Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T11:43:04.668Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Shrine of St. Peter and its Twelve Spiral Columns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

J. B. Ward Perkins
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Among the individual objects of antiquity that have been seen and copied by the artists of later generations, few have had a stranger history than the columns that once formed a screen in old St. Peter's, around the site of the tomb of the apostle. Their singular and distinctive form was in itself enough to attract attention; and the fact that, since the later Middle Ages, they were universally believed to have come from the Temple of Solomon, secured them an important place in the art and iconography of the Renaissance. Their character and early history, however, have never been adequately discussed; and now that the publication of a part of the results of the excavations undertaken since 1940 underneath St. Peter's has cleared up several important points that were previously obscure, the time seems to be ripe for such a discussion. It is the purpose of this article to try to determine their place in the history of classical art, and to say something of their significance in the history of the art of later times.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 42 , Issue 1-2 , November 1952 , pp. 21 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © J. B. Ward Perkins 1952. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A brief article by Mauceri, E. (‘Colonne tortili così dette del tempio di Salomone’, L'Arte 1, 1898, 377–384Google Scholar) contains some useful references, but the text is vitiated by the author's conviction that the columns date from the thirteenth century.

2 Ghetti, B.M. Apolloni, Ferrua, A., Josi, E., Kirschbaum, E., Esplorazioni sotto la Confessione di San Pietro in Vaticano eseguite negli anni 1940–1949, 2 vols., Vatican City, 1951Google Scholar, hereafter referred to as Report. It covers in detail only that part of the pagan cemetery which is adjacent to St. Peter's tomb.

3 I am very much indebted to Professor J. M. C. Toynbee for allowing me to reproduce here material that was originally collected for an article that we prepared together on the wider topic of the use of the foliate scroll with figures in classical art (PBSR, XVIII, 1950, 1–43Google Scholar); to Signora Calza, Professor Krautheimer, Miss Sheila Spire and Mr. Donald Bullough for many comments and suggestions; and to the Reverenda Fabbrica di S. Pietro (Ing. Vacchini) and the Superintendency of Galleries for Campania (Professor Molajoli) for permission to photograph and to reproduce the objects in their charge.

4 Cited by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. ii, 25, 7. The date of the shrine is attested by the general character of the associated structures, which include a drain, roofed with tiles, at least four of which bear the stamp CIL xv, 401, dated A.D. 140–161.

5 e.g. at Salona, E. Dyggve, History of Salonitan Christianity, Oslo, 1951, 76 ff.Google Scholar, and particularly fig. IV, 12b (the memorial shrine to the five Salonitan martyrs, c. 300–305, in the cemetery at Kapluč, Brondsted, J., Récherches à Salona 1, 179Google Scholar). The form was borrowed from pagan practice, and would have attracted no attention in any second-or third-century cemetery.

6 Best in Cerrati, M., Tiberii Alpharani de Basilicae Vaticanae antiquissima et nova structura, Rome, 1914Google Scholar.

7 cf. the treatment of the primitive shrine in Constantine's church of the Holy Sepulchre or that in the first church of St. John at Ephesus.

8 A. Gnirs, Atti e Memorie d. Società istriana di arch. e storia patria, 1908, 1–48; Wilpert, G., Atti Pont. Ace. Rom. Arch., 3, 11, 1928, 148Google Scholar; Peirce, and Tyler, , L'Art byzantin, Paris, 1932, 1, 74Google Scholar, pl. 113; Report, 169–172.

9 Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne), 417 : ‘Augustus Constantinus … sic inclusit corpus beati Petri apostoli et recondit; et exornavit supra columnis porphyreticis et alias columnas quas de Grecias perduxit.’ The account is mistaken in locating the porphyry columns over the tomb. In the fourth century they carried the canopy over the altar, and were only moved into place over the tomb when the altar itself was transferred, in the seventh century; v. below, n. 13.

10 ibid., 176.

11 The shrine is shown on the Pola casket with closed wooden doors, within which presumably was the fenestella parvula, described by Gregory of Tours; see next footnote.

