¹ Dooley, Eugene A., Church Law on Sacred Relics (Washington, D.C. 1931) 22–25, discusses Roman law on the inviolability of tombs as it affected the cult of relics.Google Scholar

² On the translation of St. Babylas to Antioch, see Delehaye, Delehaye, Les origines du culte des martyrs (2d ed.; Brussels 1933) 54.Google Scholar

³ The translation of saints was acceptable even in Rome by the mid-seventh century as illustrated by the translation of Primus and Felicianus under Pope Theodore (642-649), Duchesne, L., Le Liber pontificalis (2d ed.; Paris 1955) I 332. It was still not common: the next Roman translation took place over thirty years later under Pope Leo II, ibid. 360. By the late eighth century translations were not only possible but had become an almost essential feature in the canonization of a saint, Kemp, Kemp, Canonization and Authority in the Western Church (London 1948) 29.Google Scholar

⁴ The divisibility of corpses was clearly established by at least the first half of the ninth century; see, for example, the lists of pieces of saints purchased by Hrabanus Maurus while abbot of Fulda in Rudolf of Fulda, Miracula Sanctorum in Fuldenses Ecclesias Translatorum cc. 3-4, 9 (MGH Scriptores XV, 1, pp. 332-333, 336). On the commerce in relics in the ninth century and Hrabanus' purchases, see Guiraud, J., ‘Le commerce des reliques au commencement du IX^e siècle,’ in Mélanges G. B. De Rossi (Paris and Rome 1892) 81–95; Delehaye, H., Cinq leçons sur la méthode hagiographique (Brussels 1934) 87–89; and Lübeck, K., ‘Die Reliquienerwerbung des Abtes Rabanus Maurus,’ in Fuldaer Studien 2 (Fulda 1950) 113-132.Google Scholar

⁵ The list of significant works dealing directly with the history of the cult of relics is not long. Pfister, Pfister, Der Reliquienkult im Altertum (? vol.; Giessen 1909-1912 ), is the standard work on the cult in antiquity, but Pfister is concerned primarily with its pagan manifestations. Kötting, Kötting, ‘Reliquienverehrung, ihre Entstehung und ihre Formen,' Trierer theologische Zeitschrift 67 (1958) 321–334, provides a brief survey of the cult among the early Christians. Delehaye, H., Les origines du culte des martyrs (2d ed.; Brussels 1933), and Lucius, Lucius, Die Anfänge des Heiligenkults in der christlichen Kirche (Tübingen 1904), describe, from very different perspectives, early developments in the context of the cult of martyrs in general. Delehaye's essay on relics in Cinq leçons sur la méthode hagiographique (Brussels 1934) 75–116, deals primarily with the period after Gregory the Great as does Fichtenau, Fichtenau, ‘Zum Reliquienwesen im früheren Mittelalter,' Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 60 (1952) 60–89, who offers an enlightening survey of the significance of relics in the early Middle Ages. Other useful general studies include Beissel, Beissel, Die Verehrung der Heiligen und ihrer Reliquien in Deutschland bis zum Beginne des 13. Jh. (Freiburg i. Br. 1890); Séjourné, P., art. ‘Reliques,’ in DThC 13. 2312-2376; H. Leclercq, art. ‘Reliques et reliquaires,’ in DACL 14.2294-2359; and Hauck, A., art. ‘Reliquien,’ in Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche 16 (3d ed.; Leipzig 1905) 630-634.Google Scholar

⁶ The editions cited are Gregorii I Papae Registrum Epistolarum (edd. Ewald, P. and Hartmann, L. M., MGH Epistolae I-II; Berlin 1887-1899; reprint 1957) and Gregorii Magni Dialogi, Libri IV (ed. Moricca, U., Fonti per la Storia d'Italia LVII; Rome 1924). On the Gregorian sacramentary, see below, n. 38. I have scanned Gregory's other works in PL, LXXV-LXXIX, without finding anything of value. I would like to thank Prof. Gerhart B. Ladner and Mr. Phillip Stump of UCLA who provided me with a print-out of words associated with the cult of relics from Gregory's Moralia. On the tapes of this text, see Packard, David W., ‘A Note on the Computer Methods Used,’ Viator 4 (1973) 27-31, which forms an appendix to Prof. Ladner's article, ‘Gregory the Great and Gregory VII: A Comparison of their Concepts of Renewal,’ ibid. 1-27.Google Scholar

⁷ Avellana Collectio ep. 218 (CSEL XXXV 679-680).Google Scholar

⁸ Ep. 4.30 (I 263-266).Google Scholar

⁹ Holmes Dudden, F., Gregory the Great: His Place in History and Thought (London and New York 1905; reprint New York 1967) I 280 n. 5; cf. Ewald, , Greg. Reg. I 264 n. 5.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Dudden II 206, and Goubert, Goubert, Byzance avant l'Islam II 2 (Paris 1965) 140, identify John the Faster as the instigator of the letter, but neither specifies that the political motives behind the request led Gregory to falsify the description of Roman practice in his response. Other scholars — e.g. Lucius, op. cit. 188-189, and Fichtenau, , ‘Reliquienwesen’ 84-85 — emphasize the political importance of refusing corporeal relics, but make no mention of John the Faster.Google Scholar

¹¹ The points discussed in this paragraph are those raised by Lucius, op. cit. 188, and Gregorovius, F., History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages (tr. Hamilton, A., 2d ed.; London 1911; reprint New York 1967) II 77.Google Scholar

¹² Caesaris Baronii Annales Ecclesiastici Denuo Excusi et ad Nostra usque Tempora Perducti ab Augustino Theiner (n.p. 1867) X 391.Google Scholar

¹³ Medieval men seem to have felt that the quality of the donor added to the importance of the relics. See, for example, the list of translations falsely attributed to the actions of Charlemagne, Hotzelt, W., ‘Translationen von Martyrerleibern aus Rom ins westliche Frankenreich im achten Jahrhundert,’ Archiv für elsässische Kirchengeschichte 13 (1938) 50. Such stories could also serve as ‘proof’ of the authenticity of the relics.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Another example of corporeal relics which did not require disturbing a corpse would be the foreskins of Christ preserved in various European churches. Google Scholar

¹⁵ Ep. 4.30 (I 264), ‘caput eiusdem sancti Pauli, aut aliud quid de corpore ipsius.’Google Scholar

¹⁶ Adolf von Harnack refers to this passage as proof that Gregory's miracle-stories are ‘often not naive, but calculated.’ He suggests that this limits Gregory's credibility generally, but he does not question the pope's description of Roman treatment of holy remains, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte III (4th ed.; Tübingen 1910) 268 n. 2. Lucius, op. cit. 190, speaks of Gregory's stories as ‘Spukgeschichten.’Google Scholar

¹⁷ The literature on this ‘translation’ is immense, but the historicity of the event is not significant for this study. For a convenient survey of the various opinions, see Daniel, W. O'Connor, Peter in Rome: The Literary, Liturgical and Archaeological Evidence (New York and London 1969) 126–134.Google Scholar

¹⁸ John the Deacon, Vita Gregorii III 56 (PL LXXV 166) identifies the villain as John the Faster; cf. above n. 10. Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ep. 4, 30 (I 265), ‘In Romanis namque vel totius Occidentis partibus omnino intolerabile est atque sacrilegum, si sanctorum corpora tangere quisquam fortasse voluerit.’Google Scholar

²⁰ Ibid. Google Scholar

²¹ Lucius, , op. cit. 188, sees hypocrisy in the fact that the Romans sought relics of foreign saints but would not part with their own. Delehaye, Origines 66, admits that the western churches ‘never refused’ corporeal relics offered by the Greeks without concluding that their practice was inconsistent.Google Scholar

