163 Pope Zacharias

ARAM, 20 (2008) 163-180. doi: 10.2143/ARAM.20.0.2033127D. WOODS 163

POPE ZACHARIAS (741-52) AND THE HEAD OF ST. GEORGE

Dr. DAVID WOODS (University College Cork)

Writing probably shortly after the death of his subject, the anonymous author of the life of Pope Zacharias in the Liber Pontificalis preserves a short account of how this pope discovered a neglected and forgotten relic of a St. George: Huiusdemque temporibus magnum thesaurum dominus Deus noster in hac Romana urbe per eundem almificum pontificem propalare dignatus est. In venerabile itaque patriarchio sacratissimum beati Georgii martyris hisdem sanctissimus papa in capsa reconditum repperit caput; in qua et pittacium pariter invenit, litteris exaratum grecis, ipsud esse significantes. Qui sanctissimus papa omnino satisfactus, ilico adgregato huius Romane urbis populo, cum hymnis et canticis spiritalibus in venerabili diaconia eius nomini, sitam in hac Romana civitate, regione secunda, ad Velum aureum, illud deduci fecit, ubi immensa miracula et beneficia omnipotens Deus ad laudem nominis sui per eundem sacratissimum martyrem operare dignatur. In his time Our Lord God saw fit in this city of Rome to disclose a great treasure through this bountiful pontiff. In the venerable patriarchate the holy pope discovered St. George the martyr’s sacred head, kept safe in a casket; in this he also found a note made out in Greek letters, indicating its identity. The holy pope, alto- gether satisfied, immediately convened this city of Rome’s people, and caused it to be taken with hymns and spiritual chants to the venerable deaconry which is dedicated to him in this city, in the 2nd region at the Velabrum; and there almighty God sees fit to work infinite miracles and benefits to the praise of his own name through this sacred martyr.1

1 Text from L. Duchesne (ed.), Le Liber Pontificalis: Texte, introduction et commentaire, 2 vols. (Paris, 1886-92), p. 434. Translation from R. Davis, The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes (Liber Pontificalis) (Translated Texts for Historians 13: Liverpool, 1992), p. 48. I thank Dr. Davis for his comments on an earlier draft of this paper, even where I have stubbornly ignored them. On the court of Pope Zacharias, see J. Osborne, “Papal Court Culture during the Pontificate of Zacharias (AD741-52)”, in C. Cubitt (ed.), Court Culture in the Early Middle Ages: The Proceedings of the First Alcuin Conference (Studies in the Early Middle Ages 3: Turnhout, 2003), pp. 223-34. For a recent review of the archaeological evidence, see M.G. Turco, “The Church of St. George in Velabrum in Rome: Techniques of Construction, Materials, and Historical Transformations”, in S. Huerta (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Congress on Construction History (Madrid, 2003), pp. 2001-013. Dating c.635-45, the De Locis Sanctis Martyrum Quae Sunt Foris Civitatis Romae 28 records the existence of a basilica of St. George within Rome, but nothing more is known about this. For a survey of the development of the cult of martyrs at Rome, see A. Thacker, “Rome of the martyrs: Saints, Cults and Relics, fourth to Seventh Centuries", in E. Ó Carragáin and C. Neuman de Vegvar (eds.), Roma Felix-Formation and Reflections of Medieval Rome (Aldershot, 2007), pp. 13-49.

07-0398_Aram20_10_Woods 163 09-16-2008, 17:16 164 POPE ZACHARIAS (741-52) AND THE HEAD OF ST. GEORGE

It is noteworthy that the author does not attempt to explain who this St. George was, where he had died, how he had died, or when he had died. It is assumed that the very name of the martyr, George, was enough to allow his identification. At this time, there was only one martyr of this name who enjoyed an almost universal cult throughout the Christian community, in both East and West, the St. George whose primary cult-centre was located at Dios- polis in Palestine.2 Hence the author of this account seems to have assumed that the St. George whose skull Zacharias had brought to light once more was the St. George of Diospolis. In this, he presumably repeats the identification which Pope Zacharias himself had made when he first rediscovered it, and which continued to be made at the church of St. George in the Velabrum when he himself was writing. Modern commentators on this issue tend to repeat this identification at face value, that Zacharias rediscovered what he believed to be the skull of St. George of Diospolis.3 The implication, usually left unstated, is that since the nonsensical story concerning the martyrdom of St. George of Diospolis proves that he had never existed in the first place, it is obvious that the skull cannot really have been his, that is, that it cannot have been a genuine relic.4 The growth in the cult of relics from the late-fourth century onwards re- sulted in a great demand for relics, and local bishops were often rather uncriti- cal in their acceptance of newly uncovered remains as those of martyrs.5 Inevi-

2 In general, see the Bollandist, Acta Sanctorum Aprilis T. III (Antwerp, 1675), pp. 100-63. In order to set his cult in its proper context, since he was but one of several military martyrs whose cult thrived during the early Byzantine period, see H. Delehaye, Les Légendes Grecques des Saintes Militaires (Paris, 1909); also C. Walter, The Warrior Saints in Byzantine Art and Tradi- tion (Aldershot, 2003). For the history and archaeology of Diospolis, also known as Lydda, see J.J. Schwartz, Lod (Lydda), Israel, from Its Origins through the Byzantine Period 5600BCE – 640CE (BAR International Series 571: Oxford, 1991). 3 See e.g. Bibliotheca Sanctorum 6 (Rome, 1966), p. 518; S. Riches, St. George: Hero, Mar- tyr, and Myth (Thrupp, 2000), pp. 16-17; C. Stace, St. George: Patron Saint of England (Lon- don, 2002), pp. 24-25. 4 The earliest form of the passion records that George was martyred by an otherwise unknown king of Persia, Datianus, at an unspecified location, following a series of miracles during which he had raised the dead, caused wooden objects to transform into living trees, and had even risen from the dead himself on three different occasions. A fifth-century manuscript in Vienna preserves fragments of the earliest form of the passion in Greek. See K. Krumbacher, Der heilige Georg in der griechischen Überlieferung (Munich, 1911), 1-3. I have argued elsewhere that the author of original passion of St. George used as the main source and model for his fiction a vari- ant of the earliest form of the passion of another military martyr, St. Christopher of Antioch in Syria. See D. Woods “The Origin of the Cult of St. George”, in M. Humphries and V. Twomey (eds.), Commemorating the Great Persecution, AD303 (Irish Theological Quarterly Book Series 4: Dublin, forthcoming). The earliest form of the passion had been slowly transformed in order to render it much more historically acceptable by the time that St. Andrew of Crete (c.660-740) composed his two sermons in praise of St. George, so that, for example, the ruler who had martyred him was now identified as the Roman emperor Diocletian (284-305). George was eventually identified with the anonymous figure who tore down the first edict of persecution when it was initially posted up in Nicomedia on 24 February 303 (Eusebius, HE 8.5; Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. 13 ), but, as is widely recognized, this figure is probably identifiable as the Evethius whose death in Nicomedia is commemorated by the Syriac martyrology of 411 on that date. 5 In general, see E.D. Hunt, “The Traffic in Relics: Some Late Roman Evidence”, in S. Hackel (ed.), The Byzantine Saint: University of Birmingham 14th Spring Symposium of Byz-

