403 Adomnán, Arculf, and the True Cross

ARAM, 18-19 (2006-2007) 403-413. doi:D. WOODS 10.2143/ARAM.19.0.2020737 403

ADOMNÁN, ARCULF, AND THE TRUE CROSS: OVERLOOKED EVIDENCE FOR THE VISIT OF THE EMPEROR HERACLIUS TO JERUSALEM c.630?

Dr. DAVID WOODS* (University College, Cork)

The Irish monk Adomnán, the ninth abbot of Iona (679-704) on the western coast of Scotland, has left us a description of the Holy Land, his De Locis Sanctis [DLS], which he claims to have composed on the basis of the testimony of a Gallic bishop called Arculf who had recently returned from pilgrimage there.1 Unfortunately, Adomnán does not state clearly when, where, or how they met. Nor does he provide any information concerning Arculf except that he was a bishop from Gaul. Writing at Jarrow in the kingdom of Northum- bria, the English monk Bede (c.673-735) provides some further information concerning the arrival of Arculf in Britain which he presumably derived from the dedication accompanying the copy of the DLS which Adomnán had given to King Aldfrith of Northumbria, but he adds little to our knowledge of Arculf otherwise (HE 5.15). Hence we are forced to rely on a close examination of the text of DLS itself for our knowledge both of Arculf and of the details of his pilgrimage. It has traditionally been agreed that Adomnán composed the DLS both in the mid-680s and on Iona itself, but, as I have argued elsewhere, it is more likely that he composed it during an extended visit to the court of King Aldfrith of Northumbria c.702/03.2 Furthermore, the text was never intended as a travelogue, a simple account of one pilgrim’s journey to the Holy Land, although it has too often been treated as such. One does not doubt that, as recently argued, Adomnán intended his work as an aid to scriptural exegesis or, to be more specific, that this was its formal purpose.3 Nevertheless, the emphasis within the third and last book on Constantinople rather than on the Holy

* The research for this paper was made possible by my receipt of a Research Fellowship from the Irish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences for the academic year 2004- 05. 1 On the life and writings of Adomnán, see R. Sharpe, Adomnán of Iona: Life of St. Columba (Harmondsworth, 1995), pp. 43-74; also T. O’Loughlin, Celtic Theology: Humanity, World and God in Early Irish Writings (London, 2000), pp. 68-86. The standard edition is D. Meehan (ed.), Adamnan’s De Locis Sanctis (Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 3: Dublin, 1958). 2 D. Woods, “Adomnán, Arculf, and Aldfrith”, in J. Wooding, R. Aist, T. Clancy and T. O’Loughlin (eds.), Adomnán: Theologian, Law-maker, Peace-maker (Dublin, forthcoming). 3 T. O’Loughlin, “The Exegetical Purpose of Adomnán’s De Locis Sanctis”, Cambridge Me- dieval Celtic Studies 24 (1992), pp. 37-53.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_20_Woods 403 06-26-2007, 18:02 404 ADOMNAN, ARCULF, AND THE TRUE CROSS

Land itself suggests that it had another purpose also. Hence my suggestion that the real purpose of this book was political, that Adomnán intended it as a de- fence of the learning of the Irish church despite its error in the calculation of the date of Easter, as he had apparently just conceded.4 To be specific, the emphasis on Constantinople was intended as a response to the English emphasis on their loyalty to Rome and to the Roman method of calculating Easter, a subtle reminder that old Rome had been replaced by New Rome, Constantino- ple, and that God had shown favours to the New Rome which he had never shown to the old. In short, it was a reminder of the precariousness of human claims to authority, and, most importantly, that there was more to the world than Rome. Since Adomnán did not necessarily intend the DLS as a travelogue, it is not particularly disturbing that he often omits the sort of information which would have been necessary to allow another pilgrim to follow in Arculf’s footsteps. The real problem is that although he repeatedly credits much of the information within his text to Arculf, these claims cannot always be accepted at face value. His description of Jericho, for example, rests not on the testimony of Arculf, but on the work of Jerome, despite his specific statement to the contrary.5 While Adomnán does occasionally admit his use of literary sources, he is far more dependent upon them than he seems to have wished to admit, and used at least seventeen different works to aid him in his composition.6 If we accept Adomnán’s testimony at face value, Arculf seems to have travelled to Jerusalem and to have visited a large number of other sites throughout the sur- rounding region, as far away as Damascus. He also visited Alexandria in Egypt from where he made his way to Constantinople via Crete. Yet a closer examination of the text reveals that Adomnán cannot have gained much of the information which he credits to Arculf first-hand from a traveller to these locations, whatever he actually claims.7 For example, Arculf is supposed to have spent several months in Constantinople, but to have reported to Adomnán that it was surrounded on every side by the sea except to the North (DLS 3.1.2). In reality, Constantinople is surrounded by the sea on every side except to the West, and no-one who had visited there would have told anyone otherwise. Again, Arculf is supposed to have told Adomnán a story which the people of Constantinople had told him concerning the foundation of their city, and in which the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus is described as Cilicia (DLS 3.2.1). In

