THE INVENTION OF THE HOLY CROSS. — Reliable information about the wood of the Cross dates back to the mid-4th century. St. Cyril of Jerusalem mentions it three times in his Catecheses, stating that in 347 the relics of the True Cross were widespread (Cat., IV, 10; X, 19; XIII, 4: PG 33, 467-469; 686-687; 775-78). It should be noted that St. Cyril delivered these sermons in the basilica of the Holy Sepulchre.
Moreover, two inscriptions discovered some time ago in Algeria, one from 359 and the other of uncertain date, explicitly mention two fragments of the wood of the Cross. In 379, it is known that St. Macrina, sister of St. Gregory of Nyssa, carried a relic of the Cross enclosed in an iron ring (Vita s. Macrinae: Acta SS. Iulii, IV, p. 601). Around 385, the pilgrim Egeria describes the sacred ceremonies of Good Friday in Jerusalem and testifies to having seen the wood of the Cross in the hands of the bishop as he presented it to the faithful for the ritual kiss (S. Silviae peregrinatio, 37). At the end of the 4th century, St. John Chrysostom reports that in Constantinople many Christians wore around their necks a particle of the Cross enclosed in gold reliquaries (Contra Judaeos et Gentiles, 10: PG 48, 826-827). Finally, in 403, St. Paulinus of Nola sent a relic of the Cross to his friend Sulpicius Severus for a new church “apud Primuliacum” in Gaul (Paulinus, Epist., XXXI, 3: PL 61, 325 ff.).
But when, by whom, and under what circumstances was the Cross of the Redeemer discovered? The witnesses cited above do not say. On the other hand, a letter from 351 by St. Cyril to Emperor Constantius provides only a vague hint on this matter, and moreover its authenticity is contested: “The salutary wood of the Cross was found in Jerusalem in the time of your father Constantine of happy memory and most dear to God” (Ep. ad Const. Imper., 3: PG 33, 1167-70).
It is necessary to wait until 395 to obtain detailed information about the Holy Cross in Italy; this is found in the discourse of St. Ambrose at the funeral of Emperor Theodosius, which recounts how the discovery of the precious wood occurred during excavations ordered by St. Helena, mother of Constantine, in 326, during her visit to the Holy Places. The Saviour’s Cross, confused among those of the two thieves, was recognized by the titulus affixed by Pilate (De obitu Theodosii, 41-46: PL 16, 1462-64). Six years later, Rufinus, in his Hist. ecc. (I, 7-8: PL 21, 475-78), adds some significant details to the Ambrosian version. According to him, St. Helena went to Jerusalem not out of piety but following visions. The True Cross was not recognized by the titulus but by the instantaneous healing of a dying woman. St. Paulinus and Sulpicius Severus even speak of the resurrection of a dead man and the intervention of the Jews in the great event (Paulinus, Epist., XXXI, 1: PL 61, 325 ff.; Sulpicius Severus, Chronicon, II, 34: PL 20, 148). Forty years later, Sozomen reports that in his time it was believed that a Jew, prompted by an ancient book of memoirs, had identified the site of Calvary (Hist. eccl., II, 1: PG 67, 930 ff.). St. Gregory of Tours, at the end of the 6th century, even gives his name: he was called Judas and, after his conversion, Cyriacus (Historia Francorum, I, 34: PL 71, 179).
As can be seen, the development of the tradition finds its support in Western authors, although in St. John Chrysostom there is a fleeting mention of the recognition of the True Cross by means of the titulus (In Ioan., Homil., LXXXV, 1: PG 59, 461). A strange version of the event is found instead in Edessa, in the so-called Doctrine of Addai, a Syriac adaptation from the early 5th century of the Abgar Legend. The event, in its broad outlines, maintains the traditional features; but the event is traced back to the time of Tiberius, with Claudius as vice-emperor, whose wife, named Protonice, assumes the role of protagonist. Thus, it is the vice-emperor’s daughter herself who is resurrected.
After observing the development and embellishment of the tradition with elements of every kind, one may ask whether the Ambrosian version of 395 is the first in chronological order and what historical value should be attributed to II. The solution to this problem encounters considerable difficulties. Eusebius of Caesarea, so close to the events and present in 335 at the consecration of the basilica of the Holy Sepulchre, has not a word to say about II. Yet in the De vita Constantini, written two years later, he does narrate the journey of St. Helena to the Holy Places and the construction of the two basilicas, which she herself desired, at Bethlehem and on the Mount of Olives. One would have to say that the precious discovery occurred at a later time, after that date but before 347, when St. Cyril only affirms the universal diffusion of the relics of the Cross. The circumstances remain unknown.
For the feasts of the Invention and Exaltation of the Cross, see CROSS. — See pl. X, 7: