Drijvers J.W - 2011 - Helena Augusta - The Cross and The Myth - Some New Reflections

Millennium 8/2011
Jahrbuch zu Kultur und Geschichte

des ersten Jahrtausends n. Chr.
Yearbook on the Culture and History
of the First Millennium C.E.
Herausgegeben von / Edited by

Wolfram Brandes (Frankfurt/Main), Alexander Demandt (Lindheim),
Hartmut Leppin (Frankfurt/Main), Helmut Krasser (Gießen)
und Peter von Möllendorff (Gießen)
Wissenschaftlicher Beirat / Editorial Board

Albrecht Berger (München), Thomas Böhm (Freiburg), Barbara E. Borg (Exeter),
Hartwin Brandt (Bamberg), Arne Effenberger (Berlin), Jas Elsner (Oxford),
Geoffrey Greatrex (Ottawa), John Haldon (Princeton), Peter Heather (Oxford),
Gerlinde Huber-Rebenich (Jena), Rosamond McKitterick (Cambridge),
Andreas Luther (Kiel), Gabriele Marasco (Viterbo), Mischa Meier (Tübingen),
Walter Pohl (Wien), Karla Pollmann (St. Andrews),
Christoph Riedweg (Zürich und Rom), John Scheid (Paris),
Heinrich Schlange-Schöningen (Saarbrücken), Andrea Schmidt (Louvain),
Johannes Zachhuber (Berlin), Constantin Zuckerman (Paris)
De Gruyter
ISBN (Print): 978-3-11-023644-6
ISBN (Online): 978-3-11-023645-3
ISBN (Print + Online): 978-3-11-023646-0
ISSN 1867-030X
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen
Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet
über <http://dnb.d-nb.de> abrufbar.
© 2011 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston
Druck: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
∞ Gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
Helena Augusta, the Cross and the Myth:
some new reflections*
Jan Willem Drijvers
The last two decades have seen an increasing interest in the person of Helena,
mother of Constantine the Great, and the narrative of the inventio crucis among
scholars of Late Antiquity, the Byzantine Empire and the Western Middle Ages.
In the light of recent publications about Helena and the legend of her discovery
of the cross of Christ, this article seeks to add both to the historical picture of
Helena as well as to her legendary representation in connection with the
discovery.
The article is divided into two parts. The first part deals with aspects of
HelenaÌs biography, in particular her residence in Trier and Rome, her journey
to the Eastern provinces of the Roman Empire – often incorrectly seen as a
pilgrimage but interpreted here as an iter principis – and the transformation of
her residence in Rome into a church as a memoria for the cross a few years after
her death in 328/9. The second part is intended as a contribution to the
complicated traditions of the legend of the discovery of the cross, drawing on
three pieces of evidence: (i) a largely unknown reading of the inventio crucis
which is part of the narrative of the Dormition and Assumption of the Virgin
Mary; (ii) two Syriac poems included in the Hudra, the East Syrian liturgical
text book for the Propers for Sunday and annual festivals; it is argued here that
both poems are dependent on the prose text of the Judas Kyriakos narrative of
the inventio crucis; (iii) the De inventione crucis by Alexander Monachos; the
suggestion made here is that this text may have been conceived as a dossier from
which preachers could select passages for the recitation in the annual services
that celebrated the discovery of the cross.
* I am grateful to David Hunt, Gerrit Reinink and Stephen Shoemaker for helpful
comments on an earlier draft of this paper. I wish to thank Alasdair MacDonald for
correcting my English. The research for this article was done during my summer fel-
lowship at Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection in 2009. I am thankful for
the opportunity given to me to do research at this wonderful institution.
126 Jan Willem Drijvers
1. Helena
The legend of the discovery of the true cross by ConstantineÌs mother Helena is
one of the most important and best-known myths from Late Antiquity. Shortly
after its origin, most probably in Jerusalem, in the second half of the fourth
century, the story rapidly became widespread and available in various versions
in Greek, Latin and Syriac. The impact of the legend of the inventio crucis was
great in the period of Late Antiquity and beyond. The legend became part of
Byzantine vitae of Constantine and Helena,1 it was incorporated in the Sylvester
legend2 as well as in Western medieval vitae Helenae,3 and it was referred to in
other Byzantine and Western medieval legendary traditions, initially only in
Greek, Latin and Syriac, but later on also in the vernacular languages. In
addition the legend was included in liturgical texts.4 The story of HelenaÌs
inventio crucis also became a popular theme in visual arts. Very early on, Helena
was memorialized in Constantinople by her son, who set up a statue of her on a
porphyry column in the Augustaion in his new imperial city.5 In Byzantium she
became the image of female sanctity and was depicted innumerable times paired
with Constantine and with a cross between them.6 However, probably the most
famous depiction of Helena and the cross does not come from the East but from
the West: the cycle of frescoes of the cross narrative by the 15th-century
Renaissance artist Piero della Francesca in the Franciscan church in Arezzo
based on the text De inventione sanctae crucis in Jacob de VoragineÌs Legenda
Aurea (13th century).7 Thanks to her alleged discovery of the cross of Christ and
1 F. Winkelmann, “Das hagiografische Bild Konstantins I in Mittel-Byzantinischer Zeit”,

in: V. Vavřinek (ed.), Beitrge zur byzantinischen Geschichte im 9.–11. Jahrhundert
(Prague 1978) 179 – 203; A. Kazhdan, “Constantin imaginaire. Byzantine legends of the
ninth century about Constantine the Great”, Byzantion 57 (1987) 196 – 250; S.N.C. Lieu,
“From History to Legend and Legend to History. The Medieval and Byzantine
transformation of ConstantineÌs Vita”, in: S.N.C. Lieu & D. Montserrat (eds.),
Constantine. History, Historiography and Legend (London/New York 1998) 136 – 176.
2 BHL, vol. 2 (Brussels 1900 – 1901) 7725 – 7735 (p. 1119); B. Mombritius, Sanctuarium seu
Vitae Sanctorum (Paris 1910) vol. 2, 508 – 531.
3 E.g. Altmann of Hautvillers, Vitae Helenae = ASS Aug. III, 580 – 599. For a survey of
medieval narratives about Helena, see BHL, vol. 1 (Brussels 1898 – 1899) 3772 – 3790
(pp. 563 – 565); BHL, Novum Supplementum (Brussels 1986) 3776 – 3790d (pp. 412 –
413); H.A. Pohlsander, Helena: Empress and Saint (Chicago 1995) 201 – 216.
4 See section 2.3 ÍSyriac Poems on the inventio crucisÌ below.
5 Chron. Pasch. 328 (Whitby p. 16). The Parastaseis 70 – 73, 78 – 79, 94 – 95, 118 – 121, 126 –
127, 128 – 129, 134 – 135 mentions statues of Helena, which often depict her together with
Constantine (ed. Av. Cameron & J. Herrin, Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century.
The Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai [Leiden 1984]).
6 C.L. Connor, Women of Byzantium (New Haven/London 2004) 182 ff.
7 G.P. Maggioni, Iacopo da Varazze. Legenda Aurea, 2 vols. (Florence 1998) vol. 1, 459 –
470.
Helena Augusta, the Cross and the Myth 127
the piety which urged her to go in search for it, Helena was considered as the
exemplary Christian empress and a prominent saint of the Roman Catholic and
Eastern Churches. To this very day the feast of HelenaÌs discovery of the cross is
celebrated particularly in the churches of the East.8
In the last twenty years or so the person of Helena and the story of the
inventio crucis have elicited an increasing interest among Late Antique,
Byzantine and Western medieval scholars. A variety of publications has seen
the light of day, dealing with this fascinating narrative, e. g. text editions,
publications on aspects of the legendary tradition of the discovery of the cross,
HelenaÌs journey to the Holy Land. Also the visual representations of the
legend of the cross in both medieval Western as well as in Byzantine art have
lately attracted new attention.9 The recent research has in particular led to a
better understanding of the origin, spread and function of the legend of the cross
and to a reassessment of the great importance of the story about the inventio
crucis in the increasingly Christian world of the Later Roman Empire, and of
Byzantium and the medieval West.
Besides the scholarly interest in the story of HelenaÌs finding of the true
cross, the person of Helena has also inspired novelists. Evelyn WaughÌs Helena,
published in 1950, is renowned but she was definitely not the only writer of
fiction to be inspired by the legendary story of HelenaÌs life.10
“Dichtung und Wahrheit”, imaginative creation and fact, are not always
easy to disentangle when dealing with HelenaÌs biography and the narrative
about her discovery of the cross. It has been one of the purposes of my earlier
work on the subject to make a clear distinction between what can be considered
8 The Latin church celebrates its feast day on 18 August. In the Eastern Church HelenaÌs
saintÌs day is connected to that of Constantine: 21 May. The celebration of the discovery
of the cross is on 14 September.
9 B. Baert, A Heritage of Holy Wood. The Legend of the True Cross in Text and Image
(Leiden 2004); H.A. Klein, “Constantine, Helena, and the Cult of the True Cross in
Constantinople”, in: J. Durand & B. Flusin (eds.), Byzance et les reliques du Christ,
Centre de recherche dÌhistoire et civilisation de Byzance, Monographies 17 (Paris 2004)
31 – 59, 45 ff.; Idem, Byzanz, der Westen und das ÍwahreÌ Kreuz. Die Geschichte einer
Reliquie und ihre kðnstlerische Fassung in Byzanz und im Abendland (Wiesbaden 2004)
93 ff. particularly on cross reliquaries; see also the exhibition catalogue The Stavelot
Triptych. Mosan Art and the Legend of the True Cross (London/New York 1980).
10 E. Waugh, Helena (London 1950) with J.W. Drijvers, “Evelyn Waugh, Helena and the
True Cross”, Classics Ireland 7 (2000) 25 – 50 or http://www.classicsireland.com/2000/
drijvers.html; L. de Wohl, The Living Wood. Saint Helena and the Emperor Constantine
(Philadelphia/New York 1947); M. Zimmer BradleyÌs Priestess of Avalon (2000) is based
on HelenaÌs legendary life story; I. Knottnerus, De pelgrimage van Helena. Het leven
van de moeder van Constantijn (Kampen 2006). There is also an interest on the part of
the wider public – witness, for instance, television documentaries as The Quest for the
True Cross (Discovery Channel) and Helena. First Pilgrim to the Holy Land (Readers
Digest).
historical and what should be referred to the realm of myth in dealing with
Helena.11 The purpose of this article is to add to both the historical and to the
legendary picture of Helena and the discovery of the cross. It is not my purpose
to present a complete biography and to discuss the origin, spread, and function
of the various versions of the legend of the inventio crucis in all their details, but
I will examine certain aspects of her life and the legend that have recently
attracted scholarly attention and debate. In the first part of this article a
reinterpretation of certain facets of HelenaÌs biography will be presented – in
particular her residence in Trier and Rome, her so-called pilgrimage, and the
transformation of her Roman residence into a church – in response to recent
publications. In the second part I intend to make another contribution to the
complex history of the legend of the discovery of the true cross by presenting a
largely unknown alternative reading of the inventio crucis included in the
narrative tradition of the Dormition and Assumption of the Virgin Mary, and by
discussing some recently published texts – two Syriac poems and the De
inventione crucis by Alexander Monachos.
1.1 Some biographical observations
Since the sources on HelenaÌs life are far from abundant, her biography is
elusive.12 She was born c. 248/9,13 in socially humble circumstances. As a young
woman she probably worked at an inn. Ambrose calls her a stabularia which
implies not only that she worked in a stabulum but probably also that she
11 E.g. my Helena Augusta: The Mother of Constantine the Great and the Legend of Her
Finding of the True Cross (Leiden 1992).
12 For a more detailed discussion of what is known about her life and elaborate references
to sources I refer to R. Klein, “Helena II (Kaiserin)”, RAC 14 (1988) 355 – 375, my
Helena Augusta (cf. fn. 11) 9 – 76, as well as Pohlsander (cf. fn. 3) 3 ff. See further H.
Heinen, “Konstantins Mutter Helena: de stercore ad regnum”, Trierer Zeitschrift 61
(1998) 227 – 240; F.A. Consolino, “Helena Augusta: From Innkeeper to Empress”, in: A.
Fraschetti (ed.), Roman Women (Chicago/London 2001) 141 – 159 – tr. of “Elena, la
locandiera”, in: A. Fraschetti (ed.), Roma al femminile (Rome 1994) 187 – 212; H.
Heinen, “Konstantins Mutter Helena. Geschichte und Bedeutung”, Archiv fðr
mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte 60 (2008) 9 – 29. Of some interest is also S.A. Fortner
& A. Rottloff, Auf den Spuren der Kaiserin Helena. Rçmische Aristokratinnen pilgern
ins Heilige Land (Erfurt 2000) 80 – 93. The recent article by P. Laurence, “Helena, mºre
de Constantin. Metamorphoses dÌune image”, Augustinianum 42 (2002) does not add
anything new.
13 Based on Eus. VC 3.46.1, who mentions that she died at the age of 80. This must have
been ca. 328/9.
worked there as a prostitute.14 Prostitutes are known to have been a familiar

