The encaenia is portrayed by Eusebius as an event which made no attempt to hide its prominence with the gathering of crowds in a city of some imperial significance.[1] The oration is heard in a church built in a form of architecture generally reserved for public imperial buildings. In the secular basilica were performed ritual ceremonies recognised by the state.[2] The imperial association of the basilica is preserved by Eusebius who casts Christ as the heavenly emperor, the one setting up the trophies of victory, the king and governor of the universe.[3] There is, as we shall see, little difference between the description of the encaenia at Tyre and that of the Martyrium basilica 20 years later. The one significant omission is any mention of the direct involvement of the emperor in either the founding or the inauguration of the basilica. Although the oration and the building itself contains a number of imperial themes or references, Eusebius describes the building as the work of Paulinus alone. No explicit mention is made of how such a building was funded. The edict of toleration which gave the impetus to construct the basilica talks only of the restoration of lands or buildings to the Church. It does not dictate that any compensation was to be paid to communities whose church had been destroyed. Rather, any compensation available was for those who had legally obtained Christian property during the persecution and were now forced to hand it back. However, Eusebius does record a general reference of imperial gifts in book ten. Having stated that temples once again rose from the ground he declares that "personal letters of the emperor were sent to the bishops, with honours and gifts of money".[4] Paulinus, though, does not appear to have received one of these letters since Eusebius promises to attach such documents to the end of the book. The only personal letter granting funds towards the building of a church is addressed by Constantine to Caecilianus, the bishop of Carthage, dated to around 313.[5] Any similar letter addressed to Paulinus would have come from the office of Licinius who, one might expect, would not have been overly enthusiastic to fund a Christian basilica on the scale of Tyre.[6]
That the basilica at Tyre was somehow self-funded by the Tyre community is not the opinion of Richard Krautheimer. He argues that from Eusebius' description of the basilica and from the style of the oration that the Tyre basilica belongs to the group of churches founded by the emperor.[7] First, particular elements of the basilica, especially the atrium, colonnade (propylaeum) and the raised aisle, are commonly found in imperial palace architecture. Second, Krautheimer draws attention to Eusebius' emphasis on the presence of the sun's rays in the atrium, on the doors, and through the roof. The sun's rays penetrating the gloom is a common metaphor in Eusebius for the victory of Christ. It is, writes Krautheimer, also a frequent symbol of the emperor as the invincible sun or sun of justice. An architectural emphasis on the flood of light can be viewed at the imperial basilica at Trier and in the audience hall of the Piazza Armerina. These architectural elements, implies Krautheimer, are necessary only for a basilica which had some association with the emperor and, he writes,
connotations of the imperial cult are most patent in churches subsidised by the imperial house.[8]
Ludvig Voelkl also notes the imperial language within Eusebius' oration. The basilica of Tyre for Voelkl belongs in the same category of church detailed in the Liber Pontificalis.[9] On the other hand Suzanne Spain Alexander assumes that the Tyre basilica was not funded from the imperial treasury. Although she observes that the atrium is primarily found in buildings of imperial patronage she states that Tyre was the exception (whereas Krautheimer had used the evidence of the atrium as one reason why Tyre should be considered an imperial basilica).[10] This assumption leads her to the conclusion that the basilica church complete with atrium, in the east at least, predates the accession of Constantine.
Putting to one side the architectural evidence, the literary sources are reasonably clear that the Tyre community paid for the basilica. First, it would be astonishing, given the tone of book ten, if Eusebius had failed to mention that the emperor had generously aided the building of the basilica. Rather, the oration is in honour of Paulinus not Licinius or Constantine who receive a mention only in so far as they have been the agents of freedom. Secondly, Eusebius actually praises Paulinus and the congregation for their contributions,
Thus this one [Paulinus]...has formed this magnificent temple of the highest God...it is impossible to say with what greatness of soul, with what wealth and liberality of mind, and with what emulation on the part of all of you, shown in the magnanimity of the contributors who have ambitiously striven in no way to be left behind by him in the execution of the same purpose.[11]
Whilst Constantine was founding churches in Rome, the Church in Tyre was raising money and organising the "technical and scientific knowledge" to build the finest basilica in Phoenicia.
This still leaves us with the matter of the imperial elements apparent in both the basilica and in Eusebius' interpretation of the oration. The basilical shape was not simply confined to grand public buildings.[12] Evidence exists that a smaller version of the basilica could be found in earlier Jewish and Christian architecture.[13] The seeds of Constantinian church architecture were already present before the accession of Constantine (in, for example, the aula ecclesiae). The basilica at Tyre (and the fact that it was a basilica is agreed by most if not all scholars[14]) was the clearest example of this line of development because there is no evidence for the direct influence of the emperor. It is perhaps not so strange that the Church should decide to appropriate an architectural form so associated with the imperial cult. Rather than viewing it as part of the integration of Church and state it is perhaps better to see it in terms of Christianity's own mission to, in some sense, blend the conversion of the empire with her own imperial theology. Eusebius, we should remember, draws attention to both the physical and the spiritual building as a "basilikÕn o¨kon" or a royal house. It is the house, not of the emperor and his cult, but of the ’universal King (pambasilšwj)’, ’the Master (despŅthj) of all’ and ’universal Governor’ (panhgemŅnoj). A whole section of the oration is comprised of questions which begin, "What king (basilšwn) would...?" Eusebius’ description of the acts of the only true king occupies more space than one might expect in an oration praising the inauguration of a church building. But, it is because the building in question is a basilica, the first visible basilica in the East, that the oration is immersed in Christian imperial language. The Tyre encaenia was the first opportunity for Eusebius to express the sense of fulfilment with which he commences book ten. The triumph of Christianity is her appropriation of not only imperial architecture and images but also the emperors themselves.
