Often depicted as a linear progression, the accumulation of territorial holdings by the Church was not quite so simple a narrative.1 In the time before Christianity became the Roman Empire’s favored religion, many pagan priests relied less on territorial assets and more on the accumulation of riches. These priests often had their own material wealth to sustain themselves and their roles were typically honorific and focused on ceremonial practices. In contrast, the Christian Church harbored leaders who promoted individual indigence among the clergy and was tasked with extensive benevolent work alongside its spiritual and ceremonial duties. Moving to a portfolio of lands offered a resolution, yet it necessitated a shift in the perceived methods for funding religious practices. This begets the inquiry concerning the timeline of land procurement.
A.H.M. Jones acknowledged that certain churches had landholdings previous to Constantine’s rule but accentuated that religious land ownership surged substantially post the emperor’s embracing of Christianity. He backed his affirmation by pointing out Constantine’s murmurings of allowing legacies to the Church in 321, his own benefactions, endowed gifts from elite senatorial figures such as Melania, and the manuscripts from Ravenna and Egypt.2 While this might appear convincing, it spans over two and a half centuries where, notably in the Western regions, documentary evidence of ecclesiastical estates, other than an isolated charter from 491,3 largely stems from the latter part of the sixth or seventh century.4 Additionally, the documents largely record modest contributions. Essentially, Jones posits a swift escalation in Church land ownership following Constantine’s conversion and supports it with references to his donations to the Roman Church, a hefty senatorial gift around a century later, and not much besides. This scant evidence hardly corroborates the remark “that the property of the churches grew rapidly and steadily after 312,” leading us to believe such a claim may distort the truth. Indeed, for the fourth century, the proof is not as robust as Jones’s contention might suggest. Synthesizing Kate Cooper’s observation, “[o]ur grasp of the underpinning property deals of Christian gatherings, even in the fourth century remains unexpectedly tenuous.”5
Lellia Cracco Ruggini expressed a heightened awareness of the chronology in the Ravenna documents compared to Jones, portraying ecclesiastical land wealth in Italy as burgeoning through the fifth and sixth centuries.
Émile Lesne conveyed a similar stance when discussing Gaul, placing the swell in Church land ownership post 500. In his provocatively styled remarks, he states:
“Originating in the Roman era, religious landholdings in France attained maturity during the Merovingian period. The roots that penetrated into Gallic soils in the fifth century fortified the emergence of the arboreal structure that burgeoned a splendid canopy in the subsequent sixth and seventh centuries.”7
Concordantly, Jean Gaudemet opined, “In Gaul, the concept of ecclesiastical inheritance didn’t surface until the closing period of the fifth century.”8 These perspectives likely offer a more truthful representation than Jones’s conclusions.
Many researchers concur that the bequeathals of Constantine to the Church of Rome present an appropriate initiation point for the study of church land tenure, and this may be accurate, but one must proceed with caution when examining the historic accounts.9
If we narrow our scope to the Constantinian endowments to the Lateran, St. Peter’s, St. Paul’s, Santa Croce, Sta. Agnese, San Lorenzo, and SS. Marcellino e Pietro, the Liber Pontificalis catalogues over 69 parcels that it asserts Constantine bestowed upon Roman ecclesiastical bodies during the pontificate of Silvester, with an additional four during Mark’s term, Silvester’s episcopal heir in Rome.10 Collectively, they amounted to an income of 27,269 solidi, apportioned to distinct institutions.11 Furthermore, there are the enigmatic tituli of Equitius and Silvester, two neighboring entities, whose financial provisions as depicted in the Liber Pontificalis are somewhat uncertain.12 The first was allocated with 5 agricultural estates, 2 domiciles, and a garden, producing an earning of 428 solidi and 1 tremissis, andsecond with 9 estates and a single property, producing 476 solidi and 1 <href=”tremissis”>.13 Beyond the urban boundaries, the church SS. Pietro, Paolo e Giovanni in Ostia acquired an island and 4 holdings, generating an income of 463 solidi,14 whereas a montane sanctuary in Monte Albano was endowed with 11 holdings valued at 1,400 solidi,15 one in Capua with 6 holdings amounting to 710 solidi,16 and one more in Naples was bequeathed with 6 holdings valued at 673 solidi.17 The worth of these estates fluctuated greatly: the most lucrative brought in 2,300 solidi, while the least valuable merely 10. The enumeration has been meticulously scrutinized, by scholars including Federico Marazzi.18
Charles Pietri essentially affirmed the trustworthiness of the testimonies in the Liber Pontificalis,19 and Paolo Liverani has persuasively argued that the details (particularly regarding the bequeathed treasures) originated from archival documents.20 Raymond Davis hypothesized that the documentation was amassed during the reign of Constantius II, noting that certain original entries may have originally pertained to the junior emperor, whose moniker occasionally accompanies his progenitor’s in some versions of the texts.21 Federico Montinaro, on the other hand, observed that the accounting approach employed in the Liber Pontificalis‘s donation records does not correlate with the timeframe of Constantine and has also highlighted that at least one endowment to the Lateran baptistery likely occurred after the Justinianic recapture of North Africa. Additionally, by juxtaposing the lists within the Liber Pontificalis and those in the synopses by Felician and Cononian, he deduced that the donation records underwent alterations well into the sixth century’s close.22 Richard Westall too detected anachronisms within the St. Peter’s donation list and deduced that they encompass materials from the 350s.23 Both Marco Maiuro24 and Paolo Tedesco,25 through the diction used in the compilations, infer that certain elements could not predate the 380s.
The authenticity of the donation listings may be questionable, and thus, they warrant reappraisal. “Constantinian” benefactions were large but not colossal – although I have delineated only the land holdings, excluding the staggering monetary donations.26 Hence, their magnitude isn’t intrinsically dubious. For perspective, Olympiodorus’s account mentions a Roman upper-class household could generate an annual surplus of 3,000 pounds of gold — roughly 375,000 solidi in total: conspicuously more than a decade’s worth of the total value of lands purportedly conferred to Roman churches by Constantine. David Hunt equated these so-called Constantinian donations mentioned in the Liber Pontificalis to approximately 400 pounds of gold, just a fourth of Melania’s yearly fortune.28 Furthermore, he compared this to Antioch, where the ecclesiastical patrimony “rivalled that of one of the flourishing — but not most affluent — inhabitants” during the era of John Chrysostom, towards the century’s conclusion.29
Regardless, the alleged bequests from Constantine signify a paradigm shift in the allocation of funds dedicated to religious purposes, when one takes account of the financial support allotted to Roman temples, although less so if reflecting upon Pharaonic or Hellenistic instances.30 It’s conceivable that Constantine was patronizing churches similarly to how a heathen monarch might support an illustrious temple. The nature of these contributions, therefore, raises curiosity, especially as temple estates frequently reverted to res privata, indicating imperial interest in properties permitting the construction of sacred edifices remained.31 Absent donation deed texts, the specifics of what was granted remain undisclosed, but Montinaro indicated that substantial evidence pointing to imperial gifts to the church in the sixth and seventh centuries suggests sovereigns were more often granting revenue rights to lands instead of outright ownership.32
The figures detailed in the Liber Pontificalis pertain to the annual earnings from such holdings. Creators of the sixth-century segment covering the Constantinian period within the papal chronicles33 showed disinterest in legal subtleties. By that time, the ecclesiastical mindset solidified the notion that church possessions could not be alienated without collective clergy approval.34 Nonetheless, opinions differed regarding the origins of church holdings. Avitus of Vienne explained to Gundobad: “Whatever minor assets my congregation owns, indeed all our congregations possess, fundamentally belong to you, given that you have thus far safeguarded or bequeathed them.”35 According to Justinian, church wealth essentially originated from the emperor’s generosity: “all the riches and sustenance of the most sacred churches are ceaselessly accorded to them through imperial benefaction.”36 This concept would gain prominence during the ninth century.37
It’s critical not only to acknowledge the innovativeness of the so-called Constantine endowments but also to remember that one of the Liber Pontificalis authors brazenly falsified the account stating Silvester baptized Constantine, an assertion positioned at the exposition of the pope’s narrative,38 evidently to shape the reader’s perception of the regal endowments. Regardless of whether the mix-up was intentional, the same writer later claimed that Eusebius, the homoean prelate of Nicomedia, rebaptized Constantius, positioning this account during Felix II’s reign39 — in reality, it was Eusebius, not Silvester, who baptized Constantine (not Constantius). Moreover, despite illness necessitating Constantine’s baptism in Nicomedia, he had initially intended to journey to the Jordan river, emulating Christ.40
Considering the spurious commentary regarding the emperor’s baptism, one might question the genuineness of the substantial benefactions to the Lateran Baptistery, implicitly associated with the baptism, encompassing 21 estates with an annual income of 10,736 solidi overshadows the wealth attributed to any other sanctuary, including the Lateran itself, with 7 estates valued at 4,390 solidi, and St. Peter’s at 16 estates, totaling 3,708 solidi and 1 tremissis. Whilst Constantine is credited for establishing the Lateran basilica, such opulent endowment for the baptistery during his reign seems implausible.41 As earlier mentioned, Montinaro posited that at least one of the contributions probably occurred post-Justinian recapture of Africa.42
Upon these premises, theIn the final part of the sixth century, the Roman Church unmistakably claimed ownership of all the holdings detailed as endowments from Constantine. An author of the Liber Pontificalis candidly acknowledges that a territory purportedly granted to Innocent I was a subject of contention,43 suggesting that other lands were accepted without dispute. However, it appears certain donations credited to Constantine actually originated from later emperors,44 some of whom were later deemed Arian.
Constantius II seems particularly involved in the original provision for San Paolo fuori le Mura and is linked to this establishment in various copies of the Liber Pontificalis.45 Additionally, Richard Westall has convincingly argued for Constantius’s role in constructing St. Peter’s, dating the project to 357–359.46 He observed that the real estate portfolio listed in the Liber Pontificalis, located entirely in the East, corresponds to that era. Although Ammianus remarked upon Constantius’s erection of an obelisk in the Circus Maximus,47 the emperor’s contribution to the Christian landscape was notably significant as well.
In consideration of this, one should contemplate whether Constantius, rather than Constantine, was the initiator or main patron of the Lateran baptistery. As highlighted earlier, the Liber Pontificalis recounts the rebaptism of Constantius by Eusebius of Nicomedia during Felix II’s papacy, but this detail can be disregarded. Felix’s papacy spanned from 355 to 358, and he survived until 365,48 while Eusebius passed away in 341.49 Furthermore, it is likely Constantius was baptized in Antioch by bishop Euzoius shortly before his demise in 361.50 Nevertheless, it remains intriguing why the Liber Pontificalis associates Constantius’s baptism with Felix’s papacy.
The Liber Pontificalis narrates how Liberius, ousted from Rome by Constantius in 355, appointed Felix as his successor during his exile. Later, Liberius reconciled with the emperor and resumed his position, at first sharing the role with Felix, who was eventually coerced into cessation and executed by imperial command.51 Athanasius of Alexandria offers an alternate account in his Historia Arianorum, suggesting Felix was an imperial nominee, placed in the Lateran by Constantius.52 Athanasius omits any mention of Felix’s demise, who is depicted solely as a heretic.
The narrative in the Liber Pontificalis is contradicted by the Collectio Avellana, which portrays Felix as a perjurer who usurped the papal chair despite vowing otherwise. When Constantius visited Rome in 357, Liberius was allowed back, and Felix was expelled by Rome’s senate and populace a year later.53 Jerome adds in De viris illustribus that Felix’s appointment was influenced by Arian apologist Acacius of Caesarea.54 While later ecclesiastical historians from the fourth and fifth centuries mostly acknowledged Felix’s orthodox stance, he consistently faced criticism for his association with Arians.56
The association between Felix and Constantius likely contextualizes the emperor’s architectural contributions to St. Peter’s and his investment in the basilica. It’s plausible to speculate this also pertains to the inception and sponsorship of the Lateran baptistery, intended as the site of the emperor’s own baptism. The silence within the Liber Pontificalis may resonate with the abolitio memoriae of Constantius, noted by Westall in his analysis of St. Peter’s construction.57
The peculiar nature of the accounts of Constantine’s offerings in the Liber Pontificalis stands out further when considering the sparse attention given to land donations (in contrast to ritualistic vessels and other valuable bestowals) elsewhere in the text. Reports exist of Felix II procuring a landholding,58 and of Damasus (366–384) donating 3 estates, yielding income of 405 solidi and 1 tremissis.59 It mentions that Pope Innocent I (401/2–417) established the titulus Vestinae, honoring SS. Gervasius and Protasius, funded by estates including two baths, a bakery, and 3 unciae, amassing 1,033 solidi, 1 tremissis, and 3 siliquae, though the extent of senatorial lady Vestina’s contributions remains unclear despite her will directing the construction of the church from her jewelry proceeds.60 Xystus (432–440) contributed 5 properties, comprising two houses, amounting to 773 solidi and 3 siliquae.61 Yet, that sums the known land gifts in the Liber Pontificalis documentation up to 715.
There is no mention of financing for the grand basilica of San Paolo fuori le Mura, dedicated by Pope Siricius in 390 after Valentinian II, Theodosius, and Arcadius spearheaded its reconstruction, which raises queries whether some of the seven estates, allegedly bequeathed by Constantine, emanated from these subsequent emperors.62 According to archaeological findings, the authentic “Constantinian” memoria was “described as a mere hall rather than a basilica.”63 This virtual absence of discourse on land acquisition in the papal biographies is especially pronounced despite the significant philanthropic endeavors by the popes noted by Bronwen Neil in her study of the fifth-century segments of the papal biographies,64 ventures which necessitated substantial financial resources.
The portrayal of the Roman Church as an endowment from the inaugural Christian emperor is central to the Liber Pontificalis, rather than delivering an implicit record of the genuine land donors. Indeed, the Liber Pontificalis potentially drew on authentic archive material: the biographic section about Pope Julius mentions that “bonds, deeds, donations, exchanges, conveyances, wills, statements or manumissions” should be documented under the surveillance of the primicerius notariorum.65 Moreover, these itemized records of gold and silver contributions can be paralleled with similar catalogues in pagan inscriptions, as those donated to the temple of Isis at Nemi.66 Nonetheless, there is no certainty that these generous allocations are attributed to their rightful benefactor: several of the valuables associated with Constantine, as with the lands, logically belong to periods postdating Constantine, since the recipients, being the churches, were not yet erected before 337.
The holdings detailed in the Liber Pontificalis did not encompass the entirety of estates secured by the pontiffs. During the fourth and fifth centuries, we observe isolated cases analogous to Vestina’s creation of the sanctuary dedicated to SS. Gervasius and Protasius.67 The Liber Pontificalis references the establishment of a St. Stephen’s church by Demetrias during the term of Leo I (440–461), alongside the pope’s own erection of the St. Cornelius basilica.68 Moreover, epitaphs are present, such as those hinting at a site dedicated to SS. John and Paul initiated by Pammachius,69 and the investment in the church of Sant’Andrea in Catabarbara by Goth Valila during Pope Simplicius’s leadership (468–483).70
However, as Julia Hillner has observed, “these uncommon documents do not discuss any disbursements pledged by the initiator, nor do they describe any specific requisites on the use of the contributed land.”71 To observe clear testimony of the endowment for the Roman Church, we must advance to the sixth century and review the dialogues of Popes Pelagius I (556–561) and Gregory I (590–604), which Marazzi has exhaustively examined, particularly in the Lazio region.72 It is evident that the accumulation of land holdings was not of high interest to the Liber Pontificalis authors, despite their eagerness to credit much of the Roman Church’s endowment to Constantine.
Though we can be confident that some benefactions reportedly bequeathed to the Roman Church were provided by his progeny, there is no indication that Constantine instigated a widespread trend for ecclesiastical bequests. Just as the narrative of consistent funding cannot be located within the Liber Pontificalis, similarly, other documents reveal little evidence. The starting point for the chronicle of the churchly landed bequest as posed by Jones is less definitive than anticipated.