4 On the Easter controversy, see T. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 391-415. 5 Meehan, Adomnán's De Locis Sanctis, p. 15, on Jerome, Onom. 131/31-132/5 and DLS 2.13. 6 T. O’Loughlin, “The Library of Iona in the Late Seventh Century: The Evidence from Adomnán’s De Locis Sanctis”, Ériu 45 (1994), pp. 33-52; idem, “Adomnán’s De Locis Sanctis: A Textual Emendation and an Additional Source Identification”, Ériu 48 (1997), pp. 37-40. 7 D. Woods, “Arculf’s Luggage: The Sources for Adomnán’s De Locis Sanctis”, Ériu 52 (2002), pp. 25-52.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_20_Woods 404 06-26-2007, 18:02 D. WOODS 405

reality, Cilicia was a region in the extreme south-east of Asia Minor bordering on Syria, and so nowhere near Constantinople. The required region opposite Constantinople is actually called Bithynia. All the people of Constantinople would have known this well, as should anyone who had stayed there for several months. It is clear, therefore, that Adomnán cannot have learned about the site of Constantinople from a conversation with someone who had actually visited there. There are numerous other inconsistencies and errors which are equally revealing, not the least of which is that the name Arculf is otherwise unknown, and seems to be a misreading of the relatively common name Arnulf. More importantly, perhaps, Adomnán clearly knew next to nothing about the religious situation in contemporary Palestine, to the extent that he does not seem to have realized that the ‘Saracen’ rulers were not in fact Chris- tian.8 Finally, certain oddities in his language betray the fact that Adomnán was using a Latin translation of a Greek source for much of the information which he attributes to Arculf. As I have argued elsewhere, therefore, Adomnán never met any recently returned pilgrim from the East, whatever his name. In- stead, he seems to have discovered a collection of miracle-tales whose source was described as bishop Arnulf from Gaul. Unfortunately, he misinterpreted this to mean that this bishop, whose name he misread as ‘Arculf’, had actually visited all the locations mentioned in the miracle-stories therein. In reality, this bishop had probably never proceeded past Constantinople. The realization, first, that Adomnán’s knowledge of the East derives entirely from literary sources, and second, that he severely misunderstood his main source, a collection of miracle-stories, that is, stories describing the exist- ence and powers of relics and associated objects, has important implications for the way in which we use his text. One can no longer assume that all the information contained therein relates to one small time period, the duration of Arculf’s alleged pilgrimage. Strictly speaking, the miracle-tales may have recorded events from almost any period in the Christian history of Jerusalem or Constantinople, although most were probably of relatively recent origin. This requires a new critical approach to the material preserved by the DLS, in particular that we do not gloss over any errors or inconsistencies in the description of places or events. These may well point to instances where Adomnán has misunderstood his written source, or made false assumptions in order to provide a fuller context for the event being described. It is the purpose of this

