1

Published in: "Helena Augusta: Cross and Myth. Some new Reflections", Millennium 8.

Yearbook on the Culture and History of the First Millennium C.E. (2011) 125-174

For the published version, please mail j.w.drijvers@rug.nl

HELENA AUGUSTA, THE CROSS AND THE MYTH:

SOME NEW REFLECTIONS

Jan Willem Drijvers University of Groningen

1. Helena

The legend of the discovery of the true cross by Constantines 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

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 fellowship 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.

1 F. Winkelmann, Das hagiografische Bild Konstantins I im mittel-Byzantinischer Zeit, in: V.

Vavinek (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 Constantines 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.

2

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 Helenas inventio crucis also became a popular theme in the

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 Augoustaion 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 Voragine's Legenda Aurea (13th century).7 Thanks to her alleged discovery of the

cross of Christ and 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 Helena's 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 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; Helena's 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

4 See section 2.3 Syriac Poems on the inventio crucis 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) 182ff.

7 G.P. Maggioni, Iacopo da Varazze. Legenda Aurea, 2 vols. (Florence 1998) vol. 1, 459-470.

8 The Latin church celebrates her feast day on 18 August. In the Eastern Church Helenas saints day is

connected to that of Constantine: 21 May. The celebration of the discovery of the cross is on 14

September.

3

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 christianizing world of the Later Roman Empire,

and of Byzantium and the medieval West.

Besides the scholarly interest in the story of Helena's finding of the true cross, the person

of Helena has also inspired novelists. Evelyn Waughs Helena, published in 1950, is

renowned, but he was definitely not the only writer of fiction to be inspired by the legendary

story of Helenas life.10

"Dichtung und Wahrheit", imaginative creation and fact, are not always easy to

disentangle when dealing with Helenas 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 historical and what should be referred to the

realm of myth in dealing with Helena.11 The purpose of this article is to add both to 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 by examining

certain aspects of her life and the legend that have recently attracted scholarly attention and

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 d'histoire et civilisation de Byzance,

Monographies 17 (Paris 2004) 31-59, 45ff.; Idem, Byzanz, der Westen und das 'wahre' Kreuz. Die

Geschichte einer Reliquie und ihrere knstlerische Fassung in Byzanz und im Abendland (Wiesbaden 2004)

93ff. 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 Evelyn 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;

Louis de Wohl, The Living Wood. Saint Helena and the Emperor Constantine (Philadelphia/New York

1947); Marion Zimmer Bradleys Priestess of Avalon (2000) is based on Helenas legendary life story; Ivo

Knottnerus, De pelgrimage van Helena. Het leven van de moeder van Constantijn (Kampen 2006). There is

also an interest on the part of the 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).

11 E.g. my Helena Augusta: The Mother of Constantine the Great and the Legend of Her Finding of the True

Cross (Leiden 1992).

4

debate. In the first part of this article a reinterpretation of certain facets of Helena's 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 into the narrative tradition of the Dormition and

Assumption of the Virgin Mary, and by discussing two recently published texts two Syriac

poems and the de inventione crucis by Alexander Monachos.

1.1 Some biographical observations

Since the sources on Helenas life are far from abundant, her biography is elusive.12 She was

born c. 248/913, 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 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.

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) 3ff. 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 fr mittelrheinische Kirchengecshichte 60 (2008) 9-29.

Of some interest is also S.A. Fortner & A. Rottloff, Auf den Spuren der Kaiserin Helena. Rmische

Aristokratinnen pilgern ins Heilige Land (Erfurt 2000) 80-93. The recent article by P. Laurence, Helena,

mre de Constantin. Metamorphoses dune 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.

14 De Obit. Theod. 42. Eutropius (Brev. 10.2) mentions that Constantine was born ex obscuriore

matrimonio. Philostorgius (Hist. Eccl. 2.16) calls her `a common woman not different from strumpets'.