07-0398_Aram20_10_Woods 164 09-16-2008, 17:16 D. WOODS 165

tably, there must have been a great deal of deliberate fraud also, although this is usually impossible to prove at this distance in time.6 Hence the immediate temptation upon reading the account of Pope Zacharias’ apparent rediscovery of the alleged skull of St. George is to treat this relic either as a pious error or an impious fraud which someone had managed to foist upon one of Zacharias’ predecessors in the see of Rome. The possibility that this may have been a genuine relic of some other George rather than of George of Diospolis seems to have been generally ignored. This is precisely the argument which I wish to advance here, that Zacharias misidentified the skull which he rediscovered, that it was a genuine relic of a real martyr by the name of George, but of a far more recent martyr than St. George of Diospolis was supposed to have been.

Against Identification as the Head of St. George of Diospolis The first question to ask here is why exactly Zacharias believed that he had rediscovered the head of St. George of Diospolis in particular. Four factors probably contributed to this identification. First, the note which accompanied this skull must have stated the name of the alleged martyr at least, George. One may assume here that Zacharias, who was of Greek origin, would have been able to read it correctly had the writing on the tag been at all legible.7 As to its legibility, since a large number of similar documents from as early as the seventh century have survived in a legible condition even until the present, there seems no reason to assume otherwise in this case.8 Second, the fact that the note was written in Greek suggested that the relic had probably come from the Greek-speaking East, and that the martyr to whom it had belonged ought to have suffered and been buried there. Third, according to the traditional account of his death, St. George of Diospolis had died by beheading. Hence his skull ought to have been left intact in order to serve as a relic. To this extent,

antine Studies (London, 1981), pp. 171-80. Yet it is important not to exaggerate their gullibility or greed in this matter. See e.g. Sulpicius Severus, Vita Martini 11, for an account of how bishop Martin of Tours (c.370-97) quashed the growing cult of an alleged martyr. 6 Here one must distinguish between the relics themselves and the passions which grew up about them and in their support. It is often possible to prove that these texts are fictitious, but that does not necessarily invalidate the relics themselves. 7 Zacharias was the last in a series of Greek popes, and even translated the Dialogi of Gregory the Great from Latin into Greek. In general, see J.-M. Sansterre, Les moines grecs et orientaux à Rome aux époques Byzantine et carolingienne (milieu du VIe s. – fin du IXe s.), 2 vols. (Brussels, 1983). 8 The correct name for such a tag identifying a relic is an ‘authentic’. They usually consist of small scraps of parchment which list little more than the name of the saint, if the relic is from a saint, and his or her status as a martyr, if he or she was also a martyr. See e.g. H. Atsma, P. Gasnault, R. Marichal, and J. Vezin (eds.), Chartae Latinae Antiquiores, Part XVIII: France VI (Dietikon-Zürich, 1985), no. 669, pp. 84-108, for a collection of early medieval authentics from Chelles; H. Atsma, R. Marichal, and J. Vezin (eds.), Chartae Latinae Antiquiores, Part XIX: France VII (Dietikon-Zürich, 1987), no. 682, pp. 40-59, for a similar collection from Sens. These collections have been analyzed in detail recently by M. McCormick, Origins of the Euro- pean Economy: Communications and Commerce AD300-900 (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 283-318.

07-0398_Aram20_10_Woods 165 09-16-2008, 17:16 166 POPE ZACHARIAS (741-52) AND THE HEAD OF ST. GEORGE

the existence of the skull seemed to conform to what was known about the suffering and death of St. George of Diospolis. Finally, the fame of the cult of St. George of Diospolis was such that there would have been an immediate temptation to attribute any relic of a martyr by the name of George to him in particular. Other factors may have played a role in this identification also, as we shall see shortly, but one cannot reasonably avoid the conclusion that Zacharias did rediscover the skull of a martyr by the name of George who had died in the Greek East. The real question here is whether he correctly identified this martyr when he did this. There are two reasons to doubt whether the skull which Zacharias rediscovered could always have been believed to be a relic of St. George of Diospolis in particular. First, and most importantly, it is difficult to believe that any Pope would not have made far more of such a large and impressive relic of so important a martyr as St. George of Diospolis had he really believed that he had received such. The Pope who had first received this relic ought to have cel- ebrated his receipt of it and have translated it to a church where the public could venerate it, exactly as Zacharias did when he rediscovered it. Instead, he seems to have retained it almost unnoticed in the patriarchate, that is, in his episcopal residence at the Lateran. This is strange, and suggests that he did not identify the skull as the relic of St. George of Diospolis, but of some relatively unknown martyr in whose cult there would have been relatively little interest. It is not clear where exactly in the patriarchate Zacharias rediscovered it, whether in a chapel or a storage room of some type, but it clearly had not been treated it as a relic of major importance. Finally, one cannot fairly compare Zacharias’ rediscovery of the skull of St. George to the rediscovery by Pope Sergius (687-701) of a relic of the True Cross. 9 While Zacharias discovered the skull in the patriarchate (in venerabile itaque patriarchio), the episcopal residence, Sergius discovered the relic of the True Cross in a dark corner in the shrine of St. Peter (in sacrario beati Petri … in angulo obscurissimo). It is obvious, therefore, that the relic of the True Cross had never been truly lost to public view, whereas access to the skull of St. George in the episcopal residence had probably always been severely restricted at best. The second point to note is that the relic, described as the skull of St. George rather than as a piece of the skull, seems to have been suspiciously large and intact, so much so, that it is difficult to believe that anyone could possibly have managed to pass it off as a genuine relic unless they had possessed very good credentials indeed. One must be careful here not to exaggerate the greed or stupidity of those involved in the trade in relics during the late antique and early medieval periods. There were certainly some noteworthy scandals, such as when the priest Marcellus declared in 453 that he had discov-

9 Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis, p. 374.

07-0398_Aram20_10_Woods 166 09-16-2008, 17:16 D. WOODS 167

ered the skull of John the Baptist buried at Emesa, despite the fact that the emperor Theodosius I had already accepted the identification of a skull discovered in Cyzicus as that of John the Baptist and had translated this to a newly built Church of St. John the Baptist near Constantinople in 391.10 Yet it was precisely because of the existence of such scandals that one may expect the Pope concerned to have asked some awkward questions had he been presented with what purported to be the intact skull of St. George of Diospolis. This would have been especially true after the early-seventh century when the growth in the cult of St. Theodore of Sykeon would have revealed that he had already claimed to be the proud possessor of a piece of the skull of St. George (êk t±v ägíav aûtoÕ kefal±v merída), together with a finger and a tooth, by the late sixth-century.11 Furthermore, the anonymous author of the Gesta Abbatum Fontanellensium reveals that the Church of St. George at Brix in Normandy had long claimed to possess a piece of the jaw of St. George (partem ex pretiosissima maxilla beati Georgii martyris) by the time at which he was writing in the mid-ninth century,12 and it is arguable that its possession of this relic can be traced back as early as the mid-seventh century when the pilgrim commonly known as Arculf lost the relics which he had brought back from Constantinople to a storm in the English channel which, so it would seem, eventually deposited them on the shore near Brix.13 Hence any Pope beyond the mid-seventh century was likely to have been aware that others were claiming to possess parts of the skull or jaw of St. George already by that date. The most likely, perhaps the only, person who could confidently have per- suaded the Pope to accept a skull as a genuine relic of St. George of Diospolis would have been the bishop of Diospolis himself who presumably controlled the main cult-centre of St. George at Diospolis. It is tempting to assume, therefore, that the bishop of Diospolis may have sent this precious relic to the Pope for safety, or have entrusted it to the safekeeping of someone who then fled to Rome and subsequently presented it to the Pope, perhaps during the Persian invasion and occupation of Palestine in 614 or during the Muslim invasion and occupation during the 630s. On the face of it, this seems a plausible theory. Certainly, the Persians proved that they had no respect for Christian places of worship, at least not during their initial invasion. Writing probably in the 660s,

10 On the earlier head, see Sozomen, HE 7.21; Chronicon Paschale s.a. 391. On the later head, see Marcellinus, Chron. s.a. 453; Chronicon Paschale s.a. 453. 11 See Vita Theodori Sykeonis 100 in A.-J. Festugière, La Vie de Théodore de Sykeôn I: Texte Grec (Subsidia Hagiographica 48: Brussels, 1970), p. 80. 12 GAF 10.2. See F. Lohier and R.P.J. Laporte, Gesta Sanctorum Patrum Fontanellensis Coenobii (Rouen, 1936), p. 73. 13 See D. Woods, “Arculf's Luggage: The Sources for Adomnán's De Locis Sanctis”, Ériu 52 (2002), pp. 25-52, esp. 43-51.

07-0398_Aram20_10_Woods 167 09-16-2008, 17:16 168 POPE ZACHARIAS (741-52) AND THE HEAD OF ST. GEORGE

the anonymous author of the Chronicle of Khuzistan preserves a tale telling how a Persian commander tried to sack the church of St. George at Diospolis, but that St. George prevented him from doing this by paralysing his horse.14 Writing probably c.702, Adomnán, the ninth abbot of Iona, preserves a similar account of an attempted attack upon the church.15 The problem with this theory, however, is that there is no firm evidence that the cult-centre at Diospolis ever possessed any bodily remains which it claimed to have belonged to St. George, at least none that it could specifically locate and identify as such. It is certainly true that the pilgrims who visited there believed that it contained the remains of St. George.16 Writing c.518, a certain Theodosius, about whom nothing more is known, preserves a brief reference to the shrine in his description of the Holy Land where he specifically states that the body of St. George was located there.17 Writing c.570, the so-called Piacenza pilgrim repeats the same belief.18 It remains unclear, however, whether this was merely an assumption based on the fact that this shrine ought to have contained the martyr’s remains buried somewhere within it or that either of these pilgrims had actually seen or handled a specific set of bodily remains which were alleged to have belonged to St. George. Two points merit particular attention here. First, it is noteworthy that when an anonymous pilgrim interpo- lated a description of the shrine of St. George into the original description of the Holy Land by a monk Epiphanius sometime after the foundation of Ramla in 717, he described the location in the church both of the wheel on which St. George had allegedly been tortured and of a wonder-working column, but not the presence or location of any alleged remains of George himself.19 Second, none of the earliest surviving miracle-accounts associated with the shrine of St. George at Diospolis provide any hint that the shrine contained any specific remains clearly identifiable as such. Curiously, the cult seems to have focussed on a marble-column upon which George was believed to have left his imprint when he was tied to it and whipped. Adomnán of Iona preserves the best description of this:

14 See G. Greatrex and S.N.C.Lieu, The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars. Part II: 363-630 (London, 2002), pp. 235-36. 15 Adomnán, De Locis Sanctis 3.4.2-13. 16 For an introduction to all these accounts by early pilgrims, together with English translations of the same, see J. Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims Before the Crusades (2nd ed.: Warminster, 2002). The Latin texts have been conveniently collected together in Itineraria et Alia Geographica (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 175: Turnhout, 1965). 17 Theodosius, De Situ Terrae Sanctae 4: De Emmau usque in Diospolim milia XII, ubi sanctus Georgius martyrizatus est; ibi et corpus eius est et multa mirabilia fiunt. 18 Antonini Placentini Itinerarium 25: Nam et ipse sanctus Stephanus requiescit foris portam, sagittae iactum unum ad viam, quae respicit ad occidentem, quae descendit ad Ioppe et Caesarea Palestinis vel Diaspoli civitatem quae antiquitus dicitur Azotus, in qua requiescit sanctus Georgius martyr. 19 Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims, p. 210.

07-0398_Aram20_10_Woods 168 09-16-2008, 17:16 D. WOODS 169

In Diospoli civitate cuiusdam confessoris Georgii in quadam domu statuta mar- morea in columna, contra quam alligatus persecutionis tempore flagellatus est, formola depicta est; … In the city of Diospolis, in a certain house, the likeness of the confessor George is depicted set on a marble column. He was bound to the column and flogged during the time of persecution.20 Adomnán then proceeds to report how an unbelieving cavalryman tried to destroy this image in the marble, but was prevented from doing so. This column is best compared to that preserved on Mount Sion in Jerusalem and against which Christ himself was alleged to have been scourged. Pilgrims had been identifying this pillar as that against which Christ had been scourged since the Bordeaux pilgrim had visited there in 333.21 It is interesting to note how the evidence in support of this interpretation grew over the years. Whereas Jerome reports only that the column was stained with the blood of Christ, and the two versions of the Breviarius seem to refer only to handprints upon the column, Theodosius is quite emphatic that Christ left the imprints of his face, chin, nose and eyes upon it in addition to those of his hands, arms, and fingers.22 It seems clear, therefore, that whatever discoloration and flaws had initially caused this column to be identified as that against which Christ had been scourged, some judicious ‘restoration’ and chisel-work over the years, had eventually provided the pilgrims with much more impressive evidence that this was indeed the case. Something similar seems to have happened in the case of one of the columns in the shrine of St. George, and for much the same reason, one suspects. The lack of any corporeal remains in each case had forced those seeking to cater to the expectations of pilgrims to discover suitably attractive alternatives. One must be careful here not to fall into the trap of assuming that a cult of St. George could not have developed at Diospolis unless the people there had discovered some set of remains to begin with. First, it is not clear how or why the cult of St. George did develop at Diospolis. For example, I have argued elsewhere that the cult there developed around the tomb of the Arian bishop

20 Adomnán, De Locis Sanctis 3.4.2. Text and translation from D. Meehan, Adomnán's De Locis Sanctis (Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 3: Dublin, 1958), pp. 112-13. Adomnán seems to be using a translation of an original Greek source where the author of this source had systematically translated the Greek term o¤kov as domus, so concealing the fact that this building was a church, for which Adomnán himself usually uses the term ecclesia, rather than a private residence. See Woods, “Arculf’s Luggage”, pp. 35-37, although I failed therein to perceive the real nature of the column as described by Adomnán. The same column plays an important part in the second of the collection of nine miracles preserved in Coptic. See E.A. Wallis Budge, The Martyrdom and Miracles of Saint George of Cappadocia (London, 1888), pp. 245-46. The Piacenza pilgrim seems to confuse the wonder-working column at the shrine of St. George with the column located in the plaza just inside the Damascus gate at Jerusalem. 21 Itinerarium Burdigalense 592. 22 Jerome, Ep. 108.9; Breviarius de Hierosolyma 4; Theodosius, De Situ Terrae Sanctae 7.

07-0398_Aram20_10_Woods 169 09-16-2008, 17:16 170 POPE ZACHARIAS (741-52) AND THE HEAD OF ST. GEORGE

George of Alexandria whom a mob had murdered at Alexandria in Egypt on 24 December 361.23 The important point to remember about the manner of his death is that the mob had burned his body, together with those of his compan- ions, and then scattered the ashes into the sea in a deliberate attempt to prevent any of his followers from recovering any portion of them and building a church about them. Hence his followers were unlikely to have recovered more than a handful of ashes or blackened earth, nothing clearly distinguishable as human remains either then or at any subsequent period when the curious might have reopened his tomb at Diospolis. Second, one must remember the circumstances surrounding the cult of another very popular alleged martyr at his main cult-centre, St. Demetrius of Thessalonica. Successive sixth-century bishops of Thessalonica had to admit that they did not know where the tomb of St. Demetrius was actually situated, but they were sure that it was buried somewhere under the church.24 Nevertheless, the cult continued to prosper without being able to recover any fragment of the remains of St. Demetrius himself. The same was true of the cult of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus at Neocaesarea in Pontus.25 There is no reason why the cult of St. George at Diospolis could not have originated and prospered in much the same way as that either of St. Demetrius at Thessalonica or of St. Gregory at Neocaesarea. Finally, it is noteworthy that none of the sources for the alleged relics of St. George of Diospolis that were in circulation during the sixth and seventh centuries report that the owners of these relics had acquired them at or from Diospolis itself. For example, when bishop Gregory of Tours (573-94) describes how some couriers were forced by a miracle to leave a portion of the fastenings about their relics of St. George as relics in a newly constructed oratory at Limoges, he does not explain where these couriers had originally obtained their relics.26 As for the author of the life of St. Theodore of Sykeon, he reveals only that St. Theodore had obtained his relics of St. George from bishop Aemilianus of Germia, but not from where Aemilianus had himself obtained them in the first place. Perhaps the most interesting piece of evidence in this respect is the inscription which proves that a church at ancient Zorava (modern Ezr‘a) in Syria had claimed to possess a relic of a St. George as early as 516 when it was first built:

23 See D. Woods, “The Origin of the Cult of St. George”, forthcoming. 24 See J.C. Skedros, Saint Demetrios of Thessaloniki: Civic Patron and Divine Protector 4th- 7th Centuries CE (Harvard Theological Studies 47: Harrisburg, 1999), pp. 84-104. 25 Gregory of Nyssa, Vita Gregorii Thaumaturgi 956A (ed. Migne, PG 46). See D. Woods, “Gregory Thaumaturgus and the Earthquake of 344”, Journal of Theological Studies 53 (2002), 547-53. In general, see W. Telfer, “The Cultus of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus”, Harvard Theo- logical Review 29 (1936), pp. 225-344. 26 Gregory of Tours, Liber in Gloria Martyrum 100 (ed. Krusch).

07-0398_Aram20_10_Woods 170 09-16-2008, 17:16 D. WOODS 171

The abode of demons has become a house of God. The light of salvation shines where darkness caused concealment. Where there were sacrifices to idols, there are now choirs of angels, and where God was provoked, God is now propitiated. A certain Christ-loving man, the town-councillor John, son of Diomedes, offered a gift to God at his own expense, a beautiful building, after installing within it the precious relic (tò tímion lícanon) of the victorious martyr St. George, who appeared to this John not in a dream, but manifestly. In the 9th indiction, year 410.27 The date at the end of the inscription firmly dates the construction of this church to year 410 of the era of the province of Arabia, that is, AD516.28 The question, therefore, is how does this church relate to the cult of St. George at Diospolis. Is this the same St. George? In so far as the inscription specifically describes George as a martyr, there seems no good reason not to identify him with the George of Diospolis. Next, if as I have argued above, the shrine at Diospolis never really possessed any remains of St. George, some may feel tempted to argue that this is because Zorava had really possessed his remains all along. Two main considerations argue against this. First, the language of the inscription itself, the facts, first, that it refers only to a relic (lícanon) rather than to the body (s¬ma) of St. George, and, second, that it refers to a relic of St. George in the singular rather than in the plural, proves that it possessed only a single relic rather than a fuller set of remains. Next, the fact that the man responsible for the construction of the church, John, claims to have had a waking-vision of St. George immediately raises suspicions as to the historical connection of St. George with this site. Unfortunately, the inscription does not explain why exactly the martyr appeared to John, but his claim to have received a vision of St. George was obviously intended to justify either his construction of a church in his honour or, more specifically, his identification of some newly uncovered bone as a relic of St. George in particular. Such justification should not have been needed in either case should St. George have had any traditional association with the site. In the context of the roles played by visions in authenticating newly uncovered human remains elsewhere as the remains of martyrs, the probability is that John needed his vision for a similar reason.29 As far as one is here concerned, therefore, the fact that

