JOHN VII.

705-707.

 

Emperors. Tiberius III. 698-705. Justinian II (restored), 705-711.

King. Aripert II, 700-712

Exarch. Theophylact, 702-709

 

On March 1, 705, was consecrated as Bishop of Rome John VII, another Greek, of an illustrious family, the son of Blatta and Plato, who had held the high office of Cura Palatii, an office which, in Constantinople itself, was often held by the son-in-law of the emperor. Plato had in that capacity presided over the restoration of the old imperial palace at Rome, which was now the ordinary residence of the exarch’s lieutenant. The epitaphs to his father and mother, composed by John himself, when rector of the patrimony on the Appian Way (687), have come down to us. They were inscribed “with a broken heart to a most loving and incomparable mother, and to the kindest of fathers, by their son John”. The care which Plato bestowed on the restoration of the old palace of the Caesars on the Palatine, a building all too large for the residence of the Dux Romae, his son, as we shall see, devoted to the repair of Rome’s churches. And to this work, besides experience gained from his father, he brought a well-trained mind. For, as his biographer assures us, he was a man of very profound learning and great eloquence, but, as is not infrequently to be observed in learned speakers, his courage was not on a par with his oratory. This Pope was remarkable for his devotion to the Mother of God. The title he was most proud of was “Mary’s servant”.

Soon after John became Pope the cruel Rhinotmetus (Justinian II) succeeded in again obtaining possession of the imperial throne. By lavish promises he won over to his cause Terbel, the king of the Bulgarians. He effected an entrance into the Blachernae quarter of Constantinople through an aqueduct. His rivals, Leontius and Apsimar, were beheaded after being exposed to the greatest ignominies. The patriarch Callinicus, who, to his credit, had shown his hate of the cruel character of the tyrant, was deprived of his eyes and sent to Rome. When he had glutted his appetite for revenge with the blood of his enemies, the brutal Justinian, either in the year 706, or perhaps more likely in the early part of the next, sent to John by the hands of two metropolitan bishops the same Tomes (tomi), six in number, which he had sent before to Pope Sergius; and in which, adds the Book of the Popes “were contained various points against the Church of Rome”. Through the bishops, and through a letter which he dispatched to the Pope at the same time, Justinian adjured John to assemble a council, to examine the decrees of the Quinisext Council, and to approve what he thought fit and to reject the rest. Whether it was that the report of the unbounded cruelty and fierceness of the ‘Slit-nosed’ emperor had struck terror into John, his biographer says that, “timid through human frailty”, the Pope sent back the ‘Tomes’ without attaching any note at all to them. If he dared not condemn them, he would not approve them; for from the little we know of the affair it would be scarcely fair to argue that here silence gave consent. Perhaps John felt he had not the requisite strength to enter into a contest with Justinian, for we are told that he did not live long after this incident.

If we may trust the old eleventh century chronicler Herman Contractus, it was in the year 707 that there took place the restoration of the ‘patrimony’ of the Cottian Alps to the See of Rome, spoken of by Bede and others. According to Paul the Deacon the fifth province of Italy went by the name of the ‘Cottian Alp’ and included the western part, at least, of the ancient province of Liguria. In this province the Roman Church had of old large possessions, which had been seized by the Lombards. St. Gregory speaks of property belonging to the Roman Church in the neighborhood of Genoa. It was all confiscated when Rothari laid waste with fire and sword the whole littoral from Tuscan Luna to the territories of the Franks, and ordered the cities he had dismantled to be called villages! Of these lands Aripert II made restitution, sending notice thereof to Rome in a deed written in letters of gold. The exact nature of the rights possessed by the popes of this period over these and their other possessions is not easy to define. But there is no doubt, as it has been remarked before, that they (the popes) had more than mere rights of ownership over their ‘patrimonies’. They had a considerable amount of jurisdiction in them, which they exercised, indeed, in submission to the emperor. Still, however, it was there; and it greatly facilitated the passing of many of the said patrimonies under the complete power of the popes in the course of this century.

Jaffé quotes a very interesting fragment of a letter of the Pope to the English bishops and clergy, which shows the well-known love of the Anglo-Saxons in general for fine apparel, and the consequent disinclination on the part of the Anglo-Saxon clerics in particular to renounce the secular dress and to adopt the more sober ecclesiastical costume. John describes how, on one occasion, when all the Anglo-Saxon notables who were then in Rome came to meet him, what he said had such weight with his hearers that, on the vigil of St. Gregory, all the Anglo-Saxon clerics laid aside their ample lay garments and put on the cassock according to the Roman custom. He concludes by exhorting those to whom he is writing to go and do likewise.

This Pope’s name is connected with two of Italy’s, we might say the world’s, most famous monasteries: the monastery of Farfa, situated on the Salarian road, and on the high ground between the valleys of Tibur and the Velino, and the monastery of Subiaco, built on that wild spot on the Anio, where St. Benedict went to pass his youth in solitude, and on which was afterwards built, by the saint, one of those Benedictine monasteries to which European civilization owes so much. It was at the request of Faroald, Duke of Spoleto, that John confirmed the possessions and gave various privileges to the monastery of Farfa (June 30, 705). The monastery of Subiaco, like its offshoot of Monte Cassino, destroyed by the Lombards (601), and abandoned for over one hundred years, was restored by this Pope, who sent thither the abbot Stephen for the purpose.

In his short reign John did a good deal in the way of church beautifying and restoration in different parts of the city. Among his other works in this direction, he built (706) a chapel to Our Lady in St. Peter’s, and covered its walls with mosaics, which our Bede describes as of “admirable workmanship”, though, apart from con­siderations of the age in which they were executed, they are indifferent enough. In the center of one of the two groups of figures stands the Blessed Virgin in the garb of a Byzantine empress, and at her right the Pope, his head crowned by a square nimbus, “and the model of the chapel in his hands. Traces of figures, together with the ancient inscription, may still be discovered in the crypt of the Vatican”. The inscription ran: “John, an unworthy bishop, the servant of the Blessed Mother of God, carried out this work”. “The chapel”, continues Gregorovius, “was pulled down in 1639(1606?); and the remains of the mosaics removed to St. Maria in Cosmedin. Here the time-honored relics still remain, built into the walls of the sacristy, and, rough in execution though they be, bear the stamp of an age, the pious simplicity and child-like faith of which it is scarcely possible for us to understand”.

Other entries in the Book of the Popes have been remarkably illustrated within the last few months. One passage, for instance, runs: “He adorned with frescoes the basilica of the Holy Mother of God, which is known as the Old; and alongside of it he built a palace for himself, and there he lived and died”. It is curious that John’s home should be brought to light by descendants of the people about whose clothes he was solicitous, viz., by the British School of Archaeology at Rome. Though, to anything but the credit of the nation, our School only came into existence in November 1899, it has not been idle since its birth. Its work in connection with S. Maria Antiqua had best be told in the words of the letter, already cited, of Mr, Rushforth, the head of the School :

“The Church (S. Maria Antiqua) was installed in the ancient buildings (buried deep till a year ago beneath the garden of the now destroyed S. Maria Liberatrice), which occupied the space between the back wall of the colossal brick structure known as the Temple of Augustus and the substructures of the northern angle of the Palatine. Passing the Temple of Castor on the right, and the House of the Vestals, with the fountain and shrine of Juturna on the left, one reaches the precincts of the church. Its plan presents the regular features of a great Roman house or palace. Passing through the open portico which extended along the facade, one enters, as in the Flavian Palace on the Palatine, a great hall with niches (alternately round and square) for colossal statues in its walls. The door at its opposite end leads into an open court or peristyle, beyond which is the usual arrangement of a big room, with one side completely open to the court, in the middle flanked by two smaller chambers. It is impossible, in this place, to discuss the origin and history of these buildings. But it may be taken that, in their present form, they belong to the time of Hadrian, and that, probably, their raison d’être is the spacious staircase, or rather, incline, which leads from the left-hand corner of the peristyle to the summit of the Palatine. They formed, in fact, the state entrance to the Palace from the Forum, or, to put it in another way, they may be thought of as part of the Palace brought down for the sake of convenience to the level of the Forum.

“Such was the building which had to be adapted to the uses of a church. The tablinum became the sanctuary, the chambers which flanked it side chapels. The central space of the peristyle was enclosed with low screens and formed the choir, while the great entrance hall served as the atrium. It is by no means clear that the open space of the peristyle was ever roofed in, even after it had been turned into a choir by being enclosed with a low wall, covered with paintings and fitted on the inside with a marble seat, which ran all the way round, except where on the left it was broken by the staircases which led to the ambo. When did this transformation take place, or begin to take place? Presumably not before the middle of the sixth century, the period of the Byzantine conquest. That was the age when the forms of the ancient world, being extinct, the Church first took possession of the disused public buildings. It is therefore not surprising to learn that the earliest mention of S. Maria Antiqua occurs in a catalogue of Roman churches made in the Byzantine period, possibly about the middle of the seventh century. Moreover, it is significant that we hear of it for the first time in the Liber Pontificalis at the beginning of the eighth century. Can we believe that the earlier part of the book, with its copious information about the oldest churches, would have omitted this one if it had existed very long before?