presence in or near taverns where they picked up their customers.
On the basis of the information given by Procopius her place of birth is
generally considered to be Drepanum – modern Hersek – in Bithynia, which
Constantine renamed Helenopolis in her honour.15 This, however, is not the only
city known by that name. Sozomen mentions a Helenopolis in Palestina
Secunda, the precise location of which, however, is unknown.16 There is even a
province Helenopontus said to be named after Helena.17 Another argument put
forward for considering Drepanum as HelenaÌs probable birthplace is that it is a
common theme in many Byzantine Constantine vitae that, when his father
Constantius was sent on an embassy to Persia, he stopped on the way at an inn
in Drepanum and slept with the innkeeperÌs daughter Helena – which may also
serve as an indication that the empress was once a prostitute working in a
tavern. On his departure the following morning, Constantius presented her with
an embroidered purple robe. After he had become Augustus, Constantius sent
another embassy to Persia, which stayed at the same tavern. The envoys find
Helena and Constantine there – the boy was already some twelve years old –
and recognize him as ConstantiusÌ son by virtue of the purple robe and the
physical resemblance to his father.18 Interesting though this story is, its
14 De Obit. Theod. 42. Eutropius (Brev. 10.2) mentions that Constantine was born ex
obscuriore matrimonio. Philostorgius (Hist. Eccl. 2.16) calls her Ía common woman not
different from strumpetsÌ. The Constantine-hostile Zosimus (2.8.2, 2.9.2), following
Eunapius, calls her a harlot. According to Theophanes AM 5814 p.18.8 – 9 Arian and
pagans were responsible for this negative image of Helena. For the many Latin words
for prostitute, see J.N. Adams, “Words for ÍProstituteÌ in Latin”, Rheinisches Museum
fðr Philologie 126 (1983) 321 – 358, which does not mention the word stabularia.
15 Aedif. 5.2.1: =sti d] tir 1m Bihumo?r p|kir, :k]mgr 1p~mulor owsa t/r Jymstamt_mou
basik]yr lgtq|r. 1j ta}tgr c±q tµm :k]mgm ¢ql/sha_ vasi ; “There is a certain city in
Bithynia which bears the name of Helen, mother of the emperor Constantine, for they
say that Helen was born in this village” (tr. Loeb). On Helenopolis in Bithynia see D.
Stiernon, “H¤l¤nopolis”, Dictionnaire dÌhistoire et de g¤ographie eccl¤siastique 23 (1990)
877 – 884.
16 Soz. Hist. Eccl. 2.2.5; Stiernon (cf. fn. 15) 884 – 889. According to A.H.M. Jones, The
Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford 1971, 2nd ed.) 279, it was founded by
Helena.
17 Soz. Hist. Eccl. 2.2.5. For Helenopontus: CIL 3.14184; Cod. Theod. 13.11.2; Just.
Nov. 28.1.
18 BHG 365z, 366, 366a (Winkelmann-vita), 364 (Guidi-vita), 365 (Opitz-vita), 365n
(Halkin- or Patmos-vita), 363 (Gedeon-vita), 362. For a discussion of these vitae see
Kahzdan (cf. fn. 1); Lieu (cf. fn. 1) 151 – 160; S.N.C. Lieu, “Constantine Byzantinus. The
anonymous Life of Constantine (BHG 364)”, in: S.N.C. Lieu & D. Montserrat, From
Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views. A Source History (London/New York
1996) 97 – 146 including an English translation of BHG 364 by Frank Beetham. A
probably earlier version of this legend, which does not mention Drepanum was part of
legendary character does not permit one to use it as a reliable historical source
for Drepanum as HelenaÌs place of origin. Even Procopius, our most reliable
source, is not certain about Drepanum as her place of birth – as witnesses his
careful phrasing: “they say that Helena was born in this village”.19 For that
reason Cyril Mango has rejected Drepanum as her place of provenance and
suggests that the belief that she was born in Drepanum may have been inferred
already in Late Antiquity from the name Helenopolis.20 The fact that the place
received its name because Constantine named it after her does not necessarily
mean that she was born there. Therefore there is no reliable historical evidence
that Helena hailed from Drepanum and that puts Drepanum at the same level as
the other places, such as Trier, Colchester and Edessa, which are named in the
medieval legendary material as her place of origin.21 Hence her place of birth
remains obscure, although in view of the fact that Helena is a Greek name, it is
likely that she came from the Eastern part of the empire.22
Since Constantine was born at Naissus (modern Nish) on 27 February 272 or
273,23 Helena and Constantius must have met at least nine months before when
Helena was in her early twenties. When and how Helena and Constantius met is
not known – their encounter is shrouded in legend, as the story from the
Constantine vitae just mentioned indicates. Nor do we know how long they
remained together. As is now generally accepted their partnership was not an
official marriage but a concubinage, which was an accepted form of cohabitation
for partners of different social provenance.24 Helena is not known to have had
the Passio S. Eusignii; P. Devos, “Une recension nouvelle de la Passion grecque BHG
639 de S. Eusignios”, Analecta Bollandiana 100 (1982) 208 – 228, at 219 – 221.
19 See note 15 above.
20 Cyril Mango, “The Empress Helena, Helenopolis, Pylae”, Travaux et M¤moires 12
(1994) 143 – 158, at 146 – 150. Philostorgius (Hist. Eccl. 2.12 – 13) mentions that Heleno-
polis was founded by Helena herself in honour of the Arian martyr Lucian, who was
buried there. As the city would have been known as HelenaÌs birthplace, Philostorgius,
or rather his source, would not have missed the opportunity to mention this.
21 See Pohlsander (cf. fn. 3) 7 – 12.
22 Fortner & Rottloff (cf. fn. 12) 82 suggest that she originated from one of the Balkan
provinces because Constantius Chlorus came from this part of the empire and had been
praeses Dalmatiae in 284/5.
23 T.D. Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (Cambridge, Mass. 1982)
39; D. Kienast, Rçmische Kaisertabelle. Grundzðge einer rçmischen Kaiserchronologie
(Darmstadt 19962) 298.
24 Drijvers (cf. fn. 11) 17 – 19; Pohlsander (cf. fn. 3) 13 – 15. In Late Antique and Byzantine
times there was already ambiguity about the nature of their relationship as appears e. g.
from Zonaras 13.1: dr 1j t/r lajaq_ar :k]mgr cec]mmgto t` patq_, peq· Hr diavymoOsim
oR succqave?r ja· paqÌ aqto?r t± peq· ta}tgr oqw ¢lok|cgtai. oR l³m c±q t` J~mstamti
m|l\ c\lou vas·m aqtµm sumoije?m, !popelvh/mai d] , toO LaniliamoO :qjouk_ou, ¢r
5lpqoshem eUqgtai, tµm oQje_am pa?da tµm Heod~qam to}t\ jateccu^samtor ja· !made_-
namtor Ja_saqa oR d³ oq caletµm aqtµm cem]shai m|lilom toO J~mstamtor Rst|qgsam,
!kk± p\qeqcom 1qytij_m 1pihuli_m, ja· 1n 1je_mou toOtom dµ sukkab]shai t¹m Jym-
any other children apart from Constantine. Although we have no idea how long
their relationship lasted, Constantius probably left Helena for the politically
much better connected Theodora, daughter of the Augustus Maximian.
Narrative sources mention that Constantius married Theodora in 293.25 It is,
however, more likely that this marriage took place before Constantius became
part of DiocletianÌs tetrarchy in 293, at the time when he was still MaximianÌs
praetorian prefect. References in the panegyric delivered for Constantius in 297
presumably indicate that he married Theodora in 288 or 289.26 ConstantiusÌ
political marriage with Theodora left Helena on her own and her life recedes
into complete obscurity until her son Constantine became emperor in 306.
1.2 Trier
When Constantine succeeded his father in the Western part of the Empire his
main residence in the years 306 – 316 was the city of Trier. It has been supposed,
on the basis of the medieval Helena tradition in Trier and the remains of ceiling
frescoes discovered beneath the Trier cathedral in 1943 on which she was
thought to be depicted, that Helena also resided in the imperial city on the
Mosel in this period. The written sources on Helena and Trier only developed
from the ninth century onward and are therefore late and moreover of
legendary character.27 Around the year 860 the monk Almann of Hautvillers
composed his Vita Helenae – the first Latin vita of the empress28 – on the
occasion of the translatio of her relics from her mausoleum in Rome to the
bishopric of Reims in 841/2. Almann presents Helena as a lady coming from a
stamt?mom. “He [Constantine] was born to his father from the blessed Helen, about
whom the writers disagree and are discordant and among them there is no consensus as
regards her. For some say that she dwelt with Constans by ordinance of marriage, but
was sent away when Maximianus Herculius, as has previously been said, betrothed to
him his daughter Theodora and appointed him Caesar. Others have recorded that she
was not ConstansÌ legitimate spouse, but a diversion of his erotic desires and that it was
actually from that the great Constantine was conceived.” tr. Th.M. Banchich & E.G.
Lane, The History of Zonaras. From Alexander Severus to the Death of Theodosius the
Great (London/New York 2009) 148 and commentary at p. 189.
25 Vict. De Caes. 39.24; Eutr. Brev. 9.22.1; Epit. 39.2; cf. Jer. Chron. a.292.
26 Pan. Lat. 8(5)1.5 and 2.1; Barnes (cf. fn. 23) 125 – 126; Kienast (cf. fn. 23) 281.
27 On the Helena tradition in Trier, see e. g. H. Heinen, Frðhchristliches Trier. Von den
Anfngen bis zur Vçlkerwanderung (Trier 1996) 84 – 117 and the references there; also
Drijvers (cf. fn. 11) 21 – 30; Pohlsander (cf. fn. 3) 31 – 47; L. Clemens, “La memoria della
famiglia di Costantino nella sua residenza di Treviri”, in: G. Bonamente, G. Cracco & K.
Rosen (eds.), Costantino il Grande tra medioevo ed et moderna (Bologna 2008) 387 –
405.
28 See F.A. Consolino, “LÌinvenzione di una biografia: Almanno di Hautvillers e la vita di
santÌ Elena”, Hagiographica 1 (1994) 81 – 100.
distinguished aristocratic family in Trier, who donated her home city with relics
and bequeathed her house (domus) to the bishop of the city to serve as sedes
episcopalis. 29 In 1050 – 1072 a double vita of Helena and bishop Agricius was
written in Trier.30 This vita too mentions that Helena came from Trier, donated
her residence in Trier to Agricius, presented him with relics and, moreover, with
the so-called Sylvester diploma which gave Agricius as bishop of Trier primacy
over the church provinces of Gallia and Germania. Apart from these legends
about HelenaÌs connection with Trier, there has recently been some attention to
another text, generally known as the Libellus de Constantino Magno eiusque
matre Helena, that associates Helena with Trier. This text by an anonymous
author was first brought to notice by Eduard Heydenreich in 1879.31 It has two
main themes of which the first one is of major interest in the context of this
paper, and tells how Helena, belonging to an important family in Trier,
journeyed to Rome to visit the tombs of Peter and Paul. In Rome she catches
the attention of Constantius who is impressed by her beauty and rapes her.
When she discovers that she is having a child, she does not return to Trier by
reason of shame but remains in Rome. She leads a modest life with her son,
whom she named Constantine after his father. The boy, however, does not know
that the emperor is his father. Then the second theme starts telling about the
abduction of Constantine due to his noble appearance by two merchants, his
marriage with the only daughter (her name is not mentioned) of the Greek (i. e.
Byzantine) emperor, them being left behind by these merchants on an
uninhabited island on the return journey to Rome, their ultimate arrival in
Rome and their life there. In Rome Constantine attracts the attention of the
emperor because of his way with weapons and his victories in tournaments.
29 For the vita see ASS Aug. III, 580 – 599. The Latin text has recently been published again
together with a German translation and explanatory notes by P. Drger, Almann von
Hautvillers. Lebensbeschreibung oder eher Predigt von der heiligen Helena (Trier 2007).
30 Text inter alia in H.V. Sauerland, Trierer Geschichtsquellen des 11. Jahrhunderts (Trier
1889) 185 – 211. See further Pohlsander (cf. fn. 3) 31 – 37.
31 E. Heydenreich, Incerti auctoris de Constantino Magno eiusque matre libellus (Leipzig
1879); Idem, “Der libellus de Constantino Magno eiusque matre Helena und die ðbrigen
Berichte ðber Constantins des Großen Geburt und Jugend”, Archiv fðr Literaturge-
schichte 10 (1881) 319 – 363. A new edition of the text has been published in 1999 by G.
Giangrasso, Libellus de Constantino Magno eiusque matre Helena (Florence 1999). The
most profound edition is by P. Drger; apart from the Latin text it includes a German
translation and a comprehensive introduction and commentary: Historie ðber Herkunft
und Jugend Constantins des Großen und seine Mutter Helena / Historia de ortu atque
iuventute Constantini Magni eiusque matre Helena (Trier 20102); see also P. Drger, “Die
ÍHistorie ðber Herkunft und Jugend Constantins des Großen und seine Mutter HelenaÌ.
Zur Wirkungsgeschichte einer Legende”, in: A. Golz & H. Schlange-Schçningen (eds.),
Konstantin der Große. Das Bild des Kaisers im Wandel der Zeiten (Cologne 2008) 139 –
160. Contrary to Heydenreich and Giangrasso, Drger prefers to call the text a historia
instead of a libellus.
Then the two themes come together when Constantius invites Constantine,
together with Helena and his wife, to the court. Not surprisingly it turns out that
Constantine is the emperorÌs son, when Helena shows the ring and valuable
shoulder clasp which Constantius had given her after their intercourse. All ends
well: Constantine and his wife become heirs to the Greek and Roman empires
and Constantius and Helena are united. At the end there are references to
ConstantineÌs baptism by Sylvester and to HelenaÌs journey to Jerusalem and
her discovery of the cross there. The libellus, dated to the twelfth to fourteenth
century, clearly combines several legendary traditions. The second theme, as
Paul Drger has shown, is inspired by similar contemporary tales such as the
popular narratives about pirates kidnapping princes, which, however, in the
context of this paper are of little interest.32 The first theme, however, including
the recognition of his son by Constantius, is closely related to the story first
attested in the Passio Eusignii and thereafter by other Byzantine authors as
summarized above. Apparently this tale had become known also in Western
Europe where it was adapted to suit local situations.33
The cathedral in Trier has strong associations with Helena. Not only did
Helena according to medieval tradition donate her domus to serve as the
episcopal seat, but the cathedral also possesses relics of Helena, her head to be
more specific. The presence of the most precious relic in the “Trierer Dom”, the
tunica Christi, is ascribed to the interference of Helena.34 When in 1943
fragments of ceiling frescoes were found underneath the Trier cathedral showing
richly ornamented women, scholars saw them as proof for the correctness of the
medieval tradition that Helena had once resided in Trier and had during her
32 Drger (cf. fn. 31/1) 207 ff.

33 In other versions Helena is not said to be from Trier but from England. In the ÍEnglishÌ
renditions she is the daughter of king Coel; against the will of her father she travels to
Rome disguised as a man; when bathing she is seen by Constantius who has his way with
her; Drger (cf. fn. 31/1) 58 ff. In recent years the British Helena tradition has been dealt
with in detail by A. Harbus, Helena of Britain in Medieval Legend (Cambridge 2002);
see also K.E. Olsen, “CynewulfÌs Elene: From Empress to Saint”, in: K.E. Olsen, A.
Harbus & T. Hofstra (eds.), Germanic Texts and Latin Models. Medieval Reconstructions
(Louvain 2001) 141 – 156; M.P. Aaij, Elene and the True Cross, Diss. Univ. of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa (2002) on CynewulfÌs Elene; K.E. Olsen, “Traveller and Mediator: St Helena
in the Old English Invention Homily”, in: K. Dekker, K.E. Olsen & T. Hofstra, The
World of Travellers. Exploration and Imagination (Louvain 2009) 103 – 115. A somewhat
peculiar work, but useful for the references it contains to both Eastern and Western
texts about the inventio crucis is L. Kretzenbacher, Kreuzholzlegenden zwischen Byzanz
und dem Abendlande. Byzantinisch-griechische Kreuzholzlegenden vor und um Basileios
Herakleios und ihr Fortleben im lateinischen Westen bis zum zweiten Vaticanum
(Mðnchen 1995).
34 H.A. Pohlsander, “Der Trierer Heilige Rock und die Helena-Tradition”, in: E. Aretz et
al. (eds.), Der Heilige Rock zu Trier. Studien zur Geschichte und Verehrung der Tunika
Christi (Trier 1996) 119 – 127.
lifetime donated her domus to the bishop of Trier.35 The discovered frescoes
once decorated a large room (7 x 10 m), built probably between 315 and the
early 330s. This room was immediately associated with the imperial palace, even
though the building to which it belonged could not be reconstructed. The
reconstructed frescoes, now in the Bischçfliches Museum in Trier, show four
female portraits, richly ornamented with jewellery, fine clothes and silver and
golden objects, and three representations of philosophers; the portraits alternate
with putti. Soon after the discovery and the reconstruction of the frescoes
archaeologists and art historians concentrated on identifying the female
portrayals with women from the Constantinian family, Helena and Fausta.
However, objections were raised against the identifications with historical
persons. Some scholars argued that the female portraits should rather be seen as
personifications of specific concepts, such as prosperity and the pleasures of
cultivated life. Others prefer to interpret the female portraits as allegories of
Sapientia, Pulchritudo, Iuventus and Salus. 36 In the most recent study of the
frescoes, Marice E. Rose convincingly argued that it is not known whether the
frescoed room was ever part of the imperial palace, which makes an
identification of the portraits with female members of the imperial family
even more unlikely. However, of more importance is RoseÌs argument that the
purpose of the room was to communicate the status and wealth of the owner of
the house – he undoubtedly belonged to an elite family in Trier – as well as
familial well-being and domestic harmony.37 Instead of representing imperial
women or allegories, the frescoes display the Romanitas of the inhabitants of the
house as well as their cultural heritage. The depictions of the philosophers do
not evoke specific learned men, as has sometimes been supposed,38 but types of
ideal philosophers and symbols of learning. The depictions of the philosophers
are meant to display and evoke the paideia of the patron of the house.
New interpretations of the ceiling frescoes therefore do not allow for an
association of Helena with these paintings and thus for a connection between
the frescoes and the domus Helenae as sedes episcopalis of the medieval sources.
As a result, this bit of circumstantial evidence for HelenaÌs presence in Trier
cannot be taken into account as an indication for her ever having been in Trier,
which implies that there is no reliable evidence that she has ever resided in that
city. Even though we may surmise – and even consider it likely – that she did
35 Heinen (cf. fn. 27) 105 ff.

36 I. Lavin, “The Ceiling Frescoes in Trier and Illusionism in Constantinian Painting”,
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 21 (1967) 99 – 113; H. Brandenburg, “Zur Deutung der
Deckenbilder aus der Trierer Domgrabung”, Boreas 8 (1985) 143 – 189; E. Simon, Die
konstantinischen Deckengemlde in Trier (Mainz 1986).
37 M.E. Rose, “The Trier Ceiling: Power and Status on Display in Late Antiquity”, Greece
and Rome 53.1 (2006) 92 – 109.
38 Rose (cf. fn. 37) 107.
reside at her sonÌs court in Trier, we should realise that HelenaÌs association
with Trier is late and that we are probably dealing with a tradition invented in
the ninth century to advance the status of the city and that of its bishopÌs see in
the region.
1.3 Rome
When Constantine had defeated Maxentius in the battle at the Milvian Bridge
on 28 October 312 and thereafter gradually changed over to Christianity, Helena
too became a Christian.39 When exactly and how her transition to Christianity
took place, we do not know, but it seems most likely that her conversion
happened in the wake of that of Constantine, as Eusebius mentions.40 At some
point after 312 – the precise date remains obscure – Helena most probably came
to live in Rome. She is likely to have embodied the imperial presence in Rome
in particular because Constantine hardly spent any time in the Eternal City.41
The fundus Laurentus in the South-East corner of the city, which included the
Palatium Sessorianum, a circus and public baths (later called Thermae Helenae),
came into her possession and was the place where she lived.42 Three inscriptions
(CIL 6.1134, 1135, 1136) found in the area may be taken as evidence for
HelenaÌs close connection with and patronage of the Sessorian palace and the
area around it. So too is her interest in the newly founded basilica Ss. Marcellino
e Pietro on the Via Labicana, which was built in the area that belonged to the
fundus Laurentus (Lib. Pont., I, 183), as well as the fact that she was buried in a
mausoleum attached to this basilica.43 On the basis of epigraphical material it
39 Cf. D.S. Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay AD 180 – 395 (Oxon/New York 2004) 351
who thinks that Helena – Potter calls her “an active champion of the church” later in her
life – may have converted even earlier.
40 Eus. VC 3.47.2. EusebiusÌ words “she seemed to him [Constantine] to have been a
disciple of the common Saviour of the first” led Theodoret (Hist. Eccl. 1.18.1) and
Gelasius of Cyzicus (Hist. Eccl. 3.6.1) to believe that Helena had raised Constantine as a
Christian. There is no reason to believe that, as the Actus Sylvestri mentions, that she
was sympathetic towards Judaism, as does J. Vogt in an article which is not entirely free
from racial prejudice towards Jews, in particular with regard to physical appearance; J.
Vogt, “Helena Augusta, das Kreuz und die Juden. Fragen um die Mutter Constantins
des Großen”, Saeculum 27 (1976) 211 – 222.
41 M. Dietz, Wandering Monks, Virgins, and Pilgrims (University Park 2005) 110.
Constantine never resided in Rome but only visited the city: 29 October 312-January
313, 21 July-27 September 315, 18 July-3 August 326; Barnes (cf. fn. 23) 71 – 72, 77.
42 F. Guidobaldi, “Sessorium”, in: E.M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis
Romae 4 (Rome 1999) 304 – 308; A.M. Affanni (ed.), La Basilica di S. Croce in
Gerusalemme a Roma quando lÌantico º futuro (Viterbo 1997).
43 Byzantine sources associate Helena with Constantinople. It is not likely that she ever
resided in the new capital, which was inaugurated in 330 (so after her death), but she
seems that Helena was also well known in the region of Campania. We have
inscriptions from Salernum (CIL 10.517), Sorrentum (CIL 10.678), Naples (CIL
10.1483, 1484) and Saepinum (CIL 9.2446) located to the East of Campania, all
of which honour Helena. These inscriptions dating from 324 or thereafter, when
Helena had received the official title of Augusta,44 nicely indicate her gradual
growth in power at ConstantineÌs court and within the Constantinian dynasty.
Before 324 Helena bore the official title of nobilissima femina, indicating that
she was a member of the imperial house, as we know from a small quantity of
bronze coins which have her image and the lettering Helena NF. The coins are of
unknown date and seem only to have been minted at Thessalonica; therefore,
we do not know when she received the Nobilissima Femina title.45 However,
when she was given the title Augusta in autumn of 324, possibly on 8
November,46 after Constantine had defeated Licinius and had become sole ruler
of the empire, HelenaÌs status changed profoundly. She now had an even more
prominent position at the court than before as well as in the empire on the
whole. Her new elevated status is reflected in the minting and circulating of a
greater number of coins bearing HelenaÌs image – in particular of the
SECURITAS REIPUBLICE (sic) type minted all over the Roman Empire47 –
as well as in the increased number of inscriptions. At an advanced age Helena
had become a pillar of the Constantinian house and of the empire.48 Both coins
and inscriptions are of propagandistic nature. Whereas the coins emphasize
Helena as one of the pillars on which the security of the empire was based, the
inscriptions stress her role as mother of Constantine and grandmother of the
Caesars, ConstantineÌs sons; two even – in obvious contrast to the literary texts –
may have spent some time in the city on her return from her Eastern journey;
Pohlsander (cf. fn. 3) 139 – 148.
44 Only one inscription is from outside Italy, i. e. CIL 8.1633, which was found at Sicca
Veneria, modern El Kef in Tunisia.
45 Roman Imperial Coinage (RIC) 7, 503 – 505; possibly these coins were minted in 318/319
which may have been the date for HelenaÌs rise in status by becoming a Nobilissima
Femina.
46 RIC 7, 69; Barnes (cf. fn. 23) 9; Kienast (cf. fn. 23) 304. Eus. VC 3.47.2 reports that
Constantine had Helena honoured with imperial rank, that she was acclaimed by all
peoples and by the military as Augusta Imperatrix, and that her portrait was shown on
gold coinage.
47 RIC 7, passim.
48 Th. Grðnewald, Constantinus Maximus Augustus. Herrschaftspropaganda in der
zeitgençssischen berlieferung (Stuttgart 1990) 142 – 143. Grðnewald makes the
interesting, but not very convincing suggestion that the plural Augg on the providentia
coin types (PROVIDENTIA AUGG) which Constantine had minted after 324 is not a
mistake but refers to Constantinus Augustus, Helena Augusta and Fausta Augusta;
PROVIDENTIA AUGG is to be read, according to Grðnewald, as providentia Augusti
et Augustarum.
mention her as legitimate wife of Constantius.49 Evidently Constantine, after