27 My translation. For the Greek text, see W.K. Prentice (ed.), Publications of an American Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1899-1900. Part III: Greek and Latin Inscriptions (New York, 1908), no. 437a. For a discussion of this inscription in its local historical context, see F.R. Trombley, Hellenic Religion and Christianization c.370-529 II (Religions in the Graeco-Ro- man World 115/2: Leiden, 1995), pp. 358-72. 28 See Y.E. Meimaris, Chronological Systems in Roman-Byzantine Palestine and Arabia: The Evidence of The Dated Inscriptions (Athens, 1992), p. 228, no. 249. 29 E.g. the priest and monk Marcellus claimed he only knew where to recover the head of St. John the Baptist in 453 because John himself had appeared to him and revealed that his head was concealed in an urn and buried in the cave where he happened to be living at the time. The irony, of course, is that when Marcellus at Emesa, John at Zorava, or others elsewhere, discovered iso- lated human bones which seemed to have been deliberately hidden away, many of these had

07-0398_Aram20_10_Woods 171 09-16-2008, 17:16 172 POPE ZACHARIAS (741-52) AND THE HEAD OF ST. GEORGE

John seems to have needed a vision in order to authenticate the bone which he had uncovered as a relic of St. George, reinforces the impression that the shrine at Diospolis was not distributing such, that is, that it did not possess any actual remains which it could splinter and distribute. Hence John had to discover his own local source.

The Alternatives to St. George of Diospolis The realization that it is most unlikely that his predecessor in the see of Rome had in fact identified the skull which Zacharias rediscovered as the skull of St. George of Diospolis forces us to investigate other possibilities. Here one must remember that Pope John VII (705-07) had abandoned the papal residence on the Lateran for a residence on the Palatine,30 and that Pope Zacharias seems to have been the first of his successors to return to the Lateran. If one may assume that the Pope who had first received the skull had stored this precious relic in his current residence, then the fact that Zacharias discovered it in the Lateran suggests that it was one of the predecessors of John VII who had first received it. Hence the skull belonged to a George who was venerated as a saint in the Greek-speaking East by 705. Several possibilities exist, especially if one assumes that the notice accompanying the skull did not necessarily identify its owner as a martyr as well as a saint. George was an extremely popular name by the sixth and seventh centuries, and many monks and hermits venerated in their own localities at least as holy men may be assumed to have borne this name. For example, the monk George of Choziba, a monastery near Jeri- cho in Palestine, died about 631 and achieved fame when his disciple Antony wrote an account of his life and miracles immediately following his death.31 Alternatively, if one assumes that the owner of the skull was probably identified as a martyr as well as a saint, and that this was a factor which contributed to his confusion with St. George of Diospolis, then one should not forget George of Izala, a convert from Zoroastrianism to Nestorian Christianity, whom Chosroes II had executed at his capital of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in 615. Writing in the 620s, Babai the Great has left us a detailed account of his life

probably been used for magical purposes and hidden away either by a former owner of the prop- erty in order to conceal the tools of his forbidden practice or by his enemies in order to work a curse upon him. On the use of decapitated heads in particular for divination (cephalomancy), see e.g. C.A. Faraone, “Necromancy Goes Underground: The Disguise of Skull- and Corpse Divina- tion in the Paris Magical Papyri (PGM IV 1928-2144)”, in S.I. Johnston and P.T. Struck (eds.), Mantikê: Studies in Ancient Divination (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 155: Leiden, 2005), pp. 255-82; D. Ogden, Greek and Roman Necromancy (Princeton, 2001), pp. 208-16. 30 Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis, p. 385. As Osborne, “Papal Court Culture”, 226-27, suggests, this period of abandonment helps explain Zacharias’s ‘rediscovery’ of the head of St. George. 31 See T. Vivian and A.N. Athanassakis, Antony of Choziba: The Life of Saint George of Choziba and The Miracles of the Most Holy Mother of God at Choziba (San Francisco, 1994).

07-0398_Aram20_10_Woods 172 09-16-2008, 17:16 D. WOODS 173

and martyrdom.32 Yet there is no evidence that his cult spread much beyond the Syriac-speaking church in Persia. Nor should one forget George the Black. Writing perhaps c.690, Anastasius of Sinai preserves the tale of his martyrdom at Damascus, perhaps in the 650s.33 He had been enslaved by Muslim invaders as a young boy and pressurized into becoming a Muslim, but returned to his Christian faith as a young man. His Muslim owner executed him as a result. Yet the problem with identifying George the Black as the original owner of the skull is that there is little evidence that he enjoyed much cult even in the East, and none that he ever enjoyed any cult in the West. Perhaps the most interesting case, however, is that of the so-called 60 martyrs of Gaza.34 These were Byzantine soldiers who refused to convert to Islam following the Arab capture of Gaza in early 639. The result was that a first group of 10 soldiers were executed at Jerusalem in November 639, and a second group of 50 soldiers were executed for their faith at Eleutheropolis in December 639. None of the first group of soldiers were named George, but the names of the second group con- tain seven Georges: These are the names of the saints who died for their faith in Christ: from the unit of the Scythae – John, Paul, and another John, Paul, Photinus, Zitas, Eugenius, Musilius, John, Stephen, Theodore, John the father and the son Theodore, George, Theopentus, George, Sergius, George, Theodore, Quiriacus, John, Zitas and John, Philoxenus, George, John, George; from the unit of the Voluntarii – Theodore, Epiphanius, John, Theodore, Sergius, George, Thomas, Stephen, Conon, Theo- dore, Paul, John, George, John and John, Paulinus, Galumas, Habramius, Mer- micius, and Marinus.35 The question, therefore, is whether the skull rediscovered by Zacharias may have belonged to one of these seven originally. Several arguments favour the identification of the skull rediscovered by Zacharias as the skull of one of the soldiers named George martyred and buried at Eleutheropolis in 639. In addition to the criteria already outlined above, that the original owner of this skull must have been a George venerated in the Greek-speaking East before c.705, the facts, first, that the martyrs of Gaza had

