Heraclius and the return of the Holy Cross

constructing the seventh century ORIENT ET MÉDITERRANÉE (UMR 8167) – BYZANCE COllègE DE FRANCE – INsTITUT D’ÉTUDEs BYZANTINEs TRAVAUX ET MÉMOIRES Fondés par Paul lemerle Continués par gilbert Dagron Comité de rédaction : Jean-Claude Cheynet, Vincent Déroche, Denis Feissel, Bernard Flusin, Constantin Zuckerman secrétariat de rédaction, relecture et composition : Emmanuelle Capet, Artyom Ter-Markosyan Vardanyan ©Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance – 2013 IsBN 978-2-916716-45-9 IssN 0577-1471 COllègE DE FRANCE – CNRs CENTRE DE RECHERCHE D’HIsTOIRE ET CIVIlIsATION DE BYZANCE TRAVAUx ET MÉMOIREs 17 constructing the seventh century edited by Constantin Zuckerman Ouvrage publié avec le concours de la fondation Ebersolt du Collège de France et de l’université Paris-Sorbonne Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance 52, rue du Cardinal-lemoine – 75005 Paris 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................I Constantin Zuckerman, Preface ..............................................................................................1 Dialogica polymorpha antiiudaica (CPG 7796, olim Dialogus Papisci et Philonis iudaeorum cum monacho) 5 Patrick Andrist (avec le concours de Vincent Déroche), Questions ouvertes autour des Dialogica polymorpha antiiudaica ........................................................................................ 9 Dmitry Afinogenov, Patrick Andrist, Vincent Déroche, la recension γ des Dialogica polymorpha antiiudaica et sa version slavonne, Disputatio in Hierosolymis sub Sophronio Patriarcha : une première approche ................................................................................... 27 Patrick Andrist, Essai sur la famille γ des Dialogica polymorpha antiiudaica et de ses sources : une composition d’époque iconoclaste ? .............................................. 105 Claudio schiano, les Dialogica polymorpha antiiudaica dans le Paris. Coisl. 193 et dans les manuscrits de la famille β................................................................................................ 139 Wars and disturbances 171 georges Kiourtzian, l’incident de Cnossos (fin septembre/début octobre 610) ................ Constantin Zuckerman, Heraclius and the return of the Holy Cross ................................. Denis Feissel, Jean de soloi, un évêque chypriote au milieu du viie siècle ........................... Marek Jankowiak, The first Arab siege of Constantinople .................................................. Offices, titles, and office-holders 321 Constantin Zuckerman, silk “made in Byzantium”: a study of economic policies of Emperor Justinian ...................................................................................................... Federico Montinaro, les premiers commerciaires byzantins ............................................. georges sidéris, sur l’origine des anges eunuques à Byzance .............................................. Christian settipani, The seventh-century Bagratids between Armenia and Byzantium....... Mikaël Nichanian, la distinction à Byzance : société de cour et hiérarchie des dignités à Constantinople (vie-ixe s.) ............................................................................................ The beginnings of Arab Egypt 637 Phil Booth, The Muslim conquest of Egypt reconsidered .................................................. Jean gascou, Arabic Taxation in the mid-seventh-century greek papyri ............................ Youssef Ragheb, les premiers documents arabes de l’ère musulmane ................................. Annexe : Annie Pralong, l’inscription arabe de la basilique de la plage de Kourion ...... Frédéric Imbert, graffiti arabes de Cnide et de Kos : premières traces épigraphiques de la conquête musulmane en mer Égée .......................................................................... 173 197 219 237 323 351 539 559 579 639 671 679 727 731 The forest and the steppe 759 Étienne de la Vaissière, Ziebel Qaghan identified ............................................................. 761 Michel Kazanski, The Middle Dnieper area in the seventh century: an archaeological survey .................................................................................................. 769 Rimma D. goldina, Igor Ju. Pastushenko, Elizaveta M. Chernykh, The Nevolino culture in the context of the 7th-century East-West trade: the finds from Bartym ............ 865 ABBREVIATIONS AASS ACO ACO, ser. sec. ADAJ AnBoll AnIsl AnTard ArchOr BB BCH BgA BgU BHG BMGS BNC 1 et 2 BSA BSAC BSl. BSOAS Bull. ép. Byz. Byz. Forsch. BZ CArch CCsg CFHB CJ CPG CPR CsCO CTh Dig. DChAE Acta sanctorum. Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, ed. instituit E. schwartz, continuavit J. straub, Berlin 1914-1940. Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum. Series secunda, ed. R. Riedinger, Berlin 1984-. Annual of the Department of antiquities of Jordan. Amman. Analecta Bollandiana. Bruxelles. Annales islamologiques. le Caire. Antiquité tardive. Turnhout Archiv Orientální. Praha. Византийский временник. Москва. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Paris. Bibliotheca geographorum Arabicorum. leiden. Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen (Staatlichen) Museen zu Berlin, Griechische Urkunden, Berlin 1895-. Bibliotheca hagiographica Graeca, 3e éd. mise à jour et considérablement augmentée, Bruxelles 1957. Byzantine and modern Greek studies. leeds. C. Morrisson, Catalogue des monnaies byzantines de la Bibliothèque nationale. 1, D’Anastase I er à Justinien II (491-711) ; 2, De Philippicus à Alexis III (711-1204), Paris 1970. The annual of the British School at Athens. london. Bulletin de la Société d’archéologie copte. le Caire. Byzantinoslavica : revue internationale des études byzantines. Praha. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African studies. Cambridge. Bulletin épigraphique de la REG. Byzantion : revue internationale des études byzantines. Wetteren. Byzantinische Forschungen : internationale Zeitschrift für Byzantinistik. Amsterdam. Byzantinische Zeitschrift. Berlin. Cahiers archéologiques. Paris. Corpus christianorum. series graeca. Turnhout. Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae. Corpus iuris civilis. 2, Codex Justinianus, recognovit P. Krüger, Berolini 1877. Clavis patrum Graecorum. Turnhout 1974-2003. Corpus Papyrorum Raineri. Wien 1895-. Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium. louvain. Codex Theodosianus. Corpus iuris civilis. 1, Digesta, recognovit Th. Mommsen, retractavit P. Krüger, Berolini 1908. Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς ἀρχαιολογικῆς ἑταιρείας. Athènes. ABBREVIATIONs VII DOC I A. R. Bellinger, Catalogue of the Byzantine coins in the Dumbarton Oaks collection and in the Whittemore collection. 1, Anastasius I to Maurice 491-602, Washington DC 1966. DOC II, 1 et 2 Ph. grierson, Catalogue of the Byzantine coins in the Dumbarton Oaks collection and in the Whittemore collection. 2, Phocas to Theodosius III, 602-717. 1, Phocas and Heraclius, 602-641 ; 2, Heraclius Constantine to Theodosius III, 641-717, Washington DC 1968. DOC III, 1 Ph. grierson, Catalogue of the Byzantine coins in the Dumbarton Oaks collection and in the Whittemore collection. 3, Leo III to Nicephorus III, 717-1081. 1, Leo III to Michael III, 717-867, Washington DC 1973. DOC III, 2 Ph. grierson, Catalogue of the Byzantine coins in the Dumbarton Oaks collection and in the Whittemore collection. 3, Leo III to Nicephorus III, 717-1081. 2, Basil I to Nicephorus III, 867-1081, Washington DC 1993. DOP Dumbarton Oaks papers. Washington DOSeals 1-6 Catalogue of Byzantine seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art. 1, Italy, North of the Balkans, North of the Black Sea, ed. by J. Nesbitt and N. Oikonomides, Washington DC 1991 ; 2, South of the Balkans, the Islands, South of Asia Minor, ed. by J. Nesbitt and N. Oikonomides, Washington DC 1994 ; 3, West, Northwest, and Central Asia Minor and the Orient, ed. by J. Nesbitt and N. Oikonomides, Washington DC 1996 ; 4, he East, ed. by E. Mcgeer, J. Nesbitt and N. Oikonomides, Washington DC 2001 ; 5, he East (continued), Constantinople and environs, unknown locations, addenda, uncertain readings, ed. by E. Mcgeer, J. Nesbitt and N. Oikonomides, Washington DC 2005 ; 6, Emperors, patriarchs of Constantinople, addenda, ed. by J. Nesbitt, Washington DC 2009. EEBS Ἐπετηρὶς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν σπουδῶν. Athènes. EHB The economic history of Byzantium : from the seventh through the fifteenth century, A. E. laiou, ed.-in-chief (Dumbarton Oaks studies 39), Washington DC 2002. EI Encyclopédie de l’Islam, leiden – Paris 1913-1938. Encyclopédie de l’Islam, nouvelle édition, leiden – Paris 1954-2009. EI2 ÉtudPap Études de papyrologie. le Caire. ΕΦΣ Ἑλληνικὸς Φιλολογικὸς Σύλλογος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. FHG GRBS IG IGLS Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum, Paris 1841-1872. Greek, Roman and Byzantine studies. Durham. Inscriptiones Graecae. Berlin 1903-. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie, Beyrouth – Paris 1929-. ИРАИК Известия Русского археологического института в Константинополе. Одесса, София. IslCult JHS JJP JNES JÖB JÖBG JournAs JRAS Mansi Islamic culture : an English quarterly. Hyderabad. The journal of Hellenic studies. london. Journal of juristic papyrology. Warszawa. Journal of Near Eastern studies. Chicago. Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik. Wien. Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft. Wien. Journal asiatique. Paris. The journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Cambridge. Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, Florentiae – Venetiis 17591798. [réimpr. Paris 1901 et graz 1960]. VIII MEFRM MgH MIB III MIBE I MIBE II MIFAO MUSJ NC Nov. OCP ODB PBE PERF Pg PLRE PmbZ PO RE REB REG RN sB SBS sC SEG sPP Syn. CP TIB TM Zepos ZPE ZRVI ABBREVIATIONs Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Moyen Âge. Rome – Paris. Monumenta germaniae historica. Berlin. W. Hahn, Moneta Imperii Byzantini. 3, Von Heraclius bis Leo III./ Alleinregierung (610-720) (Veröffentlichungen der numismatischen Kommission 10), Wien 1981. M. A. Metlich, Money of the incipient Byzantine Empire. Anastasius I – Justinian I, 491-565 (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Numismatik und geldgeschichte der Universität Wien 6), Wien 2000. W. Hahn et M. A. Metlich, Money of the incipient Byzantine Empire. Justin II – Revolt of the Heraclii, 565-610 (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Numismatik und geldgeschichte der Universität Wien 13), Wien 2009. Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire. le Caire. Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph. Beyrouth. The numismatic chronicle. london. Corpus iuris civilis. 3, Novellae, recognovit R. schoell, absolvit g. Kroll, Berolini 1895. Orientalia Christiana periodica : commentarii de re orientali aetatis christianae sacra et profana. Roma. Oxford dictionary of Byzantium, A. P. Kazhdan ed. in chief, New York 1991. Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire. 1, 614–867, ed. by J. R. Martindale, Aldershot 2001. Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer, Führer durch die Ausstellung, Wien 1894. Patrologiae cursus completus. series graeca, accur. J.-P. Migne, Paris 1856-1866. The prosopography of the later Roman Empire, by A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale & J. Morris, Cambridge 1971-1992. Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit. Berlin 1998-. Patrologia Orientalis. Paris. Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, stuttgart – München 1894-1997. Revue des études byzantines. Paris. Revue des études grecques. Paris. Revue numismatique. Paris. Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten. Wiesbaden 1913-. Studies in Byzantine sigillography. sources chrétiennes. Paris. Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum. Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde, hrsg. von C. Wessely, leipzig 1901-1924. Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e codice Sirmondiano nunc Berolinensi, adiectis synaxariis selectis, Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris, éd. H. Delehaye, Bruxelles 1902 [réimpr. louvain 1954]. Tabula Imperii Byzantini. Wien. Travaux et mémoires. Paris. Jus Graecoromanum, cur. J. et P. Zepos, Athenis 1931. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. Bonn. Зборник радова Византолошког института. Београд. HERACLIUS AND THE RETURN OF THE HOLY CROSS* by Constantin Zuckerman For Cyril Mango In two short studies published simultaneously with mutual acknowledgements, Holger Klein and the late Paul Speck have proposed a new interpretation of two entries in the final part of the Easter Chronicle. While the two authors diverge in some arguments, they both conclude that the Exaltation of the Holy Cross was celebrated in Constantinople in September 629 and that the relic of the Cross was returned by the Persians to Byzantium quite some time before that date, and not in 630, as has often been asserted by their predecessors.1 I adhere to this basic finding, and yet I must also recognize that the arguments put forward by Cyril Mango and, in much more detail, by Bernard Flusin in favor of the Cross’ return to Jerusalem in 630 keep much of their strength (Klein and Speck have barely addressed these arguments). The only possible resolution of this paradox resides in an even more paradoxical admission that the Holy Cross was returned to Jerusalem twice, in 629 and in 630. In the pages that follow I propose a reconstruction of Heraclius’ itinerary from mid-628 to mid-630, which completes my studies of Heraclius’ campaigns in 624–5 and in 626–7.2 This reconstruction is founded on a hierarchy of sources, with those closest to the events, unsurprisingly, the best informed. In the time that has passed since my communication on the subject at the colloquium of October 2009 which launched the present volume, James Howard-Johnston has produced a broad study of the period based on a thorough analysis of sources.3 Fortunately for the reader, James and I practically never agree, either in our perception of each individual source or in our reconstruction of the events. * I am very grateful to Marek Jankowiak, Avshalom Laniado and Federico Montinaro for having kindly read this this paper and shared with me their more or less critical remarks. 1. H. Klein, Niketas und das wahre Kreuz : kritische Anmerkungen zum Chronicon Paschale ad annum 614, BZ 94, 2001, pp. 580–7; P. Speck, Zum Datum der Translation der Kreuzreliquien nach Konstantinopel, in Id., Varia. 7 (Poikila Byzantina 18), Bonn 2000, pp. 167–77. 2. C. Zuckerman, Heraclius in 625, REB 60, 2002, pp. 189–97; Id., The Khazars and Byzantium : the first encounter, in The world of the Khazars : new perspectives : selected papers from the Jerusalem 1999 International Khazar Colloquium, ed. by P. B. Golden, H. Ben-Shammai and A. Róna-Tas (Handbook of Oriental studies. Section 8, Uralic & Central Asian studies 17), Leiden – Boston 2007, pp. 399–432. 3. J. Howard-Johnston, Witnesses to a world crisis : historians and histories of the Middle East in the seventh century, Oxford 2010. Constructing the seventh century, ed. by C. Zuckerman (Travaux et mémoires 17), Paris 2013, pp. 197–218. 198 CONSTANTIN ZUCKERMAN After discussing the evidence of the Easter Chronicle, which ascertains the presence of the Cross at Constantinople in September 629, I explore the generally acknowledged date of the presentation of the Cross at Jerusalem, March 21, showing that it belongs just as surely in the year 629. My next chapter, the centerpiece of this study, deals with the testimony of (the source of) Nikephoros. Despite the recognized authority of this source, its data is steadily dismissed or toned down when it comes to the Holy Cross, and my task is to convince the reader that it deserves more credit. A short discussion of saint Anastasios’ dossier that comes next has little to add to Flusin’s magisterial analysis: the Cross was definitely given back to the Church of Jerusalem and to its newly enthroned patriarch Modestos in March 630; I can even tell the exact day. The chapter before last summarizes the Cross’ complex itinerary using the precious yet much neglected evidence on Heraclius’ movements in the Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens. The toughest topic is left for the end. The evidence available overwhelmingly identifies the Persian general Shahrvaraz as the person who sent the Holy Cross to Heraclius. Most of the sources—yet not Nikephoros—specify that he did so after becoming king of Persia (April 27, 630). This assumption is very logical since the captive Cross was kept in the Persian capital, Ctesiphon, and only the master of Ctesiphon could give it back. By what miracle could Shahrvaraz perform this worthy deed more than a year before becoming king, while staying, presumably, at Alexandria where the Cross had never been, is not something that I am able to explain. I. The return of the relics of Christ’s Passion and the end-date of the EASTER CHRONICLE The chapter of the Easter Chronicle dedicated to the 2nd indiction 613/4 and to Heraclius’ fourth year of reign (6.10.613–5.10.614) starts with a dramatic entry on the capture of Jerusalem by the Persians in June 614, the destruction of churches and the captivity of the Cross. The next two entries are dated from a 3rd indiction. The first of these entries describes the presentation of the Holy Sponge at the Great Church of Saint Sophia on September 14. The Sponge, sent to Constantinople by the patrician Niketas, was tied to the Holy Cross at its third exaltation (ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ ὑψώσει) and exalted as well. The next entry describes the arrival, on Saturday night, October 28, of the Holy Lance from the Holy Land at the Great Church, where the people of Constantinople venerated it for most of the following week. The relic originated with the same patrician Niketas, to whom it was given by a person close to the accursed Shahrvaraz after the capture of the Holy Land by the Persians.4 From both its indictional and regnal date—the later seems to predominate in the Chronicle—this event should have normally found its place in the chapter devoted to the following year. The common assumption, documented by Klein and Speck, consisted in identifying the patrician Niketas as Heraclius’ cousin and Byzantine commander in the East in the 610s, who would have removed the Holy Sponge from Jerusalem shortly before its capture and obtained the Holy Lance as a present from a follower of his Persian counterpart, Shahrvaraz, very soon afterwards. The arrival of both relics at Constantinople was dated 4. Chronicon Paschale, rec. L. Dindorfius, Bonnae 1832, p. 705. HERACLIUS AND THE RETURN OF THE HOLy CROSS 199 in the fall of 614, which involved admitting without explanation that the editor of the Easter Chronicle placed the corresponding entries in the wrong chapter. Klein and Speck remind us, however, that the only month of October in Heraclius’ reign and in a 3rd indiction, the 28th day of which is a Saturday, is October 629. The day of the week transmitted in the entry used to be corrected so as to fit the year 614, but Klein’s study of the liturgical tradition of the veneration of the Holy Cross supplies a strong argument against such a correction. The 14th of September was initially the date of celebration of the discovery of the Cross (σταυροφάνεια) by Empress Helen; this holiday is attested in Jerusalem as of the fourth century, but not in Constantinople. By way of contrast, in the middle Byzantine period the capital celebrated on the same day the exaltation (ὕψωσις) of the Holy Cross, a major holiday that is mentioned for the first time in our entry. The later ritual involved three exaltations of the actual relic of the Cross, as appears already to be the case in the ceremony described in the entry.5 These indications suggest that the date in the Chronicle requires no correction and that the exaltation was only celebrated in Constantinople when the relic of the Cross was physically present in the Byzantine capital. In this scenario, the patrician Niketas is no longer Heraclius’ cousin, dead by 629, but his freshly converted son-in-law, son of the Persian general Shahrvaraz who by 629 has become Heraclius’ ally.6 This Niketas surely stood a better chance of obtaining the relic from one of his father’s men than the homonymous Byzantine commander. An obvious question to ask is how entries related to the 3rd indiction 629/30 ended up in a chapter dedicated to the events of the 2nd indiction 613/4? Both Speck and Klein consider this displacement as a confirmation of Kyra Ericsson’s theory about a transposition of some loose folios at the end of an old manuscript, from which the only preserved manuscript of the Easter Chronicle was copied.7 Ericsson’s whole argument, however, has been conclusively refuted, on textual, historical,8 and, most decisively, on numismatic grounds (since it involved replacing the introduction of the silver hexagramma in 626 rather than 615).9 Nothing can be saved from Ericsson’s thesis or explained by it. Nevertheless, I believe that re-dating the two entries in the 3rd indiction 629/30 throws light on the composition of the final part of the Easter Chronicle and, incidentally, helps to explain the present position of the entries. 5. On the later ritual, see B. Flusin, Les cérémonies de l’Exaltation de la Croix à Constantinople au xie siècle d’après le Dresdensis A 104, in Byzance et les reliques du Christ, éd. par J. Durand et B. Flusin (Monographies du Centre d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance 17), Paris 2004, pp. 61–89, on p. 86. Speck, Zum Datum (quoted n. 1), p. 172, interprets the mention of the third exaltation on September 14, 629 as an indication that the presentation of the relic in Jerusalem, a year earlier according to his scheme, counted as the “zweite Erhöhung.” 6. On this alliance, see C. Mango, Deux études sur Byzance et la Perse sassanide, TM 9, 1985, pp. 91–118, on pp. 105–17. 7. Klein (quoted n. 1), pp. 584–5; Speck (quoted n. 1), pp. 169–70; cf. K. Ericsson, The cross on steps and the silver hexagram, JÖBG 17, 1968, pp. 149–64. 8. Chronicon Paschale 284–628 AD, transl. with notes and introd. by M. Whitby and M. Whitby, Liverpool 1989, pp. 201–2. Curiously, Klein (unlike Speck) consents to the Whitbys’ argument (n. 25), which implies not a partial (as he seems to believe) but a total rejection of Ericsson’s thesis. 9. MIB III, pp. 97–9; M. Hendy, Studies in the Byzantine monetary economy c. 300–1450, Cambridge 1985, pp. 494–5. 200 CONSTANTIN ZUCKERMAN As shown by Giovanni Mercati, the tenth-century manuscript of the Easter Chronicle (Vatican. gr. 1941), mutilated at the end, is missing only one whole folio.10 Part (though possibly only a small part) of this folio was taken up by the end of Heraclius’ letter to the Persian king Kavadh II Shiroe from April 628, which occupies the verso of the last, badly damaged folio currently preserved in the manuscript. This letter must be the one which, according to the well-informed source of Nikephoros (cf. part III below), contained the demand to restitute the Holy Cross.11 The appreciations of what the missing folio could have contained beside the end of the letter vary. It has been argued by a group of scholars that the chronicler stopped short of describing the return of the Cross and did not carry his narration beyond the end of the 1st indiction 627/8.12 This argument accounts for the short space (one folio, little over two pages of the Bonn edition) available for the termination of the chronicle, but it stands in contradiction to its title, announcing the “Summary of the years from Adam […] until year 20 of the reign of Heraclius the most pious, and post-consulship year 19, and year 18 of the reign of Heraclius Constantine his son, indiction 3.” Michael and Mary Whitby emphasize the latter point in defending the traditional view, according to which the Chronicle’s narrative originally covered two more years, culminating with the restitution of the Cross in 630.13 Then, however, the space of one folio appears far too short and, more importantly, this view is contradicted by the new dating of the entries on the Lance and the Sponge. If the Chronicle contained a full chapter on the events of the 3rd indiction 629/30, the ceremonies relating to the two relics, which took place early in the year, would have been described in this chapter. yet, they found their place in the chapter on the capture of Jerusalem, no doubt after being appended first as marginalia. This is a strong indication that the chronicler did not compose a proper chapter on the 3rd indiction/Heraclius’ year 20 (629/30). The problem is solved, however, if we admit that the lost last folio of Vatican. gr. 1941 was taken up mostly by the events of the 2nd indiction 628/9—the death and succession of Kavadh II Shiroe, the Persian retreat from the eastern provinces, the return of the Cross and its symbolic restitution at the Holy Sepulchre—culminating in the arrival of the Cross in Constantinople at the end of the year (August 629), and with emperor Heraclius’ triumphal return to the capital in the first days of the following 3rd indiction. The subsequent deposition of the Cross at the Holy Sepulchre in the spring was, no 10. G. Mercati, A study of the Paschal Chronicle, Journal of theological studies 7, 1906, pp. 397–412, see pp. 408–11, reprinted in Id., Opere minori. 2 (Studi e testi 77), Città del Vaticano 1937, pp. 462–79, see pp. 475–8. 11. See N. Oikonomidès, Correspondence between Heraclius and Kawadh-Siroe in the Paschal Chronicle (628), Byz. 41, 1971, pp. 269–81, reprinted in Id., Documents et études sur les institutions de Byzance (VII e-XV e s.), London 1976, n° XXI. 12. J. Beaucamp, R.-Cl. Bondoux, J. Lefort, M.-F. Rouan-Auzépy, I. Sorlin, La Chronique Pascale : le temps approprié, in Le temps chrétien de la fin de l’Antiquité au Moyen Âge, III e-XIII e siècles (Colloques internationaux du CNRS 604), Paris 1984, pp. 451–68, see pp. 463–6. 13. M. Whitby and M. Whitby, Chronicon Paschale (quoted n. 8), pp. xi-xii; cf. W. Treadgold, The early Byzantine historians, New york 2007, p. 341: “Since the last torn pages of our manuscript belong to the entry for 628, we can safely assume that the full text did end with 630, when the chronicle was presumably completed,” but it goes unmentioned that only one folio = two pages are missing. Howard-Johnston, Witnesses (quoted n. 3), p. 41, follows the Whitbys, without referring to the studies by Klein and Speck. HERACLIUS AND THE RETURN OF THE HOLy CROSS 201 doubt, shortly mentioned. This sequence of events provided the chronicler with such an elated finale that he preferred to record the two church ceremonies, also related to Heraclius’ triumph, as marginalia to his account of the capture of Jerusalem in 614 thus attenuating the dire tone of this entry. This solution for the ending of the Easter Chronicle takes care of all the material constraints, but it will be met with surprise because two key elements, on which it is grounded—the arrival of the Cross and of emperor Heraclius in Constantinople in August-September 629—are absent from most histories of the age of Heraclius. I will show in part III that these are, on the contrary, two of the best-documented events of his reign. Before, however, we need to examine another, totally neglected indication for the return of the Cross in 629. II. The liturgical date of the veneration of the Holy Cross Scholars recognize two main indicators as to the date of the presentation of the Cross in Jerusalem. The exact date is only found in the Story of the return of the Cross, which is attached in the manuscript tradition to the account of the Sack of Jerusalem by the monk Strategios of Saint Sabbas (alias Antiochos Strategios, identified by some with Antiochos, abbot of the same monastery in the 620s, author of the Pandects). Both texts, originally composed in Greek but only preserved in a Georgian and four Arabic versions, are commonly attributed to one and the same author.14 Bernard Flusin and Robert L. Wilcken have been the first, to my knowledge, to suggest that they may belong to different authors,15 and I strongly support this view. While the Sack of Jerusalem is an eyewitness account by one of the captives carried to Persia, the Story contains no claim to be contemporary with the events described and, for reasons to be stated below, I believe that it could not have been written before the 650s at the earliest. The numerous dates indicated in the Story are marked by great disarray, which can only in part be explained by accidents of transmission. In a rare case of agreement, however, all five versions of the Story cite the date of March 21st for the deposition of the Cross at the Holy Sepulchre.16 Since it was most probably taken from the liturgical commemoration of this event, I see no reason to call it into question. Soon after the first publication of “Antiochos Strategios” by Nicolas Marr (1909), Norman Baynes found support for the Story’s date in a poem by George of Pisidia celebrating the return of the Cross. George indicates the day when the news of its restoration at the Holy Sepulchre reached Constantinople: Lazarus Saturday. Baynes 14. All five versions were edited and translated into Latin by G. Garitte: La prise de Jérusalem par les Perses en 614 (CSCO 202–3. Scriptores Iberici 11–2), Louvain 1960; Expugnationis Hierosolymae AD 614 recensiones arabicae. 1, A et B (CSCO 340–1. Scriptores Arabici 26–7), Louvain 1973; 2, C et V (CSCO 347–8. Scriptores Arabici 28–9), Louvain 1974. The debate about the author’s identity is of no concern for our subject. 15. B. Flusin, Saint Anastase le Perse et l’histoire de la Palestine au début du VII e siècle, vol. I–II (Le monde byzantin), Paris 1992, vol. II, p. 300; R. L. Wilken, The Expugnatio Hierosolymae AD 614, Parole de l’Orient 16, 1990–91, pp. 73–81, on p. 75. 16. The evidence is conveniently tabulated by Flusin, Saint Anastase le Perse (quoted n. 15), vol. II, pp. 301–2. 202 CONSTANTIN ZUCKERMAN argued that only in 629, when Easter was celebrated on the 16th of April and Lazarus Saturday on the 9th, the latter date allowed enough time (19 days) for the news to travel to the capital; by contrast, in 630, when Easter was celebrated on April 8 and Lazarus Saturday on March 31, the message could not have been delivered “in eight days.”17 This argument for excluding 630 was later contested, however.18 More conclusively, Bernard Flusin has pointed out that the deposition of the Cross on March 21 ruled out the year 631, last defended by Venance Grumel. In 631, Easter falls on the 24th of March and Lazarus Saturday on the 16th; thus Grumel had to argue that on Lazarus Sunday 631, George of Pisidia rejoiced in the return of the Cross by anticipation, a claim that cannot be reconciled with the language of the poem.19 Personally, I doubt that even with much luck an imperial letter dispatched from Jerusalem on March 21, 630 could reach Constantinople nine or ten days later; in 629, delivering the letter in little less than three weeks would be less of a challenge. But there is also a strong positive argument for favoring 629 over 630, which has escaped the attention of scholars. The Typicon of the Great Church, recently explored by Holger Klein, describes the ritual of the veneration of the Holy Cross during the fourth week of Lent. Announced on the Sunday named τῆς σταυροπροσκυνήσεως, it took place in Saint Sophia on the third and the fourth day (Tuesday–Wednesday) of the week for men and on the fifth and the sixth day (Thursday–Friday) for women.20 The origin of this major holiday, which lacks roots in ancient liturgical practice, has received no satisfactory explanation. It becomes apparent, however, once we place the date of return of the Cross to Jerusalem, March 21, within the Easter cycle of the year 629. This was the third day (Tuesday) of the fourth week of Lent. The Arabic version C of the Story contains the explicit indication that the Cross returned to Jerusalem on March 21, “in mid-Lent.”21 Common Byzantine usage describes as “mid-Lent” Wednesday rather than Tuesday of the fourth week, but this distinction is purely nominal. The return of the Cross to Jerusalem in mid-Lent of 629, on March 21, determined the place of the holiday dedicated to public veneration of the Cross within the Easter cycle of the Byzantine church for generations to come. Obviously, the 21st of March did not fall in mid-Lent in 630. March 21, 629 is also the date of a novel of emperor Heraclius, incidentally the latest preserved late antique novel, reaffirming the legal status of clergy and their immunity 17. N. H. Baynes, The restoration of the Cross at Jerusalem, English historical review 27, 1912, pp. 287–99, on pp. 291–2, with reference to George of Pisidia, In restitutionem sanctae Crucis, v. 104–16, now available in the edition by A. Pertusi: Giorgio di Pisidia, Poemi. 1, Panegirici epici, ed. critica, trad. e commento a cura di A. Pertusi, Ettal 1959, pp. 229–30. 18. Mango, Deux études (quoted n. 6), p. 113, n. 35. In The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor : Byzantine and Near Eastern history AD 284–813, transl. with introd. and comment. by C. Mango and R. Scott with the assistance of G. Greatrex, Oxford 1997, pp. 459–60, n. 3, Mango specifies that to arrive that fast the message needed to be delivered by sea. 19. V. Grumel, La reposition de la Vraie Croix à Jérusalem par Héraclius : le jour et l’année, Byz. Forsch. 1, 1966, pp. 139–49; cf. Flusin, Saint Anastase le Perse (quoted n. 15), vol. II, pp. 299–300. 20. See H. A. Klein, Constantine, Helena, and the cult of the True Cross in Constantinople, in Byzance et les reliques du Christ (quoted n. 5), pp. 31–59, esp. pp. 43–51. 21. Expugnationis Hierosolymae, II (quoted n. 14), p. 100 (XXIV, 9): Et fuit ingressus crucis in Ierusalem vicesima prima die (mensis) adar (= Martio), et haec erat dies dimidii quadragesimae sanctae (transl. Garitte). HERACLIUS AND THE RETURN OF THE HOLy CROSS 203 from secular justice.22 The defenders of the return of the Cross in 630 or 631 never discuss this coincidence of dates; curiously, it is not mentioned either by the defenders of 629. Many scholars consider it to be a proof of Heraclius’ presence in Constantinople on the day of the novel’s promulgation, as if an emperor could only legislate from his capital (cf. below). Needless to say, the fact that the law was issued in the names of both Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine does not mean that Heraclius consulted his son and co-emperor on this text or even informed him of its promulgation in advance. In the chronological scheme that I propose, the date’s significance becomes apparent. One and the same messenger delivered to patriarch Sergios, the novel’s addressee, two imperial dispatches: the announcement of the symbolic restitution of the Holy Cross to Golgotha and a law reasserting the status of his clergy. Likewise, while celebrating in the capital, with the Cross, his triumph in September 629, Heraclius announced an annual subsidy to be paid to the Great Church and its clergy.23 The correspondence between the day of the week and the date in October of the veneration of the Lance on the one hand, and the position of the date of the Cross’s return within the Easter cycle in March on the other, indicate the year 629 by a perfunctory calculation, independent of any narrative testimony or historical context. Thus it is all the more striking that this result fully agrees with the account of a major narrative source, usually recognized as well informed and reliable, the Breviarium of the (future) patriarch Nikephoros. Before analyzing this testimony, however, I shall venture a daring supposition on the emergence of the Easter Chronicle. The paradox of the Easter Chronicle, which has never been properly acknowledged, is that the author of this historical compilation was manifestly not interested in history. The book consists to a large extent of empty entries, notably for the better part of the sixth century and for a number of years in the seventh century, which the author could have filled up with content at no effort. His true passion, duly recognized in recent scholarship, lay elsewhere, in the realm of chronology. It finds expression in long dissertations on the date of the creation of the world, the calculation of Easter, and the timetable of Jesus’ life, but also in elaborate headings introducing the last years in the Chronicle, including the empty ones. In the recent debate on whether the chronicler was a cleric24 or a lay official25 these headings impose the latter option with no ambiguity. These are the standard dating formulae inscribed at the head of public acts and notarial contracts (συμβόλαια), and the author takes pleasure in showing that he masters them to perfection.26 Why then did he write a chronicle, leaving it half-filled? 22. J. Konidaris, Die Novellen des Kaisers Herakleios, Fontes minores. 5 V (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte 8), Frankfurt 1982, pp. 33–106, see pp. 84–95. The text contains no indication of the promulgation place. 23. Nikephoros Patriarch of Constantinople, Short history 19, text, transl. and comment. by C. Mango (CFHB 13), Washington 1990, pp. 66–9. 24. So, recently, M. Whitby and M. Whitby, Chronicon Paschale (quoted n. 8), p. xxvii; Howard-Johnston, Witnesses (quoted n. 3), pp. 57–8. 25. Treadgold, The early Byzantine historians (quoted n. 13), pp. 341–3. 26. Thus, in recording the coronation of Theodosios, son of Maurice, the author notes that his name was not inserted in the dating formula of the contracts (οὐ μέντοι ἐτάγη εἰς συμβόλαια); this unexplained aberration is amply confirmed by papyrological documents. Treadgold, The early Byzantine historians (quoted n. 13), p. 346, describes symbolaia as “official records,” which the chronicler supposedly checked. 204 CONSTANTIN ZUCKERMAN I note that March 21, the spring equinox as calculated in Alexandria, had long been established as the day of the world’s creation; it was retained as such in the Easter Chronicle. My brazen supposition is that the coincidence between this date and the date of the deposition of the Cross in 629 was what launched the author on his project. Initially planned to cover the ground from 21 March “year 1” to 21 March 629, the text was extended into the next year when it became known that the Cross would arrive at Constantinople and then go back to Jerusalem for good. The tight time schedule for the entire composition would explain the haphazard selection of the historical material in the Chronicle:27 it was composed in haste. When getting closer to his own times, the author, who had spent days copying passages from Malalas, must have decided to accelerate, to speed jump to the focal point that he knew was approaching. Unfortunately, his long contemplated finale got lost with the last folio of Vatican. gr. 1941. III. The testimony of the “Pyrrhos Pamphlet” in the BREVIARIUM of Nikephoros Klein and Speck make a strong case for the presence of the Cross in Constantinople as early as September 629. They differ, however, as to the itinerary that took it there. According to Speck, the Cross was surrendered by the Persians immediately after their military defeat, venerated in Jerusalem in the fall of 628 and soon afterwards transferred to the Byzantine capital. Klein, by contrast, strives to maintain the traditional date of presentation of the Cross in Jerusalem, March 21, 630 and argues, therefore, that Heraclius first exposed the Cross to the veneration of the people of Constantinople and only then brought it to Palestine. Both options are hard to defend, and the best way to show this consists in presenting a positive argument for the arrival of the Cross in Jerusalem in the spring of 629. The Breviarium of Nikephoros is the only source to describe not only the return of the Cross to Jerusalem but also its subsequent departure for Constantinople, and to date both events precisely: Taking the life-giving woodpieces [ξύλα] sealed—they remained as they were when they were captured—Herakleios came to Jerusalem and exhibited them to the archpriest Modestos 28 and his clergy. […] After they had been exalted there, the emperor sent them straightaway to Byzantium. Sergios, the archpriest of Byzantium, received them in procession at Blachernai (which is a church of the Mother of God) and, after bringing them to the Great Church, he exalted them. It was the second indiction when this was accomplished [δευτέρα δὲ ἦν ἰνδικτιῶν ἡνίκα ταῦτα ἐπράττοντο]. A short time thereafter Herakleios, too, came to Byzantium and was received by its inhabitants with great acclamation and honor. He brought four elephants, which he paraded at the hippodrome […]29 27. Howard-Johnston, Witnesses (quoted n. 3), pp. 37–59, esp. pp. 39, 54–5. 28. This is obviously an error—Modestos would be elevated to the patriarchal throne of Jerusalem a year later (see below)—but in the author’s faulty memory Modestos was patriarch already at the time of the Persian conquest of the city, see chap. 12, pp. 54–5. 29. Nikephoros, Short history 18–9, ed. transl. Mango (quoted n. 23), pp. 66–7 (translation modified). The lines omitted in the quotation are cited below, part VI. HERACLIUS AND THE RETURN OF THE HOLy CROSS 205 The emphatic indication that both the return of the Cross at Jerusalem and its arrival at Constantinople took place in the 2nd indiction 628/9 (before the end of August 629) leaves out Heraclius’ personal triumph, which, as we shall see, belongs to the next indictional year. In Nikephoros, as in Theophanes, indictional dates integrated in the narrative are the least likely to be erroneous, as they reflect the data of the chronicler’s source rather than a chronological construction of his own. This data was given, nevertheless, little consideration by scholars. Nikephoros’ testimony on the arrival of the Cross at Constantinople in the 2nd indiction 628/9 was admitted by Vasily Bolotov, whose memoire, published posthumously, is a mine of precious observations on many aspects of Heraclius’ reign. yet he arbitrarily imagined an embassy by the Nestorian catholicos of Persia Ishôyahb II that allegedly delivered the Cross to Heraclius in the late summer or early fall 628 on King Kavadh II Shiroe’s behalf.30 Norman Baynes rightly pointed out that Ishôyahb II met Heraclius only once, two years later, as Queen Boran’s ambassador. yet Baynes misconstrued Nikephoros’ testimony by claiming that in the 2nd indiction 628/9 Heraclius dispatched to the capital only a small fragment of the relic, which was clearly not the message that the text intended to convey.31 A reluctant defender of Nikephoros’ date was Paul Speck. In his appraisal, the account of the return of the Cross in Nikephoros “bietet […] so viele Unwahrscheinlichkeiten, dass man sie auch in Einzelheiten, die vielleicht plausibel scheinen, nicht als Quelle benutzen darf.” Nevertheless, he admitted “eine recht spekulative Möglichkeit, für die genannte zweite Indiktion einen historischen Hintergrund zu finden.”32 Speck’s attempt to accommodate for this date involved radical surgery. He believed, for a reason that I do not consider binding (Heraclius’ novel, supposedly promulgated in Constantinople, cf. above), that Heraclius spent the winter of 628/9 in Constantinople and could not deliver the Cross to Jerusalem in March 629. Speck then chose September 14, 628, early in the 2nd indiction, as the date of the restoration of the Cross to the Holy Sepulchre, and was obliged, therefore, to dismiss, or rather dismantle, George of Pisidia’s testimony according to which this event was announced in Constantinople on Lazarus Saturday (that is, in the spring). Speck hypothesized that the news of the forthcoming restoration of the Cross reached the capital as early as Lent 628, prompting George to produce a draft of some vers de circonstance for an event that only took place half a year later. On this schedule, he had to credit the restitution of the Cross to Kavadh II Shiroe (who reigned from the end of February to the early fall of 628), rather than to Shahrvaraz, as stated by Nikephoros and most other authorities. This was, for Speck, another step in taking apart what he dubbed “die Sahrbarazlegende” in Nikephoros, an approach whose arbitrary hypercriticism I have contested33 and continue to contest. 30. В. Болотов, К истории императора Ираклия, BB 14, 1907, pp. 68–124, see pp. 76–95. 31. Baynes, The restoration (quoted n. 17), pp. 287–9, on p. 293. 32. P. Speck, Das geteilte Dossier : Beobachtungen zu den Nachrichten über die Regierung des Kaisers Herakleios und die seiner Söhne bei Theophanes und Nikephoros (Poikila Byzantina 9), Bonn 1988, pp. 337, 355. 33. C. Zuckerman, Au sujet de la petite augusta sur les monnaies d’Héraclius, RN 152, 1997, pp. 473–8. 206 CONSTANTIN ZUCKERMAN Other scholars who have taken part in the debate, notably Bernard Flusin, have dismissed Nikephoros’ date as an outright error.34 One cannot validate this solution, however, without taking a closer look at the source that supplied the chronicler with the disputed date. Cyril Mango provided a pertinent short appraisal of the source of Nikephoros. He described it as a Constantinopolitan chronicle stretching from the downfall of Phokas (whose reign is sketched, possibly from a different source, as an interlude to Heraclius’ accession) to the dynastic struggle in the fall of 641, which resulted in the coronation of Constans II. This chronicle also showed knowledge of the disputation between Pyrrhos, the former patriarch of Constantinople, and Maximos, the future confessor, which, as we know from another source, took place in July 645. Nevertheless, Mango believed that the text was composed soon after the terminal date of its main narrative and that the disputation of 645 could be “mentioned in a later note appended to the MS of the source.” A crucial observation by Mango bore on the strong monothelitic bias of this source. Its strikingly positive image of Pyrrhos—anathematized by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680)—was retained by Nikephoros, an error of judgment so unbecoming of a ninth-century cleric that Mango could plausibly argue that Nikephoros had composed the Breviarium before he embarked on his ecclesiastical career.35 I believe that Mango’s observations can be developed and partly revised, in a way such as to furnish a better view of the nature of the source. The description of Pyrrhos’ encounter in Carthage with Maximos and Theodosios, leaders of “some of” (τινες τῶν) the local monks, has nothing of a marginal gloss. The passage aims at dissimulating information about Pyrrhos rather than at informing the reader. It narrates that the monks “interrogated him concerning the Exposition made by the former emperor Heraclius and by Sergios, the archpriest of the City, regarding the two wills and energies of Christ our Savior.”36 The real outcome of the debate of July 645 is known from its minutes, edited if not composed by Maximos,37 and is independently confirmed by the Liber pontificalis. Maximos’ theological arguments—and to an even greater degree, considerations of political expediency—convinced Pyrrhos to repudiate the monothelitic creed, thus allowing him to gain, upon his arrival at Rome in spring 646, the pope’s quasi-recognition as the legitimate patriarch. Soon afterwards, however, Pyrrhos traded this purely nominal honor for reconciliation with the imperial court by espousing anew his former doctrine and taking refuge with the exarch in Ravenna.38 The evasive account 34. Flusin, Saint Anastase le Perse (quoted n. 15), vol. II, p. 311 (“la date est fausse”); cf. Mango, note to Nikephoros, Short history (quoted n. 23), p. 185. Howard-Johnston, Witnesses (quoted n. 3), p. 254, n. 4, suggests that it was Nikephoros who intervened in his source and distorted its narrative. 35. Mango, Introduction to Nikephoros, Short history (quoted n. 23), pp. 12–4; for the latter argument, see Id., The Breviarium of the patriarch Nikephoros, in Byzance : hommage à André N. Stratos, Αθήνα 1986, pp. 539–52. 36. Nikephoros, Short history 31, ed. transl. Mango (quoted n. 23), pp. 82–5. 37. J. Noret, La rédaction de la Disputatio cum Pyrrho (CPG 7698) de saint Maxime le Confesseur serait-elle postérieure à 655 ?, AnBoll 117, 1999, pp. 291–6. The ongoing debate on the degree of falsification in the Disputatio is of minor concern for our topic. 38. On this episode, and especially its political context that I have left aside, see J. L. van Dieten, Geschichte der Patriarchen von Sergios I. bis Johannes VI. (610–715), Amsterdam 1972, pp. 83–8, cf. Ch. Boudignon, Le pouvoir de l’anathème, ou Maxime le Confesseur et les moines palestiniens du HERACLIUS AND THE RETURN OF THE HOLy CROSS 207 of his encounter with Maximos shows that this event was only mentioned in order to disguise its actual outcome and to provide a “monothelitically-correct” version of what was obviously a major source of embarrassment. The description of Pyrrhos’ flight from Constantinople is even more revealing. After “the more ruffianly and boorish part of the people armed themselves against Pyrrhos,” invaded the Great Church “accompanied by a group of Jews and other unbelievers,” and defiled the holy altar searching for the patriarch, Pyrrhos “took off his pallium and placed it on the altar table saying: ‘Without renouncing the priesthood I abjure a disobedient people’.” As pointed out by Mango, the abjuration formula was modeled after that attributed by Theodore Lector to Martyrios of Antioch, forced out of office by Peter the Fuller.39 While it might not have occurred to Pyrrhos on the spur of the moment, it is indicative of the aims of the text which bears it. Nikephoros’ source was composed to portray Pyrrhos as the legitimate patriarch who never gave up his throne. The formula would have been out of place in a monothelitic chronicle composed in Constantinople soon after Pyrrhos’ flight, since it implicitly called in question the legitimacy of Patriarch Paul, enthroned as Pyrrhos’ successor in October 641. Paul’s election is the last event mentioned by our source, in the most neutral way possible. I believe that this combination of elements leaves only one plausible context for the composition of the text. It belongs to the period when Pyrrhos was positioning himself not for evicting Paul from his office— which would have been unrealistic—but for succeeding him as the legitimate patriarch. It was composed after he repudiated his repudiation of the single will (between 646 and 648); in avoiding all theological debate on the subject, it seems to obey the typos promulgated in 648 by the young emperor Constans II on patriarch Paul’s instigation.40 Pyrrhos’ return to the patriarchate in January 654 presents a terminus ante quem: writing after the event, the author would have found a way to anticipate it and, in any case, would have had no reason to stop at Pyrrhos’ deposition in 641. Thus, I propose viewing Nikephoros’ source as a historical pamphlet rather than a chronicle, a plea pro domo inspired and possibly composed by Pyrrhos ca. 650. This appraisal would explain some salient features of the Breviarium’s narrative of the reign of Heraclius. It is sketchy and anecdotal for the early part of the reign, and its relative chronology is fairly unreliable. For instance, the Persian capture of Alexandria (619) precedes the capture of the Holy Land (614), the latter event being falsely constructed as the driving impulse for the Heraclian Reconquista. Its later, more developed part contains precise historical details, but also the revelation that Heraclius “was devoted to Pyrrhos, whom he called his brother” (chap. 26). Incidentally, neither part of the narrative shows any traces of an underlying division into yearly entries. The most conspicuous feature of Nikephoros’ lost source, however, was its thorough blanketing of the doctrinal viie siècle, in Foundations of power and conflicts of authority in late-antique monasticism : proceedings of the international seminar, Turin, December 2–4, 2004, ed. by A. Camplani and G. Filoramo (Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta 157), Leuven 2007, pp. 245–74, on pp. 259–65. 39. Nikephoros, Short history 31, ed. transl. Mango (quoted n. 23), pp. 82–3, with the editor’s note, p. 193. 40. Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565–1453. 1, 1, Regesten von 565–867, bearb. von F. Dölger, 2. Auflage besorgt von A. E. Müller, unter Mitarbeit von J. Preiser-Kapeller und A. Riehle, München 2009, no. 225, p. 100. 208 CONSTANTIN ZUCKERMAN quarrels of the 630s, exemplifying the application of the typos. This was what dulled Nikephoros’ theological vigilance to the point of making him follow his source in its apology of Pyrrhos. These consistent qualities confer a certain structural coherence to Nikephoros’ narrative of Heraclius’ reign, suggesting little interference on his part in the source he used. Describing Nikephoros’ source as a pamphlet rather than a chronicle also acknowledges that its author made no effort to gather source evidence when his personal recollections could not securely guide him. There is nothing in the text to indicate any such research. This knowledge puts a modern student of Heraclius’ reign in an awkward position. Rather than looking for a complex contamination of ancient traditions, which would be our first reflex, allowance needs to be made for faulty memory. This would seem to me the most straightforward explanation for long-noted idiosyncrasies in Nikephoros’ narrative such as the list of Persian kings, in which Khosrau II’s son Shiroe, proclaimed king as Kavadh, transforms into two successive kings, Seiroes and Kaboes, while Shahrvaraz becomes the successor of his actual successor’s successor Hormisdas (chap. 16–17). Writing about twenty years after the death of the last of these ephemeral rulers, Pyrrhos, or his apologist, manifestly did not consult any list of Persian kings to refresh his memory. Likewise, a contemporary of the “Avar surprise” (623) writing a quarter of a century or more after the event should be able to quote the testimony of former captives (chap. 10), yet his count of captives based on that testimony, 270,000 men, women and children, can only be valued as hearsay amplified by a long lapse of time. Unsurprisingly, our writer is at his best in describing the events at Constantinople from the later part of Heraclius’ reign, in particular from Pyrrhos’ patriarchate. My experience has shown that contesting him in this realm is risky. Following Cyril Mango, I once called in doubt Nikephoros’ testimony on the promotion of Martina’s son Martinus to the rank of caesar only to see it confirmed as a fact by a newly published papyrus.41 The recent attempt to undermine the testimony of our source on a wider scale appears to me even more precarious.42 Writing from memory explains another peculiarity of Nikephoros’ source: it provides practically no dates. The exceptions are few and hardly unexpected. They concern neither Heraclius’ accession or death, nor any other event related to the imperial family or general politics, but rather Sergios’ death and the enthroning of Pyrrhos dated in the 12th indiction 638/9 (both events took place in December 638) as well as the enthronement of Pyrrhos’ successor Paul in October of the 15th indiction (October 1, 641). The only other event provided with a date is the return of the Cross to Jerusalem and its subsequent arrival at Constantinople, both placed in the 2nd indiction 628/9. 41. Nikephoros, Short history 27, ed. transl. Mango (quoted n. 23), p. 76–7, and the editor’s note, p. 191; cf. C. Zuckerman, La formule de datation du SB VI 8986 et son témoignage sur la succession d’Héraclius, JJP 25, 1995, p. 187–201, on p. 192, and now Corpus papyrorum Raineri. 23, Griechische Texte. 16, Neue Dokumente aus dem römischen und spätantiken Ägypten zu Verwaltung und Reichsgeschichte (1.–7. Jh. n. Chr.), hrsg. von F. Mitthof, Wien 2002, pp. 222–30, no. 35. 42. D. Woods, On the health of the emperor Heraclius c. 638–641, BSl. 64, 2006, p. 99–110. The author believes that “Nicephorus’ ultimate source […] speculated wildly on the basis of a limited number of facts” and “was obviously hostile to Heraclius on account of his theological stance.” I disagree with this appraisal on both counts. In my analysis, the description of Heraclius’ condition in his last years originated with a person highly intimate with the emperor and should be admitted as it stands. HERACLIUS AND THE RETURN OF THE HOLy CROSS 209 The latter was the greatest religious event of Heraclius’ reign in Constantinople, in which Pyrrhos must have participated personally. Thus whether we consider Nikephoros’ source as a Constantinopolitan chronicle from the early 640s (with C. Mango) or as a pamphlet written or instigated by Pyrrhos about ten years later, its testimony for the date of the return of the Cross and even more so, on the circumstances of its transfer to Constantinople, is very hard to reject. In the Chronicle of Theophanes, an emotional description of Heraclius’ reception at Constantinople during his triumph is preceded by a curious chronological allegory: Now the emperor, having defeated Persia in the course of six years, made peace in the seventh and returned with great joy to Constantinople, thereby fulfilling a certain mystical allegory: for God completed all of creation in six days and called the seventh the day of rest. So the emperor also, after undergoing many toils for six years, returned in the seventh to the City amid peace and joy, and took his rest.43 Bolotov was right to point out that for an image created by some contemporary rhetorician or poet to catch on and to be quoted, it needed to correspond to reality. He also provided the count of years that underlies the allegory. Heraclius left Constantinople in the spring of 624, indiction 12. Thus he was absent from the capital, making war, in the indictional years 12, 13, 14, 15, 1 and 2, exactly six years ending in August 629. His return in September 629 marked the beginning of the seventh year, the year of peace.44 The Chronicle of Theophanes also preserves another crucial indication. It states that “in the early spring” of the year that followed his triumph—which can only be 630—“setting forth from the Imperial City […], the emperor proceeded to Jerusalem taking with him the venerable and life-giving Cross.”45 IV. The testimony of the TRANSLATIO of saint Anastasios the Persian The Acta and the Translatio of saint Anastasios the Persian were produced in close sequence by a single writer very soon after Anastasios’ martyrdom (January 22, 628), and the subsequent transfer of his relics from Persia to Palestine (631), respectively. For the Translatio, this would indicate composition soon after the deposition of the relics in Saint Anastasios monastery on November 2, 631, the last date cited in the text.46 The Translatio provides another chronological indication in dating to the 3rd indiction (September 629– 43. Theophanes, Chronographia, rec. C. de Boor, Lipsiae 1883, p. 327–8; transl. Mango, The Chronicle of Theophanes (quoted n. 18), p. 457. 44. Болотов, К истории (quoted n. 30), p. 93. 45. Theophanes, ed. de Boor (quoted n. 43), p. 328; transl. Mango, The Chronicle of Theophanes (quoted n. 18), p. 458. Mango, p. 459, n. 1, contests the implication that the Cross was taken to Constantinople, claiming that “this was probably not the case.” 46. In the general appraisal of both texts and in the dating of the Translatio, I follow Flusin, Saint Anastase le Perse (quoted n. 15), vol. II, passim, see p. 329 on the date. P. Speck, Das Martyrion des heiligen Anastasios des Persers und die Rückkehr seines Leichnams, in Id., Varia. 6, Beiträge zum Thema byzantinische Feindseligkeit gegen die Juden im frühen 7. Jahrhundert nebst einer Untersuchung zu Anastasios dem Perser (Poikila Byzantina 15), Bonn 1997, pp. 177–266, argues at length that the texts preserved are, essentially, a late adaptation of the original Acts, but I do not find his arguments conclusive. 210 CONSTANTIN ZUCKERMAN August 630) and to the 20th year of Heraclius’ reign (6.10.629–5.10.630) the emperor’s visit to Jerusalem and the restitution of the Holy Cross.47 As pointed out by Cyril Mango and argued at length by Bernard Flusin,48 this strictly contemporary testimony leaves no doubt that the Cross was deposited by Heraclius in Jerusalem in 630. For both scholars mentioned, this was the only return of the Cross to Jerusalem, to which they attached the date of March 21. In the view being proposed here, this was the second deposition of the Cross at Golgotha in as many years, supposedly forever, even though by an unpredictable irony of history it only stayed in Jerusalem for seven or eight years. Reserving the date of March 21 for the first deposition in 629 leaves us with no chronological framework for 630, yet a new chronology is not hard to build. Heraclius’ visit was, according to the Translatio, the occasion for consecrating Modestos as patriarch of Jerusalem.49 Bishop John of Bolnisi in Georgia, who was active, presumably, in the early ninth century and well versed in Palestinian traditions,50 claimed that the Cross was restituted and Modestos consecrated on one and the same day, the Palm Friday (which precedes Lazarus Saturday). This testimony has been known and quoted for over a century,51 yet it has never found its way into any chronological scheme for the simple reason that the dates of a Palm Friday—April 8 in 629, March 30 in 630, and March 15 in 631—could not be reconciled with the recognized date of the return of the Cross, March 21. In my scheme there is no place for such a reconciliation, and the date of March 30 should be retained for the deposition of the Cross in 630. This date of Modestos’ consecration agrees with two other chronological indications: that he served as patriarch for nine months dying on December 17.52 The Translatio contains another indication that will prove pertinent for our topic. The “brother” who accompanied Anastasios during his deportation and trials, and who decided to go back to Persia to seek his relics, could join the emperor’s suite when it left Jerusalem because it was going his way: he traveled with the emperor as far as Constantina (Tella) in Mesopotamia.53 Assuming that Heraclius left Jerusalem after Easter, he could have reached Constantina, travelling at an easy pace, by the end of May. He did not stay there for long. When the Nestorian catholicos of Persia Ishôyahb II arrived, in July or August, as ambassador of the new Persian queen Boran to announce Shahrvaraz’s assassination (on June 9) and her accession to the throne, he found the emperor in Beroea (Aleppo), in Syria.54 47. Flusin, Saint Anastase le Perse (quoted n. 15), vol. I, p. 99. 