²² Epp. 14.7, 8, 13 (II 425-428, 432-433).Google Scholar

²³ For a list of saints translated to prevent their capture by the barbarians, see Dyggve, Dyggve, History of Salonitan Christianity (Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning series A, XXI; Oslo 1951) 84, 94, nn. 72, 73. In the case of St. Severinus, cited by Dyggve, there is a suggestion that the translation was of questionable propriety even in the face of an invasion. According to Eugippius (Vita Severini c. 40.), Severinus prophesied that the Romans of Noricum would flee and take his body with them. Apparently the authority of the saint himself helped to justify the removal of his corpse. The historicity of another of the translations on Dyggve's list has been forcefully challenged. This is the story of the translation of a group of Istrian and Dalmatian saints to Rome under John IV (640-642). For the argument that no translation took place, see Makso Peloza, ‘Rekognicija Relikvija Dalmatinskih i Istarskih Mučenika u Oratoriju Svetog Venancija kod Baptisterija Lateranske Bazilike u Rimu 1962-1964 Godine (Reconnaissance des reliques des martyrs dalmates et istriens dans l'oratoire de St. Venance au Baptistère de St. Jean de Latran à Rome, 1962-1964),’ Vjesnik za Archeologiju i Historiju Dalmatinsku (Bulletin d'archéologie et d'histoire dalmates) LXIII-LXIV (1961-1962; published 1969) 163-180. I would like to express my thanks to Prof. Frank Orazim of Kansas State University without whose assistance my knowledge of this article would be limited to the French résumé.Google Scholar

²⁴ The point at issue was whether the bishop of Corcyra could retain jurisdiction over the camp of Cassiopus. Apparently Gregory became involved in the case only after Andrew, metropolitan of Nicopolis, had rendered judgment in favor of Corcyra, epp. 14.7, 8 (II 426-428). Google Scholar

²⁵ Dial. III 13 (pp. 161-163). They discovered the corpse incorrupt, with its wounds healed and the head rejoined to the body. Gregory mentions another example of the opening of a tomb, Dial. III 23 (pp. 192-193). In this case the purpose of the action was to place a second body in the grave in accordance with a command given by the original occupant before his death. The only movement of a body here occurred when the first corpse turned without assistance to make room for the second.Google Scholar

²⁶ On the acceptability of such transfers, see Corpus Iuris Civilis III 44.10. Google Scholar

²⁷ Dial. III 11 (p. 158). This was not a translation; the body was being transported from Elba to Pompulonia for burial.Google Scholar

²⁸ E.g. Dial I 4 (pp. 37-39); III 19 (pp. 185-186), 22 (pp. 190-191). In Dial. IV 6 and 21 (pp. 238-239, 259) Gregory discusses briefly and generally miracles worked at the bodies of martyrs. Google Scholar

²⁹ E.g. Dial. I 2 (pp. 22-25) a sandal of St. Honoratus; II 38 (p. 133) a cave, once a hermitage for St. Benedict; III 15 (p. 175) St. Eutychius' cloak. In Dicl. IV 42 (p. 299) Gregory tells of a cure worked by a dalmatic lying on the coffin of St. Paschasius. Since this vestment had belonged to Paschasius, it is not clear whether its power derived from its contact with his body before or after his death. This story has an interesting parallel in the decrees of Gregory's council at Rome in 595, ep. 5, 57a, c. iv (I 364). It has been the custom, Gregory says, to cover the biers of dead popes with dalmatics during their funeral processions, but the people of Rome, in their reverence for St. Peter, remove these cloths from the coffins of his unworthy successors and divide them up and keep them with great reverence. To prevent this practice, he decrees that in the future papal coffins should not be covered with cloths. Google Scholar

³⁰ Cf. the story of the eastern Christians who tried to carry off the bodies of Peter and Paul, above p. 149. On the general belief that the saints had the power to prevent translations or theft of their remains, see Fichtenau, ‘Reliquienwesen’ 73. Google Scholar

³¹ Gregory's stories deal mainly with events which took place in Italy and especially in the provinces around Rome. The dates of the people and events he mentions cover the period from the last quarter of the fifth century to the composition of the work (probably late 593). Moricca analyzes the evidence in the ‘Prefazione’ to his edition of the Dialogi xliii-liv. Google Scholar

³² Dial. 110 (p. 59) reliquiae of St. Sebastian; III 30 (p. 202) reliquiae of St. Sebastian and St. Agatha. Dial. II 38 contains an additional reference to reliquiae which I will consider below.Google Scholar

³³ Lewis, C. T. and Short, C., A Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1879; reprint 1962), s.v. ‘reliquiae, I, B, 2': ‘The remains, relics, ashes of a deceased person; esp. of a body that has been burned.’ Du Cange, s.v. ‘1. reliquiae,’ sees a distinction in pagan usage between corpus as a complete corpse and reliquiae as the remains of a cremation. ThLL (Leipzig 1900ff.) and the new Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford 1968ff.) have not yet reached the letter R. Google Scholar

³⁴ Most dictionaries of late and medieval Latin define reliquiae simply as ‘relics’ or ‘relics of the saints,’ e.g. Niermeyer, J. F., Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus (Leiden 1954ff.); Habel, Habel, Mittellateinisches Glossar (2d ed.; Paderborn 1959 ); Blaise, Blaise, Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs chrétiens (Turnhout 1954), and Latham, R. E., Revised Medieval Latin Word-List from British and Irish Sources (London 1965). Souter, Souter, A Glossary of Later Latin to 600 A.D. (corrected ed; Oxford 1964), says specifically, ‘remains of a martyr, relics.’ Du Cange believes that for the Christians reliquae designated portions of bodies as opposed to corpora, entire corpses. He cites as evidence the passage from Dial. II 38, discussed below. In addition to corporeal relics, Du Cange mentions a palliolum of the Archangel Michael. The major modern lexicographical undertakings, such as the Novum Glossarium Mediae Latinitatis (Copenhagen 1957ff.) and the Mittellateinisches Wörterbuch (Berlin-Munich 1959 ff.), and the national glossaries have not progressed far enough to provide additional information.Google Scholar

³⁵ Hauck, , ‘Reliquien’ 630-631, argues that early in the development of ecclesiastical Latin reliquae came to include not only the remains of saints' bodies, but the bodies themselves and everything which came into contact with the saints or their corpses. As I will show, Gregory's evidence suggests a narrower definition.Google Scholar

³⁶ The Catholic University of America series of Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Latin includes investigations of Gregory's vocabulary: James, F. O'Donnell, The Vocabulary of the Letters of St. Gregory the Great: A Study in Late Latin Lexicography (Studies 2; Washington, D. C. 1934) and Ann Julia Kinnirey, Sister, The Late Latin Vocabulary of the Dialogues of St. Gregory the Great (Studies 4; Washington, D. C. 1935). Neither author has examined carefully the terminology of relics in Gregory's work.Google Scholar

³⁷ Ep. 4.30 (I 264-265).Google Scholar

³⁸ I have found only one passage in Gregory's works where he employs reliquiae in an intentionally indefinite way to refer to corporeal and/or contact relics simultaneously; see the prayers ‘De sanctis quorum reliquiae habentur,’ Sacramentarium Gregorianum (ed. Gamber, K. 2; Textus Patristici et Liturgici 6; Regensburg 1967) 50. The eighth-century form of the sacramentary that Pope Hadrian I sent to Charlemagne contains only two references to reliquiae. Both are in the rituals for church dedications, and neither reveals the form of the relics; see Lietzmann, Hans, ed., Das Sacramentarium Gregorianum nach dem Aachener Urexemplar (Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen und Forschungen III; Münster 1921; reprint 1967) 107, 108.Google Scholar

³⁹ Ep. 11.20 (II 281).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Dial. II 38 (p. 133).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ep. 5.15 (I 295). This letter deals with the conflict between Gregory and Bishop John of Ravenna over what Gregory considered to be John's inappropriate use of the pallium. The pope investigated the matter and found one witness who declared that earlier bishops of Ravenna had worn the pallium only when reliquiae were deposited: ‘excepto si reliquiae conderentur.’Google Scholar

⁴² Ep. 4.8 (I 240) to Januarius, archbishop of Cagliari; ep. 9.56 (II 331) to Mellitus describing the steps Augustine should take in cleansing the pagan temples of England and turning them to Christian use: ‘altaria construantur, reliquiae ponantur.’Google Scholar