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 Prostitute in Latin, Rheinisches

Museum fr Philologie 126 (1983) 321-358, which does not mention the word stabularia.

5

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 Helenas 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 innkeepers daughter Helena another possible 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 Constantius son by virtue of the purple robe and the physical

resemblance to his father.18 Interesting though this story is, its legendary character does not

permit one to use it as a reliable historical source for Drepanum as Helenas place of origin.

Even Procopius, our most reliable source, is not certain about Drepanum as her place of birth

15 Aedif. 5.2.1: ,

. ; 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, Hlnopolis, Dictionnaire

dhistoire et de gographie ecclsiastique 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 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.

6

so witness his careful phrasing: they say that Helen 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. There is therefore 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 was 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 any other

19 See note 15 above.

20 Cyril Mango, The Empress Helena, Helenopolis, Pylae, Travaux et Mmoires 12 (1994) 143-158, at

146-150. Philostorgius (Hist. Eccl. 2.12-13) mentions that Helenopolis was founded by Helena herself in

honour of the Arian martyr Lucian, who was buried there. As the city would have been known as

Helenas 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,

Rmische Kaisertabelle. Grundzge einer rmischen 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:

7

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 Diocletians tetrarchy in 293, at the time when he was still

Maximians praetorian prefect. References in the panegyric delivered for Constantius in 297

presumably indicate that he married Theodora by 288 or 289.26 Constantius 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

, . , , , , , ,

. 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 Constans

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, Frhchristliches Trier. Von den Anfangen bis zur

Vlkerwanderung (Trier 1996) 84-117 and the references there; also Drijvers (cf. fn. 11) 21-30; Pohlsander

8

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 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 Silvester diploma which gave Agricius as

bishop of Trier primacy over the church provinces of Gallia and Germania. Apart from these

legends about Helenas 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 the most

(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, Linvenzione di una biografia: Almanno di Hautvillers e la vita di sant Elena,

Hagiographica 1 (1994) 81-100.

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 brigen Berichte ber Constantins des

Grossen Geburt und Jugend, Archiv fr Literaturgeschichte 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 ber 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 Historie ber Herkunft und Jugend

Constantins des Grossen und seine Mutter Helena. Zur Wirkungsgeschichte einer Legende, in: A.

Golz & H. Schlange-Schningen (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.

9

interest in the context of this paper, and tells how Helena, who belongs 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 with child, she does not return to Trier out 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 of noble appearance by two merchants, his

marriage with the only daughter (her name is not mentioned) of the Greek (i.e. Byzantine)

emperor, their being left behind by these merchants on an inhabited 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. 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 emperors 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 Constantines baptism by Sylvester and to Helenas

journey to Jerusalem and her discovery of the cross there. The libellus dated to the 12th-14th

century and 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

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

33 In other versions Helena is not said to be from Trier but from England. In the English 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) 58ff. 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, "Cynewulf's Elene: From Empress to Saint", in:

K.E. Olsen, A. Harbus & T. Hofstra (eds.), Germanic Texts and Latin Models. Medieval Reconstructions

10

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 therein proof for the correctness

of the medieval tradition that Helena had once resided in Trier and had during her 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 Bischfliches Museum in Trier,

show four female portraits, richly ornamented with jewellery, fine clothes and silver and

gold 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

(Louvain 2001) 141-156; M.P. Aaij, Elene and the True Cross, Diss. Univ. of Alabama, Tuscaloosa (2002)

on Cynewulfs 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 (Mnchen 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.

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

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

11

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 Roses 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 Helenas presence in Trier cannot to be taken into account as an indication for

her ever having been in Trier, which implies that there is no reliable evidence that she ever

resided in that city. Even though we may surmise and even consider it likely that she did

reside at her sons court in Trier, we should realise that Helenas association with Trier is late

and that we probably have to do with a tradition invented in the ninth century to advance

the status of the city and that of its bishops 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

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.

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.

