Papers of the British School at Rome 76 (2008), pp.

15 5-72

Saint Peter's, Leo the Great and the leprosy of

Constantine"

bv Paolo Liverani

Saint Peter's basilica has always been at the centre of the attention of archae-
ologists and historians,1 but there remain many aspects that have not been
explored sufficiently, and that still hold some interesting surprises. One of these
is the question of its late antique mosaics.
In the earl}- years of the sixteenth century, Cardinal Giacobacci was still able
to see a mosaic on the church's triumphal arch (FlG. 1), which he described as
representing 'the Emperor Constantine, rendered in mosaic, with gold letters,
offering the church that he had built — that is, the church of Saint Peter's —
to the Saviour and to the apostle Peter'.2
Other sources recorded the inscription that accompanied the mosaic:1

' I am grateful to Robert Coates-Stephens for translating this article into English.
' R. Krautheimer, 'S. Peter', in R. Krautheimer, S. Corbett, A.K. Frazer and W.
Frankl, Corpus Basilicarum Christiancrum Romae V (Vatican City, 1977), 165-279; A.
Arbeiter, Alt St. Peter in Geschichte und Wissenschaft. Abfolge der Bauten. Rekonstruktion.
Architekturprogramm (Berlin, 1988); S. de Blaauw, Cultus et Decor II (Vatican City, 1994).
As will be clear from what follows, I cannot agree with G.B. Bowersock, 'Peter and
Constantine', in J.-M. Carrie and R. Lizzi Testa (eds), 'Humana Sapit'. Etudes d'antiquite
tardixe offertes a Lellia Cracco Ruggini (Bibhotheque de I'antiquite tardive 3) (Turnhout,
2002), 209-17, now reprinted in W. Tronzo (ed.), St. Peter's in the Vatican (Cambridge,
2005), 5-15.
- D. Giacobacci, De Concilio Tractatus (Rome, 1537), 783: 'cum adhuc temporibus
nostris fuerit in ecclesia sancti petri in frontispitio maioris arcus ante altare mains constanti-
nus imperator in musaico depictus, literis aureis ostendens salvatori & beato petro apostolo
ecclesiam ipsani a se aedificatam videlicet ecclesiam sancti petri'. Cf. A.L. Frothingham,
Tine mosaique constantinienne inconnue a Saint-Pierre de Rome', Revue Archeologique s. 3
(1) (1883), 68-72.
' IGT/R II, 4092. For a more detailed discussion, see R. Krautheimer, 'The building
inscriptions and the dates of construction of Old St. Peter's. A reconsideration', Romisches
Jahrbuch fur Kunstgeschichte 25 (1989), 7-9; P. Liverani, 'L'architettura costantiniana, tra
committenza imperiale e contribute) dellc elites locali', in A. Demandt and J. Engemann
(eds), Konstantin der Crofte. Geschichte — Archdologie — Rezeption. Internationales
Kolloquwm, 10.-15. Oktoher 2005, Trier (Mainz, 2007), 235-44, esp. pp. 238-41; P.
Liverani, 'Costantino offre il modello della basilica sull'arco trionfale', in M. Andaloro (ed.),
1,'orizzonte tardoantico e le nuove immagini, 312-468 (La pittura medievale a Roma
312-1431. Corpus I) (Milan, 2006), 90-1 n. 2b.
156 LIVF.RAM

Quod duce te mundus surrexit in astra triumphans

hanc Constantinus Victor tibi condidit aulam.

Because under your leadership the world in triumph has risen to the stars
Victorious Constantine has founded this hall for you.

The distich was famous in the fourth and fifth centuries. It was echoed by Pope Damasus in his
poem to the martyrs Felicissimus and Agapitus4 and in the inscription of the apse of San
Lorenzo in Damaso,' by the bishop Achilles for the dedicatory inscription of the basilica of San
Pietro in Spoleto6 and by Prudentius in his poem against Symmaehus.
The Vatican dedication was made after the victory over Licinius at Chrysopolis on 28
September 324, when Constantine assumed the title 'Victorious'. Furthermore, the expression

** 1CUR V, 13872: Aspice et hie tumulus retinet caelestia membra

sanctorum subito rapuit quos regia caeli
hi(c) cruces invictae comites pariterq(ue) ministri
rectoris sancti meritumque fidemq(ue) secuti
aetherias petiere domos regnaq(ue) piorum
unica in his gaudet Romance gloria plebis
quod duce tune Xysto Chr(ist)i meruere triumphos
Felicissimo et Agapeto sanctis martyrib(us) Damasus epis(copus) [fecit].
' A. Ferrua, Epigrammata Damasiana (Vatican City, 1942), 212, no. 58: 'Haec Damasus tibi, Christe
deus, nova tccta dicavi / Laurenti saeptus martyris auxilio'.
6
CIL XI, pp. 698-9, LXXIX Spolctium 2 = Inscriptions Christianae Italiae VI, 45.
Antistes C(h)r(ist)i d(omi)ni devotus Achilles
culmina magna pii struxit honore Petri
nemo putet vacuam venerandi nominis aulam
sistere quod non sit corporis ista domus
magna quidem sewat venerabile Roma sepulchrum
in quo pro C(h)r(ist)i nomine passus ohi(i)t
sed non et meritum monumenta includere possunt
nee quae corpus habent saxa tenent animam
victor enim mundi superata morte triumphans
sp(iritu)s ad summum pergit in astra d(eu)m
cumque sit in C(h)r(ist)o vita durante repostus
ad C(h)r(istu)m totus martyr uhique venit
ille suos s(an)c(t)os cunctis credentibus offert
per quos supplicihus prestat orem famulis.
See G.B. De Rossi, 'Spicilegio d'archeologia cristiana nell'Umbria. ) III. Dell'eta in die sedeva Spes
vescovo di Spoleto e dei carmi epigrafici del vescovo Achille', Bullettino di Archeologia Cristiana 2 (1871 i,
112-20; A.P. Frutaz, 'Spes e Achilleo vescovi di Spoleto', in Ricerche sullUmbria tardoantica e preromanica. Atti
II convegno di studi umbri, Guhbio 24-28.5.1964 (Gubbio, 1965), 351-77; M. Maccaronc, 'II vescovo Achilleo
e lc iscrizioni metriche di S. Pietro a Spoleto', in Miscellanea Amato Pietro Frutaz (Rome, 1978), 249-84.
• Prudentius, Contra Symmachum 2.758-9: 'Regnator mundi Christo sociaberc in aevum, / quod due-
tore meum trahis ad eaelestia regnuni'. Sec J. Wilpert, Die Romische Mosaiken und Malereien der Kirchlichen
Bauten vom IV.-XII1. Jahrhundert (Freiburg iin Brcisgau, 1924), I, 359; H. Grisar, Roma alia fine del mondo anti-
co (third edition) (Rome, 1943), I, 36; J. Ruysscliacrt, 'L'inscription absidale primitive dc St.-Pierre. Tcxte et con-
textes', Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romano di Archeologia 40 (1967—8), 178.
SAINT PETKR'S, LEO THE GREAT AND THE LEPROSY OE CONSTANTINE 157