8 This is most obvious at DLS 1.9 where Adomnán makes a perplexing distinction between believing and unbelieving Jews in a dispute over ownership of a shroud which had allegedly cov- ered Christ’s head in the tomb, and then depicts the Arab rex Mu‘awiya (who may have been the local governor at this period rather than the caliph) describing Christ as the saviour of the world! In general, see T. O’ Loughlin, “Palestine in the Aftermath of the Arab Conquest”, in R.N. Swanson (ed.), The Holy Land, Holy Lands, and Christian History (Woodbridge, 2000), pp. 78-89. K. Scarfe Beckett, Anglo-Saxon Perceptions of the Islamic World (Cambridge, 2003) adds nothing to our understanding of Adomnán’s DLS, and seems strangely ignorant of almost all recent work on this topic.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_20_Woods 405 06-26-2007, 18:02 406 ADOMNAN, ARCULF, AND THE TRUE CROSS

paper, therefore, to draw attention to the strange similarities between his apparent description of the Church of Hagia Sophia at Constantinople and his description of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, and to investi- gate the implications of these similarities. Adomnán begins the third book of his DLS with a brief description of the location and physical appearance of Constantinople (3.1). He then recounts a fantastic legend concerning the way in which God had guided Constantine I (306-37) to the site of his new city (3.2). Finally, he describes a church there which contained the main relics of the True Cross and the way in which the emperor and his court used to venerate these relics during the three days before Easter Sunday each year. It is important to note that Adomnán does not identify this church by name, but modern commentators have always assumed that he must be describing the Church of Hagia Sophia.9 He describes this church as follows (DLS 3.3.1-3): Ceterum de celeberrima eiusdem civitatis rotunda mirae magnitudinis lapidea eclesia silere non debemus; quae, ut sanctus refert Arculfus, qui eam non brevi frequentavit tempore, ab imo fundamentorum in tribus consurgens parietibus triplex super illos altius sublimata rotundissima et nimis pulchra simplici consum- matur culminata camara. Haec arcibus suffulta grandibus inter singulos supra memoratos parietes latum habet spatium vel ad inhabitandum vel etiam ad exornandum Dominum aptum et commodum. Interioris domus aquilonali in parte pergrande et valde pulchrum monstratur armarium, in quo capsa habetur recondite lignea, quae similiter ligneo supercluditur operculo; in quo illud salutare habetur reconditum crucis lignum in quo noster Salvator pro humani salute generis suspensus passus est. However, we must say something about the very celebrated round stone church in that city. According to the account of the holy Arculf, who frequented it for a con- siderable time, it is triple in character, rising up from the very foundations in three walls, and above them it is rounded off on high by a single dome, exceedingly round and beautiful. This is borne upon great arches, and between each of the walls mentioned above there is a wide space quite suitable for dwelling in, or even for praying to the Lord. In the interior in the northern part a very large and very beautiful repository is on view. It encloses a wooden chest, and that in turn encloses a wooden reliquary, where the salutary wood of the cross is kept on which our Saviour was suspended and suffered for the salvation of the human race.10 When the old church of Hagia Sophia was badly damaged by fire in 532, the emperor Justinian I (527-65) rebuilt a magnificent new church. This was dedi- cated in 537, and received its final form in 562 following a partial collapse as a

9 See e.g. H.A. Klein, “Constantine, Helena and the Cult of the True Cross in Constantino- ple”, in J. Durand and B. Flusin (eds.), Byzance et les Reliques du Christ (Paris, 2004), pp. 31- 59, at 43-45; A. Frolow, La relique de la Vraie Croix: Recherches sur le développement d’un culte (Paris, 1961), pp. 194-95. 10 Text and translation from Meehan, Adomnán's De Locis Sanctis, pp. 108-11. All quota- tions will be from this work

