Abstract
This splendid and lavishly illustrated volume grew out of a multidisciplinary conference held at the British School at Rome in 2010. It combines the collective efforts of archaeologists and historians of art, of architecture, of music and of liturgy, and it exhibits all the strengths of such cooperative publishing enterprises. Twenty essays by distinguished scholars provide an excellent discussion of all aspects of the history and vicissitudes of the Late Antique basilica of Saint Peter’s from the late fourth century to its demolition for the construction of the present Saint Peter’s, and the volume presents perhaps more fully and certainly more conveniently than elsewhere the evidence relating to the fourth century basilica which was found or recorded during the period when it was being replaced in the late sixteenth century. On the debit side, there is some unnecessary repetition caused by the decision of the editors or the publisher to provide every essay with its own bibliography in addition to a fifty page consolidated bibliography. Hence, for example, the important essay by Glen Bowersock, which overturned the traditional ascription of the fourth century basilica to Constantine, has three full bibliographical entries all of which occupy more than four lines of print (pp. 23 n.5, 36 n.4, 430) and each of which contains the same minor inaccuracy: the 2005 version of Bowersock’s essay is not in fact a simple reprint, as is erroneously stated three times, since the first endnote of Bowersock’s 2005 essay describes the 2002 version as ‘an earlier and unillustrated version.’
As is inevitably the case in a volume such as this, some essays are superior in quality to others. As the best and most illuminating contributions, I would pick out nine essays in particular. (1) Richard Gem offers a reasoned, though ultimately unpersuasive, attempt to parry Bowersock’s arguments against the traditional Constantinian date, but he places far too much trust in the Liber Pontificalis, which, it must never be forgotten, is a text from the sixth century (pp. 35-64). (2) Olof Brandt discusses the early Christian baptistery of Saint Peter’s (pp. 81-94) and (3) Peter Jeffrey the early liturgy of Saint Peter’s (pp. 157-176), both in a most perceptive fashion. (4) Antonella Ballardini and Paola Pogliani reconstruct the oratory of Pope John VII (705-707) (pp. 190-213), while (5) Charles McClendon considers the role of Saint Peter’s in the iconoclastic controversy (pp. 214-228) and (6) Ann van Dijk the veneration of icons in medieval Rome (pp. 229-256). (7) John Osborne writes about the Vatican obelisk and visual aspects of the approach to Saint Peter’s from the banks of the River Tiber (pp. 274-296), (8) Carmela Franklin about hagiographical traditions and innovations in the late eleventh century as discoverable in what she calls the ‘San Pietro Legendary’ (pp. 287-305) and (9) Robert Glass about Filarete’s renovation of the Porta Argentea at Old Saint Peter’s (pp. 348-370).
The most disappointing essay in the volume, and the least competent, is the first, which has the title ‘Saint Peter’s and the city of Rome between Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages’ (pp. 21-34). Paolo Liverani accuses Bowersock of ‘a superficial acquaintance with both the material evidence in relation to the portion of the Liber Pontificalis concerned with the fourth century, and with the most recent studies of the architecture of Old Saint Peter’s’ (p. 23). That is an unjustified slur on an excellent scholar and historian who possesses a wide and deep learning – and it comes immediately after Liverani has shown himself incapable of dealing with an important literary source in an objective and independent manner (p. 21-23). Liverani grounds his defence of the traditional ascription of the foundation of Old Saint Peter’s to Constantine on a famous passage of Ammianus Marcellinus, which he quotes in J. C. Rolfe’s Loeb translation (27.3.6). Following received opinion, Liverani interprets the passage as saying that Lampadius, who was prefect of the city of Rome in 365-366, had summoned beggars from the Vatican when he was praetor as a young man in the late 330s. In fact, Ammianus is describing events of early 366 when Lampadius became jealous of the youthful praetor of that year who was courting popularity by giving magnificent games and freely distributing largesse to the people of Rome. Liverani cannot of course be blamed for being unaware of scholarly work published after he composed his essay. But art historians have already started to claim that the volume under review effectively reinstates the traditional dating (I have already heard one do so in a public forum in Edinburgh). They need to be warned, therefore, that discussion has moved on since 2010. In 2011 Alastair Logan published an important study of ‘Constantine, the Liber Pontificalis and the Christian Basilicas of Rome’ in Studia Patristica 50 (2011), 31-53. In the course of his discussion, Logan not only buttressed Bowersock’s arguments (44-48), but also drew attention to the fact that the relics of both Peter and Paul were still at their joint shrine on the Appian Way c. 340 (40-42, adducing Socrates, HE 4.2.72-73 – a passage apparently nowhere cited in the volume under review). Moreover, in a forthcoming article entitled ‘Constantius II and the basilica of Saint Peter in the Vatican,’ Richard Westall both interprets Liverani’s key passage from Ammianus correctly and advances powerful arguments for dating the completion of Old Saint Peter’s to the late 350s.
One of Bowersock’s most arresting arguments was his demonstration that Cardinal Baronius had manufactured the only material evidence that links Old Saint Peter’s to Constantine. Richard Gem’s second chapter has therefore performed a signal service in illustrating on facing pages the genuine brick-stamps with the name of the Constantine’s son Constans in the form d(omini) n(ostri) Constant(is) Aug(usti) and the falsified version published by Baronius in 1594 as d(ominus) n(oster) Constantinus Aug(ustus) (pp. 42-43). Gem is (I fear) being too charitable when he comments that Baronius probably ‘expanded the name to correspond with the then universally accepted belief that Constantine was the founder of Saint Peter’s basilica.’ Like a modern police witness intent on convicting someone he knows in his heart to be a criminal, Baronius was not above enhancing evidence in order to strengthen the historical claims of the Roman Catholic Church. Thomas Comber, Dean of Durham, accused Baronius of inventing and distorting evidence on a large scale in his Roman Forgeries in the Councils during the first four Centuries. Together with an Appendix concerning the Forgeries and Errors in the Annals of Baronius (London, 1689), 153-175. It is a pity that Comber missed the fact that the only contemporary material evidence to survive which connects Constantine with the construction of Old Saint Peter’s is a forgery by Baronius, whose erroneous restoration of Constantine’s name in the nominative case on a brick-stamp instead of the genitive ought to have led to the exposure of his dishonesty long ago.