⁴³ Ep. 6.48 (I 423) to Palladius, bishop of Saintes, regarding transmission of reliquiae of SS. Peter, Paul, Lawrence, and Pancras for deposit in altars in a church Palladius had built in their honor. Ep. 11.5 (II 265) to ‘Adeodata, illustris femina,’ with reliquiae for the consecration of a monastery. According to ep. 9.233 (II 228) the house was dedicated in honor of SS. Peter, Lawrence, Hermes, Pancras, Sebastian, and Agnes.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ep. 3.19 (I 177) to Peter, rector of the patrimony in Campania, requesting reliquiae of St. Severinus to dedicate a formerly Arian church in Rome.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Ep. 6.55 (I 430) to Brunichildis, queen of the Franks.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ep. 3.33 (I 192). In this letter beneficia seems more nearly synonymous with benedictio than with reliquiae; see below.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ The four occurrences of beneficia discussed here are the only ones listed by Niermeyer, s.v. ‘beneficium, 41';ThLL, s.v. ‘beneficium,?, B'; Mittellateinisches Wörterbuch, s.v. ‘beneficium, IV, A, 2'; and Blaise, s.v. ‘beneficium, 1.’ Du Cange does not give this meaning for the word. [An additional and particularly clear example of the use of beneficia to refer to relics, although not necessarily corporeal ones: Vitalian, ep. 5 (PL LXXXVII 1004), cited by F. Susman ‘Il culto di S. Pietro a Roma dalla morte di Leone Magno a Vitaliano (461-672),’ Archivio della Società Romana di storia patria 84 (1961, published 1964) 139. I noticed this example only after the present article was in proof.]Google Scholar

⁴⁸ For a brief review of the controversy over the authorship of the Libellus, see Meyvaert, Meyvaert, ‘Bede 's Text of the Libellus Responsionum of Gregory the Great to Augustine of Canterbury,’ in England before the Conquest: Studies in primary sources presented to Dorothy Whitelock (edd. Clemoes, Peter and Hughes, K.; Cambridge 1971) 16–18. Meyvaert argues (p. 18) that at least part of the Libellus reflects, ‘both in language and sentiment, the vocabulary and teaching of Gregory himself,’ but he is clearly troubled by the fact that the MS tradition of the text stems from northern Italy rather than from Rome or Canterbury (p. 29 n. 4). The portion of the letter which contains the reference to beneficia is missing from Bede's version of the Libellus, and the MGH editors treat it as an interpolation (see following note) and print it in the critical apparatus to ep. 11, 56a (II 337). Meyvaert (p. 24) argues convincingly that this passage was part of the original text.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ ‘Populus … certa sanctissimi et probatissimi martyris beneficia suscipiens, colere incerta non debeat.’ Ewald and Hartmann believe this passage was added to the Libellus to prove the authenticity of some church's relics of St. Sixtus, but they cannot identify the church, Greg. Reg. II 337 n. 16. Google Scholar

⁵⁰ The best critical edition of this collection of formulae for papal letters is still E. von Sickel, T., Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum (Vienna 1889; reprint Aalen 1966). Sickel based his text on the Vatican MS. Foerster, Foerster, Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum (Bern 1958), prints all of the MSS individually. Foerster's introduction includes a useful survey of the extensive literature on the text. A briefer, but very helpful, summary of the various views appears in Van Hove, A., Prolegomena to Commentarium Lovaniense in Codicem Iuris Canonici I 1 (2d ed.; Mechlin 1945) 190–192. For this study the most important question relating to LD concerns the date of the formulae dealing with church dedications, ff. 10-31. Peitz, Peitz, ‘Liber Diurnus: Beiträge zur Kenntnis des ältesten päpstlichen Kanzlei vor Gregor dem Grossen,’ Sb. Akad. Vienna 185, 4 (1918) 53–101, and Goetz, , ‘Das Alter der Kirchweihformeln X-XXXI des Liber Diurnus,’ Deutsche Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht ser. 3.5 (1895) 1–30, have argued that all or nearly all these formulae existed as part of a formulary by the time of Gregory the Great. Peitz and Goetz base their arguments on two sorts of evidence. In the first place, some Gregorian letters reproduce essentially verbatim the formulae of LD. These include ff. 11 and 12 which contain references to relics. In these cases Peitz and Goetz present convincing arguments that Gregory's letters derive from pre-existing formulae rather than being themselves the sources of the formulae as Sickel proposed. Norberg, Norberg, In Registrum Gregorii Magni Studia Critica I (Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift 1937, 4) 14, accepts Peitz' general conclusion that there was a pre-Gregorian formula book. He also gives examples of similarities, both in phrasing (pp. 5-9) and in the use of actual formulae (pp. 9-15), between Gregory's letters and those of earlier popes. The second type of evidence that Peitz and Goetz adduce is the appearance in Gregory's letters of characteristic sentences and phrases which also occur in the formulae of LD. Here their case is much less convincing. Their work is based on the unwarranted assumption that the existence of the formulae must precede the use of the language they contain. I have therefore, with few exceptions, limited my discussion of LD formulae to those which have clear parallels in Gregory's letters.Google Scholar

⁵¹ LD f. 14 (Sickel 12; Foerster 85, 187, 274). It is not certain that this formula existed in Gregory's time. The letters cited by Peitz (pp. 80, 83) and Goetz, (pp. 23-24) as evidence for its existence contain nothing from f. 14 which is not also in f. 12, and Gregory certainly used f. 12.Google Scholar

⁵² See Ewald, , Greg. Reg. I 78 n. 2, and his citation of earlier authorities. Ewald accepts the definition proposed by Garnerius in his commentary on the Liber Diurnus, i.e. sanctuaria = thecae reliquiarum. Du Cange gives the same definition s.v. ‘5. sanctuarium': ‘Sanctorum reliquiae, seu potius Theca reliquiarum.’Google Scholar

⁵³ The italics in the quotations are mine. Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Chrysantus was apparently a ‘visitor,’ administering the diocese of Rieti during an episcopal vacancy; see Hartmann, Greg. Reg. II 76. Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Ep. 6.43 (I 419); cf. below n. 82.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Avellana Collectio ep. 187 (CSEL XXXV 645).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Ibid., ep. 190 (p. 648).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Ibid., ep. 218 (pp. 679-680).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Gregory of Tours (see below, n. 61) speaks of a small window, ‘fenestella parvula,’ in the tomb, but the exact meaning of cataracta is debated; cf. Kötting, ‘Reliquienverehrung’ 332 n. 59. Google Scholar

⁶⁰ On filings of this sort, see below. Google Scholar

⁶¹ Pelagius, , ep. 20 (Pelagii I Papae Epistulae qui supersunt, 556-561 [edd. Gasso, P. M. and Batlle, C. M.; Montserrat 1956] 62-63) to Eutychius, patriarch of Constantinople, announces that he has sent a tunica which he had left for three days ‘in interiori parte sepulchri beati Petri apostoli.’ Eutychius is free to use the tunic ‘pro reliquiis vel pro benedictione.’ (On the distinction between reliquiae and benedictio, see below, Sect. 8.) Gregory of Tours in his Liber in Gloria Martyrum, c. 27 (MGH Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum I 2, 2d ed. p. 54) describes the sanctification of a palliolum at Peter's tomb, and he refers to the finished product as pignora rather than sanctuaria. He uses this term frequently to speak of relics, but I have not encountered it in the writings of Gregory the Great. Gregory of Tours was in a position to speak knowingly of Roman practice since he had sent a deacon to Rome to obtain relics, Historiarum Libri X 1 (ibid. 11, 2d ed., p. 477). Gregory refers to these Roman relics on two other occasions calling them either pignora or reliquiae, Glor. Mart. c. 82; Liber Vitae Patrum 8.6 (Ibid. I 2, pp. 193-194, 246). He also gives an example of the sanctification of a partem pallii sirici to obtain reliquiae/pignora at the tomb of St. Martin in Tours, De Virtutibus S. Martini I 11 (ibid. 145-146).Google Scholar

⁶² This helps to explain why even after the legates had expounded Roman practice, Justinian wrote to Hormisdas requesting reliquiae, and the pope replied that he was sending sanctuaria. Even in the West petitioners normally requested reliquiae rather than sanctuaria, as we can see in LD f. 10 (Sickel 9-10; Foerster 83-84, 186, 271-272). The papal letters issued in response to the petition (LD ff. 11, 12) refer to sanctuaria, but these were sent to the bishops responsible for providing and depositing the relics. In addition to the Constantina letter, Gregory's Registrum contains five, non-formulaic or only partially formulaic, letters which he sent directly to people who had requested relics; epp. 6, 48. 55 (I 422-423, 430); 9, 183 (II 176); 11, 5. 20 (II 265, 281). In four of these Gregory speaks specifically of a request for reliquae. In the fifth letter (ep. 6, 48) the reference is less direct. Peitz' evidence (pp. 76, 81, 83) for the existence and use of LD f. 10 in Gregory's day is not very convincing, but Goetz (pp. 10-12) presents a cogent argument based on the requirement that the petitioner renounce most of his rights in the new foundation. Gregory's ep. 2, 9 (I 107-108) offers additional evidence for Goetz' view. This letter is based on LD f. 11, but it also contains significant phrases from f. 10. Apparently the founder of the new church had failed to use the proper formula, and as a result Gregory was compelled to ask the bishop to investigate matters which should have been dealt with in the original petition. Google Scholar