having become ruler over the whole empire, presented his mother as an
honourable woman, who had had an official and recognised relationship with his
father, which made him the legitimate successor of Constantius. Helena was
presented as the ancestress of the Constantinian dynasty not only to justify his
own rule but also to invalidate possible claims to the throne by his half-brothers,
the sons of Constantius and Theodora.50
1.4 Eusebius and HelenaÌs ÍpilgrimageÌ
When Constantine became the sole ruler of the empire in 324 he gradually made
his mother a founding member of his dynasty; she rose de stercore ad regnum
(“from the dung to royalty”), as Ambrose phrased it.51 Due to the lack of
sources her biography remains for the most part irrecoverable. The only period
of her life for which we have a more detailed account is that of her last years and
her death. In particular we are well informed about her journey through the
Eastern provinces, thanks to Eusebius, who gave an account of it in his Vita
Constantini (3.41.2 – 46), a work finished not long after ConstantineÌs death in
337. The Vita, however, – and the same applies to the report of HelenaÌs journey
– is not without problems as a source for reconstructing history. From a literary
point of view it is a hybrid work. It combines narrative history with the genre of
imperial panegyric and with that of the bios/vita. Furthermore, Eusebius
included official documents and letters by Constantine. Moreover, the Vita is an
apologetic work: Eusebius explains and defends ConstantineÌs choice of
Christianity, his support of the Christians and the Church. In order to do this
he presents ConstantineÌs actions in the most positive way, and unfavourable
sides of his behaviour, such as the murders of his son Crispus and wife Fausta in
326, are left unmentioned. Predominantly those deeds of ConstantineÌs which
are reported by Eusebius relate to the emperorÌs Christianity.52 As a
consequence the emperor is not only portrayed as a worldly ruler but also as
a divine man. The Eusebian portrayal of Constantine is not that of a real
character but that of an idealized emperor and holy man. The chapters
49 divi Constanti castissimae / coniugi (CIL 10.517); uxori divi Constanti (CIL 10.1483).
50 In the short interregnum after ConstantineÌs death on 22 May 337 coins of Helena were
minted to emphasize the legitimacy of ConstantineÌs sons and projected successors vis--
vis that of his half-brothers, the sons of Theodora (wife of ConstantineÌs father
Constantius); Drijvers (cf. fn. 11) 44 – 45. See now also R.W. Burgess, “The Summer of
Blood: ÍThe Great MassacreÌ of 337 and the Promotion of the Sons of Constantine”,
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 62 (2008) 5 – 51.
51 Ambr. De Obit. Theod. 42.
52 VC 1.11.1.
dedicated to Helena should be interpreted within the broader context of the Vita
and its “Leitmotiv” of praising Constantine. The pious Helena visiting Palestine,
founding churches and stepping in the footsteps of Jesus serves to enhance the
piety of her son, his patronage of Christianity, in particular in Palestine, as well
as to provide a background to the emperorÌs provenance as HelenaÌs son. The
passages about Helena emphasize her royalty, piety and humanity. They parallel
the passages about Constantius in Book 1.13 – 21 of the Vita. ConstantineÌs
father is presented as a ruler who pleased God, who was generous and humane
towards his subjects, and who protected the Christians. In this way Eusebius
gives both Constantius and Helena a role in ConstantineÌs personal history.53
Both passages demonstrate remarkable resemblance: they both end with the
death of Constantius and Helena in the presence of their son; both Constantius
and Helena are presented as devout and benevolent toward their subjects, both
perform pious deeds and honour the only God – Constantius by not persecuting
the Christians, Helena by building churches. A son of such ideal parents, a
Christian Augustus and Augusta, can only be a perfect Christian and a perfect
Augustus himself.
In spite of the fact that Eusebius mentions that HelenaÌs journey concerned
the Eastern provinces of the empire, he focuses predominantly on her activities
in Palestine and emphasizes her personal connections with the holy sites in
Palestine as motives for her visit. This journey, which probably took place at
some point in the years 326 – 328,54 has been and still is considered and referred
53 Av. Cameron & S.G. Hall, Eusebius. Life of Constantine. Introduction, Translation and
Commentary (Oxford 1999) 293; Vita Constantini: ber das Leben des glðckseligen
Kaisers Konstantin (De vita Constantini), herausgegeben, ðbersetzt and kommentiert
von Paul Drger (Oberhaid 20072) 380 – 382.
54 Various dates have been suggested for her journey. Some scholars, in particular those
who like Helena to be connected with the discovery of the cross, favour an early date of
324 – 325; S. Borgehammar, How the Holy Cross was Found. From Event to Medieval
Legend (Stockholm 1991) 137 – 139. Others date it in 326 – 327, immediately after the
celebration of ConstantineÌs Vicennalia in Rome in the summer of 326, which were
overshadowed by the murders of Crispus and Fausta; E.D. Hunt, Holy Land Pilgrimage
in the Later Roman Empire, AD 312 – 460 (Oxford 1982) 31 – 33. On the murders see
H.A. Pohlsander, “Crispus: Brilliant Career and Tragic End”, Historia. Zeitschrift fðr
Alte Geschichte 33 (1984) 79 – 106; J.W. Drijvers, “Flavia Maxima Fausta: Some
Remarks”, Historia. Zeitschrift fðr Alte Geschichte 41 (1992) 500 – 506; cf. D. Woods,
“On the Death of the Empress Fausta”, Greece and Rome 45 (1998) 70 – 86; K. Olbrich,
“Kaiser in der Krise – religions- und rechtsgeschichtliche Aspekte der ÍFamilienmordeÌ
des Jahres 326”, Klio 92 (2010) 104 – 116. Still others prefer a date of 327 – 328, based on
EusebiusÌ mention of her death immediately following his account of her journey and
abrupt end, and on the issue of Helena-Augusta coins at the end of 328 or the beginning
of 329; Consolino (cf. fn. 12) 149. Since an early date is unlikely, her journey must have
taken place sometime in the years 326 – 328. On the date of her journey, see also Heinen
(cf. fn. 12) 234 – 235.
to as a ÍpilgrimageÌ due to EusebiusÌ reference to Psalm 132:7 “Let us adore in

the place where his feet have stood”55 in connection with HelenaÌs visit to
Palestine, and his representation of her itinerary in a predominantly Christian
context.
The meaning of pilgrimage differs over the ages – the aspect of penance, for
instance, was absent in Late Antiquity and was only introduced in the Middle
Ages. Pilgrimage can be suitably defined as “a journey undertaken by a person
(or group) in quest of a place or state that he or she believes to embody a sacred
ideal”.56 It is, however, doubtful and even unlikely that HelenaÌs reasons for
visiting Palestine had anything to do with embodying a sacred ideal. Presumably
the motives for her journey were in the first place of political nature, as is
obvious, for instance, from the fact that she travelled as an Augusta, as Eusebius
reports,57 and not as a humble and pious pilgrim desirous to visit holy sites. One
of the main objectives of her journey may well have been to make ConstantineÌs
religious policy acceptable to the provincials in the East and to secure
ConstantineÌs rule by calming down the resentment that existed against it. It is
furthermore difficult not to see HelenaÌs journey against the background of the
tragic events in 326 which led to the murders of ConstantineÌs son Crispus and
his wife Fausta. Several remarks by Eusebius, in particular in VC 3.42, indicate
that there existed discontent with and opposition to ConstantineÌs rule in the
Eastern provinces.58 The key passage of EusebiusÌ account for the purpose of her
journey is not the reference to Psalm 132:7 nor the report of her building
churches in Bethlehem and on the Mount of Olives, but the few sentences in VC
55 Eus. VC 3.42.2: ¢r d³ to?r b^lasi to?r sytgq_oir tµm pq]pousam !ped_dou pqosj}mgsim,
!joko}hyr pqovgtij` k|c\, v\mti “pqosjum^sylem eQr t¹m t|pom, ox 5stgsam oR p|der
aqtoO”. See P.W.L. Walker, Holy City, Holy Places? Christian Attitudes to Jerusalem and
the Holy Land in the Fourth Century (Oxford 1990) 180 – 181, 183.
56 The definition is by E.A. Morinis (ed.), Sacred Journeys. The Anthropology of
Pilgrimage (Westport 1992) 4. On pilgrimage in Antiquity see Jaś Elsner & Ian
Rutherford (eds.), Pilgrimage in Graeco-Roman and Early Christian Antiquity (Oxford
2005). On Christian pilgrimage in Late Antiquity the standard works remain B. Kçtting,
Peregrinatio Religiosa: Wallfahrten in der Antike und das Pilgerwesen in der alten Kirche
(Mðnster 1950); Hunt (cf. fn. 54); P. Maraval, Lieux saints et pºlerinage en Orient:
histoire et g¤ographie des origines la conquÞte arabe (Paris 1985); see now also B.
Bitton-Ashkelony, Encountering the Sacred. The Debate on Christian Pilgrimage in Late
Antiquity (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 2005).
57 Eusebius says that she came “to inspect with imperial concern (basilikº promºtheia) the
Eastern provinces with their communities and peoples”; VC 3.42.1; in 3.44.1 Eusebius
mentions that “she visited the whole East in the magnificence of imperial authority”.
Translations are derived from Cameron & Hall (cf. fn. 53). That her journey was of a
political nature is generally accepted now; see e. g. Drijvers (cf. fn. 11) 66 – 70; Consolino
(cf. fn. 12) 147 – 150; H. Sivan, Palestine in Late Antiquity (Oxford 2008) 210; Heinen (cf.
fn. 12) 10.
58 Drijvers (cf. fn. 11) 66 – 70.
3.44 where Eusebius reports that “she visited the whole East in the magnificence
of imperial authority, she showered countless gifts upon the citizen bodies of
every city, and privately to each of those who approached her; and she made
countless distributions also to the ranks of the soldiery with magnificent hand”.59
She furthermore released prisoners, those condemned to the mines, and victims
of fraud; others she recalled from exile. Obviously the political aspect is not
emphasized by Eusebius. He focuses on the religious aspects of her itinerary, her
pious deeds and her concern for churches. He emphasizes her responsibility for
the founding of two churches in Palestine: the Nativity Church in Bethlehem
and the Eleona Church on the Mount of Olives (VC 3.43).60 The construction of
these churches should be seen within the context of ConstantineÌs policy of
turning Palestine into the Christian Holy Land. EusebiusÌ references to these
churches are in the first place meant to praise Constantine. Even though Helena
founded them, it was the emperor himself who in honour of his mother
presented the newly founded basilicas with imperial dedications, treasures of
silver and gold and embroidered curtains, and other kinds of offerings and
ornaments (VC 3.41 and 43.2, 4). Eusebius does not connect her in any way with
the construction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre; nor does Eusebius refer
to the discovery of the true cross (see below).
Kenneth Holum has made a strong argument for interpreting HelenaÌs
mission and EusebiusÌ presentation thereof as an iter principis rather than a
peregrinatio religiosa. 61 Her journey was undertaken for state purposes and was
carefully orchestrated in advance by the court. Holum argues that Helena set
out from Rome in the autumn of 326 with an imperial retinue,62 and that she
visited provinces, peoples and cities, where she was presumably received with
the adventus ceremonial. As emperors did on their journeys, so did Helena
bestow gifts on the inhabitants of cities, present donatives to the troops, sponsor
the construction of public buildings (i. e. the basilicas in Bethlehem and on the
Mount of Olives), and adorn the sanctuaries of the cities she visited. She also
heard petitions and granted pardons: prisoners and those sentenced to the mines
59 Tµm c\q toi s}lpasam 2]am lecakopqepe_ô basikij/r 1nous_ar 1lpeqiekhoOsa, luq_a l³m
!hq|yr to?r jat± p|kim 1dyqe?to d^loir Qd_ô te t_m pqosi|mtym 2j\st\, luq_a d³ ja· to?r
stqatiytijo?r t\clasi deniø lecakopqepe? di]mele…
60 Eusebius (VC 3.41.1, 43) identifies HelenaÌs church on the Mount of Olives with the
Ascension and JesusÌ secret teaching to his disciples. Later in the fourth century the
Imbomon church, built by the aristocratic lady Poemenia, was associated with the site of
the Ascension; Walker (cf. fn. 55) 201 – 202; J.E. Taylor, Christians and the Holy Places.
The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins (Oxford 1993) 143 – 156.
61 K.G. Holum, “Hadrian and St. Helena: Imperial Travel and the Origins of Christian
Holy Land Pilgrimage”, in: R. Ousterhout (ed.), The Blessings of Pilgrimage (Urbana/
Chicago 1990) 66 – 81; also Fortner & Rottloff (cf. fn. 12) 87.
62 Eusebius reports that she travelled “in the magnificence of imperial authority” (VC
3.44).
were released and exiles were brought home. It has been argued that imperial
journeys were a tool of government and were undertaken to organise opinion.63
According to Holum, HelenaÌs imperial progress had a similar purpose. He
connects her journey with ConstantineÌs Holy Land Plan,64 in particular his
intention to decorate ChristÌs tomb in Jerusalem and to build a basilica close to
it, and with a new conception of the empire “with Jerusalem in some sense at its
physical center”.65 It would have been the purpose of HelenaÌs journey to rally
support for this new conception of the empire.
There is much to be said for HolumÌs interpretation of EusebiusÌ account of
HelenaÌs journey. Her itinerary must definitely have been an official imperial
progress of secular character, initiated and orchestrated by ConstantineÌs court.
Many of her actions en route fit well into the context of an official imperial
journey. Less convincing is HolumÌs argument that Helena undertook her
mission in order to organise opinion for her sonÌs new conception of the empire
with Jerusalem at the centre. First of all, we do not know if Constantine really
had developed a new notion of empire even if he may have advanced a new
conception of Palestine as the Christian Holy Land. Secondly, the explanation
focuses only on Jerusalem and is therefore too narrow, because HelenaÌs voyage
concerned the Eastern provinces in general and not only Jerusalem and
Palestine. My personal opinion, even though I agree that her journey must be
considered in the first place as an iter principis, is that the reasons for HelenaÌs
mission were of other nature than propagating a possible new conception of
empire by Constantine. ConstantineÌs reign was in trouble in the East, there was
substantial opposition against his policy of Christianization and his stance
towards Arianism as taken at the Council of Nicaea by those who were
sympathetic towards it, and his position and that of his sons was endangered
even more by the palace crisis in 326 which led to the executions of Crispus and
Fausta. To restore stability and acquire loyalty for ConstantineÌs rule, to gain
support for ConstantineÌs policy of christianizing the empire according to the
Nicene doctrine, and to advertise the Christianity of the court were the reasons
why Helena was sent to the East.66 These problems may lay behind EusebiusÌ
words, that Helena “made it her business to pay what piety owed to the all-
sovereign God” and that “she ought to complete in prayers her thanks-offerings
63 H. Halffmann, Itinera Principum. Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen im

rçmischen Reich (Stuttgart 1986) 143 – 156.
64 The term “Holy Land Plan” was first used by W. Telfer in an article entitled
“ConstantineÌs Holy Land Plan”, Studia Patristica 1 (1957) 696 – 700.
65 Holum (cf. fn. 61) 75.
66 Cf. Holum (cf. fn. 61) 71 and 75. It may have helped that Helena, who probably came
from the Eastern part of the empire herself, knew Greek.
for her son, so great an Emperor, and his sons the most Godbeloved Caesars,
her grandchildren”.67
Recently Noel Lenski has presented a different explanation for HelenaÌs
journey, in a most stimulating and thought-provoking article which on the whole
has received little attention.68 LenskiÌs explanation is also of political nature,
although it is quite different from that of Holum. Lenski considers Helena a
political refugee whose main motive for travelling East was the palace turmoil
after the killing of Crispus and Fausta. Her indirect involvement in the murder
of her daughter-in-law, as alleged by some sources,69 would have led to an
estrangement between her and Constantine. According to Lenski “she may have
travelled east to escape from her recently disaffected son”.70 In Palestine her
building projects offered her the opportunity of restoring her imperial power by
constructive use of a religious space, while at the same time transforming the
profane landscape of Palestine “into a sacred stage for the re-enactment of
Christian religion”.71 When Constantine became aware of the success of his
motherÌs agenda of christianizing sites he adopted her program and was
reconciled with her. Lenski not only deals with Helena but also with her
contemporary Eutropia, FaustaÌs mother and ConstantineÌs mother-in-law, and
with the fifth-century empresses Aelia Eudocia, wife of Theodosius II, and
EudociaÌs granddaughter, likewise named Aelia Eudocia. Also for these
empresses a journey to the Holy Land offered, according to Lenski, an
opportunity for dealing with the crisis of imperial estrangement and for
restoring themselves into the network of imperial power. LenskiÌs arguments
are convincing in the cases of Eutropia and the two EudociaÌs, but not in the
case of Helena. Lenski seems to be projecting fifth-century scenarios back to the
situation at the Constantinian court in 326. Firstly, we do not know, due to
uncertainty within and contradiction among the sources, whether Helena had
somehow had a hand in FaustaÌs murder and for that reason had become
alienated from her son.72 Of more importance, however, is that Lenski
insufficiently takes into account that her journey concerned the Eastern
67 VC 3.42.1: 1peidµ c±q avtg t` palbasike? he` t¹ t/r eqseboOr diah]seyr !podoOmai
wq]or 5qcom 1poi^sato, 1vÌ uR` te basike? toso}t\ pais_ te aqtoO ja_saqsi heovike-
st\toir, 2aut/r 1jc|moir…
68 N. Lenski, “Empresses in the Holy Land: The Creation of a Christian Utopia in Late
Antique Palestine”, in: L. Ellis & F.L. Kidner (eds.), Travel, Communication and
Geography in Late Antiquity. Sacred and Profane (Aldershot 2004) 113 – 124.
69 Zos. 2.29.2; Epit. de Caes. 41.12.
70 Lenski (cf. fn. 68) 115. Cf. Olbrich (cf. fn. 54) 111 – 115, who interprets HelenaÌs stay in
the East as an “Ehrenexil” imposed by Constantine because of her involvement in the
events of 326. Olbrich does not seem to know LenskiÌs article; at least he does not refer
to it.
71 Lenski (cf. fn. 68) 121.
72 See note 54 above for references to publications on the murder of Fausta.
provinces as a whole and not only Palestine, and that it was an imperial progress
undoubtedly instigated by the court rather than a journey initiated by Helena
herself.73 Furthermore, it is unlikely that Helena commenced the Holy Land
Plan by building basilicas in Bethlehem and on the Mount of Olives and that it
was then taken over by Constantine, as Lenski suggests. The christianizing of the
sites in Palestine by building churches must have been carefully planned at the
imperial court and Helena was at the most a supervisor and executer of that plan
– possibly one of the other reasons why she was sent to the East – and not the
architect of it.
1.5 HelenaÌs Death and S. Croce in Gerusalemme
Eusebius devotes much space to the description of HelenaÌs death. Again, he

