The Church of S.

Anastasia in Rome
Author(s): Philip Barrows Whitehead
Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1927), pp. 405-420
Published by: Archaeological Institute of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/497863 .
Accessed: 25/06/2013 05:28
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Journal of Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:28:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

lrtJateological

InrJtitute
of ZXmerica
THE CHURCH OF S. ANASTASIA IN ROME
PLATEXI
THE church of S.Anastasia under the western corner of the Palatine
was at one time among the most important in Rome. A seventh
century catalogue of the churches of the city puts it third in rank,
-next in importance after the Lateran basilica and the church of
S. Maria Maggiore-and adds that the stational crosses which were
carried in the great public ceremonies at which the Pope officiated
were kept in this church.1 It is one of the most ancient churches in
the city, dating certainly from the fourth century and probably, as
will be shown below, from the time of Constantine. It was one of
the twenty five original tituli or parish churches of Rome and has the
distinction of being the only one of these churches to have been
erected in the center of the city. But most interesting of all is the
place which the church holds in the liturgy of Christmas. S. Anastasia shared with S. Maria Maggiore and with St. Peter's the honor of
being one of the three churches to which, throughout the Middle
Ages, the Pope went in solemn procession to say mass on Christmas
day. Now, however, the church is almost forgotten; it is rarely
visited by tourists and perhaps even more rarely by worshippers.
In view of its historical importance and its not altogether uninteresting baroque interior, it is regrettable that the church has been
allowed to pass into oblivion.
1.

THE ANCIENT BUILDINGS

The church stands upon massive substructures of the first, second,

and third centuries which are deserving of more attention than they
have received from students of the classical topography of Rome.
With the exception of a superficial and very inaccurate description of
these substructures given by Lugli,2 they seem to have passed almost unnoticed. While it is true that no complete study of these
structures can be made until the valley of the Circus Maximus and
the western corner of the Palatine have been excavated, there is accessible enough of the ancient walls to make possible the writing of a
fairly complete history of the classical topography of the area occupied by the church.
Excavations were carried on under the church between 1857 and
1863, but the published account of the work is extremely unsatisfactory.3 No trustworthy plan of the church and of the ancient
1 De Rossi, Roma
Sotteranea, I, p.143.
La Zona Archeologica di Roma, 1924, pp. 269-274.
3 Bull. dell' Inst., 1859, pp. 139-142; 1863, pp. 113-116.
2

405

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:28:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

406

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

structures beneath it has hitherto been published. The Engineers' Plan' is extremely inaccurate and does not distinguish the
various periods of construction. The plan published by Lugli,2
while much better, is not sufficiently accurate and is in many respects misleading.
The plan of the area occupied by the church of S. Anastasia shown in
Plate XI accompanying this article is based on very careful measurements and on a minute examination of all the details of construction
which throw light on the date and sequence of the ancient structures.
On this plan is shown in red the outline of the church, and in black
all of the structures which are accessible in the area under the church.
It has been possible to determine the approximate date and the relative chronological order of all the periods which can be distinguished
in the substructures of the church and to discover their purpose.
The earliest period in this area (A B, Plate XI) is a two-story structure of brown tufa which resembles very closely the Horrea of Agrippa.
The Horrea of Agrippa probably skirted the entire western edge of
the Palatine and followed the curve of the hill into the area between
the Palatine and the Circus Maximus. At any rate, the tufa structure under S. Anastasia is in every respect so similar to the Horrea of
Agrippa that it must have been built for the same purpose and at or
near the same time. The walls of this structure are of brown tufa,
the blocks measuring about 60 cm. in height. The back wall (on the
side toward the Palatine), in which there are no doors or windows, is
1.20 m. in thickness. The partition walls are 60 cm. thick. The
structure was at least two stories in height, the floor of the second
story being a concrete vault resting upon a shelf formed by a projecting course of tufa blocks in the partition walls.
The orientation of this structure was very nearly that of the Circus Maximus, toward which it originally faced. At a later period a
part of this structure was destroyed and the front part of the rooms
which still remain was cut off on a diagonal line (C D) running almost north and south. At the same time a new facade of travertine (Plate XI, second period) was erected on this diagonal line.
Parts of this travertine fagade are still visible, though most of it is incased in a later wall of brick-faced concrete.
Why the rooms A and B were thus cut into cannot now be determined with certainty. But it seems probable that this was done in
order to clear the ground west of the line E F for a new and more extensive series of shops or warehouses (Plate XI third and fifth periods).
This structure, consisting of a series of large rooms of which those accessible measure about five by twelve meters, seems originally to
have been built entirely of peperino. All that now remains of this
1 Reina, Media Pars Urbis, tav. IX.
2Op.
cit.p. 271.

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:28:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

P
s

0.0?
S0"DIoo

eO
.

* FIRST
PERIOD E
7
0
SECONDPERIOD

...

.....%e

THIRDPERIOD

FIFTH PERIOD

FOVRTHPERIOD k

SIXTH PERIOD
PLAN OF S.

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:28:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

P4

4
10

I I j

/4 I I

,;-0

d/

*KI

A
00,/

PAT
XI

?N
u

EIGTH

PLAT

PROD

XI

9N OF S. ANASTASIA IN ROMI
This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:28:40 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

10
to.

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:28:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WHITEHEAD: THE CHURCH OF S. ANASTASIA IN ROME 407

period is the fagade (R K, third period) along the street (S L) on

which the shops originally faced. Six of the pillars of this facade are
still visible, though partially encased in brick-faced concrete of a
later period (Fig. 1). These pillars are built of blocks of peperino
BRICK

PEPERINO
---------------

"

)TRAVERTINE

VND

FIGURE

1.

BRICK

ARCHES

PPEERINO

OF S. ANASTASIA

ranging from 45 cm. to 90 cm. in height. The doorways between

these pillars were spanned by flat arches, probably of travertine.
In each of the pillars there is a travertine block which is cut to support
the wedge-shaped blocks of the flat arches. At the top of each
pillar is a cornice (Fig. 2) which is one of the most interesting examples in Rome of the decorative use of peperino. Above the cornice there were originally arches of
peperino or travertine which supported
the upper part of the wall of the facade.
These arches were later replaced by brick
arches which are still in place (Fig. 1).
The date of the original peperino
structure can only be determined approximately. The use of blocks of stone
90 cm. in height would seem to exclude
a very early date. On the other hand,
the brick arches (Fig. 1) which replace
the original stone arches of the facade
are of beautiful workmanship and cannot
be later than the first century. I should
tentatively assign the peperino structure
to about the middle of the first century
and the brick arches to a restoration
after the fire of Nero.
In the latter part of the first century
FIGURE 2.
PILLAR
OF S.
there was built the massive wall of brickANASTASIA WITH CORNICE OF
faced concrete along the line E F. As
PEPERINO
the travertine encased in this wall shows
signs of having been injured by fire, it is probable that the wall in
question is a restoration made necessary by Nero's fire. The
CENTIMETERS

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:28:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

408

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

rooms A and B were still kept in use, as the new wall contained
doors and windows opening into them. In one of the brick arches of
this wall, near the point marked C on the plan, there were found
the following brick stamps:
L. RV. SOSIA, C.I.L., XV, I 986a, dated by Dressel between
50-79 A.D.
C. HILARI ROMANI, C.I.L., XV, I 1186, dated by Dressel end of
first or beginning of second century.
In the second century the shops or warehouses which originally
occupied the entire area now covered by the church, and probably a
good deal more space than that shown on my plan, were rebuilt.
All of the original peperinb structure except the fagade was destroyed
and the partition walls rebuilt in brick-faced concrete. All the
brickwork of this reconstruction (Plate XI, fifth period), as well as
that of the drain beneath the floor of the seventh room (counting
from the left),? is of the same technique. Bipedales in situ were
found in the arches of this brickwork bearing brick stamps of various
periods, as follows:
C.I.L., XV,
C.I.L., XV,
C.I.L., XV,
C.I.L., XV,
C.I.L., XV,
C.I.L., XV,
123 A.D.
C.I.L., XV,
123 A.D.

I,
I,
I,
I,
I,
I,

118, dated by Dressel, 60-93 A.D.

119, dated by Dressel, 60-93 A.D.
1097, dated by Dressel, end of first century.
1449b, dated by Dressel, end of first century.
61, dated by Dressel, reign of Trajan.
962a, dated by Dressel, reign of Hadrian before

I, 962b, dated by Dressel, reign of Hadrian before

The evidence of these brick stamps would permit one to assign the
work to the reign of Hadrian. However, the presence of so large a
variety of brick stamps varying widely in date indicates that old materials, probably obtained from the destruction of earlier buildings,
were being used. Furthermore, the technique of the brickwork is
much poorer than that of the dated monuments of the time of Hadrian. It therefore seems probable that the walls date from the latter
half of the second century.
In one of the small rooms of this structure, there is, at a lower
level, a small section of brick-faced concrete wall with an orientation
which does not correspond to that of any of the other buildings in the
area. The brickwork, however, appears to be of about the same
period as that of the walls just described.

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:28:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WHITEHEAD: THE CHURCH OF S. ANASTASIA IN ROME 409

The walls of the sixth period, of which four are shown on the plan,
are of brick-faced concrete 2.35 m. thick. The structure to which
they belonged cannot be completely described until further excavations have been made. But from what is now visible it seems clear
that these walls must have been constructed to support a bank of
seats added to the Circus Maximus in the latter half of the third
century. Although the brickwork lacks the beauty and regularity
-of the best periods, it is from an engineering standpoint admirable.
Both the brick and the mortar are extremely hard, almost flint like,
and capable of supporting great weight. The fact that the earlier
walls were only partially destroyed, and that the large vaulted chambers now accessible beneath the church were left encumbered by
walls of the earlier periods, indicates that the builder was interested
'only in the superstructure which the 2.35 in. walls were intended to
carry. That this superstructure must have been of considerable
height is shown by the thickness of the walls. It is difficult to see
any other purpose which these walls can have served than that of
supporting a bank of seats commanding a view of the Circus Maximus. The fact that at this distance from the arena the seats would
have had to be raised to a height about equal to that of the outer
tier of seats in the Colosseum would account for the thickness of
these walls and would also make it impossible that the earlier
walls in this area can have had any connection with the Circus
Maximus.
There is a large number of stamped bipedales lining the water
:spouts of the 2.35 m. walls. In addition to some which proved illegible, the following have been identified:
C.I.L.,
C.I.L.,
C.I.L.,
C.I.L.,
C.I.L.,
C.I.L.,

XV,
XV,
XV,
XV,
XV,
XV,

I,
I,
I,
I,
I,
I,

117a, dated by Dressel, 60-93 A.D.

119, dated by Dressel, 60--93 A.D.
635b, dated by Dressel, end of first century.
1097, dated by Dressel, end of first century.
1075, dated by Dressel, between 100 and 125 A.D.
223, dated by Dressel, about 140 A.D.

As the technique of the brickwork of the walls in which these brick

-stamps are found can with certainty be assigned to the third century,
the bipedales must have been obtained by the destruction of earlier
walls. It will be noticed that the series of brick stamps found in the
2.35 m. walls bears a certain resemblance to the series found in the
brickwork of the fifth period. Apparently the bipedales used to
line the water spouts of the 2.35 m. walls were obtained by the destruction of the arches and vaults of the fifth period.
This addition to the Circus Maximus, if indeed it was ever finished, was not completed on the scale of the original plan. The only

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:28:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

410

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

part of the structures under the church which can ever have been
connected with the Circus Maximus are the 2.35 m. walls included in
the area E M F G. The wall H N, although it must have been originally planned as a part of the addition to the Circus Maximus, had
only been carried up a few meters when it was abandoned. The
part shown in dotted lines (N) was destroyed down to the level of the
street and the upper parts of the shop walls in the area O R E K were
restored in brick-faced concrete which is practically identical with
that of the 2.35 m. walls. The walls shown on the plan as of the
from those of
seventh period are also
indistinguishable.in technique
the sixth period with which they must have been nearly contemporaneous. Apparently what happened was this: after the addition to
the Circus Maximus (sixth period) had been carried to a certain point,
the original plan was changed and the structure was reinforced (seventh period) and completed on a smaller scale. At the same time
the shops in the area O R E K were restored and the street (S T L M)
upon which they faced once more opened up as far as L M. It was
apparently at this time that the structures between this street and
the Circus Maximus (not shown on my plan) were built.
At a later period, apparently about the end of the third or beginning of the fourth century, the shops in the area O R E K were once
more restored. At the same time the peperino piers of the facade
R K were encased in massive brick-faced concrete pillars (eighth
period). The size of these pillars shows that at this time there was
erected over the area O R E K a superstructure of some importance.
A part of this superstructure is still preserved in the exterior northeast wall of the church between the points O and P on the plan.
This wall appears to have been connected with the walls of buildings
on the southwest corner of the Palatine. It seems, therefore, that
the superstructure was one of those additions to the imperial palace
which under the Empire were carried out beyond the original limits
of the Palatine hill. The superstructure was also connected by a
stairway of the same period with the street S T L M.
Somewhat later the structure in the area O R E K was once more
restored. The walls of some of the shops of the lower level
on the northeast side were rebuilt or refaced (ninth period). The
brickwork of this restoration is similar to that of the time of
Constantine.
The row of piers in the middle of the street S T L M is medieval
(tenth period). They have been rebuilt in some comparatively
modern period, probably in the time of Urban VIII. It must have
been at the same time that the intervening spaces were filled in with
loosely piled blocks of tufa. At the bases of some of these piers, a
few courses of the medieval brickwork may be seen just above the
concrete foundations upon which the piers stand.

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:28:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WHITEHEAD: THE CHURCH OF S. ANASTASIA IN ROME 411

2. THE ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH OF S. ANASTASIA

Upon a platform of masonry, supported by walls of Roman imperial construction which have just been described, stands the church of
S. Anastasia. The level of the ground in front of the church and on
the side toward the Palatine has in a very recent period been raised
to the level of the church. Old prints show that in the seventeenth
century the church was approached by a long flight of stairs rising
from the piazza. At the present time it is only by passing through
the porter's lodge on the right of the modern facade and descending
two flights of stairs (one at T and the other at L on the plan) that one
realizes how high (about ten meters) above the late imperial level the
church stands.
Perched upon its high platform, the church has never been and is
not now very stable. It has been so frequently restored and rebuilt
that little of the original superstructure in which it was dedicated now
remains. Likewise the inscriptions and works of art in which the
medieval church must have been rich and which would, if preserved,
throw much light on the history of the church, have perished. Most
of these probably disappeared in the restoration at the time of Urban
VIII when the church was rebuilt in its present form. All that
escaped the hand of the destroyer was an ancient altar with
which a tradition of unknown origin associates the name of
St. Jerome.
The only walls above the level of the church floor which still remain to prove, what might safely be inferred from the location of the
church, that it was originally dedicated in a building erected for some
other purpose, are to be seen on the northeast side (between 0 and P
on the plan). The brickwork of this wall cannot be later than the
time of Constantine. Since the superstructure to which these walls
belonged appears to have been connected with the buildings on the
Palatine, the only important conclusion in regard to the origin of the
church which can be drawn from the structure itself is that the church
was originally dedicated in a building which formed a part of the imperial palace. Probably the original church was a hall corresponding to the nave of the modern church. At any rate, it must have
been considerably smaller than the modern church. The part of the
church which is built over the walls belonging to the Circus Maximus, that is, the apse and transept, and also the right aisle are, as may
be easily determined from an examination of the construction,
medieval additions.
The most important and the earliest authentic document
relating to the origin of the church is an inscription, preserved only
in manuscript copies, which once formed a part of the apsidal
mosaic.

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:28:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

412

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF ARCHAEOLOGY

ANTISTES DAMASVS PICTVRAE ORNARAT HONORE

TECTA QVIBVS NVNC DANT PVLCHRA METALLA DECVS.
DIVITE TESTATVR PRETIOSIOR AVLA NITORE
QVOS RERVM EFFECTVS POSSIT HABERE FIDES.
PAPAE HILARI MERITIS OLIM DEVOTA SEVERI
NEC NON CASSIAE MENS DEDIT ISTA DEO.1
The important fact recorded in this inscription is that the church had
once been decorated with paintings by Pope Damasus (366-384).
These paintings were, as the inscription states, replaced by mosaic
(pulchra metalla) in the pontificate of Hilary (461-468). The
paintings with which Damasus had decorated the church would undoubtedly have contained or been accompanied by an inscription the
substance of which, we may assume, is reproduced in the first line of
the inscription here given. It is worthy of note that the inscription
does not state that the church was erected by Damasus. The presumption is, therefore, that it already existed. Since Damasus was,
above all else, interested in seeking out and embellishing the sites
with which were associated important Christian memories, it is probable that the church was already venerable in the time of Damasus
and that the paintings with which he adorned it were intended to
conserve the memory of its historic associations. At all events, the
inscription may be accepted as proving that the church existed as
early as 384, the year in which Damasus died.
The next document that throws light on the history of the church
is an inscription which may be dated either 394 or 403.
QVI PECCATORVM SORDES ABOLERE PRIORVM
TERRENISQVE OPTAS MACVLIS ABSOLVERE VITAM
HVC ADES AT CHRISTI FONTEM SACRVMQVE LIQVOREM
CORPVS VBI AC MENTES PARITER SENSVSQVE LAVANTVR
AETERNVMQVE DATVR CASTO BAPTISMATE MVNVS.
HANC AVTEM FIDEI SEDEM CONSTRVXIT AB IMO
MILITIAE CLARVS TITVLIS AVLAEQVE FIDELIS
ROMANAEQVE VRBIS PRAEFECTVS LONGIMANVS
The name Longimanus in the last line of the inscription is undoubtedly a mistake of the scribe for Longinianus, who was prefect of the
city in the years 394 and 403. In the Codex Laureshamensis which
has preserved the inscription, it follows immediately after the one
just quoted and bears the heading Ad fontes. The inscription,
therefore, as would be evident without the heading, refers to the con1 The text here given is that of the Lauresham MS (De Rossi, Insc. Chr., II, p. 150)
with which the Einsidlne MS (ib. p. 24) agrees except in a few unimportant details.
In the Einsidlne MS the inscription appears under the heading In absida scae
anasia. The heading in the Lauresham MS is In eccl scae anastasie in tron.

