Ancient Christian tombs in Rome and the significance of the discoveries made in them for theological science

Speech by Associate Professor N. Krasnoseltsev at the ceremonial meeting of the Kazan Theological Academy on November 8, 1883. Having now taken upon myself the responsibility of occupying the attention of the venerable assembly with some subject from the area of my specialty, I focused on the ancient Christian underground cemeteries or catacombs existing in Rome, as a subject with which I was able to become acquainted not only from books, but also from personal impressions, and which, having enormous significance for all branches of the science of Christian antiquities, is at the same time of keen interest, not only for learned archaeologists, not only for learned theologians and historians, but also for educated people in general, especially religious ones. It goes without saying that in a short study designed for a certain time, there is no way to exhaust this subject in its entirety, to describe all the monuments of the catacombs and to determine their significance in all respects. Therefore, having first made a brief outline of their design features and historical fate, we will dwell primarily on one point, less touched upon in science in general and less known among us, namely: their significance for theological science. Underground cemeteries are located outside the walls of Rome at a distance of one to five miles, all around, along all roads running from the city in all directions like radii. If they all had communication with each other, as previously assumed, they would have formed a real ring, a network of endless dungeons surrounding the city on all sides. They consist mainly of long, cramped galleries, which often run at a very close distance from each other, intersect in a wide variety of directions with other similar galleries, and generally represent real labyrinths in which it is very easy to get lost without a guide. Sometimes such labyrinths of galleries are located one above the other on two, three or even four floors. The walls of all these galleries are filled from bottom to top with coffins, or better yet, bodies, since coffins in our sense were not used by the ancient Roman Christians. To place the body, so-called loculi were cut out in the walls of underground galleries - places, or rectangular depressions the length of a person's height. The bodies of the dead were placed in these recesses, sometimes, in accordance with custom, with various accessories of their rank and occupation, and the outside was laid with marble boards or tiles, covered with lime and marked with a decent inscription. Above the lower loculi, others were arranged, depending on the need, higher and higher, right up to the ceiling. The distance between them, due to the density of the rocky soil, was very small, so that, depending on the height of the corridor, such rooms on each fathom could be arranged from three to seven. In addition to the galleries, each catacomb contains many rooms of various sizes. These rooms were also intended mainly for burial. The walls of some of them were filled with the same tomb chambers as the walls of the galleries. In others, more monumental tombs were built, consisting of more or less extensive, mostly semicircular niches, known as arcosoliums. Under the arch of these niches, sarcophagus-shaped rooms were built for one or several bodies, and sometimes sarcophagi were placed directly. There are rooms sometimes with one such tomb, sometimes with two or three; some of these rooms apparently served as family tombs, while others were tombs of famous persons in the church, or martyrs, and even served as places for worship. Most of these rooms were decorated, in addition to inscriptions, with paintings, sometimes, especially if it was the burial place of a famous martyr, with columns, seats, marble and even mosaics. At a time when all these decorations were still fresh and intact, the catacombs probably did not have such a gloomy and deserted appearance as they have now. Nowadays, when you walk along these dark and cramped corridors, it seems as if you are walking between an endless row of open cabinets, the shelves of which, running in regular rows, were once filled and closed, but are now emptied by a hasty hand. The marble and tile slabs with inscriptions that filled the holes were all broken, mostly completely, rarely halfway; the interior of the tomb premises, apparently, was thoroughly searched, and nothing could be found in them; occasionally two or three bones dating back more than a thousand years are visible; they often break with one touch, especially when found in the lower, very damp floors. Paintings are often destroyed and spoiled either by collapses, or by later works of fossors, or even by the excessive zeal of scientists who tried to separate them from the walls and transfer them to museums. There is nothing to say about various portable objects, such as lamps, vessels, coins, etc. All this was either taken to museums, or was stolen long ago by various treasure hunters in past centuries and was lost forever. Whole, untouched tombs are extremely rare, except in the most remote and inaccessible places. Despite numerous losses and constant destruction, the catacombs still continue to provide an enormous amount of material, often completely new, for research. What would happen if everything that was originally contained in them were intact to this day? One can imagine how enormous this material would be, especially if one considers, albeit approximately, the entire vastness of these underground mines from which it is extracted! Most of the catacombs are very extensive, both in the total volume of space they occupy and in the length and number of their galleries. According to an approximate calculation of Italian archaeologists (Armellini, Le catac. rom. p. 23), the total length of these galleries is 580 kilometers, i.e. half the length of the entire Apennine Peninsula; the number of rooms and tombs can hardly be determined even approximately. There is no reason to be especially surprised how the pioneering Christians could create such a huge monument. History very satisfactorily resolves all confusion on this score. The catacombs were built over three and a half centuries, that is, from the end or half of the first to the end of the fourth, built by the Christian population of the city, which in ancient times was the most populous. At first they consisted of very small hypogei, or dungeons, scattered in different places, which were in the possession of various Roman families and individuals who had converted to Christianity. Some of these hypogees were probably even of pre-Christian or generally pagan origin. They were acquired and arranged by their owners even before they accepted the new faith, and then, with the conversion of these owners to Christianity, they took on a new Christian character. Traces of this exact origin of some Christian tombs have survived to this day, although they are very difficult to distinguish. The new religion of the owners quickly and significantly changed their character. How long this period of so to speak isolated existence of Christian tombs lasted and when they became public-church property cannot be determined with complete accuracy, but in all likelihood this period did not last long, no further than the second half of the 2nd century. However, Christian tombs assumed a certain kind of public character already at the very first stages of their existence. They apparently never even had a completely exclusive and private character and were quite often common burial places for Christians even at a time when they were in the possession of private individuals. Their owners, Christians, usually set up places in them not only for themselves and their relatives, but also for poor fellow believers, complete strangers. This was a work of love, and when these poor martyrs were, then it was even considered an honorable and desirable duty. Some of the rich Christians, arranging funeral crypts for themselves, sometimes offered places in them to their coreligionists, even as if officially, through inscriptions. There is, for example, the following inscription, dated by archaeologists to the 1st century: “Antony Restitut arranged an epic for himself and his people who believe in the Lord” (sibi et suis fidentibus in Domino). Another inscription reads: “he arranged this place for all the brothers" (hunc locum cunctis fratribus feci). In the second half of the 2nd century, the tombs from private hands came into the possession of the church. It is believed that the first public-church tomb was the one that from ancient times has been called the tomb of Callistus, and which throughout the 3rd century was the official tomb of the Roman bishops. But soon, maybe and at the same time, some other tombs also became church ones. At least at the beginning of the 3rd century, under Pope Zephyrinus (202-218), it became necessary to give the tombs belonging to the church a proper organization and appoint a special administrator to manage them. The fifth successor of Zephyrinus, Fabian (236–250), distributed the management of the tombs among several deacons and