12 de gloria beatorum martyrum 28, ed. Migne, , Patr. lat. LXXI, 1879Google Scholar, col. 728.

13 ibid., cols. 728–9; note also the passage reseratis cancellis quibus locus ille ambitur, accedit super sepulcrum, a clear reference to the grille between the columns of the canopy. The four columns ‘in altari’ are undoubtedly the porphyry columns referred to in the Liber Pontificalis; V. above, n. 9.

14 Perkins, Ward and Goodchild, in Archaeologia, XCV, 1953Google Scholar forthcoming (Tripolitania); Roberti, M. Mirabella, Riv. Arch. Crist, XXVI, 1950, 1–81 194Google Scholar (Parenzo, Aquileia).

15 The tomb remained accessible from the semicircular confessio beneath the raised chancel. For the date of these changes, see Report, 186–8; the building of San Pancrazio (625–638), the crypt of which is modelled on the semicircular confessio in St. Peter's, affords a secure terminus ante quem. On the other hand, the arrangements described by Gregory of Tours (v. above, nn. 12 and 13; not cited in Report) are still those established by Constantine. There can be little doubt that the excavators are right in interpreting the purpose of the alterations as a desire to bring St. Peter's into line with what had become regular practice in the western church, and to allow the high altar to be installed directly over the sacred relics; cf. Grabar, A., Martyrium, Paris, 1946, 1, 293–305, 400 ff.Google Scholar (in which the assumption that the altar was over the grave in St. Peter's from the outset must now be discounted).

16 Lib. Pont. 194 : ‘hie concessas sibi columnas VI onichinas volutiles ab Eutychio exarcho, duxit eas in ecclesiam beati Petri apostoli, quas statuit erga presbiterium ante confessionem, tres a dextris et tres a sinistris, juxta alias antiquas sex filopares. Super quas posuit trabes et vestivit argento mundissimo.’

17 Report, 205–7, 216 ff.

18 After Grimaldi, Vat. Cod. Barberinus Lat. 2733. vol. 1, f. 95.

19 The text reads : ‘H(a)ec e(st) ilia colu(m)na· in qua(m) d(omi)n(u)s n(oste)r YH'VS XPS appodiatus · dum populo predicabat et deo p(at)ri p(re)ces i(n) templo effundebat · adherendo stabat qu(a)e una cu(m) aliis undeci(m) hic circu(m)stantibus de Salomonis templo in triumphum hui(us) basilic(a)e · hic locata fuit : demones expellit et abinmuidis (sic) spiritibus vexatos liberos reddit · et multa miracula cotidie facit; p(er) reverendissim(um) p(a)trem et d(omi)num Card(inalem) de Ursinis ornata : anno domin(i) MCCCCXXXVIII.’ The coat-of-arms of Cardinal Orsini figures on another face of the balustrade, which was evidently put up, while the screen was still in its old position, to protect this particular column from the depredations of the pious. See also Busiri-Vici, A., La Colonna Santa del Tempio di Gerusalemme, etc., Rome, 1888Google Scholar.

20 Valentini, R. and Zucchetti, G., Codice topografico della città di Roma III (Fonti per la Storia d'ltalia, 90), Rome, 1946, 3–65Google Scholar.

21 ibid., 384.

22 The identification of the two groups depends on the fact that the two columns of set 3 and one of those of set 2 (the ‘Colonna Santa’) are known to have been re-used in other parts of the building during the sixteenth century, i.e. before the inner screen was dismantled. It is, moreover, reasonable to suppose that the homogeneous set of six columns (set 1) represents the original Constantinian gift.

23 In the seventeenth century (see pl.II, 2–3). The foliage is mainly, but not entirely original. I have been unable to examine at close quarters the columns in the galleries of SS. Veronica and Helena; but, although more heavily restored, they do not appear to differ in any significant respect from the remaining pair.

24 They are shown as already truncated in Grimaldi's drawing (p. 24, n. 18).

25 Although never adequately published, they have been frequently reproduced, e.g. E. Mauceri, o.c., 382–4; Bertaux, E., L'art dans l'Italie méridionale, Paris, 1904, 732–4Google Scholar, n. 4. They are recorded also in photographs (Alinari 33826; Superintendency of Monuments for Campania, nos. 1766–9) and in a cast in the Museo di San Martino, Naples.

26 Bertaux, l.c., noting the resemblance of the capitals to those of the adjoining, early-fourteenth-century, Angevin tombs. The bases also were medieval.

27 Reg. Ang. 1317, f. 334; Arch. stor. prov. nap. 1882, 260.

28 As claimed by Mauceri, l.c. I owe these observations to Miss E. M. Jamison.

29 Gonzaga, , De origine Seraficae Religionis Franciscanae, Rome, 1587, 260Google Scholar, cited by Mauceri.

30 The arguments advanced by Mauceri for a thirteenth-century date do not merit discussion.

31 Above, p. 22, n. 9.

32 To be distinguished from columns of normal shape, but with spiral fluting. Since this article was prepared, Mr. Cornelius Vermeule has kindly drawn my attention to a number of fragments of colonnettes of the same distinctive shape in Sir John Soane's Museum, Lincoln's Inn Fields. All are spirally fluted on the shaft, and the double finials closely resemble that of the colonnette in the Borghese Gallery. They were acquired in Rome.

33 Gusman, P., L'art décoratif de Rome, Paris [c. 1913]Google Scholar, II, pl. 104, 1.

34 Chapot, V., La colonne torse et le décor en hélice dans l'art antique, Paris, 1907, 134Google Scholar, fig. 165. The writer was unable to locate this column at Nîmes in 1951, and it is not illustrated in Espérandieu, Recueil.

35 Gusman, o.c., pl. 104–2.

36 e.g. a marble stele from Pergamon, formerly in Berlin (Pergamon VII, 2, 323–6, no. 407).

37 PBSR XVIII, 1950, 23–6Google Scholar.

38 e.g. the S. Lorenzo sarcophagus, Attic work of the early third century (Rodenwaldt, G., JDAI XLV, 1930, 116–189Google Scholar), or the porphyry sarcophagus of Santa Costanza (R. Delbrueck, Antike Porphyrwerke, 1932, 219, pl. 104).

39 Toynbee and Ward Perkins, o.c. 25–6, listing the recorded examples.

40 ibid., 28–9.

41 A securely dated piece can be seen in Espérandieu, Recueil X, 7338, an inscription to Julia Domna, at Mainz.

42 Archaeologia LXXXVII, 1938, 90Google Scholar, pl. XXXVI, 7. Aubert, M., Descr. raisonnée des Sculptures du moyen âge … au Musée du Louvre. I, Moyen Âge (Paris, 1950), 19 f.Google Scholar, nos. 1, 2.

43 Toynbee and Ward Perkins, o.c. 25 and 28 : Lawrence, Marion (Art Bulletin, XIV, 1932, 103–185Google Scholar)attributes the group to an eclectic Italo-Gallic workshop.

44 Gsell, S., Atti II Congr. Arch. Crist., Rome, 1902, 203Google Scholar, fig. 7 (reprinted as Edifices chrét. de Thélepte et d'Ammaedara, Tunis, 1933, 20, fig. 7) : columns at Thelepte and Sitifis.

45 Mendel, G., Musées impériaux ottomans : Catal. des Sculptures grecques, romaines et byzantines, Constantinople, 1914, III, pp. 424–7Google Scholar, no. 1179.

46 As sometimes in Gaul, e.g. Espérandieu, Recueil VI, 5011, 5034.

47 Mendel, o.c. 11, pp. 435–442, nos. 658–9; for a good photograph of one, see Early Christian and Byzantine Art: Catal. of an Exhibition held at Baltimore Museum of Art, Baltimore, 1947, pl. IV, no. 54; also Peirce and Tyler, L'Art byzantin, I, pl. 127.