Nonetheless, we begin to recognize substantial property bequests to Christian communities outside Rome in the latter years of the fourth and into the fifth centuries. Inferences from De obitu Satyri suggest Ambrose’s sibling bequeathed sizeable estates to the Church, although the passage does not expressly enumerate these contributions.73 In the Life of Ambrose, Paulinus clarifies that the bishop donated his personal holdings to the Milanese Church, with his sibling retaining the use-benefits.74
Turning to the end of the fourth and commencement of the fifth centuries, we encounter a significant body of records concerning the devout contributions from two cohorts of the nobility. Reports detail that Paulinus of Nola and Sulpicius Severus liquidated their fortunes,75 and highlight the noblewomen Melania the Elder, Paula, and Melania the Younger.76 Especially noteworthy about the three matrons is their adherence to the scriptural teachings, expressed by bequeathing riches (obtained by estate disposals) rather than physical land to the Church. This sect of ascetics furnished substantial gofts to the Church, yet they didn’t appear to play a crucial role in its territorial aggrandizement.
Although it seems Vestina bequeathed assets that endued the titulus of SS. Gervasius and Protasius as per her last testament, the sacred space was actually constructed with proceeds from the auction of her jewels post-mortem.77 Despite burgeoning tactics to promote land grants, not discounting the growing veneration of saints in the fifth century,78 the significant era of Church land endowment, with numerous substantial contributions, appears to have launched in the fifth century, as posited by Cracco Ruggini and Lesne, and spanned the sixth and seventh centuries.79
This is consonant with Hunt’s careful analysis balancing the material wealth of the Church from the late fourth and early fifth centuries with that of the senatorial elite.80 Alongside the Church’s increasing fortunes, the nobility’s affluence waned, in part due to the political turbulence of the fifth and, notably in Italy, the sixth century.81
Much of what we know about the Church’s land consolidation in the latter part of the fourth and onset of the fifth centuries indicates smaller-scale benefactions from relatively average individuals. Montinaro, while scarcely commenting on the size of gifts, has emphasized that “individual benevolence served as the bedrock of churchly prosperity up until the sixth century.”82 Rita Lizzi Testa remarked on Chromatius of Aquileia’s commendation of “il cumulo di modeste donazione,”83 and Peter Brown observed that ecclesiastical affluence comprised “countless individual endowments.”84 Several of these, naturally, were monetary or valuables, like those inscribed on the pavements of northern Italy’s basilicas.
For instance, we see Maximian and Leonianus underwrote 100 feet of the mosaic pavement in San Pietro in Brescia.85 We find additional instances from Aquileia, with Januarius supporting 880 feet, and Grado, where Paulinus and Marcellina sponsored an impressive 1,500 feet of mosaic paving.86 More examples emanate from Isonzo and Fondo Tullio alla Beligna.87 Brown has also called attention to parallel cases from the Levant.88 Scrutinizing data from the patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch, Rudolf Haensch mentioned some benefactors are recognized while others are simply categorized among a consortium of contributors: οἱ καρποφορήσαντες.89 Although some Western inscriptions do refer to substantial donations, notably the by 1,500-foot pavement financed by Paulinus and Marcellina, a good number of sponsors were evidently ordinary contributors, embodying Brown’s “mediocre class.” While Chromatius of Aquileia treasured generous contributions, as Lizzi Testa mentioned, he also valued humbler offerings.90 The significance of lesser gifts has been underlined by various scholars as well.91
Addressing land conveyances by mediocres, we may consider two exceptional homilies (355 and 356) delivered by Augustine around the festivity of Epiphany in 426, where he directly tackled the topic of his clergy’s assets.92 These homilies would persist in relevance, circulating independently as Augustine’s works titled De vita et moribus clericorum suorum and (albeit inaccurately) De gradibus ecclesiasticis. Mirroring the portrayal of the Jerusalem assembly in Acts, Augustine adamantly maintained that those tied to his Hippo episcopal unit should refrain from owning personal possessions. Yet, he found that one colleague, Januarius, had retained holdings that ought to have transferred to his offspring (though to add complexity, said offspring had themselves joined the Church).93 This so perturbed the bishop that he commenced an inquiry on his clergy’s property, andPresented the details of his study in a detailed narrative. This particular inquiry has garnered the intrigue of many academic figures.
Image Source: VLADJ55 / Shutterstock
