Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
Among the multitudinous and pressing problems faced by the Christian Church during the early medieval centuries one of the greatest was the feeding of the poor. Subjection to war, to famine, to the general anarchy of the times, had doubled the misery of the people and made them even more dependent upon public charity. Quite early it became evident that this must be an organized charity, that the problem was not being met by individual Christian action. A homily of Chrysostom (347–407) deplores the laxity of his contemporaries: “It is with you all that the treasure of the Church should be, and it is your cruelty that causes her to be obliged to possess and to deal in houses and lands.
1. Chrysostom, Homily LXXXV on the Gospel of Matthew, ch. 3, 4. The translation given here is from Chastel, E., The Charity of the Primitive Churches, trans. by Matile, G. A., Philadelphia, 1857, pp. 217–218.Google Scholar
2. Marrou, H., ‘L'origine orientale des diaconies romaines,’ Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire, LVII (1940), p. 121 ff.Google Scholar
3. Quoted in Pazzini, A., Storia dell' insegnamento medico in Roma, Bologna, 1935, p. 339.Google Scholar
4. Marrou, op. cit., p. 111 ff.
5. Crowfoot, , Churches at Jerash, London, 1931, pp. 13–16Google Scholar; Kraeling, C. H., Gerasa, City of the Decapolis, New Haven, 1938, plate XXXV.Google Scholar
6. Marrou, op. cit., p. 101 ff.
7. Duchesne, L. (editor), Le Liber Pontificalis, Paris, 1886—1892, I, 364.Google Scholar
8. The last attempt to reinstate it was made by Justinian in 554 A.D.
9. The first few times diaconiae are mentioned in the Liber Pontificalis (e.g., I, 364, 367, 369), the phrase “moansteria diaconiae” is used, paralleled with “clerks” and “mansionarii” (lay officials entrusted with the care of sanctuaries). “Monastery” here then refers, not to a building or establishment, but to a group of people—the men who were in the service of the diaconia. Published studies of the Roman diaconiae have often connected them with monasteries, but study of documents reveals no grounds for such relationship.
10. S. Agata in Diaconia, S. Angelo in Pescheria, SS. Alessio e Bonifacio, S. Eustachio, S. Giorgio in Velabro, S. Lucia in Orphea, S. Lucia in Septem Vias, S. M. Antiqua, S. M. in Aquiro, S. M. in Cosmedin, S. M. in Dominiea, S. M. in Via Lata, SS. Sergio e Bacco, S. Teodoro, and S. Vito in Macello in the city proper, and five in the new district near St. Peter's: S. Maria, S. Silvestro, and S. Martino “iuxta b. Petrum,” SS. Sergio e Bacco “apud S. Petrum.” and S. Maria in Adriano. For a detailed study of each of these, and of their relations to ancient Roman structures, see Niederer, F., The Roman Diaconiae (Ms., Diss., N. Y. U., 1951).Google Scholar
11. S. Adriano and SS. Cosma e Damiano.
12. Compiled under Leo III (Lib. Pont., II, 19 ff.Google Scholar) This list has twenty-three names, but it does not include one diaconia documented earlier (SS. Sergio e Bacco near St. Peter's), and it erroneously includes two churches which were not diaconiae but tituli: SS. Nereo ed Achilleo and SS. Silvestro e Martino.
13. Of the twenty-two diaconiae, six have vanished so completely that we do not even know their precise locations: four disappeared in the tenth century and two in the sixteenth. But among the remaining diaconiae, there are nine in which fabric of ancient structures is still visible, and in the seven others there are either traces of ancient walls or strong traditions for ancient buildings on their sites.
14. S. M. in Via Lata within a granary in the Campus Martius, S. Teodoro in the Horrea Agrippiana, S. Giorgio in Velabro in the Forum Boarium.
15. S. Lucia in Septem Vias and SS. Alessio e Bonifacio with granaries, S. Vito in Macello with a market on the Esquiline (Macellum Liviae), S. Maria in Aquiro with the Basilica Matidiae.
16. S. M. in Dominica in the Statio Cohortis V Vigilum; an inscription here mentions the concession. See Colini, A. M., ‘Storia e topografia del Celio,’ Memorie dei Lincei, ser. 2, VII (1944), p. 230.Google Scholar
17. S. Angelo in Pescheria is connected with the Porticus Octaviae, S. Lucia in Orphea with the Porticus Liviae, two diaconiae in the Borgo San Pietro with the portico which led from the Mausoleum of Hadrian to St. Peter's, and S. Eustachio perhaps with the Porticus Boni Eventus.
18. Wall, B., ‘Porticus Minucia,’ Corolla Archaeologica, II (1932), 31 ff.Google Scholar
19. Lib. Pont., I, 502.Google Scholar
20. Ibid., I, 255, 297.
21. Ibid., I, 315.
22. Diehl, C., Etudes sur l'admintstration byzantine dans l'exarchat de Ravenne, (568–751), Paris, 1888, pp. 129–130.Google Scholar
23. Vielliard, R., Récherches sur les origines de la Rome chrétienne, Maçon, 1941, pp. 122–123.Google Scholar
24. S. Adriano, S. Angelo, SS. Cosma e Damiano, S. Giorgio, S. Lucia in Septem Vias, S. M. Antiqua, S. M. in Cosmedin, SS. Sergio e Bacco, S. Teodoro.
25. S. M. in Adriano, SS. Sergio e Bacco apud S. Petrum, and S. Maria, S. Martino, and S. Silvestro iuxta b. Petrum.
26. S. Agata in Diaconia, SS. Alessio e Bonifacio, S. Lucia in Orphea, S. M. in Dominica, S. Vito in Macello.
27. S. Vito near S. M. Maggiore, S. M. in Dominica near S. Stefano Rotondo, S. Lucia in Orphea near S. Pietro in Vincoli and SS. Silvestro e Martino, and SS. Alessio e Bonifacio near S. Sabina. All traces of S. Agata have disappeared, and its exact location is unknown.
28. These two diaconiae were S. Eustachio and S. M. in Aquiro.
29. Wall, op. cit.
30. Paulus Diaconus, Sancti Gregorii Magni Vita, Bk. II, ch. 30, in Migne, , Patrologiae latina, LXXV, col. 98.Google Scholar
31. Ibid., ch. 24, 26, 28.
32. Lib. Pont., I, 502.
33. Ibid., I, 509.
34. Jaffé, , Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, Lipsiae, 1885, I, No. 2213, 2220.Google Scholar
35. “Servos vel ancillas,” “slaves or maidservants,” are mentioned in Lib. Pont., I, 509.Google Scholar
36. Liber Diurnus, Privilegium de diaconiis, cited by Lestocquoy, J., ‘Administration de Rome et diaconies du Vlle an IXe siècle,’ Rivista di archeologica cristiana, VII (1930), 291–292.Google Scholar
37. Theodotus is mentioned in inscriptions in Angelo, S. in Pescheria and Antiqua, S. M., and in Lib. Pont., 1, 486Google Scholar; Eustathius in an inscription in S. Maria in Cosmedin.
38. Duchesne, L., Les premiers temps de l'état pontifical, Paris 1904 (2nd ed.), p. 101Google Scholar; Gregorovius, F., History of Rome in the Middle Ages, trans. by Hamilton, G. W., London, 1911 (2nd ed., rev.), II, 444–445.Google Scholar
39. Gregorovius, op. cit.
40. Lib. Pont., I, 441.Google Scholar
41. Ibid., I, 440.
42. Ibid., I, 506.
43. Saints Cosmas, Damian, Vitus, George, Eustace, Martin.
44. On this general question see Pazzini, op. cit., Deubner, L., De incubatione, Lipsiae, 1900Google Scholar, and, Hamilton, M., Incubation or the cure of disease in pagan temples and Christian churches, London, 1906.Google Scholar
45. Pazzini, op. cit., p. 193.
46. Tea, E., La basilica di S. Maria Antiqua, Milan, 1937, p. 48 ff.Google Scholar
47. Grabar, A., Martyrium, Paris, 1943–1946, II, 100 ff.Google Scholar
48. Liber Diurnus, Privilegium de diaconiis, in Lestocquoy, op. cit., p. 291.
49. Kirsch, G. P., ‘Origine e carattere primitivo delle stazione liturgiche di Roma,’ Rendiconti della pontificia accademia romana di archeologia, ser. 3, III (1924–1925), 135–137.Google Scholar