⁶³ Ep. 11.57 (II 344), ‘Et ideo, frater carissime, quia eiusdem beatissimi martyris corpus in Brindisii ecclesia, cui visitationis impendis officium, esse dinoscitur, praefati viri desideriis ex nostra praeceptione convenit oboedire.’Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Ep. 9.45 (II 72-73). The omission of the names of the saints whose sanctuaria are requested makes this letter unique in Gregory's Registrum and leads me to believe that this text does not represent a letter that was actually sent. I suspect that Gregory sent seven individual letters. They were probably very nearly identical with one another, since they were presumably all based on the pattern which we know as LD f. 12. The slight variations in the letters would have been due to the fact that Gregory would have requested sanctuaria of a different saint or saints from each bishop. The text as we have it in the Registrum appears to be the result of a scribe's attempt to save both time and writing materials by enregistering one letter in place of seven. He conflated the salutations of the individual letters to include the names of all the addressees. He then composed a suitably vague first sentence for the letter, including the words quoted above. This sentence expressed the intent of the original letters, namely that the bishops should supply sanctuaria. At the same time, it avoided the confusion which would arise if all the saints were named, that is the appearance that Gregory was requesting sanctuaria of at least seven saints — and in each case the same seven — from each of the bishops. Thus I believe the words quoted above are not Gregory's own, but that from our point of view they express his desires more clearly than the formulaic originals would have. For other examples of letters directed to more than one person, see Ewald, , Greg. Reg. I 29 n., and Norberg, , In Registrum Gregorii Magni Studia Critica II (Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift 1939, 7) 26-27.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Ep. 9.181 (II 175) to Bishop Fortunatus, requesting sanctuaria of Severinus and Juliana, and ep. 11.19 (II 280-281) to Bishop Pascasius, seeking sanctuaria of Severinus alone. The body of Severinus had been brought from Noricum and laid to rest near Naples in the time of Pope Gelasius I (492-496); see Eugippius, , Vita Severini c. 46 (CSEL IX 2, p. 65). Juliana also lay in the area of Naples; see Delehaye, , Origines 301-302.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Ep. 9.59 (II 82) to Chrysantus of Spoleto. On the location of Sabinus' tomb, see Delehaye, , Origines 317.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Epp. 9.58, 180 are paired with epp. 9.59, 181 respectively. The pairs are based on LD ff. 11 and 12.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Gregory refers to sanctuaria of Roman saints in the following letters: epp. 2.9 (I 107-8) Pancras; 6.22 (I 400) Peter and Lawrence; 8.5 (II 8) Peter, John and Paul, Hermes, and Sebastian; 9.49 (II 76) Hermes, Hyacinth, and Maximus (quoted above, pp. 158-59); 9.71 (II 90) Peter; 9.183 (II 176) Paul, John, and Pancras (quoted ibid.); and 9.233 (II 228-229) Peter, Lawrence, Hermes, Pancras, Sebastian, and Agnes. Most of these saints appear in a list of tombs of saints from Gregory's day. Sebastian is missing from the list, and Maximus appears as Maximilianus, CCL CLXXV 283-295. The list derives from Gregory's gift of oil from the martyrs' tombs to the Lombard queen Theodelinda, see below p. 175. For further information on the shrines of these saints in Rome, see Delehaye, Origines 263-297. Epp. 8.5 and 9.233, listed above, do not actually contain the term sanctuaria. These letters are constructed according to LD f. 11, in which the reference to sanctuaria appears only in the final sentence. Both texts break off before that point with the words ‘et cetera secundum morem,’ indicating that the remainder of the letter followed the standardized formula, see below n. 71. Ep. 8.5 departs somewhat from f. 11 because the oratory is in a monastery and the founder is the bishop to whom the letter is addressed. Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Ep. 1.52 (quoted above, p. 158).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Ep. 13.18 (II 385).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Because of this abbreviation, the letter as it stands does not mention sanctuaria. Two other letters relating to relics are abbreviated in this way, epp. 8.5 and 9.233 (cf. above, n. 68). All three texts follow LD f. 11. On the use of this and similar forms of abbreviation in the formulaic letters of Gregory's Registrum, see Norberg, , Studia Critica I 9. On the use of the same phrase in the Liber Diurnus, see Buchner, Buchner, Die Rechtsquellen = Beiheft to Wattenbach-Levison, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter, Vorzeit und Karolinger (Wiemar 1953) 57.Google Scholar

⁷² The second letter would have followed LD. f. 12; on such pairs of letters see above, n. 67. Gregory wrote this letter to Passivus, bishop of Fermo, authorizing the deposit of sanctuaria of St. Savinus in November 602. Four years earlier, in November 598, Gregory had written to Passivus (Ep. 9.58 [II 81]) regarding the laying to rest of sanctuaria of the same saint in a different foundation, and at that time he had sent a letter to the bishop of Spoleto requesting sanctuaria for Fermo (Ep. 9.59 [II 82]). These letters form one of the pairs mentioned above. Possibly something connected with this first request made a second one unnecessary. Google Scholar

⁷³ Ep. 2.9 (I 107-108).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Norberg, , Studia II 30-33, 52, describes the selective nature of the surviving collections.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ In ep. 1.52 (quoted above, p. 158) Gregory commands the deposition of relics which are already on the spot, but we do not know how they got there. From at least the time of Gelasius I, anyone founding a church in the bishoprics under direct papal authority had to have papal permission for the consecration, Stutz, Stutz, Geschichte des kirchlichen Benefizialwesens (2d. expanded ed.; Berlin 1895; reprint Aalen 1961) 56 and Goetz, op. cit. 4-7; cf. Gregory's criticism of a bishop who presumed to dedicate a church without permission, ep. 13.19 (II 386). Limited evidence suggests that the popes exercised some authority over the transfer of saints' bodies from one place to another. According to Eugippius (Vita Severini, 46 [CSEL IX 2, p. 65]) Severinus was buried near Naples, ‘Gelasii sedis Romanae pontificis auctoritate,’ and Gregory specifically approved the reburial of St. Donatus of Euria (above, p. 151). It was also common practice to obtain relics — including those of non-Roman saints — by petitioning the pope. This is apparent in LD ff. 10 and 12 and the letters corresponding to f. 12 in Gregory's Registrum. The existence and use of these formulae reveal that this was a normal transaction, but they do not preclude the possibility that relics might be available through less formal channels.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Ep. 2.15 (I 112-113).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Particles of the Cross came to Rome under Popes Silvester and Leo I; see Schaefers, D., art. ‘Kreuz, IX. Geschichte der Kreuzreliquien,’ in LThK VI ² 615.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ On contact relics of the Cross, see Kötting, ‘Reliquienverehrung’ 329. Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Ep. 6.43 (I 419).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Delehaye, , Origines 81.Google Scholar

⁸¹ The stories of the translation of Stephen's body to Rome under Pope Pelagius II (BHL 7878-7884) are legendary, but by Gregory's time there were at least three churches in Rome dedicated to Stephen (although one of these may have been dedicated to Pope Stephen I), see Kennedy, V. L., The Saints of the Canon of the Mass (2d revised ed.; Studi di antichità cristiana XIV; Vatican City 1963) 152–155. St. Augustine mentions that Ancona possessed one of the stones used in Stephen's martyrdom (Sermo 323 [PL XXXVIII 1445]; cf. Delehaye, H., Commentarius … in Martyrologium Hieronymianum [AS Nov. II 2, pp. 415-416]), and a seventh-century guide for pilgrims refers to a similar stone in an oratory on the Via Ostiensis (‘De Locis Sanctis Martyrum quae sunt Foris Civitatis Romae’5 [CCL CLXXV 316]).Google Scholar