does so as an opportunity to emphasize ConstantineÌs piety. The bishop of
Caesarea reports that Helena converted to Christianity thanks to Constantine;
Constantine elevated her to the status of Augusta and gave her control over the
imperial treasury during her Eastern journey.74 Helena died shortly after her
eastern journey at the age of about eighty in the company of her son.75 The date
of her death is not stated in the sources, but the sudden stop in the issuing of
Helena coins in the spring of 329 favours a date late in 328 or the beginning of
329. Since Constantine was campaigning in the West at that time,76 she probably
died in the Western part of the empire. She was buried in the mausoleum at Ss.
Marcellino e Pietro, located on the Via Labicana in Rome, within the limits of
the fundus Laurentus, which was HelenaÌs property (see above).77 Although it
has been assumed that the mausoleum was originally meant for Constantine,
Mark Johnson has recently argued that, since Constantine was hardly ever in
73 In LenskiÌs line of reasoning there is a penitential aspect to HelenaÌs journey. However,

by the time Helena travelled to Jerusalem the idea of penitential pilgrimage had not yet
developed, as Dietz (cf. fn. 41) 113 reminds us.
74 Eus. VC 3.43.3, 47.2 – 3 and commentary by Cameron & Hall (cf. fn. 53) 295 – 296.
75 Eus. VC 3.46 – 47.
76 Barnes (cf. fn. 23) 77 – 78.
77 M.J. Johnson, “Where were Constantius I and Helena Buried?”, Latomus 51 (1992)
145 – 150. On her mausoleum, now known as Tor Pignattara, see F.W. Deichmann & A.
Tschira, “Das Mausoleum der Kaiserin Helena und die Basilika der Heiligen
Marcellinus und Petrus an der Via Labicana vor Rom”, Jahrbuch des deutschen
archologischen Instituts 72 (1957) 44 – 110; J.J. Rasch, Das Mausoleum der Kaiserin
Helena in Rom und der ÍTempio della TosseÌ in Tivoli (Mainz 1998); M.J. Johnson, The
Roman Imperial Mausolea in Late Antiquity (Cambridge 2009) 110 – 118. See also J.
Wortley, “The ÍSacred RemainsÌ of Constantine and Helena”, in: J. Burke et al. (eds.),
Byzantine Narrative. Papers in Honour of Roger Scott, Byzantina Australiensia 16
(Melbourne 2006) 351 – 367, repr. in J. Wortley, Studies on the Cult of Relics in
Byzantium up to 1204 (Farnham 2009).
Rome, the mausoleum may well have been planned for Helena from the
beginning. It has likewise been assumed, because of the decoration of
cavalrymen, that the sarcophagus in which HelenaÌs remains were placed was
designed for Constantine. According to Johnson this need not be so; he suggests
that the sarcophagus was confiscated from the mausoleum of Maxentius for
whom it was originally made.78
Probably a few years after her death, part of HelenaÌs Palatium Sessorianum
was transformed by Constantine into a basilica as a memoria for the cross. This
basilica, now known as S. Croce in Gerusalemme, was in the fifth century known
as sancta ecclesia Hierusalem. 79 The earliest written evidence of HelenaÌs
association with the church dates from the first half of the sixth century, when
the Gesta Xysti, which are included in the Liber Pontificalis, refer to it as basilica
Heleniana quae dicitur Sessorianum. 80 Most scholars have considered the
information of the Liber Pontificalis dubious but Sible de Blaauw has argued
that the information that this source provides is basically historically correct,
and that S. Croce was indeed founded under Constantine in memory of a relic of
the cross.81 The church was initially called basilica Hierusalem because of the
connection with the place where the cross was found, i. e. Jerusalem. There is,
however, no evidence that Helena herself brought back the relic from Jerusalem
or that it was discovered during her stay there, as Richard Krautheimer states.82
If this is indeed true we have evidence for an early cult of the cross in Rome.
78 Johnson (cf. fn. 77) 118.

79 ICUR 2, 435 no. 107.
80 L. Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis. Texte, introduction et commentaire, 2 vols. (Paris
1886 – 1892), vol. 1, 196, n. 75.
81 S. de Blaauw, “Jerusalem in Rome and the Cult of the Cross”, in: R.L. Colella et al.
(eds.), Pratum Romanum. Richard Krautheimer zum 100. Geburtstag (Wiesbaden 1997)
55 – 73. Liber Pontificalis 34.22: Eodem tempore fecit Constantinus Augustus basilicam in
palatio Sessorianum, ubi etiam de ligno sanctae Crucis domini nostri Iesu Christi posuit et
in auro et gemmis conclusit, ubi et nomen ecclesiae dedicavit, quae cognominatur usque
in hodiernum diem Hierusalem. According to De Blaauw the compiler of the Liber
Pontificalis is likely to have used authentic archival documents for his life of Sylvester,
under whose episcopate S. Croce would have been founded. See also Klein (cf. fn. 9/2)
69 ff. Although one would expect that a public veneration of the cross in Constantinople
would be early, given that relics of the cross were present in the city already in the fourth
century, it seems that a cult of the cross only started in the Byzantine capital in the sixth
century; Klein (cf. fn. 9/1). Dietz (cf. fn. 41) 118 – 119 has argued that the compiler of the
Liber Pontificalis had conflated the name of Constantia with that of Constantine.
Constantia together with her sister Helena – both were daughters of Constantine –
would have dedicated the church of S. Croce in honour of their grandmother.
82 R. Krautheimer, Three Christian Capitals (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 1983) 129 n.
16: “[there is] no reason to doubt the tradition of Helena having brought to her Roman
palace the relic of the cross from her pilgrimage to the Holy Land”; also Fortner &
Rottloff (cf. fn. 12) 91 suggest this.
This need not surprise us since in 349/350 Cyril of Jerusalem mentions that the
cross was found under Constantine and that relics of it quickly became
distributed throughout the world.83 It is furthermore to be observed that
Constantine placed crosses, though no relics, in two of the main churches in
Rome, St. PeterÌs and St. PaulÌs. The Liber Pontificalis mentions that he
provided these churches with golden crosses each weighing 150 lb. that were set
over the graves of the Apostles. The one in St. PeterÌs had an inscription saying:
“Constantine Augustus and Helena Augusta. He surrounds this house with a
royal hall gleaming with equal splendour.”84 Although these crosses are to be
interpreted as symbols of imperial and Christian victory and have no reference
to pieces of the actual cross whatsoever, they may be another indication for an
early reverence for the cross, and possibly a cult for this symbol of victory, in
Rome. The fact that the cross in St. PeterÌs mentions HelenaÌs name apparently
did not lead to an early association of Helena with the presence of cross relics in
S. Croce. The connection was made only later by the legend that she had
discovered the cross. That legend became known in the Western part of the
empire and most likely also in Rome around the year 400 (see below).
Remarkably, the earliest reference to Helena having brought a relic of the cross
to Rome only dates from around the year 1100, and does not concern S. Croce
but the Lateran basilica; it is not until the fifteenth century that sources mention
that Helena had brought cross relics to S. Croce.85
Her journey to Palestine, her founding of churches, her alleged discovery of
the true cross, and her piety turned Helena posthumously into a role model for
Late Antique and Byzantine empresses as well as for Western medieval queens,
in the same way that Constantine became the exemplary ruler for many
Byzantine and Western emperors and kings. As emperors and kings liked to
present themselves as New Constantines, or were declared as such, so empresses
and queens were represented and hailed as New Helenas.86
83 Cyr. Jer., Epist. ad Const. 3; Catech. 4.10, 10.19, 13.4.

84 Liber Pontificalis I, 176: CONSTANTINUS AUGUSTUS ET HELENA AUGUSTA
HANC DOMUM REGALEM SIMILE FULGORE CORUSCANS AULA CIRCUM-
DAT. Tr. by Davies, The Book of Pontiffs (Liverpool 1989) 18. R. Egger, “Das
Goldkreuz am Grabe Petri”, Anzeiger der phil.-hist. Klasse der çsterreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften 12 (1959) 182 – 202.
85 De Blaauw (cf. fn. 81) 65 – 66. According to Dietz (cf. fn. 41) 114 – 115 Eusebius claims in
his Vita Constantini that Helena took relics of the Passion back with her to Rome. This
cannot be true and must be a misinterpretation of EusebiusÌ text.
86 E.g. J.W. Drijvers, “Helena Augusta: Exemplary Christian Empress”, Studia Patristica
24 (Louvain 1993) 85 – 90; Leslie Brubaker, “Memories of Helena: Patterns in Imperial
Female Matronage in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries”, in: Liz James (ed.), Women, Men
and Eunuchs. Gender in Byzantium (London/New York 1997) 52 – 75; Liz James,
Empresses and Power in Early Byzantium (London 2001) 14, 149 – 150, 153 – 154; Lynda
L. Coon, Sacred Fictions. Holy Women and Hagiography in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia
2. The Myth of the Cross
EusebiusÌ account canonized Helena, as one scholar phrased it.87 His report of
her journey made posterity remember her as a humble and pious woman and as
the foundress of churches and would cast her as one of the first female pilgrims.
Her journey to Palestine was innovative, not only because she was the first
empress who made an iter principis on her own,88 but in particular because her
presence in Palestine was of profound importance for shaping its landscape as
the Christian Holy Land. And even though her journey was not a peregrinatio
religiosa it was of great influence on the development of Christian pilgrimage,
which was basically a novel phenomenon in the era of Constantine.89 Not long
after her death great numbers of Christian pilgrims, among them senatorial and
imperial women,90 followed in her footsteps and visited the sites which in
ConstantineÌs reign were adorned with churches, as well as an increasing
number of other holy sites. Many also came to see the relics of the cross, in
particular at Easter time when, as we know from the report of the pilgrim Egeria
who sojourned in Jerusalem in the years 381 – 384, the cross was shown to the
faithful in the inner courtyard of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (between the
Rotunda and the Martyrium) by JerusalemÌs bishop on Good Friday and on 14
September at the feast of the Encaenia. 91
1997) 97 – 103, 118 – 119, 134 – 135; J. Herrin, Women in Purple. Rulers of Medieval
Byzantium, 1 – 2, 21. On Constantine as a role model see e. g. P. Magdalino (ed.), New
Constantines. The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th to 13th centuries
(Aldershot 1994).
87 M. Edwards, Constantine and Christendom. The Oration of the Saints, the Greek and
Latin Accounts of the Discovery of the Cross, the Edict of Constantine to Pope Sylvester
(Liverpool 2003) xxx.
88 Holum (cf. fn. 61) 75.
89 Scholars are divided about the beginnings of Christian pilgrimage; see e. g. Bitton-
Ashkelony (cf. fn. 56) 18 – 19. I concur with Holum (cf. fn. 61) 68 – 70 that Christian
pilgrimage as it came into being in the fourth century is not a development out of a
tradition of visits of travelers to holy sites in the second and the third centuries, but that
pilgrimage was in essence a phenomenon which started in the reign of Constantine. The
early travelers, such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Melito of Sardis, the
Cappadocian bishop Alexander, often came to Palestine not for religious reasons and
pilgrimage was not yet an element of Christian piety. However, cf. Hunt (cf. fn. 54) 3 – 4;
E.D. Hunt, “Were there Christian Pilgrims before Constantine?”, in: J. Stopford (ed.),
Pilgrimage Explored (Woodbridge, Suffolk 1999) 25 – 40.
90 Hunt (cf. fn. 54) 155 – 179, 221 – 248; K.G. Holum, Theodosian Empresses. Women and
Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 1982) 184 – 189,
217 – 221.
91 It. Eg. 37.1 – 3, 48 – 49; Soz. Hist. Eccl. 2.26.4. The Encaenia was the annual feast to
celebrate the memory of the initiation of the Martyrium basilica. At this festival also the
discovery of the Cross was celebrated. M.A. Fraser, The Feast of the Encaenia in the
2.1 The Cross and Jerusalem
In the fourth century the symbol of the cross developed rapidly from a symbol of
disgrace into the Christian symbol par excellence. The cross could be seen
everywhere: it was depicted on coins, houses, sarcophagi and weapons, sewn on
clothes and tattooed on bodies. The sign of the cross was thought to have healing
power, to offer protection against evil, and to be able to ward off demonic
forces.92 The symbol of the cross became first and foremost a sign that brought
victory and power for Christianity as well as unity to the Christian community.
For Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem in the years 349 – 386, the cross was the glory of
the catholic Church, a source of illumination and redemption, the end of sin, the
source of life, a crown of honour instead of dishonour, the basis of salvation, and
the symbol that brings the faithful together.93
By the late fourth century Helena would forever be associated with the cross
and Jerusalem because she was considered responsible for the exposure of the
cross. Although it has been argued otherwise,94 it is accepted by most scholars –
without denying the historicity of the discovery of a piece of wood considered to
be cross of Christ – that HelenaÌs association with the cross is late and that she is
not responsible for its discovery.95 However, the wood of the cross was already
physically present and venerated in Jerusalem and elsewhere at least by 351 as
Fourth Century and in the Ancient Liturgical Sources of Jerusalem (Durham 1995, PhD
thesis), accessible via http://www.encaenia.org.
92 P. Stockmeier, Theologie und Kult des Kreuzes bei Johannes Chrysostomos: Ein Beitrag
zum Verstndnis des Kreuzes im 4. Jahrhundert (Trier 1966) 212 – 217.
93 Cyr. Jer. Catech. 13.1, 4, 6, 19, 20, 22, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41; 15.22. Walker (cf. fn. 55) 256 – 257,
328; J.W. Drijvers, Cyril of Jerusalem: Bishop and City (Leiden 2004) 156 – 158.
94 Borgehammar (cf. fn. 54) 130 – 142; C.P. Thiede & M. DÌAncona, The Quest for the True
Cross (London 2000). The latter book in an unscholarly way combines myth and
historical fact in order to proof that the cross was an important Christian symbol from
the earliest days of the Church onwards, that Helena came to Jerusalem with the
purpose of finding it, and indeed discovered it, together with the titulus which is now in
S. Croce in Gerusalemme in Rome. The authors are of the opinion that tradition and
legends are historically important and that “the reconstruction of the early Christian
world from surviving legends… has been hampered by a pathological scepticism verging
on the unscholarly” (p. 3). Reviewers, with justice, have severely criticized the book for
its bias, unscholarly approach, and the neglect of recent studies on Helena and the
legend of the cross; Av. Cameron, “Legend and Inscription”, Times Literary Supple-
ment, 17 November 2000; S. Heid, “Kreuz Christi, Titulus Crucis und das Heilige Grab
in neuesten Publikationen”, Forum Katholische Theologie 17 (2001) 161 – 178, at 161 –
173; H.A. Pohlsander, The Journal of Religion 83 (2003) 436-437.
95 Recent publications with this view: Consolino (cf. fn. 12) 155 – 159, who argues against
BorgehammarÌs theory; see also S. Heid, “Die gute Absicht im Schweigen Eusebs ðber
die Kreuzauffindung”, Rçmische Quartalschrift 96 (2001) 37 – 56, at 1ff.; Heinen (cf.
fn. 12) 24 takes a middle position by stating that it is unclear “ob und in welcher Weise
Helena an der Auffindung des Kreuzes beteiligt war”.
we know from the Catechetical Lectures of the above-mentioned Cyril.96 The

