INVENTION OF THE HOLY CROSS. — Reliable information concerning the wood of the Cross dates back to the middle of the fourth century. St. Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of it three times in his Catechesis, affirming that in 347 the relics of the true Cross were spread everywhere (Cat., IV, 10; X, 19; XIII, 4: PG 33, 467–469; 686–87; 775–78). It should be noted that St. Cyril preached his sermons in the basilica of the Holy Sepulchre.
Moreover, two inscriptions brought to light some time ago in Algeria, one dating from 359 and the other of uncertain date, explicitly mention two fragments of the wood of the Cross. In 379 we hear of St. Macrina, sister of St. Gregory of Nyssa, who carried a relic of the Cross enclosed in an iron ring (De vita s. Macrinae: Acta SS. Iulii, IV, p. 601). Around 385 the pilgrim Egeria describes the sacred rites of Good Friday in Jerusalem and testifies that she saw the wood of the Cross in the hands of the bishop, as he presented it to the faithful for the ritual kiss (S. Silviae peregrination, 37). At the end of the fourth century St. John Chrysostom reports that in Constantinople many Christians wore a particle of the Cross around their necks, enclosed in golden reliquaries (Contra Judaeos et Gentiles, 10: PG 48, 826–37). 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 (St. 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 already cited do not say. On the other hand, St. Cyril’s letter of 351 to the emperor Constantius gives only too vague an indication in this regard, and its authenticity is moreover disputed: «The saving wood of the Cross was found in Jerusalem in the time of your father Constantine, of blessed memory and most dear to God» (Ep. ad Const. Imper., 3: PG 33, 1167–70).
It is necessary to wait until 305 to obtain detailed information concerning the i. of the h. C.: it is found in St. Ambrose’s speech at the funeral of the emperor Theodosius, which relates how the discovery of the precious wood took place during excavations ordered by St. Helena, Constantine’s mother, in 326, on the occasion of her visit to the Holy Places. The cross of the Savior, confused among those of the two thieves, was recognized by the inscription placed upon it by Pilate (De obitu Theodosi, 41–46: PL 16, 1462–64). Six years later Rufinus, taking up the same account in his Hist. eccl. (I, 7–8: PL 21, 475–78), adds several significant details to the Ambrosian version. St. Helena is said to have gone to Jerusalem not out of piety, but following visions. The true Cross is said to have been recognized not by the inscription above it, but by the instantaneous healing of a dying woman. St. Paulinus and Sulpicius Severus even speak of the resurrection of a dead man and of the Jews’ intervention in the great event (St. 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, led by an ancient book of memoirs, had identified the site of Calvary (Hist. eccl., II, 1: PG 67, 930 ff.). At the end of the sixth century, St. Gregory of Tours also 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 point of support in Western authors, although in St. John Chrysostom there is a fleeting reference to the recognition of the true Cross by means of the inscription (In Ioan., Homil., LXXXV, 1: PG 59, 461). A strange version of the event is found instead at Edessa, in the so-called Doctrine of Addai, which is a Syriac abridgment, from the beginning of the fifth century, of the Legend of Abgar. The event, in its broad outlines, retains the traditional character; but it is placed in the time of Tiberius, with Claudius as vice-emperor, whose wife, named Protonice, assumes the role of protagonist. Consequently, it is the vice-emperor’s daughter herself who is raised from the dead.
After observing the development and embellishment of the tradition with elements of every kind, one may ask whether the Ambrosian version, of 305, is the earliest account of the event in chronological order and what historical value should be attributed to II. The solution of 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 about the i. of the h. C. in the De vita Constantini, written two years later. Yet he relates St. Helena’s journey to the Holy Places and the construction of the two basilicas commissioned by her, at Bethlehem and on the Mount of Olives. One would have to say that the precious discovery took place later, after that date but before 347, when St. Cyril solemnly affirms the possession and universal dissemination of the relics of the Cross. Under what circumstances is unknown.
For the feasts: invention and exaltation of the Cross,