⁸² In the case of Stephen it is tempting to suggest that the phrase reliquiarum sanctuaria implies a contrast between these and the more common type which we might call corporis sanctuaria, but the reference to relics of St. Peter as sacra reliquiarum pignera in a letter from the Burgundian King Sigismund to Pope Symmachus makes that interpretation unlikely, MGH Auctores Antiquissimi VI 2, p. 59. Google Scholar

⁸³ For lists of synonymous words referring to secondary relics and including brandeum, see Delehaye, Origines 53; Séjourné, ‘Reliques’ 2336; Kötting, ‘Reliquienverehrung’ 331-332; Leclercq, ‘Reliques et reliquaires’ 2300. Du Cange, s.v. ‘1. brandeum,’ defines the word as a piece of silk or linen cloth used to wrap relics; he continues, ‘sic praeterea appellabantur panni particulae, aut sericae, quae venerandis Divorum lipsanis applicatae, ex ipso contactu, tanquam divorum ipsorum reliquiae Christianis dispertiebantur.’ For the opinions of other lexicographers, see below n. 86. Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Leclercq, H., art. ‘Brandeum,’ in DACL 2 1132-1137, treats the word as a generic term for sanctified cloths. Later (‘Reliques et reliquaires’ 2300) he uses it to refer to contact relics generally, cf. G. Gagov, art. ‘Brandea,’ in Enciclopedia cattolica 3 (Vatican City 1949) 24; Sauer, J., art. ‘Brandeum,’ in LThK 2² 647-648; F. Chiovaro, art. ‘Relics,’ in New Catholic Encyclopedia 12 (New York 1967) 235; and Pfister, F., art. ‘Brandeum,’ in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 2 (Stuttgart 1954) 522-523.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ This is particularly obvious in Pfister's article (ibid.). He cites several examples of sanctified cloths as brandea, but none of them except the passage from Gregory actually uses the term. Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Most modern lexicographers of late and medieval Latin accept this interpretation of brandeum which is generally narrower than that followed by students of relics. They define a brandeum as a cloth, usually of linen or silk, used to cover or wrap relics, see s.v.: Habel, Sauter, Niermeyer, and Mittellateinisches Wörterbuch. ThLL suggests acceptance of the broader view by referring to Du Cange without qualification. Blaise may at first have accepted brandeum as a synonym for sanctuaria and later changed his mind. Defining sanctuaria (s.v. ‘sanctuarium, 6') he writes, ‘reliques, étoffes sanctifiées par le contact des reliques (cf. brandea).’ When he defines brandeum, however, he says nothing to suggest that the word implies holiness: ‘voile, draperie de soie ou de lin, dans laquelle on enveloppait les reliques, ou les corps saints, voile dont on couvrait les reliques pour les préserver des attouchements.’ Google Scholar

⁸⁷ The most exact Latin synonym for brandeum appears to be palliolum which is used by Gregory of Tours (above, n. 61) and in LD f. 22 (below, nn. 89, 108). Google Scholar

⁸⁸ The English author of the earliest life of Gregory tells this story, but names Gregory as the pope who cuts the cloth. This, plus other variations in the tale, suggests that he was writing on the basis of a tradition which existed independently of the letter, cf. appendix below. He does not use the word brandeum: he refers simply to panni, ‘cloths'; see The Earliest Life of Gregory the Great (ed. and tr. Colgrave, Bertram; Lawrence, Kansas 1968) 108–111. The later Lives of Gregory tell the story in a similar fashion. The interpolated version of the Life by Paul the Deacon (Vita Gregorii c. 24 [PL LXXV 53-55]) speaks of reliquiae and panni, and it once refers to the sanctified cloths as patrocinia. John the Deacon, in the ninth century, had access to Gregory's letter to Constantina in his retelling of the story (Vita Greg. II 42 [ibid., col. 103-104]. John quotes the letter at length later in his work, III 56 [col. 166-168]). He speaks of the consecration of a brandeum and states that Gregory cut it ‘more sanctissimi papae Leonis,’ but he says that the petitioners complained, ‘ut pro reliquiis vilem pannum susciperent.’ The vocabulary of these Vitae confirms that Gregory's word brandeum refers to the physical rather than the spiritual qualities of the cloth, but these authors offer a different explanation of the way the cloth acquired its sanctity. Gregory speaks of contact with a tomb, but both the anonymous author and Paul state that the cloth was laid on the altar over the tomb and became holy when a Mass was said over it. Besides the conflict with Gregory's explanation, this story is suspect because of its context. In both of these Lives it follows directly on a tale of how Gregory convinced a woman of the fact of transubstantiation by changing a morsel of communion bread into a piece of bloody flesh. John the Deacon does not say that the brandeum was sanctified in the course of a Mass, but he does emphasize the similarity of the brandeum story to the one which precedes it (‘Alio quoque tempore vir Dei Gregorius, miraculum pene simile perpetravit'). The idea that a relic could be sanctified in a Mass, which first appears in the English Life, has a parallel in a decree of the Council of Celchyth (816) which states that if relics are not available for the dedication of a church, the consecrated elements of the eucharist may be used instead; see Haddan, A. W. and Stubbs, W., eds., Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents Relating to Great Britain and Ireland III (Oxford 1871) 580.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Gregory's description of a brandeum seems to parallel directly a passage in formula 22 of the Liber Diurnus where there is mention of ‘benedictionem de sanctuariis apostolicis, id est palliola de eorum confessionibus.’ Palliola as such were not sanctuaria, but palliola de [apostolorum] confessionibus were; see below n. 108. Google Scholar

⁹⁰ ThLL, , s.v. ‘brandeum'; O'Donnell, , Vocabulary 65; Norberg, , Studia I 157. For the Greek term, see Lampe, G. W. H., A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford 1961-1968) s.v. ‘πϱάνδιος'; Sophocles, E. A., Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (Cambridge, Mass. 1870; reprint New York 1957) s.v. ‘πϱάνδιον'; Du Cange, Charles, Glossarium ad Scriptores Mediae et Infimae Graecitatis (Lyons 1688; reprint Paris 1943) s.v. ‘πϱάνδιον'. See also Cange, Cange, Glossarium … Latinitatis s.v. ‘3. brandeum,’ who emphasizes the similarity between the Greek and Latin usage. To my knowledge the only person to suggest that the Greek word was borrowed from the Latin is Pfister, ‘Brandeum,’ 522. The apparent basis for his statement is the lack of any early testimony to the existence of this work in Greek, but see following note.Google Scholar

⁹¹ This argument assumes that the Greek word πϱάνδιον existed in Gregory's day. The earliest known appearance of this term is in Theophanes' Chronographia of the ninth century (see the lexica cited in preceding note), but he uses the word in speaking of the Avars in the time of Justinian, and he is well known for his verbal reliance on earlier sources, see Moravcsik, Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica I: Die byzantinischen Quellen der Geschichte der Türkvölker (Budapest 1942) 334–335. It is also true that except for Gregory's letter, the Latin brandeum is not attested before the Carolingian period. Nevertheless, given Gregory's dilemma — to break with Roman tradition and give up one of Rome's most prized possessions or to disobey the command of the empress — and his decision to be disobedient, it is almost inconceivable that he should choose to explain his action in terms as obscure as this one would be if the extant occurrences of it truly reflected its use. Cf. O'Donnell's conclusion (Vocabulary 196) that ‘St. Gregory was governed entirely by practical considerations in his choice of words.’Google Scholar

⁹² Ep. 1.28 (I 41), to the Byzantine antigraphus Aristobolus, ‘Praeterea si prolixam epistolam meam ad interpretandum accipere fortasse contigerit, rogo, non verbum ex verbo, sed sensum ex sensu transferte, quia plerumque dum proprietas verborum tenditur, sensuum virtus amittitur.’ H. Steinacker discusses the linguistic barriers to communication between Rome and Constantinople in Gregory's day, ‘Die römische Kirche und die griechischen Sprachkenntnisse des Frühmittelalters,’ Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 62 (1954) 56–57.Google Scholar