48. Mango, Deux études (quoted n. 6), p. 112; Flusin, Saint Anastase le Perse (quoted n. 15), vol. II, pp. 293–309. 49. Flusin, Saint Anastase le Perse (quoted n. 15), vol. I, p. 101. 50. On the author and the date, see S. Verhelst, Trois questions relatives à Jean de Bolnisi et la parabole de la brebis perdue (origénisme, manichéisme, thrènos Adam), Aram 18–19, 2006–7, pp. 165–88, esp. p. 165. 51. Quoted from a manuscript by N. Marr: Антiохъ Стратигъ, Плененiе Iерусалима Персами въ 614 г. : грузинскiй текст, изсл., изд., пер. Н. Марръ, С.-Петербургъ 1909, pp. 23–4. 52. See the sources commented by Flusin, Saint Anastase le Perse (quoted n. 15), p. 316, cf. p. 134.. 53. Flusin, Saint Anastase le Perse (quoted n. 15), vol. I, pp. 98–101. 54. On this embassy, see Flusin, Saint Anastase le Perse (quoted n. 15), vol. II, pp. 319–27, who dates it before the end of the summer 630. HERACLIUS AND THE RETURN OF THE HOLy CROSS 211 V. CHRONICON AD ANNUM CHRISTI 1234 PERTINENS. Heraclius’ itinerary The anonymous Syriac Chronicle dubbed ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens is a many-layered compilation. In the portion that interests us, it is the most complete testimonial for the lost mid-ninth-century chronicle by Dionysios of Tel-Mahre.55 Dionysios disposed, in his turn, of a contemporary description—attributed by Andrew Palmer to Sergios Ruṣafōyō—of Heraclius’ return from Persia after Khosrau II’s overthrow and assassination, which he combined with a later source.56 Chapter CIII of the Chronicle presents, as part of the title, an outline of Heraclius’ itinerary that has never been commented: “CIII. De morte Sirōis; de caede filii eius et de regno Šahrbaraz. De pretioso ligno crucifixonis. – Edessa profectus, Heraclius transiit Euphraten et ivit usque Ierusalem; et inde venit Antiochiam, et exinde Mabbug reversus est.”57 The most striking feature of this itinerary is Heraclius’ swift visit to Jerusalem. For the advocates of a single return of the Cross in 630, this itinerary made no sense since, according to the Translatio, Heraclius went that year from Jerusalem to Constantina in Mesopotamia (see above), and not to Antioch. Now we also know that he came in 630 straight from Constantinople, and not from Edessa. By contrast, Heraclius’ visit to Jerusalem in 629 integrates into the afore-cited itinerary to perfection. The anonymous Chronicle and Michael the Syrian, both going back to Dionysios of Tel-Mahre, describe Heraclius’ slow progress in the summer and fall of 628, as “Heraclius marched towards Syria and his brother Theodoric [Theodore] went ahead to eject the Persians from the cities as agreed in the earlier pact with Shahrvarāz and as confirmed by the recent treaty with Shīrōē.”58 Edessa became a major challenge for Theodore, because its Persian garrison tried to resist, and for Heraclius, who came to the re-conquered city from Tella (Constantina) only to be refused communion by its miaphysite bishop. While Theodore, “who had left Edessa and crossed the Euphrates, arrived at Mabbūgh and set about expelling the Persians from Syria and Phoenicia,” Heraclius spent at least part of the fall in Edessa.59 The itinerary states that from Antioch Heraclius “went back” to Hierapolis (Mabbug), which means that he stayed in this city on his way to Jerusalem as well. The Chronicle of Theophanes conserves the explicit indication that from Edessa Heraclius moved to Hierapolis and only there received the news of Kavadh II Shiroe’s death.60 Since Shiroe 55. See the attempted reconstruction by A. Palmer, The seventh century in the West-Syrian chronicles (Translated texts for historians 15), Liverpool 1993, pp. 85–221, esp. p. 90. 56. On Sergios, and on Dionysios’ habit, most unfortunate in our perspective, of “amalgamating” his sources, see Palmer, The seventh century (quoted n. 55), pp. 98–100. 57. Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens, interpretatus est I.-B. Chabot (CSCO 109. Scriptores Syri 56), Lovanii 1937, p. 186. In Palmer, The seventh century (quoted n. 55), p. 141, the title is omitted; in R. G. Hoyland, Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the circulation of historical knowledge in late antiquity and early Islam (Translated texts for historians 57), Liverpool 2011, p. 83, the itinerary is omitted together with the title. 58. Transl. Palmer, The seventh century (quoted n. 55), pp. 138–9. 59. Transl. Palmer, The seventh century (quoted n. 55), pp. 139–40; cf. Flusin, Saint Anastase le Perse (quoted n. 15), vol. II, pp. 283–8, who cites more sources. 60. Theophanes, ed. de Boor (quoted n. 43), p. 329; transl. Mango, The Chronicle of Theophanes (quoted n. 18), p. 459. 212 CONSTANTIN ZUCKERMAN died late in September or early in October, this news could have reached Heraclius no later than November. For any travels he undertook in 629, Hierapolis was the obvious starting point. Most interestingly, the Chronicle of 1234 and the parallel narration of Michael the Syrian tell us that the Cross was delivered to Heraclius in Mabbug.61 In both texts, this indication is part of the scheme that makes Shahrvaraz send back the Cross after he captures the Persian throne and after Heraclius dispatches an embassy to congratulate him on his success; this whole narrative is totally detached from real chronology. But the detail concerning the Cross’ transfer at Hierapolis-Mabbug sounds plausible. Heraclius and Shahrvaraz probably received the news of Kavadh II Shiroe’s death at about the same time, and we will never know who of the two took the initiative of engaging the other (unless, of course, they were previously in contact). But it must have been no later than January that Heraclius, while staying at Hierapolis, learned that Shahrvaraz could deliver into his hands the precious trophy that the entire Persian court had been unable to recover: the Holy Cross, wood and reliquary, in mint condition. This was one of the elements in the strategic alliance that Heraclius and Shahrvaraz had many reasons to forge. By that time, the emperor’s brother Theodore must have finished expelling the Persians from Syria and Phoenicia. Eunuch Narses, “head of the imperial chamberlains” (praepositus sacri cubiculi), was sent to Palestine, and while his main task consisted, in my view, in making preparations for Heraclius’ visit, he made the last remaining Persian soldiers flee.62 The Cross was brought to Hierapolis some time in February and deposited on Golgotha on the 21st of March. Our itinerary supplies another indication that is not found in any other source: Heraclius’ journey from Jerusalem to Antioch, where he must have sojourned late in April or in May. The only reason that could bring Heraclius to Antioch was meeting the miaphysite patriarch of the city, Anastasios “the Camel Driver.” This meeting was the cornerstone of the new imperial policy, which produced, as of summer 629, the diplomatic drive aimed at imposing the authority of the patriarch of Antioch over the miaphysitic Church of Persia.63 We can now vividly imagine the emperor, Holy Cross in hands, extracting from patriarch Anastasios the doctrinal concessions, which laid the ground for their pact. This pact collapsed not long afterwards, at a meeting in HierapolisMabbug, when it became apparent that Anastasios failed to sway his own bishops into accepting the negotiated compromise. From Antioch Heraclius moved to Hierapolis, where he probably spent the month of June, expecting news of the Persian army movements. The bulk of Shahrvaraz’s forces were concentrated in Egypt, and their withdrawal, which could only take place after 61. Transl. Palmer, The seventh century (quoted n. 55), p. 142. Flusin, Saint Anastase le Perse (quoted n. 15), vol. II, p. 291, n. 31, claims that the two narratives are independent of one another. 62. La prise de Jérusalem XXIV, 4–5, transl. Garitte (quoted n. 14), p. 54, describes the Persians’ disarray at being put to flight by a eunuch. This Narses is not in the PLRE; he could be the same as its Narses 11, former head of the imperial household, addressee of Sophronios, Anacreontica 17, made by the emperor bishop of Ascalon. 63. This crucial launching point is missing in the brilliant analysis of Heraclius’ policy by M. Jankowiak, Essai d’histoire politique du monothélisme à partir de la correspondance entre les empereurs byzantins, les patriarches de Constantinople et les papes de Rome, PhD thesis, École pratique des hautes études, Paris 2009, pp. 28–49. HERACLIUS AND THE RETURN OF THE HOLy CROSS 213 Heraclius’ return from Jerusalem, must have been carefully negotiated. In July, when the Persian train was probably approaching Osrhoene, Shahrvaraz was invited to take a deep detour into the Roman territory to meet Heraclius at Arabissos Tripotamos in Cappadocia. Their encounter in July must have been the occasion for baptizing and delivering to Heraclius two of Shahrvaraz’s children, whom we only know by their Christian names as Nikê and Niketas, promoted patrician.64 The Cross was dispatched to Constantinople, where it was venerated in August, while Heraclius followed it at leisure and arrived early in September, so as not to have his own triumph overshadowed by the celebration of the Cross. An incisive commentary of this ceremonial arrangement, which consisted in separating the two festivities, belongs to Vasily Bolotov: as he pointed out, the heroic emperor with the Holy Cross in hands would have appeared as a meaningless pale figure, a simple carrier of the precious relic.65 A discrete detail of the preparations for the triumph has been little noticed so far. Heraclius’ eldest daughter Epiphania, crowned empress with her late mother’s name Eudokia on October 4, 612, was betrothed to the qaghan of the Turks, as part of Heraclius’ Turkic alliance, in the summer of 627. The numismatic evidence shows conclusively, however, that it was toward early summer 629 that Heraclius “directed that his daughter Eudokia should depart from Byzantium inasmuch as he had betrothed her to the Turk.”66 Eudokia used to be depicted, alongside her father and her brother Heraclius Constantine, on bronze coins (folles), and her absence is observed for the first time on a unique coin dated from Heraclius’ 19th year and from indiction 2, that is before September 1st 629 (all other coins from year 19 carry her image).67 There is every reason to believe that her precipitous departure was largely motivated by Martina’s desire to be the only empress at the triumph. Even more significantly, all Heraclius’ coins up to the year 19 included show him with no mustache and with a beard so short that on bronze coins it cannot be distinguished (except in the first years of the reign when he was shown alone or with his son only). As of the year 20 he appears with a huge mustache and with a distinct beard that continues growing to the end of his reign. This can only mean that as of the fall 629 the people of Constantinople, where the coins were minted, discovered the emperor’s new hairstyle, which was faithfully reproduced by the die engravers.68 As Heraclius went to celebrate the victory, Shahrvaraz’s children were left behind to undergo a crash-course in Greek and Christianity. Heraclius manifestly took care not to mar his triumph by the presence of children of the “accursed Shahrvaraz.” They arrived at the capital late in October and two imperial marriages, mentioned in Nikephoros, 64. On the Arabissos meeting and Shahrvaraz’s children, see Mango, Deux études (quoted n. 6), p. 109–17. In my article, La petite augusta et le Turc : Epiphania-Eudocie sur les monnaies d’Héraclius, RN 150, 1995, pp. 113–26, on p. 118, I attached to this meeting a date, July 17, which was an oversight. 65. Болотов, К истории (quoted n. 30), p. 81. 66. Nikephoros, Short history 18, ed. transl. Mango (quoted n. 23), pp. 66–7 (translation modified). In Nikephoros, this indication comes just before the story of the return of the Cross. 67. On this episode, see my La petite augusta (quoted n. 64), pp. 116–8; on the coin, see MIB III, p. 103, no. 163 (Heraclius), exceptionally provided with an indictional date. 68. For the new hairstyle, see MIB III, no. 164 (Heraclius); on the realism of the early Byzantine imperial coin portraits, cf. H. Pottier, L’empereur Justinien survivant à la peste bubonique (542), in Mélanges Cécile Morrisson (TM 16), Paris 2010, pp. 685–92. 214 CONSTANTIN ZUCKERMAN then took place: Nikê’s “marriage” to Theodosios, Heraclius’ son from Martina (born deaf-mute, he could not have been more than five or six years old),69 and the marriage of Heraclius’ elder son and co-ruler Constantine to his second cousin Gregoria. “In the early spring,” no doubt about the end of February, Heraclius, Martina, and at least some of their children departed with the Cross from Constantinople to Jerusalem (cf. above). My proposed reconstruction allows one to follow Heraclius’ travels almost month by month from his withdrawal from Persia in the early summer 628 to the early stages of his new stay in the East in the summer of 630; his revised itinerary during the last stage of the Persian campaign can be found in my articles cited at the beginning of this study. The two years that followed the victory appear particularly confused in the studies available. The nearly universal conviction that Heraclius promulgated his novel of March 21, 629 at the capital (and therefore spent the winter 628/9 there), in conjunction with the total disarray regarding the conditions and date(s) of the return of the Cross precluded any meaningful reconstruction of his movements, both on the map and in time.70 VI. Shahrvaraz and the Holy Cross The proposed reconstruction of Heraclius’ itinerary and the movements of the Cross between the spring of 629 and the spring of 630 makes it clear that the Cross came into Heraclius’ hands early in 629, probably in the month of February. A comprehensive survey of evidence carried out by Flusin shows the near consensus of independent sources stating that the Cross was handed over to Heraclius by Shahrvaraz.71 This is the basic crux of the Holy Cross problem. According to Strategios’ highly reliable account in the Sack of Jerusalem, the Cross, taken by its captors to Persia, suffered much abuse. He describes the scene when the Persians place the Cross on a doorstep and force their Christian captives to trample on it under the threat of death; in another scene, King Khosrau II and his dignitaries deride the Cross set in front of them “as Christ stood before Pilate.” Finally, a queen ex haeresi Nestorii (Shirin) obtains the Cross from the king and has it resealed in its reliquary (accepit lignum sanctae crucis eodem modo sigillatum).72 This data stands in no contradiction to the indication of the somewhat later Khuzistan Chronicle (alias Anonymus Guidi), according to which the leading Persian Nestorian Jazdin, with the king’s permission, took for himself a part of the Cross.73 yet, in the first half of 629 Shahrvaraz had his headquarters 69. Cf. my remarks in La petite augusta (quoted n. 64), p. 121. 70. E.g., J. Howard-Johnston, Heraclius’ Persian campaigns and the revival of the East Roman Empire, 622–630, War in history 6, 1999, pp. 1–44, reprinted in Id., East Rome, Sasanian Persia and the end of antiquity, Aldershot 2006, no. VIII, on pp. 28–9, postulates Heraclius’ return to Constantinople in 628 with no evidence cited and does not specify the circumstances of the return of the Cross (early in 630?); W. E. Kaegi, Heraclius, emperor of Byzantium, Cambridge 2003, p. 185, states, for the years in question, that “Heraclius’ itinerary remains murky” and, in general, presents a very different picture (pp. 178–91) from the one proposed in this study. 71. Flusin, Saint Anastase le Perse (quoted n. 15), vol. II, pp. 295–7. 72. La prise de Jérusalem XVIII, 2–7, XIX, 4, XX, 4–5, transl. Garitte (quoted n. 14), pp. 37–8, 42, 45, respectively. 73. Transl. Th. Nöldeke, Die von Guidi herausgegebene syrische Chronik (Sitzungsberichte der Philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 128, 9), Wien 1893, HERACLIUS AND THE RETURN OF THE HOLy CROSS 215 in Alexandria.74 He could, potentially, search for the Cross at Ctesiphon only after he took it by siege and seized the throne from the child Ardashir on April 27, 630. Several sources, including the Khuzistan Chronicle, state that Shahrvaraz gave back the Cross after he had become the king of Persia (cf. below), but on this schedule, the restitution of the Cross at Jerusalem could not have taken place before March 631 (as pointed out by Grumel), which is, for all the reasons exposed, totally out of question. In defending the year 630, Flusin has devised a scheme, in which Shahrvaraz captures Ctesiphon late in 629 or early in 630, exercises regency over Ardashir for several months before having him killed, and during this period of time finds the Cross and sends it back to Heraclius. This regency is not mentioned in any source. Its only support is the story of a battle between Shahrvaraz’s troops and the Turkic vanguard advancing from Albania, which can be read in the late-tenth-century History of Caucasian Albania compiled by Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i. Flusin believes that Shahrvaraz acted in this episode, which dates to 629, in his capacity of “regent” of Persia defending his country from a foreign invasion.75 Our source, however—a contemporary biography of the Albanian catholicos Viroy preserved by Movsēs—makes it clear that the Turkic raid was very much aimed at Shahrvaraz in person, “the proud Persian general who still held Palestine.” The Turks, Byzantium’s allies, ignored his recent alliance with Heraclius and certainly did not perceive him as the ruler of Persia. What is more, the English translation of the History used by Flusin omits a crucial chronological indication: the raid took place in the second year of Ardashir (starting June 17, 629) in the summertime, that is, no later than August-September.76 There is no way that Shahrvaraz, who only started his long march on Ctesiphon after meeting Heraclius in Arabissos in July, could have conquered the city (after a lengthy siege, according to Tabari) by August and sent his troops, as regent, to fight the Turks in Armenia. Therefore, the regency theory cannot hold, adding one more reason to many for abandoning the idea that the Persians returned the Cross in 630 and that Shahrvaraz could perform this act in his capacity as the Persian king (or regent). We are left with Mango’s cautiously formulated suggestion that Shahrvaraz restituted the Cross before he became king.77 Our best authority, the “Pyrrhos Pamphlet,” supports this option. The author’s view of the Persian kings’ succession is confused (cf. above), but he recalls the moment when “Sarbaros requested from the emperor the Persian crown and the latter gave it to him.” pp. 24–5. The Chronicle does not mention in this context Shirin and claims that what was left of the Cross was stored in the royal treasure. 74. The Armenian history attributed to Sebeos, 40, transl. R. W. Thomson, commentary J. HowardJohnston, assistance T. Greenwood (Translated texts for historians 31), 2 vol., Liverpool 1999, vol. I, p. 88. 75. Flusin, Saint Anastase le Perse (quoted n. 15), vol. II, pp. 306–9. The regency theory is retained by Howard-Johnston, The Armenian history (quoted n. 74), p. 224; G. Greatrex, S. N. C. Lieu, The Roman eastern frontier and the Persian wars. 2, AD 363–630, London – New york 2002, p. 228. 76. In C. J. F. Dowsett (transl.), The history of the Caucasian Albanians by Movsēs Dasxuranci, II, 16, Oxford 1961, p. 104, the crucial indication i zamanaks amarnayin is missing, see Movsēs Kałankatuac‘i, Patmut‘iwn Aluanic‘ asharhi, ed. V. Arak‘eljan, Erevan 1983, p. 167. For more details, see Zuckerman, La petite augusta (quoted n. 64), pp. 118–9. There is every reason to believe that this raid was coordinated with the simultaneous departure of Heraclius’ daughter Eudokia to meet her Turkic fiancé, cf. part V above. 77. Mango, Deux études (quoted n. 6), p. 113. 216 CONSTANTIN ZUCKERMAN [Then] they agreed among themselves that all the Roman territory occupied by the Persians should be restored to the Romans. When peace had been concluded, Sarbaros immediately returned to the Romans both Egypt and all the eastern lands after withdrawing the Persians that were there; and he sent to the emperor the life-giving Cross. Now Herakleios conferred the dignity of patrician upon Niketas, son of Sarbaros, and gave the latter’s daughter Nike in marriage to his own son Theodosios, born of Martina.78 The return of the Cross is placed here in the context of contacts between Heraclius and Shahrvaraz that produce the withdrawal of Persian troops from the Byzantine East and culminate in the transfer of Shahrvaraz’s two children to Heraclius. Mango, convinced that the return of the Cross took place in 630, dates the events involving Shahrvaraz’s children late in 629 or early in 630, after the meeting at Arabissos and before Ardashir’s overthrow.79 Now we know, however, that “Patrician Niketas” (Shahrvaraz’s son baptized and endowed with a new name and title) came to Constantinople between mid-September (when he “sends” to the city the Holy Sponge) and late October (when he brings the Holy Lance) 629. The most appropriate occasion for delivering both children to Heraclius, actually as hostages, was the meeting of Arabissos itself, when Heraclius endorsed Shahrvaraz’s quest for the Persian crown. By mid-September, Shahrvaraz’s son could already be presented as “Patrician Niketas.” Thus the whole cluster of events described in the source of Nikephoros, including the return of the Cross, belongs in the first seven months of 629. Taking the Cross from Shahrvaraz was not an easy option. Therefore, it is important to establish that Heraclius had no choice. The “Pyrrhos Pamphlet” informs us that Heraclius, upon being notified of Khosrau II’s overthrow, “made a fervent plea concerning the Holy Cross” in his very first letter to Kavadh II Shiroe. Our source also reports the king’s cautious promise to deliver the Cross “if it comes his way” (εἴπερ αὐτῷ κατάφωρα γένοιτο),80 knowing that this will not happen. There can be no doubt that Shiroe and, after his death, the regents for the young Ardashir left no palace unturned in search for the Cross, without which, as they knew, the war could not end for Byzantium. If they did not send it back, this was not because they wanted to keep it. The proponents of the return of the Cross by King Shahrvaraz in May 630 never ask the question how could he discover in a few days the precious relic that his predecessors on the throne had been desperately searching during two full years. Fortunately, the scheme that I propose removes this question entirely. The Cross delivered by Shahrvaraz required a very thorough authentication. This procedure is described in detail by the source of Nikephoros: Taking the life-giving woodpieces [ξύλα] sealed—they remained as they were when they were captured—Heraclius came to Jerusalem and exhibited them to the archpriest Modestos and his clergy. They acknowledged the seal to be intact, and since [the woodpieces] had been preserved untouched and unseen by the profane and murderous hands of the barbarians, they offered to God a hymn of thanksgiving. The bishop produced the key that 78. Nikephoros, Short history 17, ed. transl. Mango (quoted n. 23), pp. 64–5. 79. Mango, Deux études (quoted n. 6), p. 112. 