ICURII, 4095 ICUR II, 4092

nonoooooooo

/CL/RII.4094

FlG. 1. Position of the monumental inscriptions of Constantine in the Basilica of Saint

Peter's. After A. Arbeiter, Alt St. Peter in Geschichte und Wissenschaft. Abfolge der Bauten.
Rekonstruktion, Architekturprogramm (Berlin, 1988), Beilage 3. (Drawn by the author.)

mundus — very rare in official epigraphy8 — is well attested just after this, when it was used in
324-5 with monotonous frequency by Optatianus Porphyrius in his carmina figurata in honour
of the emperor.9 In these poems Optatianus insisted on the word to celebrate the unification of
the two halves of the empire (orbes) in a single entity: that is, the mundus.
Some scholars have preferred to date the mosaic rather later than this,10 since the iconog-
raphy of a donor holding the model of a building is found in mosaics only from the sixth cen-

k Besides our example, mundus is attested only on coins of the Kmperor Carausins and in CJL VI 1163
= 31249: A. Mastino, 'Orbis, KOO|IOS, oiKoi)|ievr|: aspetti spaziali dell'idea di inipero universale da Augusto a
Teodosio', in Popoli e spazio romano tra diritto e profezia. Atti III seminario intemazionale di studi storici 'Da
Roma alia terza Roma', Roma, 21-23 aprile 1983 (Naples, 1986), 63-162.
9
On carmina — poems in which certain letters or words are contained within patterns or compositions
to form independent phrases or verses within regular lines of continuous text — sec the recent edition with
Italian translation by G. Polara (ed.), Canni di Publilio Optaziano Porfirio (Turin, 2004).
1(1
After 440: KJ. Mather, 'An unidentified mosaic head from old St. Peter's', in Studien zur Kunst des
Ostens. Festschrift Strzygowski (Vienna/Hellerau, 1923), 17-18; T. Buddensieg, 'Le coffret en ivoirc de Pola,
Saint-Pierre et lc Latran', Cahiers Archeologiques 10 (1959), 191. Carolingian: R. Krautheimer, T h e
Constantinian Basilica', Dumbarton Oaks Papers 21 (1967), 120-1 n. 11; H. Belting, 'Die beiden Palastaulen
Leos III. im Latcran und die Entstehung einer papstlichen Programmkunst', Friihmittelalterliche Studien 12
(1978), 77; de Blaauw, Cultus et Decor (above, n. 1), 461-2; J. Curran, Pagan City and Christian Capital. Rome
in the Fourth Century (Oxford, 2000), 112; H.L. Kessler, Old St. Peter's and Church Decoration in Medieval Italy
iSpoleto, 2002), 7; F.A. Bauer, Das Bild der Stadt Rom in Friihmittelalter (Wiesbaden, 2004), 113, 116, 118.
Constantinian: Wilpert, Die Romische Mosaiken (above, n. 7), 359-61; J.H. Jongkees, Studies on Old St. Peter's
(Groningen, 1966), 14 n. 4, 31 n. 3; C.T. Bannister, 'The Constantinian Basilica of Saint Peter at Rome', Journal
of the Society of Architectural Historians 27 (1968), 28; G. Bovini, Edifici cristiani di culto d'eta costantiniana a
Roma (Bologna, 1968), 371-2; H. Brandenburg, Le prime chiese di Roma, IV-VI1 secolo. L'inizio dell'architet-
tura ecclesiastica occidental (Milan, 2004), 98-9.
158 UYERAM

tury onwards." This objection, however, is not compelling: we know of coin issues from a dozen
cities in Asia Minor and Thrace from the first to the third centuries that already show city-
personifications holding models of temples in their hands, which they offer to the emperor or to
a divinity.12This iconography, therefore, belongs to a tradition that is well-known throughout the
Imperial period.
Others scholars1' reject an early dating because of parallels with later mosaics representing
Constantine, as in the vestibule of the church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. Here, a mo-
saic of the ninth eentur)' or later shows Constantine and Justinian giving both city and church
to the Virgin. But this objection does not take into account the close connection between our
inscription and the iconography: if we place Cardinal Giaeobacci's description together with the
elements revealed by the inscription, we can identify the iconography as representing Christ
Kosmokrator rising to the heavens (in astra), seated on the globe of the mundus, with
Constantine (holding the model of the basilica) and Peter at his sides.
This unit)' of image and text negates a later dating of the mosaic — which consequently
should be assigned to either 325 or 326. The earliest surviving example (c. AD 370) that takes
this iconography as a model would therefore be the mosaic in the northwest apse of the
Mausoleum of Constantina (FIG. 2). H
There was a second, very important mosaic in the apse of Saint Peter's. No traces of it have
survived, but on the basis of various elements, scholars generally agree that it would have been
a traditio legis scene, and that it is shown on the cover of a fifth-century reliquary — the Pola
casket.1' Here we see Christ giving the new laws to Peter (on his left), while to his right he is
acclaimed by Paul. This mosaic is usually assigned to the time of Constantius II (337-61), but
— independently from an identification based on the iconography — we can revise its dating
to the Constantinian period (306-37) on the basis of a re-examination of its accompanying