12

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 Helenas close connection with and patronage of the Sessorian palace

and the area around it. So too is her interest in the newly found 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 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,

40 Eus. VC 3.47.2. Eusebius 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 lantico 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 may have spent some time in

the city on her return from her eastern journey; Pohlsander (cf. fn. 3) 139-148.

13

when Helena had received the official title of Augusta,44 nicely indicate her gradual growth in

power at Constantines 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 the autumn of 324, possibly on 8

November,46 after Constantine had defeated Licinius and had become sole ruler of the

empire, Helenas 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 Helenas 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 the mother of

Constantine and the grandmother of the Caesars, Constantines sons; two even in obvious

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 RIC 7, 503-505; possibly these coins were minted in 318/319 which may been the date for Helenas

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. Grnewald, Constantinus Maximus Augustus. Herrschaftspropaganda in der zeitgenssischen

berlieferung (Stuttgart 1990) 142-143. Grnewald 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 Grnewald, as

providentia Augusti et Augustarum.

14

contrast to the literary texts 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 Helenas pilgrimage

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 Constantines death in 337. The Vita, however

and the same applies to the report of Helenas journey is not without its 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 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 Constantine's choice of

Christianity, his support of the Christians and the Church. In order to do this he presents

Constantine's 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 Constantine's which are reported by Eusebius relate to the

49 divi Constanti castissimae / coniugi (CIL 10.517); uxori divi Constanti (CIL 10.1483).

50 In the short interregnum after Constantines death on 22 May 337 coins of Helena were minted to

emphasize the legitimacy of Constantines sons and projected successors vis--vis that of his half-

brothers, the sons of Theodora (wife of Constantines father Constantius); Drijvers (cf. fn. 11) 44-45.

See now also R.W. Burgess, The Summer of Blood: The Great Massacre of 337 and the Promotion of

the Sons of Constantine, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 62 (2008) 5-51.

51 Ambr. De Obit. Theod. 42.

15

emperors 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 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 emperors provenance as

Helenas 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. Constantines 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 Constantines 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 perfect as a Christian and as an Augustus himself.

In spite of the fact that Eusebius mentions that Helenas 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

52 VC 1.11.1.

53 Av. Cameron & S.G. Hall, Eusebius. Life of Constantine. Introduction, Translation and Commentary

(Oxford 1999) 293; Vita Constantini: ber das Leben des glckseligen Kaisers Konstantin (De vita

Constantini), herausgegeben, bersetzt 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 Constantines 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 fr Alte Geschichte 33 (1984)

16

still is considered and referred to as a pilgrimage due to Eusebius reference to Psalm 132:7

Let us adore in the place where his feet have stood55, in connection with Helenas 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 Helenas 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 a 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

79-106; J.W. Drijvers, "Flavia Maxima Fausta: Some Remarks", Historia. Zeitschrift fr 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 Familienmorde des

Jahres 326, Klio 92 (2010) 104-116. Still others prefer a date of 327-328, based on Eusebius 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.

55 Eus. VC 3.42.2: ,

, ,

. 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 Ja 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. Ktting, Peregrinatio Religiosa: Wallfahrten in der Antike und das Pilgerwesen in der alten Kirche

(Mnster 1950); Hunt (cf. fn. 54); P. Maraval, Lieux saints et plerinage en Orient: histoire et gographie des

origines la conqute 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 (basilik promtheia) 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.

17

objectives of her journey may well have been to make Constantines religious policy

acceptable to the provincials in the East and to secure Constantines rule by calming down

the resentment that existed against it. It is furthermore difficult not to see Helenas journey

against the background of the tragic events in 326 which led to the murders of Constantines

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 Constantines rule in the eastern

provinces.58 The key passage of Eusebius 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 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 Constantines policy of

developing Palestine into the Christian Holy Land. Eusebius 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 found 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

58 Drijvers (cf. fn. 11) 66-70.

59

, , 60 Eusebius (VC 3.41.1, 43) identifies Helenas church on the Mount of Olives with the Ascension and

Jesus 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.

18

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 Helenas mission and

Eusebius 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 also 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 were released, exiles brought home, and those sentenced to the mines

released. It has been argued that imperial journeys were a tool of government and were

undertaken to organise opinion.63 According to Holum, Helenas imperial progress had a

similar purpose. He connects her journey with Constantines Holy Land Plan,64 in particular

his intention to decorate Christs 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 Helenas journey to rally support for this new conception

of the empire.

There is much to be said for Holums interpretation of Eusebius account of Helenas

journey. Her itinerary must definitely have been an official imperial progress of secular

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).

63 H. Halffmann, Itinera Principum. Geschichte und Typologie des Kaiserreisen im rmischen Reich (Stuttgart

1986) 143-156.

64 The term Holy Land Plan was first used by W. Telfer in an article entitled Constantines Holy

Land Plan, Studia Patristica 1 (1957) 696-700.

65 Holum (cf. fn. 61) 75.

19

character, initiated and orchestrated by Constantines court. Many of her actions en route fit

well into the context of an official imperial journey. Less convincing is Holums argument

that Helena undertook her mission in order to organise opinion for her sons 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 Helenas 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

Helenas mission were of another nature than propagating a possible new conception of

empire by Constantine. Constantines 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 Constantines rule, to gain

support for Constantines 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 Eusebius 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 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 Helenas journey, in a

most stimulating and thought provoking article which on the whole has received little

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.

67 VC 3.42.1:

, ,

20

attention.68 Lenskis explanation is also of a 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 mothers 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, Faustas mother and Constantines mother-in-law, and with the fifth-century

empresses Aelia Eudocia, wife of Theodosius II, and Eudocias granddaughter, likewise

named Aelia Eudocia. Also for these empresses travel 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. Lenskis arguments are convincing in the

cases of Eutropia and the two Eudocias, 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 Faustas murder and for that reason become

alienated from her son.72 Of more importance, however, is that Lenski insufficiently takes

68 Noel Lenski, Empresses in the Holy Land: The Creation of a Christian Utopia in Late Antique

Palestine, in: Linda Ellis & Frank 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 Helenas 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 Lenskis 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.

21

into account that her journey concerned the eastern 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 executioner of that plan

possibly one of the other reasons why she was sent to the East and not the architect of it.

1.5 Helenas Death and S. Croce in Gerusalemme

Eusebius devotes much space to the description of Helenas death. Again, he does so as an

opportunity to emphasize Constantines 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 Helenas

property (see above).77 Although it has been assumed that the mausoleum was originally

73 In Lenskis line of reasoning there is a penitential aspect to Helenas 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 deutcshe archologischen Instituts 72 (1957) 44-110; J.J. Rasch, Das Mausoleum der Kaiserin

22

meant for Constantine, Mark Johnson had recently argued that, since Constantine was

hardly ever in Rome, the mausoleum may well have been planned for Helena from the

beginning. It has likewise because of the decoration of cavalrymen been assumed that the

sarcophagus in which Helenas remains were deposited 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 Helenas 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 Helenas 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 the S.

Croce was indeed founded under Constantine in memory of a relic of the cross.81 The church

Helena in Rom und der Tempio della Tosse in Tivoli (Mainz 1998); M.J. Johnson, The Roman Imperial

Mausolea in Late Antiquity (Cambridge 2009) 110-118. See also J. Wortley, The Sacred Remains 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).

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. Lib. Pont. 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 Silvester, under whose

episcopate S. Croce would have been founded. See also Klein (cf. fn. 9) 69ff. Although one would

aspect 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

23

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 then we have evidence for an early cult of the

cross in Rome. In itself 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. Peters and St. Pauls. 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. Peters 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. Peters

mentions Helenas name apparently did not lead to an early association of Helena with the

presence of cross relics in S. Croce. The connection was only made 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 Helenas having brought a relic of the cross to Rome only dates from around the

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.