32 See G.J. Reinink, “Babai the Great’s Life of George and the Propagation of Doctrine in the Late Sasanian Empire”, in J.W. Drijvers and J.W. Watt (eds.), Portraits of Spiritual Authority: Religious Power in Early Christianity, Byzantium, and the Christian Orient (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 137: Leiden, 1999), pp. 171-94. 33 Anastasius, Narrationes C13. See R.G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam 13: Princeton, 1997), pp. 351-52. 34 For the Latin texts, the so-called early recension (BHL 5672m) and late recension (BHL 3053b) of the passion, see H. Delehaye, “Passio Sanctorum Sexaginta Martyrum”, Analecta Bollandiana 23 (1904), pp. 289-307. For translations and commentary, see D. Woods, “The 60 Martyrs of Gaza and the Martyrdom of Bishop Sophronius of Jerusalem”, ARAM Periodical 15 (2003), pp. 129-50. 35 BHL 5672m, chpt. 4. The Latin is somewhat corrupt, and three names seem to be missing.

07-0398_Aram20_10_Woods 173 09-16-2008, 17:16 174 POPE ZACHARIAS (741-52) AND THE HEAD OF ST. GEORGE

been soldiers and, second, that they had all been martyred and buried in Pales- tine, would have greatly contributed to the confusion of one of their number named George with the famous St. George of Diospolis who was reputed to have been a soldier and was supposed to have been buried at Diospolis. The Greek notice attached to the skull could have described it as a relic of St. George, a soldier and martyr who had been buried in Palestine, and no-one would have been able to distinguish to whom it really referred had they not known otherwise. Most importantly, however, it is clear that someone did bring an account of the death of the 60 martyrs of Gaza to the West and try and promote some interest in their cult at a relatively early date. Writing in the 850s, Ado records the deaths of the 10 martyrs at Jerusalem and the 50 martyrs at Eleutheropolis under 6 November and 17 December respectively in his martyrology.36 This proves that a Latin translation of the passion of the martyrs was already in circulation in the West by the mid ninth-century at latest, probably in Rome itself which Ado visited during the period when he seems to have been composing his martyrology.

The Date and Circumstances of the Translation to Rome It is my suggestion, therefore, that someone brought the head of one of the Byzantine soldiers named George who had been martyred and buried at Eleutheropolis in December 639 and presented it as a gift to the Pope in Rome. The Pope retained this relic within his residence on the Lateran and did not make a great deal of fuss about his receipt of it because, not to put too fine a point upon it, there was no shortage of Christian martyrs in an age when Mus- lim armies were slaughtering their way ever deeper into the Byzantine empire. As already indicated, this gift had probably occurred before 705. Hence sometime during the period 639-705 someone seems to have brought the head of one of the martyrs buried at Eleutheropolis to Rome. The question is whether one can identify either the date or agent of this gift any more closely.37 It is by no means surprising that the scanty surviving sources for the history of Rome during the seventh century should not have preserved any apparent hint as to who brought this new relic to Rome. A similar mystery exists concerning the circumstances of the transport of the head of the martyr St. Anastasius the Per-

36 See J. Dubois and G. Renaud, Le Martyrologe d’Adon, ses deux familles, ses trois recensions: Text et commentaire (Paris, 1984), pp. 375, 419. 37 R. Krautheimer, Rome: Profile of a City 312-1308 (Princeton, 1980), p. 90, tentatively dates the translation to 682. This date rests on the fact that the Sacramentary of Trent, a Gre- gorian sacramentary revised for the Lateran at about that date, refers to the feast of St. George, whereas an earlier edition of the sacramentary, the so-called Paduensis dating c.663, had not. However, the eventual inclusion of the feast of St. George in the sacramentary was almost inevi- table, particularly if one accepts that there had been a basilica of St. George in Rome by c.645, and need not point to the sudden arrival in Rome of the skull of St. George.

07-0398_Aram20_10_Woods 174 09-16-2008, 17:16 D. WOODS 175

sian to Rome during the same period.38 He was a Persian soldier who had de- serted, converted from Zoroastrianism to Christianity, and become a monk at Jerusalem. He then left his community, was captured by the Persians, and was executed at Bethsaloe in Persia (modern Kirkuk in Iraq) in January 628. He was beheaded after his strangulation, and both head and body were buried at a monastery near his site of execution, from where they were stolen and brought to Jerusalem finally in November 631. However, the next information as to their whereabouts is provided by a seventh-century catalogue of the martyrial shrines outside of Rome, probably composed c.635-45, which reports that the monastery of Aquae Salviae there held the head of St. Anastasius.39 This was a community of Cilician monks, but it is not clear who had founded it or when exactly they had done so. In the context, one is tempted to assume that those responsible for the translations of the two heads from Palestine to Rome acted for similar reasons and in similar political circumstances. This is not to claim that the same people brought both heads to Rome, and certainly not at the same time. One cannot dismiss the possibility, however, that those who brought the head of St. George to Rome did so in imitation of those who had brought the head od St. Anastasius there several years earlier. The question, therefore, is when exactly during the mid-seventh century was it possible to travel safely between the Byzantine and Arab empires, that is, when did each empire permit travel to the other empire. There is no evidence that either empire permitted travel across their borders when they were still at war with each other, for the obvious reason that each side feared the possibility that such travellers would provide valuable intelligence to the other side.40 The obvious suggestion, therefore, is that those responsible for the translation of the heads to Rome probably only travelled there when the Arabs and Byzantines finally agreed their first official truce for three full years c.652-54.41 It may be ob- jected at this point that George of Resh‘aina, author of the early Syriac life of

38 On his martyrdom and initial cult in the East, see B. Flusin, Saint Anastase le Perse et l’histoire de la Palestine au début du VIIe siècle. I Les Textes; II Commentaire. Les moines de Jérusalem et l’invasion perse (Paris, 1992). On his subsequent cult in the West, see C.V. Frank- lin, The Latin Dossier of Anastasius the Persian: Hagiographic Translations and Transforma- tions (Toronto, 2004). It is worth noting in passing here that the 60 martyrs of Gaza do not seem to have included an Anastasius among their number, so there is no possibility that one of their heads has been confused with that of the more famous St. Anastasius the Persian. 39 De Locis Sanctis Martyrum Quae Sunt Foris Civitatis Romae 6: Inde haud procul in meridiem monasterium est Aquae Salviae, ubi caput sancti Anastasi est et locus ubi decollatus Paulus. 40 See McCormick, Origins of the European Economy, pp. 853-54, for a short list of known major sea-voyages across the Mediterranean during the mid-seventh century. On the subject of spying, see N. Koutrakou, ““Spies of Towns”: Some Remarks on Espionage in the Context of Arab-Byzantine Relations (VIIth-Xth Centuries)”, Graeco-Arabica 7-8 (2000), 243-66. 41 The exact commencement and duration of this truce are subject to controversy, but the de- tails do not matter here. See e.g. A.N. Stratos, Byzantium in the Seventh Century III: 642-668 (Amsterdam, 1975), pp. 42-43, who prefers a two-year truce beginning in early 651.