06-8819_Aram 18-19_20_Woods 406 06-26-2007, 18:02 D. WOODS 407

result of earthquake.11 The distinguishing feature of this new church was its huge main dome, and to the extent that Adomnán’s describes a domed church, he may well be describing the Church of Hagia Sophia. However, there was much more to Justinian’s new church than a single large dome. There were two large semidomes to the East and West of the main dome, and several smaller domes and semidomes surrounded this central structure. It is clear, therefore, that the real Church of Hagia Sophia was a much more complex building than that which Adomnán describes. Most importantly, the real Church of Hagia Sophia was rectangular in shape, but Adomnán clearly describes a round building. The discrepancies in appearances between the real Hagia Sophia and the church described by Adomnán are such that, considered in isolation, they would lead one to think that Adomnán had severely misunderstood his source, or that it had contained serious errors already. The situation is complicated, however, by the fact that his apparent description of the Church of Hagia Sophia bears a startling resemblance to his description already of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the church which housed the tomb of Christ in Jerusalem. His description runs as follows (DLS 1.2.3-4): Quae utique valde grandis eclesia tota lapidea mira rotunditate ex omni parte conlocata, a fundamentis in tribus consurgens parietibus, inter unum quemque parietem et alterum latum habens spatium viae, tria quoque altaria in tribus locis parietis medii artifice fabricatis. Hanc rotundam et summam eclesiam supra memorata habentem altaria, unum ad meridiem respiciens, alterum ad aquilonem, tertium ad occasum versus, duodecim mirae magnitudinis sustenant columnae. Haec bis quaternales portas habet, hoc est [.iiii.] introitus, per tris e regione interiectis viarum spatiis stabilitos parietes, ex quibus .iiii. [exitus] ad ulturnum spectant, qui et caecias dicitur ventus, ali vero .iiii. ad eurum respiciunt. Well, this extremely large church, all of stone, and shaped to wondrous roundness on every side, rises up from its foundations in three walls. Between each two walls there is a broad passage, and three altars too are in three skillfully contructed places of the centre wall. Twelve stone columns of wondrous magni- tude support this round and lofty church, where are the altars mentioned, one looking south, the second north, the third towards the west. There are two four- fold portals ([four] entrances that is), which cut across the three soldid walls fac- ing one another with passageways in between. Four of these [exits] face the Vulturnus wind (which is also called Caecias): the other four face Eurus. Both churches are described as round, stone churches which rise up from their foundations in three walls and contain large spaces between each pair of walls, and in almost identical language in each case. This cannot be a coinci- dence. The important point, therefore, is that this description is correct when applied to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.12 It was a round stone church, or 11 In general, see R.J. Mainstone, Hagia Sophia: Architecture, Structure, and Liturgy of Justinian’s Great Church (London 1988). 12 Most recently, see S. Gibson and J.E. Taylor, Beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem: The Archaeology and Early History of Traditional Golgotha (London, 1994), esp. pp. 73-85.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_20_Woods 407 06-26-2007, 18:02 408 ADOMNAN, ARCULF, AND THE TRUE CROSS

as Adomnán reveals when he qualifies his initial description of it by noting that its entrances cut across its circular walls, it was hemispherical in shape so that its straight side on the East faced into the courtyard which separated it from the Constantinian basilica, the so-called Martyrium. By way of contrast, one may compare his descriptions of these two alleged round churches to that of a third round church also, the Church of the Ascension on the Mount of Olives (DLS 1.23.1-2): In toto monte Oliveti nullus alius locus altior esse videtur illo de quo Dominus ad caelos ascendisse traditur, ubi grandis eclesia stat rotunda, ternas per circuitum cameratas habens porticos desuper tectas. Cuius videlicet rotundae eclesiae interior domus sine tecto et sine camera ad caelum sub aere nudo aperta patet; in cuius orientali parte altare sub angusto protectum tecto constructum exstat. On all mount Olivet no place appears to be higher than that from which the Lord is said to have ascended to heaven. A great round church stands there, which has within its circuit three arched porticos roofed in over. Now of this round church the central area lies wide open to heaven under the clear air without roof or vault- ing, and in its eastern portion an altar is erected which is sheltered by a narrow covering. He does not confirm that this church had been built of stone. Nor does he number its walls. It is clear, therefore, that Adomnán did not try and use the same framework to describe all the round churches whose features he needed to describe in his DLS, even if he does seem to have been rather taken by the idea that a church should be round in shape rather than rectangular, as was the norm in Ireland at this period.13 There are two possible explanations of this problem. The first is that Adomnán, or his source, deliberately misapplied a description of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem to the Church of Hagia Sophia in Constanti- nople. This strikes me as unlikely, not least because it is difficult to understand why either should have wanted to do this, and why they should have done it so clumsily. The second possibility is that Adomnán misinterpreted a description of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in such a way as to believe that it referred to a church in Constantinople, and so described it accordingly. This, it seems to me, is the most plausible explanation, not least because it is possible to de- tect what may have caused him to think this way. He may have been misled by the order of the contents within the collection of miracle-stories which he was using as his main source. As I have already suggested elsewhere, the ultimate source for his alleged Constantinopolitan material, that is, his description of the site of the city, its foundation by Constantine I, and its apparent possession of a church containing the True Cross, was probably some form of Byzan- tine life of Constantine very like those which have survived until the pre-

