GIOVANNI, Orazio, - Cardinal Oratorian, Genoese patrician, born on the Island of Chios, 28 February 1580, died in Rome, 25 July 1649. Brought up in Rome, at the age of 25 he entered the Congregation of the Oratory, where he distinguished himself for the exemplary nature of his life and his oratorical abilities.
He took charge of the cause of canonization of St. Philip Neri and erected the first church in his honor at Carbognano (Lazio). He was entrusted with the monastery of Farfa and, in 1623, was appointed custodian of the Vatican Library. He published the *Storia del Concilio fiorentino*, edited by J. Hardouin, in *Acta Conciliorum IX*, Paris 1715, pp. 669 ff. Consultor of the Holy Office, in 1640 he was elected
bishop of Montalto, where he worked most effectively. Transferred in 1645 to Nocera, he founded a Congregation of the Oratory there and oversaw the liturgical instruction of the clergy. In the same year the Pope created him cardinal and, in 1646, librarian of the Holy Roman Church. Having resigned the bishopric, he devoted himself to the protection of the Basilian monks, presiding over their Chapter at Grottaferrata in 149.
GIUSTINIANI, Agostino – *Palaterium Octaphilum*, vol. 1: 1516, with biographical notes by Cristoforo Colonna; vol. 2: 1518; vol. 3: 1519; vol. 4: 1520; vol. 5: 1521; vol. 6: 1522; vol. 7: 1523; vol. 8: 1524; vol. 9: 1525; vol. 10: 1526; vol. 11: 1527; vol. 12: 1528; vol. 13: 1529; vol. 14: 1530; vol. 15: 1531; vol. 16: 1532; vol. 17: 1533; vol. 18: 1534; vol. 19: 1535; vol. 20: 1536; vol. 21: 1537; vol. 22: 1538; vol. 23: 1539; vol. 24: 1540; vol. 25: 1541; vol. 26: 1542; vol. 27: 1543; vol. 28: 1544; vol. 29: 1545; vol. 30: 1546; vol. 31: 1547; vol. 32: 1548; vol. 33: 1549; vol. 34: 1550; vol. 35: 1551; vol. 36: 1552; vol. 37: 1553; vol. 38: 1554; vol. 39: 1555; vol. 40: 1556; vol. 41: 1557; vol. 42: 1558; vol. 43: 1559; vol. 44: 1560; vol. 45: 1561; vol. 46: 1562; vol. 47: 1563; vol. 48: 1564; vol. 49: 1565; vol. 50: 1566; vol. 51: 1567; vol. 52: 1568; vol. 53: 1569; vol. 54: 1570; vol. 55: 1571; vol. 56: 1572; vol. 57: 1573; vol. 58: 1574; vol. 59: 1575; vol. 60: 1576; vol. 61: 1577; vol. 62: 1578; vol. 63: 1579; vol. 64: 1580; vol. 65: 1581; vol. 66: 1582; vol. 67: 1583; vol. 68: 1584; vol. 69: 1585; vol. 70: 1586; vol. 71: 1587; vol. 72: 1588; vol. 73: 1589; vol. 74: 1590; vol. 75: 1591; vol. 76: 1592; vol. 77: 1593; vol. 78: 1594; vol. 79: 1595; vol. 80: 1596; vol. 81: 1597; vol. 82: 1598; vol. 83: 1599; vol. 84: 1600; vol. 85: 1601; vol. 86: 1602; vol. 87: 1603; vol. 88: 1604; vol. 89: 1605; vol. 90: 1606; vol. 91: 1607; vol. 92: 1608; vol. 93: 1609; vol. 94: 1610; vol. 95: 1611; vol. 96: 1612; vol. 97: 1613; vol. 98: 1614; vol. 99: 1615; vol. 100: 1616; vol. 111: 1617; vol. 112: 1618; vol. 113: 1619; vol. 114: 1620; vol. 115: 1621; vol. 116: 1622; vol. 117: 1623; vol. 118: 1624; vol. 119: 1625; vol. 120: 1626; vol. 121: 1627; vol. 122: 1628; vol. 123: 1629; vol. 124: 1630; vol. 125: 1631; vol. 126: 1632; vol. 127: 1633; vol. 128: 1634; vol. 129: 1635; vol. 130: 1636; vol. 131: 1637; vol. 132: 1638; vol. 133: 1639; vol. 134: 1640; vol. 135: 1641; vol. 136: 1642; vol. 137: 1643; vol. 138: 1644; vol. 139: 1645; vol. 140: 1646; vol. 141: 1647; vol. 142: 1648; vol. 143: 1649; vol. 144: 1650; vol. 145: 1651; vol. 146: 1652; vol. 147: 1653; vol. 48: 1654; vol. 149: 1655; vol. 150: 1656; vol. 151: 1657; vol. 152: 1658; vol. 153: 1659; vol. 154: 1660; vol. 155: 1661; vol. 156: 1662; vol. 157: 1663; vol. 158: 1664; vol. 159: 1665; vol. 160: 1666; vol. 161: 1667; vol. 162: 1668; vol. 163: 1669; vol. 164: 1670; vol. 165: 1671; vol. 166: 1672; vol. 167: 1673; vol. 168: 1674; vol. 169: 1675; vol. 170: 1676; vol. 171: 1677; vol. 172: 1678; vol. 173: 1679; vol. 174: 1680; vol. 175: 1681; vol. 176: 1682; vol. 177: 1683; vol. 178: 1684; vol. 179: 1685; vol. 180: 1686; vol. 181: 1687; vol. 182: 1688; vol. 183: 1689; vol. 184: 1690; vol. 185: 1691; vol. 186: 1692; vol. 187: 1693; vol. 188: 1694; vol. 189: 1695; vol. 190: 1696; vol. 191: 1697; vol. 192: 1698; vol. 193: 1699; vol. 194: 1700; vol. 195: 1701; vol. 196: 1702; vol. 197: 1703; vol. 198: 1704; vol. 199: 1705; vol. 200: 1706; vol. 201: 1707; vol. 202: 1708; vol. 203: 1709; vol. 204: 1710; vol. 205: 1711; vol. 206: 1712; vol. 207: 1713; vol. 208: 1714; vol. 209: 1715; vol. 210: 1716; vol. 211: 1717; vol. 212: 1718; vol. 213: 1719; vol. 214: 1720; vol. 215: 1721; vol. 216: 1722; vol. 173: 1723; vol. 218: 1724; vol. 219: 1725; vol. 220: 1726; vol. 221: 1727; vol. 222: 1728; vol. 223: 1729; vol. 224: 1730; vol. 225: 1731; vol. 226: 1732; vol. 227: 1733; vol. 228: 1734; vol. 229: 1735; vol. 230: 1736; vol. 231: 1737; vol. 232: 1738; vol. 233: 1739; vol. 234: 1740; vol. 235: 1741; vol. 236: 1742; vol. 237: 1743; vol. 238: 1744; vol. 239: 1745; vol. 240: 1746; vol. 241: 1747; vol. 242: 1748; vol. 243: 1749; vol. 244: 1750; vol. 245: 1751; vol. 246: 1752; vol. 247: 1753; vol. 248: 1754; vol. 249: 1755; vol. 250: 1756
The divine nature of political power, insofar as it is manifested in a universal monarchy: he who is invested with it is therefore a representative of God on earth, the sole creator and interpreter of the law, indeed the living law itself. The universal monarchy is the Roman republic, which JUSTINIAN sought to restore to its ancient grandeur and power. But if the universal empire willed by God is Roman, and if the same universality inheres in the Church, then the sphere of the latter and the domain of Romanity coincide. Thus it is the Emperor’s task to defend and exalt the one true faith: wherever Roman law extends, the rule of the universal Church must extend; both must be served by the same institutions, the same arms, the same art. The triumph of one and the other is the affirmation of a single principle, of an identical political conception.
The realization of this idea of an absolute and universal monarchy by divine right presupposes the reconstruction of the territorial unity of the Empire, the achievement of legislative and administrative uniformity, and the establishment of religious unity. This threefold and arduous design was pursued by JUSTINIAN with energy and without scruple.
A few months after his accession to the throne, with the constitution *Haec quae necessio* (13 February 528), he initiated his legislative work by ordering the compilation of the first *Codex*, to which were later added the *Digesta* and *Institutiones*, and finally a second edition of the *Codex* (v. CORPUS IURIS CIVILIS).
At the same time, JUSTINIAN inaugurated his reform of administration, both by introducing stricter rigor in tax collection and by seeking to curb the abuses of officials, above all their venality, which had become habitual. In the religious sphere, with a view to rapprochement with the Roman Church, he oriented his policy in favor of orthodoxy, even preparing the ground for the projected reconquest of the West. Through numerous constitutions issued in the years 527 and 528, he sought to eliminate the last remnants of paganism, imposing severe sanctions on its adherents, leaving them no choice but exile or conversion. In 529 he ordered the closure of the School of Athens, deemed a center of pagan propaganda. By other measures he introduced new penalties against heretics (Montanists, Manichaeans, Nestorians, Monophysites), who were massively excluded from public office, while dissident bishops were deposed or exiled.
These measures, however, provoked a reaction that flared into a genuine insurrection against the Emperor. Already on 11 January 532, the factions of the circus—the Greens (Monophysites and supporters of Anastasius and his line) and the Blues (orthodox, favored by JUSTINIAN)—had come to blows. When the Emperor resolved to punish the leaders of both factions, they united against him, demanding the dismissal of his ministers John of Cappadocia and Tribonian, whom they held responsible for the financial and religious measures. The appeals for calm personally addressed by JUSTINIAN went unheeded by the rebels, who entrenched themselves in the hippodrome, which became their headquarters, and proclaimed as emperor Hypatius, a nephew of Anastasius. After much hesitation, urged on by Theodora, JUSTINIAN resolved to suppress the revolt by force; it was crushed by Narses after a bloody battle for control of the hippodrome. With Hypatius and the leaders of the revolution eliminated, many senators were killed or exiled and their goods confiscated, and peace returned to the capital.
With the interior secured, JUSTINIAN could now give concrete form to his plan for campaigns in the West, which were necessary both politically and religiously (the Catholic populations of the West were constantly threatened by Arians), as he sought to restore the material and spiritual unity of the Empire.
These new enterprises had been preceded by intense diplomatic activity. To assemble a large army, in 532 JUSTINIAN concluded peace with Persia. In Africa he hoped to count on the support of Ilderic, deposed from the throne by King Gelimer. In Italy he had, with cunning duplicity, cultivated relations both with Amalasuntha (in conflict with the Gothic leaders for her sympathy toward the Romans), who sought his protection and promised aid against the Vandals, and with Theodahad, Amalasuntha’s opponent, who declared himself willing to cede part of the peninsula to obtain JUSTINIAN’s support against her. Throughout the West he conducted intense propaganda against the barbarian rulers, appealing to religious sentiment.
Thus, despite the objections of the highest officials, the western campaign was decided. On 22 June 533 Belisarius sailed from Constantinople for Africa, where, having landed in September, he decisively defeated his adversaries in the battles of Ad Decimum and Tricamarum, and in 534 took Gelimer prisoner. JUSTINIAN immediately set about reorganizing the administration of Africa, though it was frequently disturbed by uprisings of the subjugated Vandals, supported by elemental insurrection.
In the following year, while energetically pursuing his administrative reform (Novels 8 and 17 of 15 and 16 April 535), JUSTINIAN launched the campaign against the strongest enemy, the Goths of Italy. Here too the first phase was entrusted to Belisarius, who landed in Sicily in the summer of 535. Pressed from the south, threatened in the east by a Byzantine army concentrated in Dalmatia and in the west by Theudebert and the Franks, who had allied themselves with JUSTINIAN, the Goths sought to negotiate, declaring themselves willing to renounce sovereignty over Italy provided they could remain as federates. Soon afterward, however, taking advantage of the temporary absence of Belisarius, who had crossed to Africa to suppress a rebellion, they broke the truce and resumed the war, which lasted another four years until the Byzantines, fighting their way up from Calabria to the Po valley, succeeded in capturing Ravenna.
Yet after these successes JUSTINIAN had to turn his attention to the East and recall part of his troops from Italy to defend against the Persians, who had broken the treaty of 532 and launched an offensive, and to hold in check the hordes of Huns, Bulgars, and Slavs who were raiding Mysia, Thrace, and Illyricum (the incursions recurred in 544 and subsequent years; especially serious were those of the Huns in 550 and 558, the latter reaching the suburbs of Constantinople). The war against the Persians lasted five years, until in 545 an armistice was concluded, repeatedly renewed until the peace of 562.
Meanwhile (544) in Italy the Goths, emboldened by the thinning of Byzantine forces, had resumed the offensive under Totila, exploiting JUSTINIAN’s inability to meet the repeated demands for men and money from his generals. Only in 550, with the Persian frontier secure, could JUSTINIAN organize a new expedition under Narses, who in 551 entered Italy from the eastern frontier, while a Byzantine fleet under Artabanes retook Sicily. Narses’ strategy, with the battles of Taginae and Mons Lactarius, led to the total defeat of the Goths, whose kings Totila and Teias fell heroically in combat. Italy, completely reconquered, returned to being the center of the prefecture, whose administration was to heal the wounds inflicted on the country by Gothic rule and repeated wars. To a large extent this reconstruction was the object of the Pragmatic Sanction of 554, which, among other things, extended to the reconquered regions the constitutions issued after the Justinianic compilation, previously sent to Italy.
Moreover, in the West, Gaul was still largely dominated by the Franks, as Spain was by the Visigoths. No attempt was made against Gaul. A campaign led by the patrician Liberius succeeded in reoccupying the south-eastern region of Spain (Cartagena, Málaga, Córdoba), but had to halt in the face of the Visigoths' tenacious resistance. However, the result achieved was not negligible: as a consequence of this occupation, following those of Africa and Sicily, the western Mediterranean had once again become a Roman sea; while the restoration of Byzantine rule in Dalmatia and Italy and the maintenance of the status quo in the Balkans and Asia Minor did not ensure the Empire's dominion over the eastern Mediterranean.
In the East, after the peace of 562 with Persia, Lazica (the region south of the Caucasus with its centre at present-day Batumi) returned to the Empire in exchange for an annual tribute to be paid to Persia; however, Persia granted freedom of worship to Christians living within its borders, on the condition that Constantinople renounce religious propaganda in Persian territory.
It is therefore unjust to assert that G.'s activity in the field of foreign and domestic policy was a complete failure. Instead, one must acknowledge the failure of the Emperor's efforts aimed at the religious unification of the Christian world, which was another of the objectives set out in his programme.
The Emperor, faithful to orthodox belief, had initially hoped to achieve his goal by insisting on an agreement with the Church of Rome, which he recognised as *caput omnium sanctarum ecclesiarum*, and by seeking to suppress the actions of dissidents—pagans and heretics—and this stance had proved beneficial during the reconquest of the West. But the Monophysites, who were particularly numerous in Syria and Egypt and also entrenched in the court—where they enjoyed powerful support and the protection of Empress Theodora—resisted these measures tenaciously. In a first attempt, G., without abandoning principles or repealing the laws issued, believed he could conciliate the Monophysites by easing the application of strict measures and resorting to a stratagem by which he hoped to induce them to accept the Chalcedonian formula. In 535, following the death of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Epiphanius, G. appointed as his successor Anthimus, Bishop of Trebizond, a secret sympathiser of the Monophysites. The new patriarch, in turn, summoned to Constantinople the former Patriarch of Antioch, Severus, spiritual leader of the Jacobite Church, with the aim of devising a compromise formula with the bishops of Syria and Egypt. But this manoeuvre was thwarted by the intervention of Pope Agapetus, who, arriving in Constantinople in 536, excommunicated and deposed Anthimus. G., after attempting to save his own patriarch, had to yield and ratify the measure (an agreement with the Pope was necessary for the Emperor’s planned expedition to Italy). Shortly afterwards, a synod was convened at which measures against the Monophysite leaders were reaffirmed, though these were applied with considerable leniency.
The conflict thus remained unresolved; and then G., certainly under pressure from Theodora, thought to choose another path by arranging for a less intransigent figure to be elected to the papacy.
After Agapetus’ death in Constantinople, Pope Silverius was deposed and exiled (537) on charges of having collaborated with the Goths, and G. succeeded in having Vigilius elected, who had served as a papal envoy in the East. But the new Pontiff proved no less rigid than his predecessors. Then the Emperor, inspired by the cunning prelate Theodore Askidas, thought that a way might be found to overcome orthodox intransigence by undermining the foundations of the Council of Chalcedon without directly attacking its decrees. The expedient was the posthumous condemnation of three representatives of Antiochene theology—Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodore of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa—a condemnation that undermined the validity of all Chalcedonian decisions. This condemnation, issued at the end of 543 or the beginning of 545, gave rise to the so-called Three Chapters controversy (v.) and to a decade-long conflict between the papacy and the East. In any case, the measure revealed G.’s intention to treat the Church as a subordinate entity and his claim to decide matters of faith through imperial edicts; moreover, the content of the condemnation, which provoked such strong opposition from Rome, failed even to satisfy the Monophysites.
The religious unity that G. sought had not been achieved; and the rift between orthodox and Monophysites became the torment of the Emperor’s final years, during which he became completely absorbed by religious policy issues: his last constitution, dated 26 March 565, deals solely with ecclesiastical matters and is replete with quotations from the Gospel and the Church Fathers.
G. died on 14 November 565, after forty years of a most troubled reign, not only because of the events described but also due to his constant concern over the disorder in administration (see Nov. 134, which renewed the provisions of Nov. 8 and 17), his efforts to promote economic progress—especially in agriculture (he introduced sericulture to Europe)—and to develop trade between East and West, and his zeal in stimulating artistic activity, to which we owe such marvellous buildings as Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, San Vitale and Sant’Apollinare in Classe at Ravenna, and the cathedral of Parenzo. Nor can it be denied that it was solely through his legislative work—whether posterity judged it rightly or not—that he earned the exalted place in the history of civilisation assigned to him, as Dante did (Par., V).
SACRED JUSTINIANIAN BUILDINGS
During the 5th century and the first half of the 6th, the East had sought, in addition to perfecting the construction of basilicas (v. , e.g., the basilica of St Menas; the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem—second period; Basilica A at Philippi; churches in the form of a cross, such as the Basilica of the Theologian [St John] at Ephesus; Kasawijjeh), various solutions for central-plan cult buildings surmounted by a vault: alongside round and polygonal structures (such as the round basilica at Scythopolis-Beth Shean; the church of St Mary on Mount Gerizim; the churches of St George at Ezra) one also encounters combinations of basilicas with domes, on the one hand with plans oriented towards the apse and a dome to the east (as at Ïôgah Qal'esi; Myra-Myra; Athens, Ilissos Basilica), and on the other in the scheme of barrel vault, dome, and barrel vault (e.g., the church at Giuliano di
of S. Irene; the basilica of S. Maria at Ephesus—second period—; Qasr ibn Wardân), and finally also rectangular constructions with a semicircular widening of the central parts of the sides (thus the church of Mount Horeb), which internally are mostly characterized by a disposition of a quadruple crossing of the pillars and columns (e.g., the cathedral of Bosra; the martyrion at Rusâfah and at Antioch of Pieria). Now, all these elements of ancient and partly Oriental forms reached their highest expression in the architectural activity of G. The types then created, however, were not further developed in the subsequent period, so that it is precisely in them that Hellenistic-Roman architecture culminates and ends.
Of the numerous churches erected at the behest of G., described in part in considerable detail by Procopius (De aedificiis), only a few have survived, though fortunately the most important ones. The following constructions in pure basilican style have been confirmed as foundations of G.: the church on Mount Sinai, the two churches at Zenobia-Ialebijjeh, and the basilica of Carthage-Dermesch, which is very probably identical with the church of S. Prima (Procopius, De aedificiis, VI, 5, 9). Among the central-plan constructions must be counted the church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus, called the Little (kûtschûk) Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (v.). Of typically Constantinopolitan character—in contrast, for example, with the Syrian octagons—is the careful balance of the vaulting system, which is also connected to the ambulatory vault. The supports of the lower floor are covered by a massive architrave bearing the foundation inscription; the upper floor, instead, shows arcading. The architrave of the lower floor accentuates the horizontal disposition that will later be found in the church of S. Sophia, while the Western example, S. Vitale at Ravenna, equally strongly emphasizes the vertical line. The latter construction, consecrated in 547 and probably erected with G.’s support, preserves the octagon even in its external form and represents the definitive form of this type, in that it renders the internal disposition of the pillars and columns more delicate through the exedrae. The aforementioned vertical disposition, which reveals nothing of the construction, creates a space of extraordinary structural compactness; a space that, although inconceivable without the Constantinopolitan model, nonetheless remains faithful to the Western-Roman spatial conception.
The unsurpassed masterpiece of the age, whose design is attributed to G. himself (Procopius, De aedificiis, I, 1, 70), is the Hagia Sophia, the patriarchal and imperial church dedicated to the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity.
While the Justinianic church of S. Irene (the reconstruction of the year 740 has greatly altered the roofing and the internal disposition) probably followed the scheme of barrel vault, dome, barrel vault, and thus the space had been inappropriately concentrated by the union of the contrasting elements of barrel vault and dome, in the church of S. Sophia, instead, the barrel vaults were replaced by semicupolas, so that, upon entering, one immediately has a complete view of the entire interior up to the apex of the dome: the fusion of the longitudinal space with the central space has been perfectly achieved, and the mutual interpenetration of these apparently contrasting elements gives the environment its singular vitality.
The upper and lower side aisles are arranged in a completely independent manner, although they are connected by means of alternating openings with the central space, which in turn receives light from them. The polychrome revetment of marbles and mosaics with a gold background conceals the skeleton of the construction and dissolves the materiality of the walls in color and light. This effect of dissolving matter is also subordinated to the slight plastic relief of the cornices, which, however, is strong enough to achieve the horizontal effect of the building’s structural scheme.
This horizontal line, together with the upper and lower colonnades, in fact accentuates the basilican character of the plan and continually draws the eye back from the dome (which is the nucleus of the construction, from which the dynamic effect of the architecture emanates) toward the front part, that is, toward the altar. The Emperor and his contemporaries were well aware of the exceptional singularity and symbolic importance of this church, and posterity too recognized in it the model of the dominion of the Romans (Cantacuzenus, Hist., IV, 4).
Of a completely different character is the second monumental building of the age, the church of the Holy Apostles, which is no longer extant, but of which one can form an idea since the church of the Theologian at Ephesus is an imitation of II. Here we have a basilica of an older type, built in the form of a cross, then translated into the architectural language of the Justinianic age. It is true that this time the space has not found a central form, although the center of the transept (the dome is higher and illuminated by windows placed at its edge) is particularly emphasized in comparison with the arms. On the other hand, the arms are subdivided into individual rectangles surmounted by domes, while each of these spatial elements is clearly separated from the others by a rib. This, despite the spatial effect, is much more concentrated and homogeneous than the preceding types of basilica, because the two-story ambulatories firmly join the various parts together. The columns placed between the individual squares further accentuate the longitudinal and transverse direction of the plan, and, as in the church of S. Sophia, confer upon the dome space the effect of a diaphanous structure. — See pl. LX.