ordered the construction of many buildings in the tombs, that is, small chapels for liturgical meetings and guard quarters. Obviously, by this time, not only did the number of church tombs increase, but the funeral cult, of which they were the focus, also became more complex and more solemn, which caused the construction of buildings. During Fabian's time many such buildings were built; remnants of them still exist. In general, until the second half of the 3rd century. the tombs developed completely freely: they were inviolable and under the protection of the law, although their owners themselves, Christians, were persecuted. In the eyes of the law these were sacred places, loci religiosi; their profanation was severely punished: exile in metallum, that is, to the mines, to hard labor. Therefore, Christians at that time dug dungeons for their dead, not because they were afraid to build tombs on the surface of the earth, not because they wanted to hide the graves of their brothers in faith from the pagans and thus protect them from profanation, not even because they wanted to prepare a place for hiding in case of persecution, but because this method of burial seemed to them more consistent with their religious beliefs and more convenient. They followed a custom that was known in Rome even before the advent of the Christian religion there, a custom that had been practiced in Italy before and which was especially widespread in the east, from where Christianity itself came to Rome. However, as for the fact that Christians, when constructing their underground tombs, could expect to find refuge in them from persecution, this can still be considered probable, but only to some extent: this can be guessed from the fact that during periods of persecution they used the inviolability of their tombs to hold liturgical meetings in them. This was known to the pagans and made them very angry. Around 202 in Africa, the mob that rose up against Christians, knowing about such meetings, but not daring to violate the law on the inviolability of tombs (areae), demanded that this law be repealed regarding Christians: areae non sint. The Roman government, which always placed its ancient laws and customs too highly, apparently did not pay any attention at that time to these cries of the mob. But 50 years later, it was finally decided to make some restrictions: by the edict of Valerian in 257, Christians were forbidden to gather in tombs. Although this ban applied only to meetings and not to burials, although it was soon lifted, the conditions for the existence of tombs changed somewhat after it. From that time on, Christians could no longer feel safe here and had to exercise great caution: there was a need to construct new secret entrances and to destroy those that were too open, old, etc. Work underground, however, not only did not decrease, but took on even wider proportions, so that in the last half of the 3rd century, from Balerian and Gallien to Diocletian, the underground tombs of Christians, despite the circumstances, were apparently less favorable than before, grew more and more. Many of them were public property of the church and were managed by church dignitaries. Suddenly, at the beginning of the 4th century, the tenth, most severe persecution arose and Christian tombs almost ceased to exist. Not only was entry into them prohibited, but they were completely confiscated. Christians had to abandon them, barely having time to fill up the most important and sacred rooms and galleries with earth, damage and block the entrances. Burial in them became impossible: even popes could no longer be buried in them. It turned out to be necessary to look for a burial place either in secret and remote places, or in some private tombs that were not subject to fiscus. So the popes of that time, Marcellinus and Marcellus, were buried in the tomb of Priscilla, thanks to the charity of the owner of this tomb, also Priscilla. Fortunately, these unfavorable circumstances were a fleeting storm. The famous Edict of Milan in 312 not only returned to the church everything confiscated from it, but also gave it complete freedom, which was supposed to contribute to a new expansion of the tombs. They did expand after that, but not as much as one might have expected. Along with this full opportunity, some unfavorable circumstances also appeared. Along with the expansion, destruction began. The triumphant Christians naturally had a desire to honor the tombs of the martyrs by erecting monuments over them, more significant than any that had existed before. Over these tombs they began to build basilicas of quite significant size, and they tried to build them so that the tomb of the martyr was located just under the throne. To firmly install these buildings, it was necessary to tear down to a considerable depth the heights in which the catacombs were located, and destroy entire floors filled with hundreds of ancient tombs. Some of the ancient catacombs even apparently completely perished under the buildings: such is the Vatican catacomb under the Church of St. Petra and the Catacomb of St. Lupins or Cammodils under the Church of St. Pavel. However, not all the sacred and historical tombs of the catacombs were furnished this way, but hardly any of them remained: without alterations and new decorations: new, more convenient entrances were built, luminarias were punched, or holes in the vaults to allow air and light to pass through; the rooms themselves, which contained the famous tombs, were expanded, decorated with marble, inscriptions, paintings, etc. Pope Damasus produced especially a lot of such work in the second half of the 4th century. These works changed the character of some of the catacombs, but they were necessary, both in view of their maintenance and in view of the reverent celebration, the subject of which they became especially from the 4th century. From that time on, pilgrims began to flock here from all sides to venerate the tombs of the martyrs. It was necessary to give them the convenience to satisfy their pious mood and adapt underground rooms and premises for a large number of people. But the more important the catacombs became as places of worship, the more they lost it as burial places. From the very beginning of the 4th century. The custom began to develop of burying the dead not underground in catacombs, but on the surface of the earth, mainly near churches and even in the churches themselves, to which the popes set the first example. From the surviving monuments one can roughly trace how this new method of burial, gradually developing, replaced the old one and by the beginning of the 5th century. became not only dominant, but also exceptional. After 410 or after the capture of Rome by Alaric, only one example of underground burial is found. The development of a new custom obviously could not favor the expansion of the catacombs. This explains why, after the pacification of the church, relatively little was dug up again. However, there was one more circumstance that was not favorable to this increase. From the middle of the 4th century, and perhaps a little earlier, the idea began to take root among Christians that martyrs primarily interceded for those who were buried closer to their tombs. This idea was shared even by some church teachers, for example, Augustine. The consequence of this was that for the burial of those Christians who still adhered to the old custom, there was no need to dig new galleries, but it was necessary, at the insistence of the relatives of the dead, to try to find a place in the old galleries and as close as possible to the tombs of the martyrs. Naturally, nothing but destruction occurred from here. In general, the history of the growth of the catacombs ends in the 4th century. What follows is a story of destruction and oblivion. Having ceased to be burial places, the catacombs continued to be the subject of pious travel and celebration for a very long time, until the beginning of the 9th century, when all the relics of the martyrs that could be found at that time were taken out of them. During this period of time, they, that is, mainly those parts of them where the relics of the martyrs were kept, were desecrated and plundered several times by various barbarians who appeared under the walls of Rome, for example, in 527 by the Goths, who besieged Rome under the leadership of Vitiges, and especially by the Longobards, who devastated the Roman campaign in the half of the 8th century. After each of these invasions, the Roman spiritual government restored the sacred crypts whenever possible and generally tried to maintain them in every possible way, but finally was forced to transfer the bones of the martyrs to the city churches and leave the tombs to the mercy of fate. There was no longer any incentive to continue supporting them. In addition to the danger from the barbarians, they were threatened with an even greater danger from the Catholics themselves, due to the coldness and carelessness that little by little frolicked in them in relation to the tombs. Pope Paul (757–767), the first to decide to transfer the relics from the catacombs to Rome, wrote, as if to justify himself, that “the tombs no longer enjoy the reverence that befits them, that they become shelters for animals, are transformed into stables and stalls for shepherds, and are insulted by all kinds of damage.” Despite this, some of Paul's successors made attempts to revive the veneration of the catacombs, but in vain. Finally, Paschal I, at the beginning of the 9th century, then Serius II and Leo IV transferred to Rome from the catacombs all the remains of the martyrs that they could find. From that time on, the catacombs were completely abandoned and little by little fell into complete oblivion. The places they occupied became private property and were occupied by vineyards; the entrances collapsed and collapsed. By the 16th century, apparently, the very memory of them had disappeared. When in 1578 workers who were extracting sand in one of the gardens on the Salyarskaya road discovered one of the catacombs, this seemed amazing news to the Romans, and Bosio, the first scientist who devoted his entire life to finding and studying the catacombs and who wrote the first complete and scientific work about them, was called “Columbus of Underground Rome.” How great was the oblivion of the catacombs and how difficult it was to find them, can already be seen from the fact that that the most thorough searches made by Bosio and many other scientists of the 17th and 18th centuries were not always crowned with success. The location of some of the catacombs was not determined until very recently. The most important of the catacombs, the catacombs of Callistus, containing the tombs of the popes of the 3rd century, were discovered by chance only in 1849. These are the most important facts from the history of the monument that occupies us. These are the most reliable facts, taken not only from written sources, but also from the monument itself. They firmly state the most basic position from which the study of one or another significance of any archaeological monument begins, namely: they firmly establish the date of the monument, that is, its antiquity, the time of its origin. From the facts we have presented, it is obvious that in the catacombs there is no grave later than the beginning of the 5th century, that in the 4th century. the use of catacombs for burial has already significantly decreased and that in general the catacombs are the work of mainly the first three centuries and only partly of the 4th century. It is further obvious that although in the 4th century, as well as in subsequent centuries, restorations, various kinds of renovations and alterations were carried out in the catacombs, these restorations and alterations concerned almost exclusively the so-called historical crypts, that is, those where the relics of martyrs or famous saints rested. These restorations, remarkable in themselves and in their antiquity, did not always so obscure the most ancient appearance of the monument that it was no longer possible to completely grasp at least its most important features. As for the other tombs, they did not suffer any alterations; many of them were in complete oblivion, while some were buried in the ground back in the time of Diocletian and are only now being brought to light in their original form. It is clear how important a monument must be, so undoubtedly authentic and ancient. Its age is more than 1500 years. But this is not its main attraction - there are monuments that are much more ancient - but the fact that it belongs to the most important and interesting era for the modern civilized world. This is a monument to that era when the leaven thrown by the Divine Teacher into the confusion of the ancient world led this world into severe fermentation, when a new religion appeared and began to be revealed in very diverse forms, but still uncomplicated and simple. This is a monument to that era when completely new foundations for life had just appeared and began to take root, when a new worldview, new forms of life, new art, etc. were emerging. This era is very distant from us, but it is not alien to us. Those ideas that currently represent something indisputable, undeniable, widespread, something that constitutes, as it were, the essence of our life. These are the very ideas that at that time were only just gaining the right to citizenship through a bloody struggle against a centuries-old pagan religion and a powerful government. To understand, as deeply as possible, this era, where the source of our most vital hopes and ideals is hidden, to imagine, as clearly as possible, the position and character of that small community of believers, which fought so heroically and victoriously - in essence, not only for itself, but also for us - what could be more important for us? This importance is involuntarily recognized by anyone who is not alien to Christianity and Christian culture: it is not for nothing that the era we have indicated has always attracted the keenest attention not only of scientists involved in the study of various aspects of the Christian religion, but also of many others. There was no shortage of diligence in studying this era, but there was always a shortage of documents. We usually study past centuries mainly and almost exclusively on the basis of written documents, on the basis of the works of various authors contemporary with the era under study, and in general on the basis of written monuments. There are relatively few such monuments left from the era that interests us, and even what remains, not all of it has adequate historical value. Some of these monuments have reached us in an inauthentic and very damaged form, while others, although authentic, do not contain any instructions regarding many objects, or contain incomplete, unclear and in need of verification instructions. In general, these monuments are insufficient for a comprehensive description of the indicated time. If they were used alone, many aspects of the life of Christians would remain completely unknown. The newly discovered monuments of the catacombs turned out to be a very important aid here: they not only provided an unshakable criterion for verifying many unclear and dubious indications of written monuments, but also a very large amount of completely new and extremely valuable material, which opened completely new chapters in the history of primitive Christianity. True, the monuments of the catacombs are unattractive in appearance, not particularly representative, and are not distinguished by either special beauty or special monumentality; these are not Egyptian pyramids, or obelisks with broadcasting and self-praising inscriptions; these are dark corridors, cramped rooms, short, sometimes not particularly literate, epitaphs, dilapidated and faded paintings, various objects of private life, far from luxurious, bowls, rings, lamps, medals, etc. But one should not be embarrassed by the modest appearance of these monuments: their significance does not diminish from this. Nowadays, when archeology has become a more generally known science than before, it is easier to understand than ever. The objects found in our mounds are much less significant and even less representative in appearance, but in their totality they represent such an environment of ancient life that we could never imagine on the basis of written documents. What could be, apparently, more insignificant than the objects of the so-called Stone Period - these flint knives, arrows, etc., but whoever looks at the complete collections of these objects will easily be convinced that they can really serve as valuable documents for the restoration of an entire period in the life of mankind, about which we would know nothing without them. The monuments of the catacombs are infinitely superior in their content to anything similar. These are monuments of the life of a civilized people, monuments of art that have already reached a high degree of development, these are, further, monuments of writing and monuments of language, which was the organ of extensive literature. In these monuments, both a philologist, who can observe the forms of living speech of that time and changes in word usage under the influence of the influx of new ideas, and an art historian, who will find here a new branch of the classical school of painting, and a theologian, can find material for research. The last one will take the main spoils from here. The catacombs-monument is predominantly religious and, moreover, one in which religious faith, religious hope naturally should have been expressed with the greatest brightness and greatest sincerity. True, the themes developed here in numerous inscriptions and symbolic paintings are not very diverse, but they are developed firmly and persistently, often with remarkable profundity, clarity and consistency, so it is not surprising if today they attach very important importance even to the dogmatic instructions of the monuments we are considering and try to restore an entire theology on their basis. Theology based on paintings, often very inexperienced and careless, on the basis of inscriptions, most of them unusually brief and dark - isn’t this a strange dream and isn’t it a completely unnecessary undertaking? It is very possible, of course, to collect all the indications of the mentioned monuments into