80. Nikephoros, Short history 15, ed. transl. Mango (quoted n. 23), pp. 62–3 (translation modified). HERACLIUS AND THE RETURN OF THE HOLy CROSS 217 belonged to them [i.e. to the reliquary containing the fragments of the Cross] and that remained in his possession, and when they were unlocked, everyone worshiped them. After they had been exalted there, the emperor sent them straightaway to Byzantium.81 The most essential feature of this description—the observation of the seals being intact—is independently confirmed by the Story of the return of the Cross.82 The authentication was all the more essential since its demonstrated result stood in blatant contradiction with the treatment inflicted on the Cross first by its Persian captors and then by its Christian venerators in Ctesiphon. Anatole Frolow admits that this “mise en scène” was aimed at certifying a relic, whose genuineness could be called in question, yet in accusing the emperor of “une fraude, peut-être même un sacrilège,” which consisted in forging the reliquary’s seal, he does not call in doubt the restitution of the Holy Cross by the Persian king Shahrvaraz in 630.83 If, however, the reliquary came in 629 from Alexandria, where the Cross had never been, falsifying the seal was not the main issue. The Holy Sponge and the Holy Spear must have come, half a year later, from the very same source. Of the crowd that stood in the Holy Sepulchre on March 21, 629, watching Modestos take out the original key of the inviolate reliquary—which he, since he was not a cleric of the Holy Sepulchre in 614, had no reason to hold—quite a few came back from Persian captivity and had witnessed the abuse of the Cross fifteen years earlier. They knew at first hand that heretics at Ctesiphon had venerated the Cross outside its reliquary. Did they all believe in a miracle? This question would remain rhetorical if not for one neglected testimony. One of the ancient miracles of saint Anastasios begins in Jerusalem, where, in 631, the saint’s relics were brought first, and terminates in Caesarea, where they were later deposited in a sanctuary built at the Tetrapylon. The connecting link between the two cities is a lady from a distinguished family of Caesarea, improperly named Virtue (Aretê), who makes an irreverent remark in Jerusalem, and then is punished and pardoned in her native city. In describing the people waiting for the martyr’s relics at the Nea Church of the Mother of God in Jerusalem, with the holy woodpieces of the Cross put on display (τά τε ἱερὰ ξύλα σημάναντες),84 the writer addresses to this whole crowd an unexpected 81. This citation completes the text quoted above, see n. 29. 82. La prise de Jérusalem XXIV, 9, transl. Garitte (quoted n. 14), p. 55. Mango, Deux études (quoted n. 6), p. 113, seems to believe that Nikephoros repeats the testimony of the Story, but there is no dependence between the two texts, and the source of Nikephoros, the Pyrrhos Pamphlet, is probably more ancient than the Story. This detail is the main proof that the Story cannot belong to the same author as the Sack of Jerusalem, which describes the Cross being taken out of its reliquary. 83. A. Frolow, La Vraie Croix et les expéditions d’Héraclius en Perse, REB 11, 1953, pp. 88–105, see pp. 99, 101. While paying little heed to chronological details, Frolow argues, rather incoherently, that Heraclius almost voluntarily delayed the return of the Holy Cross in order to use the festivities, including the ceremony discussed, for legitimizing his marriage with Martina. 84. My perception of the geographical setting of the miracle differs from the editor’s. Flusin, Saint Anastase le Perse (quoted n. 15), vol. I, pp. 130–1, places the whole story in Caesarea despite the explicit mention of the Holy City and the Nea Church in the first scene. But the main point of discord concerns the phrase τά τε ἱερὰ ξύλα, which Flusin translates “en faisant sonner les simandres sacrés,” following the Latin sacraque ligna sonantes. yet, whatever the source of error of the Latin translator, the 218 CONSTANTIN ZUCKERMAN reproach, accusing it of “lack of faith” (ὀλιγοπιστία). Virtue, in a striking exhibition of this spiritual failing (δυσπιστία), makes the sudden remark: “I would not venerate a relic coming from Persia” (ἐγὼ λείψανον ἀπὸ Περσίδος ἐρχόμενον οὐ προσκυνῶ). Why this sweeping censure, as if dubious relics arrived to Jerusalem from Persia every couple of months? The question has never been asked, and yet the answer is obvious. Only two relics are known to have ever arrived from Persia, in swift succession: the Holy Cross and the body of saint Anastasios. The crowd that gathered specially in the latter’s honor could not be accused of “lack of faith” in his respect. Virtue’s skepticism and the writer’s reproach clearly concern the other relic, prominently displayed in the crowd. When, ca. 638, the Cross was discretely smuggled from Jerusalem to Constantinople, we do not hear a single voice regretting the great loss. This state of dyspistia obviously could not last. In the generation that followed the return of the Cross a coherent story began to be told, in which Shahrvaraz sent back the precious relic after becoming king of Persia. The earliest datable versions of this scenario read, independently, in Pseudo-Sebeos (Shahrvaraz notifies Heraclius of Ardashir’s murder and hands over the Cross to Heraclius’ embassy that comes to congratulate him on his victory) and in the Khuzistan Chronicle (Shahrvaraz, after murdering Ardashir, hands over the Cross to the Byzantine contingent that assisted him in conquering the throne), both texts dating from the mid- to late 650s.85 The Story of the return of the Cross attributes the restitution of the Cross to Shahrvaraz (after murdering Ardashir) with no further details.86 Understanding the emergence of this narrative that founded the traditional chronology is not a challenge. More challenging, to my mind, would be writing the story of the return of the Cross through the eyes of the skeptical lady Virtue.87 semantron, ξύλον, is never, to my knowledge, designated as holy, and the verb σημαίνω, which can mean “display,” never has the meaning of “strike” or “make sound.” The presence of the Holy Cross, brought to Jerusalem a year earlier, leaves no doubt as to the setting of the event. 85. Pseudo-Sebeos 40, transl. Thomson (quoted n. 74), p. 88; Khuzistan Chronicle, transl. Nöldeke (quoted n. 73), pp. 31–2. On the date of each chronicle, see recently Howard-Johnston, Witnesses (quoted n. 3), pp. 73–4 and 128–9. 86. La prise de Jérusalem XXIV, 6–7, transl. Garitte (quoted n. 14), p. 54. All published versions contain this story, yet the Arabic version C mentions the restitution twice: first by Shiroe (XXIV, 1) and then by Shahrvaraz (XXIV, 7), transl. Garitte (quoted n. 14), p. 100. The former version, which is, in any case, false, may belong or not to the more primitive state of the text. 87. For a more traditional approach, cf. J. W. Drijvers, Heraclius and the restitutio crucis : notes on symbolism and ideology, in The reign of Heraclius (610–641) : crisis and confrontation, ed. by G. J. Reinink and B. H. Stolte, Leuven 2002, pp. 175–90; the author openly admits his exasperation with chronological issues (pp. 177–8). There is little about the Cross in y. Stoyanov, Defenders and enemies of the true Cross : the Sasanian conquest of Jerusalem in 614 and Byzantine ideology of anti-Persian warfare(Sitzungsberichte, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 819), Wien 2011. B  /O  : Association des amis du Centre d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance 52, rue du Cardinal Lemoine – 75005 Paris. Tél. 01 44 27 17 79 – fax 01 44 27 18 85 e-mail : achcbyz@college-de-france.fr ou commande en ligne sur www.achcbyz.com Titres TM 15 16 17 BR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MTM 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 PCBE Prix unit. • Mélanges Jean-Pierre Sodini • Mélanges Cécile Morrisson • Constructing the seventh century, edited by Constantin Zuckerman • J. Lefort, Société rurale et histoire du paysage à Byzance • M.-Fr. Auzépy, L’histoire des iconoclastes • J.-Cl. Cheynet, La société byzantine : l’apport des sceaux, 2 volumes • J. Gascou, Fiscalité et société en Égypte byzantine • G. Dagron et V. Déroche, Juifs et chrétiens en Orient byzantin • J. Beaucamp, Femmes, patrimoines, normes à Byzance • D. Feissel, Documents, droit, diplomatique de l’Empire romain tardif • G. Dagron, Idées byzantines, 2 volumes • A. Laniado, Recherches sur les notables municipaux dans l’Empire protobyzantin • La pétition à Byzance, éd. D. Feissel et J. Gascou • Recherches sur la Chronique de Jean Malalas I, éd. J. Beaucamp et al. • C. Zuckerman, Du village à l’Empire : autour du Registre iscal d’Aphroditô • Byzance et les reliques du Christ, éd. J. Durand et B. Flusin • M. Loukaki, C. Jouanno, Discours en l’honneur du patriarche Georges Xiphilin • Lire et écrire à Byzance, éd. B. Mondrain • D. Feissel, Chroniques d’épigraphie byzantine (1987-2004) • K. Smyrlis, La fortune des grands monastères byzantins • Les nécropoles de Viminacium à l’époque des Grandes Migrations, éd. V. Ivanisevic et al. • Pèlerinages et lieux saints dans l’Antiquité et le Moyen Âge. Mélanges Pierre Maraval • Recherches sur la Chronique de Jean Malalas II, éd. J. Beaucamp et al. • La Crimée entre Byzance et le Khaganat khazar, éd. C. Zuckerman • M.-H. Congourdeau, L’embryon et son âme dans les sources grecques • M. Detoraki, Le Martyre de saint Aréthas et de ses compagnons (BHG 166) • J.-P. Grélois, Pierre Gilles, itinéraires byzantins • Oralité et lien social au Moyen Âge, éd. M.-Fr. Auzépy et G. Saint-Guillain • Puer Apuliae. Mélanges offerts à Jean-Marie Martin, 2 volumes • Guerre et société au Moyen Âge, éd. D. Barthélemy et J.-Cl. Cheynet • Le massacre de Najrân. 2, Juifs et chrétiens en Arabie, éd. J. Beaucamp et al. • J.-Cl. Cheynet et D. Theodoridis, Sceaux byzantins de la collection D. heodoridis • A. Mardirossian, La Collection canonique d’Antioche • Liquid & Multiple : Individuals & identities in the thirteenth-century Aegean (eds.) G. Saint-Guillain & D. Stathakopoulos • V. Ivanišević and M. Kazanski, he Pontic-Danubian Realm in the Period of the Great Migration • Les réseaux familiaux Antiquité tardive et Moyen Âge, (éd.) Béatrice Caseau • Géoponiques, (trad.) J-P. Grélois et J. Lefort • Réduire le schisme ? Ecclésiologies et politiques de l’Union entre Orient et Occident (XIIIe-XVIIIe siècle), édité par Marie-Hélène Blanchet et Frédéric Gabriel 75 € 90 € 90 € 40 € 40 € 60 € 40 € 40 € 40 € 40 € 60 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 60 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 24 € 60 € 24 € 30 € 24 € 30 € 24 € 30 € 24 € 180 € 144 € • Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire. 4, la Gaule Chrétienne sous la direction de Luce Pietri et Marc Heijmans 360 € 288 € • Participation forfaitaire aux frais de port / Postage (ixed rate for the entire order) Total 60 € 72 € 72 € 32 € 32 € 45 € 32 € 32 € 32 € 32 € 45 € 24 € 24 € 24 € 24 € 24 € 24 € 24 € 24 € 24 € 24 € 24 € 24 € 24 € 24 € 24 € 24 € 24 € 24 € 24 € 24 € 24 € 24 € • S. Destephen, Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire. 3, Diocèse d’Asie Occ. Mon. • Kiev-Cherson-Constantinople, Ukrainian Papers • Collectanea Borisoglebica. 1, éd. C. Zuckerman • F. Androshchuk V. Zotsenko / Scandinavian Antiquities of Southern Rus’ • N. Alekseyenko L’Administration Byzantine de Cherson Catalogue • E. Vardanyan, Relets d’Arménie - Relections of Armenia • Jean-Bernard de Vaivre, Monuments médiévaux de Chypre : Photographies de la mission de Camille Enlart en 1896 N° d’ex. 40 € 40 € 50 € 50 € 29 € 32 32 40 40 23 € € € € € 36 € 29 € 6€ BON DE COMMANDE AU VERSO Association non assujettie à la TVA BON DE COMMANDE ET DE LIVRAISON COORDONNEES DU CLIENT nom / raison sociale adresse e-mail n° fax OUVRAGES ACHETES références prix TTC Frais de port Montant à payer 6€ € J’ai bien reçu / Je commande les ouvrages décrits ci-dessus. J’ai bien noté qu’une facture me sera envoyée à l’adresse indiquée. J’autorise ACHCByz à débiter, sur son site www.achcbyz.com (sécurisé par la Banque Postale), ma carte bancaire pour le montant à payer. n° carte bancaire : date de validité : cryptogramme (3 derniers chiffres au dos de la carte) : Date et signature Nota important : - seules les cartes bancaires françaises au logo « CB » et internationales appartenant au réseau VISA ou EUROCARD / MASTERCARD sont acceptées. Règlement par chèque bancaire ou postal français joint, à l’ordre de ACHCByz ou par virement : Code banque Code guichet N° compte Clé RIB Domiciliation IBAN BIC 30002 00420 0000009504J 03 Paris Maubert Mutualité FR76 3000 2004 2000 0000 9504 J03 CRLyFRPP Je demande l’envoi du volume par la poste à l’adresse suivante :