was highly involved with the nascently forming
Rome Church. Its primary function may have been the construction of
the underground burial sites - possibly as early as their inception
around the year 124 - which eventually became to be called the
catacombs. A possible history of this specialized construction
business may have been:
??? B.C. ~ 124 A.D. Underground crypts for wealthy Egyptians and
others; along with more predominant and normal construction business
activities throughout the Roman Empire, including within Rome itself.
124 A.D. ~ 303 A.D. Underground crypts for wealthy Roman Christians and
other, normal construction projects.
150 A.D. ~ 303 A.D. Underground tombs for those who could buy them.
179 A.D. ~ 303 A.D. Underground tombs for the poor in the Calixtus
cemetery, which was donated to the Church around this time.
It's possible that what's known as the Cyriaca catacomb and cemetery, while it still belonged to the family was a 'for profit' enterprise. Along with others in Rome and around the Roman Empire, it helped finance the 'not for profit' underground construction activities. There are references to the 'fossores' or grave diggers selling their work even after the Church obtained ownership of the Cyriaca site, so it's just as likely everyone else in the chain-of-command obtained payment for their efforts, too.
It's also likely, especially since many of the 'volunteers' may have been Christian slaves working under Christian supervisors and Christian guards, that much of the more extensive and labyrinth work was NOT DONE for profit. Given the description of many of the underground sites, some slaves may have been helping build the catacombs while the Empire thought they were gathering sand and polozzo to make the cement for imperial construction projects. Most of the actual work at the sites was underground, even the legitimate work, so only those within a few feet of the worker could tell what was actually being done. (Removing the Christian soldiers from the ranks was more than likely motivated by the discovery that they had been aiding and abetting the construction of the underground hiding places. The fact that those hiding places actually existed on such a grand scale seems not to have been discovered by the Empire until after mid-century. Valerians edict against wealthy matrons and others may also have been as a result of this new knowldege regarding their complicity in furnishing the cemetery sites.)
Given the nature of the business, the construction enterprise was always in need of vacant land, or at minimum the mineral rights thereto, where sand, polozzo and other cheap materials could be obtained. Then, as now, those sites when no longer needed became landfills or were otherwise disposed of for use by others. One logical usage would have been as sites for normal above ground cemeteries. (Given an abundance of such sites, it's also normal to 'donate' one or more to a worthy cause.)
Following a normal business progression, these sites evolved into ones which provided the raw materials for 'legitimate' construction, while at the same time providing the cover and labor for 'illegitimate' underground burial activities. The volcanic tufo from which the galleries of the catacombs were dug was supposed to be of a grade inadequate for that of normal construction grade cement. (It would be interesting to see if any of the cement made is still around to test its composition. Some should show a mixture including some of the below-grade tufo. That would have been an easy way to dig both types out, one purely for material with which to make cement and the other to be disposed of to hide catacomb construction. The mixing could have been done below ground. The legitimate construction activity would also have been a good cover when searching out those sites which would have been perfect for both catacomb construction and as sources for raw materials.)
Eventually, as the need arose due to the complete decimation of Church
leaders (after especially brutal persecutions beginning
probably with that of Decius around 250), the functions began to
include the preservation of the assets of the church. Those assets
included the oral history and secret locations and techniques involved
with the underground burial sites.
Both male and female members of the family were involved, as evidenced by Saint Cyriaca, the widow, martyred in 249?/259 and the 65 year female Cyriaca apparently buried in the Calixtus catacomb in a private crypt within 30 feet of that of the famous "Crypt of the Popes." The formal title held by the male Cyriacus may have been Deacon-Superintendent, continuing the functions more or less defined by St. Callistus when he created the job description and St. Lawrence who may have held the position before becoming Treasurer of the Church around 258.
Around 258, the family 
may have been headed by the
wealthy matron who became the Saint after whom a convent was named and
who is said to be buried in an ?undesignated? place along with St.
Laurence in her catacomb under the cemetery on her Veran Estate.
The ELPIS ET CYRIACE FECIT
inscription found in one of the catacombs appears to indicate that some
Cyriaca female was one of the partners building the
catacombs. Was it she?
The
was on a hilltop in the Caelian
(Coelian) district - something then as now possible only with a lot of
wealth. In other words, the family wasn't just wealthy, it was
extremely wealthy; which may explain why it was so easy to begin so many
catacombs in so many disparate areas of Rome at almost the exact same
time in the 2rd and 3rd centuries. The Cyriac
family either owned or controlled most of the land underneath those
sites - especially those sites which were already serving as construction
quarries.
