Who Built Old St Peter’s? The Evidence of the Inscriptions and Mosaics

Old St Peter’s in Rome, according to the sixth-century Liber Pontificalis , was founded by Constantine (306–337), a claim accepted by most scholars who appeal to a variety of evidence. This paper will challenge this, focusing on the inscriptional and mosaic evidence and developing the arguments of Glen Bowersock and Alastair Logan that it was not constructed by Constantine at all but by one of his sons, in all likelihood Constans (337–350). It will argue that he began it in the late 340s as a five-aisled cemeterial basil-ica which Constantius II (337–361) completed in the late 350s, adding the apse mosaic. The paper will argue for the fundamental significance of two anonymous inscriptions and claim that the key evidence cited has not properly included one of them and in fact reflects the growing influence of legends about Constantine and Silvester.


Logan
Vigiliae Christianae 75 (2021) 43-69 in Rome and Italy included in the very long entry for bishop Silvester (314-335) in the sixth-century Liber Pontificalis,2 relates that Constantine built it, giving details of its location, of Peter's coffin, of the building and of its ornaments, liturgical vessels, lights and endowments, the last all from the East, which suggests a date after Constantine's defeat of Licinius in 324.3This remains the trump card for defenders of the traditional dating and to it scholars have added a variety of other evidence, literary, archaeological and architectural.4However, much of it is indirect.5What is more, the earliest liturgical evidence, the Depositio Martyrum, or list of the dates and places of the deposition of (predominantly) Roman martyrs, included in Furius Dionysius Filocalus' Chronograph-Calendar of 354, implies in its entry for 29th June that the deposition of Peter was still being celebrated at Catacumbae, the present site of San Sebastiano on the Appian Way, three Roman miles south of the ancient city walls.6Engelbert Kirschbaum deduced from this that St Peter's had not yet been completed.7Krautheimer, who argued that Old St Peter's cannot have taken more than seven to eight years to complete,8 did not deal directly with this problem in his discussion.He simply suggested in his section on San Sebastiano in his previous volume, following Duchesne the Vatican, Paul's in the Ostian Way and that of both at Catacumbae.9 Neither Duchesne nor Krautheimer could really believe that in 354 Old St Peter's did not already exist as the creation of Constantine.10 After the appeal to the Liber Pontificalis, whose account has been radically questioned,11 the strongest evidence adduced for the traditional dating consists of inscriptions and mosaics recorded in the building.12These include as arguably most persuasive the inscription recorded in the Liber entry on a gold cross: Constantinus Augustus et Helena Augusta hanc domum regalem simili fulgore coruscans aula circumdat ("Constantine Augustus and Helena Augusta … a hall glittering in similar splendour surrounds this royal house").13Next there is the hexameter inscription recorded by a pilgrim and preserved in a collection kept in the monastery of Einsiedeln: Quod duce te mundus surrexit in astra triumphans / hanc Constantinus victor tibi condidit aulam ("Because under your leadership the world rose up triumphant to the stars, Constantine, the victor, founded this hall for you"),14 which accompanied a mosaic on the triumphal arch recorded in the early sixteenth century depicting Constantine presenting the church to Christ accompanied by Peter.15   In response Paolo Liverani has reasserted the likely Constantinian provenance of the Quod duce te inscription and mosaic, arguing that the former's language both echoes contemporary rhetoric,32 and has influenced later authors such as Damasus.33However, the claimed resemblances are not particularly close, and can be better explained in terms of the inscription being later and influenced by the language of Damasus and others.34Moreover, the mosaic presents problems.It suggests that the building was dedicated to Christ, not Peter, which is not clear and seems contradicted by other evidence,35 and its presence on the triumphal arch when the apse, the key iconographical location, was very probably originally aniconic, with the traditio legis mosaic added later, as we shall see, seems problematic.Thus, Bowersock's suggestion that it reflects the later legend echoed in the Liber seems more plausible,36 and he does make a good case as regards the gold cross inscription,37 if perhaps inevitably less so in the case of Vegio's fragmentary one.Interestingly enough, Pace Gem, "From Constantine" 39.Liverani's claim ("Old St. Peter's" 490) that the proper term should have been palatium is not relevant: domus refers to the basilical hall, and his claim that the term refers to the memoria cannot explain the surrounding hall; the former was not surrounded by but attached to the basilica.
Gem suggests that a son of Constantine may have been the subject,38 and that the hint of an irreligious attack implied by expiata might apply to Constans' defeat of Constantine II in 340.39However, there is evidence to suggest that it actually applies to another son, Constantius, and his 358 campaign against the Sarmatians.40Thus Ammianus Marcellinus, in his account, refers to the Sarmatians' incursion (incursare),41 precisely as in the inscription.Further, he describes how Constantius learnt of it during his Roman visit in 357.42His ensuing victorious campaign would thus be appropriately marked by an inscription on the apse arch of the basilica.43This seems much more plausible than a rather belated marking of Constans' victory, and Vegio's likely misreading is very understandable.44 In any case Bowersock's overall thesis does depend to a considerable degree on the Iustitiae sedes inscription and how it is to be interpreted.Indeed, José Ruysschaert has argued strongly on the basis of this inscription that Constantine was the sole founder and builder of the basilica,45 rejecting arguments for a later date, the communis opinio that he and one of his sons were responsible, and the evidence appealed to, including the Iustitiae sedes inscription, as the basis since the end of the nineteenth century of every hypothesis for the late dating of the Vatican basilica and its completion after Constantine.46He notes the anonymity of the inscription, alluding to the only comparable example, the anonymous incomplete inscription from the tenth-century Codex Parisinus 8071, taken from a collection of Roman church inscriptions.It reads: Hic Petrus et Paulus mundi [duo]  signified to the Lord the starry [honour?]").47He notes its mutilated character and the fact that its Roman provenance is unknown, lacking the vital words which would have resolved its anonymity, and he compares it with two other later inscriptions that do supply the names of the imperial benefactors involved (Theodosius and Galla Placidia).48In fact this anonymous inscription will prove of vital significance in what follows.Ruysschaert also rejects appeal to the Vatican inscription from the base of the obelisk in the Circus Maximus, referring to Constantius' completion of Constantine's plan to bring it to Rome, and using the terms pater, genitor, auctor and gloria,49 as supporting the communis opinio, again on the basis of the lack of ambiguity over its subjects.This then leads him to argue for a spiritual interpretation: the Einsiedeln inscription should be understood in terms of the Trinity and the co-equality of Father and Son, and in consequence has to be dated after the death of Constantius, when Liberius (352-366) was finally able to defend the Nicene theology affirming that co-equality.50He also links the inscription with the apse mosaic, which he claims, on the basis of the lid of the casket from Samagher and other evidence, such as the fourth-century engraved plaque from a Roman catacomb preserved at Anagni and the medieval replacement by Innocent III of the apse mosaic as recorded by Grimaldi in a sketch, represented in its upper half the so-called traditio legis, Christ in majesty handing the scroll of the New Law to Peter on his left, with Paul on his right, his right hand raised in acclamation.51Furthermore that its lower half, which he claims is also depicted on the Samagher casket, represented the motif of the hetimasia or empty throne with the Lamb beneath it and flanked by the twelve apostles, explains for him the opening Iustitiae sedes of the inscription.52  St Peter's, dedicated along with St Paul's on 18th November 333,53 was aniconic, with no image in the apse.54Krautheimer, after originally relating the inscription to what he considered Constantius' installation of a mosaic in the apse,55 accepted Ruysschaert's trinitarian interpretation for a time, if arguing nevertheless that the inscription need not date after 337,56 but then returned to his original view.57More recently an article under his and Carpiceci's names has suggested that Old St Peter's was originally planned by Constantine as a rectangular, free-standing memoria measuring 90m by 20m, with an apse on the long western wall in whose chord was the original shrine or aedicula of St Peter dating to the 160s.To the east of it was constructed a vast rectangular enclosure for pilgrims, involving a massive infill and levelling.Only later was there added to the memoria a three-aisled basilica, subsequently converted into a five-aisled version to form a vast covered cemetery taking up much of the enclosure.58However, scholars criticize Carpiceci's role and reject his general conclusions,59 Gem pointing out, in his discussion of the archaeological data,60 that there is no evidence that the eastern wall of the transept between the pillars of the triumphal arch was continuous; rather it was a later sleeper wall not carrying anything on its surface.61This implies that an opening between transept and nave must have been envisaged from the beginning.62Moreover the five-aisled nave design also seems to have been established early on.63More intriguingly, Gem notes that the primary apse foundations were later replaced,64 suggesting as a hypothetical explana- in Trastevere,71 which was probably built by Julius (337-352),72 and there is a sufficient degree of similarity between the two to suggest that Julius might have been responsible for both.73Krautheimer wishes to understand all three phrases as referring to the Ecclesia, the Church of the faithful, but his interpretation and claimed