13 See T. O’Loughlin, “Adomnán and Mira Rotunditas”, Ériu 47 (1996), pp. 95-99.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_20_Woods 408 06-26-2007, 18:02 D. WOODS 409

sent.14 The key point to recognize concerning these texts is that although they tend to focus very much on the city of Constantinople itself, they also digress extensively on the subject of the Holy Land. For example, the so-called Guidi- Vita describes Constantine’s foundation of Constantinople, then digresses at length on the Holy Land as it describes how Constantine’s mother Helena made a pilgrimage there during which she discovered the True Cross, before finally returning to the subject of Constantinople itself once more to describe how Constantine allegedly adorned the city with various wonder-working monumental crosses.15 So if the author of the collection of stories to which Adomnán had access had retained the order of material in his main source at this point as he excerpted it for his own purpose, then he may well have brack- eted material concerning various miracles and relics in Palestine, including the True Cross, between sections of material describing miracles and relics at Constantinople. Indeed, this is exactly the situation in book 3 of the DLS itself. It brackets its description of two miracles worked at the shrine of St. George at Diospolis in Palestine (3.4) between its account of the miracles associated with the foundation of Constantinople (3.2) and its acount of the preservation of the icon of the Blessed Virgin in Constantinople which produced a miraculous flow of oil (3.5). It is entirely legitimate, therefore, to question whether the description of the church containing the True Cross may not really belong to the material pertaining to Palestine, that is, with the material concerning the shrine of St. George, rather than with the material pertaining to Constantino- ple. One suspects that Adomnán may have jumped to a rash conclusion concerning the identity of the city where the church containing the True Cross was situated because he was misled by the context within which he found this description to think that it referred to Constantinople rather than Jerusalem. Fur- thermore, this mistake would have been all the easier if the collection of miracle-stories which served as his source in this matter had been a florilegium, a mere collection of excerpts rather than a carefully crafted literary work in its own right. This would explain why the author or copyist had not taken the time to clarify that the description of the church containing the True Cross referred to a church in Jerusalem rather than at Constantinople. There are two obvious objections to the above interpretation, that Adom- nán’s description of the church containing the True Cross ought to be inter- preted in reference to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem rather than to Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, but neither stands close scrutiny. The first is that the passage describes an annual visit by the emperor and his court

14 Woods, “Arculf’s Luggage”, pp. 30-32. There I mistakenly assumed that the description of the church containing the True Cross must refer to Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, the traditional view which I am endeavouring to correct here. 15 See S.N.C. Lieu and D. Montserrat (eds.), From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzan- tine Views. A Source History (London, 1996), pp. 97-146.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_20_Woods 409 06-26-2007, 18:02 410 ADOMNAN, ARCULF, AND THE TRUE CROSS

to the church for the veneration of the True Cross, and such an event could only have occurred in Constantinople after the relics of True Cross had been brought there shortly before the Mohammedans captured Jerusalem in 638. No emperor had made it his practice to pay an annual visit to the main relics of the True Cross before this, not least because of the great distance which separated the emperors in their capital at Constantinople from these relics in Jerusalem. The answer to this objection is that several of the tales preserved by Adomnán reveal a tendency to generalize on the basis of what had probably been only one incident. For example, his first book begins with a claim that it rained heavily on the same night in September every year in order to clean the streets of Jerusalem of the dirt which gathered there during an annual festival (DLS 1.1.7-12). This strains belief. There may have been a heavy downpour at the end of this festival on one occasion, and the population were no doubt grateful for this, but that was it. It is clear that Adomnán, or his source, have generalized on the basis of one instance. Similarly, he claims that a great windstorm occurred every year on the feast of the Ascension, and that this prevented people from roofing over the Church of the Ascension on the Mount of Olives in the way that they might have done otherwise (DLS 1.23.14-18). Again, there may have been a storm once which occurred at the same time that some effort was being made to roof over the central area of this church, so that this was taken as a sign from God to leave well alone, but it impossible that a windstorm should really have attacked the same place on the same day every year. I suggest, therefore, that Adomnán, or his immediate source, has generalized in the same way once more when it comes to the alleged annual imperial veneration of the True Cross.16 The original source of their anecdote need not have described more than one imperial visit to the relics of the True Cross. Further- more, since there was only one emperor who ever visited the relics of the True Cross in Jerusalem, the emperor Heraclius (610-41) when he returned them to Jerusalem on 21 March, probably in 630, or so it is usually assumed, following their removal from there by the Persians in 614, Adomnán may well preserve an account of some of the liturgical celebrations which accompanied that occasion.17 Unfortunately, however, our scanty sources tend to preserve rather vague descriptions of the celebrations which surrounded the initial entry of the relics into Jerusalem rather than any detailed information concerning the place where they were finally laid to rest once more, or how they were used in any subsequent liturgical events. This identification is reinforced by the fact that Heraclius returned the cross to Jerusalem just before Easter (whether one dates