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:28:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WHITEHEAD:

THE CHURCH OF S. ANASTASIA

IN ROME 413

struction of a baptistry. This fact is of considerable importance for

it shows that the church was, at least as early as the year 403, a
titulus, for it was only in the tituli that baptism was administered.
The church of S. Anastasia is first mentioned by name in the signatures to the Acts of the Council of 499,1 where it is three times referred to as titulus Anastasiae. The heading of one of the sermons
of Leo the Great (440-461), habitus Romae in basilica sanctae Anastasiae,2 in the form in which it stands, must have been added by the
editor of the collected sermons, since it contains two anachronisms.
The church would have been referred to as titulus rather than basilica
in the time of Leo, and the title sancta would not have been added to
the name of Anastasia at that date. Until about the year 500 no
saint bearing the name Anastasia was known at Rome. But early
in the sixth century there was introduced into Rome the cult of St.
Anastasia of Sirmium, who was at that time one of the most highly
venerated saints of the church of Constantinople. When her cult
was brought to Rome, her relics were placed in the church which already bore the same name and which, from that time forth, was
known as the basilica or titulus sanctae Anastasiae. The signatures
to the Acts of the Council of 499, where the church is referred to simply as titulus Anastasiae show that at this time it had not yet been
dedicated to St. Anastasia. The name of the church as found in
these signatures must be earlier than the introduction of the cult of
this saint into Rome.3
The ingenious theory of Grisar,4 who believed that the church of
S. Anastasia had originally been dedicated to the Resurrection
(Anastasis), is based upon a priori reasoning and is not supported by
substantial evidence. More in harmony with the facts is the theory
of Duchesne, who held that the designation titulus Anastasiae is the
original name of the church. The name, according to this theory,
must have been derived, as were the names of all the other Roman
tituli, from the founder of the church who, in this case, must have
been a Roman matron named Anastasia. Who this Anastasia was,
however, is a question to which Duchesne was not able to give a satisfactory answer.
The most probable explanation of the origin and name of the
church is suggested by the preceeding analysis of the ancient buildings in and over which the church was dedicated. The study of
these buildings leads to the conclusion that the church was dedicated
in a hall which formed an annex to the imperial palace on the Palatine. This, together with the fact that the church was, at least as
1Ed. Mommsen, Mon. Germ. Hist. A. A., XII, pp. 393 ff.
Migne, P.L., LIV, 466.
3Duchesne, Notes sur la topographie de Rome au moyen-Age. Sainte-Anastasie,
Melanges, VII, 1887, pp. 387-413.
4H. Grisar, "L'Anastasis e l'Apostoleion di Ro-na," Analecta Romana, I.
2

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:28:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

414

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

early as the year 403, a titulus, are the most important data upon
which a theory as to the origin of the church must be based.
The fact that the church of S. Anastasia was one of the ancient
tituli would, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, justify the
assumption that it originated in the same way as did the other
churches of this class. Every titulus, about whose origin anything
is known, was founded in a private house and bore the name of the
original owner of the property. S. Anastasia is, however, exceptional in its location. It is the only titulus which was not located in
the residential quarters of the city and it is the only one which was
founded in or in the midst of public buildings. The only hypothesis, therefore, which can explain the existence of a titulus in this locality is that it was founded by a member of the imperial family
named Anastasia in her residence. Since the first of the two inscriptions quoted above implies that the church is older than the
pontificate of Damasus, one may well look for its founder in the family of Constantine. Inasmuch as Constantine himself had given to
the church the historic Lateran palace, and since his mother had
dedicated a chapel in the almost equally noted Sessorian palace, it
is not unlikely that his sister, Anastasia, was the founder of the titulus Anastasiae in a hall of the imperial palace adjoining the Palatine.1
Of Anastasia, the sister of Constantine, nothing is known except
that she was given in marriage by her brother to his colleague, Bassianus Caesar, to whom was entrusted the administration of Italy.
The latter, becoming involved in a conspiracy, was put to death by
Constantine in 314. We know also that there were certain baths at
Constantinople which bore her name.2 The statement of Gibbon
that she was afterward married to Optatus is based upon a mere conjecture of earlier historians.3

3. THE

CHRISTMAS STATIONAT S. ANASTASIA

A most interesting peculiarity of the liturgy of the Roman church

is found in the rubrics of the missal which, on all the most important
festivals of the Christian year, designate one of the ancient churches
of the city as the station for that day. The word station (statio) as
used in the Roman and African churches in the second century signified an assembly of the Christian people of a city presided over by
the bishop of the city. In the Roman church the word came later to
1This hypothesis, first proposed by me in a paper read before the Societh per
Conferenze di Archeologia cristiana in 1924 (vid. Rev. di Arch. Crist., 1926, p. 308) has
since been accepted by a distinguished authority in the field of Christian archaeology (vid. J. P. Kirsch, "Origini e Carattere delle Stazioni di Roma," Rend. della
Pont. Acc. Rom. di Arch., III, 1925, p. 139).
2Ammianus Marcellinus, XXVI, 6, 14. Anastasianas balneas . .. a sorore
Constantini cognominatas.
3Du Cange, Historia Byzantina, Paris, 1680, p. 45.