parallels, while interesting, do not seem entirely relevant to what appears to be the original subject of the inscription, the actual building, as a shrine of, and centre of pilgrimage to, Peter.74Furthermore, although the terms "house of faith" and "hall of modesty" seem applicable to such a building and the latter even attested at the time as applying to a basilica Therefore it might be safer to reject the trinitarian interpretation and return to our suggestion that the inscription represents the original dedication.Thus the phrase "the virtues of father and son" and the allusion to the auctor equalling his genitor refer to Constantine and one of his sons.84It might be argued that the references to the virtues of father and son and to the auctor being rendered equal to the praises of his father could plausibly be interpreted as implying that Constantine began and a son completed the building Archaeological investigation has suggested that the son was Constans,91 and Silvester is the most likely candidate for the praesul.Furthermore the language suggests that the project was inaugurated towards the end of the reigns of father and praesul (i.e.Constantine and Silvester).Moreover, such a dating of the basilica seems to be confirmed by the dates of internal graves and external mausolea at the site (340-359).92 The inscription has been a major plank in my recent argument that contemporary members of the Roman community which had been responsible for initiating the joint martyr cult of Peter and Paul at Catacumbae in 258 with relics, genuine or supposed, of the two translated from the traditional sites, persuaded Silvester in the early 330s to get Constantine, long absent in the East, to support the building of a covered cemetery at the site.93This was attached to the permanent memoria containing the supposed relics (and frescoes?) of the two, as hinted at by the inscription.94Julius, my argument goes on, fearful of the international popularity of the cult, and keen to gain control over it and harness it to his purposes, was able to get that memoria, cella 43/mausoleum I,95 demolished and the relics either transferred back to the original sites or concealed in the Lateran basilica.In my opinion, it was Julius therefore who persuaded Constans in the mid to late 340s to construct the As regards the relation between Julius and Constans, we have noted the imperial character of the two new foundations, but the unlikelihood that Constans originated the idea for them, given that he had not long before completed his father's basilica at Catacumbae for the joint cult.Moreover, the precedent of Constantine's allowing the bishop of Jerusalem, Macarius, a largely free hand in suggesting details of the Holy Sepulchre basilica, while offering his own ideas and the help of his local officials in the construction,104 coupled with Constans' evident regard for bishops like Athanasius and Julius,105 would strengthen the hypothesis that, while Julius was responsible for suggesting the original idea and relative sizes of the two basilicas, Constans was responsible for their construction and endowment.106 This argument does seem to make best sense of the varied evidence, and following it, the allusions in the Einsiedeln inscription to the virtues of father and son, and the son made equal to the father's praises, may therefore very well refer, as I hinted above, to the involvement of both in building shrines to Peter.As Constantine began construction of the cemeterial basilica attached to the memoria of the joint cult of Peter and Paul at Catacumbae, so Constans equalled him by beginning construction of the grand new memorial basilica on the Vatican.107Constantine's role at Catacumbae had to be alluded to so as not to alienate Constans, who had completed the basilica there, now effectively downgraded, while his agreement to build the new basilica had to be lauded by him being put on the same level as his illustrious parent.The absence of the Basilica Apostolorum from the list of basilicas attributed to Constantine in the Liber I considered entirely understandable in the light of the demolition of the memoria and the consequent removal as redundant of the Marucchi inscription, probably located on the inner end nave wall.108Conversely the author of the list of basilicas, writing perhaps in the mid to late fifth century at a time of growing interest in Constantine and Silvester,109 clearly supposed that Constantine was responsible for both St Peter's and the original St Paul's.He evidently knew of the gold cross, which he locates over Constantine's bronze coffin in the former,110 but if he had known of the triumphal arch inscription and mosaic, he betrays no hint of such a priceless support for a claim to Constantinian provenance.111Finally the anonymous style of the Einsiedeln inscription which encouraged Ruysschaert's trinitarian hypothesis, seems perfectly explicable as a conscious echoing by Julius of the style of the Marucchi inscription from the Basilica Apostolorum.Both seem best understood as the dedicatory inscriptions of imperial foundations, and Ruysschaert was right to see the similarity.112

4