one and bring what has been collected into a system, but what will this serve? Can science hope from such a system for anything new, any new additions, or new arguments? The theology of the first centuries is known to us quite well from written monuments, which in this respect are, in any case, much more reliable than material monuments and which have still reached us in such quantities that on the basis of them it is possible to compile a detailed presentation of the theology of that time. There is nothing to say, of course, about the 4th century. From this century, along with many others, the works of the well-known great teachers Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom have reached us, whose teaching is distinguished by such completeness and depth that hardly anyone achieved in subsequent centuries. But if we turn to earlier centuries, III, II and even I, then even there we will not find too much scarcity in this regard. It is enough to point out the names of Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch in the 1st century, and the names of Irenaeus, Justin, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian, Tertullian - in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Is it possible to find anything new in the catacombs compared to what is contained in the writings of these great teachers? The answer to this question should be quite affirmative: one can find in these monuments something new and important not only for historical theology, but partly even for theoretical theology. In fact, the teaching that is set forth in the writings of the listed great fathers and teachers is the teaching of the higher spheres, so to speak, is, so to speak, the maximum of theology of that time; but in order to have a complete understanding of theology, the degree and characteristics of the religious development of a certain era, you need to know not only this maximum, but also the minimum, that is, theology in the form in which it was acquired by the majority of believers, religion in the form as it was reflected in the hearts and minds of the mass of believers, the religion of the masses. The society of believers consists not only of learned people, but also mainly of unlearned, simple people, who, however, believe just as much as the first and enjoy the fruits of this faith on an equal basis with the first. It has always been this way, and it was so in the first centuries. There were not many scientists at that time, not many noble ones; There were more simple people, but these simple people believed just as ardently as the scientists and died for their faith without any hesitation. What were the religious ideas and theological contemplations of these people? How were these people assimilated and how were they presented the truths that were preached by church teachers according to tradition from the apostles? What was the general theology of the mass of believers at that time? In essence, of course, it should not have differed and did not differ from the theology of church teachers, but it necessarily had to have some features compared to it, and very significant ones, in many other respects. Such features actually exist: this cannot be overlooked even with a superficial review of the monuments. Some truths are repeated in them extremely often and persistently, developed in detail and accurately, others are less common and are not clearly expressed. Some of the teachings developed by the writers of that time are not found at all: obviously they were of little interest or interest to the mass of believers. Sometimes there are traces of superstitions that have not yet managed to disappear under the influence of the new religion, traces of a kind of dual faith, especially in forms, mostly traditional, classical; There are even traces of emerging heresies, and in general many features that characterize the worldview of the first Christians in terms of its features and differences, determined by the peculiarities of place, time, nationality, as well as the degree of intellectual development and religious inspiration that took place at the moment. We can observe similar features of the religious worldview of the masses and its difference from the theology of educated people today, 1500 years later, in all Christian countries. A detailed study of this religious worldview of the masses is of great importance not only in historical and anthropological terms, but also in historical and theological terms. The study of the ancient Christian period from this point of view has almost not yet begun, mainly due to a lack of material, but there is no doubt that such research can lead to valuable scientific results. Thanks to new discoveries in the catacombs, there is rich material for this. But regardless of the indicated church-historical significance of this, so to speak, underground theology, it has significance in itself, as theology. The monuments of the catacombs can be considered not only as a historical document that complements our information about the early Christian era, suitable for replenishing the characteristics of the state of religion and theology in that era, but also as a document that is suitable for purely theological argumentation, for proving many theological positions. In fact, the religious truths and hopes expressed in epitaphs and paintings were instilled in the people who wrote them by teachers of the church, keepers of tradition, successors of the apostles, even their immediate students, in general teachers who lived in an era when the apostolic tradition was much fresher. Taking this circumstance into account, shouldn't we value every, even the most apparently insignificant, monument of that era, especially if there is any trace of religious belief, dogmatic or moral truth on it? As for these truths, when a figurative or epigraphic representation of any of them is repeated constantly, especially often and persistently, then doesn’t this mean that it was instilled by the pastors of the church with special persistence and care, that it was considered especially important and was especially well learned by Christians and has been for a long time, in a word, doesn’t this mean that we hear here the voice of true church tradition, binding on everyone? This is the point from which the catacombs seem especially important and interesting for the theological science of all confessions, even the Orthodox. Let's look at it in a little more detail. In the West, this point was appreciated as especially important long ago, almost immediately after the discovery of the catacombs and the appearance of their first detailed description. As a result of this, the catacombs in the West have long acquired a kind of practical apologetic significance, and considering them from this point of view already has its own history, quite instructive. The fact is that the discovery of the catacombs at the end of the 16th century. and the first study of them at the beginning of the 17th century coincided with that remarkable era in the history of Western Christianity, which was marked by the fierce struggle of Catholicism with Protestantism, which had just separated from it. This struggle manifested itself not only in civil wars and confusion, but also mainly in heated polemics on various points of theology, both theoretical and practical. It is known that Protestants, in addition to some teachings and rituals that represented a real deviation from true church tradition and practice and occurred as a result of the arbitrariness and abuses of the Roman hierarchy, rejected many things that did not in any way fit into the category of deviations and abuses. These are many important points of the teaching about the church and the sacraments, the teaching regarding churches and icons, etc. The denial of Protestants was often quite arbitrary, but it was sometimes accompanied by very practical criticism and thus introduced a new, very fruitful element into the theological science of that time. The consequence was a hitherto unprecedented revival in the field of theological research, especially pathological, historical and archaeological. The latter type of research, one might say, was even created by the needs of that era. This revival was the same on both sides: both sides put up numerous ranks of remarkable scientists with very valuable research on controversial issues. In general, although the polemics were passionate, they were often very serious at the same time; it is little known among us, although it is very interesting and instructive. The supporting point of denial for Protestants, in addition to their own considerations, was, among other things, the fact that about the denied objects in St. in the scriptures and writings of the ancient fathers is either not mentioned at all, or is not stated clearly. Catholics, due to the real scarcity of written monuments, sometimes found themselves in a difficult situation, therefore paid special attention to the discovery of new monuments and new arguments, and their efforts were sometimes crowned with significant success. The defense of some very important controversial points was presented very successfully by Catholic scholars. Such, for example, is the defense