07-0398_Aram20_10_Woods 175 09-16-2008, 17:16 176 POPE ZACHARIAS (741-52) AND THE HEAD OF ST. GEORGE

Maximus the Confessor, reveals that Maximus managed to lead a group of followers safely across from Arab-occupied Syria into Byzantine Africa during the revolt of the patricius and exarch of Carthage Gregory against the emperor Constans II c.647.42 So why cannot those responsible for the translation of the head of St. George to Rome not have crossed over at the same time? The first point to make here is that the author of the Syriac life of Maximus is seriously mistaken in his allegation, since his own writings reveal that Maximus had actually moved to Africa c.628-30.43 Yet let us assume for a moment that George, writing probably sometime shortly after the death of Maximus in 662, had assumed that Maximus had crossed to Africa c.647 because he had heard of others who had crossed to there at this time. What then? In this case, one needs to be clear as to the different natures of the opportunities which Gregory’s revolt and the truce of c.652-54 would have provided to potential travellers. If Maximus, or anyone else, had travelled to Africa during the revolt of the exarch Gregory, this would suggest that Gregory had reached some form of agreement with the Arabs, in particular, that he had agreed to pay tribute. Indeed, it is possible that it was precisely his decision to pay tribute to the Arabs, contrary to imperial policy, and his subsequent refusal to be removed, which caused him to be labelled a rebel.44 His does not seem to have been a revolt in the traditional sense, an attempt at imperial power, although it suited Constans II and his courtiers to claim so subsequently. The Arabs may then have refused to renew the truce after the first year, or have made demands so onerous that Gregory felt that he had no choice but to meet them in battle. The key point as far as we are here concerned, however, is that whatever the exact nature of Gregory’s agreement with the Arabs, it must have been clear to the contemporary public that it was extremely fragile and likely to be of relatively short duration, not least because it relied on Gregory being able to resist any attempt by Constans II to remove him from office. Anyone who took advantage of such a truce to cross from Arab-occupied territory into Byzantine Af- rica could not have been sure that he would be able to return home before the fighting erupted once more. On the other hand, the three-year truce between the empires c.652-54 would have provided a reasonable guarantee that travellers would be able to complete their return journey also provided they did so within the set time-frame. Hence any truce between Gregory and the Arabs

42 See S. Brock, “An Early Syriac Life of Maximus the Confessor”, Analecta Bollandiana 91 (1973), pp. 299-346, at 317, 325. In general on Gregory, see R.-J. Lilie et al. (eds.), Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit: Erste Abteilung (641-867), Band 2, no. 2345. 43 See P. Sherwood, An Annotated Date-List of the Works of Maximus the Confessor (Studia Anselmiana 30: Rome, 1952), pp. 5-7. 44 His situation should be compared to that of the governor of Osrhoene, John Kateas, whom Heraclius sent into exile when he agreed to pay tribute to the Arabs c.638 (Theoph. Chron. AM 6128) or that of the patriarch of Alexandria, Cyrus, who suffered recall and trial for treason when he agreed to pay tribute to the Arabs c.641 (Niceph. Brev. 26; Theoph. Chron. AM 6126).

07-0398_Aram20_10_Woods 176 09-16-2008, 17:16 D. WOODS 177

c.647 would have provided a great opportunity for those who wanted to make a one-way journey, refugees. It would not have suited merchants or those engaged in other business which required their return to their homeland. The question here, therefore, is whether those who translated the head of St. George to Rome were refugees or were engaged in some business which required their safe return home. The answer to this last question depends very much upon one’s explanation as to why those responsible for the transport to Rome of the heads of St. Anastasius and St. George did not bring the rest of their surviving remains there as well. Why just the heads? If one favours the interpretation that they were attempting to bring these relics to safety out of the lands controlled by Muslims, whether in advance of the Muslim conquest of Palestine in the 630s or at some later date, one might have expected that they would have attempted to take the full sets of surviving remains out, not just the heads.45 There is an alternative possibility, however, that they brought these heads to Rome as gifts in order make their hosts more responsive to their requests. The Christian community in Palestine had suffered terrible devastation twice in recent years, first during the Persian invasion, and second during the Muslim invasion and occupation. While Palestine itself remained peaceful after the final Byzantine evacuation of Caesarea in 641, the taxation imposed by the Muslim conquerors may be assumed to have become increasingly burdensome as time progressed. More importantly, however, the territory would have been filled with thousands upon thousands of Christian slaves, men, women, and children, whether those whom the Muslims had captured during their initial conquest of Pales- tine itself in the 630s or those whom they brought back to the region from their continual raids against Byzantine territories. For example, a contemporary inscription claims that a Muslim expedition had removed about 120,000 captives from Cyprus in 649 alone, and even if one cannot accept this precise number, it is clear that the island had suffered a dreadful loss.46 It is my suggestion, therefore, that those who brought the heads of St. Anastasius and St. George to Rome did so as part of an effort to raise funds for the beleaguered church in

45 The life of the patriarch Benjamin (622-61) in the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria XIV, PO 1, 494-500, claims that a Christian captain of a ship had taken opportunity of the chaos during the Muslim capture of Alexandria to steal the skull of St. Mark from his shrine at Alexan- dria, but left the rest of the bones behind. It is relevant that neither the ecclesiastical nor political authorities seem to have attempted to remove these precious relics to a safe location once it be- came clear that the city could not resist the Muslims. The thief took only the skull, presumably because it was easier to hide during transport than a larger bundle of loose bones, but duly au- thorized officials would not have been similarly constrained. 46 From Soloi in Cyprus. For an English translation and an attempt to set it in context, see F.R. Trombley, “Mediterranean Sea Culture between Byzantium and Islam c.600-850AD”, in E. Kountoura-Galake (ed.), The Dark Centuries of Byzantium (7th-9th c.), National Hellenistic Re- search Foundation Institute for Byzantine Research: International Symposium 9 (Athens, 2001), pp. 133-69, at 158.