" C. Jaggi, 'Donator oder Fundator? Zur Genese des monuinentalen Stifterbildes', Ceorges-Bloch-
Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Instituts der Universitat 'Zurich 9—10 (2002-3), 27—45.
12
O. Benndorf, 'Antike Baumodelle', Osterreichische jahreshefte 5 (1902), 175-95; B. Pick, "Die tem-
peltragenden Gottheiten und die Darstellung der Neokorie auf den Miinzen', Osterreichische Jahreshefte ,
(1904), 1-41. Cf. also in the courtyard of the temple of Hera at Hierapolis the bronze statue of Semiramis ev
OE^IT) TOV vr|bv £ju5£iKvt>oi>aa 'showing the temple in the right hand' (Lucian, De Syria Dea 39).
' ' For example, Bowersock, 'Peter and Constantine' (above, n. 1), 213-14.
'•* DJ. Stanley, 'The apse mosaics at Santa Costanza. Observations on restorations and antique mosaics',
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts. Romische Ahteilung 94 (1987), 29-42; F. Bisconti, 'Le
absidiole del mausoleo di S. Costanza a Roma. Storia dei restauri e nnove riflessioni iconografiche', in H. Morlier
(ed.), La mosaique greco-romaine IX.1 (Rome, 2005), 67-78; JJ. Rasch and A. Arbeiter, Das Mausoleum der
Constantina in Rom (Mainz, 2007), 109-52, 299-303 .
' ' T. Buddensicg, 'Le coffret en ivoire de Pola, Saint-Pierre et le Latran', Cahiers Archeologiques 10
(1959), 157-200; W.N. Schumacher, 'Dominus legem dat', Romische Quartalschrift 54 (1959), 1-39;
Ruysschaert, 'L'inscription absidale primitive de St.-Pierre' (above, n. 7), 171-91; G.L. Ravagnan, 'Capsella di
Samaghcr', in Restituzioni 1999. Capolavori restaurati (Vicenza, 1999), 22-30; D. Longhi, La capsella ehumea
di Samagher: iconografia e committenza (Ravenna, 2006), 36-43; F.R. Moretti, 'La traditio legis nell'abside'. in
Andaloro (ed.), L'orizzonte tardoantico e le nuove immagini (above, n. 3), 87-90.
SAINT PETER'S, LF.O THE GREAT AND THE LEPROSY OF CONSTANTINE 159

FIG. 2. Mosaic in the northwest apse of the Mausoleum of Constantina. Photograph painted
in watereolour by C. Tabanelli for reproduction in J. Wilpert, Die Romische Mosaiken und
Malereien der Kirchlichen Bauten vom IV.-XIII. Jahrhundert (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1924).
(Reproduced courtesy of the Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, Rome.)

inscriptions. The apse arch, in fact, carried an inscription (FlG. I),16 known from a Renaissance
copy, although unfortunately this copy was made when it was already in a fragmentary state.
Only four words remained ('Costantini expiata (...) hostili incursionc'), which may be trans-
lated approximately as '... of Constantine, expiated ... a hostile incursion ...'. I would agree
with Krautheimer,1 who dated this earlier than the inscription on the triumphal arch, and relat-
ed it to the Sarmatian incursion of 322. It therefore records the dedicator (Constantine), the
motivation (a piaculum, that is a dedication of expiation) and the actual occasion.
In the apse itself (FlG. 1) there was a much longer verse inscription,'8 of rather Sibylline
nature. Since the information regarding individuals and events was provided by the inscription
on the arch above, an}1 precise details of these were omitted from the apse inscription: as a result,
the text in question has long been misunderstood.

16
ICT/RII, 4095.
' Krautheimer, T h e building inscriptions' (above, n. 3), 9—15.
"* 1CL1R II, 4094. For a more detailed discussion, see F.R. Moretti, 'La traditio legis nell'abside', in
Andaloro (ed.), l-orizzonte tardoantico e le nuove immagini (above, n. 3), 87-90 n. 2a; Liverani, L'architettura
costantiniana' (above, n. 3), 241-2.
160 LIVERANI

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.

Seat of justice, house of faith, hall of modesty,

Such is what you see, which is possessed of every piety,
which famously rejoices in the virtues of the father and the son
and renders he who made it equal in praise to his parent

As was the case with the distich of the triumphal arch, this inscription was also echoed by
Prudentius. '9 Modern scholarship has advanced two interpretations: the first is political,20 and iden-
tifies the father and the son as Constantine and Constantius II. The principal difficult}' here would
be that the auctor — the builder of the basilica — would therefore be the son, hence Constantius
II; this contradicts both the Liber Pontificalis21 and the inscription on the triumphal arch that we dis-
cussed earlier. The second interpretation is theological:22 this sees the father and the son as the first
and second persons of the Trinity. But this, too, leaves us with insurmountable difficulties: the allu-
sion to the 'virtues (plural) of the father and the son' has a distinctly Aryan flavour." In orthodox
terms, one should speak of a single virtue that is common to both the father and the son.
Furthermore, to define Christ as the auctor, or builder, of the basilica is most unusual.24
Both solutions, therefore, are unsatisfactory. But it is possible to find a third one, which avoids
these difficulties. If the auctor, or builder, of the basilica is Constantine, then the father can only
be Constantius Chlorus. Such reference to his filiation is quite normal for Constantine, and is
in fact found in almost a quarter of all the Latin honorary inscriptions dedicated to him."1
Furthermore, in the context of the basilica, the allusion to the virtues of Constantius represents

19
Prudentius, Contra Symmachum 2.249-55:
Templum mentis amo, non marmoris: aurea in Mo
fundamenta manent fidei, structura nivali
consurgit pietate nitens, tegit ardua oilmen
iustitia, interim spargit sola picta rubenti
flore pudicitiae pudor almus et atria servat.
Haec domus apta mihi est, haec me pucherrima sedes
accipit, aeterno caelestisque hospite digna.
-" R. Krautheimer, 'A note on the inscription in the apse of Old St. Peter's', Dumbarton Oaks Papers 41
(1987), 317-20.
21
Regarding the reliability of this part of the Liber Pontificalis, see the proeeedings of the conference II
Liber Pontificalis e la storia materiale, Roma 21-22.2.2002 = Mededelingen van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome.
Antiquity 60-1 (Assen, 2003), and H. Geertman, Hie Fecit Basilicain. Studi sul Liber Pontificalis e gli edifici
ecclesiastici di Roma da Silvestro a Silverio (Leuven/Paris/Dudley (MA), 2004).
— Ruysschaert, 'L'inscription absidale primitive de St.-Pierre' (above, n. 7).
23
C. Pietri, Roma Christiana (Rome, 1972), I, 56-7.
^ Pietri, Roma Christiana (above, n. 23), n. 39.
2
> T. Griinewald, Constantinus Maximus Augustus. Herrschaftspropaganda in der Zeitgenossischen
Vberlieferung (Historia. Einzelschriften 64) (Stuttgart, 1990), 272-3 (index IV. 1).
SAINT PETER'S, LEO THE GREAT AND THE LEPROSY OF CONSTANTINE 161

an attempt to pass him off as a Christian: this was exactly the position of Constantine in the
decree to the eastern provincials in the autumn of 324.26
We therefore see that the presence of the emperor inside the Vatican basilica was very strong
indeed, from the very moment of its construction.