48 Curtis, C. G., Broken Bits of Byzantium 1 [1887]Google Scholar, figs. 15–17.

49 Mendel, l.c., citing Wheler, G., Voyage de Dalmatie, de Grèce et du Levant, The Hague, 1723, 1, 251–2Google Scholar.

50 Bull. Corr. Hell. XXII, 1898, 561Google Scholar.

51 Theoph. cont. V, 89, ed. Bonn, 332; Richter, J. P., Quellen der byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte, 363, no. 972Google Scholar.

52 Whether the pre-Constantinian examples come from Byzantium itself or from neighbouring cities is, in the context, immaterial.

53 To the evidence cited above, may be added the ring of acanthus leaves at the base of the shaft (and of the intermediate sections), a characteristically East Roman feature (JRS XXXVIII, 64).

54 Well illustrated in the difference between the Hadrianic and the Severan products of the Aphrodisian school, Toynbee and Ward Perkins, o.c. pls. XXIV–XXV; note particularly the mouldings of the frames.

55 e.g. a series of small pilasters in the Vatican (Amelung II, Sala d. animali, 103a, pl. 30; Mus. Chiar. 467c, pl. 65; there are several fragments from the same series in Sir John Soane's Museum, Lincoln's Inn Fields) and a very similar, but larger, pilaster in the Museo Nazionale Romano (Chiostro Grande). A column drum in the Vatican (Amelung 11, Sala d. Muse, p. 2, pl. 2; Gusman, o.c. 1, pl. 55, 3) might well be rather earlier.

56 For unrestored figures, see pls. II, I, IV. The drill is not used at all on the figures of set 2, and only for the inner corner of the eye on set 1.

57 Toynbee and Ward Perkins, o.c. 19–21, pls. XV, XVII, XVIII; also p. 35.

58 JRS XXXVIII, pl. VIII, 1.

59 Rodenwaldt, G., JDAI XLV, 1930, 116–189Google Scholar, pls. V–VII.

60 Bull. Comm. Arch. Com. VI, 1878, 199–203, pls. XV–XVI; Stuart Jones, Catal. pp. 93, 108, 117, Gall. 29a, 54a, 70; Gusman, o.c. III, pl. 122.

61 Most recently discussed by F. Castagnoli, Bull. Comm. Arch. Com. LXXI, 1943–5, 3–30 pls. 122.

62 In many respects these capitals illustrate, in simple form, the tendencies discussed by Lehmann-Hartleben in connection with the Victory sarcophagus in Baltimore, dated by him c. 210 (Lehmann-Hartleben, and Olsen, , Dionysiac Sarcophagi in Baltimore, Baltimore, 1942, 47–9Google Scholar, fig. 27).

63 e.g. the fine early second-century set of capitals from Heraclea (Perinthos) in the Museum at Istanbul (Mendel, o.c. in, nos. 1341–4); cf. the earliest attested Roman examples, the well-known figured capitals from the Baths of Caracalla, which may be contrasted with the capital of the Pigna Vaticana (Castagnoli, l.c.) from the Baths of Alexander Severus.

64 Mauceri, o.c. 379–381.

65 Mauceri, o.c. 381–2; Tomasetti, G., La Campagna Romana, Rome (1913) III, 535–6Google Scholar.

66 p. 28, n. 42.

67 See Krautheimer, , Art Bulletin XXIV, 1942, 1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 Outstanding examples are the spirally shaped and fluted Paschal candlesticks at Anagni, Ferentino and Terracina (Hutton, E., The Cosmati, London, 1950Google Scholar, pls. 42B–44; note the tell-tale leaf in pl. 44B). One instance among many of their use on a smaller scale is on Henry III's tomb in Westminster Abbey.

69 Les Antiquités judaïques et le peintre Jean Foucquet, Paris, 1908Google Scholar, pls. XIV–XV; Wescher, P., Jean Fouquet et son temps, Bâle, 1947, 23–8Google Scholar, pl. 17.

70 Victoria and Albert Museum: the Raphael Cartoons, H.M. Stationery Office, 1950, with introduction by J. Pope Hennessy.