07-0398_Aram20_10_Woods 177 09-16-2008, 17:16 178 POPE ZACHARIAS (741-52) AND THE HEAD OF ST. GEORGE

Palestine. In particular, given the high priority which the church had always assigned to this task, they may have wanted to raise funds in order to redeem some of the many Christian captives who had flowed into and from the region.47 The gifts of the relics of neomartyrs such as St. Anastasius and St. George would have served both to honour their hosts, but also to remind them that the suffering of the church in Palestine was real indeed. If one accepts this interpretation, therefore, that the heads of St. Anastasius and St. George represented the most important gifts possible, the most highly prized portions of some of their recent martyrs, by those engaged on important diplo- matic business between sister churches rather than refugees, then those responsible for the transport of the head of St. George to Rome can only have travelled there during the truce of c.652-54. Next point. Why did the cult of St. George of Eleutheropolis, as he would presumably have become known, fail to take off at Rome in the way that the cult of St. Anastasius the Persian did? I have already assumed that the very fact that the relevant Pope did not immediately celebrate his receipt of the skull of this new St. George in a much more public fashion shows that this was a new St. George and not the famous St. George of Diospolis, but there may be more to the problem than this. The obvious suggestion is that something happened to the relevant Pope to prevent him from doing anything much to ar- range for the proper promotion of the veneration of this new relic and the cult of its owner. Here one immediately thinks of the manner in which the rule of Pope Martin I (649-653) was cut short by his arrest and transport for trial to Constantinople in June 653.48 If the church in Palestine, or any part of it, had taken advantage of the truce between the Arab and Byzantine empires in order to send a delegation to Rome, then they could hardly have arrived before late 652. I suggest, therefore, that Pope Martin was still deciding what best to do with his new relic when he was removed to Constantinople, never to return. The natural discontinuity between his rule and that of his successor sufficed then to ensure that the skull of St. George never received the attention that it ought.49

47 On the origins of this tradition, see e.g. C. Osiek, “The Ransom of Captives: Evolution of a Tradition”, Harvard Theological Review 74 (1981), 365-86; also W. Klingshirn, “Charity and Power: Caesarius of Arles and the Ransoming of Captives in Sub-Roman Gaul”, Journal of Ro- man Studies 75 (1985), pp. 183-203. As Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It, p. 100, notes of the second collection of edifying tales which Anastasius of Sinai composed c.690, ‘the theme of “our captive brothers” runs through this anthology’. 48 In general on St. Martin, see B. Neil, Seventh-Century Popes and martyrs: The Political Hagiography of Anastasius Bibliothecarius (Studia Antiqua Australiensia 2: Turnhout, 2006). Martin died in exile in the Chersonese in either late 655 or early 656. 49 For an entertaining story of a modern rediscovery of another skull of St. George, a late medieval relic from Greece, see K.M. Setton, “Saint George’s Head”, Speculum 48 (1973), pp. 3-12. This story nicely illustrates how easily a formerly highly-prized relic can become over- looked once placed in storage, whatever the original intent.

07-0398_Aram20_10_Woods 178 09-16-2008, 17:16 D. WOODS 179

The argument that it was probably Pope Martin who had first received the head of St. George of Eleutheropolis, and that those who had presented it to him had probably been trying to raise funds in support of the Church in Pales- tine, reminds one that one of the charges which the imperial authorities seem to have brought against him during his trial was that he had somehow enriched the Arabs. Martin specifically rejects this charge during the course of a letter addressed to the monk Theodore Spoudaeos of Constantinople which, unfortunately, is our only source for this charge against him: Ego aliquando ad Saracenos nec litteras misi, nec quem dicunt tomum qualiter credere debeant, aut pecunias umquam transmisi, exceptis duntaxat quibusdam illuc venientibus servis Dei causa eleemosynae, quibus et modicum quid praebui- mus minime ad Saracenos transmissum. I never sent letters to the Saracens nor, as some say, a statement as to what they should believe. Nor did I ever send money, except only to some servants of God travelling there for the sake of charity, and the little which we provided to them was certainly not sent to the Saracens.50 The interpretation of this passage is difficult, but one suspects that Martin is engaging in some very narrow distinctions here. He seems to be saying that he provided these ‘servants of God’ with their travelling expenses, and that these would have been exhausted by the time they reached Arab-occupied territory. Strictly speaking, therefore, he did not himself send any of the funds which eventually made their way into the hands of the Arabs. Yet this reply does not address the substantial issue, the source of the funds which the ‘servants of God’ must have brought with them to Arab-occupied territory. Where did these come from? The obvious answer, it seems to me, is that they had raised these from religious communities at or about Rome, such as from the monastery at Aquae Salviae. Hence the force of the imperial charge had probably been that Martin had enriched the Arabs by allowing others at or about Rome to send charity to Arab-occupied territory rather than that he had provided it himself from his own funds. Martin had anticipated that the imperial authorities would not be pleased at the despatch of funds destined to make their way into the hands of the Arabs through the redemption of Christian captives and other charitable activities, and had sought refuge in a legal distinction. Unfor- tunately for him, the imperial authorities were in no mood for such distinctions. It was these anonymous ‘servants of God’, I suggest, who gave the head of St. George of Eleutheropolis to Pope Martin in thanks for his tacit support of their charitable endeavours, little suspecting that his support would soon contribute to his own martyrdom also.

50 Migne, Patrologia Latina 129, 587C.

07-0398_Aram20_10_Woods 179 09-16-2008, 17:16 180 POPE ZACHARIAS (741-52) AND THE HEAD OF ST. GEORGE

CONCLUSION

In summary, when Pope Zacharias discovered a casket containing the skull of a soldier and martyr from Palestine called George, he naturally assumed that it was a relic of the famous St. George allegedly buried at Diospolis in Palestine. Whatever doubts he might have felt in other circumstances concerning the authenticity of so wonderful a relic were easily dispelled by the fact that one of his predecessors had accepted it as a true relic of St. George of Diospolis, or so he thought. In fact, his predecessor had probably accepted it as a relic of a soldier and martyr named George buried at Eleutheropolis in Pales- tine, that is, of one of the defenders of Gaza whom the Muslims had recently murdered for their refusal to convert to Islam. The Pope who had first received this head is probably identifiable as Martin I whose support of charitable activ- ity in Arab-occupied territory contributed to his own trial and exile, and it is his exile which best explains why the head of St. George was placed in storage to be forgotten about for almost one hundred years.

07-0398_Aram20_10_Woods 180 09-16-2008, 17:16