of the dogma of transubstantiation by Schelstraat through disciplina arcana, the defense of Catholic practice regarding churches and icons by Ciampini through archaeological research of the monuments themselves, etc. The discovery and exploration of the catacombs thus turned out to be very opportune for Catholics: for them it was a new and very important argument. It was not for nothing that Baronius, a contemporary of their discovery, who at that time was writing his famous Annals and at the same time had a polemical anti-Protestant task, was especially interested in this discovery. He could not yet use it for his polemics, but perhaps it inspired him to introduce many arguments into his work based on material monuments. When in 1632 the first special study about underground Rome appeared, compiled by Bosio, who devoted his whole life and all his strength to this research, it was a huge success, and its apologetic significance was immediately appreciated. Since the work was very large and, moreover, with a purely scientific and objective character, then, for the most convenient dissemination and, so to speak, utilization in favor of Catholicism, they began to popularize it, shorten it and change it directly with a polemical purpose against the Protestant heretics. Abridged and even pocket editions of underground Rome (Roma subterranea portatilis) appeared in Latin and German (German edition of Bauman 1668) and went through several editions. This apologetic maneuver was apparently not fruitless. The apologetic significance of the monument, which was the subject of these writings, did not remain without influence on the opposing side. Catholic writers claim that “the reading of Bosio had the influence of bringing many learned Protestants back to the Catholic Church” (Allard, Rome souterr. p. 14). The new monument naturally had to attract the attention of Protestants. True, they did not have access to direct acquaintance with it, much less independent study of it; he was known to them only by rumors and from the writings of the Latins; nevertheless, they considered it their duty to engage in criticism and refutation of the Catholic apology built on it. Anglicans Misson and Burnet, who had the opportunity to be in Rome at the end of the 17th century. they spoke of the catacombs as pagan tombs, or if sometimes Christian, then they occurred after the triumph of the church; Regarding the epitaphs and paintings, they noticed that they were mostly forged by superstitious monks in order to instill confidence in the pilgrims in the relics. The opinion of these Protestant travelers was readily accepted by their co-religionists and was proven by them in many works, historical and theological in general (for example, Bansage in Hist, de l’eglise) or in special, special ones. From the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th century. There are several Protestant works written specifically for the purpose of belittling the significance of the catacombs as much as possible. These are the works: Ernst Cyprian “On the underground church” (De ecclesia subterranea. Helmst. 1699), the Hamburg professor Tsark “Historical and theological dissertation on the catacombs, or burial crypts” (Dissertatio theologico-historica de catacumbis seu cryptis sepulcralibus Lips. 1703), Fresnel "On the Catacombs" (De catacumbis Lips. 1713). The newest Catholic scientists, such as De Rossi, currently laugh at these works, written by people who have not studied the catacombs at all, and speak of them with contempt, as not worthy of attention, as works that would be a waste of time to read and refute (perder il tempo in leggere o in confutare siffatti scritti. t. I, p. 51), but not quite rightly. The Protestants, despite the fact that they were not directly familiar with the new monument, correctly guessed the weak side of the argument built on it. They directly and first of all paid attention to the authenticity of the monument, and this authenticity was indeed very little protected at that time. Catholic scientists who studied the catacombs after Bosio conducted this study without any scientific plan and, using newly discovered monuments, apparently had no idea of ​​the conditions under which they acquire the significance of completely scientific documents. They copied epitaphs, copied paintings, but did not bother to preliminarily determine the time of their origin, the place where they were found, etc., in general, their chronology, topography and authenticity. As a result, the monuments collected by scientists of that time, both at that time and now do not have a particularly high price and are almost lost to science, because on the basis of them it is not possible to draw any indisputable conclusions. In general, the use of these monuments for apologetic purposes at that time had more of a character of news and originality than of thoroughness. Therefore, it soon decreased by itself. During the 18th century. Catholics no longer paid much attention to them and apparently began to gradually forget them. The state of affairs changed when, in the 40s of this century, through the efforts of Marchi and De Rossi, a careful study of the catacombs began using a new, completely scientific method. The results turned out to be the most lasting and most valuable, and in the field of theology almost the same thing was repeated as in the half of the 17th century. after the publication of Bosio's book. As soon as the first two volumes of De Rossi’s enormous work, Roma sotterranea, were published in 1864 and 67, abbreviations and revisions immediately began to be compiled, in almost all European languages, designed to popularize those especially the conclusions of the famous Roman archaeologist, which in one way or another could contribute to the maintenance of various points of Roman Catholic dogma. These are the works published in English by Dr. Northcote, in French by Alyar and in German by Kraus, all under the title: “Underground Rome.” The compilers of all these books (or rather one book, since the French and German editions are only adaptations of the English) try to stand on a strictly scientific basis and refrain from extreme generalizations and decisive conclusions, but nevertheless, a polemical tendency slips into them quite often. So Alyar, having entered into a frank explanation on this subject with his readers (preface to the 2nd ed.), admits that, in his opinion, the time has not yet come to draw decisive conclusions from archaeological discoveries, that it would be more prudent to wait until they develop on a larger scale and when more facts accumulate, but at the same time he directly declares that from this gradually accumulating material a “magnificent apology” should be compiled Catholic Church" (magnifique apologie de l'eglise catholique) and that the main features of this apology can already be outlined at the present time. Such an apology seems to him the most desirable thing and, as it were, the ultimate goal of all archaeological research. In his work, he himself, noticeably with special attention, although rarely, dwells on such facts that, in his opinion, favor some special points of Catholic doctrine, for example, on the inscription: Petrus, sometimes placed above the head of Moses bringing water out of the rock; sometimes he makes directly polemical comments on the interpretations of Protestant archaeologists. Along with works similar to the one indicated, Catholics, especially in the last 20 years, have appeared many works that have the special purpose of defending Catholicism with the help of monuments. In these writings, more impatient and less discriminating apologists try with all their might from the mass of monuments to select justifications for as many points of Catholic doctrine as possible, and especially for those that are rejected by Protestants, and for those that are equally rejected by both Protestants and Orthodox Eastern Christians, for example. about the primacy of the Roman bishop, about purgatory and so on. A lot of such works can be cited, especially in German literature, for example, M. Voltaire: “The Roman Catacombs and their significance for the Catholic doctrine of the Church” and “The Roman Catacombs and the Sacraments of the Catholic Church”, Grillwitzer: “Imaginative representations in the catacombs as evidence of the truth of the Catholic Church”, Otto: “The first Christians above and below the earth, or a testimony of faith, hope and love of our holy mother church. A book of consolation and encouragement for Catholics and teaching for their opponents," and finally, Diepolder's newest work: "Theology and art in early Christianity." The titles alone show the nature of these works. They do not pretend to have scientific significance, although they are not completely devoid of it, especially in relation to purely apologetic ones. They openly pose many questions that truly learned Catholics are afraid of. touch, and thus provoke more comprehensive research and criticism. Based on the works of their learned co-religionists, who have firmly established the ancient dates of many very important monuments, the authors of these works very bravely invite their opponents to come and listen to the testimony