The Religious Economics of Crisis : the Papal Use of Liturgical Vessels

Michele Renee Salzman The Religious Economics of Crisis: The Papal Use of Liturgical Vessels as Symbolic Capital in Late Antiquity

Abstract

This paper explores the multiple meanings of the restoration of liturgical silver plate by the bishops of Rome after the sacks of Rome in 410, 455, and 472. The author argues that this act was of primary importance to the bishops of Rome as a key means of reestablishing their hegemony over Christian communities in the city after periods of upheaval. By replacing lost liturgical plate, the bishops of Rome performed the role of patron in lieu of the emperor or wealthy private donor. Certainly, the donation of silver and gold in sacred contexts in the classical pagan world provides prec- edents for this practice and for its interpretation. But the donation of liturgical vessels must be understood within its specific Christian context. Because the donation of liturgical vessels was part of the foundation of a late antique church, their replacement by the bishop was an act of refoundation of the community of the faithful. And owing to the centrality of sacralised eating and drinking in the Christian rite of the Eucharist, the bishop’s replenishment of liturgical silver also offered the individual and the community the promise of salvation. Thus the donations of silver and gold liturgical plate by bishops demonstrate the multiple ways in which the wealth of the church operated as symbolic capital, allowing the bishops to reinforce their authority over the community of the faithful in response to crisis. Keywords: Berthouville Treasure, bishops, Christianity, liturgical silver and gold plate, Rome, salvation, foundation rites, papacy

In scholarship on late antique Rome, the religious power of the bishop of Rome is most often assessed by focusing on his building of churches, residences and monasteries.1 This gauge of papal power is shaped in part by

1 For the seminal work on churches in Rome, see Krautheimer 1977. Many scholars have discussed the building of episcopal churches and residences as manifestations of the power of the bishop; see, for example, Brown 2012; Moorhead 2015; Ward Perkins 1984; Volpe 2007, 131–168 and for Northern Italy, Cantino Wataghin 2006, 287–309. For a critique of

RRE 5 (2019), 125–141 DOI 10.1628/rre-2019-0008 ISSN 2199-4463 © 2019 Mohr Siebeck 126 Michele Renee Salzman RRE our extant sources; the Book of the Pontiffs, a sixth-century compilation of ancient biographies of the bishops of Rome that was continued into the eighth century, records papal buildings as praiseworthy acts of patronage, following the precedent set by ancient biographies of Roman emperors.2 Consequently, scholars who look at the role of the bishop in responding to crisis similarly focus on the building and repairing of church properties, noting for instance, Pope Leo’s repair of the apse-vaults of St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s after the Vandal fire and sack of 455.3 However, my study of religious responses to the military and political crises that overtook Rome in the fifth century – based not only on the Book of the Pontiffs (LP from here on) but on a wider range of texts – suggests that another, more immediate and more fundamental concern of the bishops of Rome has been largely overlooked by scholars. This was the bishops’ provisioning and replacing of mostly silver, but sometimes gold, liturgical vessels.4 After the sacks of Rome in 410, 455, and 472, the restoration of liturgical silver plate was of primary importance to the bishops of the city intent as they were on reestablishing their hegemony over Christian communities after these periods of upheaval. But the replacement of liturgical vessels served more than a merely functional purpose. By donating liturgical plate, the bishops performed the role of patron in lieu of the emperor or wealthy private donor (compare Rives on euergetism, this volume). Replacement of plate thus asserted the bishop’s status in a revived city. However, such donations also demonstrated his central role in re-establishing the Chris- tian community since donations of luxurious sacred silver and gold vessels were both real and symbolic components in the foundation of late antique churches at a time when there was no standardised ritual of dedication for a church beyond the celebration of a mass.5 Since liturgical plate, donated as part of the foundation of a church, was sacralised by its use in the mass, its replacement by the bishop carried profound religious meaning for the Christian communities of the city. To fully appreciate the resonances of papal replacements of sacred silver in fifth-century Rome, I begin in part 1 of this paper with a brief discussion of the pagan Mediterranean usage of sacred silver and gold. In a world in

these material assessment of the social importance of Italian bishops, see Izdebski 2012, 168–170. 2 McKitterick 2011, 19–34. 3 Duchesne 1955, 1:47, p. 239. 4 This is a point that is not explored in the very helpful work by Allen and Neil 2013, which focuses on pastoral care, nor is it addressed by Leader-Newby 2004, 61–122, whose fine study provides an important overview of sacred silver. 5 Repsher 1998, 11–28; Duchesne 1912, 404; and Cohen, unpublished paper. 5 (2019) The Religious Economics of Crisis 127 which elites paraded their, mostly silver, votive offerings in pagan temples, the donations of silver liturgical plate to Christian churches, beginning in large quantities with Constantine, emerged quite naturally as a manifesta- tion of the status and piety of the donor, as also discussed by Digeser, this volume. The display and utilisation of such luxury items in church service similarly enabled bishops to be ‘perceived and recognised as legitimate’ high-status members of society in the eyes of contemporary elites, be they senatorial, provincial, imperial, or ecclesiastical.6 Moreovery, the donation of Christian liturgical plate, like votive offerings, conveyed the piety of the worshiper. However, because sacralised eating and drinking was a central part of the Christian liturgy, the silver and gold plate used during the ritual themselves became sacred objects, powerful visual reminders of the central Christian promise of salvation. The loss and replacement of Christian liturgical plate thus became an act of piety on the part of the bishops that was similarly tied to the hope of redemption. Hence, in part 2 of this paper, I discuss the papal replacement of silver and gold plate by fifth-century popes as a very important religious response to the crises faced by Rome. Bishops who replaced liturgical plate were, in essence, offering the faithful the possi- bility of redemption, even as they adopted the mechanism that matched the status concerns of wealthy donors and rulers (compare Rives, this volume). In part 3, I focus on how episcopal expenditures on, or sale of, liturgical vessels were part of a broader discourse among late antique Christians about the proper uses of wealth by the Church and its leaders. This discourse was more explicit and more contentious in times of crisis. Indeed, the dialogue about the use of sacred silver and gold by the bishops of fifth-century Rome in response to crises highlights what was a central tension within Chris- tian communities about the proper use of wealth by bishops and lay people alike. The question of how the church should use its wealth – for the benefit of people or for ritual display or church building – was one of the most vex- ing issues facing the bishops of Rome, and elsewhere through the tumultu- ous times of the fifth century. Indeed, it remains a central issue for religious communities even today.

