INVENTION OF THE HOLY CROSS. - The reliable information about the wood of the Cross goes back to the middle of the 4th 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 delivered his sermons in the basilica of the Holy Sepulchre.
Furthermore, two inscriptions brought to light some time ago in Algeria, one from 359 and the other of uncertain date, make explicit mention of two fragments of the wood of the Cross. In 379 we know of St. Macrina, sister of St. Gregory of Nyssa, who wore 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 functions of Good Friday in Jerusalem and testifies to having seen the wood of the Cross in the hands of the bishop, as he offered it to the faithful for the ritual kiss (S. Silviae peregrinatio, 37). At the end of the 4th century St. John Chrysostom relates that in Constantinople many Christians wore around their necks a particle of the Cross, 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 in what circumstances was the Cross of the Redeemer found? The witnesses already cited do not say. On the other hand, the letter of 351 from St. Cyril to the emperor Constantius gives on this matter an allusion that is too vague, 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).
One must wait until 305 to have detailed information about the i. of the Holy Cross: it is found in St. Ambrose's discourse at the funeral of the emperor Theodosius, which narrates how the discovery of the precious wood took place during the excavations ordered by St. Helena, mother of Constantine, in 326, on the occasion of her visit to the Holy Places. The cross of the Saviour, confused among those of the two thieves, was recognized by the title that Pilate had placed upon it (De obitu Theodosii, 41-46: PL 16, 1462-64). Six years later Rufinus, taking up the same narrative in his Hist. eccl. (I, 7-8: PL 21, 475-78), adds to the Ambrosian version some notable particulars. St. Helena would have gone to Jerusalem not prompted by her piety, but following visions. The true Cross would not have been recognized by the superimposed title, but by the instantaneous healing of a dying woman. St. Paulinus and Sulpicius Severus speak outright of the resurrection of a dead man and of the intervention of the Jews at the great event (St. Paulinus, Epist., XXXI, 1: PL 61, 325 f.; Sulpicius Severus, Chronicon, II, 34: PL 20, 148). Forty years later, Sozomen relates that in his time it was believed that a Jew, induced by an ancient book of memoirs, had identified the place of the Calvary (Hist. eccl., II, 1: PG 67, 930 f.). St. Gregory of Tours, at the end of the 6th century, 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 the Western authors, although in St. John Chrysostom one finds a fleeting allusion to the recognition of the true Cross by means of the title (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 5th century of the Legend of Abgar. The fact, in its broad outlines, keeps the traditional physiognomy; but the event is made to go back to the time of Tiberius, when Claudius was vice-emperor, whose wife, named Protonice, assumes the role of protagonist. Accordingly, it will be the vice-emperor's own daughter who is raised to life.
After having noted the development and the embellishment with elements of every kind of the tradition, one may ask whether the Ambrosian version, of 305, is the first of the event in order of time and what historical value should be attributed to it. The solution of this problem encounters no small 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 for the i. of the Holy Cross in the De vita Constantini, written two years later. Yet he narrates the journey of St. Helena to the Holy Places and the construction of the two basilicas, desired by her, at Bethlehem and on the Mount of Olives. One would have to say that the precious discovery had taken place at a later time, after that date, but before 347, when St. Cyril solemnly affirms the possession and the universal diffusion of the relics of the Cross. In what circumstances is unknown.
For the feasts: invention and exaltation of the Cross, v. CROCE. - See plate X.