of the stones, look at the most ancient monuments of Christianity and make sure that Catholic teaching is already clearly revealed here too. The Protestant side, however, is not embarrassed by this sometimes too victorious tone of the Catholic apologists and, in turn, begins to present learned critics and researchers who can significantly cool the hasty enthusiasm. We will name here only two, especially remarkable ones: the Leipzig professor Schulze and the French Protestant pastor Rolet. Both of them studied the monuments on site for a long time and both take a strictly scientific, but at the same time theological point of view. The first of them in his “Archaeological Studios” and in another recently published book: “Catacombs, their history and monuments”, recognizing that through the study of ancient Christian monuments in general and catacomb monuments in particular, a new, rich and precious source is acquired for theological science (ein reicher Quellensehatz), and agreeing with all the almost chronological data obtained by Catholic archaeologists, especially persistently attacks the method adopted by Catholics for interpreting the meaning of monuments and thus sometimes significantly reduces the dogmatic value of these monuments. Coming from the idea that in funerary monuments it is most natural to look for ideas and images relating exclusively to burial and the afterlife, he denies the existence in these monuments of almost any hints of any part of theology with the exception of eschatology. His criticism is strict to the point of pickiness and involuntarily inspires the idea of ​​​​its bias, and the guiding thought that he puts at the basis of his criticism and taken to the extreme often leads him to strange and contradictory interpretations. The French pastor Rolet, who recently published in two huge volumes the fruits of his long-term study of monuments on site, takes a more impartial and calm approach to the matter. The conclusions reached by this learned Protestant after diligent and rigorous research are remarkable. 20 years ago, when the catacombs of Callistus in Rome had already been largely cleared, when a Christian Lutheran museum existed in Rome, and when Catholics began to point out with some triumph to pilgrims and travelers flocking to Rome to the newly discovered monuments, as a new irrefutable proof of the truth of the Catholic doctrine, Rolet published an article in the Revue cliretienne entitled: “Dogma in the Roman catacombs". Here he treated the indicated apologetic and polemical attempts of Catholics very ironically. Having listed all the then almost known monuments with certain dates, he found that there were very few allusions to the doctrine in them, that monuments against some Catholic doctrines give undoubted proof of their non-apostolicity, and against others they protest with their silence, and that, finally, “Protestant apologetics can only benefit from the continuation of serious excavations in these historical ruins, which give Rome so much pride” (Le dogme des catacombes p. 40). Obviously with this thought - to bring benefit to Protestant apologetics and to reduce pride in Rome, the author began a thorough study of the catacombs. He did this for about 20 years with the most sincere desire for the truth and tried to be completely impartial, but in the end he had to admit that if the catacombs do not favor Rome, then they do not favor the Protestants. essay: “Roman catacombs.” History of art and religious beliefs in the first centuries of Christianity "he insists several times that an impartial study should lead all parties to the conviction that "the Christians of the catacombs were neither Catholics in the modern sense, nor Protestants, much less free thinkers." (Les catac. de Rothe t. I, prefac. p. II, t. II, p. 375). If so, then the question arises: who were these Christians? Developing his idea, the author argues that all religious Christian societies should come here to check their titles, that is, the degree of orthodoxy, but that, at the same time, “not one of the factions of modern Christianity can claim that its presentation of the truth is absolutely equivalent to the understanding of the Christians of the first centuries, or that their customs are completely similar” (Ibid.). That the customs of the first Christians are not completely similar to modern ones and even that their ideas of religious truth had their own. features - we can agree with this; but this does not resolve the issue. Here we are not talking about perfect identity in all respects, but only about the greatest closeness in general and about the identity of the main dogmas. If the monuments of the catacombs do not favor either Catholics or Protestants, then they must favor someone. Does no one in modern Christianity already possess the God-given truth? The author seems to know nothing about Eastern Orthodoxy, but at times he is forced to make hints in its direction. Considering symbolic paintings, sometimes imprinted with an extraordinary depth of thought and intricacy of expression, he, for example, says, in agreement with other Western scientists (Baye), that “the Romans did not have such a mystical meaning that they themselves could depict this symbolism without receiving inspiration from the outside and precisely from the East." Drawing attention to the similarity of Western and Eastern subjects, he argues that this is not explained the existence of any general leadership, but because “Christianity in Rome, which came from the east, received inspiration from there for a long time.” Thus, the monuments of the ancient catacomb period bear clear traces of eastern origin, or eastern influence, and are monuments of eastern Christianity proper, although they are located in the west. Christianity, which originated in the east and from there spread to the west, acquired local characteristics here only later. Should not the monuments of this primitive Christianity therefore be of particular interest to the East, and should not the most significant share of the benefit here belong to them? Let us, however, go down into at least one of the catacombs and see for ourselves what kind of monuments these are, which are the subject of so much controversy. We choose the most important of these underground tombs - the tomb of Callistus, and even only one part of it - the one where the so-called papal crypt is located, or the room that served as the burial place for popes of the 3rd century. This tomb is located two miles from the gate of St. Sebastian along the Appian Way, the most famous of the Roman roads, called by Titus Livy “the queen of Roman roads.” This road was built by Appius Claudius the censor in 442 of the Roman era and was initially brought only to Capua, and then continued by Augustus to Benevento and Brindisi. This was the route for Rome's relations and trade with the east. In ancient times, this road, on both sides for quite a long distance, was lined with magnificent tombstones and mausoleums, most of which belonged to noble Roman families. Some of these monuments, for example, the tombs of the Scipios, the monument to Caecilia Metella, have survived to this day and give an approximate idea of ​​the splendor of the setting of this road. It is remarkable that the church-public Christian cemetery, which consisted not only of underground corridors, but also of rather monumental buildings on the surface of the earth, was located among these precisely aristocratic monuments. Nowadays, entering through the gate on the right side of the road with the inscription: coemeterium Callisti into the vast wasteland, once occupied by a vineyard, one can still see quite significant remains of the buildings built here by Pope Fabian at the beginning of the 3rd century. Near one of them, more distant, in the form of a quadrangle with apses on three sides, there is an entrance to the section of the tomb of Callistus that we have chosen. It should be noted that this section, like the others included in the tomb, was originally a completely independent tomb and probably belonged to the noble Roman family of the Caecilians, who donated it to the church. The area (area) occupied by this tomb had a very common measure among the Romans: 250 f. in length and 100 in width. This space could only be disposed of by the owners when constructing places here for their burial, either on the ground or underground. The initial plan for underground work here is still clear. On both long sides of the quadrangle, just along its borders, as well as on one of the short sides, there was a long, narrow, continuous corridor, thus encircling the legalized space. There were stairs at both ends of the corridor, so you could go down one staircase and go up the other, walking around the entire area. Then, between the longitudinal corridors there were several connecting transverse ones. One of the transverse corridors, closest to the exit, did not reach the point of connection with the opposite ones, but ended in a room in the middle. This was the central room of the tomb, where the popes were later buried. The original staircases that ended the side corridors were destroyed in the time of Diocletian and were subsequently used very