The first recorded encaenia was a triumphant occasion
celebrating the inauguration of Paulinus’ new and splendid basilica. It was an event at which a number of bishops
were present as well as crowds from the surrounding regions. The presence of other bishops, for many
probably the first time they had been permitted to openly travel for ten years,
symbolised the unity of the Church and emphasised the significance of the
event. We have no record of the subject
matter of the other panegyrics delivered at this feast but the one delivered by
Eusebius ensures that the feast rose to another level, becoming a celebration
of the inauguration of the restored Church, the spiritual edifice. The theme of inauguration is implicitly
extended from the Church to the empire as a whole. The crushing of the enemies of the Church and the recognition of
Christianity by the emperor, the living microcosm of the empire, signified for
Eusebius the closing of one chapter in the age of the empire and the opening of
another.
[1] Tyre was the home of the purple dye factory which supplied the imperial court. Eusebius tells of Dorotheus, a devout priest, who was honoured by the emperor (probably Diocletian) and appointed procurator of the dye-works (H.E. 7.32.3).
[2] This point is made by Ludwig Voelkl in Die Kirchenstiftungen des Kaisers Konstantin im Lichte des römischen Sakralrechts. (Köln, 1964) 29.
[3] So H.E. 10.4.20, quoted above.
[4] H.E. 10.2.2. It is, therefore, doubtful if a letter to a provincial governor would have been the place to offer funding for the building of churches. Church patronage usually involved direct correspondence between the emperor and the bishop concerned with the funds coming out of the imperial fiscus.
[5] H.E. 10.6. See the discussion of this letter by Fergus Millar in The Emperor in the Roman World (31BC - AD337). (London, 1977) 583. The letter should also be set in the context of Constantine's eagerness to quell the emerging Donatist controversy (see Optatus, De Schismate Donatistarum, Ap. 7).
[6] As if attempting to answer the question of destroyed churches Lactantius follows his copy of the letter of toleration with, "After publishing this letter, Licinius also urged by word of mouth that the meeting places should be restored to their original state" (De Mortibus Persecutorum 48.13). No mention, though, is made of whether the emperor was prepared to fund restoration. For a reconstruction of edicts issued by Licinius in this period see, Simon Corcoran. "Hidden from history: the legislation of Licinius." The Theodosian Code. Ed. Jill Harries and Ian Wood. (New York, 1993) 97-119.
[7] Richard Krautheimer. Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, 45-46.
[8] Krautheimer (1981): 46. See further R. Krautheimer. "The Constantinian basilica." Dumbarton Oaks Papers 21 (1967): 115-40. Especially p.124f where Krautheimer describes the development of the basilica in the 3rd-4th centuries as becoming more closely associated with the imperial cult. No mention, though, is made of the Tyre basilica though he argues that the basilica type of building was generally reserved for public buildings and was the responsibility of the emperor.
[9] Voelkl (1964): 31-32.
[10] S. Spain Alexander. "Studies in Constantinian Church Architecture (Part 2)." Revistia di archeologia cristiana 49 (1972): 33-44 (esp. 34-35).
[11] H.E. 10.4.26; NPNF 1.373.
[12] Richard Krautheimer emphasises the variety of basilical forms in Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, 42. A discussion of the functions associated with the basilica can be found in J. B. Ward-Perkins, "Constantine and the origins of the Christian basilica." Papers of the British School at Rome 22 (1954): 78.
[13] For descriptions of early synagogues (especially the basilica-like synagogue of Alexandria destroyed in 116) see H. L. Gordan. "The basilica and the stoa in Rabbinical literature." Art Bulletin 13 (1932): 353-75; Eric M. Meyers. "The current state of Galilean synagogue studies." The Synagogue in Late Antiquity. Ed. Lee I. Levine. (Philadelphia, 1987) 127-137; Marilyn J. S. Chiat, and Marchita B. Mauck. "Using archaeological sources." The Making of Jewish and Christian Worship. Ed. P.F. Bradshaw and L.A. Hoffman. (Notre Dame, 1991) 69-92.
[14] L. Michael White states that the church in Tyre is wrongly assumed to be a basilica. He thinks it was probably an elaborate form of the aula ecclesiae (Building God's House in the Roman World, 136). However, as we have previously stated there is really very little to separate the aula from the basilica.