16 This had been a common temptation in the ancient world. See B. Baldwin, Suetonius (Am- sterdam, 1983), pp. 256-57. 17 The precise year and date of the return of the True Cross to Jerusalem is hotly debated. In general, see B. Flusin, Saint Anastase le Perse et l’histoire de la Palestine au début du VIIe siècle, 2 vols (Paris, 1992), vol. 2, pp. 293-309.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_20_Woods 410 06-26-2007, 18:02 D. WOODS 411

this event to 629, 630, or 631), while Adomnán records that the emperor was able to venerate the relics of the True Cross in the church on the third day before Easter.18 Although there is no evidence as to how long Heraclius spent in Jerusalem following his restoration of the True Cross there, it seems hardly likely that he would have returned the cross there, but then have rushed away so that he missed celebrating Easter at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Je- rusalem itself! On the contrary, one may suspect that that the whole process had been stage managed so that the True Cross was returned to Jerusalem pre- cisely in time for the Easter celebrations. The second possible objection to the idea that Adomnán has misinterpreted a passage concerning the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem in reference to the Church of Hagia Sophia in Jerusalem is that the relics of the True Cross were actually kept in a chamber attached to the so-called Martyrium, the Constantinian basilica situated immediately to the East of Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and not in a chamber attached to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre itself. This was certainly true for the period before the Persian capture of Jeru- salem in 614, but, strictly speaking, we do not know where the relics were kept following their restoration to the complex by Heraclius. The most likely solu- tion, however, is that Adomnán, or his source, has severely abbreviated a passage which originally described both the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Martyrium, that is, the whole complex of buildings, in that order, so that it now gives the false impression that the chamber containing the relics was attached to the former rather than the latter. This would have been a relatively easy error if the chamber was situated in the courtyard between the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Martyrium, so that a careless reader might well have asumed that it was attached to the first rather than the second, but as with so much else concerning this whole complex, the evidence is complicated and controversial. It is usually argued that this chamber was located at the main entrance to the Martyrium as one entered from the eastern courtyard rather than at its entrance from the western courtyard situated between it and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.19 It is noteworthy, however, that there was a chapel containing some holy objects (especially the sponge from which Christ drank vinegar while hanging on the cross) in the courtyard between the two main churches, as Adomnán himself reveals (DLS 1.7), and the possibility for confusion remains.

18 Easter Sunday fell on 16 April in 629, 8 April in 630, and 24 March in 631. The combina- tion of Adomnán’s evidence here, and the realization that, as argued by Peter Lampinen in an unpublished paper, the unique folles declaring ‘Christ saves’ minted at Jerusalem during a year identified as the 4th year should probably be dated to the 4th indiction (1 September 630-30 Au- gust 631) rather than to the 4th regnal year of Heraclius (5 October 613-4 October 614), inclines one to suspect that Heraclius’ visit to Jerusalem should really be dated to 21 March 631, but this is not the place to reopen that debate. 19 Gibson and Taylor, Beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, pp. 78-9.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_20_Woods 411 06-26-2007, 18:02 412 ADOMNAN, ARCULF, AND THE TRUE CROSS