⁹³ Ep. 4.30 (I 266).Google Scholar

⁹⁴ E.g. Blaise s.v. ‘benedictio, 12'; ThLL s.v. ‘benedictio, 3'. Mittellateinisches Wörterbuch lists this meaning, s.v. ‘benedictio, II, B, 2,’ but gives no examples earlier than Gregory VII. Du Cange and Niermeyer do not mention this usage. Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Blaise s.v. ‘benedictio, 7'; ThLL s.v. ‘benedictio, 3'; Mittellateinisches Wörterbuch s.v. ‘benedictio, II, B, 3'; Du Cange s.v. ‘2. benedictiones'; Niermeyer s.v. ‘benedictio, 7’ For a general discussion of benedictiones — both sacred and secular — as gifts, see Stuiber, A., art. ‘Eulogia,’ in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 6 (Stuttgart 1966) 922–927.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ The index to the MGH edition of the Registrum presents additional complications. Leopold Wenger, who compiled the ‘Index Rerum, Verborum, Grammaticae,’ divided the uses of benedictio into three categories: 1) benedictio = dedicatio; 2) = reliquiae; and 3) = xenium. In the latter two categories, the only ones which concern us here, benedictio is often joined with a personal name in the genitive. In determining the category under which to list any given occurrence of benedictio, Wenger relied primarily on the name attached to it. Thus he always identifies the benedictiones of saints as reliquiae and those of Gregory's contemporaries as xenia. Münscher perpetuated and enshrined this overly simple classification in ThLL. He drew all of his examples directly from Wenger's index, with the result that even a horse (caballus) is listed as a relic since Gregory spoke of it as a benedictio S. Petri (see following note). Google Scholar

⁹⁷ In ep. 7.37 (I 486) Gregory speaks of six pallia and two oraria as a parvulam benedictionem de … s. Petri ecclesia, and he mentions a benedictionem s. Marci which is apparently wine. In ep. 13.23 (II 389) he refers to a grant of ten solidi yearly as s. Petri benedictio. Gregory also frequently speaks of objects de or ex benedictione s. Petri: epp. 7.27 (I 474), two camisiae and four oraria; 9.227 (II 220), a pallium; 11.1 (II 260), a cuculla and a tunica; 11.3 (II 262), a caballus; 11.37 (II 310), parva exenia; and 12.13 (II 360), paratura una. In these cases he is clearly using benedictio to refer to wealth or property, i.e. those things with which St. Peter has been blessed, cf. Stuiber, , ‘Eulogia’ 925. Another example of the broad implications of the word benedictio when used in reference to a gift appears in ep. 10. 12 (II 247), to the impoverished ex-Praetor Libertinus. Gregory sends twenty suits of clothing for the man's servants and asks him not to take offense ‘because anything offered de beati Petri apostoli rebus, no matter how small, should always be received pro magna benedictione.’ Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Sometimes Gregory uses the term benedictio without specifying an object so we have no basis for comparing these benedictiones with reliquiae and sanctuaria. In one case the thing in question is clearly holy in some sense: ep. 7.29 (I 477), ‘Benedictionem vero quam … transmisistis cum gratiarum actioni suscepi, quia de loco sancto decuit vos sancta transmittere. …’ In the other examples the only suggestion that the object might be holy arises from the fact that benedictio is used in conjunction with the name of a saint: epp. 4.27 (I 262), s. Petri; 6.58 (I 433) and 10.21 (II 258), s. Marci evangelistae; and 12.1 (II 348), beati Agilegi martyris. In ep. 13.45 (II 409) Gregory uses the phrase ‘eulogias s. Marci,’ which is equivalent to benedictiones; see Stuiber, ‘Eulogia’ 925. Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Gregory uses the term benedictio to refer to the container or its contents or both: benedictio = a cross in ep. 3.33 (I 192); benedictio = a key or keys in epp. 3.47 (I 204); 7.23 (I 468); 7.25 (I 470); 9.228 (II 224); benedictio = particles of chains in epp. 11.43 (II 317); 12.2 (II 349); 13.45 (II 408). In ep. 8.33 (II 36) Gregory uses benedictio twice, once to refer to a key and once to particles of chain inside. In some cases he does not speak specifically of either the container or its contents as a benedictio, but since the form of the objects and the qualities he ascribes to them are the same as those mentioned above, it seems reasonable to consider them as benedictiones: a cross in ep. 9.228 (II 225) and keys in epp. 1.25 (I 39); 1.29 (I 42); 1.30 (I 43); 6.6 (I 385); 9.229 (II 226). In ep. 8.33 (II 36) Gregory mentions that he has received oil of the holy cross, but he does not call it a benedictio. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Epp. 1.25 (I 39); 1.29 (I 42); 1.30 (I 43); 3.47 (I 204); 6.6 (I 385); 7.23 (I 468); 7.25 (I 470); 8.33 (II 36); 9.228 (II 224); 9.229 (II 226); 11.43 (II 317); 12.2 (II 349).Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Five times he does not: epp. 1.25, 29, 30; 7.23; 9.229. Although Gregory does not mention particles of chain in these keys, in every case except the first (ep. 1.25) he speaks of the key coming ‘a (sacratissimo) corpore s. Petri.’ Gregory of Tours (Glor. Mart. 27, p. 54) speaks of people taking ‘pro benedictione’ the golden keys used to lock the sepulcher of St. Peter. Thus, there may have been several types of ‘keys of St. Peter,’ some with filings and some without. Nevertheless, in epp. 11.43 and 12.2 Gregory refers to keys ‘a corpore’ which also contain particles of chain, and in ep. 8.33 he speaks of a ‘clavem sacratissimi sepulcri eius, in qua benedictio de catenis illius est inserta.’ Google Scholar

¹⁰² Ep. 13.45 (II 408).Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Ep. 3.33 (I 192).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Ep. 9.228 (II 225).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Ep. 3.33 (I 192).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Above, pp. 156-58. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Gregory once uses the word filactum in a way which makes it appear synonymous with benedictio: ep. 14.12 (II 431) ‘… transmittere filacta curavimus, id est crucem cum ligno sanctae crucis Domini et lectionem sancti evangelii, theca Persica inclausum.’ Here, as in the case of the beneficia discussed above, the similarity of the objects described rather than the actual juxtaposition of words makes the terms seem equivalent. In this instance, however, Gregory's choice of words was probably determined by the fact that he included with the cross a passage from the Gospel evoking comparison with Jewish phylacteries. Blaise, s.v. ‘phylactum,’ says that in this passage the word means ‘relic,’ but I find this unjustifiable. For other examples of biblical passages used as amulets, see Franz, Franz, Die kirchlichen Benedictionen im Mittelalter (Munich 1909) II 435-436; on Christian phylacteries, see Eckstein, F. and Waszink, J. H., art. ‘Amulett,’ in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 1 (Stuttgart 1950) 409-410.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ There are two pieces of evidence which might suggest a different conclusion, but neither provides a clear example of a benedictio being used in a dedication. (1) In ep. 9.229 (II 226) to the Visigothic King Recared Gregory writes: ‘Praeterea transmisimus clavem aliam a sacratissimo beati Petri apostoli corpore, quae cum digno honore reposita quaeque apud vos invenerit benedicendo multiplicet.’ In the letter immediately preceding this one in the Registrum (for the argument that these two letters to Recared are not entirely distinct, see Norberg, Studia II 3-6), Gregory announced to Recared that he was sending him a key containing iron from Peter's chains. This earlier key, which Gregory refers to as a ‘benedictio S. Petri,’ was intended to be worn around the king's neck. The second key, which he does not specifically call a benedictio, is to be preserved with due honor, but there is no suggestion that it should be ‘the relic’ for the dedication of a church. When Gregory speaks of depositing reliquiae or sanctuaria he normally uses the verb collocare (occasionally condere or recondere), and he says that the ceremony should be performed sollemniter or cum reverentia. He does not employ this terminology in the letter to Recared. (2) LD f. 22 (Sickel 16; Foerster 89, 189, 279 280) contains a statement which suggests the possibility that benedictiones could be used for church dedications: ‘in qua [sc. basilica] etiam benedictionem de sanctuariis apostolicis, id est palliola de eorum confessionibus providimus collocanda.’ The second phrase (palliola — confessionibus) is clearly an appositive, but it is not immediately clear whether it stands in apposition to the entire first phrase (benedictionem—apostolicis) or only to the words ‘sanctuariis apostolicis.’ If the second phrase stands in apposition to the entire first phrase, the sentence might be translated thus, ‘We have also provided for depositing in the basilica a blessing (i.e. a sanctified object) from the sanctuaries (i.e. reliquaries) of the apostles, that is palliola from their confessiones.’ In this case benedictio = palliola and sanctuaria = confessiones, and the benedictio is intended for deposit as a relic. The second possibility, that the appositive refers only to sanctuariis, suggests the following translation of the relevant passage, ‘… a blessing (i.e. gift) of apostolic sanctuaria (i.e. relics), that is palliola from their confessiones.’ In this case it is not the benedictio as such which is to be deposited, but rather the sanctuaria. The fact that the sanctuaria also happen to be a gift (benedictio) from the Holy See is secondary. The latter interpretation is, I think, the correct one because it conforms to the normal meaning of the word sanctuaria in the Liber Diurnus. This term is frequently used in other formulae to refer to relics (ff. 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 21, 27, and 30), but it appears nowhere else in the text with the meaning ‘reliquary.’ Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Epp. 1.29, 30; 6.6; 11.43; 12.2. He implies the same thing in epp. 7.25; 8.33; 9.228. For page citations of these letters, see above, n. 100.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Intercession: ep. 12.2. Release from sin: epp. 7.25; 8.33; 9.228. Protection: epp. 6.6; 11.43. Curing: epp. 1.25, 29, 30. Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Epp. 9.229; 7.23.Google Scholar