“But if the church was so recent as the sixth or seventh century, how are we to account for its title Antiqua? The difficulty is increased by the fact that while Old St. Mary’s ought to have a New St. Mary’s corresponding to it, the only S. Maria Nova we know was the church which replaced S. Maria Antiqua in the ninth century. They never existed side by side. There were other churches in Rome bearing the name of the Virgin much older than the one in the Forum, but they differed from it in this, that originally they were designated in quite another way. S. Maria Maggiore was the Basilica Liberii or Sicinini; S. Maria trans Tiberim was the Basilica or Titulus of Julius or of Callixtus. The latter does not appear as S. Maria trans Tiberim before the seventh century, whereas S. Maria Maggiore, after the restoration by Sixtus III (432-440), and as late as John I (523-526), is regularly mentioned in the Liber Pontificalis as St. Maria simply. Can we believe that this would have been so if S. Maria Antiqua had been already in existence? As common experience shows, “old” in these cases of nomenclature means not absolutely, but relatively, “old”; and the most reasonable supposition seems to be that, while S. Maria Maggiore, as one of the greater basilicas, stands apart in a category of its own, S. Maria Antiqua was so called because it was the first church dedicated ab initio to the Virgin—i.e., before the foundation of S. Maria Rotunda (the Pantheon), and before the church in the Trastevere acquired its new name, both in the seventh century. This is precisely the order given in the seventh century catalogue referred to above, where the Lateran is followed by S. Maria Major, S. Anastasia, S. Maria Antiqua, S. Maria Rotunda, S. Maria Trastiberis. Etc.

“We learn from the Book of the Popes that John VII (705-707) decorated the church with paintings, and gave it a new ambo. Though discarded at a later date, the base of this ambo has actually been found in the church. It bears the inscription “Johannes servu(s) scae Mariae”. The style and lettering, as well as the sentiment, is exactly the same as that of the Pope’s epitaph still preserved in the crypt of St. Peter—Johannis servi sanctae Mariae. His interest in this church was not solely due to his devotion to Mary. His father Plato, the cura palatii urbis Romae, as his official title ran, had lived in the imperial palace on the hill above, and when he died in 687 John had put up a monument to his memory in S. Anastasia, which mentions his restoration of the long staircase, perhaps the one which we still see connecting the Forum with the Palatine.

“When John became Bishop of Rome in 705 the Lateran had fallen into decay, and the Liber Pontificalis describes how, above S. Maria, episcopium quantum ad se construere maluit, illicque pontificati sui tempus vitam finivit. Brought into intimate relations with the church by means of the ascent before mentioned, John began to take a special interest in it. In addition to his gift of the ambo, he decorated it with paintings, and it becomes important to try to discover which, if any, of the considerable remains of painting in the church may be attributed to him. The only parts which can be dated with certainty belong to the middle of the eighth century and later. But there is good reason for thinking that the pictures on the walls of the square sanctuary are some of those executed under John. It is to be regretted that the difference of material and their fragmentary character make it difficult to draw any satisfactory comparison between the scattered relics of John’s works in mosaic from the old St. Peter’s and these paintings. The wall above the small apse, which must have contained the altar, shows at the summit the Crucifixion. On either side the white-robed elders are offering their crowns, as in the well-known mosaics at St. Paul’s without the Walls and at S. Prassede. Below is a band of quotations in Greek from the Prophets, relating to the Crucifixion. Another band of adoring saints follows, and then, cut in the middle by the arch of the apse, we see a row of four popes. Everything here is much damaged, but two important details are certain. One of the popes on the right is St. Martin, who died in 655, and the one on the extreme left, though his name has perished, has the square nimbus, and is therefore, in all probability, the donor of the pictures—i.e., John VII. The apse itself, with a colossal figure of Christ, has been painted again at a later date, for we can still see the head with its square nimbus and the name of Paul I, (757-767). Below the row of popes is a fragment of the dedicatory inscription: Sanctae Dei genitrici semperque Virgini Mariae. Below this the walls on either side of the apse have been decorated again and again. A Madonna robed and crowned like a Byzantine empress, the four Evangelists, the four Fathers, have replaced one another at different times. The side walls of the sanctuary have been decorated at least twice; but the upper surface, which corresponds to the presumed work of John VII, represented the Gospel history with the Crucifixion on the main wall as its climax. The last scene on the left side wall is the procession to Calvary. To judge by the remains, the paintings on the screens which enclosed the choir and presbytery were of the same style and epoch. They were taken from the Old Testament, and were no doubt treated as types. The best preserved are David's victory over Goliath, and Isaiah announcing to Hezekiah his approaching death.

“The chapel to the right of the sanctuary contains many single figures of saints. The place of honor is occupied by Stephen. The rest, like the inscriptions, are mainly Greek. Cosmas and Damian, Abbacyrus and John, Procopius, Panteleemon, Celsus, are among the best preserved. The chapel to the left is the most perfect in the whole building. Some of the painting is as fresh as when it was executed, and equally important is the fact that it can be dated with precision. Below a Crucifixion, in which the living Redeemer is represented clothed in a long, sleeveless garment, a seated Madonna is flanked by SS. Peter and Paul, Quiricus and Julitta, and the square-nimbed, and therefore contemporary, portraits of Pope Zacharias (741-752) and the donor, who, as his inscription tells us, is Theodotus, primicerius defensorum and dispensator of the diaconia of St. Mary qui appellatur antiqua. The pictures on the side walls represent the story of Quiricus and Julitta as given in the later Acta.

“The outer wall of the church on the side next the Palatine has retained its paintings in a fair state of preservation. The wall surface was divided into four bands; a dado representing hangings, a row of life-size saints, while the upper tiers were devoted to the Old Testament history, beginning, no doubt, with the Creation. Of the highest section all that has survived is the story of the Flood. On the lower we get the end of the life of Jacob and the history of Joseph as far as the fulfillment of the dreams of the chief butler and the baker. Probably the series was continued on the opposite side of the church, but the remains there are too scanty to enable us to say this with certainty. In the center of the row of saints is a seated figure of our Lord. On His left are the saints of the Greek world: John Chrysostom, Gregory, Basil, Peter of Alexandria, Cyril, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Nicholas, Erasmus. The West, and especially Rome, is represented on His right: Clement, Silvester, Leo, Alexander, Valentine, Abundius (?), Euthymius, Sebastian (?), George, Gregory (the Great). The names are in Greek, whereas the inscriptions on the Old Testament scenes above are in Latin. Considerations of style make it probable that all this work was executed in the middle or latter half of the eighth century.

“The outer church or atrium was also completely covered with paintings, but mere fragments have survived. The best-preserved picture is that of a Madonna (inscribed Maria Regina), flanked by six sacred personages, of which the outer one on the left is a contemporary pope with the square nimbus. Unfortunately, all that can be certainly made out of his name is the termination ‘anus’. A detached building outside the entrance to the church was apparently dedicated to the Forty Martyrs, who are represented in the apse as immersed in the lake, while on the left wall they appear as glorified with the Saviour in their midst.

“The church had not a long history. We learn from the Book of the Popes that in the middle of the ninth century Benedict III (855-858) bestowed various offerings in basilica beatae Dei genetricis qui vacatur Antiqua quam a fundamentis Leo papa (i.e., his predecessor Leo IV) viam juxta sacram construxerat. And once again, Nicholas I (858-867) was the first to decorate with paintings this new Church of St. Mary, que primitus Antiqua nunc autem Nova vocatur. The new church is perfectly well known : it is S. Francesca Romana, built originally in part of the colonnade surrounding Hadrian’s temple of Venus and Rome. The meaning is obvious. For some reason the diaconia of S. Maria Antiqua was transferred to a new site, where, for a time, it preserved its old name, until, as being a new construction, it got to be known popularly as New St. Mary’s. That reason can only have been some catastrophe which overwhelmed the original church. It was not fire, for there are no traces of fire in the building. But it may well have been that a day came when the towering structures at the north-west angle of the Palatine toppled over the edge of the hill and buried the church beneath their ruins. Natural decay is quite enough to have brought about this result, just as we know that in the time of Hadrian I the Church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus was crushed beneath the falling ruins of the Temple of Concord. But perhaps we can localize the catastrophe more precisely. The Book of the Popes carefully records the occurrence of earthquakes in Rome. In the period with which we are concerned one took place under Leo III (795-816), but apparently it was of minor importance and only affected seriously the basilica of St. Paul. But half a century later, under Leo IV, there was a terrible convulsion, and Leo IV was the Pope who rebuilt S. Maria Antiqua on the new site in the Via Sacra. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that we have here the cause of the abandonment of the old building”.

Before leaving this interesting subject, it may be noted, from Federici’s article, that traces of John’s palace are to be seen in the remains of mediaeval constructions by the side of S. Maria Antiqua, by the side of the apse of the chapel adjoining it, and close to the temple of Castor and Pollux and the sacred fountain of Juturna. Tiles of the Romano-Byzantine period have been found stamped with the name of John. John of course, may have been the name of the maker; but it may have been that of the son of Plato, John VII.

John closed his short but full reign in 707, and was buried  in St. Peter’s, before the altar of the chapel of Our Lady, about which mention has been made. He died in the palace which he had himself built, and which, before Mr. Rushforth’s discovery, De Rossi had mistakenly identified with “certain ruins at the foot of the Palatine hill”, which are to be seen on his right by anyone who walks from the Arch of Titus towards the Coliseum. His only epitaph was: “(The place) of John, the servant of Holy Mary”

 

SISINNIUS. AD. 708.