It is necessary here to be clear as to the implications of the fact that Adomnán uses almost identical language to describe the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the alleged church at Constantinople. If he has not deliberately misapplied a description of the former in reference to the latter, and there seems no reason why he should have done this, then the obvious suggestion is that he derived his basic material for these two passages from a common source. But why should this common source have preserved two different passages describing the same church, or complex of churches? The explanation seems to be that the author of the florilegium which Adomnán used as his main source here preserved two different excerpts from his ultimate source which overlapped somewhat. Here one must bear in mind that excerptors did not always copy their source material in full. Sometimes they abbreviated the material leading up to the passage or lines which were of most interest to them. This is what seems to have happened here. The author of the florilegium excerpted the same basic section of material in his ultimate source twice. On one occasion, he preserved a relatively detailed description of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre itself, because that was the main subject of interest to him at this point. On the second occasion, however, he severely abbreviated an initial description of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Martyrium which immediately preceded the passage which was of most interest to him now, a description of the manner in which the emperor and his court had venerated the relics of the True Cross in the Martyrium shortly after their restoration there, and it was the latter which he copied in full. The result was that his florilegium contained two descriptions of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, although the second was so abbreviated as to be barely recognisable as such. And, as already suggested, he set the latter excerpt beginning with the severely abbreviated description of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Martyrium immediately following several passages referring to Constantinople in such a way that Adomnán was deceived into thinking that it too related to Constanti- nople. A final clarification is necessary here. I have argued elsewhere that the collection of miracle-stories (or the documents from which they came) used by Adomnán in the composition of the DLS had been gathered together in support of a group of relics which the alleged Arculf (probably Arnulf) had been forced to jettison when the ship in which he had been travelling was caught in a storm.20 The result was that these relics were washed up on the shore of Portbail in Normandy, as recorded in the history of the abbots of Fontanelle, or St. Wandrille, in northern France. So why would a collection of stories relating to various relics have included a lengthy description of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre? The answer to this is that it was often the custom for pilgrims to

20 Woods, “Arculf’s Luggage”, pp. 43-49.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_20_Woods 412 06-26-2007, 18:02 D. WOODS 413

take oil from the lamps burning before the tomb of a saint, or in this case, before the tomb of Our Lord Himself, as a type of relic, and to use this a source of cures. There still survive a large number of so-called pilgrim flasks which had once been used for the transport of this oil, whether in lead or glass.21 I suggest, therefore, that the collection of relics whose origin and power the sources behind the collection of miracle-stories had originally been intended to illustrate, included a flask containing oil from the Church of the Holy Sepul- chre. Finally, it is important to note that no other source, whether the Book of Ceremonies by Constantine Porphyrogenitus (913-59), the Typicon of the Great Church, or any other liturgical text, records a public veneration of the True Cross during Holy Week at Constantinople as allegedly witnessed by Arculf according to Adomnan. In the light of the doubts concerning the value of Adomnan's evidence as already outlined, one must doubt whether this ceremony had ever really occurred at all rather than assume its sudden disappear- ance or transformation.22 In conclusion, Adomnán of Iona’s De Locis Sanctis is a much more complex document than has often been assumed. It is not a simple account of a pilgrim’s trip to the Holy Land, even at second-hand. Adomnán used a collection of miracle-stories as his main source for much of the information in his text, but either he, or his immediate source for this collection, often seriously misunderstood their contents. One of the results of this may have been that an account of how Heraclius and his court venerated the relics of the True Cross following their restoration to Jerusalem c.630 was misinterpreted in reference to an annual ceremony in a church at Constantinople instead, which church modern commentators have simply assumed to be identifiable as the Church of Hagia Sophia.

21 See A. Grabar, Ampoules de Terre Sainte (Monza-Bobbio) (Paris, 1958); also D. Barag, “Glass Pilgrim Vessels from Jerusalem – Part 1”, Journal of Glass Studies 12 (1970), pp. 35-63. There is a Byzantine glass jug whose design suggests that it may have been based on a pilgrim flask from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in particular. See D. Woods, “Some Dubious Stylites on Early Byzantine Glassware”, Journal of Glass Studies 46 (2004), pp. 39-50, at pp. 39- 45. 22 Klein, “Constantine, Helena and the Cult of the True Cross”, pp. 51-53.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_20_Woods 413 06-26-2007, 18:02