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 testi- mony of a Gallic bishop called Arculf who had recently returned from pilgrim- age 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 re- cently 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 empha- sis 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 empha- sis 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 informa- tion 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 con- trary.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 loca- tions, 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 sev- eral 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 en- tirely 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 re- corded 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 par- ticular that we do not gloss over any errors or inconsistencies in the descrip- tion 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.