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

84 Lib. Pont. I, 176: CONSTANTINUS AUGUSTUS ET HELENA AUGUSTA HANC DOMUM

REGALEM SIMILE FULGORE CORUSCANS AULA CIRCUMDAT. Tr. by Davies, The Book of Pontiffs

(Liverpool 1989) 18. R. Egger, Das Goldkreuz am Grabe Petri, Anzeiger der phil.-hist. Klasse der

sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 12 (1959) 182-202.

24

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

2. Myth of the Cross

Eusebius account canonized Helena, as one scholar phrased it.87 His report of her travels

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,

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 Eusebius 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 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 Silvester (Liverpool 2003) xxx.

88 Holum (cf. fn. 61) 75.

25

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 Constantines 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 Jerusalems bishop on Good Friday and on 14 September at the feast

of the Encaenia.91

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

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. Cf., however, 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 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.

26

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 Helenas

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 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

93 Cyr. Jer. Catech. 13.1, 4, 6, 19, 20, 22, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41; 15.22. Walker, Holy City, Holy Places? (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. DAncona, 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, who also believe in the value

of the Gospels as historical record, are of the opinion that tradition and legends are historically

important and that the reconstruction of the early Christian world from surviving legends

27

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. Suffice it to say that

several scholars (and I used to be among them) think that the words

which occur in Constantines 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 Christs tomb, the

(alleged) presence of which was reason for Constantine to build the Church of the Holy

Sepulchre in the first place.99 Should Eusebius words refer to the cross, Constantines letter

would be referring to something other than what Eusebius description was about, i.e. the

97 Cyr. Jer. Epist. ad Const. 3 :

, ; E.

Bihain, Lpitre de Cyrille de Jrusalem Constance sur la vision de la Croix (BHG3 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 (Gteborg 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

Eusebius text in great detail and argues that Eusebius report may be the earliest account of how the

Holy Cross was found (p. 122) and that the Martyrium (Constantines basilica) was not constructed

to commemorate Christs resurrection but was built in honour of the discovery of the cross.

Borgehammar is clearly overinterpreting Eusebius 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 (evidence) in Constantines letter to Macarius

28

excavation of Christs tomb and the building of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Moreover,

Eusebius theological outlook tends to emphasize Christs 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 discovery 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 Christs tomb and the resurrection, and not

the discovery of the cross. Only in the legendary tradition of the inventio crucis 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 Christs 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 discovery probably took place

during the reign of Constantine, if we consider Cyrils 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 Constantines death at 22 May 337 the terminus ad 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 Cyrils

remarks in his Catechetical Lectures.102

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 frhen 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 320s.

102 Klein (cf. fn. 9/2) 19-27.

29

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 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 Cyrils 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,

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.

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 (pp. 83-95) consists of English translations of the inventio crucis narratives as

included in Rufinus 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 fr Antike und

Christentum 32 (1989) 41-71.

30

theological reasons apart, 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 Cyrils efforts to connect himself and his bishopric to power

relationships, in particular the imperial house, in order to make Jerusalem the holiest city in

world of Christendom and his own bishops see into the most authoritative and prestigious

one in Palestine.107

2.2 Versions of 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

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.

108 The division into three versions was originally made by J. Straubinger, Die Kreuzauffindungslegende.

Untersuchungen ber ihre altchristlichen Fassungen mit besonderer Bercksichtigung der syrischen Texte

(Paderborn 1912).

109 Drijvers (cf. fn. 11) 79ff.

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.

111 Ambr. De Obit. Theod. 40-49; See further Drijvers (cf. fn. 11) 95ff.; Borgehammar (cf. fn. 54) 60-66.

31

The Protonike legend (P), first known in Syriac and later in Armenian but not in

Greek and 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 Edessas 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 wide-spread version of

the inventio crucis tradition. It relates how the Jew Judas after initial 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

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, in Hugoye. Journal of S