The Apse Mosaic This brings us to the apse mosaic and its relation to the inscription.Both Ruysschaert and Krautheimer would unite the two and see the mosaic as reflecting the language of the inscription, if they differ on its date and author: while the former appeals to a date after Constantius' death, the latter still appeals to Constantius as responsible.However, both agree that Constantine founded St Peter's, that the apse was originally aniconic, and that the main subject of the later mosaic was the so-called traditio legis.It depicted Christ with beard and halo standing on a hill from which flow the four rivers of Paradise, presenting the scroll of the New Law to Peter on his left holding a tall cross, with Paul on his right, the usual position of honour, raising his right hand in a pose of acclamation.113As we have seen, Ruysschaert also draws attention to the empty throne with lamb underneath on the rear side of the Samagher casket, which The "seat of justice" would then seem to relate to the basilica as the hallowed shrine of Peter who, as recipient of the New Law from Christ (traditio legis), dispensed it, as did his Roman successors.117Strikingly we also find a form of the motif of the traditio legis in the upper central panel of the sarcophagus of the city prefect of Rome, Junius Bassus, who died in 359, discovered under the pavement of the confessio, very near the shrine, in 1597.118 However, it does represent a rather different iconography, depicting a youthful, beardless Christ enthroned above the pagan god of the heavens, Caelus, holding a partly unrolled scroll in his left hand, with Peter standing on his left, and Paul standing on Christ's right holding a scroll.119Conversely, the iconography of the Samagher casket and other examples cited seem to correspond to Couzin's "standard" version and thus may be earlier.120Nevertheless, the question remains: was the mosaic originally associated with the inscription, or was the former added somewhat later?Even if, as noted above, Duchesne and Krautheimer were wrong to interpret the cryptic language of the Liber about Constantine constructing the camera of the basilica of gold foil (trimma auri) in terms of the vault of the apse,121 that does not invalidate the hypothesis that the apse was originally aniconic or Krautheimer's subsequent argument that it was Constantius who added both inscription and mosaic.122That there was a previous apse mosaic is attested both by Severinus' restoration in 640,123 and the addition of the Quod duce te inscription to the triumphal arch, rather than the apse.However, the inscription, as we saw, seems to refer directly to the building rather than to any apse decoration.If we do give some credence to the language and testimony of the Liber, we could still reconcile all this by ascribing the apse inscription to Julius and the mosaic to Constantius.
Certainly, the evidence seems to suggest that the latter was responsible for completing and endowing St Peter's.124If we take the evidence of the Depositio Martyrum seriously, implying that the supposed relics of Peter were still at Catacumbae in 354, then that suggests the memoria still existed.In that case, we would have to emend my thesis about Julius being responsible for its demolition, and suggest Constantius instead.Taking his stand on the fact that the whole complex was an imperial possession,125 and disregarding any protests by aristocratic supporters of the joint cult,126 Constantius must have had the memoria demolished and Peter's relics translated to St Peter's and probably placed in the rectangular cavity in wall g of the confessio, very likely suggested with that in view by Julius.127Indirect evidence of this translation may well be found in the episode in 355 related by Athanasius, in which Eusebius, Constantius' eunuch, presented gifts, intended to bribe Liberius to abandon his support for Athanasius, to the guardian of the martyrium of the apostle Peter, which Liberius, in a fury with the guardian, threw out as unlawful.128 It was this which allegedly caused Constantius to demand that Liberius be expelled from Logan Vigiliae Christianae 75 (2021) 43-69 the city.129Constantius must have been particularly enraged by this insult to him and his revered shrine of Peter, particularly if the latter's relics were now there.What is more, Constantius, as Athanasius attests, was very keen to attend the consecrations of basilicas in which he had a significant interest,130 and during his stay in Rome (April 28th to May 29th 357),131 Pentecost Sunday, 11th May, would have been an appropriate day for the consecration of St Peter's,132 with its returned relics and gleaming new mosaic.133 Indeed, a pointer towards Constantius being responsible for that mosaic may be found in the mosaic itself.What is so striking about its subject matter, which virtually no-one seems to have considered odd,134 is the very prominent way Paul is presented in a building ostensibly dedicated to Peter.135 What circumstances could explain this anomaly?In the New Testament Paul presents himself very much as opponent and critic of Peter.136Certainly he was honoured at Rome as fellow martyr from the 160s,137 and was the object with Peter, as we have seen, of a joint martyr cult which began at Catacumbae in 258.138Indeed he does seem to emerge as an increasingly significant figure in Roman iconography alongside, if at first still subordinate to Peter, from around the middle of the fourth century.139But the main reason for that, not satisfactorily explained by art historians with their appeal to a supposed concordia apostolorum, would seem ultimately attributable to the influence of the very popular international joint cult.Indeed it may have played a key role not only in the decision to construct both St Peter's on the Vatican and St Paul's on the Ostian Way, as has been argued, but also in the development of the characteristic iconographical themes involving both, including the traditio legis of the apse mosaic.
Clearly Peter in his own church is the more important figure, but Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, was an equal partner in the joint cult.Although supporters of that cult, perhaps disappointed by the rather insignificant memoria of Paul on the Ostian Way, might have put pressure on the bishop (Julius or Liberius) to include Paul somehow in the grand new Vatican basilica, it must have been someone with more clout, who could ignore the bishop and his exclusive focus on Peter in his memoria, and commission a mosaic with such distinctive features.And who was more likely than Constantius?As has been suggested, he was responsible for modifying and endowing the basilica, and translating Peter's relics to it, and was surely present at its likely consecration in May 357.140Moreover, unlike his father, he seems to have been a keen devotee of both Peter and Paul and their cult.This can be deduced from a variety of evidence.First there is the likelihood that on his visit to Rome in 357 he attended St Paul's as well as St Peter's.141Then there are the appropriate eastern of Peter and Paul's deposition, was celebrated in the church by the patriarch in the presence of later Byzantine emperors.149Thus Constantius, who had been so recently concerned with the shrines of Peter and Paul in Rome, may very well have decided to re-establish the joint cult and its festival of 29th June in a single location in his new church in Constantinople with the most appropriate relics he could find.He may even have petitioned Felix or Liberius to send him the relics of the two from their new shrines, a hypothesis that may find an echo in Damasus' epigram of the 370s, a riposte to the East, insisting that Rome was better able to defend Peter and Paul, its citizens.150However, clinching evidence for Constantius' interest may finally be supplied by the matching pair of apse mosaics featuring Peter and Paul in Sta Costanza in Rome, whose construction Kleinbauer has also plausibly attributed to him.151 The first depicts a dark, bearded Christ in majesty presenting Peter on his right with the keys.152Intriguingly, the matching mosaic depicts a youthful, blond, beardless Christ presenting a long scroll, which is inscribed DOMINUS PACEM DAT, not to Peter, who again stands on his right and resembles the Peter of the other mosaic, but to a plump-faced, balding, heavily bearded Paul on his left.153Thus this motif is not a traditio legis but rather a traditio pacis.154Strikingly, both portraits differ from their traditional representations, with Peter as tall, slight and thin-faced, rather than stockier and square-headed, and Paul as described, rather than with a thin, pointed face and beard.155Certainly the mosaics have been extensively restored, as Jensen notes,156 perhaps affecting the imagery, and other Roman images of the motif have Peter as the recipient, as of course does the mosaic in St Peter's.But the scroll inscription seems original versus the DOMINUS PACEM DAT of the traditio legis tradition,157 and supports Jensen's interpretation of the figures: Christ grants peace through Paul's preaching of reconciliation between Jew and Gentile.158 How then are we to interpret this evidence?Despite the differences in the depiction of Christ, Jensen rightly notes that both mosaics are from the same date and workshop, and that the Jesus iconography appears to be both intentional and ancient.159 The clue to understanding them may lie precisely in their juxtaposition: while one celebrates Peter and his ecclesiastical authority, the other celebrates Paul and his teaching, as Apostle to the Gentiles, while also giving Peter the place of honour.That is, the person responsible, i.e.Constantius, is celebrating the importance, contribution, and joint cult of both, most likely as a tribute to Constans, completer of the Basilica Apostolorum at Catacumbae.The differences from the more usual representations of both probably also suggest that the traditio pacis was the original motif.160But, when it came to his mosaic for St Peter's, Constantius must have felt it appropriate in the circumstances and the Iustitiae sedes language of the inscription to adapt that earlier motif and iconography to express the new idea of the traditio legis to Peter, balancing it by giving Paul the place of honour, and reflecting the iconography of the Catacumbae memoria.161 In turn, this high-profile original version influenced later representations of the motif, particularly Couzin's "standard" one.This surely strengthens the argument that the traditio legis mosaic was original to St Peter's.Therefore Krautheimer, if wrong about Constantine as both Peter and Paul, and its catacomb and imperial cemeterial basilica honouring their joint cult.While the gradual development and adorning of the aedicula, as traced by Kirschbaum,170 does imply continuing devotion to Peter at the Vatican site,171 attested by Eusebius and Athanasius,172 the joint cult was centred at Catacumbae from 258 until the 350s and the building of the two new memoriae at the traditional sites.However attractive the claim that Constantine was responsible for Old St Peter's, it rests on legend, not fact.