little; instead of them in the 4th century. another was built in the middle, right in the papal crypt. Recently it has been restored and serves the same purpose as in antiquity. Let's go down these stairs into the interior of the catacomb. Having gone down, we find ourselves in a fairly large corridor, bending to the right towards the papal crypt. Into this corridor, at the very foot of the stairs, on the left there is a room called the cube of Dazumiya Kiriaki and remarkable inscriptions determining the age of the catacomb. One of these inscriptions mentions the bona femina of Dazumiya Kyriak and very touchingly calls it: palumba sine felle, i.e., the immaculate dove. According to information, it turns out that this Dasumia belonged to a noble Roman family that flourished at the beginning of the 2nd century. Another inscription found in the same room even has a specific date, namely, it dates back to the time when Diocletian and Maximin were consuls for the 4th time, i.e., to 290. The room of Dazumiya Kiriaki is followed on the same side of the corridor, at the turn of it, by another, giving definite indications of even greater antiquity. Bricks were found in it indicating the time of their fabrication - 123 - the time of Hadrian. Thus, the first thing we encounter when entering the catacomb is indications of its deep antiquity, in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. If you penetrate into the left corridor and then into the transverse ones and carefully examine the ancient brickwork that is found in places, it is easy to see many more such indications: bricks everywhere with marks indicating the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, i.e., the half of the 2nd century. If we realize that the brickwork was not made when the catacomb was first dug, but a considerable time later, after that, when it turned out to be cramped and there was a need to expand it, then it is easy to see that the first origin of the catacomb goes back to even greater antiquity. Turning to the right from the cubicles we encountered, we enter a rather large room with a luminarium at the top. This is a vestibule, something like a vestibule or vestibule to the main sanctuary. Here we will find indications of a different kind, namely, that after the end of the persecution, and even during it, this catacomb was already a revered place, that pilgrims flocked here like Jerusalem with prayers to the martyrs for intercession. Here we find many so-called graffiti, or inscriptions, scratched by the pilgrims and containing mainly various appeals to the saints buried in the catacomb; Sometimes, however, there are appeals of a more personal nature, but also of religious content, such as for example. graffiti with the name of a certain Sophronia. In one of the graffiti the catacomb is called Jerusalem. Having passed the lobby and continuing to go to the right, we will see two doors on the sides of the wide corridor - one closer to the right, and the other further to the left. We will skip the first one: it leads to a small room with a painting of Orpheus on the ceiling, and we will head further to the second one: this is the door to the main sanctuary of the catacomb. The walls on the sides of this door are also covered with graffiti. Stepping through the door, we find ourselves in a high room, illuminated from above by a luminarium and measuring 3½ meters wide and 4½ meters long. This is where the tombs of the popes were previously located. Modern visitors are usually disappointed when they first look at this room. They expect to enter a 3rd or 4th century room; It turns out in fact that the entire masonry of this room is almost modern. When it was opened in 1854, it turned out to be completely littered with garbage and it was possible to enter it only from above through the luminarium. When the rubbish was taken out, the vault collapsed. To prevent complete destruction, it was necessary to build new walls and strengthen the entire room. However, the restoration was carried out with all care and with all possible attention to the remains of antiquity: everything that could be preserved from these remains was preserved. Taking a closer look, you can still discern ancient remains and trace the history of the crypt through them. Three successive layers of plaster are still visible on the arch of the door: one decorated with ugly arabesques of the 7th or 8th century, and underneath another of the 4th century. with monograms, and under this the third, the oldest, with red stripes. The walls of the room itself were initially covered with thin and white plaster, decorated with paintings, some traces of which are still visible in the corners. This plaster is from the 5th century. It was covered with wide marble slabs, the remains of which were partly visible on the walls, and partly were found in the trash on the floor of the crypt. In the back of the room, in the wall opposite the entrance, to the left in the corner, you can see the door to the next crypt of St. Cecilia; the rest of the space adjacent to this wall was occupied by the altar. The marble platform, about a quarter high, which served as a room for it, has still been preserved. Here, in this platform, four more holes are visible, into which four pillars were apparently inserted, supporting the board of the throne. Between the throne and the wall there was still enough space for a high place and a pulpit. The dais on which the pulpit stood is still intact. The entire altar was enclosed on one side by a through marble lattice, and on the other by a wall of marble slabs of the same height. Remains of the lattice and walls also exist. At the side walls of the room, along the line of the altar, there was one twisted column. On their capitals there was a crossbar, which could serve as part for hanging lamps, partly for curtains. Behind the episcopal see there was a large tomb, and above it two inscriptions written by Pope Damasus and generally referring to the saints and martyrs buried in the Catacomb of Callistus. This altar, in all likelihood, was built already in the 5th century, when the crypt was upholstered in marble and generally radically repaired, but it is also a very respectable antiquity. When you look at it, you are involuntarily struck by its similarity with the altars that are common among us today. It was arranged the way we would arrange it for worship according to the Orthodox rite. However, the main attraction of the room is the tombs that fill it, or better yet, the epitaphs of these tombs. When cleaning the crypt, all the tombs were found destroyed, and the tombstones with the epitaphs of the popes were split. It was possible to collect a significant number of fragments from the garbage, which, when added together, resulted in four ancient epitaphs relating to the tombs of four popes of the 3rd century: Anteros (236), Fabian (250), Lucius (258) and Eutychian (283). In addition, the lid of the sarcophagus of Pope Urban (230) was found. Epitaphs of other popes buried here have not been found at all. But for general conclusions and considerations, what we found is sufficient. First of all, it is remarkable that all the epitaphs found here are in Greek. If these epitaphs belonged to private individuals, then in explanation one could assume that the buried were Greeks by origin. But these epitaphs belong to the primates of a completely independent church and, moreover, who lived in the 3rd century, when the bulk of the believing members of this church were Latins. Most of the popes of this time were also, if not Romans by birth, then generally Latins. It is obvious that Greek was still the official language of the Roman Church at that time. This fact obviously testifies to the very close connection of the Roman Church with the Eastern churches and even to some cultural dependence on them. And such dependence presupposes the complete absence of those claims that the Roman bishops now make in the field of church teaching. A further attraction of these epitaphs lies in their extraordinary simplicity: Αντερος επισχ, οπος, Φαβιαυος επισχοπος and nothing more. Only επισχοπος is added to the name, sometimes μαρτηρ, and nothing more. To understand the full significance of this simplicity, it is enough to look at those monuments of later popes that fill the modern Peter's Basilica in Rome. Here the popes are sovereigns and bishops of bishops, there they are simply bishops. Through the door indicated by us on the side of the altar you can go into the neighboring crypt of St. Cecilia. There are very few traces of antiquity in it. It was probably dug after the papal one, and then radically restored several times. True paintings have been preserved here, but very late from the 7th and 8th centuries, executed in the Byzantine style, which dominated at that time in the west as well as in the east. The main significance of this crypt is believed to be that its discovery confirmed the reality of the existence of the martyr Caecilia, a noble Roman woman who suffered under Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. Until this time, scientists, such as Tilmon, based on various inconsistencies in the corrupt acts of this martyr, considered her existence a myth. Now all