Other Patristic Studies Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:24:12PM via free access . Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:24:12PM via free access Ekaterina Kovalchuk Leuven, Belgium [email protected] THE HOLY SEPULCHRE OF JERUSALEM AND ST SOPHIA OF CONSTANTINOPLE: AN ATTEMPT AT DISCOVERING A HAGIOGRAPHIC EXPRESSION OF THE BYZANTINE ENCAENIA FEAST Constantine the Great and the Foundation of the Holy Sepulchre For a student of Late Antiquity and Byzantine civilization, Con- stantine the Great is known, fi rst and foremost, as the ruler who intro- duced Christianity as an offi cial religion of the Roman Empire. Apart from that, his name is fi rmly associated with the foundation of the eponymous city of Constantinople, which was to become a centre of the Eastern Christian civilization. A closer look at the contemporary sources, however, suggests that the fi rst Christian Emperor did not give the newly-founded city of Constantinople priority in his policies and building projects. During his reign, Constantine the Great dis- played extraordinary interest in Jerusalem, leaving Constantinople rather overshadowed. One may puzzle why Eusebius, who is the main contemporary source for the reign of Constantine the Great, gave but cursory treatment to the foundation and dedication of Constantinople while dwelling upon the subject of Palestinian church-building — and especially the foundation and dedication of the Holy Sepulchre church in Jerusalem1 — so exten- (1) The Holy Sepulchre is a later name for the complex erected by Con- stantine at the allegedly historical places of Golgotha and the tomb where Christ was buried. In the early sources the two buildings were diff erentiat- ed: the church of Anastasis, built over the Christ’s tomb to commemorate it rather as a scene of his resurrection, and the Martyrium Basilica, which was a construction incorporating the rock of Calvary. Besides the rotunda and ba- silica, there was an inner atrium where the huge gemmed cross was erected in remembrance of Jesus’ crucifi xion. The literary and archaeological evidence suggests that the fi rst building at the site was the Basilica. Apparently, it was already at the place when the pilgrim from Bordeaux was passing through Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:24:12PM via free access 264 Scrinium VΙ (2010). Patrologia Pacifi ca Secunda sively.2 Yet, the correct perspective on the prominence of Jerusalem in the Constantinian policy of building the Christian empire clarifi es why, in his Vita Constantini, Eusebius described imperial foundations in Jerusalem and the Holy Land at length3 but accorded only marginal a ention to the staple historical event (or at least viewed as such by later Byzantine historians as well as modern Byzantinists) of the foun- dation of Constantinople and the construction of churches in Con- Jerusalem in 333: “…a sinistra autem parte est monticulus Golgotha, ubi dominus crucifi xus est. Inde quasi ad lapidem missum est cripta, ubi cor- pus eius positum fuit et tertia die resurrexit; ibidem modo iusso Constan- tini imperatoris basilica facta est, id est dominicum, mirae pulchritudinis...” (P. Geyer and O. Cuntz (eds.), Itinerarium Burdigalense, in: Idem., Itineraria et alia geographica (Turnhout: Brepols: 1965) (CCSL, 175) 593.4–594.5, p. 17). The Anastasis Rotunda was built a few years later. Yet, as a record in Egeria’s diary points out, it was consecrated on the same day as the Basilica: “Item dies enceniarum appellantur quando sancta ecclesia, quae in Golgotha est, quam Martyrium uocant, consecrata est Deo; sed et sancta ecclesia, quae est ad Anastase, id est in eo loco ubi Dominus resurrexit post passionem, ea die et ipsa consecrata est Deo” (P. Maraval (ed.), Égérie: Journal de Voyage (Itinéraire) (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1982) (SC, 296) 316). Eusebius, however, reserved the term martyrium (μαρτύριον) for the tomb itself. For a fuller analysis of the terminology, see P. W. L. Walker, Holy City, Holy Places? Christian A i- tudes to Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the Fourth Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990) 237, 268–269; R. Ousterhout, The Temple, the Sepulchre, and the Martyrion of the Saviour, Gesta 29/1 (1990) 44–53, esp. 50–51. For the architec- tural history of the Holy Sepulchre see Ch. Coüasnon, The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (London: Oxford University Press, 1974); V. Corbo, Il Santo Sepolcro di Gerusalemme. Aspe i archeologici dalle origini al periodo crociato (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1981). (2) This rather striking omission of specifi c treatment of the foundation and inauguration of Constantinople as opposed to a lengthy account of the building projects in the Holy Land is noted in the commentary on the Vita Constantini by Av. Cameron and S. G. Hall, Eusebius. Life of Constantine (Ox- ford: Clarendon Press, 1999) 274. The most recent edition of the Life of Con- stantine, which is used in the present study, was produced by F. Winkelmann, Über das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1975) (Die grie- chischen christlichen Schri steller der ersten Jahrhunderte, Eusebius I/I). All the following references to the Vita Constantini will be made in the form of an abbreviated title (VC) with indication of chapters and sections according to Winkelmann’s edition, which is also preserved in the translation by Cameron and Hall, Eusebius. Life of Constantine... (3) VC III, 25–47. 3. Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:24:12PM via free access Ekaterina Kovalchuk 265 stantine’s new city.4 For, as accurately noted by Dagron, the “Christian capital” of Constantine’s creation was not so much Constantinople as Jerusalem.5 Prior to being raised to the position of prominence in the reign of Constantine the Great, Jerusalem had li le importance in Christian eyes, as a historical site of biblical events. During the fi rst three centu- ries of the Christian era, the city of Jerusalem or, rather, Aelia Capito- lina, as it was be er known a er having been rebuilt by Hadrian in the second century, had a humble status in the Christian world. Before it a racted the a ention of the fi rst Christian ruler, Jerusalem was mere- ly an insignifi cant city in the Roman province of Palestine. Largely due to Constantine’s eff orts and investment in the physical re-building and construction of Jerusalem as a Christian city and to the enthusiasm of its bishops to establish symbolical and theological pre-eminence, it became a place of major signifi cance for all Christendom. It took less than a century to transform a negligible city into the Christian centre and one of the most important Christian holy places, a racting pil- grims from all over the Roman Empire. The extraordinary grandeur and imperial munifi cence displayed in the building works and embellishments of the city conveyed the transparent message of Jerusalem’s offi cial pre-eminence. In fact, the Jerusalem so eagerly promoted by Constantine was not an old histori- cal city but a new, Christian Jerusalem, created through an intensive church-building program in general, and particularly by the construc- tion of the central monument at the place of Christ’s resurrection.6 As Eusebius explicitly stated in his account of Constantine’s life, New Jerusalem was built at the very Testimony to the Saviour, fa- cing the famous Jerusalem of old, which a er the bloody murder of the Lord had been overthrown in u er devastation, and paid the penalty of its wicked inhabitants. Opposite this then the Empe- ror erected the victory of the Saviour over the death with rich and abundant munifi cence, this being perhaps that fresh new Jerusalem (4) VC III, 47. 4–49. (5) G. Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale : Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451 (Paris, Presses universitaires de France, 1974) (Bibliotheque byzan- tine. Etudes, 7) 389. (6) Eusebius’ a empts to vest the Holy Sepulchre with the biblical and eschatological signifi cance of a New Jerusalem are discussed by R. C. Wilken, The Land Called Holy: Palestine in Christian History and Thought (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University, 1992) 93–100. Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:24:12PM via free access 266 Scrinium VΙ (2010). Patrologia Pacifi ca Secunda proclaimed in prophetic oracles, about which long speeches recite innumerable praises as they u er words of divine inspiration.7 The earthly physical Jerusalem was crowned with the greatest of Constantine’s building achievements — the Holy Sepulchre, designed by its architecture and embellishments to surpass not only all other basilicas but indeed any sort of beautiful foundation ever built.8 It was this complex — and more specifi cally the inner atrium of the Holy Sep- ulchre — that came to be identifi ed with the omphalos, that is the navel of the world.9 The most evident sign of Jerusalem’s superiority over Constantino- ple, manifested particularly clearly towards the end of Constantine’s reign, was the celebration of the tricennalia event. Jerusalem was cho- sen as the venue for the main celebration in September 335, whereas Constantinople had to rest content with the second stage of the cer- emonies, which took place in July of the following year.10 The celebra- tion of the third decade of the imperial reign, which was undisput- edly of great political importance, acquired an increasingly Christian character. In addition to being marked by the assembly of bishops, similarly to the preceding anniversary at Nicaea a decade earlier, the tricennalia festivities included the inauguration of the Christian build- ings at the Golgotha site. The date of the tricennalia, as Fraser reasonably argued, was careful- ly chosen and planned by Constantine to correspond with important (7) “.