6 I am referencing here Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of symbolic capital as ‘the form that the various species of capital assume when they are perceived and recognised as legitimate’. Bourdieu 1989, 14–25. 128 Michele Renee Salzman RRE

1 Pateras and patens: sacred silver in Roman ritual7

A leading expert on late antique silver, Leader-Newby, has astutely observed that, ‘While Christian uses of silver represent a significant late antique inno- vation, it should not be forgotten that the use of silver (and other precious metals) in sacred contexts was as much a feature of the classical world as it was of the late antique one’.8 Well into the late fourth century ce, pagan temples and sanctuaries functioned as treasure houses for wealth, both private and public, just as Biella (this volume) has suggested was the case for a much earlier period. Although most of the sacred silver and precious metals from pagan temples has been scattered or reused, we can get some sense of its function and meaning from one of the very few silver hoards that can be securely associated with a pagan cult site in the Roman Empire; the Ber- thouville hoard of Roman silver from Roman Gallia Lugdunensis, modern Normandy, provides a rare instance of a carefully documented temple treasure. Inscriptions to pagan gods on the objects found in the hoard provide evidence for dating and religious intent, and a 2005 field survey has provided important insights for understanding its earlier nineteenth century excavation.9 The Berthouville hoard, excavated from an extramural temple complex and theatre in Roman Gallia Lugdunensis includes some 93 items that date from the late-second or early-third century ce. Most are bowls, cups, and jugs, but the Berthouville Treasure also includes two silver statuettes of Mer- cury and a bust of a female figure, identified as his mother Maia, who was equated with the Celtic goddess Rosmerta.10 It seems most likely, based on the dedications and the iconography (bowls with relief medallions that represent Mercury), that a number of these were dedicated by visitors to the shrine. Some, like the large statuette of Mercury, may have been cult objects while others were ex-votos deposited by the faithful, although these may have been used in some sacred ritual prior to their dedication (compare Biella, this volume). Included in this hoard is a group of some fifteen first- century vessels dedicated by a certain Quintus Domitius Tutus.11 Since all of these objects were buried together, the likelihood that this was a votive group consecrated to the god is high, especially given what we know about

7 Leader-Newby 2004, 62 addresses this topic at length. 8 Leader-Newby 2004, 62. 9 Avisseau-Broustet, Colonna and Lapatin 2014 for full discussion of this hoard. 10 Avisseau-Broustet, Colonna and Lapatin 2014, 7–68. 11 On Quintus Domitius Tutus as a high status Roman elite in the provinces, see Avisseau- Broustet, Colonna and Lapatin 2014, 34–45. 5 (2019) The Religious Economics of Crisis 129 the find spot: the hoard was carefully hidden away in a stone-built cavity and covered with a flagstone at the northeast corner of the temple precinct court- yard. The burial site suggests either that this was the shrine’s storeroom or that the hoard was placed here for safety.12 In either case, it is also plausible that these items were buried due to religious concerns; although invisible to the visitors, they were the property of the sanctuary and the god, and hence protected.13 Since the hoard was treasure and was not buried directly in the earth, it seems more likely to me that this was a ritual concealment of sacred objects, whatever the circumstances of its placement. As the Berthouville Treasure is likely typical, we can see that gifts of silver and precious metals in pagan temples were offered in thanks or in the hope of attaining a favour. Certainly, Constantine had intended his gifts to the first Constantinian basilica in Rome (the modern St. John the Lateran) to function similarly, that is, as manifestations of his piety and wealth/status, as well as being an ex-voto in gratitude for his victories over Maxentius. The LP records that among Constantine’s ‘gifts’ (dona) to the basilica were: ‘A hammered silver fastigium … weighing 2025 pounds of burnished silver; … 7 gold patens, each weighing 30 pounds; 16 silver patens, each weighing 30 pounds; 7 gold scyphi (large chalices) of finest gold, each weighing 10 pounds …’ The list goes on to include gold and silveramas (vessels to receive the wine presented by the congregation at mass), as well as ‘50 smaller min- isterial chalices weighing two pounds each’.14 Some scholars have questioned the accuracy of the numbers in this list and the information about popes through the early fourth century on the grounds that the LP has been shaped to fit a pro-papal narrative. However, no one doubts that Constantine’s gifts of sacred silver and gold liturgical plate set an important precedent for subsequent rulers, as well as for wealthy lay donors.15 After this time, both elites and non-elites openly gave material goods, land, and money to the bishops for their distribution (compare Dige-

12 Avisseau-Broustet, Colonna and Lapatin 2014, 14. 13 Avisseau-Broustet, Colonna and Lapatin 2014, 34. 14 Duchesne 1955, 1.34, 172: Huius temporibus fecit Constantinus aug. basilicas istas quas et ornavit: Basilicam Constantinianam, ubi posuit ist dona: Fastidium argenteum battu- tilem ….patenas aureas VII, pens. sing. lib. XXX; patenas argenteas XVI, pens. sing. lib. XXX; scyphos auro purissimo VII, pens. sing. lib. X …; on page 178 line 8: calices minores minis- teriales L. pens. sing. lib. II. For discussion of the term ama, see Davis 2010, 106–107. 15 Liverani 2019, 169–217 on the veracity of the LP’s cited numbers even for the papacy of Sylvester. However, many scholars doubt the veracity of the information for this pope and for the pre-Constantinian popes; see especially Blair-Dixon 2007, 59–77; and Salzman 2013, 209–210. 130 Michele Renee Salzman RRE ser, this volume).16 By the fifth century, such donations were so frequent that some bishops such as Augustine are praised for not accepting certain kinds of donations, such as ‘legacies left by the dead rather than gifts from the liv- ing, which might cause anxiety and loss’.17 In light of the paradigmatic imperial donations, it is noteworthy that, according to the papal-focused L P, it was not the emperors but the bishops who were the primary donors of sacred liturgical plate. TheLP asserts that the early-third-century Pope Urban was the first to donate and display silver liturgical plate in Rome. As scholars, we can doubt papal primacy in this matter.18 However, the assertion is still significant. The LP compiler attributes to this early pope the behaviour observed in his own time when bishops consecrated the silver and gold plate that was used in the liturgy, even if the treasure was donated by emperors or private individuals. Thus, in the LP Life of Pope Sylvester, whose biography is contested, the pope is said to have built a church, the titulus of Equitius, and donated gold and silver sacred vessels for it. The source of the money for this building, as for the liturgical plate, is not explicitly stated, but given that it was only after 313 that Christianity was granted legal status, it is likely that the funds for Sylvester’s gifts came from wealthy donors or even the emperor. In fact, Constantine is singled out in the LP as giving a silver paten weighing 20 pounds to Silvester for this newly established church.19 Notices of donations of liturgical silver and gold to churches by bishops, emperors, and lay elites were consistently included in the lives of the bishops of Rome by the LP as a constituent element in the establishment of a church. They would be used in the mass that celebrated the consecration of the church, and were assumed as part of the standard practice in an age in

16 Voelkl 1964, 62 argues that since gifts given to pagan cults came under ius sacrum and hence required the approval of a magistrate, similarly gifts to the church required the approval of the state, in this case the emperor. But that was not the case once Constan- tine had acted. Gifts to the Church by will were legal from 321 on; for the law, see note 24 below. For the bishop’s discretion in determining whether to keep or return such gifts, see, for example, Possidius, Vit. Aug. 24, who praises the bishop for refusing some legacies and gifts that could be better used by the family of the deceased. 17 Possidius, Vit. Aug. 24. 18 Here I agree with the argument articulated by Davis 2010, xxv, that we cannot trust the LP’s statement that patens were only made of glass through the papacy of Zephyrinus (198/199–217), and that pope Pope Urban (222–230) was the first to supply patens of silver. For the reliability of the LP for material prior to the fourth century, see note 15 above. 19 Duchesne 1955, 1.34, pp. 170–172. The Pope’s donations of silver plate were modest; aside from the silver paten given to him by Constantine, these included two silver scyphi weighing ten pounds each; a gold chalice weighing two pounds; five service chalices, each weighing two pounds; two silver amae, each weighing ten pounds; and a silver chrism-paten, inlaid with gold, weighing five pounds. 5 (2019) The Religious Economics of Crisis 131 which there was no standad dedication ceremony, as I noted above. This pat- tern is supported for the fifth and sixth centuries by other documents. In an extensive overview of papyri and epigraphic evidence, M. Mundell Mango concluded that the same four liturgical plate items – paten, chalice, ama, and scyphus – were listed in the foundation inventories of churches across the empire, not just in Rome.20 In the west, one of the earliest extant records, a fifth-century papyrus inventory(Charta Cornutiane) of the church built by Flavius Vlalila near Tivoli in 471, similarly records these same four types: one silver paten, one large silver chalice, two small silver chalices, and one small ama.21 The hoard itself has disappeared and the remaining hoards of early Christian liturgical silver, as well as some significant individual items, are all, with one exception, dated to the sixth century.22 The foundation documents for the Tivoli Church also include a silver strainer but none of the spoons that have been found in other silver hoards or in other Church documents. Strainers and spoons, inscribed with the names of donors to honour Christ, underscore the domestic provenance of much late-antique silver used as votive dedications in pagan and Christian contexts. Leader-Newby argues, however, that silver liturgical plates and spoons were not just one but ‘the prime offering’ to God in the Church because of the centrality of sacralised eating and drinking to Christian ritual’.23 She is right to emphasise the distinctive Christian associations of silver plate that were inherent to the meaning of the liturgy, although we cannot know for certain exactly how spoons and strainers functioned in the Eucharist ritual since, as far as I am aware, this information is not recorded in any literary or visual sources. Nonetheless, their dedication, like the pagan ex-votos from the Berthouville Treasure, are visual representations of the piety of, and the hoped-for benefits to, the individual donors. The bishop’s use of silver and gold plate in the performance of the liturgy focused attention on the donor, whose piety and act of patronage were made visible to the community through their gifts. But silver and gold plate, once

20 Mundell Mango 1986, 4. 21 Duchesne 1955, 1, pp. CXLVI–CXLIX. In addition, as Mundell Mango 1986, 264, observes, this church also possessed: one strainer, one censer, one silver cantharus lamp, four silver polycandela (coronae) with their little chains, one silver lampstand, and, in the confes- sio, two silver doors (ostia) with fastenings (clavi) which weighed in at ‘54 pounds seven ounces of silver’ according to the city scales. Mundell Mango 1986, 263–264, cites two other inventories, one in Latin from the early-fourth-century African church at Constan- tine in Numidia (May 19, 303); and the other from Ibion, Egypt, fifth to sixth century, for the church of Apa Psaius. 22 Leader-Newby 2004, 82. 23 Leader-Newby 2004, 80. 132 Michele Renee Salzman RRE presented to the bishop and used in the liturgy, became ‘sacred’ Church property not to be used for secular purposes (compare Biella, this volume).24 Ambrose aptly described these as ‘vasa mystica’.25 The sacred nature of these objects made their loss or sale inherently problematic since the alienation of the object threatened the salvation of those who had donated them (as we learn from Church Councils as early as Arles in 314 ce).26 Such prohibitions led Ambrose to defend his sale of silver plate to redeem captives.27 His action was problematic; the salvific promise associated with donations of silver and gold liturgical plate was precisely the reason why, in early-fifth-century Edessa, the congregation opposed the efforts of the ascetic Bishop Rabbula to sell off sacred plate in order to care for the poor: ‘At the request of many, he [Rabbula] was prevented from doing any of this [selling the silver plate], since they were offerings of their forefathers who had passed on before them that they [had] offered in return for the salvation of their soul[s]’.28 These attitudes toward sacred silver were deeply engrained in Christians across the Mediterranean, just as they had been among those pagans who buried the Berthouville silver hoard with ex-votos to Mercury in the Gallic temple precinct discussed above. We know that bishops were aware of the feelings of their congregants. Consequently, Ambrose recommended that the clergy sell off precious objects of common use first when raising funds to redeem captives, since these were not vasa initiata.29 And if a bishop did decide to alienate sacred liturgical vessels, Ambrose recommended that these be melted down first because, once sanctified, they could not be used for mundane reasons.30 So, in North Africa, when Augustine followed in the footsteps of Ambrose, he was praised by his biographer Possidius for

24 Mundell Mango 1986, 3 n. 17. Constantine had legislated in 321 that the Church could receive property from people bequeathed in wills; Theodosian Code 16.2.4. The donation of gifts to the church in a person’s lifetime, as done by Constantine, was not prohibited. However, family resistance to such gifts could present legal problems or create tensions, as the famous case of Melania’s selling off of her property demonstrated; see note 48 below. 25 See, for example, Ambrose, De Off. 2.15.70, and especially 2.28.136: Melius est enim pro misericordia causas praestare vel invidiam perpeti quam praetendere inclementiam, ut nos aliquando in invidiam incidimus, quod confregimus vasa mystica ut captivos redimeremus, quod arianis displicere potuerat. Possidius, Vit. Augustini 24.15, calls them vasa dominica. 26 Munier 1963, Concilia Galliae a. 314–506, CCSL 148 B, pp. 12, 42–51. 27 Ambrose, De Off. 2.28.136–143, with the text in note 24 above. See the discussion by Allen and Neil 2014, 40–41. 28 Phenix and Horn 2017, 31 = 173 OB, edition by Overbeck 1865. 29 Ambr. De off. 2.28. 143; cf. Gregory the Great, Ep. 7.35. 30 Ambr. De Off. 2.28.143: Opus est ut de Ecclesia mystici poculi forma non exeat ne ad usus nefarios sacri calicis ministerium transferatur. Cf. Socr. HE 7.21.4 for bishop Acacius of Amida, who is said to have melted down church plate to ransom some 7000 Persian prisoners of war, if the story can be believed. 5 (2019) The Religious Economics of Crisis 133 similarly ordering that before church plate was sold off to perform an act of piety, the bishop should first take care that the ‘holy vessels [are] broken and melted down’. Nevertheless, he too was criticised for acting ‘contrary to the carnal judgment of some’.31 In Hippo, Milan, and Edessa, as in Rome, the bishop claimed the right to determine the use of sacred silver and gold. It naturally also fell to the bishop to restore such sacred objects in order to preserve the community of the faithful.

2 Papal replacement of liturgical plate in fifth-century Rome

The fullest statement of the importance of liturgical silver in restoring Chris- tian communities in times of crisis appears in the LP’s Life of Pope Leo: After the Vandal disaster he [Leo] replaced all the consecrated silver services throughout all the tituli, by melting down six water jars, two at the Constantinian basilica, two at the basilica of St. Peter, two at St. Paul’s, which the emperor Constantine had presented, each weighing 100 lb; from these he replaced all the consecrated vessels.32 Leo’s decision to replenish all the silver liturgical vessels in all the tituli led him to take an unusual step; he melted down 600 pounds of water jars (hydrias) that had been donated by the first Christian emperor when he founded St. John the Lateran in Rome. Leo’s choice was well considered; the Pope did not melt down any of the vasa mystica but only the more utilitarian water jugs. His decision to do so was necessitated by recent events. Although the Vandal King Gaiseric, an Arian Christian, had agreed not to burn the city of Rome and to abstain from murders and revenge when he seized it in 455, he did not refrain from taking all forms of movable wealth.33 In the churches, his Vandal soldiers found silver and gold liturgical vessels and spoons, along with a wide range of luxury objects. These included easily movable silver or gold furniture, statues, and lighting equipment, as well as non-movable metal items, such as baptismal equipment, the fastigium of St. Peter’s, and revetment on columns or furniture.34 All these treasures were displayed in the churches across the city and were removed during ten days

31 Possidius, Vit. Aug. 24. 32 Duchesne 1955, 1.47, p. 239: Hic renovavit post cladem Wandalicam omnia ministeria sacrata argentea per omnes titulos, conflatas hydrias VI basilicae Constantinianae, duas basilicae beati Petri apostoli, duas beati Pauli apostoli, quas Constantinus Augustus obtulit, qui pens. sing. lib. centenas; de quas omnia vasa renovavit sacrata. Translation by Davis 2010, 37. 33 Prosper Chron., PL 51, columns 605–606. Digeser this volume discusses a similar situation. 34 Thefastigium of St. Peter’s is identified by Davis 2010, 115, as ‘a structure … consisting of a colonnaded screen across the chord of the apse and centred either on a canopy or on a 134 Michele Renee Salzman RRE of systematic looting. As P. Grierson memorably observed, churches after Constantine were veritable treasure houses, filled with luxury items.35 As such, they provided an irresistible temptation to looters. The opulence of the liturgical vessels in Roman churches was legend- ary. Orosius, in his History against the Pagans written c. 412–418, relates an incident that supposedly occurred during the more well-known sack of Alaric in 410. One barbarian, upon wandering into a church and discover- ing a virgin there, demanded that she hand over the gold and silver vessels belonging to the place.36 The virgin then produced the silver and gold plate from St. Peter’s that had been hidden in this other church. The impact on the Goth was nothing less than miraculous. ‘[S]tirred to religious awe, [and] to the great wonder of all, the gold and silver vessels, distributed one to each individual and raised above their heads, were carried openly’ back to St. Peter’s in a reverse triumphal procession. The visual power of these vessels, ‘the size, weight, and beauty of the riches displayed’, so overwhelmed the Arian Gothic soldier that the frightened barbarian sent word to Alaric asking what to do. The Arian barbarian may not have understood the source of the items but the sacred power inherent in the vessels was plain even for him to see.37 It was the direct impact of the sight of the ‘vessels of Christ mingled with the vessels of Peter’ that saved the faithful virgin and converted many pagans as the vessels and worshippers returned to the safety of St. Peter’s,

pedimented section, hence an arched and pedimented lintel colonnade’. Davis prefers the latter reconstruction, following the arguments of R. Krautheimer. 35 P. Grierson, cited by Mundell Mango 1986, 4. 36 Orosius, History Against the Pagans 7.39.3–10. 3(CSEL 5, Zangemeister 1882): discur- rentibus per urbem barbaris forte unus Gothorum idemque potens et Christianus sacram Deo uirginem iam aetate prouectam, in quadam ecclesiastica domo reperit, cumque ab ea aurum argentumque honeste exposceret, 4 illa fideli constantia esse apud se plurimum et mox proferendum spopondit ac protulit, cumque expositis opibus attonitum barbarum mag- nitudine pondere pulchritudine, ignota etiam uasorum qualitate intellegeret, uirgo Christi ad barbarum ait: 5 haec Petri apostoli sacra ministeria sunt. praesume, si audes; de facto tu uideris. ego quia defendere nequeo, tenere non audeo. 6 barbarus uero ad reuerentiam reli- gionis timore Dei et fide uirginis motus ad Alaricum haec per nuntium rettulit: qui continuo reportari ad apostoli basilicam uniuersa ut erant uasa imperauit, 7 uirginem etiam simul- que omnes qui se adiungerent Christianos eodem cum defensione deduci. ea domus a sanctis sedibus longe ut ferunt et medio interiectu urbis aberat. 8 itaque magno spectaculo omnium disposita per singulos singula et super capita elata palam aurea atque argentea uasa portan- tur; exertis undique ad defensionem gladiis pia pompa munitur; 9 hymnum Deo Romanis barbarisque concinentibus publice canitur; personat late in excidio urbis salutis tuba omn- esque etiam in abditis latentes inuitat ac pulsat; 10 concurrunt undique ad uasa Petri uasa Christi, plurimi etiam pagani Christianis professione etsi non fide admiscentur et per hoc tamen ad tempus, quo magis confundantur, euadunt. 37 Orosius, History Against the Pagans 7.39.3–10, with the full citation of the Latin in note 36 above. This example is used also by Cass. Var. 12.204. 5 (2019) The Religious Economics of Crisis 135 marching untouched in triumph through the city. Thus, the sacred vessels demonstrated Orosius’ view that the sack had been an act of God to punish Rome for its sins, and that salvation lay with the restoration of these sacred objects for their proper use in mass at St. Peter’s. In truth, not all liturgical plate escaped unnoticed. Despite Orosius’ rosy view, many churches were stripped of their liturgical vessels and other portable precious objects during Alaric’s sack of the city. The restoration of such vessels was the concern of Innocent, bishop of Rome at the time, although his absence from the city both during and after the sack may par- tially explain the silence in the LP about his post-410 activities.38 However, one of his successors, Sixtus (432–440), is acclaimed in the LP for asking Emperor Valentinian III to pay for the replacement of the silver fastigium in St. Peter’s, which Alaric and his Goths had removed at a cost to the church of 1610 pounds.39 The importance of renewing the Church’s silver and gold plate after a crisis emerges again in the LP after the civil wars in Rome in the early 470s. According to the LP, Simplicius, the bishop at the time, provided a gold scyphus weighing five pounds; he also gave to St. Peter’s sixteen silver chandeliers weighing twelve pounds each.40 The gold scyphus was lighter than the usual ten pounds for such vessels recorded by the L P, perhaps a sign of this bishop’s limited resources. The scyphus was a large vessel used for the additional wine that was placed on the altar when it was foreseen that the main chalice would not be able to hold all the consecrated wine that was required for distribution to the congregation at mass.41 This type of donation would, thus, be a quite visible reminder to the congregation in the church of the bishop’s patronage. Papal efforts to replace liturgical vessels amount, in essence, to a new foundation for the churches so damaged. Indeed, as I observed earlier, whenever a church was established, liturgical and paraliturgical equipment used in the performance of the Eucharist rite and other liturgies was often provided by the bishop and was always part of the catalogue inventory of these foundations. So, as the LP states, when Pope Celestine (422–432) dedi-

38 For Innocent’s absence from Rome, see Zosimus 5.45.5. 39 For the fastigium, see note 34 above. Duchesne 1955, 1.46, p. 233. 40 Duchesne 1955, 1.49, p. 249. 41 Davis 2010, 107 explains that people would bring their offerings of wine to the church in amulae (small flasks). A deacon would then pour the wine into the larger amae (vessels) and return the small flasks to their owners. The wine for the mass would be poured (through a strainer) into a cup or chalice which would stand on the altar. The wine consecrated in the chalice would be poured into service chalices for distribution to the com- mmunicants. The scyphus was for the additional wine. 136 Michele Renee Salzman RRE cated the basilica of Julius ‘after the Gothic conflagration’ (post ignem Geti- cum), he presented the community with silver liturgical vessels, including a silver paten weighing twenty five pounds; two silver scyphi each weighing eight pounds; two silver amae each weighing ten pounds; and five smaller silver chalices each weighing three pounds.42 The opulence of the bishop’s donations for a church’s foundation was also a demonstration of his beneficence, a virtue that remained necessary for the demonstration of status in elite circles for many centuries to come. This explains why, according to the LP, Celestine gave this church more than the fundamentals required. He also donated five silver hand basins weighing ten pounds; two silver candelabra each weighing thirty pounds; twenty- four bronze candlestick chandeliers, each weighing thirty pounds; and ten silver crowns of ten pounds each.43 These added gifts augmented Celestine’s reputation – as it did for other bishops. However, the funds for these gifts, or the actual plate itself, may well have come from wealthy pious worshippers who sought in this way to secure remittance of their sins and the promise of salvation. In any case, the replacement of lost silver and gold liturgical plate was an important element in returning life in Rome to normal after a period of crisis. The restoration of liturgical silver (as is explicitly stated after the sack of Rome in 455), and the donations of liturgical silver to refound churches in Rome in the wake of barbarian raids on the city or the civil war of 472, were central components of the bishops’ efforts to restore the local churches and communities disrupted by these violent upheavals. Yet papal donations of silver and gold liturgical vessels also spoke to traditional aristocratic values. Indeed, silver plate was the standard status marker among Rome’s elites for centuries. Our knowledge of this comes from numerous silver hoards, not just from temples but also from domestic contexts, such as that from the Esquiline Hill in Rome, buried by the eminent family of the Turcii.44 Despite the fact that they never came back to reclaim it, this collection of silver represented the wealth and status of the family. Indeed, it also constituted at least a part of the real economic power that the family wielded. As both symbolic and real capital, we can better appreciate why the compiler of the LP conscientiously included the weights and types of liturgical vessels and other movable objects of worth associated with each pope in a document that was composed to assert the influence of the papacy in the

42 Duchesne 1955, 1.49, pp. 230–231. 43 Duchesne 1955, 1.49, pp. 230–231. 44 On the Esquiline Treasure, see the still fundamental work by Shelton 1981; and Cameron 1985, 135–140. More generally, see Leader-Newby 2004, 61–122. 5 (2019) The Religious Economics of Crisis 137 sixth century. Moreover, the LP’s inclusion of papal replacements of sacred silver demonstrated that the bishops of Rome had the status and resources not just to lead but also to save the faithful. Such wealth could be helpful meeting future crises. However, bishops who did sell sacred silver often incurred the wrath of their congregation, for, as we shall see in part 3, the use of sacred silver and gold in the church was part of a larger discourse on episcopal power and authority. Selling liturgical plate became all the more important as the people of Rome faced an increasing number of crises over the course of the fifth and sixth centuries.

3 Christian discourses on sacred silver

Proponents of asceticism were quick to criticise popes and priests who pro- claimed their piety yet manifested their religiosity through the display of expensive liturgical plate in church or in their residences.45 Jerome is elo- quent in his criticism of this practice in this letter to the priest Nepotian: Of two imperfect things, holy rusticity is better than sinful elegance. Many build churches nowadays; their walls and pillars of glowing marble, their ceilings and altars studded jewels. Yet to the choice of Christ’s ministers no heed is paid. And let no one allege against me the wealth of the temple in Judæa, its table, its lamps, its censers, its dishes, its cups, its spoons and the rest of its golden vessels.46 After the sack of Rome in 410, Augustine delivered a series of sermons in North Africa that focused on the theological and real implications of Alar- ic’s plundering of the city. He asserted that it was foolish to trust in material objects, so that even the ‘weaker characters, who clung to their worldly goods with some degree of avarice, even if they did not prefer them to Christ, discovered, in losing them, how much they sinned in loving them’.47 Two ascetics, Melania the Younger and her husband, were fortunate to have given away much of their wealth before the sack, even though they faced the hos- tility of both Melania’s family and the civic authorities for their act of piety.48 It was his disdain for the material world that led Augustine, according to his hagiographer Possidius, to have only silver spoons and no silver plate at his dinner table. Following the example of his mentor Ambrose, he also sold

45 Baratte 2013, 56–73 for citations by other Church Fathers against the use of luxurious silver plate at table. 46 Jerome, Letter 52.9–10. 47 Augustine, Civ. Dei 1.10. See too Salzman 2014, 346–359. 48 Vie de Sainte Mélanie, 1–12, ed. D. Gorce (SC 90.130–151) 1962; Palladius, The Lausiac History, Chapter 54, ed. Butler 1898, 146–148. 138 Michele Renee Salzman RRE off Church property, including silver plate, in order to redeem prisoners of war and to help the poor.49 Yet such actions had led to criticism. This was certainly the case when Ambrose sold off silver plate to ransom captives, for he had to defend his action against charges of sacrilegious behaviour, as noted above.50 Nonetheless, some bishops similarly felt justified in alienating church plate in a crisis. When the Vandals carried many imprisoned Romans back to Africa as slaves after the sack of Rome in 455, the bishop of Car- thage, Deogratias, was so moved to pity that he sold off universa vasa min- isterii aurea vel argentea to liberate the prisoners from Rome.51 According to the Vita Caesarii, Bishop Caesarius of Arles (bishop 502–542) also sold off church silver to ransom captives.52 Although Pope Leo (440–461) is not reported as having done so himself, he nonetheless expressed the idea that a bishop could alienate church property, though he should do so only in con- sultation with the other clergy and for good, justifiable Christian reasons.53 While sale of liturgical plate to enable the ransoming of captives could be viewed as a pious activity, such financial dealings led to a growing concern over bishops who abused their position for material gain. As Klingshirn has observed, Pope Symmachus’s (498–514) activities as redemptor captivorum, and his willingness to sell church property on behalf of the poor, ‘made it possible for him to exercise a greater and more extensive patronage than any other Roman aristocrat’.54 Such an accretion of power by a bishop or local priest could be dangerously disruptive to the authority of the church since it could give certain bishops vast personal power as well as wealth. Not surprisingly, concern about the potential for episcopal abuse of the wealth raised from the sale of silver and gold plate, or other luxury items, eventually led the secular authorities, along with church leaders, to inter- vene.55 The most well known case, and the most condemned, was that of Bishop Ibas, successor to Rabbula in the bishopric of Edessa in 435. Ibas

49 Possidius, Vit. Augustini 24 on vasa dominica; and 22 on not earthen, wooden or marble plate. 50 See notes 25, 27, 29 and 30 above, and Ambrose, De off. 2.15.70; see too also De Giorgio 2005, 674–675. 51 For Deogratias, see Victor Vit. I. 24–25 (CSEL 7), pp. 11–12. 52 Vita Caesarii I, 32–33; Klingshirn 1985, 185–186; Allen and Neil 2013, 40; De Giorgio 2005, 671–682. 53 Leo, Letter 17, PL 54: 704–706. This letter, dated to 447, was sent to the bishops of Sicily and became church policy. For further discussion, see Sessa 2012, 227–229. 54 Klingshirn 1985, 198. 55 De Salvo 1995, 381. Emperors had legislated in the fifth century to prevent the alienation of church property by the clergy; see, for one example, the imperial prohibition of 470 ce, CJ 1.2.14. But the particular stipulation against the sale of silver plate is specified by Justin- ian; see notes 58 below. 5 (2019) The Religious Economics of Crisis 139 was accused not only of heresy but also of having sold sacred vessels and having stolen a silver gemmed calix, along with a series of other financial misdeeds for which he was later absolved at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.56 In Rome, papal abuses had raised the ire of the Ostrogothic King. In a letter of 533, King Athalaric condemned clergy (meaning Pope Boniface and his supporters) for the sale of sacred vessels to install his successor and outlawed this practice, as had the senate.57 In the East, the emperor Justin- ian legislated that a bishop could legally alienate sacred silver plate only in order to ransom captives. In a law of 544, the emperor asserted that only in those cases, ‘Where the souls of men are released from death and chains by the sale of inanimate vessels’, could the sale of sacred plate be justified. The only other possible exceptions were the sale of such items in an emergency, as in a famine or if a person faced imprisonment for debt.58 The Justinianic law of 544 forbidding the sale of sacred utensils extended also to ‘objects donated by persons in gratitude for their restoration to health’, with the only allowed exception being sales to raise money for the ransoming of prisoners of war.59 The law points to the continued practice of votive offerings of silver in gratitude to a divinity in exchange for health, a practice which had deep roots in the Ancient Mediterranean, as the Berthouville Treasure indicates.

4 Conclusion

The LP’s assertion that the popes of fifth-century Rome replaced lost silver and gold liturgical plate highlights the importance of these items in Chris- tian communities in the city itself and across the empire more broadly. As symbolic capital, silver and gold liturgical plate represented the status and piety of the donor. This indeed had been one of the key meanings for silver donations in pagan communities in the ancient world as well. But among Christians, silver and gold plate had taken on new significance as part of the mass. The use of these luxury items in a church service by the bishop of Rome thus represented the piety of the community of the faithful as a whole. Hence, its replacement by the bishop of Rome was tied to the salvation not just of the individual donor, but of the whole city. No wonder, then, that the bishops of fifth-century Rome, as the LP asserts, replaced sacred silver and

56 For discussion, see De Salvo 1999, 379–380. 57 Cass. Var. 9.15.2. 58 Novels of Justinian 37.120.10. For later laws and actions, see Allen and Neil 2013, 39–40. 59 Novels of Justinian 37.120.10. 140 Michele Renee Salzman RRE gold plate as quickly as possible in order to restore divine favour and reassert their hegemony over Rome’s community of worshippers.

Bibliography

Allen, Pauline; Neil, Bronwen 2013. Crisis Management in Late Antiquity (410–590 CE). Leiden: Brill. Avisseau-Broustet, Mathilde; Colonna, Cécile; Lapatin, Kenneth 2014. ‘The Berthouville Treasure: A Discovery “As Marvelous as It was Unexpected”’. In The Berthouville Silver Treasure and Roman Luxury, ed. Kenneth Lapatin. Los Angeles: The Getty Museum Publications. 7–68. Baratte, Francois 2013. ‘Silver Plate in Late Antiquity’. In Late Roman Silver: The Trapain Treasure in Context, ed. Fraser Hunter, K. S. Painter. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquar- ies of Scotland. 56–73. Blair-Dixon, Kate 2007. ‘Memory and Authority on Sixth-Century Rome: The Liber Pontificalis and the Collectio Avellana’. In Religion, Dynasty and Patronage in Early Christian Rome, 300–900, ed. Kate Cooper, Julia Hillner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 59–77. Bourdieu, Pierre 1989. ‘Social Space and Symbolic Power’, Sociological Theory 71.1. 14–25. Brown, Peter 2012. Through the Eye of A Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Mak- ing of Christianity in the West, 350–550 AD. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Butler, Cuthbert (ed.) 1898. The Lausiac History of Palladius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cameron, Alan 1985. ‘The Date and the Owners of the Esquiline Treasure’, American Journal of Archaeology 89. 1, 135–140. Cantino Walaghin, Gisella 2006. ‘Architecture and Power: Churches in Northern Italy form the 4th to the 6th Century.’ In Social and Political Life in Late Antiquity, ed. Wil- liam Bowden, Adam Gutteridge, Carlos Machado. Leiden: Brill. 287–309. Cohen, Samuel. (Re)creating Sacred Space: Bishops and the Reconciliation of Heretical Church Buildings in Late Antique Rome. Unpublished paper. Davis, Raymond 2010. The Book of Pontiffs (Liber pontificalis). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. De Giorgio, D. 2005. ‘Cesario di Arles e la redemptio dei captivi infideles: Vita Caesarii I, 32–33’, Cristianesimo nella storia 26.3. 671–682. De Salvo, Lieta 1995. ‘Simonie e malversazioni nell’organizzazione ecclesiastica IV–V secolo.’ In Corruzione, Repressione e Rivolta morale nella tardà antichità, ed. Rosario Soraci. Catania: CULC. 367–392. Duchesne, Louis 1912. Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution. A Study of Latin Lit- urgy up to the Time of Charlemagne. 4th English ed. London: S.P.C.K. Duchesne, Louis 1955–1957. Le Liber Pontificalis. Texte, introduction et commentaire. Revised edition. Paris: E. De Boccard. Gorce, Denys 1962. Vie de Sainte Mélanie, 1–12 (SC 90). Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. Izdebski, Adam 2012. ‘Bishops in Late Antique Italy: Social Importance vs. Political Power’, Phoenix 66. 158–175. 5 (2019) The Religious Economics of Crisis 141

Klingshirn, William E. 1985. ‘Charity and Power: Caesarius of Arles and the Ransoming of Captives in Sub-Roman Gaul’, JRS 75. 183–203. Krautheimer, Richard (ed.) 1977. Corpus Basilicarum Christianarum Romae: The Early Christian Basilicas of Rome (IV–IX centuries). 5 volumes. Citta del Vaticano: Pontificio istituto di archeologia Cristiana. Leader-Newby, Ruth E. 2004. Silver and Society in Late Antiquity. Aldershot: Ashgate Press. Liverani, Paolo 2019. ‘Osservazioni sul libellus delle donazioni costantiniane nel Liber Pontificalis’, Athenaeum 107. Studi di Letteratura e Storia dell’Antichità. 169–217. McKitterick, Rosamund 2011. ‘Roman Texts and Roman History in the Early Middle Ages.’ In Rome across Time and Space, c. 500–c. 1400: Cultural Transmission and the Exchange of Ideas, ed. Claudia Bolgia, Rosamund McKitterick, John Osborne. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. 19–34. Moorhead, John 2015. The Popes and the Church of Rome in Late Antiquity. London: Routledge Press. Mundell Mango, Marlia 1986. Silver from Early Byzantium: The Kaper Koraon and Related Treasures. Baltimore, MD: Walters Art Gallery Publications. Munier, Charles 1963. Concilia Galliae a. 314–506. CCSL 148 B. Turnhout: Brepols. Overbeck, Joseph (ed.) 1865. S. Ephraemi Suri, Rabulae episcopi Edessenti, balaei alio- rumque opera selecta. Oxford: Gorgias Press. Phenix, Robert; Horn, Cornelia 2017. The Rabbula Corpus. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Publications. Repsher, Brian V. 1998. The Rite of Church Dedication in the Early Medieval Era. Lewis- ton, NY: Mellen Press. Salzman, Michele R. 2013. ‘Leo’s Liturgical Topography: Contestations for Space in Fifth Century Rome’, Journal of Roman Studies 97. 208–232. Salzman, Michele R. 2014. ‘Christian Sermons against Pagans: The Evidence from Augustine’s Sermons on the New Year and on the Sack of Rome in 410.’ In The Cam- bridge Companion to Attila the Hun, ed. Michael Maas. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. 346–359. Sessa, Kristina 2012. The Formation of Papal Authority in Late Antique Italy. Roman Bishops and the Domestic Sphere. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shelton, Kathleen J. 1981. The Esquiline Treasure. London: British Museum Publication. Voekl, Ludwig 1964. Die Kirchenstiftungen des Kaisers Konstantin im Lichte des römischen Sakralrechts. Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Geisteswissenschaften, Heft 117. Köln: Westdeutscher Verlag. Volpe, Giuliano 2007. ‘Architecture and Church Power in Late Antiquity: Canosa and San Giusto (Apulia)’. In Housing in Late Antiquity: From Palaces to Shops, ed. Luke Lavan, Lale Özgenel, Alexander Sarantis. Late Antique Archaeology 3.2. Leiden: Brill Press. 131–168. Ward-Perkins, Bryan 1984. From Classical Antiquity to the Middle Ages: Urban Public Buildings in North and Central Italy, AD 300–700. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Michele Renee Salzman University of California, Riverside orcid.org/0000-0002-9160-0268