these inconsistencies have been unraveled. The crypts we examined - papal and Caecilian - constituted the most important sanctuary of the tomb and its most ancient core. They enjoyed special respect, were often restored, and therefore lost a very significant part of their ancient character. Let us now look into those nooks and crannies of the catacombs that were little or not visited by pilgrims, were abandoned and were not renovated. In such places it is difficult to find references to any historical saint, but they often preserve genuine monuments dating back to ancient times and very important in many respects. One of these places is located in close proximity to the crypts of the popes and Cecilia. If we go back through the papal crypt into the corridor that led us to it and continue along it further, we will come to one of the outer galleries of the catacomb, running along the border of the longitudinal sides that we mentioned, namely to the right. Here, on the right side of the galleries, just opposite the corridor through which we entered here, begins a series of rooms, small, but very remarkable in their paintings. These paintings relate mainly to the sacraments of the church, and therefore the rooms themselves are known as the rooms of the sacraments - cubucoli dei sacramenti. There are 6 rooms in total and all of them, according to the general conviction of both Catholic and Protestant scholars, date back to, if not the end of the 2nd, then the beginning of the 3rd century. The first three were dug earlier, the rest a little later, but the gap here was small. The paintings that decorated them are not equally preserved everywhere. They are preserved in a more complete form in two: the second and the third. Their plot is the same: the difference is only in some details. The paintings in the third room attract special attention. They are arranged in such a harmonious and, so to speak, systematic order that Catholic scholars suspect here the consideration not of the artist himself, but of some church teacher who controlled the artist’s hand. These paintings are located here next. image: on the ceiling - the Good Shepherd; on the descent of the ceiling there are three scenes from the story of the prophet Jonah: Jonah under the pumpkin, Jonah being swallowed up by a whale and Jonah being spewed out. Then, along the middle part of the walls, the following paintings are placed and in the following order: to the left of the entrance, on the entrance wall: Moses bringing water out of the rock; on the left side wall: 1) a fisherman removing fish from the water with his milk; 2) baptism in the same water; 3) relaxed, carrying his bed; on the main wall, opposite the entrance: 1) a table with loaves and fish lying on it; on one side of it there is a male figure in the position of blessing the bread, and on the other, a female figure in the position of prayer; 2) the meal of the seven disciples and 3) the sacrifice of Isaac; There were no paintings preserved on the right wall, but by analogy with the next room, the resurrection of Lazarus should have been located here. What is the meaning of these paintings? Without going into the details of the interpretation compiled by Catholic scholars and supplied by them with a complex atmosphere of erudition, we will take only the main, more generally accepted of what relates to paintings on walls. The stone from which Moses issued water always meant Christ - the stone Christ - from which every hierarch receives the grace of sacred rites and, in particular, the authority to teach the grace that regenerates in the sacrament of baptism. The scene depicting a fisherman is nothing more than a symbolic representation of the very act of baptism: a fish raised on a fishing rod is nothing more than that pisciculus, which the contemporary of painting Tertullian speaks of, meaning by it a person reborn by water. The next image of the act of baptism itself does not require interpretation. It is only necessary to note that the baptism here is depicted by immersion: the person being baptized is here brought out of the water by the hand of the baptizer. The next image of the paralytic being healed at the font of Bethesda clearly hints at the fruits of baptism. Thus, the entire left wall relates to baptism. The main wall, opposite the entrance, depicts the Eucharist. The first image - a table with loaves and fish - is obviously an abbreviated symbolic image of the very performance of the sacrament; the female figure here represents the church - the community of believers present, the bread represents the types of the Eucharist, and the fish is a symbolic inscription indicating the real presence of Christ himself here, the transubstantiation of the Eucharistic types into the actual body and blood of Christ. This use of the image of a fish in the meaning of an inscription was very common at that time. This inscription translated meant: Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior. Further, the next painting, representing the disciples sitting at a table with loaves and fish lying on it and with eight baskets of loaves standing in front of it, is a symbolic-historical painting. It also represents an obvious allusion to the Eucharist, as well as the third - the sacrifice of Isaac, which many fathers present as the image of the New Testament bloodless sacrifice, for the blood of Isaac was not shed, just as it is not shed during the celebration of the Eucharist. The resurrection of Lazarus is a symbol of the future resurrection into the eternal belly, conditioned by the acceptance of the Eucharist. There remains a fresco placed on the entrance wall to the right and representing a teacher with a scroll and a man drawing water from a well. Its meaning is difficult to determine. But it should hardly not be considered as an explanation for the picture placed at the other end of the same wall, i.e., the picture of Moses bringing water out of the rock; Doesn't she also have the same idea? This is, in general terms, the interpretation given by Catholic scholars to these paintings. This interpretation, based on a careful comparison of paintings with the writings of contemporary fathers and with material monuments, in general in its main idea can be considered indisputable. Some of the Protestant scholars, like Rolet, agree with this, but others, like Schulze, try in every possible way to belittle the significance of these paintings for the doctrine of the sacraments. Schulze says that “to understand this cycle as De Rossi understands it, and others after him, means to reject the meaning and purpose of sepulcral ideas" (Archäd. Stud. p. 97). Since this idea about the exclusively funerary meaning of the paintings found in the catacombs is the main idea of his entire extensive analysis of these paintings, then regarding it only we will make the remark that the dogmatic meaning and sepulral are not incompatible things. The disassembled paintings, when interpreted by De Rossi, do not lose their meaning as decorations of the burial room. There is nothing in them that is inconsistent with the purpose of this room. The entire set of paintings speaks of salvation and resurrection, of eternal life, of the dwelling of the deceased among the elect (inter electos), among the saints. But in order to enter this rank of the elect and saints, it is necessary to be reborn by the water of baptism and become participants in the Eucharist. So, isn’t the whole set of paintings so appropriate in a funeral room an expression of the firm hope of a believing member of the church for salvation and eternal life? Isn't this a symbolic translation of a trace? texts: unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (1 John III 5); eat my flesh and drink my blood to have an eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day (John VI 58)? The same hope, and even with the same combination of ideas, is expressed in epitaphs. The famous Otion epitaph speaks of the divine fish and of washing in divine waters and of eating and drinking the Eucharist. This epitaph is not the only one: similar ideas are found in another, known under the name of Averky of Ierapolis. If it was appropriate to talk about baptism and the Eucharist in epitaphs, then why is it not appropriate in tombstone paintings! These are the main attractions of the catacomb we bypassed. We could continue our detour even further, we could go to other parts of the tomb, to the tombs of Popes Eusebius and Cornelius, then to the crypt of Lucina, where we could see a symbolic image of the Eucharist even more ancient than that indicated, we could, crossing the road, go down to the catacomb of Domitilla, where we would find monuments from the 1st century, but this would lead us too far and force us to leave the limits of general viewing, which is exactly what we had in mind. It seems to us that the above facts are enough to understand exactly what benefits Orthodox science can expect from the study of the monuments discovered in the catacombs, and then to regret that Orthodox scientists have too little opportunity to directly study the monuments of Christian antiquity, not only Western, but also Eastern, no doubt even more important. You might be interested in: