The many faces of Tryphe

Sharing a couch with Life

On panel 967.132 in the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, two figures share a couch. The woman is named Tryphe and the man Bios, meaning Life. The pairing gives the subject its force: life and the wish to enjoy it in comfort occupy a single scene.^4,5

The museum dates the panel to about AD 350–400 and records that it is said to come from Emesa, present-day Homs. The reclining poses, elaborate couch and objects make the good life tangible. A small wheel held by Bios forms part of the scene; the museum interprets it as a charm intended to keep the lovers together.⁴

Enlarge

Here, ease becomes a relationship rather than an isolated quality: Life is pictured in company with luxurious living. Nur Deniz Ünsal and Derya Şahin’s study examines posture, furniture, jewellery and objects together. The lettering identifies the concepts; the visual details show how the relationship between them is expressed.⁶

Three personifications at Olba

At Olba, in the Silifke district of Mersin, excavation of a monastery in 2015 uncovered an earlier Roman pavement. One panel contains three personifications in bust form: Tryphe, Bios and Pro To Lousia. Emel Erten’s publication explains the last name as “first bath”. Tryphe appears within a circular frame, with jewellery and a vessel in her hand.⁷

Enlarge

Enlarge

Another panel of the pavement shows erotes making music and hunting. The personifications thus belong to a larger arrangement of images concerned with music, the body and pleasure. Erten proposes a Severan date on stylistic and comparative grounds. Beneath the monastery, the earlier floor also records a change in the use of the site.⁷

The phrase “first bath” may immediately suggest a bath building. The publication notes, however, that architectural evidence needed to establish that function had not been found. At Olba, the relationship between imagery and building use remains open. The same distinction matters at Zile: a figure of luxurious living cannot by itself determine the use of the entire building.^8,9

A repertoire rather than a single model

Around Antioch, some compositions place reclining images of Tryphe and Bios in separate panels. Vessels, flowers, jewellery and posture contribute to the idea of pleasurable living. The name remains while the visual relationships around it change. This variety shows that the personification was not a single portrait repeated unchanged.¹⁰

A shared subject does not establish a shared maker. An idea can be adapted to different commissions, rooms and tastes. Comparison becomes useful when it moves beyond finding a matching image. The position of an inscription, the figure’s surroundings, the panel’s dimensions and its orientation within a room all offer ways of examining the choices made for each work.^11,2

A similar appearance, a different idea

Enlarge

The Ktisis mosaic in The Metropolitan Museum of Art shows a female bust wearing elaborate jewellery. Dated to AD 500–550 and incorporating modern restoration, it has a restored Greek inscription naming the figure Ktisis. The museum connects the idea with foundation or generous donation; the measuring instrument she holds belongs to that identity.¹²

This example explains why an elaborately dressed female figure cannot be identified by appearance alone. Jewellery may be shared while the represented idea differs. The significance of the inscription at Zile becomes especially clear here. Its five letters identify the concept around which the image was designed.^12,3