Chapter Two
The Feast of the Encaenia in
Tyre, 315AD
"'What is holy?' Goethe asks once in a distich, and answers: 'What links many souls together'"[1]
This chapter takes us from the 'dark ages' of Christian buildings into a period of visible architecture never before seen in Christian history. The fact that much of fourth century architecture remains today only enhances the popular perception that before Constantine there was nothing of significance whereas from Constantine onwards there was a frenzy of building activity, much of which was alien to Christianity. It is, however, a conclusion based on negative evidence. We are forced to conclude that there is little that can be generalised about Christian places of assembly from the surviving evidence. There was no universal building type in the first three centuries. The style of Christian buildings depended upon the local situation of the Church in the empire. From the evidence we do have, however, it is possible to suggest that in many places Christian architecture strove towards something which resembled the actual buildings erected in the reign of Constantine and later. Within the liturgical sources and from some of the surviving archaeological evidence are the seeds of the great basilicas. The peaceful and stable effects of a Christian emperor upon the Church permitted these buds to flower without shrinking. Certainly, there are no contemporary objections to the Constantinian basilica, only words of wonderment.
The years immediately preceding 313 were a complex period in the history of the empire. The size of the empire combined with threats posed by hostile armies on the borders in both the east and the west necessitated a dividing of the empire between two or three co-rulers one of whom was considered the senior Augustus. The matter was further complicated by the means of ensuring succession whereby Caesars were appointed who were expected to assume power on the demise of their superiors. More often than not these junior members had some family connection either through birth or through marriage. Marriages within the imperial college to maintain political harmony were frequent.
In 305, on the retirement of the emperors Diocletian in the East and Maximian in the West, Constantius and Galerius assumed the purple attire of the Augusti. The Caesars appointed were Severus and Maximinus (Galerius' nephew).[2] In York the following year Constantius died in the presence of his son Constantine. On 25 July, the army hailed Constantine as the new Augustus. Seizing the advantage Maxentius, the son of Maximian, proclaimed himself prince in Rome. Galerius, now fellow Augustus with Severus, reluctantly accepted Constantine as Caesar.[3] Maxentius, from his station in Italy, continued to challenge the position of Severus. Maxentius' father Maximian suspended his retirement to support his son. In the years 306 and 307 first Severus and then Galerius invaded Italy. Severus died in defeat and Galerius was forced into retreat. Meanwhile, in 307, Constantine accepted Fausta, the daughter of Maximian, in marriage, which effectively allied Constantine and Maxentius against Galerius. The balance was redressed at a conference at Carnuntum in 308 where Licinius was appointed the fellow-Augustus of Galerius. It was also of some help to Galerius that Maxentius quarrelled with his father Maximian who fled to Constantine. Foolishly Maximian attempted a coup against Constantine, resulting in his suicide that same year. Constantine had strengthened his position in Britain, Spain and Gaul, whilst Licinius was based in the Balkans. Maximinus ruled in the East, residing for the most part in Antioch, whilst Galerius was in neighbouring Asia Minor.
Galerius came to a slow and grisly end in 311. Maximinus invaded Asia Minor and seized his territories. Residing at the imperial palace in Nicomedia Maximinus resumed the Christian persecution begun by Diocletian in 303. Meanwhile, in the Western half of the empire Maxentius continued to challenge the imperial college by declaring war on Constantine. To prevent an allegiance between Maxentius and Licinius Constantine offered in marriage the hand of his sister Constantia to Licinius. Then in 312 he marched upon Maxentius in Italy resulting in the victorious battle at Milvian Bridge on October 12. Constantine wrote to Maximinus announcing his defeat of Maxentius and notified him that he, Constantine, had been proclaimed by the senate as the senior Augustus. With this authority Constantine ordered Maximinus to cease his persecution of the Christians. In January 313 Constantine travelled to North Italy to witness the marriage of Licinius to his sister which took place in Milan. It was at this meeting that Constantine urged Licinius to extend similar rights to Christians in his provinces which had been implemented in the West since 306. The two emperors also decided that Maximinus had to go and the meeting closed with a declaration of war on Maximinus. The latter was finally defeated at Adrianople by Licinius on April 30, 313 and committed suicide in July of that year. On June 13, 313 the governor of each eastern province was sent a letter signed by both Licinius and Constantine defining the legal position of Christians. It is this letter, with its mention of the meeting of the two emperors in Milan, which is more commonly known as the 'Edict of Milan'.[4]
The letter of the emperors preserved by Lactantius in the original Latin and by Eusebius in Greek translation proclaims religious freedom for all. It is clear that subjects of the empire may worship whatever divinity is believed to reside in heaven. The intention is to encourage the divinity to look favourably upon the emperors and the empire.[5] The implication of the letter is that the empire no longer holds one set of gods to be the official guardians of the empire. Subjects are now informed that they are also permitted to change religion, again for the divine protection of the empire. This policy reflects the doubt created by the victory of Constantine over the tyrant Maxentius under the 'saving sign'[6] and the different religious positions of the two emperors. With regard to the Christian religion, the letter commands the restoration of Christian property, not only places of assembly but all other property which belonged to the Christian 'society'. Funds are made available from the imperial treasury to compensate those who are forced to return property which they may have acquired quite legally. The letter contains no reference to making such funds available to Christians. No mention is made, either, about the rebuilding of property destroyed in the persecution (though the land on which it stood would be returned). Eusebius, however, does preserve an edict issued by Maximinus immediately prior to his defeat at Adrianople. In it Maximinus states that,
It is also granted them to build Lord's houses. But that this grant of ours may be the greater, we have thought good to decree also that if any houses and lands before this time rightfully belonged to the Christians...that all these should be restored to their original possession.[7]
This edict and the subsequent letter of Licinius gave the signal that the people of Tyre might begin the rebuilding of their church. This is confirmed by Eusebius who, towards the end of Book nine of his Church History, writes,
Thus when Maximinus, who alone had remained of the enemies of religion and had appeared the worst of them all, was put out of the way, the renovation of the churches from their foundations was begun by the grace of God the Ruler of all, and the word of Christ, shining unto the glory of the God of the universe, obtained greater freedom than before, while the impious enemies of religion were covered with extreme shame and dishonour.[8]
The turning of Constantine and Licinius towards Christianity marks the climax of Eusebius' Church History. It marks the climax, that is, of the last major revision of the work for it is now generally accepted that the first edition ended with book seven documenting the calm before the Great Persecution.[9] This is a time when, in some regions, the Church developed a more overt visibility with regard to her architecture and her integration within the empire. The persecutions in the age of the tetrarchy, therefore, came as a sudden shock in their ferocity. Eusebius recorded the first edition of the Martyrs of Palestine in the short peace between Galerius' death-bed edict of toleration and Maximinus' resumption of persecution at the beginning of 312.[10] Book nine documents the last phase of this persecution under Maximinus before his defeat by Licinius at Adrianople in April 313, ending with the above passage and an affirmation of Constantine and Licinius who, "showed their love of truth and their love of God, their piety and their gratitude to the Deity by their legislation in favour of Christians".[11]
Around 316 Eusebius added the final book of his History in which he recorded the effects of the imperial peace upon the Church. The book is dedicated to Paulinus the bishop of Tyre.[12] This is appropriate, if for no other reason, because the book really consists of an oration delivered at the inauguration of the Tyre Basilica with an appendix of imperial letters concerning the emperor's arrangements for the Christians. About Paulinus not a great deal is known.[13] We only assume that he was the same Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, present during the Arian controversy. This Paulinus was a priest in Antioch before assuming his seat in Tyre[14] and was probably the successor to Tyrannion who was martyred in the persecution.[15] If scholars are correct in their dating of the various editions of the Church History then book ten was written three years after the arrival of peace in the eastern half of the empire. The different tone of the book from the preceding nine is obvious and Eusebius himself draws attention to it. "We will fitly add", he writes to Paulinus, "on a perfect number the perfect panegyric upon the rebuilding of the churches."[16] In this context "perfect" has the sense of fulfilled or completed. The "perfect number" probably refers to the number ten and the perfect panegyric, whilst indicating what follows, can also be understood as viewing the restoration of the churches as a symbol for the fulfilment of the Church itself. The church building as a microcosm of the church society is a theme which we will encounter within the panegyric. Centred around the rebuilding of the churches book ten becomes a "new song to the Lord".[17] This book will celebrate things that 'truly righteous men and martyrs of the Lord before us desired'.[18] The Church History of Eusebius was the first work of its kind. The ten books were not written together at one particular moment and the work as a whole was certainly not written in the light of the rise of Constantine. There is, however, a sense in which Eusebius desires to end the History on a positive note, almost an eschatological note. The first edition of the work, ending at book seven, documents a time of peace prior to Diocletian's persecution. Eusebius, in the beginning of book eight, describes the years leading up to the 303 as years where the Church existed without hindrance. So much so, in fact, that the persecution is portrayed as a divine punishment for the complacency of the Church as it fell into laziness and division.[19] The framework into which Eusebius moulds the effects of the persecution is that of Israel's self-reflections on the exile. Thus, in book eight, Eusebius quotes the words of Lamentations, "The Lord overwhelmed all the beautiful things of Israel, and threw down all his strongholds" and those of Ps 88, "He has made void the covenant of his servant, and profaned his sanctuary to the earth."[20] From here until the end of book nine (and in the separate work, The Martyrs of Palestine) Eusebius describes to the reader the terrible events of the following ten years.
The subsequent description by Eusebius of the journey of the Church from gloom into light contains a number of appropriate biblical allusions. Clearly evident is his surprise at the way in which he is able to end his History,
But, acknowledging that even these things are greater than we deserve, we have been astonished at the grace manifested by the author of the great gifts...
If book ten is the perfect completion of the work as a whole then the events which it describes are portrayed by Eusebius as the fulfilment of particular Old Testament passages. "Come and see the works of the Lord...he removes wars to the ends of the world..." proclaim Psalm 45. These words, writes Eusebius, are "clearly fulfilled in our day".[21] And again, another 'divine utterance' has its fulfilment, "I have seen the impious highly exalted...I have passed by, and behold, he was not".[22] The destruction of the enemies of Christianity is followed by the dawning of a day with distinctly eschatological overtones,
And finally a bright and splendid day, overshadowed by no cloud, illuminated with beams of heavenly light the churches of Christ throughout the entire world.[23]
The extending of the day of light to the entire world by Eusebius ignores, probably deliberately, the existence of religious freedom in the western empire since 306. From the standpoint of Eusebius, who early in his history described how the spread of the Gospel "like the rays of the sun quickly illumined the whole world"[24], the new recognition granted to Christianity is of such significance that even the scriptures can be said to speak of it and the same passages tell of signs revealed to all nations, i.e. to the whole world.
From general statements about the death of the Church's enemies Eusebius moves towards the climax of his introduction to book ten. Having began his account of the persecution with the "houses of prayer thrown down to the very foundations" which "we saw with our own eyes" Eusebius now joyfully describes how,
a certain inspired joy bloomed for all of us, when we saw every place which shortly before had been desolated...reviving as if from a long and death-fraught pestilence, and temples again rising from their foundations to an immense height, and receiving a splendour far greater than that of the old ones which had been destroyed.[25]
The parallel between the two accounts are obvious. And, just as the persecution was permitted by God as a punishment for the divided Church so too the favourable legislation and the monetary gifts from the 'supreme rulers' are ultimately a confirmation of the 'munificence of God'.[26] And now that the temples have been raised once again Eusebius reaches the height of his narrative with the first recorded description of the feast of the Encaenia,
After this, we were granted the sight desired and prayed for by us all: feasts of encaenia in each city, and consecrations of newly-built houses of prayer, assemblies of bishops united for this purpose, gathering together of foreigners from far and wide, sentiments of love by the people for the people, the union of the members of the body of Christ in one complete harmony of assembled people.[27]
This gathering together of the Church to these feasts (although described as if one feast) is seen by Eusebius in Ezekielian terms of a return from the exile and oppression of the persecution. What he has described is, writes Eusebius, the mystical joining of "bone to bone, and joint to joint". Eusebius successfully intermingles the Pauline theme of the Body of Christ with the bodily rejuvenation images of Ezekiel 37. Both images are linked by Eusebius with the image of one Divine spirit 'flowing throughout all the limbs'. The rejuvenation of the Body of Christ parallels the rebuilding of the churches, celebrated by the assemblies for the feasts of the encaenia. Although Eusebius does not record any great detail about the encaenia he does present us with some general elements. The 'sacred rites' conducted by the priests and shown in the church by "the singing of psalms and reading of the Scriptures, the performing of the divine and mystical services, the inexpressible symbols of the Passion of the Saviour". The general content of the feast thus follows the broad outline of the Eucharistic assembly; the liturgy of the Word followed by the liturgy of the Eucharist. The mention of both the 'priestly worship' and the 'venerable institutions of the Church' may hint at other rites particular to this celebration but of their content Eusebius makes no mention.
Before we proceed further with the content of Book ten it is necessary first to discuss the apparent distinction Eusebius makes between the "™gkain…wn ˜ortaˆ" and those of "¢fierèseij". Translations tend towards defining the former as ’dedication’ and the latter ’consecration’.[28] An examination of the usage of the root ™gkan- in comparable literature establishes that a finer definition than simply ’dedication’ is required. The word is rare in Greek literature. The root most frequently occurs in the Septuagint and usually in the verbal form. The noun "™gka…nia" hardly occurs at all. The usage of ™gkan- in the Septuagint is invariably connected with the completion of a new object, particularly one associated with the liturgy. In Num. 7:10 the leaders of Israel are described as making an offering at the ™gkainismÒn of the altar. This action takes place on the same day as the anointing and consecration of the altar and yet appears to be a distinct rite in itself.[29] The rite in this case involves the bringing of gifts by the twelve leaders to the altar. It is this ritual action which inaugurates the altar as a place of sacrifice. The same ™gkainismÒn of the altar occurs at 2 Chron 7:9. Here the Chronicler describes the rite as being kept for seven days whilst the ’feast’ instituted by Solomon was kept for a further seven days. The latter feast is that of Tabernacles whereas the completion of the temple coincided with the day of atonement (10 Tishri).[30]
The Septuagint also speaks of ™gkainismÒn in terms of restoration. Asa, in 2 Chron 15:8, "™neka…nisen the altar of the Lord" which implies he did more than merely ’repair’ it. The subsequent verses describe Asa’s restoration of the altar with an account of a seven thousand sheep being sacrificed. The same idea occurs in the Book of Ezra where on their return the people of Israel, "made the ™gka…nia of the house of God in joy". Once again the narrative includes a large sacrifice as part of the celebrations. The majority of the references connecting the encaenia with the altar in the Septuagint are to be found in the Book of Maccabees. A new altar was built and inaugurated by Judas Maccabaeus in his task to purify and "™gkain…sai" the holy things. The account of the purification of the temple suggests that it centres around the inauguration of the new altar which in turn purifies the temple. The feast to be celebrated on the anniversary of this particular encaenia is Hanukkah. It is, though, a feast claimed by the text to stand in succession to the encaenia of the temple under Solomon and Nehemiah. Furthermore, although the feast of Hanukkah occurs on 25 Chislev, the Jewish community in Alexandria are instructed to keep it as "the day of tabernacles".[31]
The sense of encaenia as a rite of inauguration is confirmed by Septuagint passages where the term is used without reference to an altar. The clearest instance is Deut 20:5 which reads,
What man is there who has built a new house and has not ™neka…nisen it? Let him go and return to his house, lest he be killed in battle and another man ™gkainie‹ it. ...And what man is there that has betrothed a wife and has not taken her? Let him go and return to his house, lest he be killed in battle and another man takes her.
The context is things newly built or acquired. The verbal form of ™gka…n- continues the sense of inauguration or performing some act which effects the use of the thing (as with the first offering of sacrifice on a newly built altar).[32]
In the New Testament the noun form occurs only once, in Jn 10:22, where it is a reference to the feast instituted by Judas Maccabaeus.[33] What, in the Septuagint, was a term used to describe the inauguration of a new altar, has by the first century become the proper name for a particular feast. The same transformation occurs regarding the Christian Encaenia; initially a rite of inauguration and then both a rite and a particular feast. The Latin translation of the New Testament retains the Greek word, transliterating it into the more common 'encaenia'. This meant, for example, that commentators on Jn 10:22 were obliged to render some meaning to the term for their readers or audience. Augustine, for example, writes,
The encaenia was the dedication of the temple. In Greek it is kainÒn, that is to say, 'new'. Whenever something new is to be dedicated, it is called encaenia. So this word has another use, if a new tunic is worn, it is said to be encaeniare. So that day when the temple was dedicated, the Jews celebrated solemnly.[34]
That ™gka…nia in late antiquity is understood in a similar fashion to its appearance in the Septuagint can also be gathered from the Greek commentaries on the scripture passages where the term appears. For example, the title to Ps 29, "A psalm of poetry for ™gkainismÒj of the house", is invariably interpreted by the commentators with reference to the inauguration of the temple of the soul by the presence of the Holy Spirit.[35] There is another theme to which ™gka…n- is frequently connected, that of resurrection. This is a theme to which we will return since it is the Christian resurrection which underlies the feast of the Encaenia. For the present it is sufficient to note that Epiphanius views the title to Psalm 29 as signifying the bodily resurrection of the individual[36] and Gregory of Nazianzus devotes an oration entitled ’On the New Lord’s Day’ to the theme of encaenia in the resurrection of Christ (which inaugurated a new creation) and the individual’s own encaenia in baptism.[37]
The meaning which Eusebius gives to encaenia is very similar to how it is found in the Septuagint. With its idea of inauguration, including the later theology of resurrection, the term fits well into the book which describes the inauguration of a new age or, in the words of Eusebius, a new song. We have no surviving evidence of "encaenia" being applied to the completion of a church before Eusebius. However, Eusebius himself makes no suggestion that he is coining a new word but rather states that the feasts had been desired and prayed for by all. At Tyre this desire was fulfilled soon after peace had descended.
How then was the encaenia distinct from the "¢fišrwsij" which Eusebius also mentions? If Eusebius' usage of encaenia can be traced back to the Septuagint then this cannot be said for the form ¢fišrow, which does not appear in the Septuagint or the New Testament.[38] Eusebius himself uses the word to describe the consecration of the Martyrium basilica in 335. Since it was this event which gave rise to the anniversary feast of the Encaenia it seems reasonable to suggest that the two words could be interchangeable. However, whereas the encaenia was the name given to the specific feast celebrated at the inauguration of the church building (especially the altar), ¢fišrwsij has a more general sense of consecration which is used not only with reference to Christian buildings but also Greco-Roman temples. ’Egka…nia (or other forms) as far as it is possible to tell, does not occur in a non-Christian context. The term ¢fišrwsij and the related ¢fierèmata, on the other hand, are used by Eusebius with reference to both Christian and non-Christian sacred sites.[39] In addition Eusebius quotes the verb ¢fišrow with reference to pagan customs in his work Praeparatio Evangelica.[40] When Eusebius tells of the "consecration of newly-built houses of prayer" in book ten of the History he is describing the completion of sacred buildings in the same manner of speaking as might be used about the completion of temples to the Greco-Roman gods. The feasts of encaenia which he describes in greater detail are the particular Christian ceremonies associated with the consecration of a place of worship. The encaenia investigated in the first part of this thesis are all of major churches. In addition, with the possible exception of the Tyre basilica, the funding and sometimes the initiative for the basilica comes from the emperor. Was the feast of the encaenia celebrated at the consecration of every Christian church? Was it only the encaenia of the major basilicas which the narrators saw fit to record? Or was the encaenia a feast particularly associated with the consecration of imperial basilicas? No definite answer can be given to any of these questions. However, it is possible to present from the surviving evidence a consistent pattern of what the encaenia consisted. This pattern, as we will see, is continued in the accounts of the anniversary feast of the Encaenia of the Martyrium basilica. It is our task now to begin this process with an investigation into the consecration and encaenia of the basilica in Tyre.
The date of the Tyre encaenia is not entirely certain. We can suppose that the building of the church at Tyre did not begin until after the edict of toleration in 313. The oration mentions in the plural the emperors as "supreme rulers...recording in imperial letters...His righteous deeds." In 316 Constantine was in Southern Gaul preparing for war against Licinius. In March 317 the two emperors made a reluctant treaty at Serdica where Licinius lost the European territory he had held and Constantine's sons were proclaimed Caesars. There is no hint of an imperial division in the oration, both receiving equal praise from the speaker, and so it may be concluded that the emperors are, at least to Eusebius’ knowledge, still on friendly terms.[41] The year 315 then seems a probable date for the Tyre encaenia.[42] In this year Constantine spent the winter in Trier before entering Rome for the celebration of his Deccanalia.[43] It was at this time that the famous triumphal arch in Rome was dedicated. The co-emperor, Licinius, towards the end of 315 was busy fighting the Goths.[44] Although his territory was the Eastern half of the empire, Licinius actually took up residence near the Danube. Both emperors, therefore, in 315 were far from the city of Tyre.
In Tyre the event was of some significance. In his description of the feast of the encaenia Eusebius recounts that bishops, many foreigners and people of every age assembled for the feast. The style of Eusebius' description, although intended to be read as an account of the general practice of the feast in the cities, gives the impression that Eusebius is in fact describing one particular encaenia which he witnessed.[45] From this one feast, the encaenia at Tyre, Eusebius makes the general assumption that this was the practice throughout the empire. There is, however, no surviving evidence of such gatherings occurring at this time in other cities. The account provided by Eusebius including the panegyric delivered on the day, is the only record we have of a church completed and inaugurated so soon after the edicts of toleration.
The panegyric itself forms, therefore, a continuous narrative with chapter 3 of book ten. There is little doubt in the minds of commentators that the unnamed one who delivered the panegyric in Tyre was Eusebius who was evidently one of the many bishops who gathered at Tyre for the event. The very fact that the orator is anonymous and yet the whole of the oration is reproduced (which, after all, was only one of a number delivered at the feast) strongly suggests that the speaker was indeed Eusebius. There are, in any case, a number of similarities between this oration and the one Eusebius delivered in honour of the Martyrium basilica which is examined in the next chapter.
The panegyric is the earliest surviving detailed description of a Christian church. Although Eusebius spends some time observing with wonder the various parts of the building, the oration is less a review of Paulinus’ building endeavours (which the assembly could see for themselves) than it is a theology of the spiritual church. Eusebius intermingles biblical allusion and quotation with the Platonic theme of the building as a microcosm of the universe. It is within this style that he begins the oration. First he addresses the clergy present whom he describes as a heavenly crown of glory, an inspired anointing, and the sacerdotal garment of the Holy Spirit. All three of these themes emphasise Eusebius’ earlier stress on the new-found harmony of the members of the Body of Christ. Then he turns to Paulinus, bishop of Tyre (although not named), who received the distinguished honour of building and renewing this material building for Christ and his bride, the Church. For this Paulinus is named as another Beseleel, another Solomon and another Zerubbabel. Eusebius addresses next the congregation, the nurslings, the school of wisdom and the pious hearers of religion. Then follows a large section which reviews, with biblical quotation and rhetoric, the works of the Lord in their time. Now is the time of fulfilment of each of the biblical passages he cites. First, the reconstruction of the churches and the unity of the Church (both, for Eusebius, significant effects of the toleration) show forth the city of God (Pss 47:8; 86:3), a newly built and divinely constructed city (I Tim 3:15). Once again, in the House of the Lord, is to be sung a ’new song’ praising the works of the Lord who, amongst other things is the ’slayer of tyrants’, the ’destroyer of the impious’ which recalls for the hearer the recent deaths of Galerius, Maximinus and Maxentius.
The recent persecution, which earlier Eusebius had described as a divine punishment, takes on a cosmic significance. Christ the incarnate Physician descended to the human race which lay in the depths of darkness. The rays of Christ’s light loosed the cords of sin as if wax. But, on seeing such kindness, the ’evil-loving demon’ burst forth and,
levelled his ferocious madness at the stones of sanctuaries and at the lifeless material of the houses, and desolated the churches, -at least as he supposed,- and emitted terrible hissings and snake-like sounds, now by the threats of impious tyrants, and again by the blasphemous edicts of profane rulers, vomiting forth death...and almost slaying [the souls] by his death-fraught sacrifices of dead idols...[46]
The ten year persecution is presented as the devil’s response to the Incarnation. The impious, the imperial tyrants are but puppets and the persecuted are powerless to respond. Such a narrative would be redundant if Eusebius did not present to his hearers the supernatural response. The divine response in this cosmic battle comes in the form of the "Angel of great counsel, the great Captain of God" who,
suddenly appeared anew, and blotted out and annihilated his enemies and foes, so that they seemed never to have even a name. But his friends and relatives he raised to the highest glory, in the presence not only of men, but also of celestial powers, of sun and moon and stars, and of the whole heaven and earth, so that now, as has never happened before, the supreme rulers, conscious of the honour which they have received from him, spit upon the faces of dead idols, trample upon the unholy rites of demons...and acknowledge only one God, the common benefactor of all, themselves included.[47]
The Christ of whom Eusebius speaks is Christ the emperor whose empire, the Church, is "spread abroad everywhere under the sun". Christ performs the functions we would expect of an emperor: the construction of trophies of victory - symbols of his continued reign- throughout his empire. This particular imperial task brings Eusebius from encompassing the cosmos, step by step, to the church of Tyre;
What king...sets up trophies over his enemies, and fills every place, country and city...with this royal dwellings, even divine temples with their consecrated offerings, like this very temple with its superb adornments and votive offerings...clear signs of the sovereignty of our Saviour?...For what was there to resist the nod of the universal King and Governor and Word of God himself?[48]
But, superbly adorned as the basilica is, it is not the greatest sanctuary. For this belongs to the spiritual temple which in this interpretation is the Church of Christ, constructed from living stones, each one of which is a sanctuary in its own right. Continually Eusebius shifts the attention of his audience from material to spiritual and back again, maintaining this conjunction between the earthly and the heavenly. The basilica of Tyre, "this magnificent temple of the highest God", is itself a symbol of the spiritual. Like the first Ark, Paulinus the new Beseleel has constructed it "after heavenly types given in symbols".
It is at this point that Eusebius gives us some hint of the situation in Tyre before the present feast. The church built by Paulinus was built upon the site of an earlier building. First, the site had been covered in rubbish by the pagan enemies. Secondly, Paulinus was obviously determined to build on this site despite the fact that other suitable places existed in the city.[49] This covering in rubbish is implied to have been a deliberate act. When we discuss Eusebius’ narrative of the uncovering of the Holy Sepulchre, we will observe that this too is described as being covered in rubbish, in this case a temple to Aphrodite and a statue to Jupiter.[50] The significance is that in the latter and perhaps in the former Eusebius intends to make it appear that the pagans knew of the site’s significance and made every effort to cover it up. Regarding Tyre, this site was undoubtedly the place of the original church building which was demolished in the persecution and very likely the place was strewn with rubble and perhaps became a dumping ground for city waste. Yet again Eusebius draws upon his large stock of biblical imagery in presenting the rebuilding as part of the cosmic battle. The portrayal of Paulinus as a bishop who succeeded in uniting the people after the end of the persecution is submerged under the annihilation of the enemy and the flourishing of the Church in these desert places. The city of Tyre is a microcosm of the world. Imperial officials in the city tore down the church and persecuted the Christians. But fulfilled are the words, "O Lord, in your city you shall set at nought their image."[51] And Paulinus, the representative of Christ, has arisen like a new Zerubbabel to rebuild the fallen temple;
This our new and excellent Zerubbabel, having heard the word which announced beforehand, that she who had been made a desert on account of God should enjoy these things after the bitter captivity and the abomination of desolation, did not overlook the dead body; but first of all with prayers and supplications propitiated the Father with the common consent of all of you, and invoking the only one that gives life to the dead as his ally and fellow-worker, raised her that was fallen...’And the latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former’.[52]
Thus, the building raised up in the desert of persecuted Tyre is a symbol of the flourishing spiritual church in the empire, of which too the latter glory shall be greater than the former. But the church of Tyre operated as a symbol on another level; as a symbol of the spiritual church it also reflected the sanctuary of its architect’s soul, one of the living stones of the spiritual church.
Having unfolded the symbolism associated with the clearing of the site for the basilica Eusebius progresses to the building itself. The basilica is far larger than the building which previously stood there and this one has an outer court with a fortified external wall. In the eastern side of this perimeter wall is the entrance. Through the entrance one proceeds into the colonnaded court in which are set fountains . To the west of the court is the ’temple’ itself with three doors facing east, the third door larger than the other two. The basilica and court has been designed so that it is possible to see within the whole basilica whilst standing in the court which itself is perhaps designed for the instruction of catechumens.[53] A central aisle sweeps on to a raised sanctuary in the midst of which is the 'holy of holies', the altar.[54] Access to the sanctuary is prevented to the unauthorised by an encircling wooden wall. On either side of the aisle are colonnades with a wooden roof and side-rooms including a baptistery. Provision is made for the celebrants of the liturgy with ’lofty thrones’. Eusebius' description can be said to broadly follow the temple narratives in Chronicles, Ezekiel and Josephus.[55] There are significant differences, not least that Eusebius is presenting an oration to an audience who were present in the very building that he was describing. Nor is his description an end in itself but acts as a foundation on which to build the remainder of his narrative. He has no intention of preserving the measurements of the building, something which is a particular concern of the other narratives.
The building, says Eusebius, is wonderful enough as it is. The various elements of the building are simply noted in preparation for the main vision he has prepared for the assembled crowd. For even more wonderful are the
archetypes and their mental prototypes and divine models; I mean the reproductions of the inspired and rational buildings in our souls.[56]
Once again the building is the soul writ large in symbolic stones. The building is an image of the soul, the soul bears the image of the Logos. Just as the sacred buildings were destroyed so too the soul fell and the deity vacated the sanctuary. So too the restoration of the building is a symbol of the in-dwelling once again of the Logos in the soul. And Eusebius draws attention to two souls in particular saved by the Logos, those of Constantine and Licinius,
Having won over first the souls of the highest rulers, he purified, through the agency of those most divinely favoured princes, the whole earth from all impious destroyers.[57]
Once again Eusebius returns to his favourite theme, the rising of the Church after the darkness of the persecution. The parallel in this section with the rising of the Tyre basilica from the rubbish heap is obvious. The Word of God brought out into the light those concealed in shelter. He cleaned with spades the souls which had been "covered with filth and burdened with every kind of matter and rubbish of impious ordinances." Eusebius continues this building metaphor and speaks of the construction of the spiritual edifice just as he described the Tyre basilica. The audience are asked to transfer what they see around them at Tyre to a vision of a building composed of souls. So too the spiritual building has an outer wall composed of the faithful who can bear no greater weight. Eusebius' description moves from the outer wall into the building were there are anterooms, pillars in a quadrangular hall representing the letter of the four gospels, catechumens making up the outer walls of the basilica and inside pure souls supported by pillars of the inner teaching of Scripture;
And having selected from every quarter the living and moving and well-prepared stones of the souls, he constructs out of them all the great and royal house (basilikÕn okon), splendid and full of light both within and without; for not only soul and understanding, but their body also is made glorious by the blooming ornament of purity and modesty.[58]
Each part of Eusebius’ vision of the spiritual temple corresponds with the narrative describing the material basilica of Tyre. The above passage, for example, falling as it does between Eusebius’ description of the outer parts of the basilica and that of the inner sanctuary parallels Eusebius’ praise of Paulinus’ construction at the same point;
But the royal house (bas…leion okon) he has furnished with more beautiful and splendid materials, using unstinted liberality in his disbursements".[59]
The comparison continues in the following narrative. Just as the basilica description moved from observing the thrones to the focal point of the building, the altar, so too the narrative of the spiritual temple. From the thrones on which sit the gifts of the Holy Spirit the oration carries the hearer nearer to the altar, "the pure holy of holies of the soul of the common priest of all." Standing to the right is the great High Priest accepting the 'bloodless sacrifice' and offering it to the God of the universe:
Such is the great temple which the great Creator of the universe, the Word, has built throughout the entire world, making it an intellectual image upon earth of those things which lie above the vault of heaven...But the region above the heavens, with the models of earthly things which are there, and the so-called Jerusalem above, and the heavenly Mount of Zion, and the supramundane city of the living God, in which the innumerable choirs of angels...praise their Maker and the Supreme Ruler of the universe...[60]
Throughout his oration Eusebius has shifted between the things in heaven and the things in Tyre. The city he viewed as a microcosm of the world with its persecution of the Church not only narrated as a historical fact but also symbolised in the destruction and abandonment of the Tyre church building. The subsequent clearing of the rubble and the raising of Paulinus’ basilica epitomised the victory which Christ had won for his Church in the empire. The feast was the inauguration of the basilica and forms the pivotal point of book ten of the History. In the light of the oration delivered at the feast Eusebius presents the inauguration of the Tyre Basilica (and by extension the inauguration of churches throughout the cities) as the inauguration of the Body of Christ, the Church. The importance for Eusebius of the restoration of the churches after their destruction in the persecution should not be underestimated. Here, and in the texts regarding Constantine's church building programme, the houses of prayer confirm the age of peace. They are the ’trophies of victory’, the Christian equivalent of the triumphal arch. But, such Christian architecture is not merely a sign of an earthly victory. The buildings themselves are but symbols of a higher reality. The visible architecture stands as a focal point for two 'other realities'. The true temple is that place where dwells the Godhead. A note above drew attention to the Patristic commentary on the title to Ps 29, the inauguration of the house of the Lord, which more often than not was interpreted as the individual soul. It is the soul as temple which underlies much of Eusebius' encaenia oration. Each individual soul, however, is a living stone of the greater temple which the visible building also represents. This is the heavenly and spiritual church of which the earthly building is but a type. Following this Platonic portrayal of earthly and spiritual realities would permit Eusebius to apply what he says about the basilica in Tyre to any house of prayer on earth. All Christian architecture points beyond itself to the one heavenly reality. Yet, the physical building itself can share in the sanctity of the spiritual reality, partly because within it is assembled the sanctuary of the souls and partly because within the sanctuary is the 'holy of holies the altar' where the Father is propitiated with the united prayers and supplications of that type of Christ, another Aaron or Melchizedech.[61]
It is frequently observed that Eusebius' oration is the first that appears in Christian literature. Assuming that Eusebius himself was unaware of a precedent on such a significant scale, it is appropriate to ask on what general style of oration Eusebius based his Tyre panegyric. How unique, in the wider framework of the Greco-Roman world was this style of oration? Little scholarly attention has been paid to the Tyre oration as a whole. It has its attractions as the first description of a Christian basilica and this is where many of the references to the oration begin and end. There is little of significance which attempts to place the oration within its context of the encaenia feast and the restoration of the churches. Neither have scholars paid much attention to the architectural theology contained within the oration. This chapter has made some attempt to examine the content of the oration as a whole, reflecting less on the description of the physical building presented by Eusebius than on those things of greater significance to which the building points.
In an article which is probably unique in its serious attempt to place the Tyre oration within a wider cultural context Christine Smith compares the oration with the Greco-Roman tradition. The comparison she draws is between Eusebius' oration and the Laus Urbis, a particular literary type of oration praising the public monuments in a city.[62] The examples given of this panegyric include Pliny's praise of the public buildings of Trajan where the buildings are reflections of the emperor's own standing and Lucian's presentation of architecture as the manifestation of an intellectual idea. Both these points we have observed in Eusebius' oration.[63] Smith, however, concentrates less on the classical idea than she does on the Jewish exegetical tradition.[64] The latter is really a study of the allegorical tradition of Philo, an author with whom Eusebius was especially familiar.[65] The Platonic style of the physical always referring to some spiritual entity is continued by, amongst others, Origen who dictated that all Old Testament references to Jerusalem should be considered as references to the heavenly Jerusalem.[66] Of course, Eusebius himself, through a selective choice of citations, reminds the hearer that the heavenly city was itself a theme in the Old Testament.
The classical rhetorical tradition is discussed by Sabine MacCormack. Although MacCormack's interest is in the handbooks which were written as guides to the structure of the panegyric she does make the point that the panegyric required an architectural setting in which it was delivered, something which the orator often drew attention to.[67] It is however, writes MacCormack, a mistake to generalise where panegyrics are concerned since each panegyric is written for a particular event.[68] The textual picture advanced in orations associated with architecture is discussed by Averil Cameron in an important work which examines rhetorical devices and themes employed by Christian writers within and with reference to the empire.[69] Although Cameron concentrates a section of her work on Eusebius' Vita Constantini, the observations she makes about Eusebius' choice of words are relevant to the Tyre oration.[70] Eusebius, she notes, has commonly been portrayed as one hostile to Christian art.[71] On the other hand, the evidence for this conclusion (slight as it is) is undermined somewhat by the language rich in visual imagery employed by Eusebius. This language is present throughout Eusebius' Life of Constantine and, as we have observed, the success of the Tyre oration depends upon the hearer being able to imagine the heavenly reality symbolised by the very visible basilica.[72]
Mentioned by Christine Smith, although in no great detail, is an oration delivered by the public orator P. Aelius Aristides (117-187) at the festival for the temple at Cyzicus. This temple was begun under Hadrian and completed probably in the reign of Antoninus Pius (138-161). An earthquake damaged the temple in 161 AD necessitating repairs which were completed in 166AD. The feast of the temple was held in September and Aristides felt compelled by the god Asclepius to attend and deliver the surviving oration.[73]
Aristides commences his oration with an apologetic explaining that he has been compelled to speak by Asclepius despite the fact that he is unprepared to speak at so great an event. He quickly moves on, though, to begin first the praise of the city in which the temple is located and then the building which he describes as best epitomising the founder. The city, he proclaims, is the work of a god. The temple itself is equal to the mountains and acts as a beacon to all who enter the city's harbour. The temple epitomises the city and its beauty exceeds its size,
You would say that each of the stones was meant to be the whole temple, and the temple the whole precinct, and again the temple's precinct was big enough to be a city.[74]
Aristides, like Eusebius, compares the smallest parts of the temple as microcosms of a far greater structure. Whereas for Eusebius the Tyre basilica could be compared to the structure of the Church (which was the heavenly city of Jerusalem), Aristides views the temple as comparable to an earthly city.
But, the message of both orators is not concerned merely with the beauty of the building before them. Eusebius exclaimed that his audience could see for themselves what he was talking about. Aristides informs his listeners that he will leave the technical details of the temple to those who know about such things - it is enough to admire the engineering equipment required to build the temple. Thus, he moves nearer to the core of his oration. The name of Hadrian, the best emperor, is inscribed on the temple and the temple was erected by him as 'so great a thank offering to the gods'.[75] Aristides turns at this point to praise the emperor especially his choice to take a partner which he calls "a single resolve established in two bodies and two souls."[76] The harmony between the two emperors is a reflection of that which unites the gods and so the whole universe. Once again we find the orator moving from the particular to the universal. That the harmony of the empire depends upon the harmony of the imperial house which in turn is a reflection of heavenly unity is a theme which reoccurs in the writings of Eusebius. For Aristides, and so also Eusebius, the harmony of such relationships is epitomised by the architecture before them;
These adornments of construction are fair and exercise a remarkable persuasion over the masses. But what is perfect and truly the gift of some god occurs whenever both adornments are in harmony, that in the soul and that of construction. For just as we praise the harmony in the latter and the fact that each element preserves its proper relationship, so it is fitting to think that a well lived life takes place whenever harmony and order prevail throughout. This adornment is truly proper to cities. This preserves both individual man and city...Each man need only persuade himself to take the better course.[77]
The association made by Aristides between the soul and the building is comparable to the relationship developed by Eusebius between the temple of the soul and the basilica of Tyre on one hand and the link between the basilica and the spiritual society of the Body of Christ on the other. The persecution, we should remember, occurred according to Eusebius because the members of the Church were not in harmony with one another. The destruction of the church buildings symbolised the divine retribution just as their restoration to houses 'greater than the former' provided the model for the new peace and harmony experienced by the Church under the combined rule of Constantine and Licinius.
Just as it was natural for Christianity to appropriate the
basilical form to epitomise a visible religion, so too it adopted elements of
the rites associated with these public buildings. Orations for the consecration of a temple were common events and
in this sense the oration at Tyre cannot be considered peculiarly
Christian. The content, however, with
its rich biblical allusion and quotation ensures that it stands within the
Judaeo-Christian tradition. The general
form of the oration, particularly with the movement from the physical to the
spiritual and from the particular to the universal owes more to the rhetoric of
its time than to Eusebius' own theology of place. It is reasonable to suggest that the larger and more grand the
church building the more easily it was to view the building as a microcosm of
the Church.
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.[78] 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.[79] 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.[80] 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".[81] 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.[82] 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.[83]
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.[84] 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.[85]
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.[86] 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).[87] 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.[88]
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.[89] Evidence exists that a smaller version of the basilica could be found in earlier Jewish and Christian architecture.[90] 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[91]) 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 okon" or a royal house. It is the house, not of the emperor and his cult, but of the ’universal King (pambasilšwj)’, ’the Master (despÒthj) of all’ and ’universal Governor’ (panhgemÒnoj). 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] G. W. F. Hegel, Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art. Vol II
(Oxford, 1975) 638
[2] The appointment of these two as
caesars alienated the two men who seemed to have been prepared for the office
themselves, Constantine and Maxentius (Timothy D. Barnes. Constantine and Eusebius. (Cambridge, Mass, 1981) 26).
[3] Although Constantine
effectively remained Augustus over his own territories of Britain, Gaul, and
Spain (Barnes. Constantine and
Eusebius, 32).
[4] The Greek translation is preserved by Eusebius (H.E.
10.5.2) and a Latin version by Lactantius (De Mortibus Persecutorum 48.2). There are few differences between the two.
[5] Interesting, since the excuse
for the persecution of Christians was so often that their activities threatened
the peace of the empire and angered the gods.
The recognition that the Christian god might be able to create the
harmony of the empire is the real triumph of Christianity in the empire.
[6] See H.E. 9.9.11
[7] H.E. 9.10.7f.
[8] H.E. 9.11.1; NPNF 1.367.
[9] See Timothy D. Barnes. Constantine and Eusebius, 128f. A.
Louth makes an alternative suggestion that the first edition did, in fact,
include the persecution and deliverance rather than simply ending with the
edict of Galerius; "The date of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica." Journal of Theological Studies 41 (1990): 111-23.
[10] Barnes, Constantine and
Eusebius, 149. He argues that the
first edition of the Martyrs of Palestine (surviving only in Syriac)
envisaged the persecution ending in 311.
In 313 Eusebius had to re-write the work to take account of renewed
persecution which he did by abbreviating it and attaching it to book eight of
the Historia Ecclesiatica. A.
Louth, however, argues that this process fails to take account of H.E.
8.13.7 which refers to an written Martyrs of Palestine (Louth, "The
date of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica", 116).
[11] H. E. 9.11.9 (SC
55.75).
[12] Eusebius also dedicated his Onomasticon
to Paulinus, "ƒer toà Qeoà ¥nqrwpe
Paul‹ne"
(207).
[13] A reconstruction of the career
of Paulinus and a discussion of his accession to the see of Antioch can be
found in Gustave Bardy, "Sur
Paulin de Tyre." Revue
des Sciences Religieuses
2 (1922): 35-45.
[14] See Eusebius, Contra
Marcellum 1.4.19; Theodoret, H.E. 1.5 preserves a letter from
Eusebius of Nicomedia to Paulinus of Tyre identifying him with the theological
opinions of Eusebius of Caesarea and others whom Arius in a previous letter to
Eusebius of Nicomedia had described as condemned because they held the
existence of God prior to his son.
Paulinus probably became bishop in Tyre in 313 which was the same year
when Eusebius assumed the bishopric of Caesarea.
[15] See H.E. 8.13.3
[16] H.E. 10.1.3, "...e„kÒtwj d' ™n ¢riqm tele/i tÕn tšleion ™naàqa kaˆ panhgurikÕn t»j tîn ™kklhsiîn
¢naneèsewj lÒgon katat£xomen..."; SC 55,77.
[17] H. E. 10.1.4. Eusebius quotes Ps 97.1,2 including the
words, "his righteousness he has revealed in the presence of the
nations’. Psalm references in this
chapter and throughout the thesis follow the Septuagint numbering.
[18]
10.1.4
[19] H.E. 8.1.7.
[20]
Lam 2.1,2; Ps 88.40; H.E. 8.1.9.
[21] H.E. 10.1.6
[22] H.E. 10.1.7
[23] H.E. 10.1.8
[24] H. E. 2.3.1
[25] H. E. 10.2.1 (compare
with Ezekiel 36:33-37).
[26] H.E. 10.2.2
[27] H.E. 10.3.1
[28] NPNF 1.370; "feasts of
dedication in the cities and consecration of newly built houses of
prayer". SC 55.80; "fêtes
de dédicaces dans chaque ville, consécrations d’églises récemment
construites". The most recent English edition
of the Church History also renders this phrase as "dedication festivals in
the cities and consecrations of the newly built places of worship." The History of the Church from Christ to
Constantine. (London, 1989).
[29] Num 7:10, "And the leaders
offered offerings for the dedication (™gkainismÒn) of the altar on the day it was
anointed." Num 7:1 reads, "On
the day when Moses had finished setting up the tabernacle, and had anointed and
consecrated it...and had anointed and consecrated (¹g…asen) the altar with all its utensils...".
[30] 2 Chron. 7:9-10 states that
Solomon dismissed the people on the 23 Tishri having kept the dedication for seven
days and the feast seven days. Counting
back brings us to the 10 Tishri, the day of Atonement. The coincidence of the
three feasts of Atonement, Tabernacles, and Encaenia will occur again in the
history of the Christian Encaenia.
[31] See 2 Macc 1:9, 18.
[32] Other examples to note are 1 Sam 11:14 (the inauguration (™gkain…swmen) of the kingdom by the proclamation of Saul as the
first king of Israel) and Neh 12:27 (the inauguration (™gkain…oij & ™gka…nia) of the walls of Jerusalem with
gladness and great sacrifice).
[33] The verbal form occurs at Heb
10:20, "...the new and living way he [Christ] initiated (™neka…nisen) for us through the curtain...". John Chrysostom, commenting on this verse,
confirms that the term was understood in the late fourth century in a similar
manner to the usage of the word in the Septuagint. He writes, "`Hn
™neka…nisen ¹m‹n:
That is, which he constructed, and which he began, for "™gkainismÒj" is said to be the beginning of use from then on (¢rc¾ cr»sewj loipÒn); ’which he built’, indeed, also
through which he enteredthe flesh first cut that way, as it says, ’™gkain…sai’, by which he was also worthy to enter through." (In
Ep. Ad Hebraeos, Hom. 19; PG 63.139).
[34] Augustine, Tract. in Ioh.
48.2; CCL 36.413. The tract is said to
have been delivered on the 23rd Sunday after Pentecost, 2nd November 413.
[35] Eusebius, Comm. Ps. 29,
suggests that to reconcile the mention of both David and a temple one should
look towards an interpretation of the title as the ’house of his spirit’ (PG
23.257). Athanasius, Ep. ad
Marcellinum, advises that the words refer to the soul "where the Lord
is received" (PG 27.29). Basil of
Caesarea, Hom. in Ps 29, directs the meaning of the psalm to the
Incarnation. He retains the meaning of
"™gkainismÒj" in this context as
inauguration by the indwelling of the spirit but expands the commentary from
the single soul to the spiritual building of the Church. The Church, however, he writes, requires no
inauguration because it is already the temple of the incarnate Word, but each
mind or soul joined to the Body of Christ does require an ™gkainismÒj (PG 29.305).
[36] Epiphanius, Adv. Haereses
64; PG 41.1194.
[37] Gregory Naz. Oratione
44; PG 36.608-621.
[38] There is one occurrence of the
word in 4 Macc 13:13, "With all our hearts let us consecrate (¢fierèswmen) ourselves to God". See the translation and introduction by H. Anderson in James H.
Charlesworth, ed. The Old Testament
Pseudipigrapha. (New York, 1985)
531-64.
[39] Regarding Christian shrines see
for example, the consecration of the Martyrion basilica (V.C. 4.40, 44)
and the arising of altars and churches since Constantine (LC 16.10). Eusebius mentions the destruction of pagan ¢fierèmata in L.C.
9.7.
[40] The consecration of a temple near
Mount Cassius (P.E. 1.10.20), the Phoenicians ’consecrate’ (¢fišrwsan) the fruits of the earth (P.E.
1.9.5), and the goddess Astarte consecrated the island of Tyre with a star (P.E.
1.10.31).
[41] Which Timothy Barnes calls,
"A comforting simplification of the truth." (1981): 163
[42] This is the conclusion of Barnes, (1981): 162.
[43] See Codex Theodosius
1.35.1; 1.2.1 and CIL 1.2, 268, 272; Cited Barnes, (1981): 65.
[44] It is possible that Licinius arrived at the Danube having battled
with the Persians in 313/14. Barnes
draws attention to the account of a council at Caesarea in Cappadocia in 314
where Gregory was consecrated bishop of Armenia who in turn entered Armenia and
baptised the king. For the sources of
this event see Barnes (1981): 65.
[45] Eusebius begins his account
telling of "feasts of inauguration in the cities" but moves from this
general statement to a more specific description of the content of the feast
which ends with the statement, "And each of the leaders present delivered
panegyrics, to the best of his ability, inspiring the festal
assembly." Note that Eusebius
begins with the plural ˜ortaˆ but ends with the singular pan»gurin.
[46] H.E. 10.4.14; NPNF 1.372
[47] H.E. 10.4.16; NPNF
1.372.
[48] H.E. 10.4.20; NPNF
1.373.
[49] During the peace which existed
before the persecution Eusebius describes how large churches were 'erected from
the foundations' of ancient, smaller, buildings. It seems plausible that the new church in Tyre was also built on the
foundations of the original church.
Evidently, the preservation of the site of a building could be more
important than the building itself (especially where the church had been
constructed over the tomb of a martyr).
The Epitaph of Bishop Eugenius (c.330) records that the bishop rebuilt
the church of Laodiceia "from its foundations". This church was also comprised of porticoes,
atrium, fountain, and also mosaics (Cyril Mango. The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453: sources and
documents. (Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ,
1972) 14).
[50] Interestingly, a parallel may
be found in 2 Kings 10:27 which describes how Jehu desacralized the shrine to
Baal by demolishing it and turning it into a public toilet.
[51] Ps. 72:20, cited H.E.
10.4.30
[52] H.E. 10.4.36; NPNF 1.375.
[53] H.E. 10.4.40,
"...and to those who still need elementary instruction a fitting
station."
[54] Compare with Josephus'
description of the holy of holies, "In this stood nothing whatever: unapproachable,
inviolable, invisible to all, it was called the Holy of Holy" (War
5.219). See also the equivalent in
Eusebius' vision of the spiritual temple, H.E. 10.4.68.
[55] Josephus (War 5.184-227)
does occasionally provide the reader with comments which serve to interpret
certain elements of the temple. For
example, when he describes the gates into the temple he says of the diversity
of materials which decorate the gates, "it typifies the All" (213).
[56] H.E. 10.4.56; NPNF
1.377.
[57] H.E. 10.4.60; NPNF
1.377.
[58] H.E. 10.4.65; NPNF
1.378.
[59] H.E. 10.4.42; NPNF
1.375.
[60] H.E. 10.4.69-70; NPNF
1.378. In this section Massey H.
Shepherd suggests that Eusebius' use of the phrase 'bloodless and immaterial
sacrifice' and the citations from Heb. 12:22-23; I Cor 2.9 and Ps 103.10 point
to his following the liturgy of St James.
The biblical passages all appear in this anaphora. Since Eusebius has reached the heavenly
altar in this narrative this appears to be an appropriate place to allude to
the eucharistic prayer. See
"Eusebius and the Liturgy of St James." Yearbook of Liturgical Studies 4 (1964): 109-123. Andrew
Louth adds a more general comment to Eusebius liturgical presentation,
"[The panegyric] presents an understanding of Christian worship that was
not to last the century: the worship of the Church on earth led by the bishop
in his basilica is a copy of the worship of the Church in heaven led by Christ
himself". The History of the
Church from Christ to Constantine., xxxiii.
[61] See H.E. 10.4.24,
36. It is interesting to compare the
theology of architecture expressed in this oration with the remarks of Hegel, a
citation from whom heads this chapter.
On the question of Christian symbolic architecture in the age of
Romanticism Hegel writes, "Just as the Christian spirit concentrates
itself in the inner life, so the building becomes the place shut in on every
side for the assembly of the Christian congregation and the collection of its
thoughts. The spatial enclosure
corresponds to the concentration of mind within, and results from it. But the worship of the Christian heart is at
the same time an elevation above the finite so that this elevation now
determines the character of the house of God." G. W. F. Hegel, Aesthetics:
Lectures on Fine Art. Vol II. (Oxford, 1975) 685.
[62] Christine Smith, "Christian rhetoric in Eusebius'
panegyric at Tyre." Vigiliae
Christianae 43.3 (1989): 226-247.
[63] Smith (1989), 229, 231. See H.E. 10.4.26.
[64] This is also the approach of John Wilkinson, "Paulinus' temple at Tyre." Jahrbuch der östereichischen Byzantinistik 32.4 (1981): 553-61. Wilkinson, however, is more interested in
the physical building and Eusebius' terminology to describe the building.
[65] Compare, for example, Eusebius
on the reception of the heavenly pattern by Paulinus with Philo, De Vita
Mosis 2.76 on the making of the tabernacle, "So the shape of the model
was stamped upon the mind of the prophet, a secretly painted or moulded
prototype, proclaimed by immaterial and invisible forms; and then the resulting
work was built in accordance with that shape by the artist impressing the
stampings upon the material subjects required in each case."
[66] Origen, De Principiis
1.4 ; Cited Smith (1989) 235.
[67] Sabine MacCormack. "Latin prose panegyrics: tradition and
discontinuity in the later Roman Empire."
Revue des Études Augustiniennes 22 (1976): 29-77. For
example, the panegyrics delivered at the imperial palaces of Trier, Aquila or Milan
might refer to the particular buildings as is evident from Pan. Lat.
7.22.5 (cited p.42) where the orator compares the buildings of Trier to those
of Rome. A particular interest of
MacCormack's is the adventus ceremony where the architectural setting was of
especial significance. She develops
this in greater detail in Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity. (Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1981).
[68] MacCormack (1976): 55.
[69] Averil Cameron. Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire. (Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1991).
[70] Cameron (1991), esp. 47-88,
"Showing and telling: the power of signs".
[71] On Eusebius and art see the
article by Sr. Charles Murray. "Art and the Early Church." Journal of Theological Studies 28 (1977): 303-345 and the critical reply by
Stephen Gero. "The true image of
Christ: Eusebius' letter to Constantia reconsidered." Journal of Theological Studies 32 (1981): 460-470.
[72] Epitomised perhaps by Eusebius'
words, "The evidence of our eyes makes instruction through the ears
unnecessary" (H.E. 10.4.42).
[73] P. Aelius Aristides. "Oration 27: Panegyric in
Cyzicus." The Complete Works. (Leiden, 1981) 98-106. Behr also provides a short introduction and
notes on which the above is based.
[74] Aristides, Oration 27.19;
Behr (1981): 101.
[75] Oration 27.22; Behr
(1981): 102.
[76] This refers to the co-emperors
Marcus Aureliius (161-80) and Lucius Verus (161-9).
[77] Oration 27.40-41; Behr
(1981): 105-6.
[78] 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).
[79] This point is made by Ludwig
Voelkl in Die Kirchenstiftungen des
Kaisers Konstantin im Lichte des römischen Sakralrechts. (Köln, 1964) 29.
[80] So H.E. 10.4.20, quoted
above.
[81] 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.
[82] 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).
[83] 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.
[84] Richard Krautheimer. Early Christian and Byzantine
Architecture, 45-46.
[85] 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.
[86] Voelkl (1964): 31-32.
[87] S. Spain Alexander. "Studies in Constantinian Church
Architecture (Part 2)." Revistia
di archeologia cristiana 49 (1972):
33-44 (esp. 34-35).
[88] H.E. 10.4.26; NPNF
1.373.
[89] 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.
[90] 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.
[91] 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.