Longo Editore, 1975).
De Blois, L. and R.J. van der Spek, Een kennismaking met de oude wereld (Bussum: Uitgeverij Coutinho, 2001).
Diechmann, Friedrich Wilhelm, Ravenna. Geschichte und Monumente (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag GMBH, 1969).
Deliyannis, Deborah M. trans. and ed., Agnellus of Ravenna. The Book of Pontiffs of the Church of Ravenna (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2004).
Deliyannis, Deborah M., Ravenna in Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
Dunbabin, Katherine M.D., ‘Ut Graeco More Biberetur: Greeks and Romans on the Dining Couch’ in: Inge Nielsen and Hanne Sigismund Nielsen eds., Meals in a Social Context. Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1998) 81‐101.
Dunbabin, Katherine M.D., The Roman Banquet. Images of Conviviality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
Featherstone, Jeffrey, ‘Emperor and Court’ in: Elizabeth Jeffreys, John Haldon and Robin Cormack eds., The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).
Ghirardini, Gherardo, ‘Gli Scavi del Palazzo di Teodorico a Ravenna’, Monumenti Antichi 24 (1916) 737‐838.
Grabar, André, Christian Iconography. A Study of Its Origins (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968).
Johnson, Mark J., ‘Toward a History of Theoderic’s Building Program’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 42 (1988) 73‐96.
Kidd, D.A., et.al., Collins Latin Dictionary (Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997).
Lowden, John, Early Christian & Byzantine Art (London, 1997).
Mathews, Thomas F., The Clash of Gods. A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993).
McCormick, Michael, ‘Analyzing Imperial Ceremonies’ Jahrbuch der österreichischen Gesellschaft für Byzantinistik 35 (1985) 1‐20.
Moorhead, John, Theodoric in Italy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992).
Nevett, Lisa, ‘Housing and Households. The Greek World’ in Classical Archaeology, eds. Susan E. Alcock en Robin Osborne (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2007).
Nielsen, Inge, ‘Royal Banquets: The Development of Royal Banquets and Banqueting Halls from Alexander to the Tetrarchs’ in: Inge Nielsen and Hanne Sigismund Nielsen eds., Meals in a Social Context. Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1998) 102‐ 133.
Noy, David, ‘The Sixth Hour is the Mealtime for Scholars: Jewish Meals in the Roman World’ in: Inge Nielsen and Hanne Sigismund Nielsen ed.s, Meals in a Social Context. Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1998) 134‐144.
Oikonomidès, Nicolas, Les listes de préséance Byzantines des IXe et Xe siècles (Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1972).
Reiske, Johann Jacob, ‘Constantini Porphyrogeniti imperatoris De ceremoniis aulae Byzantinae libri duo Graece et Latine’ (Bonnae: Impensis Ed. Weberi, 1829).
Rodley, Lyn, Byzantine art and architecture. An introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
Rohr, Christian, Der Theoderich‐Panegyricus des Ennodius (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1995).
Rosenthal, Erwin, The Illuminations of the Vergilius Romanus. A Stylistic and Iconographical Analysis (Zürich, 1972).
Schröder, Bianca‐Jeanette, Bildung und Briefe im 6. Jahrhundert. Studien zum Mailänder Diakon Magnus Felix Ennodius (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2007).
Slater, William J. ed., Dining in a Classical Context (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1994).
Smith, Dennis E. , From Symposium to Eucharist. The Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2003).
Squatriti, Paolo trans. and ed., Liudprand of Cremona. The Complete Works of Liudprand of Cremona (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007).
The Greek New Testament, Kurt Aland et.al., Third Edition (Münster/Westphalia: Institute for New Testament Textual Research en United Bible Societies, 1978).
Veh, Otto ed., Prokop Gotenkriege (München: Ernst Heimeran Verlag, 1966).
Fig. 1 Last Supper. Ca. 493‐526. Mosaic. Upper zone south wall with height of circa one meter. Sant’Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna.
Fig. 2 Clinic Painter. Red‐figured Kylix. Ca. 470 BC. Pottery. 8,89 x 21,59 cm. London, British Museum 1865,0722.13.
Fig. 3 Triclinium floor mosaic. Ca. 500 AD. Mosaic. ‘Villa of the Falconer’, Argos. From: Gunilla Akerström‐Hougen, The Calendar and Hunting Mosaics of the Villa of the Falconer in Argos (Stochkholm and Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeriet, 1974).
Fig. 4 Banquet at Herod’s Palace, Gospels of Sinope, 6th century AD. Paint on parchment. 30 x 25 cm. Constantinople. Now: Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris.
Fig. 5 Map of the palace complex of Theodoric the Great in Ravenna. 493‐526 AD. From: Mark J. Johnson, ‘Toward a History of Theoderic’s Building Program’,