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:28:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WHITEHEAD:

THE CHURCH OF S. ANASTASIA

IN ROME 415

be restricted to the assemblies which were held on the great festivals

of the Christian year and on the anniversaries of the martyrs. On
these occasions the people and clergy went in procession to the church
at which the station was held on that day and where mass was said by
the Pope. The church at which a station was held was always the
one most appropriate to the festival; for example, the festivals of the
martyrs were celebrated in the most ancient or important churches
dedicated to them. The ritual of the stational mass was minutely
prescribed and carefully recorded in the official service books of the
Roman church from which is derived the Roman missal of the present day. Although the Pope no longer goes in solemn procession to
celebrate the stational mass which is provided for every important
festival, the rubrics of the missal as now used throughout the world
still preserve the memory of this ancient custom. These rubrics,
which are meaningless everywhere except at Rome and which even
there have but a vestige of their former significance, are one of many
examples of the conservatism of the Roman church in matters of
liturgy, a conservatism which renders the liturgical books now in use
one of the most important sources in any study of the ancient liturgy
of the Roman church.
For only one festival, that of Christmas, do the rubrics of the
missal designate more than one station. In the Roman missal as
now in use there are three stations appointed for Christmas day, and
for each of these a different mass is provided. In the Middle Ages
the Pope went on the night before Christmas to S. Maria Maggiore,
where he celebrated the first mass at midnight.' From there he
went to the church of S. Anastasia, where the second mass was celebrated at dawn.2 At the conclusion of the second mass he went to
St. Peter's for the final and great ceremony of the day.3 From a
reference in one of the sermons of Leo the Great (440-461), it appears that in his time the procession reached the church of St. Peter
just at sunrise.' The third station was at some time before the year
1192 transferred to S. Maria Maggiore, where it is still celebrated.
The triple mass of Christmas as here outlined is as old as the time
of Gregory the Great who, in a Christmas sermon preached in the
church of S. Maria Maggiore, says that he can comment but briefly on
the Gospel lesson since he must on that day celebrate three masses.6
If on any festival except Christmas the Pope ever officiated at more
than one station, the custom was of later origin and so soon fell into
1 In
primo galli cantu. Lambilotte, Antiphonaire di saint Gregoire. Fac-simile
du MS. de Saint Gall. Brussels, 1872.
2 In primo
diluculo, op. cit.
JaffR,Regesta, I, p. 57, anno 432. In totius congregatione Christianae plebis apud
beatissimum apostolum Petrum . . . die Christi natali.
4 Migne, P.L., LIV, 218.
6Cencius Camerarius, ed. Fabre and Duchesne, I, p. 290.
6 Migne, P.L., LXXVI, 1103.

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:28:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

416

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

disuse that it has left no trace in the liturgy of the present day, a fact
which renders the prominent position assigned to the church of S.
Anastasia in the celebration of Christmas all the more impressive.
It is not difficult to see why the churches of S. Maria Maggiore and
of St. Peter should have been chosen for places of honor in the celebration of Christmas. The choice of S. Maria Maggiore was particularly appropriate, inasmuch as this church was erected by Sixtus III
(432-440) to monumentalize the decisions of the Council of Ephesus
(431) at which the doctrine of the true humanity of Christ was first
officially defined, a doctrine which gave to the festival of the Nativity
a far greater significance than it had ever before possessed.' But
why the church of S. Anastasia should have been included in the number of those to which the Pope went in state to say mass on Christmas day has never been satisfactorily explained. The accepted view
is that of Duchesne, who believed that the station at S. Anastasia was
a parenthesis inserted into the liturgy of Christmas in honor of the
great eastern saint, Anastasia of Sirmium, to whom the church was
dedicated when her cult was introduced into Rome from Constantinople early in the sixth century. This theory is based upon the fact
that the festival of St. Anastasia happens to fall on December 25, and
that she was one of the most highly venerated saints of the church of
Constantinople at the time when her cult was brought to Rome and
located in the titulus A nastasiae, which has been erroneously thought
to have been the official chapel of the Byzantine court on the Palatine.2 This hypothesis does not, however, seem to accord with the
most important evidence regarding the origin of the Christmas station at S. Anastasia, namely the liturgy itself.
The second mass of Christmas, as it now stands in the Roman
missal under the rubric In Aurora. Statio ad S. Anastasiam, when analyzed and compared with the most ancient manuscripts which throw
light on its origin, is found to be a composite mass formed by the fusion of two alternative masses, one of which was in commemoration
of St. Anastasia, the other in honor of Our Lord. The Leonine Sacramentary,3 which gives nine different masses for Christmas day, is a
private collection and does not represent the official service books of
the Roman church from which the missal now in use is derived. A
probable explanation of the large number of masses for Christmas
day in this sacramentary is that the compiler has grouped together,
in his usual haphazard fashion, masses for the vigil and the octave
and perhaps other festivals closely associated with Christmas. This
1The tradition which connects the name of Pope Liberius with the church of S.
Maria Maggiore has sometimes been cited in connection with the origin of Christmas in Rome. This tradition is, however, of very doubtful authenticity.
2 The church of S. Cesario on the Palatine, which was founded in one of the
rooms of the imperial palace in the last third of the fourth century, was "il vero e
cappella palatina." Bartoli, Nuovo Bull., 1907, 191-204.
proprio
- Ed. Feltoe, Cambridge, 1896.