¹¹² Ep. 13.45 (II 408).Google Scholar

¹¹³ Ep. 3.33 (I 192).Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Ep. 9.228 (II 225). A variant version of ep. 9.147 (II 149) refers to an additional cross and key. According to this text Gregory sent the recluse Secundinus a picture of Christ, Mary, Peter and Paul, ‘et unam crucem, clavem pro benedictione.’Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ A similar distinction appears in the letter from Hormisdas' legates (above, p. 159). They state that Justinian seeks sanctuaria of the apostles and in addition (‘petit et'), as something distinct from the sanctuaria, filings from their chains. He desired that the relics should be enclosed in silver caskets so that he might receive these too ‘pro benedictione’ (as a gift) from the Holy See. Pope Pelagius (above, n. 61) sent Patriarch Eutychius a sanctified tunic which he might keep ‘pro reliquiis vel pro benedictione': here the distinction depends on the object's use rather than its form. Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ For a general discussion of such objects in pagan and Christian antiquity, see Kötting, B., art. ‘Devotionalien,’ in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 3 (Stuttgart 1957) 862–871.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ The common belief that benedictio is a synonym for reliquiae rests on very limited evidence. ThLL lists nine non-Gregorian examples for this definition, but only one appears to offer unambiguous support for the proposed conclusion, Ennod. epist. 2.14.5. In the other passages benedictio does not refer to relics. In Paul. Nol. epist. 32.8; Sulp. Sev. dial. 2.8.9; and Itin. Anton. Plac. rec. A 18 and 42, the benedictiones are essentially amulets, talismans, or even souvenirs. In Paul. Nol. epist. 31.1, ‘de sacris sanctorum reliquiis benedictionem’ refers to a gift of relics. Similarly in Eugipp. Sev. 22.1 and 23.2, benedictio emphasizes that relics arrived as an unexpected blessing and not as a result of conscious acquisition. In Sacr. Leon. the presence of relics confers a blessing on the city, but they are not themselves a benedictio. Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Stuiber, , ‘Eulogia' 926–927, comes very close to making this distinction. He discusses a wide variety of sanctified objects which were used as eulogiae, and he says that cloths laid on a grave were particularly common. Nevertheless, his evidence contradicts his generalization. He carefully limits his examples to objects expressly designated as eulogiae or benedictiones in literary or archaeological sources, and as a result his only example of a sanctified cloth as a benedictio is the tunic Pope Pelagius sent to Constantinople (see above n. 61).Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Beste, U., Introductio in Codicem (4th ed.; Naples 1956) 696; Vermeersch, A. and Creusen, I., Epitome Iuris Canonici II (6th ed; Mechiniae 1940) 426. Kötting, , ‘Reliquienverehrung’328, 330, distinguishes two classes of contact relics. In contrast to Gregory, he holds that objects which have had contact with saints during their lifetime are contact relics of the first class while those deriving their sanctity from the tomb or corpse of a saint are of the second class, cf. Dooley, , Church Law on Sacred Relics 4.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ On the variety of objects sanctified by contact with tombs see, e.g. Stuiber, , ‘Eulogia’926-927; Kötting, , ‘Devotionalien’866-870; Lucius, , op. cit. 194-195.Google Scholar

¹²¹ The authors cited in the preceding note all speak of such objects in terms which suggest that they are in fact relics of a sort (Lucius, ‘kunstlich geschaffene Reliquien'; cf. Kötting 870; Stuiber's word ‘Reliquienersatz’ comes closest to the reality). Google Scholar

¹²² For the surviving lists, see above n. 68. Kötting, Kötting, Peregrinalio Religiosa (Regensburg 1950) 239–240, briefly describes the circumstances of the gift.Google Scholar

¹²³ Gregory provides one example of a cloth which had apparently been in contact with a living saint, but it is unclear whether he considered this to be a relic. In ep. 3.3 (I 161) Gregory thanks an abbot for information regarding the tunic of St. John and asks him to send the tunic or, better yet, the bishop who has it along with his clergy and the tunic, ‘quatenus et benedictione tunicae perfruamur, et de eodem episcopo vel clericis mercedem habere valeamus.’ Given the context Gregory seems to be using benedictio to mean ‘blessing’ in a general sense. John the Deacon reports (Vita Greg. III 57 [PL LXXV 168]) that in the ninth century this tunic was preserved under the altar of St. John in the Constantinian basilica and that after Gregory's time the popes had begun to give out pieces of it ‘pro sacris reliquiis.’ Unfortunately we do not know how Gregory himself regarded this object. It is also certain that private individuals sometimes kept sanctified cloths in their possession, see the texts quoted by Leclercq, ‘Brandeum’ 1132-1133, and Pfister, ‘Brandeum’ 522. In Gregory's decree of 595, he states that the people divide up and reverence the dalmatics covering papal coffins despite the existence of many coverings from the sacred bodies of the apostles and martyrs: ‘cum adsint multa a sacris corporibus apostolorum martyrumque velamina,’ ep. 5.57a, c. iv (I 364). Gregory implies that the public could obtain pieces of cloth from the bodies of the saints, but the term velamina suggests that they were merely used vestments and, therefore, more nearly equivalent to keys from Peter's tomb than to actual sanctuaria. Google Scholar

¹²⁴ On Notker's martyrology, see Dümmler, E., ‘Das Martyrologium Notkers und seine Verwandten,’ Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte 25 (1885) esp. 202-208, and Quentin, Quentin, Les martyrologes historiques du moyen age (Paris 1908; reprint Aalen 1969) 679–680, 683. On the date of Notker's work, see Dümmler op. cit. 202-203; cf. von den Steinen, Wolfram, Notker der Dichter (Bern 1948) I 494.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Dümmler, , op. cit. 205. The printed editions of Notker's martyrology, all of which derive from Henricus Canisius, Lectiones Antiquae VI (Ingolstadt 1604) 761-932, omit this passage.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ See the list of relics Hrabanus Maurus acquired, cited above n. 4. Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Westerners may have raised questions about such relics at least as early as the pontificate of Boniface V (619-625) who decreed that only priests should presume to raise the reliquiae of the holy martyrs, Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis I 321. Duchesne interprets this as an attempt to increase the respect for contact relics. Google Scholar