same Cyril also mentions in a letter to the emperor Constantius dated to 351
that the cross was found in Jerusalem in the time of Constantine.97 There is
discussion as to whether Eusebius in his Vita Constantini is already referring to
the finding of the cross. The complexity of this debate does not allow me to
elaborate on it here. It may suffice to say that several scholars (and I used to be
among them) think that the words t¹ cm~qisla toO "ciyt\tou 1je_mou p\hour
which occur in ConstantineÌs letter to Macarius on the construction of the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre (VC 3.30.1) refer to the wood of the cross, and
that Eusebius had for political and religious reasons deliberately omitted further
mention of the cross and its finding.98 However, I am no longer convinced that
these words are an allusion to the wood of the cross, and believe that they must
refer to ChristÌs tomb, the (alleged) presence of which was reason for
Constantine to build the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the first place.99
Should EusebiusÌ words refer to the cross, ConstantineÌs letter would be
referring to something other than what EusebiusÌ description was about, i. e. the
excavation of ChristÌs tomb and the building of the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre. Moreover, EusebiusÌ theological outlook tends to emphasize ChristÌs
96 Cyr. Jer. Catech. 4.10, 10.19, 13.4. For the date of deliverance of these lectures, see
Drijvers (cf. fn. 93) 56 – 58.
97 Cyr. Jer. Epist. ad Const. 3 : 9p· l³m c±q toO heovikest\tou ja· t/r lajaq_ar lm^lgr
Jymstamt_mou toO soO patq|r, t¹ syt^qiom toO stauqoO n}kom 1m Zeqosok}loir gvqgtai ;
E. Bihain, “LÌÃpitre de Cyrille de J¤rusalem Constance sur la vision de la Croix
(BHG 3 413)”, Byzantion 43 (1973) 264 – 296, at 286 – 291 for the edition of the letter.
98 H.A. Drake, “Eusebius on the True Cross”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 36 (1985)
1 – 22; Z. Rubin, “The Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Conflict between the Sees
of Caesarea and Jerusalem”, The Jerusalem Cathedra 2 (1982) 79 – 105; Drijvers (cf.
fn. 11) 83 – 87; Heid (cf. fn. 95) 49 – 52; Drijvers (cf. fn. 93) 19 – 20. On the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre: e. g. E. Wistrand, Konstantins Kirche am heiligen Grab in Jerusalem
nach den ltesten literarischen Zeugnissen (Gçteborg 1952); S. Gibson & J.E. Taylor,
Beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem (London 1994); C. Morris, The
Sepulchre of Christ and the Medieval West. From the Beginning to 1600 (Oxford 2005) 1 –
40. Borgehammar (cf. fn. 54) 105 – 122 discusses EusebiusÌ text in great detail and argues
that EusebiusÌ report may be “the earliest account of how the Holy Cross was found” (p.
122) and that the Martyrium (ConstantineÌs basilica) was not constructed to
commemorate ChristÌs resurrection but was built in honour of the discovery of the
cross. Borgehammar is clearly overinterpreting EusebiusÌ account.
99 All suggestions for a reference by Eusebius to the cross are convincingly refuted by
Cameron & Hall (cf. fn. 53) 279 – 281 (“The word cm~qisla [ÍevidenceÌ] in ConstantineÌs
letter to Macarius… should be taken to refer to the cave/tomb, rather than to the True
Cross”, p. 279), 282 – 283; also E.D. Hunt, “Constantine and Jerusalem”, Journal of
Ecclesiastical History 48 (1997) 405 – 424, at 414 – 416; Morris (cf. fn. 98) 23 – 24. The
Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which is the common name for the Constantinian
complex, consisted of two buildings separated by a courtyard: the Anastasis rotunda and
the Martyrium Basilica.
resurrection rather than his death and focuses on sites and places rather than on
objects.100 Even in the unlikely case that Eusebius knew about the ÍdiscoveryÌ of
the cross he would for theological reasons not have been particularly interested
in it and not have referred to it. The church was therefore initially only intended
as a sanctuary to honour ChristÌs tomb and the resurrection, and not the
discovery of the cross. Only in the legendary tradition of the inventio crucis
there is a direct connection made between the discovery of the cross and the
building of the church. Nevertheless, we know that the cross was venerated in
Jerusalem at an early date. There is little doubt that wood considered to be the
cross of Christ was discovered, although we do not know how and by whom. A
probable scenario is that during the excavation and construction work for the
church, which started around 326, pieces of wood turned up which were
considered as belonging to ChristÌs cross and were authenticated as such by the
Jerusalem clergy. It is not likely that three complete crosses were found, as the
later legends tell us, but rather a small chunk or chunks of wood.101 This
ÍdiscoveryÌ probably took place during the reign of Constantine, if we consider
CyrilÌs words in his letter to Constantius, that the cross was found in the days of
Constantine to be trustworthy (and there is no reason not to), which makes
ConstantineÌs death at 22 May 337 the terminus ante quem for the discovery.
Shortly after the relics were found, a cult of the cross started in Jerusalem and
this was already quite developed by the mid fourth century, as we may conclude
from CyrilÌs remarks in his Catechetical Lectures. 102
Helena acquired eternal fame by an act she did not perform – the inventio
crucis, the discovery of the true cross.103 The earliest examples of the
hagiographic subgenre of inventio, which deals with the discovery of relics of
Christian saints, date from shortly before or after the turn of the fifth century.
The inventio crucis is one the first and most important texts of this subgenre. The
inventio texts exist as independent compositions but more often are part of
larger literary works such as (church) histories, sermons, letters, liturgical texts
100 R.L. Wilken, “Eusebius and the Christian Holy Land”, in: H.W. Attridge & G. Hata
(eds.), Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism (Leiden 1992) 736 – 760, at 745 – 755; R.L.
Wilken, The Land called Holy. Palestine in Christian History and Thought (New Haven/
London 1992) 90; Walker (cf. fn. 55) 72 – 92.
101 S. Heid (cf. fn. 95) 40: “Aufgrund der frðhen Quellen kann eine Kreuzauffindung unter
Kaiser Konstantin um 325/26 als historisch sicher gelten.” Although there is no
unequivocal evidence that the cross was found as early as 325/6, Klein (cf. fn. 9/2) 22 is
perhaps too careful by arguing that “die Auffindung des Kreuzes Christi in dem kurzen
Zeitraum zwischen 330 und 350 erfolgte.” Consolino (cf. fn. 12) 156 thinks the cross was
found in the second half of the 320 s.
102 Klein (cf. fn. 9/2) 19 – 27.
103 Her alleged excavation of the cross was for W.H.C. Frend reason to characterize her as
the first archaeologist seeking for relics; The Archaeology of Early Christianity. A
History (Minneapolis 1995) 1 – 10.
etc.104 This is also true for the innumerable texts about the discovery of the cross.
The narrative of the inventio crucis has received considerable scholarly interest
in the last two decades, as a consequence of which our knowledge about the
origin, function and spread of the legend has advanced significantly. The general
development of the legend seems to be known and agreed upon. There is a
consensus that the legend came into being in Jerusalem in the second half of the
fourth century. Its original language was Greek and it was first recorded in
writing in the now lost Church History of Gelasius of Caesarea, which dates
from approximately 390.105 Although it has been argued that the legend
originated in response to questions of pilgrims about how the cross came to be
present in Jerusalem,106 it was probably the competition between the sees of
Caesarea and Jerusalem about primacy in the church province of Palestine,
which gave cause to the origin of the story. Its origin had therefore in the first
place a political background rather than the curiosity of pilgrims. Cyril, bishop
of Jerusalem in 350 – 387, may have been responsible for the invention of the
narrative, although this cannot be proved. In CyrilÌs theological system the
symbol of the cross was of extreme importance and he therefore encouraged the
cult of the cross to a great extent. However, apart from theological reasons,
Cyril also brought the cross and its veneration to prominence for political
reasons and he greatly stressed the connection between Jerusalem and the cross.
As I have argued elsewhere, the cross and the narrative about its discovery by
Helena constituted a link in CyrilÌs efforts to connect himself and his bishopric
to power relationships, in particular the imperial house, in order to make
Jerusalem the holiest city in the world of Christendom and his own bishopÌs see
into the most authoritative and prestigious one in Palestine.107
104 E. Gordon Whatley, “Constantine the Great, the Empress Helena, and the Relics of the
Holy Cross”, in: Th. Head (ed.), Medieval Hagiography. An Anthology (New York/
London 2000) 77 – 95, at 77; the main part of this book chapter (83 – 95) consists of
English translations of the inventio crucis narratives as included in RufinusÌ Church
History and a tenth-century Spanish legendary.
105 F. Winkelmann, Untersuchungen zur Kirchengeschichte des Gelasios von Kaisareia,
Sitzungsberichte der deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 65, Nr. 3 (Berlin
1966).
106 S. Heid, “Der Ursprung der Helena-Legende im Pilgerbetrieb Jerusalems”, Jahrbuch fðr
Antike und Christentum 32 (1989) 41 – 71.
107 J.W. Drijvers, “Promoting Jerusalem: Cyril and the True Cross”, in: J.W. Drijvers & J.W.
Watt (eds.), Portraits of Spiritual Authority. Religious Power in Christian Antiquity,
Byzantium and the East (Leiden 1999) 79 – 95; Drijvers (cf. fn. 93) 153 – 176. See also
Bitton-Ashkelony (cf. fn. 56) 57 – 62; A.J. Wharton, Selling Jerusalem. Relics, Replicas,
Theme Parks (Chicago 2006) 29 – 30; Sivan (cf. fn. 57) 200 – 204.
2.2 Versions of the inventio crucis
The legend of the inventio crucis is known in three redactions, all of them dating
from the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century: the Helena
legend (H), the Protonike legend (P), and the Judas Kyriakos legend (K).108 I
have dealt in detail with these legends elsewhere,109 and will therefore only
briefly introduce them here. The first to come into being was the Helena legend
(H). It was for the first time put into writing by Gelasius of Caesarea, and
included in his Church History around the year 390. H is also included in the
Church Histories of Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret as well as in a letter
of Paulinus of Nola and the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus.110 Another rendering
of H is that by Ambrose; in his version Helena recognizes the cross by way of
the titulus which was attached to it, while in the other versions the cross was
recognised by way of a healing miracle.111
The Protonike legend (P), first known in Syriac and later in Armenian but
not in Greek or Latin, is set in the first century. In this narrative, which dates
from the beginning of the fifth century, the cross is not discovered by Helena but
by the fictitious Protonike, wife of the emperor Claudius. P probably first
circulated independently before its final version was included in the Doctrina
Addai, the fictional foundation text of the church of Edessa, thanks to which it is
still known. The Doctrina reached its final and integral form in the later years of
the episcopate of EdessaÌs bishop Rabbula (412 – 436), and thus only by that
time, i. e. around 430, was the Protonike legend included in the Doctrina. 112
The Judas Kyriakos legend became the best known and most widespread
version of the inventio crucis tradition. It relates how the Jew Judas after initial
108 The division into three versions was originally made by J. Straubinger, Die Kreuzauf-
findungslegende. Untersuchungen ðber ihre altchristlichen Fassungen mit besonderer
Berðcksichtigung der syrischen Texte (Paderborn 1912).
109 Drijvers (cf. fn. 11) 79 ff.
110 Socr. Hist. Eccl. 1.17; Soz. Hist. Eccl. 2.1 – 2; Thdt. Hist. Eccl. 1.18; Paul. Nol.
Epist. 31.4 – 5; Sulp. Sev. Chron. 2.33 – 34. On SozomenÌs rendering of the legend see
also P. van Nuffelen, “SozomenÌs Chapter on the Finding of the True Cross (HE 2.1) and
His Historical Method”, Studia Patristica 42 (2006) 265 – 271.
111 Ambr. De Obit. Theod. 40 – 49; See further Drijvers (cf. fn. 11) 95 ff.; Borgehammar (cf.
fn. 54) 60 – 66.
112 Drijvers (cf. fn. 11) 147 – 163; J.W. Drijvers, “The Protonike Legend, the Doctrina Addai
and Bishop Rabbula of Edessa”, Vigiliae Christianae 51 (1997) 288 – 315; S.H. Griffith,
“The Doctrina Addai as a Paradigm of Christian Thought in Edessa in the Fifth
Century”, Hugoye. Journal of Syriac Studies 6.2 (2003); online publication: http://
syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No2/HV6N2Griffith.html#FNRef92, 12, 23 – 25, 45 – 46.
See also S. Heid, “Zur frðhen Protonike- und Kyriakoslegende”, Analecta Bollandiana
109 (1991) 73 – 108; J.W. Drijvers, “The Protonike Legend and the Doctrina Addai”,
Studia Patristica 33 (1996) 517 – 523.
opposition finds the cross for Helena. Judas digs up three crosses and identifies
the true one by a healing miracle,113 then converts to Christianity and
subsequently becomes bishop of Jerusalem. He also discovers the nails for
Helena, which she sends to her son Constantine.114 Even though the earliest
written testimony of the Judas Kyriakos legend is in Syriac, the text was most
probably originally composed in Greek, possibly in Jerusalem.115 Since it refers
to the protomartyr Stephen, whose relics were excavated in 415,116 this date is
most likely the terminus post quem for the origin of the Kyriakos redaction;
SozomenÌs reference to it in his Church History, written in the 440s, is
unquestionably the terminus ante quem. 117
113 The healing miracle, which occurs in all versions of the inventio crucis, has a parallel in
PhilostratusÌ Vita Apollonii 4.45, where it is told how Apollonius brought a girl back to
life by touching her. As in the cross legend the girl was carried on a bier through the city
to her burial place.
114 H too has the discovery of the nails. This discovery, and in particular the incorporation
of the nails in the bridle of his horse, fulfills the prophecy of Zech. 14:20: “On that day
shall there be holiness upon the horse bridle unto the all-powerful Lord”; Ambr. De
Obit. Theod. 40: In illo die erit, quod super frenum equi, sanctum domino omnipotenti.
The nails generated their own legendary tradition. Not only were they incorporated into
ConstantineÌs helmet and the bridle of his horse, but they also were included in a statue
of Constantine on a column in Constantinople; ConstantineÌs statue is probably that on
the (still standing) porphyry column; see for this statue G. Fowden, “ConstantineÌs
Porphyry Column: The Earliest Literary Allusions”, The Journal of Roman Studies 81
(1991) 119 – 131. For the cross relic in Constantinople see also J. Wortley, “The Wood of
the True Cross”, in: J. Wortley, Studies on the Cult of Relics in Byzantium up to 1204
(Farnham 2009). Gregory of ToursÌ Gloria Martyrum 5 reports that there must have
been four nails: two were driven into JesusÌ palms, and two into his feet. According to
Gregory, two nails were incorporated in the bridle, one was affixed to the head of a
statue of Constantine in Constantinople, and the fourth had been thrown into the
Adriatic Sea by Helena. The huge waves of this sea had wrecked many ships and killed
many sailors, but by offering one of the four nails to the sea Helena had calmed it down.
From then sailors could safely sail the Adriatic Sea.
115 The earliest Syriac manuscript (Petersburg/Leningrad N.S. 4) of the text dates from the
beginning of the sixth century and is most probably dependent on a Greek original;
H.J.W. Drijvers & J.W. Drijvers, The Finding of the True Cross. The Judas Kyriakos
Legend in Syriac. Introduction, Text and Translation, CSCO vol. 565, Subs. 93 (Louvain
1997). For a more detailed outline of K, see note 151 below. Edwards (cf. fn. 87) xxxiii-
xxxiv in the wake of Borgehammar (cf. fn. 54) 246 – 248 argues that the Syriac version of
K is dependent on a Latin version, which, however, is improbable.
116 Hunt (cf. fn. 54) 214 – 215.
117 Soz. Hist. Eccl. 2.1.4. J.-L. Feiertag, “ù propos du rüle des juifs dans les traditions sous-
jacentes aux r¤cits de lÌinvention de la croix”, Analecta Bollandiana 118 (2000) 241 – 265,
at 263 – 264.
2.2.1 A Fourth Version

Recently Stephen Shoemaker has brought to notice a fourth (and unique)
alternative reading of the discovery of the cross.118 This unusual rendering of the
inventio crucis is preserved in the so-called Six Books narratives of the tradition
of legends about the Virgin MaryÌs Dormition and Assumption. The Dormition
narratives become textually visible at the end of the fifth and the early sixth
centuries and are known in various traditions, e. g. “The Palm of the Tree of
Life” tradition, the Coptic tradition, and the Six Books tradition.119 Themes
common to all traditions are: MaryÌs death in Jerusalem; the involvement of the
apostles (at least a few) in her later life; ChristÌs reception of the soul of his
mother; MaryÌs transfer in body and/or soul to Paradise; Jewish hostility
towards Mary.120
The Six Books narrative belongs to the Bethlehem tradition, named so
because many important events of MaryÌs later life take place not only in
Jerusalem but also in Bethlehem.121 The Six Books, given this title because
MaryÌs later years and her departure from this world were written in six books,
is known in two early Syriac manuscripts as well as several later Syriac
manuscripts. The one published by A. Smith Lewis is on the basis of
palaeography dated to the late fifth or early sixth century around the year
500, the one made available by W. Wright to the later sixth century, a date
likewise based on palaeography.122 However, these texts identify themselves as
translated from the Greek and may therefore have originated previously,
possibly in the early fifth century.123 Although the Six Books have also been
preserved in Coptic and Ethiopian manuscripts, only two Syriac manuscripts
have the unique story about the discovery of the cross.124 According to this
118 S.J. Shoemaker, “A Peculiar Version of the Inventio Crucis in the Early Syriac
Dormition Traditions”, Studia Patristica 41 (2006) 75 – 81; see also S.J. Shoemaker, “ ÍLet
Us Go and Burn Her BodyÌ: The Image of the Jews in the Early Dormition Traditions”,
Church History 68 (1999) 775 – 823, at 801 – 802.
119 S.J. Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin MaryÌs Dormition and Assumption
(Oxford 2004) 25 – 77.
120 Shoemaker (cf. fn. 119) 2.
121 For a summary of the contents, see Shoemaker (cf. fn. 119) 51 – 52.
122 Shoemaker (cf. fn. 119) 46 ff.
123 Shoemaker (cf. fn. 119) 286 – 287.
124 A. Smith Lewis, Apocrypha Syriaca. The Protevangelium Jacobi and Transitus Mariae,
Studia Sinaitica 11 (London 1902) 12 – 69; the ms. is a Syriac-Arabic palimpsest which
Smith Lewis purchased at Suez in 1895. Syriac ms. BL Add. 14.484, which also includes
the version of the legend of the cross, was published by W. Wright, “The Departure of
My Lady Mary from This World”, The Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record
6 – 7 (1865) 417 – 448 and 108 – 160; Idem, Contributions to the Apocryphal Literature of
the New Testament, collected and edited from Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum
version, Jewish leaders try to persuade the Roman governor to banish Mary
from Jerusalem and Bethlehem because she prays at her sonÌs tomb. When she
also begins to work miracles the Jews repeatedly ask the governor to intervene.
Initially the governor is sensitive to the Jewish requests, but when a miraculous
fire kills many Jews when they attempt to burn MaryÌs house, his attitude
towards the Jews changes. He organises a debate between the Jews and the
Ílovers of ChristÌ. It comes as no surprise that the Christians are triumphant in
the debate. The Christians demand that the Jews reveal the place where the
cross of Christ and the nails are hidden. At this point the narrative of the
discovery of the cross begins:125
The judge says to the lovers of the Messiah: “Say whatever you wish, and be not
afraid.” They say: “Where is the wood concealed, on which He was crucified? and
where are the nails which were fixed in His hands? and the sponge, in which we
offered Him vinegar? and the spear with which He was struck? and the crown of
thorns, which we placed on His head? and the robes of infamy, with which we
clothed Him, where are they hidden?” The Hegemon says to the unbelievers:
“Speak, and reveal what they say to you.” They say: “They too, my Lord, know
where they are.” But the judge when he saw (this), stood up on his tribunal, and
made those swear who confessed our Lord, and said: “By the Messiah, who was
born of Mary, and in whom you believe, and in whom I too believe, say everything
you know concerning the Messiah.” Then the lovers of the Messiah cried out and
said with one voice: “O wise judge! Woe to us from the judgment of the Messiah,
when He comes to judge the world! Woe to us from Thy hands, Thou Son of Mary,
whom we have slain! Woe to us, how much we have injured Thee! And not Thee
only have we injured, but also the Father, who sent Thee to the world.” The
Hegemon says [to the Jews]: “Disclose to me, where the cross is, on which He was
crucified, and the crown of thorns, and the spear with which He was pierced, and
the robes which He had on.” They say: “My Lord, these robes which He wore, we
cast lots upon them, and they came to one; and we took them, and folded them up,
and placed them beside His cross, and dug a deep hole in the ground, about thirty
cubits. And we wrote upon the cross of Jesus, and placed it a little way off from the
crosses of the thieves; and we placed a small stone between them, and heaped upon
them earth and stones; and they were well concealed. And opposite the top of the
wood of Jesus, we made a hole in the earth, so that a manÌs hand might reach the
top of our LordÌs wood; and when an affliction comes upon anyone of us, he that is
sick stretches out the tip of his finger, and if it reaches it [the cross], he is cured.
May God prolong thy days, illustrious Hegemon! Lo, there are ten thousand and
five hundred and two souls,126 whom we know, and whose names are written down,
men, women, and children, whom the cross of the Son of Mary has healed and
saved from death, who are of the tribe of Jerusalem.127 And when we see a man
who is sick, we go thither with him, and he stretches out his hand in that opening
(London 1865); see for other source references Shoemaker (cf. fn. 118/1) 76 n. 4 and for
the dates Shoemaker (cf. fn. 119) 47.
125 The translation is by Wright (cf. fn. 124) 27 – 30. See also Smith Lewis (cf. fn. 124) 43 – 46
for a similar translation, apart from some slight differences, noted below.
126 Smith Lewis (cf. fn. 124) 44: “the cross of Jesus has cured 5500 souls more or less”.
127 Smith Lewis (cf. fn. 124) 44: “of Jerusalem, and of its district”.
and is healed. And if anyone has a sick person in his house, and takes some of that
dust, and goes and casts it upon him, he is healed. And whosoever was healed, we
used to take a fee from him. And it was commanded by us, that whosoever should
reveal this secret, should be cast out from among us with his whole family; and that
he who revealed it should be slain.128 And we said among ourselves, ÍIf a man be
questioned, let him say, we have in that place a pot of manna, and of the water of
trial, and the staff of Aaron, and these things give help to everyone who goes
thither.Ì O illustrious judge! fetch Jonadab and scourge him, because he has in his
house one nail of those which we fastened in the Messiah, concealed for himself;
and he has saved from death by it more than 550 souls,129 and has become very rich,
so that he does not know what he owns. For which of the prophets and of the
fathers did wonders, and healed, and brought to life, and delivered from death like
the wood of the Messiah, or like a single nail that we fastened in His hands? How
much more then shall that Jesus, who was crucified upon it, give aid to everyone
who believes in Him? Come, let us raise up His cross from the dust in which it is
hidden; and from the ends to the ends of the earth let peoples and tongues come
and worship the cross of the Son of God, who gives life to all creatures that believe
in Him.” The judge says: “Great is the thing that was concealed among you; and
because ye were angry with one another, ye have revealed it. If the king [i.e. the
Roman emperor] hears it, he will decapitate all of you. Come, show me where
these nails are hidden, and where you have made that hole over the top of our
LordÌs wood.”130 And they went and showed him. He says to them: “What shall I
do for you now?” They say to him: “Command, my Lord, and let these crosses be
taken up; and let the cross of our Lord be placed in the temple of Jerusalem, and be
worshipped by all creatures.”131 The Hegemon says: “I am not ordered by the king
to do this, but I will put you to shame before all men; for I will not go near the cross
of the Messiah; for He who was crucified upon it, will bring it forth from the earth
in which it is hidden.” And he gave orders, and brought large stones; and they
heaped (them) upon the place in which these woods were hidden, about ten times
the height of a man, so that no help might come forth again from that hole to the
children of Israel.
The cross remained buried without further comment, seemingly so that it might
be rediscovered by Helena some three centuries later.
This story is not part of every version of the Six Books narrative but is
unique in that it only occurs in a few versions in Syriac. In the extant Greek,
Ethiopic, Coptic and Arabic manuscripts of the Six Books traditions the
128 Smith Lewis (cf. fn. 124) 44 – 45: “the man who should reveal this secret should be slain,
he and his wife, and whoso is left over from his family will be chased away from the
whole nation”.
129 Smith Lewis (cf. fn. 124) 45: “500 souls”.
130 Smith Lewis (cf. fn. 124) 45: “Come away and show me where these crosses were
hidden, and where ye have made that hole over the head of the MessiahÌs cross, from
which ye have received help.”
131 Smith Lewis (cf. fn. 124) 45: “Command, my lord, that these crosses be taken up; that on
which our Lord was crucified and those two crosses of the two thieves, let them be burnt
with fire. And let the cross of Jesus be placed in the temple of Jerusalem; and let it be
worshipped by all mankind.”
narrative is not included or referred to. Although the original text of the Six
Books traditions was probably in Greek it is not certain whether the discovery
of the cross was an original feature of the Six Books narrative in Greek or
whether it was interpolated by the transmitter who translated the now lost
Greek archetype into Syriac.132 As mentioned, the story was at least known in
the Syriac-speaking world around the year 500, the date of the earliest Syriac
manuscript.133 Because the story of the discovery of the cross fits somewhat
awkwardly into the Six Books – on the whole it does not connect well with its
themes and contents – it may have first circulated independently before it was
included into the Syriac Six Books narrative. The reason for incorporating it was
probably the anti-Jewish character of the text.134 So there is the possibility that
the account of the inventio crucis belonged to the Greek archetype and was later
eliminated. Another, more probable, possibility is that the account circulated in
the East and was included in a number of readings of the Syriac Six Books
narrative. Since the Syriac Dormition tradition has incorporated material from
the Edessan Doctrina Addai, Shoemaker suggests that the inventio crucis story
in the Six Books goes back to an earlier version of the Doctrina of which this
version of the discovery of the cross would have been a part. When the Doctrina
Addai received its final redaction in the 430s, ProtonikeÌs discovery of the cross
would have been added at the expense of the account of the Six BooksÌ version
of the discovery of the cross. This would imply that the latter version predates
the Protonike legend – Shoemaker suggests a date of around 400.135 Interesting
as this suggestion is, it is not entirely convincing. It seems that at the beginning
of the fifth century various versions of the inventio crucis circulated in the
Syriac-speaking world: the Judas Kyriakos, the Protonike, and the Six Books
narratives. The Six Books inventio crucis may first have circulated independ-
ently – possibly orally – before it was incorporated in the Six Books. I do not
consider it likely that it was once a part of the Doctrina Addai.
The inventio crucis in the Six Books has hardly any resemblance to the three
main redactions of the legend, the Helena, Protonike and Kyriakos legend.
There are, however, a few similarities. Like the Protonike legend it is set in the
first century and describes a first discovery of the cross, which then gets buried
again in order to be found by Helena for the second time a few centuries later.
Similar to the Kyriakos legend it has an interrogation of the Jews – in the
Kyriakos legend by Helena and in this one by the Roman governor (Hegemon/
132 Shoemaker (cf. fn. 119) 54 – 57; Shoemaker (cf. fn. 118/1) 78 – 79.
133 Smith Lewis (cf. fn. 124) x.
134 Shoemaker (cf. fn. 118/2) 802 – 803. Shoemaker makes a convincing case (778 – 788) in
arguing that anti-Judaism in these kind of texts is not only rhetorical but reflects the
actual circumstances in Late Antiquity, in particular in the Eastern part of the empire.
See also Shoemaker (cf. fn. 118/1) 79.
135 Shoemaker (cf. fn. 119) 286; Shoemaker (cf. fn. 118/1) 80.
judge). The debate between Jews and Christians reflects of course the
disputation and dialogue literature which was popular in the ancient Near
East,136 as well as the fictitious Jewish-Christian disputes. It is also reminiscent of
the verbal contest between Jewish and Christian priests in the Actus Sylvestri, a
text which was known in Syriac, definitely by around 500 and possibly earlier.137
The theme of the healing power of the cross and the nails is prominent in all four
versions. In the Helena, Protonike and Kyriakos versions the true cross is
ultimately recognized by a healing miracle – depending on the version, a woman
or man recovers from a deadly illness or is raised from the dead. In this fourth
version the theme of healing power stands out even more than in the other
three. Not only the cross itself, but even the dust in which it lies has the power to
cure. In contrast to the other versions, the nails too have healing power and save
people from death. The most prominent theme, however, which this fourth
version shares with the Protonike and Kyriakos narratives, is that of anti-
Judaism. The Jews are responsible for hiding the cross and they use its power to
make money with it. Initially they have no intention of revealing where it is
buried. Only under pressure from the Roman authorities – the Roman governor,
Helena – and after the use of violence are they prepared to give up their secret.
When the latter is eventually revealed, it seems that the Jews are willing to
recognize the Messiah as “Our Lord” and even suggest that the cross be placed
in the temple of Jerusalem to be worshipped by all mankind. This temple can
hardly be any other than the Jewish Temple.
Evidently the story of the discovery of the cross as included in the Syriac Six
Books is a fourth independent redaction of the inventio crucis narrative.138 The
area of distribution, however, must have been limited, as was the duration of its
reputation. It was only known in the world of Syriac Christianity possibly since
the early fifth century. It may well be that the inventio crucis as we know it from
the Six Books was soon ousted by the Protonike narrative, with which it bears
the resemblance that it was also set in the first century and deals with the same
themes such as anti-Judaism, the healing power of the cross, and the re-burial of
the cross after its discovery. The popularity of the Judas Kyriakos legend among
Syrian Christians in the fifth and sixth centuries may have been a further cause
136 See in general G.J. Reinink & H.L.J. Vanstiphout (eds.), Dispute Poems and Dialogues in
the Ancient Near East and Mediaeval Near East. Forms and Types of Literary Debates in
Semitic and Related Literatures (Louvain 1991).
137 This may be surmised from a homily ascribed to Jacob of Serug (c. 451 – 521) about
ConstantineÌs baptism, which is similar to that of the Actus Sylvestri; A.L. Frothingham,
“LÌOmelia di Giacomo di Sarg sul battesimo di Costantino imperatore pubblicata,
tradotta ed annotate”, Reale Accademia dei Lincei 279 (1881 – 82) 167 – 242. See also
Kazhdan (cf. fn. 1) 209.
138 Shoemaker (cf. fn. 118/1) 78.
that the Six Books inventio crucis sank into oblivion, or rather, never reached
any fame.
2.2.2 Versions in other languages
The first versions of the inventio crucis were in Greek, Latin and Syriac. These
versions have been studied best. Recent research has also drawn attention to
Ethiopic and Hebrew versions of the legend.139 In some of the Ethiopic versions,
included in the Miracles of Mary, the cross is not discovered by Helena but by
the fictitious woman Theodoxia, who is called HelenaÌs daughter and
ConstantineÌs sister.140 Its date is late, possibly between the early fifteenth and
the middle of the sixteenth century.
The Theodoxia story was possibly inspired by another derivative of the
inventio crucis narrative, namely the Coptic story about the discovery of ChristÌs
tomb by ConstantineÌs virgin sister Eudoxia.141 In his turn the author of this
story possibly drew his inspiration from the Judas Kyriakos legend. Like Helena,
Eudoxia interrogates the Jews; as Judas is able to tell Helena where the cross
was hidden, so a certain Joel informs Eudoxia where the tomb is located; as the
cross is eventually revealed through a divine miracle granted to Helena, so do
special religious celebrations reveal the entrance of the tomb to Eudoxia; as
Helena adorns the site of the cross with a church, so does Eudoxia adorn the site
of the tomb. However, whereas Helena finds the cross, the symbol of victory,
Eudoxia only discovers ChristÌs tomb. The concentration on the tomb may be
explained by the fact that the text was written in honour and celebration of the
discovery of the tomb, which in the Jerusalem liturgy was celebrated on 14
September, the same date as the discovery of the cross. As to the date of
composition of the Eudoxia narrative it is likely that the text was written after
the cross was moved to Constantinople by Heraclius just before the Arab
conquest of Jerusalem in 638.142 Without the presence of the relics of the cross in
Jerusalem the liturgical celebrations may have instead concentrated on the
139 W. Witakowski, “Ethiopic and Hebrew versions of the legend of The Finding of the Holy
Cross”, Studia Patristica 35 (2001) 527 – 535.
140 W. Witakowski, “Theodoxia and Her Finding of the Holy Cross. An Ethiopic version of
the legend of the Finding of the Holy Cross in the Miracles of Mary”, Warszawskie
Studia Teologiczne XII/2/1999 (2000) 253 – 269. Witakowski presents the Ethiopic text,
an English translation and a short discussion of the text. See also G.W. Bowersock,
“HelenaÌs Bridle, Ethiopian Christianity, and Syriac Apocalyptic”, Studia Patristica 45
(2010) 211 – 220.
141 Eudoxia and the Holy Sepulchre: A Constantinian Legend in Coptic, ed. by T. Orlandi,
intr. and tr. by B.A. Pearson, historical study by H.A. Drake (Milan 1980).
142 E.g. P. Speck, “Zum Datum der Translation der Kreuzreliquien nach Konstantinopel”,
in: Varia VII (Bonn 2000) 167 – 177.
discovery of the tomb. The years 640 – 650 have been suggested as date of
composition of the Eudoxia narrative.143
In the rest of this article I will present and discuss two texts of the inventio
crucis which have not yet received careful scrutiny, and which have become
available only recently: two Syriac poems and the treatise De inventione crucis
by Alexander Monachos.
2.3 Syriac Poems on the inventio crucis
Syriac Christianity has a rich tradition when it comes to the narrative of the
discovery of the cross. Three of the four redactions of the legend are known in
Syriac and are only or first attested in this language: the Protonike and Judas
Kyriakos legend, as well as the fourth version discussed above and included in
the Six Books.144 The Protonike legend and possibly also the narrative in the Six
Books have their origin in the Syriac-speaking world, and were only known in
Syriac. The earliest manuscripts of the Kyriakos legend are in Syriac, even
though the origin of the narrative was almost certainly Greek.145 The Helena
legend was probably also known in Syriac. Many Syriac authors and intellectuals
were versed in Greek and in the centres of learning such as the so-called “School
of the Persians” in Edessa the Greek Church Histories must have been known,
read and studied.146 However, unlike the situation in the Byzantine world, the
Helena legend never became popular within Syriac Christianity.
The cross was an important symbol in Syriac Christianity and it was a
popular topic for writers in Syriac.147 The same holds true for the inventio crucis
narrative. Jacob of Serugh (d. 521) composed a (still unpublished) verse homily
on the finding of the cross.148 Henana of Adiabene (c. 572 – c. 610) wrote a now
143 H.A. Drake, “A Coptic version of the Discovery of the Holy Sepulchre”, Greek, Roman
and Byzantine Studies 20 (1979) 381 – 392; Drake (cf. fn. 141) 159 – 168.
144 Another peculiar alternative reading of the legend was incorporated in the fifth-century
Syriac text The Canons ascribed to Maruta of Maipherqat. This text was probably
composed in Edessa in the 430s and 440s; J.W. Drijvers, “Marutha of Maipherqat on
Helena Augusta, Jerusalem and the Council of Nicaea”, Studia Patristica 34 (2001) 51 –
64.
145 Drijvers & Drijvers (cf. fn. 115) 24 and 29 ff.
146 For the knowledge of Greek in the Syriac-speaking world, see S.P. Brock, “Greek and
Syriac in Late Antique Syria”, in: A.K. Bowman & G. Woolf (eds.), Literacy and Power
in the Ancient World (Cambridge 1994) 149 – 160, at 153 – 158.
147 C.A. Karim, Symbols of the Cross in the Writings of the Early Syriac Fathers (Piscataway
2004).
148 A. Vççbus, Handschriftliche berlieferung der Memre-Dichtung des JaÌqob von Serug II,
CSCO 345, Subs. 40 (Louvain 1973) 218; JacobÌs homily, which is based on the Judas
Kyriakos legend, is summarized by Brock (cf. fn. 146) 57 – 58.
lost Cause of the Invention of the Cross; Babai the Great (d. 628) wrote a Cause
of the Feast of the Cross. 149 The Judas Kyriakos legend was the best-known and
most widespread of the four redactions among Syrian Christians – Jacob of
SerughÌs homily was based on it; the Kyriakos narrative is included in a
considerable number of Syriac manuscripts, several of which have been
published.150
In 1992 Sebastian Brock published two Syriac poems on the discovery of the
cross, accompanied by an English translation, which evidently have the prose
version of the Judas Kyriakos legend as their foundation.151 The poems are
149 Unfortunately, both works are lost but see A.H. Becker, Fear of God and the Beginning
of Wisdom. The School of Nisibis and the Development of Scholastic Culture in Late
Antique Mesopotamia (Philadelphia 2006) 102 – 103; G.J. Reinink, “The Cause of the
Commemoration of Mary: Author, Date, and Christology”, in: G.A. Kiraz (ed.),
Malphono w-Rabo d-Malphone. Studies in Honor of Sebastian P. Brock (Piscataway
2008) 518, n. 3.
150 The edition by Drijvers & Drijvers (cf. fn. 115) 30 – 31 offers a list of the available
manuscripts. This edition has the Syriac text of BL Add. 14.644 and Petersburg/
Leningrad N.S. 4 (the oldest ms. available) as well as the Sinai fragment, Sparagma 40,
accompanied by an English translation. English translations of the Latin and Greek
renderings of the Judas Kyriakos narrative are provided by Edwards (cf. fn. 87) 63 – 80
and 81 – 91.
151 S.P. Brock, “Two Syriac Poems on the Invention of the Cross”, in: N. el-Khoury, H.
Crouzel & R. Reinhardt (eds.), Lebendige berlieferung. Festschrift fðr H.-J. Vogt (Beirut/
Ostfildern 1992) 55 – 82, repr. in S.P. Brock, From Ephrem to Romanos. Interactions
between Syriac and Greek in Late Antiquity (Aldershot 1999) XI. The basic outline of the
Kyriakos legend is as follows: Helena, mother of Constantine the Great, comes to
Jerusalem to search for the cross on which Jesus Christ was crucified. She gathers together
the Jews, three thousand in total, that live in and around the city and tells them that they
should assemble people who have knowledge of the Law. They obey the empress and
bring before her a thousand Jews. Helena rails against them for not recognizing the
Messiah and tells them to go away and search out people who are truly well acquainted
with the Law. Five hundred Jews who have detailed knowledge of the Law appear before
the empress. Again, Helena scolds them for not believing in Jesus Christ and sends them
away. The Jews are confused since they do not know what the empress wants from them.
Then one of them by the name of Judas says that he thinks she is searching for the wood of
the cross. He tells a story that he had heard from his father that if ever the cross was being
looked for he should tell where it was hidden. The Jews had never heard this story but say
to Judas to tell Helena where the cross was. They hand him over to her and Helena
interrogates Judas. He, however, tells her that he does not know where to search for the
Holy Wood. Helena, having become angry with Judas, orders him to be thrown into a dry
well for seven days. After seven days Judas begs to be brought up from the well; he will
show where the cross is hidden. Judas goes to Golgotha and prays to God to show him the
place. It is indeed revealed to him; Judas begins to dig and discovers three crosses. The
true cross is recognized by its power to bring a dead person back to life. On the site where
the cross was found Helena builds a church. Judas becomes a believer, is baptized and
even becomes bishop of Jerusalem. He changes his name into Kyriakos, he who belongs to
the Lord. On the request of Helena, Judas also searches and finds, after a sign of God, the
included in the Hudra, the East Syrian liturgical book for the Propers for
Sundays and annual festivals. Both texts are included in the service for the Feast
of the Cross, which is celebrated in the Syriac church on 13 September, and they
were recited as part of the liturgical celebrations. The one poem is the dialogue
soghitha, a form of madrashe consisting of short stanzas of four lines in a simple
metre, which was sung during celebrations. The other text is a memra, a
narrative poem which is meant to be recited.152
In the soghitha, after a narrative introduction, the two disputants alternately
speak in stanzas which form an alphabetic acrostic. The debate is between
Helena on the one hand and the Jews and Judas on the other. The poem opens
as follows:
The Cross that appeared in the sky
to Constantine the believing king
indicated to him where it lay;
he sent message to his mother to enquire concerning it
in Jerusalem the holy city
so Helena set out
and reached Jerusalem the city;
she gathered all the Jews
and asked them concerning the Cross.
Then follow the dialogues and narrative passages in 44 stanzas: 1 – 5: debate

between Helena and the Jews; 6: narrative about selection of Jews who know
the law; 7 – 10: debate between Helena and the Jews; 11 – 18: debate between
Helena and Judas; 19 – 20: narrative about Helena giving praise to Christ and to
Judas for turning his back on the Jews; 21 – 24: conversation between Helena
and Judas about the latterÌs election to reveal the cross and his veneration for
God; 25 – 39: narrative about how Judas found three crosses and identified the
true one; JudasÌ baptism, his discovery of the nails, and the subsequent
institution of the feast of the cross; 40: feast of the cross greater than all other
feasts; 41 – 44: narrative/doxology about the feast of the cross.
The memra is dated by Brock at about the same period (sixth to eighth
century) as the soghitha. 153 Much space in the poem is allocated to ConstantineÌs
vision of the cross before his battle against the “tyrant” (160 out of the 367
nails that were hammered into the hands of Christ. The nails are used to make bridles for
the horse of the emperor Constantine, thus fulfilling the prophecy of Zechariah 14:20.
When all these things are accomplished, Helena stirs up a persecution against the Jews and
orders their expulsion from Jerusalem and Judaea. She also orders that the day on which
the cross was found should be commemorated every year.
152 S.P. Brock, “Poetry and Hymnography: Syriac”, in: S. Ashbrook Harvey & D.G. Hunter
(eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies (Oxford 2009) 657 – 671.
153 Although Brock (cf. fn. 151) 59 and 62 states that the poems are of uncertain date, he
favours a date for the soghitha in the sixth or seventh century, and possibly even the
eighth century, because of its developed form.
lines), and only then follows the narrative of HelenaÌs discovery of the cross. It is
preceded by ConstantineÌs instructions to his mother to go to Jerusalem and
search for the cross (lines 161 – 168). The poem has the same structure as the
prose versions of the Judas Kyriakos legend: 169 – 176: narrative about Helena
going to Jerusalem and assembling the Jews; 177 – 184: Helena to Jews; 185 –
192: Jews to Helena; 193 – 200: Helena to Jews; 201 – 208: Jews to Helena; 209 –
224: narrative of Jews deliberating what to do with HelenaÌs request; 225 – 240:
Helena to Jews; 241 – 250: narrative about sorrow of Jerusalem and the Jews;
251 – 256: Judas telling the Jews that he knows where the cross is buried; 257 –
266: narrative about the difficult choice the Jews have to make: revealing the
cross or being executed for not revealing it; 267 – 272: Jews to Helena, telling her
that Judas knows more; 273 – 280: Helena to Judas; 281 – 288: Judas to Helena;
289 – 298: narrative about Judas being thrown into a pit for saying that he has no
knowledge about the cross; 299 – 304: Judas to Helena telling her that he will
reveal the cross; 305 – 310: narrative about death wailing about JudasÌ decision;
311 – 320: deathÌs lament; 321 – 334: narrative about HelenaÌs joy and Judas
going to Golgotha; 335 – 336: JudasÌ prayer; 337 – 351: narrative about JudasÌ
finding of the cross; 352 – 353: SatanÌs grievance; 354 – 376: narrative about
HelenaÌs veneration of the cross and the raising of a dead man to life by the
touch of the cross.
As said, the poems though dependent on the Judas Kyriakos legend, seem to
be independent of each other.154 The poems follow pretty much the story line
and sequence of events of the prose version of the Judas Kyriakos legend,
although the latter is more elaborate and detailed. There are, however, also
some interesting differences, several of which have already been indicated by
Brock in the footnotes of his article. In the soghitha a few things deserve closer
attention when compared to the prose version:
– When the Jews tell Helena that they do not know where the cross is hidden
she answers: “Either you show your innocence in an ordeal by fire / or
inform me concerning the Cross” (stanza 7), whereas in the prose version
the delivery of the Jews to the fire is presented as a punishment and not as
an ordeal to prove their innocence.155
– In stanza 10 Judas comes out of the blue; no introduction and background
information about him is given. The prose version on the other hand
presents a comprehensive introduction of Judas as a descendant of Stephen
Protomartyr and belonging to a Jewish family of crypto-Christians.
– While in the prose version JudasÌ seven days stay in the pit is dealt with
briefly, it is more copiously treated in the soghitha in four stanzas (15 – 18).
154 Brock (cf. fn. 151) 61.

155 Drijvers & Drijvers (cf. fn. 115) 62.
– After JudasÌ release from the pit the soghitha has five stanzas (20 – 24)
which tell about his conversion, praise Constantine because through his
efforts the cross was shown honour, and honour Judas as a worshipper of
Christ. Instead, the prose version has JudasÌ prayer on Golgotha, pleading
with God to show him where the cross is hidden and promising that he will
convert if shown the cross.
– The prose version mentions that Helena had a church built at the site of the
discovery. The soghitha, however, omits this and states that she had a feast
installed in honour of the finding of the cross.156
– The last seven stanzas (38 – 44) are about the feast of the cross (called
greater than all other feasts) and admonish people to celebrate it
abundantly and praise Christ. In stanza 43 the cross is connected to the
Trinity (“Thanksgiving to the Threefold Power / that is indicated through
the Cross”).157
The emphasis on the festive aspects is understandable because this poem was
recited in the context of the liturgical celebration in the Syrian Church of the
discovery of the cross on 13 September. For the same reason HelenaÌs
foundation of a church was probably omitted. The little information given about
Judas may be explained by the knowledge Syrian Christians may have had of the
much longer prose version.
The story about the discovery of the cross in the memra is much closer to the
prose version of the Judas Kyriakos legend than the soghitha. In spite of
presenting less detail – in particular the discussion between Judas and the other
Jews is extremely abbreviated – the memra is very similar to the prose version,
with the exception of a few details: Helena appears to know that the cross was
buried on Golgotha (233 – 234 “Golgotha is the name of the place / where the
Cross lies hidden”); notwithstanding that the true cross is identified by bringing
it in contact with a dead man, the memra fails to mention that Judas had found
three crosses. Remarkable omissions are furthermore the oversight of the
discovery of the nails and the institution of an annual commemoration of the
discovery. That the latter is not mentioned is surprising since the poem
undoubtedly was delivered during the liturgical festivities on 13 September.
156 The annual commemoration of the cross is briefly referred to at the end of the prose
versions; e. g. Drijvers & Drijvers (cf. fn. 115) 72 – 73.
157 In stanza 44 we read: “thanksgiving… to Father, Son and Holy Spirit / the Nature that is
worshipped and praised”.
2.3.1 ConstantineÌs vision

The first part of the memra, which deals with ConstantineÌs vision of the cross, is
of particular interest. At the time that Brock published the poems, the
Petersburg/Leningrad N.S. 4 Syriac manuscript of the Judas Kyriakos narrative
had not yet been published, although its contents had already been described,158
and Brock therefore knew that it opened with ConstantineÌs vision, in contrast
to the other sixth-century London Manuscript (BL Add. 14.644) of the Kyriakos
legend. Brock surmised that the memra and, in fact, also the soghitha were
based on “a text closer to the Leningrad than to the London manuscript” but
that “any detailed comparison will have to wait until the text of the Leningrad
manuscript is published”.159 After Brock had written these words the latter
manuscript has become available and there are indeed resemblances. However,
there are also remarkable differences.160
The narrative about ConstantineÌs vision in the Petersburg/Leningrad
manuscript relates how in the seventh year of his reign the emperor had
assembled a large army at a crossing place of the Danube in order to fight the
barbarians who had gathered on the other side of the river and threatened to
destroy all cities as far as the East. When Constantine saw the large crowd of
barbarians he became very anxious. In the night before the day of the battle he
saw a miraculous light that shone above him in the shape of the cross and letters
written by stars saying: “in this [sign] you will conquer”. The following day he had
his court assembled and told them about his vision. Subsequently, he fashioned
something like the shape of the image that had appeared to him and carried it
before him in the battle. A great victory was won. The emperor then asked pagan
priests which god the sign was coming from. They answered that it must have
come from a power in heaven since after its appearance the images of the gods in
the pagan temples fell and were shattered, and the temples were demolished.
Christian soldiers in his army, however, were able to tell that the sign came from
Christ. Thereupon Constantine sent for Eusebius, bishop of Rome, was instructed
by him and together with his mother, and a great number of his courtiers, was
baptized. Subsequently he sent Helena to the East to search for the cross.161
It may be noted, first of all, that the memra does not make clear where the
vision takes place. It does not mention the Danube or the barbarians. It does,
however, mention a battle between two kings, i. e. Constantine and his
158 N. Pigoulewsky, “Le martyre de Saint Cyriaque de J¤rusalem”, Revue de lÌOrient Chr¤tien
26 (1927 – 28) 305 – 349, at 319.
159 Brock (cf. fn. 151) 57.
160 ConstantineÌs vision in the soghitha (quoted above) is so short and general that nothing
sensible can be said about which text lay at its foundation.
161 For the full text, see Drijvers & Drijvers (cf. fn. 115) 54 – 56.
adversary, and the overthrow of “the tyrant”.162 This refers to ConstantineÌs

vision at the Milvian Bridge and his defeat of Maxentius as related by Eusebius
in his Vita Constantini,163 rather than to his vision at the Danube. According to
the memra Constantine consults his soldiers after the manifestation of the cross,
in order that they should explain to him the sign that had appeared to him.164
The soldiers would like to keep the sign a mystery because otherwise “our
festivals will come to an end and our gods too will be overthrown” (21 – 22).
Subsequently Constantine summons the pagan priests. In the discussion that
follows between Constantine and the priests, and which resembles the discussion
between Helena and the Jews in the Judas Kyriakos narrative both in the prose
version and the poems, the priests initially say that they do not know what the
sign means, but when the emperor threatens them with tortures and horrific
kinds of death (cf. Helena threatening the Jews), the priests opt for life (like the
Jews in the Kyriakos story) and reveal the mystery. They tell Constantine that
the sign belongs to a god whose authority is unprecedented and has no end, and
that he is much more powerful than the pagan gods: “authority belongs to that
one true King / who was willingly crucified in Jerusalem” (103 – 104). The
emperor then praises God and has craftsmen summoned, who make a cross in
gold after the sign he had seen. This cross Constantine took in his hand and he
went forth at the head of his troops. After his victory Constantine returned to his
land, and when he had arrived in his royal capital he called for his mother, told
her what had occurred and showed her the sign by which he had conquered.
Subsequently he sent her off to Jerusalem.
It is not likely that the author of the memra used ConstantineÌs vision as we
know it from the Petersburg/Leningrad ms. as his model; the differences
between the two texts are too significant. Although we do not know the authorÌs
source, he may have been inspired by EusebiusÌ version of ConstantineÌs vision
before his battle against Maxentius in 312: the use of the word “tyrant”,
ConstantineÌs interrogation of Christian priests about the meaning of the
celestial sign as well as the modelling of the cross by craftsmen may be
indication for this.165 The author may also have been inspired by the Judas
162 137: “The two kings set out their battle lines”; 145: “The tyrant was overthrown”.
163 Eus. VC 1.28 – 32. Maxentius is both in the Church History and the Life of Constantine
presented as a treacherous, lustful and villainous tyrant; J.W. Drijvers, “EusebiusÌ Vita
Constantini and the Construction of the Image of Maxentius”, in: Hagit Amirav & Bas
ter Haar Romeny (eds.), From Rome to Constantinople. Studies in Honour of Averil
Cameron (Louvain 2007) 11 – 27, at 16 – 19.
164 13 – 16: “Let them reveal and expound before me / this sign that thus appeared to me / I
will then make its likeness and do reverence to it, / I and my troops together.”
165 Eus. VC 1.32.1 – 2 where Constantine asks the Christian priests what the sign he has seen
means. The priests reply that the sign came from the “Onlybegotten Son of the one and
only God, and that the sign which appeared was a token of immortality, and was an
Kyriakos narrative itself, in particular the discussion between Helena and the
Jews, since there are some remarkable resemblances with the debate between
Constantine and the pagan priests:
– the Jews refuse to reveal where the cross is hidden – the pagan priests do
not want to tell the meaning of the sign Constantine has witnessed;
– Helena threatens the Jews with death if they do not tell her where the cross
is buried – Constantine presses the priests;
– Jews and priests know that the Christian god is more powerful than their
own; when menaced with death both Jews and priests opt for life in the full
knowledge that their choice will result in the demise and defeat of their
own religion in favour of Christianity.
2.3.2 Anti-Judaism
Both poems are extremely anti-Jewish, the memra even more so than the
soghitha. The Jews are called a foolish and obstinate people, are held
responsible for ChristÌs crucifixion, they have kept the cross hidden and are
not persistent in their faith, which they are willing to give up by delivering the
cross in exchange for their lives (“For we prefer our good lives / to the cessation
of our festivals”, memra 269 – 270). Judaism is furthermore identified with death
and with Satan.166 Anti-Judaism is typical not only for the poems: the prose
version of the Judas Kyriakos narrative as well as the Protonike legend also
feature strong anti-Judaism.167 The discovery of the cross by the Jews marks the
final defeat of Judaism and the triumph of Christianity. While Judaism is
associated with death, the cross, on the other hand, is a life-giving symbol which
dissolves death, it is the sign of invincible power and victory, the icon of
salvation of mankind, and a holy object the discovery of which brought freedom
from slavery. The discovery of the cross signifies not only the victory over
Judaism but also the defeat of paganism.168
To sum up: the two Syriac poems are both dependent on the prose text of
the Judas Kyriakos narrative. This prose text, which must have been well-known
among Syrian Christians, was adapted to a poetic form to make it suitable for
the liturgical celebrations of the feast of the cross on 13 September. This
explains the references – particularly detailed in the case of the soghitha – to the
feast in the poems. As to the vision of Constantine in the memra, it is
abiding trophy of victory over death…”. Eus. VC 1.30: “Then he summoned goldsmiths
and jewellers, sat down among them, and explained the shape of the sign, and gave them
instructions about copying it in gold and precious stones.” This episode is also regularly
referred to in the Guidi-vita; Kazhdan (cf. fn. 1) 221 – 222.
166 soghitha 34; memra 311 – 321, 352 – 353.
167 Drijvers (cf. fn. 11) 178 – 179, 185 – 188; Drijvers & Drijvers (cf. fn. 112) 28 – 29; Feiertag
(cf. fn. 117) 261 – 264.
168 memra 343 – 344: “Henceforth service to demons / has come to an end in the world”.
improbable that it goes back to the vision as we have it in the Petersburg/

Leningrad ms., as Brock surmised, but rather to a text that describes
ConstantineÌs vision at the Milvian Bridge. As discussed, there are significant
resemblances to EusebiusÌ description of ConstantineÌs vision as portrayed in his
Vita Constantini. Whether the latter text was the source is uncertain, since the
Vita was a text not well known or widespread in Late Antiquity. Fourth- and
fifth-century witnesses to the Vita are few. Gelasius of Caesarea knew the text
and used it as a source for his Ecclesiastical History. So did the church historians
Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret and Gelasius of Cyzicus.169 The author of the
memra may have been familiar with the works of these authors and became
familiar with ConstantineÌs vision through them rather than directly from the
Vita Constantini.
2.4 De inventione crucis by Alexander Monachos
The first text about HelenaÌs discovery of the cross was in Greek and was
included in the now lost Church History of Gelasius of Caesarea.170 All texts of
the Helena legend (H) in the fifth-century Church Histories by Rufinus,
Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Gelasius of Cyzicus go back to the archetype by
Gelasius of Caesarea.171 Although the Judas Kyriakos rendering of the inventio
crucis clearly became the most conventional of all the versions of the legend in
the Middle Ages, the Helena legend remained the standard version of the
discovery of the cross in the Greek East. It seems that the Kyriakos version was
not accepted as historically trustworthy and authentic. Sozomen, who wrote in
the 440s, knew the latter version but rejected it. When presenting his account of
HelenaÌs discovery of the cross, he explicitly mentions that the empress did not
have her information from a Jew who supposedly knew about the hiding-place
of the cross from ancestral documents.172 In this he was followed by Malalas and
Theophanes,173 for instance, and the authors of the many Byzantine Constantine
vitae who included solely the Helena legend in their works and did so with
significant similarity.
Recently John Nesbitt has published an edition of the long neglected Helena
legend by Alexander Monachos. The edition is accompanied by an English
translation and observations about the date of composition, and character of the
169 See Cameron & Hall (cf. fn. 53) 48 – 51 on the later tradition of the Vita Constantini
(with references to secondary literature).
170 Winkelmann (cf. fn. 105); F. Winkelmann, “Charakter und Bedeutung der Kirchenge-
schichte des Gelasios von Kaisereia”, Byzantinische Forschungen 1 (1966) 346 – 385.
171 Drijvers (cf. fn. 11) 99 – 117.
172 Soz. Hist. Eccl. 2.1.4; Drijvers (cf. fn. 11) 174 – 175.
173 Mal. Chron. 13.319; Theoph. AM 5817.
text.174 The text published by Nesbitt is part of AlexanderÌs larger treatise

entitled De inventione crucis, which to date still lacks an adequate edition.175 The
De inventione crucis falls into several parts:
– Opening statement (4016A-B)
– Discussion of the Divine Logos (4017A-4021A)
– References in the Old Testament where the cross is anticipated (4021B-
4025D)
– Description of JesusÌ life, passion and resurrection (4025D-4036D)
– A long section about the history of Christianity, in particular the
persecutions, and a historical outline of the reign of Constantine up to
and including the Council of Nicaea (4037D-4061A)
– The story of HelenaÌs discovery of the cross (4061A-4064C)
– A description of the happenings in the later years of ConstantineÌs reign as
well as an account of his death and burial (4064C-4068C)
– Cyril of JerusalemÌs letter about the apparition of a celestial cross above
Jerusalem (4069A-4072B)
– Eulogy of the cross (4072B-4076A).
2.4.1 Date and genre

The date of the De inventione crucis is debated. It is traditionally assigned to the
mid-sixth century; M. van Esbroeck dated it even more precisely to the years
543 – 553.176 However, the validity of the traditional date has been challenged by
A. Kazhdan who believes that the text can only be roughly dated between the
174 John W. Nesbitt, “Alexander the MonkÌs Text of HelenaÌs Discovery of the Cross (BHG
410)”, in: John W. Nesbitt (ed.), Byzantine Authors: Literary Activities and Preoccu-
pations. Texts and Translations dedicated to the Memory of Nicolas Oikonomides
(Leiden 2003) 23 – 39. NesbittÌs edition is based upon three prior editions and adds ten
more manuscripts (p. 24).
175 The main edition is that by J. Gretser (De cruce Christi) of 1600, which was reprinted in
PG 87.3, 4016 – 4076 (HelenaÌs discovery of the cross is at 4061 – 4064). A new edition of
the complete text, including a translation and commentary, is being prepared by Roger
C. Scott in collaboration with John Nesbitt. An English translation of the current PG
edition has already been made available by Roger Scott, “Alexander the monk.
Discovery of the True Cross”, in: M. Mullett (ed.), Metaphrastes or Gained in
Translation. Essays and Translations in Honour of Robert H. Jordan, Belfast Byzantine
Texts and Translations 9 (Belfast 2004) 157 – 184. A Dutch translation is provided by
Jeroom Muylle: Keizer Constantinus en keizerin Helena: Het heilige kruis gevonden (s.l.
2003).
176 M. van Esbroeck, “LÌopuscule ÍSur la CroixÌ dÌAlexandre de Chypre et sa version
g¤orgienne”, Bedi Kartlisa 37 (1979) 102 – 132, at 107 ff.
sixth and ninth century.177 One of the most important arguments for dating the
text to the mid-sixth century is that Alexander may also have authored the
Laudatio Barnabae Apostoli, or rather that the author of the latter text is the
same man who wrote the De inventione crucis. The Laudatio is firmly dated to
the mid-sixth century, and therefore one may suppose that the treatise about the
discovery of the cross was also composed at approximately the same time. In
spite of the fact that there is no compelling evidence for identifying both texts as
by the same author, it is assumed by the editors of the latest editions of the
Laudatio that this is the case.178 Both texts have the common theme of the
discovery of relics, there are christological similarities, and, as Nesbitt has
pointed out, the prooemia of both works show significant mutual resemblan-
ces.179 Moreover, according to Nesbitt the De inventione crucis reflects a sixth-
century milieu rather than a later one.180 Unfortunately, there is no certain proof
for dating the work to the mid-sixth century. Nevertheless, the circumstantial
evidence points to a sixth-century date rather than a later one. If indeed the
Alexander of the De inventione crucis is the same person as his namesake who
composed the Laudatio, he was a monk in the monastery of Barnabas close to
Salamis on Cyprus.
The De inventione crucis is a rather eclectic text and hard to classify. It has
been called a world chronicle,181 but it definitely does not correspond to the
genre of the chronicle as it is known in Late Antiquity and Byzantine times. The
long section about the history of Christianity from the reign of Augustus up to
and including the reign of Constantine rather resembles EusebiusÌ Church
History, although in a much abbreviated form. The eulogy of the cross is
reminiscent of a liturgical text recited at the feast of the cross on 14 September.
The cross clearly has centre stage and the text can be characterized as a
panegyric in honour of the symbol of the cross. For Alexander the cross is the
essence of nature, a model on which each creature is shaped, the major symbol
of Christianity that brings salvation to all, the veneration of which was already
177 Kazhdan (cf. fn. 1) 199 – 200, also for earlier scholarship on the date of the text; A.
Kazhdan, “Alexander the Monk”, The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 3 vols. (Oxford/
New York 1991) vol. 1, 60.
178 P. van Deun, Laudatio Barnabae Apostoli, CC Ser. Gr. 26 (Turnhout 1993) 15 – 16; B.
Kollmann, Alexander Monachos. Laudatio Barnabae, Lobrede auf Barnabas (Turnhout
2007) 57 – 58.
179 Nesbitt (cf. fn. 174) 29 – 30. Both authors are invited by an ecclesiastical superior to write
the text, both are of humble origin, both want to decline the request because they think
they are not able because of lack of education and experience to compose such a text.
According to Nesbitt the phraseology in the opening statements of in both works is “too
close to be a matter of coincidence”.
180 Nesbitt (cf. fn. 174) 32 – 33.
181 Nesbitt (cf. fn. 174) 23.
prefigured in Old Testament times. The text clearly culminates in HelenaÌs

discovery of the cross and the celestial appearance of the cross over Jerusalem.
An outline of AlexanderÌs account of HelenaÌs discovery of the cross:

Constantine dispatches Helena to Jerusalem with letters and money for Macarius,
bishop of Jerusalem, in order to search for the cross and erect churches on the holy
sites. Helena herself would have requested this because of a divine vision that had
appeared to her. Having arrived in Jerusalem, she at once assembles all the bishops
and orders them to look for the cross. When all are at a loss concerning the site,
Macarius offers a prayer to God, who reveals the site. On the site a temple and cult
statue are situated. The temple is demolished and three crosses and the nails are
found. Helena, who is in despair about which of the crosses was that of Christ, is
helped by Macarius. He identifies the true cross by bringing the crosses into contact
with a mortally sick woman. Already the shadow of the salvific cross brings the
woman back to life. Helena sends a portion of the cross as well as the nails to
Constantine, and leaves the rest in Jerusalem in a silver casket which she presents
to the bishop of the city. She orders churches to be built on Golgotha, in Bethlehem
and on the Mount of Olives. When Helena is received by her son he puts the part of
the cross that she had sent him in a golden box and donates it to the cityÌs bishop
decreeing that the appearance of the cross be celebrated annually. Constantine
includes the nails in his horseÌs bridle and his helmet in order to fulfil the prophecy
of Zechariah (14:20).
2.4.2 A few observations

AlexanderÌs narration of the discovery of the cross by Helena is no doubt based
on the narrative as we have it in the late antique Church Histories. AlexanderÌs
exact source or sources are impossible to establish, since he combines several
aspects that can be found in the Church Histories, but he also omits to mention
several features, most conspicuously the titulus. Since Nesbitt has made a
thorough comparison of AlexanderÌs version with those of Gelasius of Caesarea,
Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and that of Ambrose as well as
EusebiusÌ Life of Constantine, there is no need to repeat that exercise here.182
However, I should like to add a few observations. In comparison to the texts of
the above-mentioned authors, the role of Helena here seems to be of less
importance than that of Constantine and Macarius.183 The narrative starts off
with Constantine, who sends his mother on a mission to Jerusalem, i. e. finding
the cross and building churches (apparently Constantine knew that the cross was
buried in Jerusalem), and ends with Constantine establishing an annual
commemoration of the cross obviously in Constantinople and fulfilling
ZechariahÌs prophecy. AlexanderÌs text differs from all the others in mentioning
that Helena assembles bishops in order to make an enquiry about where the
182 Nesbitt (cf. fn. 174) 33 – 35.

183 Contra Nesbitt (cf. fn. 174) 38 who says that “Helena occupies center stage”.
cross is hidden. Eventually it is one of them, Macarius, who by praying to God is

shown where the cross was hidden. Evidently Helena, in order to accomplish her
mission, cannot do without the help of Macarius. His role is far more important
than in the Church Histories, which only mention his assistance in identifying the
true cross from the three crosses that were found. The church historians mention
that Helena cross-examined the inhabitants of Jerusalem but that they were of
little help and that the spot was shown to her by a divine sign. AlexanderÌs
version possibly shows the influence of the Judas Kyriakos redaction, which has
a debate between Helena and the Jews about the site of the cross. In
AlexanderÌs narrative the Jews are replaced by the bishops and Judas by
Macarius. The Kyriakos legend may also have some bearing on an earlier
episode of AlexanderÌs text. Because of the success of Christianity and in order
to prevent the Christian faith spreading to future generations, the Jewish high
priests “then ordered the tomb and the site of Calvary, where the holiest cross
stood, to be covered over, striving to bring the signs of salvation to oblivion”,
and “God allowed the life-giving Wood and the glorious resurrection to be
hidden for a while, so that these sites would not be subjected to fire during the
revolt of Jews and gentiles”.184 As in the Judas Kyriakos narrative the Jews are
held responsible for concealing the cross. It would thus seem that Alexander was
familiar with the Kyriakos version of the discovery of the cross but, like
Sozomen, chose to ignore it and instead to include the Helena legend in his
treatise.185 Unlike Sozomen, however, he seems to have made use of elements of
the Kyriakos legend, which gave him the opportunity to distinguish his narrative
from those in the Church Histories and to present a distinctive narrative of the
discovery of the cross.
After having related how the cross was found, Alexander continues by
telling inter alia that Constantine sponsored the construction of churches on the
184 PG 87.3, 4037 A-4037B: T|te 1j]keusam wysh/mai t¹m t\vom ja· t¹m t|pom toO Jqam_ou,
1m è rp/qwem b "ci~tator stauq¹r, t± t/r sytgq_ar sgle?a k^h, paqadoOmai vikomei-
joOmter… sumew~qgsem b He¹r jqub/mai pq¹r ak_com t¹ fyopoi¹m n}kom ja· tµm 5mdonom
!m\stasim, Vma lµ 1m t0 !mastas_ô rp¹ Youda_ym ja· 1hm_m puq· oR t|poi paqadoh_sim ;
tr. Scott.
185 At the end of his account of the discovery of the cross Alexander possibly refers again to
the Kyriakos version: [4069D] ¨de peq· t/r erq]seyr toO fyopoioO stauqoO B Rstoq_a
5sty, [4072A] ja· lgde·r 2aut¹m !pat\ty lataiokoc_m !s}lvoqa ja· luhopoi_ar diÌ
amol\tym paqan]mym paqeisacace? t0 rpoh]sei. Oqd³ c±q 1p_sjopor 6teqor c]come
p~pote paq± to»r pqocecqall]mour… oqd³ 2t]q\ tq|p\ b t_lior stauq¹r !mejgq}whg·”
[4069D] Up to this point let this be the account of the discovery of the life-giving Cross,
[4072A] and let no one deceive himself and by talking idly introduce to the argument
absurdities and fables made with foreign names. For there was no other bishop except
those previously mentioned… nor was the honoured Cross proclaimed in any other
way”; tr. Scott. The other bishop may very well be a reference to Kyriakos, who after his
conversion became bishop of Jerusalem.
holy sites, celebrated his Vicennalia, that Helena died at the age of eighty and
was buried in the Church of the Apostles in Constantinople, that Constantine
himself died at the age of sixty-five after having arranged his succession. A
considerable part is devoted to the division within the Church because of
Arianism, which caused a fall in the number of those coming to the faith.
Because of the dissensions among Christians God sent the celestial cross which
appeared over Jerusalem. Cyril, who was bishop of Jerusalem at the time, sent a
letter to the emperor Constantius reporting the event.186 Part of the letter is
included by Alexander, describing the phenomenon and saying that the real
cross was found under Constantine. Immediately following the quotation of
CyrilÌs letter Alexander concludes by saying “let this be the account of the
discovery of the life-giving Cross”.187 Probably CyrilÌs letter was an integral part
of the De inventione crucis as it was conceived by Alexander. This is not
surprising since the letter is also referred to in later texts in the context of the
discovery of the cross.188 In this way the discovery of the cross from the depths of
the earth as a result of GodÌs intervention is connected with a God-sent cross
gleaming with flashes in the sky. Since both events took place in Jerusalem the
connection between the discovery and the celestial appearance of the cross may
go back to a Jerusalem tradition. Nesbitt, however, thinks the letter was a later
addition, since it was AlexanderÌs intention only “to compose a historical
narrative of the discovery of the life-bringing Wood”,189 and was therefore “not
concerned with the post-Constantinian history of the cross”.190 Moreover,
according to Nesbitt, the letter contradicts parts of the story about HelenaÌs
discovery, since it does not mention the identity of the person who found the
cross, and Alexander was not a copyist but a historian. Nesbitt may be right and
only a new edition of the text taking into account all manuscripts can shed more
light on the question, whether CyrilÌs letter was a later insertion or not.
However, in view of the fact that AlexanderÌs text is rather miscellaneous, that
he includes passages that have nothing to do with the discovery of the cross – the
large portion about the history of Christianity before Constantine hardly relates
186 For an edition of the letter, see Bihain (cf. fn. 97); see further Drijvers (cf. fn. 93) 50 – 53,
159 – 163. On fourth-century cross appearances: J.W. Drijvers, “The Power of the Cross:
Celestial Cross Appearances in the Fourth Century”, in: A. Cain & N. Lenski (eds.), The
Power of Religion in Late Antiquity (Farnham 2009) 237 – 248.
187 PG 87.3, 4069D: peq· t/r erq]seyr toO fyopoioO stauqoO B Rstoq_a 5sty ; tr. Scott.
188 Bihain (cf. fn. 97) 267 n. 1 even thinks that some of these later texts, such as Theophanes
AM 5847, go back to the passage quoted by Alexander; cf. Kazhdan (cf. fn. 1) 221.
189 PG 87.3, 4016 A: Rstoqij|m tima k|com poi^sashai peq· t/r erq]seyr toO fyopoioO
n}kou ; tr. Scott.
190 Nesbitt (cf. fn. 174) 31.
to the main theme of the treatise191 – the inclusion of CyrilÌs letter is in itself not
in contradiction to the way Alexander composed his treatise. In his opening
statement Alexander says that he “shall not utter any private view… but what
things we had strength to discover of the old histories… and what things we have
taken from earlier tradition”.192 Like most ancient and late antique authors,
Alexander does not reveal his sources but there can be little doubt that he used
the fourth- and fifth-century Church Histories for composing his treatise. His
account of Christian history up to and including the reign of Constantine was
probably based on EusebiusÌ Church History, while the narrative of HelenaÌs
finding of the cross was probably derived from one or more fourth- and/or fifth-
century Church Histories. These also mention the appearance of the cross in the
sky over Jerusalem as well as CyrilÌs letter about it to Constantius.193 The fact
that he quoted literally from CyrilÌs letter must imply that the letter itself was
available to Alexander. Given the nature and contents of his sources and his way
of working it is therefore not extraordinary that Alexander included CyrilÌs
letter in his version of the narrative of the cross.
The eulogy of the cross with which Alexander finishes his treatise is
according to Nesbitt another later addition, for the reason that AlexanderÌs
opening statement contains no indication of an intention to include this
encomium. This is not a convincing argument, however, because Alexander also
does not mention that he will give an account of the life and passion of Jesus, or
a survey of Christian history of the first three centuries. He does not even
mention why he wrote the text in the first place, except that he was requested by
his superior to do so. However, the reason for this request is not mentioned. I
consider it not unlikely that Alexander was asked to write the text as a festal
dossier to be used on the feast day celebrating the discovery of the cross (14
September). Since the fourth century this feast has been celebrated annually in
Jerusalem, and it was also included in the liturgical calendars elsewhere,
probably in conjunction with the dispersal of cross relics. The feast of the cross
was probably also commemorated on Cyprus, where Alexander lived his life of a
monk. As discussed above, the Syrian church celebrated the festival already
around the year 500 if not earlier. Alexander himself refers to the feast in
Constantinople when he mentions that Constantine gave the cross relics to the
bishop for safekeeping and decreed that the discovery of the cross be
commemorated every year.194 Moreover, since AlexanderÌs Laudatio Barnabae
191 If the text had later additions it seems more likely that this section, rather than CyrilÌs
letter or the eulogy of the cross, would have been one of these later inclusions.
192 PG 87.3, 4016B: 9qoOlem d³ Udiom oqd³m… fsa d³ 1n !qwa_ym Rstoqi_m Qsw}salem
erqe?m… ja· fsa 1j t/r !m]jahem eQk^valem paqad|seyr ; tr. Scott.
193 Soz. Hist. Eccl. 4.5; Philost. Hist. Eccl. 3.26; also Chron. Pasch. a. 351.
194 See also Nesbitt (cf. fn. 174) 38.
Apostoli – composed in honour of the founder of the Cypriote church whose

relics were found in 488 – was probably read in a liturgical setting on the saintÌs
feast day of 11 June,195 the treatise on the discovery of the cross may have been
likewise written for a liturgical purpose.196
The genre of the De inventione crucis is hard to determine. Nesbitt argues
that it is “a work of pilgrimage literature” and “a coherent example of pilgrim
propaganda”, which was meant to lure people to go to Jerusalem and visit the
holy sites.197 This is unlikely since the aspect of sacred geography and journey is
altogether absent from the text, and nowhere are people spurred on to visit the
sacred sites in the Holy Land. The text was in the first place composed with the
explicit purpose of presenting and eulogizing the cross as the major symbol of
Christianity and of emphasizing its salvific nature: through the life-giving cross
mankind was saved. To the present writer it makes much more sense to consider
this text as written for recitation in a liturgical setting. Like the Laudatio
Barnabae Apostoli, the De inventione crucis may have been conceived as a
dossier from which preachers could select passages for recitation in the annual
services celebrating the discovery of the cross.
3. Epilogue
Fact and fiction are integral and not always easily distinguishable elements of
the tradition about Helena and the discovery of the cross. This tradition has its
origin in the fourth century and has developed rapidly in a multitude of lands
and languages, becoming one of the most important narrative cycles in the
Western as well as the Eastern traditions. In the last two to three decades
scholarship has become increasingly interested in Helena and the legends about
the discovery of the cross, and this has resulted in a better understanding of the
distribution and function of the inventio crucis myths. It has been the aim of this
article to make a contribution to a better appreciation of the historical and
legendary picture of Helena and the legends of inventio crucis.
195 Kollmann (cf. fn. 178) 58. Kollmann suggests that the Laudatio was read in the church of
the Barnabas monastery in Salamis where Alexander was a monk.
196 Unfortunately, A. Frolow, La relique de la Vraie Croix. Recherches sur le d¤veloppement
dÌun culte (Paris 1961) does not provide any evidence for the presence of cross relics on
Cyprus in the sixth century. However, that need not imply that the feast of the cross was
not celebrated at that time.
197 Nesbitt (cf. fn. 174) 38 – 39.

Drijvers J.W - 2011 - Helena Augusta - The Cross and The Myth - Some New Reflections

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Drijvers J.W - 2011 - Helena Augusta - The Cross and The Myth - Some New Reflections

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Millennium 8/2011

Jahrbuch zu Kultur und Geschichte

Herausgegeben von / Edited by

Wissenschaftlicher Beirat / Editorial Board

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

© 2011 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston

Druck: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen

∞ Gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier

1 F. Winkelmann, “Das hagiografische Bild Konstantins I in Mittel-Byzantinischer Zeit”,

1.1 Some biographical observations

worked there as a prostitute.14 Prostitutes are known to have been a familiar

32 Drger (cf. fn. 31/1) 207 ff.

35 Heinen (cf. fn. 27) 105 ff.

mention her as legitimate wife of Constantius.49 Evidently Constantine, after

1.4 Eusebius and HelenaÌs ÍpilgrimageÌ

to as a ÍpilgrimageÌ due to EusebiusÌ reference to Psalm 132:7 “Let us adore in

63 H. Halffmann, Itinera Principum. Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen im

1.5 HelenaÌs Death and S. Croce in Gerusalemme

Eusebius devotes much space to the description of HelenaÌs death. Again, he

73 In LenskiÌs line of reasoning there is a penitential aspect to HelenaÌs journey. However,

78 Johnson (cf. fn. 77) 118.

83 Cyr. Jer., Epist. ad Const. 3; Catech. 4.10, 10.19, 13.4.

2. The Myth of the Cross

2.1 The Cross and Jerusalem

we know from the Catechetical Lectures of the above-mentioned Cyril.96 The

2.2 Versions of the inventio crucis

2.2.1 A Fourth Version

2.3 Syriac Poems on the inventio crucis

Then follow the dialogues and narrative passages in 44 stanzas: 1 – 5: debate

154 Brock (cf. fn. 151) 61.

2.3.1 ConstantineÌs vision

adversary, and the overthrow of “the tyrant”.162 This refers to ConstantineÌs

improbable that it goes back to the vision as we have it in the Petersburg/

2.4 De inventione crucis by Alexander Monachos

text.174 The text published by Nesbitt is part of AlexanderÌs larger treatise

2.4.1 Date and genre

prefigured in Old Testament times. The text clearly culminates in HelenaÌs

An outline of AlexanderÌs account of HelenaÌs discovery of the cross:

2.4.2 A few observations

182 Nesbitt (cf. fn. 174) 33 – 35.

cross is hidden. Eventually it is one of them, Macarius, who by praying to God is

Apostoli – composed in honour of the founder of the Cypriote church whose

You might also like

32 Drger (cf. fn. 31/1) 207 ff.