After these preliminary observations, I would like to concentrate on the mosaic that decorated
the building's facade. This deserves to be studied in some detail due to its great historical signifi-
cance, until now passed over in scholarly discussion. Although it no longer survives, we can
reconstruct its apocalyptic subject-matter and attribute it to the period of Pope Leo the Great
(440-61).
The dating is revealed to us by an inscription2' (which we shall consider in detail below, p.
170) in a seventh-century epigraphic sylloge. The sylloge locates the inscription on the facade
of the basilica, 'where the four animals surrounding Christ are painted'.28 These animals would
be the symbols of the four evangelists.
We know that the fagade mosaic was restored by Pope Sergius I (687-701)," and that
between 827 and 844 Gregory IV ordered a restoration of the mosaic located 'in fronte paradisi',
where the term 'paradisus' refers to the square courtyard at the entrance of the basilica.
Duchesne30 and Grisar'1 believed that this restoration concerned the exterior of the courtyard
(FIG. 3), but Krautheimer,32 de Blaauw3' and Bauer34 connected it with the mosaic on the ac-
tual facade of the basilica itself — and therefore with the mosaic that interests us here.

- 6 Kusebius, Vita Constantini 2.49.1; see also 1.13-18.

27
ICVR II, 4102 = CJL VI 41397a:
Marinianus vir inl(ustris) ex p(rae)f(ecto) [praet(orio)] et cons(ul) ord(inarius)
cum Anastasia inl(ustri) fe[m(ina) eius] debita vota
beatissimo Petro apostolo persolvit,
quae precibus papae l£onis t in ei f
[pro]vocata sunt atque perfecta.
At the end of line 4 there is a crux interpretum: the codex relates Leonis in ei I vocata, which G.B. De
Rossi, Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae Septimo Saeculo Antiquiores II (Rome, 1888), 55, corrected as
Leonis mei I [projvocata. All subsequent editors accepted this version, but the solution is unhappy because in this
case the initial impersonal form with the third person (Marinianus ... persolvit) turns into a first person (leonis
mei), which is very difficult to justify.
- 8 Cod. Vat. Pal. 591: 'in fronte foras in ecclesia sancti Petri ubi IIII animalia circa Christum sunt picta'.
- 9 Liber Pontificalis 86.11: 'Hie musibum, quod ex parte in fronte atrii eiusdem basilicae fuerat dirutum,
innovavit'.
'° L. Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis II (Pans, 1892), 84 n. 14.
'• II. Grisar, Analecta Romana I (Rome, 1899), 481.
' - Krautheimer, 'S. Peter' (above, n. 1), 182.
^' de Blaauw, Cultus et Decor (above, n. 1), 527.
34
Bauer, Das Bild der Stadt Rom (above, n. 10), 166-70.
3
' More radical restorations were to follow under Gregory IX (1227-41): Liber Censuum 14 — P. Fabre
and L. Duchesne, Le Liber Censuum de I'eglise romaine II (Paris, 1952), 23.
162 LIVF.RANI

;
"- * * '. i • . '.•.

FlC. 3. Reconstruction of the Basilica of Saint Peter's — first half of the fifth century. After
A.K. Frazer in R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, fourth edition
(Harmondsworth, 1981), fig. 21. (Drawn by the author.)

In any case, we have a clear idea of the appearance of the facade after the restoration works,
thanks to the famous miniature from the Farfa codex,' dating to the last quarter of the eleventh
century, which is now in the Library of Eton College (FlG. 4). Here, at the top of the facade, we
see Christ depicted as an apocalyptic lamb between the symbols of the four evangelists, with the
24 elders below.
Scholars generally are agreed that, despite the restorations, the mosaic we see here would
have retained parts of the fifth-century work, and that its composition respects the original
iconography.' But at the same time we also have to take into account the fact that the image in
the codex is intended to serve as the backdrop to the funeral of Gregory the Great, as narrated
by John the Deacon. We should not, therefore, accept it as a faithful reproduction of the facade,
but rather as an emblematic sketch, conjured up with a few essential and characteristic

'6 Windsor, Eton College, Codex Farfensis 124, fol. 122r; Grisar, Analecta (above, n. 31), 4; 1-83, pi.
X; Krautheimer, 'S. Peter' (above, n. 1), 222, fig. 199; U. Nilgcn, 'III.5: Rom, Alt-St. Peter, Kassadc (Zeichnung
im Codex Farfensis)', in Bermvard von Hildesheim und das Zeitalter der Ottonen II (Mainz, 1993), 118—20; U.
Xilgen, 'IX.3: Fassadenmosaik von Alt-Sankt Peter in Rom', in C. Stiegemann and M. Wernhoff, 799. Kunst und
Kultur der Karolingerzeit. Karl der Grope und Papst Leo III. in Paderhom (Mainz, 1999), 611-13; Bauer, DasBild
der Stadt Rom (above, n. 10), 163-70, fig. 81; G. Bordi, 'L'Agnus Dei, i quattro simboli degli evangelisti e i ven-
tiquattro seniores ncl mosaico della facciata di San Pietro in Vaticano', in Andaloro (ed.), L'orizzonte tardoanti-
co e le nuove immagini (above, n. 3), 416-18, n. 46.
?:
Bauer, Das Bild der Stadt Rom (above, n. 10), 163-70; Bordi, 'L'Agnus Dei' (above, n. 36).
SAINT PETER'S, LEO THE GREAT AND THE LEPROSY OF CONSTANTIXE 163

atdstffr- gtpnofiflitnr ttpm

FIG. 4. Codex Farfensis 124, fol. 122r, Windsor, Library of Eton College.
(Reproduced courtesy of Eton College.)
164 LIVERAM

elements. Note also that the architecture, too, has been simplified: the drawing shows only a sin-
gle row of windows, instead of the two that actually existed. The real mosaic would have formed
a rather complex composition, covering a considerable area: a composition that certainly would
have been richer than that shown in the drawing. We receive interesting confirmation of this
from a number of sources that have not yet been appreciated fully.
In fact the mosaic seems to have included additional figures. One in particular is recorded both
by the sylloge that contains the aforementioned dedicatory inscription, as well as by another four
sylloges of the same date. They all describe the inscription as being situated 'in imagine
Constantini imperatoris'58 — that is, in relation to an image of the Emperor Constantine. The
same sources state that the inscription is to be found 'in fronte ecclesiae beati Petri', or else 'in
fronte, super porticus ipsius sancti Petri'.39 Wilpert40 and the few other scholars who have con-
sidered this reference imagine that it refers to the external fagade of the quadriporticus. I would
have to disagree with this: the directions are in fact quite clear, and they refer instead to the actual
fagade of the basilica itself, and a position above the porch that covered its lower section.
It also seems that there were additional inscriptions, relating to other figures. For example,
the same codices record an invocation in elegiac distichs that probably accompanied an image
of Christ:41

Qui ecclesiam Petri sacrasti nomine cuique

agnos mandasti pascere Christe tuos,
eiusdem precibus conserve haec atria semper
praesidio ut maneant inviolata tuo.

You who consecrated the church in the name of Peter and to whom
you gave orders to feed your flock, O Christ,
through the prayers of the same [Peter], may you always preserve these halls
that they remain unviolated as your redoubt.

This is a text that acquires particular significance if we place it in the period of Leo the Great,
who had witnessed the Vandal Sack of 455. It would be reasonable to suppose that the figure of
Saint Peter also would have appeared: he is, after all, implicitly assumed to be present both in

38
JCURII, 4123.
39
'In fronte ecclesiae beati Petri' (cod. Vat. Pal. 833, c. 27); 'In fronte super porticus ipsius sancti Petri'
(cod. Vat. Pal. 591, c. 139); 'Romae in imagine Constantini' (cod. Valentinianus 393, c. 88); 'Romae in imagine
Constantini imperatoris' (cod. Montispessulanus 280, c. 34 and Sirmondus, cod. Paris. Lat. 11478, c. 92) — see
apparatus in ICUR.
40
Wilpert, Die Romische Mosaiken (above, n. 7), 370-1; Bauer, Das Bild der Stadt Rom (above, n. 10),
117.
41
ICUR II, 4124. In the codex Paris. 8071, c. 61 v, the inscription follows the epitaph ICUR II, 4151 of
Pope Hormisdas (a. 523), but De Rossi, Inscriptiones Christianae II (above, n. 27), 57, 20 rightly recognized the
two as different. We can agree with Silvagni, who wrote in the apparatus of 1CAJR: 'Ex cpigramniatc ipso ... fron-
ti et atrio hnius basilicae inscriptum fuisse percipitur; fortasse fuit picturae cuidam subicctuni pariter ac n. 4123'.
SAINT PETER'S, LKO THE GREAT AND THE LEPROSY OF CONSTANTINE 165

the aforementioned inscription with its invocation to Christ, and also in that of Constantine
cited earlier. We should also note a further, important detail: all of these inscriptions are record-
ed by sylloges of the seventh century, prior to the restoration works of Sergius I and Gregory IV,
which means that we must attribute them to the original mosaic of the time of Leo the Great.
We shall now turn our attention to the inscription relating to the image of Constantine, men-
tioned earlier. Here, the founder of the basilica speaks in the first person and directs a short
exhortation to the viewers and readers who were to be found in the atrium of the church, again
using elegiac distichs:

Credite victuras anima remeante favillas

rursus ad amissum posse redire diem.
Nam vaga bis quinos iam luna resumpserat orbes
nutabat dubia cum mihi marie salus
inrita letiferos auxit medicina dolores
crevit et humana morbus ab arte meus.
O quantum Petro largitur Christus honorem
ille dedit vitam reddidit iste mihi.

Believe that with the soul's return, the ashes destined for victory
can turn again to the light which has been lost!
Indeed, the wandering moon had twice commenced its five-fold orbits,
but for me uncertain salvation was flickering and yielding to death.
Useless medicine increased my bodily agonies
and my sickness grew, due to the art of human origin.
Oh, with what great honour Peter has been rewarded by Christ!
One gave me life, and the other has returned it to me.

Before moving on to a more detailed analysis of this text, there is one point that immediately
strikes us: Constantine is narrating the legend of his miraculous cure from leprosy and his con-
version — in other words, a story that has come down to us in its most complete form in the
Actus Silvestri. We should therefore spend a moment summarizing the most recent scholarly-
opinions on this text.
The Actus Silvestri have an extremely complicated tradition, which to date has prevented the
production of a rigorous critical edition. The text comes down to us in a great many codices, in
three principal versions, of which version A, in Latin, is undoubtedly the oldest. Even this, how-
ever, is itself formed from three different narrative nuclei. The first concerns the life and works
of Pope Sylvester, the second the cure and conversion of Constantine by Sylvester, and the third

"*- For a German translation, see Wilpert, Die Romische Mosaiken (above, n. 7), 370; for an Italian ver-
sion, Grisar, Roma alia fine del mondo antico (above, n. 7), I, 267. English translation by Robert Coates-
Stephens.
166 LIVF.RANI

the dispute between Sylvester and the twelve rabbis in the presence of the emperor and his
mother Helena. For our purposes, only the second section is relevant — that of the emperor's
cure and conversion. It can be summarized as follows.
Constantine, who is a pagan and a persecutor of the Christians, falls ill with leprosy, and can-
not be cured either by magicians or by doctors. The pontifices of the Capitol, therefore, advise
him to fill a basin on the Capitoline with the blood of children, in which he may bathe and so
heal his body of its illness. However, because of their mothers' despair, the emperor decides not
to go ahead with this, and so puts his subjects' well-being before his own health. As a reward,
Christ sends the apostles Peter and Paul to appear to him in a dream. They show him the path
to salvation: he must seek out Pope Sylvester on Mount Soracte, where he has retreated due to
the persecutions. The pope will cure him.
Constantine describes his dream to Sylvester and recognizes in the portraits of Peter and Paul
the two characters who had appeared to him in the dream. After a week of fasting and a brief
catechism, Sylvester baptizes the emperor by immersing him in the basin of the baths of his
palace at the Lateran. Constantine, by now cured and converted, makes his way to the tomb of
Peter, and then orders work to be started on the basilica of the apostles, together with the
Lateran cathedral. Finally, he issues a series of laws in favour of the Christians.
The dating of the Actus Silvestri has been the subject of much discussion, and opinions vary
considerably. Against prevailing opinion, which has placed the first version in the fifth century,
some — for example Pohlkamp44 — have proposed a date at the end of the fourth century,
although with rather unconvincing arguments. An excellent recent study by Tessa Canella4' has
set the issue on a new and firmer base, and reconstructed the text's complex 'stratification'.
Alongside elements that can be attributed to a Syrio-Palestinian context of the first half of the fifth
century, Canella has identified some major reworking of the narrative, which reveals a Roman
perspective: these touches may be understood in relation both to the policy of religious toleration
under Theoderic, and also to later, Justinianic, legislation. In other words, the drawing-up of

4?
F.J. Dolger, ' D i e Taufe Konstantins u n d ihre P r o b l e m e ' , in F.J. Dolger (ed.), Konstantin der Gro/Se
und seine Zeit. Festgabe zum Konstantins-juhildiim 1913 und zum Goldenen Priesterjubildum von Mgr. Dr. Anton
de Waal (Romische Quartalschrift Suppl. 19) (Freiburg, 1913), 415-16; W. Lewison, 'Konstantinische
Schenkung und Silvesterlegende', in Miscellanea Francesco Khrle II (Rome, 1924), 159-246; A. Ehrhardt,
'Constantine, Rome and the rabbis', Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Manchester 42 (1959-60), 290-1.
•^ W. Pohlkamp, 'Tradition und Topographic Papst Silvester I. (314-335) und der Drache ram Forum
Romanum', Romische Quartalschrift 78 (1983), 31—3, 40-1; W. Pohlkamp, 'Kaiser Konstantin, der heidnische
und der Christliche Kult in den Actus Silvestri', Friihmittelalterliche Studien 18 (1984), 358-9, 367, 373, 380,
391; W. Pohlkamp, 'Privilegium Ecclesiae Romanae Pontifici Contulit. Zur Vorgesehiehte der Konstantinisehcn
Schenkung', in Fdlschungen in Mittelalter. Intemationaler Kongress der Monutnenta Germaniae Historica,
Munchen 16-19 September 1986 II (Hannover, 1988), 446, 464-6, 477; W. Pohlkamp, Textfassungen, liter-
arische Formen und geschichtliche Funktionen der Romischen Silvester-Akten', Francia. Forschungen zur
Westeuropdischen Geschichte 19 (1) (1992), 149-50 and n. 160. Cf. also M. Amerise, // battesimo di Costantmo
il Grande. Storia di una scomoda veritd (Stuttgart, 2005), 93-119, esp. p. 119.
•*' T. Canella, Gli Actus Silvestri. Genes; di una leggenda su Costantmo imperatore (Spoleto, 2006). The
first version of this study, in the form of a thesis for a Dottorato di Ricerca (Rome, 2005), is available on-line at
http://padis.uniroinal.it/gerfile.py?recid=299.
SAINT PKTKR'S, LEO THK GRKAT AND THK LEPROSY OF CONSTAXTIXE 167

version 'A' cannot go back any further than the mid-sixth century — even if it retains many traces
of its lengthy, earlier development.
We can now return to the analysis of Constantine's speech in the distichs of the fagade mosa-
ic at Saint Peter's. The emperor's language is highly metaphorical. T h e first distich is an exhor-
tation to hope in the life everlasting: the body of the deceased (the ashes) is destined for salva-
tion (victory) at the resurrection (the return of the light). The proof of this comes in the next two
distichs, which relate the story of Constantine's illness — which should clearly be read in two
senses, both material and spiritual. After being ill for nine months (the term of a pregnancy serv-
ing here as an allusion to his Christian rebirth), 41 the emperor was about to lose his life — and
at the same time his chance of eternal salvation. Medicine did nothing but increase his agonies,
and his illness worsened. Here, too, the spiritual and allegorical reading is hidden (though not
too greatly) behind the literal. Without divine intervention — in other words, by limiting him-
self to seeking salvation through human skills — he had fallen still deeper into sin. Without
mentioning the miraculous cure, which is implied by the ellipsis, the emperor finishes his
speech in the last distich with a eulogy to Peter and to Christ. Peter is said to have given him
life, because he appeared to him in a dream to show him the way to being cured; but it was
Christ who 'returned' his life to him, since he gave him eternal life and resurrection. These last
verses, too, repeat and conclude the double reading that characterizes the story of his illness.
It is clear at this point that Constantine is not speaking as a historical character — that is, as
the founder of the basilica —, but rather as one who is already in heaven, admitted to the con-
templation of God. And it is worth emphasizing that this perspective is also perfectly suited to
the apocalyptic subject of the facade mosaic itself.
The inscription, then, is an extremely significant document. It represents a version of the
Actus Silvestri that differs from the text at various key points: in the first place, there is no men-
tion of Pope Sylvester himself; in the Actus, of course, it is he who is responsible for saving the
emperor, both materially and spiritually. Furthermore, in our inscription full credit is given only
to Peter, not to Peter and Paul, who — in the Actus — had appeared together in Constantine's
dream. Finally, an abridged version of the story is presented, in which there is only an allusion
to the ineptitude of the doctors, who were incapable of curing a disease that was in fact spiritu-
al. There is no reference to the intended massacre of the innocents, which had been necessary
for the blood-bath proposed by the pagan priests.
Thanks to the dedicator}- inscription discussed earlier in this article (pp. 155-61), 4 we know
that this version dates to the pontificate of Leo the Great — in other words, to the mid-fifth cen-
tury. But at the same time, we can be sure, thanks to the ellipsis that allowed Constantine to pass
direct!} from his disease to a eulogy on salvation — taking for granted the crucial moment of his

"""' Similar expressions for the term of a pregnancy can be found in Ovid, Fasti 2.175-6 China novurn
decies implerat cornibus orbem: / quae fuerat virgo credita, mater erat'), and in Statatius, ihebais 1.575-7
I'Namque ut passa deuni Nemeaei ad fluminis undam, / bis quinos plena cum fronte resumeret orbes / Cynthia,
sidereum Latonae feta nepotem / edidit).
4
" 1CVR II, 4102 = C1L VI 41397a (above, n. 27).
168 LIYF.RANI

baptism and cure — that these events were already known in Rome and easily understood by all
readers. There are additional reasons for supposing that the legend was already established in
Rome in the first half of the fifth century. According to the Actus Silvestri, after his baptism
Constantine paid a visit to the confessio of Saint Peter, where he deposited his diadem in a
ceremony that is first known from Honorius's visit in 403-4. Furthermore, the expression basil-
ica lateranensis, with which the Actus refer to Rome's cathedral, is attested only once in the
fourth century,'0 but appears more frequently in the first twenty years of the fifth;'1 afterwards, it
disappears entirely, until the ninth century.'2
All of these considerations, therefore, point to the mosaic inscription on the facade of Saint
Peter's as being the earliest attestation of the legend of Constantine's leprosy, and also proof that
it was already well-known in Rome at the time. If we now summarize the results of this discus-
sion of the Actus Silvestri, discarding any texts that have only generic links to the narrative," and
listing only those that have specific points of contact with our inscription, we see that the other
references to the legend are all concentrated in a period between the last quarter of the fifth cen-
tury and the first quarter of the sixth (TABLE 1). They contain, moreover, a series of variations
that suggest that this is a period in which the narrative was fluid, and still being developed.
The oldest document — after our mosaic inscription — is a homily of the monophysite
bishop Jacob of Sariig.'4 Here, unlike in the Actus, the emperor's 'good' imperial advisers are
his mother and the leader of his slaves; instead of Saints Peter and Paul, it is an angel
that appears to Constantine; and finally, his baptism is carried out by an unnamed bishop of
an unspecified city. Following this text, the pseudo-Gelasian decree" and the Symmachian

4S
B. Monibritius (ed.), Sanctuarium seu Vitae Sanctorum (second edition) (Paris, 1910), I, 513.
^ Augustinus, Cum pagani ingrederentur 26 (ed. Dolbeau): 'Venit imperator. Videamus quo curavit, ubi
genua figere voluit: in templo imperatoris, an in memoria piscatoris? Posito diademate, pectus tundit ubi est pis-
catoris corpus'. Cf. also John Chrysostom, In Epistulam II ad Corinthios, Homilia 26.5: PG I.XI, col. 582; John
Chrysostom, Quod Christus Sit Deus I, p. 570 (not later than AD 393); John Chrysostom, Contra judaeos et
Gentiles, 9, PG 48.825 (AD 386); Passio SS. Johannis et Pauli II: Ada Sanctorum, lun. VII, p. 140 (fifth or early
sixth century). See P. Liverani, 'Victors and pilgrims in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages', Vragmenta 1
(2007), 82-102.
50
CSEL 35, Epistula 1.6 (c. 368).
' ' Basilica Laterani: Hieronymus, Epistulae 77.4; ecclesia lateranensis: CSEL 35, Epistula 14.4, 1~.2,
31.6; basilica lateranensis: CSEL 35, Epistula 29.6, 32.3, 32.5. Sec P. Liverani, 'Dalle Aedes Laterani al
Patriarchio lateranense', Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 75 (1999), 524, 542.
' - Ecclesia lateranensis: Liber Pontificalis 115 (Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis (above, n. 30), II, 229)
(Pope Stephen VI, 896-7); Liber Pontificalis 122 (Duchesne II, 236) (Pope Anastasius III, 911-13); basilica lat-
eranensis: Liber Pontificalis 158 (Duchesne II, 289) (Pope Gregory VII, 1073—85). See Livcrani, 'Dalle Aedes
Laterani' (above, n. 51), 547.
' ' See, for example, the pagan tradition on Constantine, seen as guilty of the death of Fausta and
Crispus, whose sin was remitted by Christian bishops. This tradition was known already to Sozomen, Historia
Ecclesiastica 1.5.1—5 and — ultimately — goes back to Julian, Caesares 38.336 A-B.
'"* A.L. Frothingham, 'I.'Omelia di Giacomo di Sarug sul battesimo di Costantino imperatore',
Monumenti Antichi 8 (1883), 197-216.
55
Decretalis de Recipients et de Non Recipiendis Libris, CSEL XLII.4, 460 = PL I,IX, cc. 173-4.
SAINT PETER'S, LEO THE GREAT AND THE LEPROSY OF CONSTANTIXE 169

TABLE 1. The Actus Silvestri and the mosaic inscription.

Date Source Summary

Mid-fifth century ICUR 11, 4123
After 473 Jacob of Sarug, Syriac homily
(Frothingham, 'L'Omelia di
Giacomo di Sarug' (n. 54))
Constantine cured and saved;
apparition of Saint Peter; failure of
the doctors
Constantine's leprosy; sacrifice of
the children proposed by
Babylonian soothsayers; Christian
advice from slave leader and
Constantine's mother; apparition
of an angel; baptized by a bishop
(name and place not mentioned)

498-518 Zosimus 2.29.2-5 Constantine, having killed Crispus

and Fausta, turns without success
to the pagan priests; an 'Egyptian'
(Ossius?) promises him salvation
and sends a spirit to dissuade him
from the celebration of a sacred
ceremony on the Capitoline

Late fifth-early Decretalis de Recipiendis et de Non 'The Acts of the blessed Sylvester
sixth centuries Recipiendis Libris (CSEL XLII.4,
460 = PL LIX, cc. 173-4)
501 Constitutum Silvestri (Wirbelauer,
Zwei Papste in Rom (n. 56), 228)
501 Gesta Liberii (Wirbelauer, Zwei
Papste in Rom (n. 56), 248-60)
c. 530 Liber Pontificalis 34.2
Sixth century Malalas, Chronica XIII (Corpus
Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae
XXIV, 316-17)
... [anonimi] are read by many
Catholics in the city of Rome'
'Constantine was baptized by
Sylvester, bishop of Rome, and
cured of leprosy'
'Constantine was cured of leprosy
thanks to Sylvester'
'Sylvester ... baptized Constantine
Augustus who the Saviour had
cured of leprosy'
Heavenly vision converts
Constantine; baptism by Sylvester
170 LIVERAM

apocrypha'6 reveal the popularity of the legend in Rome in the years around the turn of the sixth
century, but give little detail. Finally, in the full sixth century, the story is included in the Liber
Pontifkalis.'
To add the final touch to our picture we must return to the dedicator}' inscription of the
facade mosaic. ' s From this, we learn that the mosaic was a donation of Flavins Avitus
Marinianus — an important figure who had occupied the praetorian prefecture in 422 and the
ordinary consulship a year later, and was still living in 448.'9 He is associated with his wife,
Anastasia,' in the dedication, and we also learn that the mosaic had been offered, at the prompt-
ing of Pope Leo, as the fulfilment of a vow made to the apostle Peter.
There are a number of important coincidences here. First of all, it should be stressed that this
same Anastasia was, according to the most reliable reconstruction, a great-great-granddaughter
of Constantine himself, and that her family continued to show an interest in the Vatican basil-
ica, as we know from other inscriptions (FIG. 5).61 Secondly, Pope Leo the Great's interest in this
mosaic is also significant.52 Returning to our discussion of the date of the Actus Silvestri, we may
recall Canella's analysis of the laws that, according to the legend, the healed emperor passed
after his baptism. We saw that the best parallel for these is the actual legislation of the Justinianic
period. But some aspects have clear links with even earlier circumstances — especially the fifth
law,6' which refers to the right of asylum. This practice was acknowledged and regulated in secu-
lar law in 431 and 432 by two imperial constitutions issued by Theodosius II and Valentinian
III.64 In canon law, it was established by the Council of Orange6' in 441 — in other words, at

56
Comtitutum Silvestri, in E. Wirbelauer, Zwei Pdpste in Rom: der Konflikt zwischen Laurentius und
Symmachus (498-514); Studien und Texte ( M u n i c h , 1993), 228; Gesta Liberii, in Wirbelauer (above), 248-60.
57
Liber Pontificals 34.2.
58
ICUR II, 4102 = GIL VI 41397a (above, n. 27).
'^ J.R. Martindale (ed.), Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire II (Cambridge, 1980), 7 2 3 - 4 s.v.
Marinianus no. 3.
60
Cf. Martindale (ed.), Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (above, n. 59), 76 s.v. Anastasia no.
1. See also A. Silvagni, 'Intorno a un gruppo di iscrizioni del IV e V secolo appartenenti alia Basilica Vaticana',
Bullettino della Cornmissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma 57 (1929), 135-47; F. Chausson, ' U n e seeur de
Constantin: Anastasia', in Carrie and Lizzi Testa (eds), 'Humana sapit' (above, n. 1), 1 31-55.
61
JCT/R II, 4097; ICUR II, 4122 = C / L VI 41336a; Silvagni, 'Intorno a u n gruppo' (above, n. 60);
Chausson, ' U n e sceur de C o n s t a n t i n ' (above, n. 60), with the reconstruction of the stemma of the Constantinian
family here re-proposed in a simplified version.
('- It should b e r e m e m b e r e d that apocalyptic iconography in mosaic cycles was introduced in this very
period, and that this same pope inspired the choice of an analogous subject for the triumphal arch of San Paolo
fuori le mura, cf. G. Bordi, 'II mosaico dell'arco trionfale', in Andaloro (ed), 1 ,'orizzonte tardoantico e le nuore
immagini (above, n. 3), 395-402, n. 44c.
^ Mombritius, Sanctuarium (above, n. 48), I, lines 4 7 6 - 9 : ' Q u i n t a die in q u o c u n q u e loco fucrit fabri-
cata ecclesia consecrationis suae h a n c virtutem obtineat, ut q u i c u n q u e reus ad c a m confugerit a iudicis pericu-
lo qui in praesenti merit defensetur'. Cf. Canella, Gli Actus Silvestri (above, n. 45), 9 7 - 1 0 2 .
64
Codex iheodosianus 9.45.4, 5 = Codex Justinianum 1.12.3, 4.
65
J.D. Mansi, Sacronim Conciliorum Nova, et Amplissima Collectio (FlorenceA'cnice, 1759-89), VI,
cc. 437-8.
SAINT PETER'S, LEO THK GREAT AND THE LEPROSY OF COXSTAXTIXE 17:

Constantius 1 Aug.

Galla oo Julius Constantius Constantine Aug. °o Fausta Anastasia oo Bassianus

Gallus Caesar oo Constantina

Anastasia =

Gallus Anastasius?
tribunus praetorianus

Anastasia oo Fl. Avitus Marinianus

FlG. 5. Stemma of the dynasty of the Emperor Constantine. After F. Chausson,

'Une soeur de Constantin: Anastasia', in J.-M. Carrie and R. Lizzi (eds), 'Humana
Sapit'. Etudes d'antiquite tardive offertes a Lellia Cracco Ruggini (Bibliotheque de
I'antiquite tardive 3) (Turnhout, 2002), fig. 4. (Drawn by the author.)

the beginning of Leo the Great's pontificate. The fourth law,66 regarding the primacy of the
Bishop of Rome, is particularly interesting. Pope Leo was especially insistent upon this, and its
first proclamation by the secular authorities was in Valentinian Ill's eighteenth Novella of 445,
which is also included in Leo's eleventh epistle.1 In other words, although the primacy of Rome
is known to have been discussed prior to Leo's pontificate and was also developed later (in
Justinianic legislation), it went through an important period of theoretical and practical elabo-
ration at precise]}' the time of the pope who promoted the mosaic that is at the heart of our dis-
cussion.

^ Mombritius, Sanctuarium (above, n. 48), I, lines 473-5: 'Qnarta die privilegium ecclesiae romanac
pontificique conhilit ut in toto orbe romano sacerdotes ita hunc caput habeant, sicut oinnes indices regem'. Cf.
Canella, G/i Actus Silvestri (above, n. 45), 97-102.
67
PL LIV, cc. 636C-640A.
172 uvr.RAM

We can conclude with a number of observations. Firstly, it is now clear that the legend of the
cure and conversion of Constantine, whilst springing from themes originating in the East, was
present in Rome at least from the second quarter of the fifth century. It was then decisively
reworked and promoted by Leo the Great, as something that perfectly fitted his political and
ecclesiastical programme.
T h e inclusion of the image of Constantine in the facade mosaic would not have surprised
contemporaries. As has been shown at the beginning of this paper, the connection between the
emperor and the basilica was already forcefully expressed inside Saint Peter's by the image of
Constantine offering the basilica to Christ in the above-mentioned mosaic of the triumphal
arch, together with its dedication; and we saw that he was also mentioned in two further monu-
mental mosaic inscriptions in the apse. All three of these commemorated the imperial founda-
tion with slightly different emphasis.
However, we must stress that the fagade mosaic did not in any way repeat the message of these
other mosaics: here, the image of Constantine, which was placed in the most conspicuous and
meaningful position possible, does not appear in the historical context of the foundation of the
church, but rather in the otherworldly context of the end of time. In his new eschatological
guise, the emperor is presented as a witness of Christian salvation and, implicitly, of the prima-
cy of Saint Peter.
Finally, we should not neglect the highly personal manner in which Constantine welcomes
the pilgrims coming to visit the apostle's tomb. He was probably represented in a frontal pose,
addressing them in a way that opens a dialogue, questioning the reader and viewer directly, and
soliciting his response and intimate approval. This is a style and genre of public, monumental
epigraph} 1 that was completely unknown in the Principate, when the convention was to be
detached, objective and impersonal. And it is a style and genre that was developed in a very dis-
tinctive way in Christian monumental epigraphy from the fourth century onwards. 1

^ See Liverani, 'Costantino offre il modello' (above n. 3), 34. I hope to develop this topic more fully in
another article.