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:28:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WHITEHEAD: THE CHURCH OF S. ANASTASIA IN ROME 417

is suggested by a close study of Feltoe's notes showing how the material here grouped under viii Kal. Jan. is distributed in other ancient
sacramentaries.
The accepted theory assumes that of the two massesfor the second
station of Christmas, the one in which St. Anastasia was commemorated is the older and that the alternative mass for the second
station was composed at a later date for use in places where St. Anastasia was either unknown or not held in great veneration, and where
it would have been felt incongruous to celebrate, on the great festival of Christ's nativity, a special mass in honor of one of the lesser
saints. However, an examination of this alternative mass will show
that it must have been composed at a much earlier date and in fact
at a time when the festival of Christmas had not yet been differentiated from that of the Epiphany.
The festival of the Epiphany, which was celebrated by the eastern
church from a very early date 1 on January 6, is undoubtedly much
earlier than that of Christmas. This festival may be described as one
in honor of Christ the True Light and of His manifestation to the
world. Among the manifestations of Christ which were commemorated on this date was, first of all, His baptism in the river Jordan,
an event which in the early church had a much greater Christological significance than His birth. There were also commemorated on
this date the manifestations to the shepherds and the wise men, the
miracle of the feeding of the five thousand and the miracle of the
turning of water into wine. The birth of Christ was also commemorated on this date in some places, though it could not have been until after the rise of the theological discussions which led up to the
Nestorian controversy and the Council of Ephesus, that this event
in the life of Christ was given the importance which was at first attributed to His baptism.
Far more in harmony with the original character of the Epiphany
than with the later festival of the Nativity is the Christmas mass appointed for the station at S. Anastasia. This mass, as it now stands
in the Roman missal, begins with the Introit Lux fulgebit hodie super
nos, a theme which is repeated in the proper prayers, in the Gradual,
and in the beautiful Preface found in the ancient missals, quia nostri
saluatoris hodie lux uera processit, quae clara nobis omnia et intellectu
The Epistle, singularly inappropriate to the
manzfestauit et uisu.2
festival of the Nativity, begins Apparuit (Greek Circiv jq) and proceeds to an exposition of the significance of baptism, recalling the
fact that the Epiphany was originally one of the favorite times for
the administration of baptism to new converts. The Gospel lesson
1B. W. Bacon, ("After Six Days," Harvard Theol. Rev., VIII, 1915, pp. 94-121)
traces the origin of the Epiphany back to the time at which the fourth Gospel was
composed.
2 H.
A. Wilson, The Gregorian Sacramentary, London, 1915, p. 11.

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:28:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