¹²⁸ A likely example of this appears in the Passion of the martyrs of Lyons, cited by Kötting, ‘Reliquienverehrung’ 322. A clear description of the Christians collecting blood so that they could bury all of a martyr's remains occurs in Prudentius, Peristephanon XI 141ff.; see also following note. Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Dölger, Dölger, ‘Gladiatorenblut und Martyrerblut,' Vortrage der Bibliothek Warburg 3 (1926) 196–214, esp. 202-204, 213-214. Dölger believes that Christians desired such cloths as sources of personal protection very similar to the benedictiones I described above. He cites one example from western hagiography which appears to support this view (Prudentius, Peristephanon V 341-344). Some of his other evidence is less convincing. He mentions another passage from the Peristephanon which, when read in context, clearly refers to the collection of blood for burial (see preceding note). He also cites the example of the Empress Serena who kept a cloth soaked in the blood of St. Susanna over which she prayed day and night. In this case, the relic seems less a source of protection than an aid to piety.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Leclercq, H., ‘Brandeum’ 1133-1134, tentatively suggests the following explanation for the development of sanctified cloths: ‘Ce qui parait le plus vraisemblable, bien qu'on ne puisse citer aucun texte à l'appui, c'est que les corps des martyrs ayant été brisés, déchirés, fragmentés, on subit la nécessité de réunir les membres épars sur le sol dans un suaire afin de les transporter au lieu de l'inhumation. Là le cadavre était préparé, enveloppé souvent de riches větements et la toile qui avait hativement servi à recueillir et à transporter les restes devenait sans doute la propriété de quelques fidèles ou de celui qui avait prèté ce premier linceul…. On peut donc supposer que la Paix de l'Église supprimant la source des brandeasudaria, on voulut suppléer à cette disparition par l'adoption d'une coutume consistant à faire toucher la tombe des martyrs par des linges qui étaient censés avoir touché les corps eux-mèmes.’ Leclercq is, to my knowledge, the only scholar who has recognized the bloody origin of sanctuaria, but he does not fully appreciate the spiritual equivalence of these contact relics to the bodies themselves.Google Scholar

¹³¹ The author of the Whitby Vita Gregorii expressed the change in explicitly physical terms. According to his account, Gregory described the consecration of contact relics saying, ‘the blood of the saints to whom each relic belongs always enters into the cloth just as if it had been soaked in blood'; see Colgrave, The Earliest Life of Gregory 110, 111. Gregory of Tours' explanation was less sanguinary, but he agreed that the spiritual mutation was accompanied by physical change: the cloth weighed more after its consecration than before, Glor. Mart. 27 (p. 54); cf. appendix. Google Scholar

¹³² Lucius, , op. cit. 195, draws the same conclusion from Gregory's work, but he fails to emphasize the distinction between these cloths and other objects sanctified by contact with a tomb.Google Scholar

¹³³ Objects derived from the true Cross occupy a middle ground between these two. Gregory enclosed wood of the Cross in benedictiones or phylacteries: epp. 9.228 (II 225); 14.2 (II 431). He also distributed sanctuaria of the Cross: ep. 2.15 (I 112-113). It may be that the distinction among these objects arose from the fact that some of them were splinters of wood and others were pieces of cloth. If my explanation of the origin of sanctuaria is correct, the material similarity between sanctuaria of the saints and those of the Cross would help to explain why the cloths were placed in altars while particles of wood were treated like the instruments of the martyrs' passions. This would be particularly likely if what Gregory speaks of as wood of the Cross were really only wood which had touched a piece of the Cross. It is also possible that all these objects were wood and that the distinction between benedictiones and sanctuaria of the Cross is based exclusively on the use for which they were intended. Paulinus of Nola sent a sliver of the Cross to Sulpicius Severus which the recipient could either deposit in an altar or keep at hand ‘ad cotidianam tutelam atque medicinam,’ ep. 32.7-8 (CSEL XXIX 282-283). Cf. above n. 115. Google Scholar

¹³⁴ This is the view of the development of churches and altars expounded by Braun, Braun, Der christliche Altar in seiner historischen Entwicklung (Munich 1924) I 650-656. Grabar, Grabar, Martyrium: Recherches sur le culte des reliques et l'art chrétien antique (Paris 1946) I 314-322, sees the union of church and martyrium as essentially established in the West by Constantine's foundations in Rome, but his assumption that the intimate connection between altar and tomb existed that early is not well founded, see Ward-Perkins, J. B., ‘Memoria, Martyr's Tomb and Martyr's Church,’ Akten des VII. internationalen Kongresses für christliche Archäo'logie 1965 (Studi di antichità cristiana XXVII; 1969) pt. 1, p. 7, and the comments by Kollwitz, J., ibid. 26-27. See also Wieland, Wieland, Altar und Altargrab der christlichen Kirchen im 4. Jahrhundert (Leipzig 1912).Google Scholar

¹³⁵ On these ideas and others relevant to the development of the altar-tomb, see Braun I 656-661. Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Of the scholars who emphasize the existence of these practices in Rome, Braun's evaluation of the evidence is the most careful and critical, ibid. 615-618. Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Delehaye disputes Braun's interpretation in his review of Der christliche Altar in Analecta Bollandiana 43 (1925) 386–387. For Delehaye's own analysis of the evidence, see Origines 63-65.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ E.g. Braun 1616-617. Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Even those scholars who minimize the Roman reluctance to disturb tombs see a dilemma of sorts in that the Romans could not accede to all demands for corporeal relics without depleting their own supply, cf. Lucius, op. cit. 191. For the general view that the use of contact relics began primarily because the demand for corporeal relics exceeded the supply, see ibid. 194, and Kötting, ‘Reliquienverehrung’ 327. Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Kirsch, J. P., art. ‘Altar III (christlich),’ in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 1 (Stuttgart 1950) 346. Kirsch notes that representative relics were laid to rest under the altar in actual tombs and occasionally in antique sarcophagi. On the survival of the Roman funeral procession even in the dedication of modern churches, see Kollwitz, J., art. ‘Bestattung,’ ibid. 2 (1954) 215, and on the holding of vigils the night before the consecration, Braun I 684.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Only with difficulty can one accept at face value Gregory's doubts, expressed in this letter, as to whether the Greeks actually move the bodies of the saints. He had spent sufficient time in Constantinople to know that the Eastern church did practice translation and division, and it seems unlikely that he intended to label as false all of the relics moved by the Greeks. Google Scholar

¹⁴² Delehaye, Delehaye, who is one of the strongest supporters of the reliability of Gregory's statements, admits the existence of occasional translations in Rome between the third and the fifth century, Origines 63.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Paulinus of Nola, ep. 32.11 (CSEL XXIX 287). Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Braun I 615-616; Lucius op. cit. 187. The word ossa appears less often, but Paulinus uses it frequently along with cineres in epp. 31 and 32 (CSEL XXIX 267-301). See also following note. Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ ThLL, , s.v. ‘cinis, Il'; Lewis and Short, s.v. ‘cinis.’ Lewis and Short cite a number of examples where Cicero uses cinis in conjunction with ossa. On reliquiae as the remains of a cremation, see above n. 33.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ For the use of reliquiae to refer to a recently deceased corpse, see Jerome, ep. 23.1 (CSEL LIV 212). Ambrose, De Excessu Fratris I 18, speaks of his brother's reliquias and ibid. I 19 of his examinum corpus (CSEL LXXIII 219). Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Blaise, , s.v. ‘cinis, 2,’ defines cineres as ‘relics’ and cites Prudentius, Peristephanon XI 1. Prudentius seems to use the word in a broad sense to indicate physical remains in general or even tombs, cf. ThLL, s.v. ‘cinis, II, B, 2.’Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Gregory emphasizes the presence of the saints in his reply to Peter's question in the Dialogues quoted above p 155. ‘Ubi in suis corporibus sancti martyres iacent, dubium, Petre, non est, quod multa valeant signa monstrare, sicut et faciunt. … sed quia ab infirmis potest mentibus dubitari, utrumne ad exaudiendum ibi praesentes sint, ubi constat quia in suis corporibus non sint, ibi eos necesse est maiora signa ostendere, ubi de eorum praesentia potest mens infirma dubitare’ Dial. III 38 (pp. 133-134). Google Scholar

¹ Garitte, G., ‘Histoires édifiantes géorgienne,’ Byzantion 36 (1966) 406–408.Google Scholar

² See above, n. 88. Google Scholar

³ Sauget, J.-M., ‘Saint Grégoire le grand et les reliques de saint Pierre dans la tradition arabe chrétienne,’ Rivista di archeologia cristiana 49 (1973) 307–309.Google Scholar

⁴ Ibid. 303-304.Google Scholar

⁵ Neither text makes reference to Pope Leo, but the Arabic version describes Gregory's reception of the doubters thus: ‘Erat sanctus Gregorius perseverans confidenter sicut antecessor suus.’ Google Scholar

⁶ In the Arabic text the effusion of blood appears to occur without any incision, but in the Georgian version Gregory cuts the cloth. Google Scholar

⁷ Glor. Mart. 27, above n. 61.Google Scholar