That hilltop and surrounding greenspace is now known as the Villa Celimontana. It's near where Via S. Stefano Rotondo meets Via della Navicella, which itself appears to begin there as a continuation of Via Claudia. An individual named Ciriaco Mattei seems to have been the driving force behind the purchase of the site by his family back in 1553! The Municipality now owns and operates the Villa, which "has been the headquarters of the Italian Geography Institute since 1926." A Walking Tour in Rome, gets to it via the Via Celimontana, which has at the top of the Celian Hill, the church of S. Maria in Dominica (Cyriaca), "one of the city's oldest"!
In 258, during the reign of Emperor Valerian, who "was determined to stamp out Christianity", the death of St. Laurence, involved the family
in three ways.- Initially, as treasurer of the Christian Church, "... he had taken all the Church's valuables to the house of a widower, Cyriacus. At that time, he healed Cyriacus of terrible pains in the head by the touch of his hand, and restored the sight ..."
- Secondly, "... Hippolytus took his body by night, first to the house of Cyriacus and then to a cave, where he buried it."
- The third reference, of course, is to the cave or catacomb of St. Cyriaca where St. Laurence was buried. That tomb is now below the Church of San Lorenzo-outside-the-Walls (as opposed to others located inside the Aurelian wall built in 270 A.D.)
The references to are very significant, because, had it not been for his premature death four days after that of Pope Sixtus II, he probably would have become the next Pope or Bishop of Rome. It's indicated that all seven 'official' Deacons of the Church were martyred with Sixtus II in August 258. (That's may be why it took 50 weeks to appoint the next Bishop of Rome. It may also be the reason Lawrence and the other Deacons martyred later were not buried in Calixtus. They were in charge of the burials and, being dead, couldn't bury themselves in the 'secret' burial place only they knew about. That may also be the reason the Church 'subsequently' found it necessary to have someone other than the 'official' Deacons involved in the 'secrets' or treasures of the Church. They needed someone to survive in order to provide some continuity in burying and 'safeguarding' the bodies of the Saint-Martyrs so they could be resurrected. Or, St. Lawrence and, presumably, the others could have been buried elsewhere in order to not draw attention to Calixtus.)
Another significant reference is when "... Hippolytus
took his body by night, ..." to the burial place. That implies that
the was a safe house - reinforced when the
treasury of the Church is also placed there. While it appears that
this Hippolytus may be pure legend, fabricated from the fact that the
cemetery of the real "Bishop" Hippolytus was adjacent to that of Cyriaca, both of them being of Greek origin, the
inclusion of the "house of" reference may be the most valid and logical
part of the legend.
The body had to be prepared for burial somewhere and at this time,
actual church edifices were still too dangerous to have, so the houses of
wealthy Christians (the ancient
titular churches) were used instead. Proving whether this house
is that of Cyriaca or the family is yet
to be done, but appears to depend upon the writings of St. Ado of Vienne (800-12/16/875), who may also have
been a relative of the Cyriaca - possibly on her
maternal side. His "renowned martyrology published in 858," after
spending 5 years in Rome and then Ravenna, is based upon an "old Roman
martyrology" which has yet to be verified or identified. That
document lies at the heart of establishing the validity of the story
surrounding Cyriaca and Laurence, although what's in
the Chandlery book does make more sense than some fantastic legends
regarding others.
These weren't times when Christian places of worship had big signs out
front encouraging worshipers to come in and pray. The pagan
populace, representing hundreds if not thousands of years of status quo,
hated them with a passion. Everything bad happening, from plagues
to increased taxes was blamed on them - much as what's been done to
various and sundry minority groups throughout the world and throughout
history and continuing even to this day. Christian churches of the
day were really private homes belonging to those with the wealth to
afford them. The term basilica when applied to a place of worship
apparently comes from these very extensive and capacious private
homes. The 3rd century , most likely
destroyed along with everyone and everything else in the FINAL Great Persecution begun in 303, may have been
one of these early basilicas.
The Dasumian Family reference, apparently a family close to past Emperors, means that the Saint Cyriaca widow could have had an inside track to the governing elite.
This meant that, publicly, the was one of
nobility and privilege unassociated, except in acceptible ways, with
activities of the Church; while privately, and under the strictest
secrecy, it was sheltering and husbanding the resources of the
Church. Cyriacus, while no longer being an
'official' Deacon, was most likely involved in
the burial rituals involving the most valuable material treasure of the
Church at the time - the burial (hiding) places of the to be resurrected
bodies of the Saint-Martyrs: the above ground cemeteries and below ground
Catacombs of Callistus.
If it's true that this house was given to Cyriacus by Diocletian, at a time when Diocletian was building what was to become the most extensive bathhouses to date, then the structure given may have been one of the old ones being replaced by the new construction. (5/11/2010: Or, it could have been a smaller structure located in an area of Rome where numerous similar bathhouses were concentrated for the convenience of patrons - something which should be easy to verify from historical records.)
This means that the house may have been big, extensive and large enough to be considered much like a present day basilica. And, already having water related fixtures, it would be a perfect place to baptise and perform other functions involving large gatherings of people. It would also make more sense of the reference to the conversion of the Cyriacus house into a pagan bathhouse by "Carpasius, the pagan deputy most cruel" after it was confiscated, along with other Church assets during the FINAL Great Persecution begun in 303. It went from bathhouse to baptism house back to bathhouse - making the process relatively effortless in each case. (That, of course, also means it wasn't destroyed in 303 as presumed earlier, but should have some further evidence in the records of its actual existence as a 'pagan' bathhouse AFTER 304. Earlier references to such would just prove the supposition that is was a former 'pagan' bathhouse given to Cyriacus.)
That reversion, coming while the FINAL Great Persecution was attempting to wipe Christianity from the face of the earth, would have been an especially dramatic, public and immediate slap in the face to the Church and its leadership. (Imagine converting a present day basilica into a Casino and you get the picture.) Another of the controversies between pagans and Christians center on their bathing practices. The 'baths' may have also served as a symbol of their 'moral' dissimilarity. The presumed licentious activities on the part of pagans during their use of the baths being the most obvious. So, its return to the status of pagan pleasure palace was an obvious way to denigrate Christianity and its leadership at the same time.
Another matter needing research is Cyriacus age at the time of his death in 304. If he's the same 'widower' referenced regarding St. Laurence and the treasury of the Church in 258, then he not only survived that thoroughly extensive massacre of the leadership of the Church, he lived to become 65 years old before being martyred in 304. That's presuming that, as a widower in 258, he was at least 20 years of age. Regardless of whether this was the same individual, it begs another question: Who was the wife having made him a widower in 258? It's not likely St. Cyriaca (???-249), since her death 'as a widow' implies she had no surviving husband. It can't be the 65 year old Dasumian 'Maiden' Cyriaca presumably buried before 304. All these references merely imply a fairly large family being important enough to have records of their existence in the 3rd and 4th centuries.
If those were references to two separate individuls, then the takes on greater significance for having
succeeding generations of its members involved in the caretaking
activities. That's not a stretch even in the present when many
families, especially those with wealth, tend to focus on the same
activities generation after generation. (See The Catacombs of Kom
es-Shouqafa for activities which could have been conducive to
supporting an entrepreneuial family involved in grave/catacomb/cemetery
digging or construction.
The
may have been critical to the
survival of the Church in the highly turbulent 3rd century if only
because it provided the continuity required to nuture successive waves of
leader-martyrs which emboldened and strengthened the membership
supporting ever more leader-martyrs. Until, of course, all that
sacrifice became (relatively) unnecessary after the Edict of Toleration
was issued from Milan by Constantine and Licinius in 313.
()
Regardless of what motivated them, it appears that Maximian and Diocletian became especially outraged
at the family and may have set out to earase it from the
face of the earth. Lucky for us, western parts of Germania wasn't
under their control at the time.
From what little I've gathered about early Roman history, home owning citizens were the elite of society and probably had extensive familial and political support. They were not gotten rid of easily. Regardless of how they did it, I think Cyriacus was from a fairly large family, that originated in Greece with extended family both in Italy and Greece, and that all the rest of us are descended from other members of his extended family. There are probably others who have descended directly from the Greek branch of the family, but research on our Greek origins is almost totally absent. (In the Greek Church, Kyriakoi is Sunday. Kyriakos would be a child of Kyriak or Kyriako. Cyriacus is the Roman form of Kyriakos.)
There are more than a dozen Sts. Cyriac, the
earliest being put to death around 67 and the last being the 30th
Patriarch of Constantinople - having died in 602 or 606 or 616.
Oftentimes, the "Saint" in question was put to death with brothers and/or
parents having different names. It may be that the system of
primogeniture, perhaps beginning before recorded history, automatically
gave the oldest male or sole surviving female the family name as their
own. In other words, one may grow up with a different name but take
that of the family upon the death of an older sibling. It could
also be that, in an exeception made for the family and possibly others equally regarded, the family name
was given to younger family members with less well known and regarded
names of their own.
I had previously thought that many people just took the name of a revered Saint as their own - thereby starting another branch of the family without any actual blood relationship. But, I no longer think that. Rather, it seems that's true in the case of first names but not necessarily in the case of last names. We've had a large family ever since at least the time of Christ and probably well before that. Its Sunday meaning might have predisposed some family members to become more sympathetic to Christianity from its beginnings and to those being put to death on "their" day.
It remains to be seen whether the name was unique in its frequency among early Christian martyrs and other notable personages or just one among many within large extended families put to death in the turbulent years of the conflict between Christians and the Roman Empire. Whatever the case, it appears a lot of people with the Cyriacus name were openly, actively and courageously rebellious against the campaign of extermination being perpetrated against the nascent Christian church by the sole power in their known world - the pre-Christian, Early Roman Empire.