418

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF ARCHAEOLOGY

for this mass is St. Luke's account of the manifestation of Christ to

the shepherds. Another striking parallel between the eastern festival of the Epiphany and the second mass of Christmas is the time at
which both were celebrated, at night or at the first appearance of
daylight, a feature which was borrowed from the earlier pagan sun
festivals.' Studied carefully, the second mass of Christmas is not,
as Duchesne believed, a parenthesis in honor of St. Anastasia, but
rather a parenthesis in honor of the Epiphany. This corresponds
perfectly to our earliest testimony as to the character of the festival
of Christmas in the time of Pope Liberius, whose celebrated Christmas sermon, as well as the occasion for the sermon itself, namely the
consecration of the sister of St. Ambrose as a nun, are appropriate to
Epiphany rather than to Christmas.
When the festival of Christmas was first celebrated in Rome is a
question which has long been in dispute.2 However, it is generally
agreed that the festival of December 25 originated in Rome before
the year 354 and perhaps as early as 336. Usener3 believed that the
festival of January 6 was celebrated in Rome before the introduction
of the festival of December 25, and based his argument on the sermon of Liberius in which reference is made to the feeding of the five
thousand and to the marriage at Cana. A sufficient answer to
Usener's argument is the fact that Roman liturgy has never clearly
differentiated between the two festivals. Even the story of the
Magi is the Gospel lesson for Christmas day in one very ancient sacramentary.
The simplest explanation of the origin of the festival of December
25 and the only one which can account for the character of the second
mass of Christmas is that early in the fourth century the Roman
church adopted the festival of the Epiphany, but changed its date
from January 6 to December 25. This is also the simplest explanation of the fact that the Philocalian calendar of 354 records the celebration of the birth of Christ on December 25, but contains no entry
for January 6.
The dates of both Epiphany and Christmas must originally have
been chosen because they were the days on which fell important
pagan festivals. In Syria and Egypt, where the festival of Epiphany
arose, there was, on January 6, a great festival in honor of the sun and
of the god Dionysus. The date is probably to be accounted for by
the fact that on January 6 the sun begins to rise earlier in the morning, an astronomical fact which seems to have been overlooked in
previous discussions of the festival. In Rome there was no important pagan festival on January 6. There was, on the other hand,
1Cumont, Textes et Monuments, 1899, p. 128. Usener, Gxtternamen, p. 185.
an excellent summary of the essential points in this controversy, see Kirsopp Lake, art. Christmas, Hastings Encyc. of Religion and Ethics.
' Weinachtsfest, p. 273.
2 For

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:28:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WHITEHEAD: THE CHURCH OF S. ANASTASIA IN ROME 419

the great festival of the rebirth of the sun, the Natalis inuicti, on
December 25.1 There is therefore nothing difficult in the assumption that when the Roman church adopted the festival of the
Epiphany it changed the date from January 6 to December 25. It
may also have been partly because of the character of the pagan festival which it replaced that Christmas became primarily a
celebration of the birth of Christ. Perhaps the commonest and most
universal theme which is found in the early Christmas sermons is the
parallel between the Natalis Christi and the Natalis solis.2 There is
no necessity for thinking, as Holl has argued, that the Roman church
deliberately tried to crowd out Epiphany and supplant it by Christmas.3
The second mass of Christmas must, in view of the facts which
have been pointed out, have originated at a time when the manifestation of Christ rather than His birth was celebrated on December
25. The fact that St. Anastasia alone, of all the saints whose festival
happened to fall on this date, continued to be commemorated at
Christmas and that a special stational mass was- composed in her
honor is easily explained as due to the fact that one of the stations of
Christmas day happened to be celebrated in her church. This mass
would no doubt have been composed during the period of Byzantine
influence in Rome and at about the time that St. Anastasia received
the signal honor of having her name included in the list of saints
commemorated in the prayer Nobis quoque which is said during the
recitation of the canon of the mass. It is, however, incredible that
as late as the sixth century a Christmas mass should have been composed which is more appropriate to Epiphany than to Christmas.
The second mass of Christmas must therefore represent, no doubt
with considerable later revision, the oldest form of the Roman liturgy
of Christmas. The true explanation of the second station of Christmas must be that the festival was first celebrated in the church of
S.Anastasia and that the stations at S. Maria Maggiore and at St.
Peter's were later additions.
The introduction of the festival of Christmas into Rome and the
choice of the date on which it is celebrated may well be attributed to
the probable founders of the church, the family .of Constantine,
whose devotion to sun worship is known to have lasted into the second generation. The legend SOLI INVICTO continued to appear
on the coins of Constantine up to 324, long after all other pagan emblems had been banished from his coinage,4 and an obelisk,
1For the characterof this festival, see Wissowa, Religionund Kultus derRimer,
367 ff.
2 The
long list of passages cited by Mommsen (C.I.L, I, pp. 409-410) might be
extended.
indefinitely
3K. Holl, Der Ursprungdes Epiphanienfestes,Sitz. d. K. Preuss.Akad. d. Wiss.,
1917, pp. 413 ff.
4 Cabrol, III, ii, 2657 ff.

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:28:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

420

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

brought to Rome by his son Constantius, was set up in the Circus

Maximus and dedicated to the sun.' It is therefore not difficult to
attribute to Constantine or some member of his family the establishment of the Christmas festival which was most closely related
both in origin and significance to the festival in honor of the sun upon
whose date it falls. If the festival was first celebrated in a church of
Constantinian origin and under the patronage of the imperial family, it is easy to see why the Christinas station at this church, as well
as the name of the founder of the church itself, should have survived
long enough to become immutably fixed in Roman tradition and so
have survived long after their meaning had been forgotten.
PHILIP BARROWS WHITEHEAD
UNIVERSITYOF VERMONT
1Ammianus Marcellinus, XVII, 4, 12-17.
p. 105.

Cassiodori Variae, ed. Mommsen,

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:28:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions