martyrs, he once again defeated the persecutor Maxentius. The festive cult of the
martyrs served as a foil to his imperial message of victory, and this cult caused the
basilicas to become privileged places of burial right from the start.
The “Basilica of the Apostles” serves as a particularly good example. It stood on
the Via Appia above the so-called triclia, where Peter and Paul had been venerated
since the mid-third century. This was a place where the persecuted church had sought
solace in the apostolic martyrs (cf. Piétri 1976: 376 – 80). It was precisely for this
reason that Constantine wished to endow it with greater, monumental significance,
by reflecting the functions of the tricliain important elements of the architecture
of the new building (Tolotti 1982: 171– 88). It is likely that he engaged the
company of builders which had still been employed on Maxentius’ villa on the
opposite side of the road to construct the circus-shaped “Basilica of the Apostles”
(Brandenburg 2004: 63– 4, 68 – 9). In this way he gave the lie to Maxentius’ imperial
claim, which had been expressed in his heroonwith a circus. The day of remem-
brance of the two apostles on June 29 may have been meant to counter the celebra-
tion of Rome’s founders, Romulus and Remus (Cracco Ruggini, 2001: 387– 92). If
this was so, the apparent triumph of the pair of apostles ad catacumbasover the
self-proclaimed Romulus Maxentius (cf. Panegyrici latini12 [9].18.1) now illustrated
it in a surprising way.
The basilica of Peter which lies alongside the Via Triumphalis (Hieronymus, Viri
illustres1.6) finally gives unmistakable expression to the idea of victory in its inscrip-
tion. On the arch between nave and transept it read: “Because with you as our leader
the world rose to the stars, Constantine the victor in triumph founded this hall for
you (Christ/Peter)” (ICUR NS2.4092–5; cf. Const. Imp. Or. ad sanct.25.5).
The Martyrs as the Glory of Rome
The ideology of Rome also played a role. The persecutors of the Christians lost the
battle and brought disgrace to Rome (Const. Imp. Or. ad sanct.24). On the Arch
of Constantine Maxentius was declared an illegitimate ruler, who had deliberately
usurped Rome and had raged there with contempt for all morals (Eus. HE8.14,
Vita Constantini1.33– 6; Aur. Vict. 40.23–5). Constantine, on the other hand, freed
Rome from the tyrant with the help of the sign (of the cross) which brought salva-
tion and he “restored” the city, Romans, and senate to their former splendor
and nobility (Eus. HE9.9.11, Vita Constantini1.40.2; Rufinus, HE9.9.10 –11; cf.
Panegyrici latini12 [9].1.1). He executed damnatio memoriaeon Maxentius and
his followers only for satisfaction’s sake, but spared the city itself (Panegyrici latini
12 [9].20.3– 4). The true foe of Rome was Maxentius (Lact. DMP44.8), even if
he had propagated an ideal Rome and restored the city as his permanent residence
following the years of the tetrarchy’s division of the empire.
Constantine seized the Roman ideal which Maxentius had newly proclaimed in
order to make it his own (Curran 2000: 54, 77, 80, 114), not without adding a
moral-religious dimension. Constantine presented himself as the preserver of old Roman
virtue and religiosity and projected this on to the church and its martyrs. For the
The Romanness of Roman Christianity 415