martyria; since they were, however, located in cemeteries, space for burials was
created at the same time. The cult of the martyrs required room above ground because
the tightly confined holy tombs in the catacombs could not be made accessible to
the public at large; this became possible only once subterranean routes for pilgrims
had been constructed under Pope Damasus (366 – 84).
In erecting the churches, Constantine continued the tradition of imperial build-
ing programs and aimed to attest to the fullness of his power, supported by the Christian
god, and to perpetuate it. He followed a clear program with a shifting focus: on
Rome after his victory over Maxentius, on Jerusalem following his defeat of Licinius.
A number of the Constantinian martyrs’ basilicas outside the gates of Rome were
linked to imperial mausolea. This is surely due to the desire to associate members
of Constantine’s family with the Roman church’s official commemoration of the dead
at the martyrs’ shrines (Brandenburg 2004: 18, 89–91). However, this is the dynastic
extension of a claim to power, which first had to be secured in more immediate
ways. The dynastic commemoration of the dead at the suburban martyriawould
only succeed if the Christian religion managed to establish itself across society.
Therefore, Constantine also had to win over the capital in intellectual and polit-
ical terms following his military victory. For this reason he interpreted his victory
not as a victory over Rome, but over Maxentius on behalf of Rome: he did not
conquer Rome but liberated it (CIL6.1139; cf. Panegyrici latini12 [9].2.4; Eus.
HE9.9.2). Constantine’s honorary monuments and major buildings in the years after
312 were meant to proclaim just this. They were nothing but memorials of his
victory to bind the Romans, pagans as well as Christians, to himself. In this sense
his churches were more “Roman” than would be expressed by the notion of a purely
imperial commemoration of the dead.
A key document is the programmatic speech which Constantine “wrote,” that is,
apparently had delivered by a messenger (Const. Imp. Or. ad sanct.1.1), to the church’s
officials and friends in Rome one Easter. It is disputed whether it has been trans-
mitted only in a reworked version. Looking back at his conversion, Constantine turns
toward his new task of spreading the Christian faith across the empire (Or. ad sanct.
11.1), and comes to a reckoning with Maxentius in political as well as religious terms.
He thematizes his victory and reveals its political and religious implications for the
city of Rome. The speech almost provides a late response to the pressing question
of the pagan encomiast of 313, as to which god Rome owed its liberation from a
hopeless situation (Panegyrici latini 12[9].2.4 –5, 26.1). The memory of the battle
of the Milvian Bridge is still fresh, which provides one reason besides others to assume
an early date for the speech, such as Easter 315 or 316 (Edwards 2003: xvii–xxxiii).
Constantine’s speech thus belongs in the context of monumentalizing his victory
over Maxentius. He now equates the “divine inspiration” (instinctus divinitatis) of
which the arch of honor erected in 315 speaks (CIL6.1139; cf. Panegyrici latini
12 [9].11.4) more concretely with Christ (Or. ad sanct.26.1), which is not surpris-
ing after the edict of Milan. What is, however, remarkable in the speech and applic-
able only to Rome is Constantine’s intention of honoring the apostles and martyrs
and apparently of erecting “temples” for them (Or. ad sanct.19.9, cf. ICUR NS
8.20752). For the sacrifice of the Eucharist was being offered, and hymns, psalms,
The Romanness of Roman Christianity 413