LoganVigiliae
Christianae 75 (2021) 43-69 , that the Depositio entry is fragmentary and that the original full version occurs in the fifth-century Martyrologium Hieronymianum which has Peter's deposition inKrautheimer, ibid.171,273-274.4 See e.g.Krautheimer, ibid.171-172, 272-277.5 Thus, appeal is made to a decree of 349 (CTh 9,17,2) attributed to Constans (337-350) forbidding removal of marble from monuments, backdated to 333 and Constantine's supposed work on St Peter's, to a remark of Eusebius (Theoph.4,7) of around 325 supposedly implying the existence of the basilica, and to a gap of around thirty years in inscriptions attached to a pagan sanctuary, the Phrygianum, near St Peter's.Re archaeological and architectural evidence, appeal is made to coins and brick stamps discovered in later excavations and to features of the building style or to the surviving twisted vine scroll columns which the Liber Pontificalis claims Constantine brought from the east (Duchesne, LP 1,176.4-5;Gem, "From Constantine," 37).See now Liverani, "Old St. Peter's."6 See Duchesne, LP 1,11.13-14:III kal.iul.[29th June] Petri in Catacumbas et Pauli Ostense, Tusco et Basso cons.[258].On the Chronograph-Calendar see M. Salzman, On Roman Time: The Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, Los Angeles and Oxford, 1999).
Iustitiae sedes fidei domus aula pudoris / haec est quam cernis pietas quam possidet omnis, / quae patris et filii virtutibus inclyta gaudet / auctoremque suum genitoris laudibus aequat ("This which you behold is a seat of justice, a house of faith, a hall of modesty, which piety possesses totally, renowned, it rejoices in the virtues of father and son, and renders its author equal to his father's praises").16This was accompanied by a (later?) mosaic which apparently depicted Christ giving a scroll of the New Law (traditio legis) to Peter on his left, with Paul on his right in a pose of acclamation.17The inscription has been interpreted as indicating that Constantine began St Peter's and a son completed it.18Finally there is a very fragmentary inscription seen by Maffeo Vegio on the arch over the altar in the mid fifteenth century: Constantini … Constantine's direct role in the founding of the basilica, of which, as he notes, the Liber Pontificalis entry is the earliest recorded notice.
subsidence required a rebuilding of the apse, or that a wooden ceiling was replaced by a masonry semi-dome.65However, Gem is led by the inscription on the triumphal arch to ascribe the basilica to Constantine, if the two apse inscriptions incline him to assign the rebuilt apse to Constans.66But if Bowersock's argument that the triumphal arch inscription and mosaic are much later and reflect the legend that Constantine founded Old St Peter's and dedicated it to Christ and mine attributing the Vegio inscription to Constantius, are justified, we are left with just the Iustitiae sedes one.
55 "The Constantinian Basilica" 120 n. 11.He follows Duchesne in interpreting the camera of 1,176.6 as the apse vault covered by Constantine in gold foil (CBCR 5,171), as at the Lateran (see Krautheimer, Corpus Basilicarum Christianarum Romae 1 (Vatican City, 1937) 172.16), hence lacking any imagery.However, Liverani, "Camerae e coperture delle basiliche Logan Vigiliae Christianae 75 (2021) 43-69 tion either that 2 Interpreting the Iustitiae sedes Inscription Indeed, that inscription and how to interpret it properly is evidently central to the debate about who built Old St Peter's, but how exactly are we to understand its -rather gnomic -text, and what is its relation to the mosaic?It was most likely positioned in a band at the base of the apse, below the semi-dome,67 which, making the Vegio inscription a later addition, and the Quod duce te mosaic and inscription later still,68 here represents the primary inscriptional location.69Thus it is best understood as the dedicatory inscription.70Certainly the opening terms seem to apply to the entire building as a seat of justice, a house (domus) of faith, a hall (aula) of modesty which the viewer sees before them.Now Bowersock has pointed to the incorporation of the terms iustitia, domus and pudor in an inscription over the main door of the original Sta Maria 69 Pace Krautheimer, "Building Inscriptions" 9-15.He nevertheless implies a similar situation at St Paul's-outside-the-walls re the Galla Placidia inscription on the triumphal arch (11).70 As Brandenburg, Saint Peter's 18-19, argues.
,75 in what sense could Peter's memoria merit the title "seat of justice?"The answer would seem to lie in what the inscription may well be alluding to, namely the passage in Matthew (16.13-20) in which Peter, as a result of his statement of faith in Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God," is made the foundation of the Church (domus fidei?) and given authority over it.Peter's memoria, to which Christians flocked, was for them the true source of justice, not the law courts of the pagans.76Certainlythe mosaic illustrating Christ's handing over the New Law to Peter, whether contemporary with or later than the inscription, does support this interpretation.77Buthow are we to interpret the following phrases about the building being possessed totally by pietas and renowned, rejoicing in the virtues of father and son (quae patris et filii virtutibus inclyta gaudet)?Ruysschaert's trinitarian of father and son might seem plausible at first sight.78However Pietri has questioned that interpretation, pointing out that Damasus, in a letter dating perhaps to 372, insisted on the Western trinitarian belief in only one virtus and usia in the Godhead.79Ruysschaert's interpretation would make the inscription decidedly subordinationist and "Arian,"80 very much going against not only Damasus' theology, but its foundation, the theology that Athanasius had developed in the 330s and brought to Rome in 339-340, and which finds its Western expression in the doctrinal statement of the (Western) Council of Serdica of 343.That Council had insisted on the equality of Father and Son as a single being, while rejecting any confusion, and allowing that the Father was greater than the Son only insofar as the name "Father" was greater.81It had also referred to Rome in its letter to Julius as caput … Petri apostoli sedem.82Furthermore, in response to Ruysschaert's appeal to the following phrase about the auctor being rendered equal to the praises of his genitor as implying the co-equality of both and thus a date after Constantius, Pietri has argued that understanding Christ as the auctor of St Peter's seems very implausible.83 71"Peter and Constantine" 11 n.40, referring to de Rossi, ICUR 2.1,151; Diehl, ILCV 1,1783: Haec domus est Christi semper mansura pudori / Iustitiae cultrix plebi servavit honorem.He also notes the phrase aula pudoris in a fourth-or fifth-century inscription in the original basilica of S. Agapitus near Praeneste (CIL 14,3415), and Ambrose uses it (Exhort.virg.4,27 (PL 16,343D)).Prudentius, Contra Symmachum 2,249-255 (Fontes Christiani, 85,182), as Ruysschaert has noted ("Inscription" 178), seems to echo the St Peter's inscription, employing fides, pietas, iustitia, pudor, domus and sedes to describe his ideal Christian 77 See on this J.Dresken-Weiland, "The Role of Peter in Early Christian Art: Images from the 4th to the 6th Century," in R. Dijkstra (ed.),The Early Reception and Appropriation of the Apostle Peter (60-800 CE).The Anchors of the Fisherman (Euhormos: Greco-Roman Studies in Anchoring Innovation 1) (Leiden, 2020) 115-134.Logan Vigiliae Christianae 75 (2021) 43-69 interpretation However, both Bowersock's interpretation of auctor as sole subject (as well as his case in general) and the very considerable time delay implied by the Depositio entry, if original, tend to militate against such a view.What is more likely is that the building of St Peter's is being regarded as an equal achievement to a major construction of Constantine, such as the Constantinian or Lateran basilica.85The authority and Christian piety (virtus) of the father in constructing it has been matched by the authority and piety of the son in constructing St Peter's.On the other hand, as we shall see, there is another, perhaps more likely, subject of the comparison, namely the Basilica Apostolorum at Catacumbae.Finally, as regards the authorship of the inscription, that Julius was ultimately responsible is suggested by its style and tone, the veiled allusions to Peter, his see and primacy (Iustitiae sedes), and the echoes of Julius' dedicatory language noted above.86 the frequent term for a bishop in Christian writings of the period,90 beginning the project, and a son completing what his father had willed.Now since Marucchi no-one has offered a persuasive alternative suggestion about the basilica involved, and the references to Peter and Paul surely point to the Basilica Apostolorum at Catacumbae and the ample evidence of the joint cult.
78 Duchesne, LP 1,195 n. 64, had already drawn attention to the copy of the inscription in a North African church near Theveste (CIL 8,10698; see Diehl, ILCV 1,1753 n.), which he claims clearly implies such a trinitarian sense (see Ruysschaert, "Inscription" 186), and Bowersock, "Peter" 11, thinks the context of pietas points in the same direction.84 However, Liverani, "Edilizia" 75-81; "Saint Peter's" 160-161; "Old St. Peter's" 495, understands father and son as Constantius Chlorus and Constantine, which does not explain the comparison, while Gem, "From Constantine" 39-40, accepts the ascription to Constantine and one of his sons, without discussing Ruysschaert's trinitarian hypothesis.(Ruysschaert's communis opinio).3 St Peter's and the Basilica Apostolorum The question then arises: why was St Peter's founded when it was, apparently sometime in the 340s?What about the basilica jointly dedicated to Peter and Paul, the Basilica Apostolorum at Catacumbae, and the basilica of Paul on the Ostian Way?When was the former built and how does it relate to the basilicas dedicated to Peter and Paul individually?Although the Basilica Apostolorum is not included in the list of basilicas in the Liber supposedly founded by Constantine, which has led to the supposition, claiming support from architectural evidence, that it was begun by the usurper Maxentius (306-312),87 a claim that has been disputed,88 there is clear evidence that Constantine did indeed begin it late on in his career.That evidence consists of the overlooked or misinterpreted inscription cited by Ruysschaert and quoted above, rightly ascribed by Orazio Marucchi in 1921 to the Basilica Apostolorum.89It refers to J. Rasch, Das Maxentius-Mausoleum an der Via Appia in Rom (Mainz, 1984) 48 n. 425.89 "Di un iscrizione storica che può attribuirsi alla Basilica Apostolorum sulla Via Appia," NBAC 27 (1921) 61-69.Nieddu, Basilica 141 n. 645, notes it without realizing its relevance.Downloaded from Brill.com07/16/2021 12:53:02AM via free access Logan Vigiliae Christianae 75 (2021) 43-69 a praesul, alternative memoriae,96 the massive basilica of St Peter on the Vatican, designed to enclose the old aedicula shrine and accommodate hordes of pilgrims and undercut the older joint cult, and the much smaller St Paul's on the Ostian Way.The latter was apparently a moderate sized apsed hall similarly enclosing his shrine.97Itmight have been completed and the relics of Paul translated by 350, certainly before 354, as attested by the Depositio entry.98Insupport of the active role I envisage Julius having taken in initiating the two memoriae I have drawn attention to the considerable church building programme that can be attributed to him, focusing on the southwest, west, and north of Rome.99 Indeed Julius' active interest in Peter and Paul as supposed founders of the Church in Rome, but preference for Peter and his primacy are attested (1) by his letter of 341 to the party of Eusebius of Nicomedia which, while citing the constitutions of Paul, appeals to the tradition received by the Roman Church from Peter;100 (2) the reply of the Easterners rejecting Rome's claim to honour and precedence over the sees of the East because of the antiquity of the apostolic tradition and the teaching there of Peter and Paul, since they came from and first taught in the East;101 and (3) the letter and canons of the Western Council of Serdica of 343, the former cited above, referring to Rome as the head, being the see of Peter,102 the latter containing Ossius of Cordoba's proposal, honouring the memory of Peter, that judgements about bishops be referred to the Bishop of Rome for final settlement.10396Thisimperial foundation would explain why the two were not mentioned in the entry for Julius in the "Liberian Catalogue" (see Duchesne, LP 1,8.13-21).As regards the possible starting date, Constans' edict of 349, insisting on the need for imperial consent, might imply Julius having sought his permission to start the two new memoriae, both in pagan cemeteries.Tipologie e carrateri degli edifice di culto al tempo dei Costantinidi," in Donati and Gentili, Costantino 82-91 (86-87); D.L. Eastman, Paul the Martyr: The Cult of the Apostle in the Latin West (Atlanta, 2011) 24-27, 39 fig.1.7.98 See n. 6.The Hieronymian Martyrology has an entry for 25th January which I suggest ("Constantine" 49 n.142) alludes to the translation of Paul's relics to the Ostian Way site from Catacumbae.99 "Constantine" 53 n. 165.See also Curran, Pagan City 119-127, noting possible Julian constructions within the city walls and to the east as well.100 See Athanasius, Apol.c. Ar. 35,4-5; Thompson, Correspondence 28, 80-81.101 See S. Parvis, Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy 325-345 (Oxford, 2006) 165, referring to Sozomen, H.E. 3,8.5.102 See n. 82.103 See canon 3 (and 3b) in e.g.C.H. Turner, EOMJA (Oxford, 1899) 1.2.3,456.14-30.Such language echoing Julius' claims chimes in very well with the Iustitiae sedes of the Einsiedeln inscription.