A homily, probably by Theodore Syncellus, celebrates the recent return of the robe of *Mary (Mother of Christ, S00033) to her church at Blachernae. The homily tells how the robe was acquired in the region of Nazareth and brought to Constantinople, where the emperor Leo I [r. 457-474] housed it appropriately at Blachernae; how, faced by an Avar threat [in 623], it was taken to safety inside the walls, to the church of Hagia Sophia, and then solemnly returned when the threat was lifted; and how, during this process, the reliquary was opened and the woollen robe found to be intact. Written in Greek in Constantinople, 623/624.
E08473
Literary - Sermons/Homilies
Narratio in depositionem pretiosae vestis Deiparae in Blachernis (BHG 1058)
The homily starts by recounting how two patricians by the names of Candidus and Galbius acquired the robe (ἐσθηìς) of Mary in the region of Nazareth by deceiving an elderly Jewish woman who used to be its guardian. Candidus and Galbius then bring the robe to Constantinople and deposit it in a chapel dedicated to Sts Peter and Paul in the Blachernae region. Slightly later, the relic’s presence in Constantinople is revealed to the emperor Leo who places it in a precious reliquary and encloses it in a purpose-built sanctuary. The author then turns toward his own time.
(Combefis 1648, 751–788)
1. Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἅπερ ἡ θεοτόκος ἐν Βλαχέρναις ἐθησαύρισεν τῇ πόλει μυστήρια· τίνα δὲ ἅπερ ἐν τῷ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς χρόνῳ γεγόνασιν, ὧν αὐτόπται καὶ θεωροὶ καθεστήκαμεν ἅπαντες, ἔνθεν ἐρῶ.
‘These then were the miracles with which the Theotokos at Blachernae endowed the city; but as for those that took place in our own day, which we all witnessed and saw ourselves, I will go on to narrate them.’
2.-3. The author deplores the difficult times that the people of Constantinople are facing. After failed peace negotiations with the emperor Heraclius, the Avar Khagan pillages the suburbs of the city. Emperor, patriarch, and the people are praying for relief.
4. It is decided to remove the treasures from the church of Blachernae, which, lying outside the city walls, is exposed to the Avar raids. However, the men appointed with this task act inappropriately:
5. τὸν μὲν γὰρ ἄλλον ἅπαντα χρυσόν τε περιεῖλον καὶ ἀργύριον ἀξίναις καὶ πέλυξι καὶ ἑτέροις τοιουτοσχήμοις κατεάξαντες σκεύεσιν, ἐτόλμησαν δὲ καὶ τῆς θείας ἐφάψασθαι ταύτης σοροῦ, καὶ τὸ πᾶσι τέως ἀθέατον, ἐν φανερῷ τότε καταστῆσαι μυστήριον. ἔσωθεν δὲ τῆς ὁρωμένης σοροῦ, ἥτις ἐκ χρυσοῦ καὶ ἀργύρου ἔχει τὴν ποίησιν, σορὸς εὑρέθη λίθου, στιλβούσης λαμπρότητα, καὶ ταύτης ἔνδον πρὸς τῷ μέρει τῷ κατὰ ἄρκτον, εὕρηται κείμενος ὁ θεῖος θησαυρὸς ἐν ἑτέρῳ σορίῳ μικρῷ φυλαττόμενος.
‘For besides removing all the other gold and silver, breaking it down with picks and axes and other weapons of the kind, they dared actually to lay hands on this divine casket, and to bring into the light then the wonder previously hidden from all. And inside the visible casket, which is made of gold and silver, was found a stone casket, shining with brightness, and inside this at the top was found lying the divine treasure, preserved safe in another little casket.’
6. Οἱ μὲν οὖν τὸν κόσμον τὸν ἐν χρυσῷ καὶ ἀργύρῳ τοῦ θείου ναοῦ κατεάξαντες, τὸ ἅγιον τοῦτο σόριον προπετῶς ἀνοῖξαι τολμήσαντες, μύρων μὲν εὐθὺς εὐωδίας πολλῆς ἀντελάβοντο, ὥστε καὶ τὸν οἶκον ἅπαντα ἐξ αὐτῆς πληρωθῆναι. ὁρῶσι δὲ βασιλικῆς ἁλουργίδος μέρος ἐλάχιστον, ὅπερ τῆς θεοτόκου ἐνόμισαν εἶναι τὸ περιβόλαιον.
‘So those who had broken down the gold and silver treasure of the divine church dared precipitately to open this holy little casket and immediately encountered such a strong smell of perfume that the entire church was filled with it. They saw a tiny piece of imperial purple which they assumed was the robe of the Theotokos.’
Before the workmen are able to steal parts of the fabric, the patriarch intervenes. Backed by the emperor, he places the innermost casket in the treasury of the Great Church [i.e., Hagia Sophia].
7. As the acute danger has passed, the patriarch decides to return the relic to its own place:
μεθ᾽ ὑψηλοῦ συγκαλεῖται κηρύγματος ἅπασαν τῶν ἀρχιερέων τὴν σύνοδον, κλῆρόν τε καὶ λαὸν, ὅσος ἐν ἀνδράσι καὶ ὅσος ἐν γυναιξίν, ὅσος ἐν τέλει, καὶ ὅσος ἐν ἀξιώμασιν, καὶ ὅσος ἐν ἰδιωτικῷ βιοτεύει τῷ σχήματι, δεῦτε, λέγων, ἴδετε, ἱερεῖς καὶ λαοὶ, τὰ μεγαλεῖα Χριστοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν, δεῦτε θησαυρὸν τὸν ἕως νῦν κεκρυμμένον θεάσασθαι, δεῦτε προσκυνήσατε δῶρον πανάγιον, ὅπερ ἡ Θεοτόκος εἰς σωτηρίαν τῇ πόλει δέδωκεν.
‘He called together in a lofty decree all the assembly of patriarchs, the clergy and the laity, men and women, and those holding offices and ranks, and all who lived in private life. “Here, priests and people,” he said, “see the greatness of Christ our God. Come and see the treasure till now hidden; here, prostrate yourselves before the most holy gift which the Theotokos has given to the city for its safety”.’
8. Ὅτε δὲ ἡ προκεκηρυγμένη κλειτὴ ἡμέρα ἐπέφωσκεν, ἄπαυστον μὲν διὰ νυκτὸς ἁπάσης τὴν ἱερὰν ὑμνῳδίαν ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ τούτῳ τεμένει τετέλεκεν, τὸ αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο γενέσθαι καὶ ἐν τῷ ναῷ Λαυρεντίου τοῦ ἱερωτάτου παρεσκεύασεν μάρτυρος. ἐκεῖ γὰρ ἡλίου δύνοντος πρὸ μιᾶς τῆς ἑορτῆς ἡμέρας τὸν ἅγιον θησαυρὸν ἅπασι προὔθηκεν εἰς προσκύνησιν, κεκαλυμμένον δηλαδὴ καὶ ὀφθαλμοῖς ἀνθρώπων ἀθέατον. καὶ πᾶσα μὲν ἡλικία καὶ πᾶν γένος ἀνϑρώπων τῶν οἰκούντων ταύτην τὴν μεγαλόπολιν τῆς τοιαύτης τῆς διὰ νυκτὸς ἁπάσης ἠξίωται προσκυνήσεως.
‘And when the decreed named day dawned, he [the patriarch] performed the ceaseless holy singing of hymns throughout the whole night in this sacred shrine. And he caused the same to take place also in the church of the holy martyr St. Laurence. For there when the sun set one day before the festival, he brought forth the holy treasure for all to adore. It was covered and could not be seen by the eyes of men. And every age and all generations of men who dwelt in this capital city were judged fit to take part in such adoration throughout the night.’
9.-10. At dawn, the patriarch carries the relic to the Blachernae Church, accompanied by a massive crowd. When he enters the church, the people press in and start to chant.
11. Τότε τοίνυν ὁ ἱεράρχης ὃν μὲν ἐβάσταζεν θησαυρόν, ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ θυσιαστηρίῳ κεκαλυμμένον ἀπέθετο (…) τοῦ λαοῦ παντὸς ἔτι τὸ «κύριε ἐλέησον» βοῶντος, ἀναστὰς ἐκ τῆς προσευχῆς καὶ τὰς χεῖρας ἄρας εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ πάλιν ἱκετείαν προσαγαγών τε καὶ ποιησάμενος, τρεμούσας τὰς χεῖρας, ἱδρῶτι περιρρεόμενος, τῷ ἁγίῳ ἐκείνῳ μυστηρίῳ ἐπέβαλεν. ἀνοίξας τε ἃς αὐτὸς ἐν ἀρχαῖς ἐπετεθείκει σφραγίδας, εὑρίσκει βασιλικὴν ἁλουργίδα μύροις περιειλημμένην καὶ ἄλλοις ἀρώμασιν. ἐκείνην δὲ ἀνειλήσας εὗρεν τὴν ἐσθῆτα τῆς ὄντως ἀληθινῆς βασιλίδος, τῆς Θεομήτορος, τὴν ἰδίαν ἀποστίλβουσαν χάριν καὶ δύναμιν.
‘So the patriarch deposited the treasure which he held in the holy sanctuary, hidden from view. (…) All the people were still chanting the ‘Lord have mercy’, and rising up from his prayer and lifting his hands up to heaven and again pouring out earnest supplications, he laid his trembling hands, himself bathed in sweat, on that holy wonder. Opening up the seals which he himself had placed there originally, he found imperial purple wrapped with myrrh and other perfumes. And opening that he found the robe of the true empress, the Mother of God, shining out with her own grace and power.’
12. Καὶ θέα μοι τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου τὰ θεῖα τεράστια. ἐνταῦθα γὰρ ἐφάνη μάλιστα τὸ ἀψευδὲς τοῦ μυστηρίου καὶ τῆς Θεοτόκου ἡ πρόδηλος δύναμις. ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἁλουργὶς βασιλικὴ ὅλη διερρύη καὶ ἔφθαρτο, καίπερ τῆς ἐκ σηρῶν ἐσθῆτος ἐχούσης μᾶλλον τὸ μόνιμον. ἡ δὲ ἐσθὴς ἡ ϑεία ἐξ ἐρίων εὐφθάρτων ἐξυφασμένη, καὶ ὁ στήμων γὰρ καὶ ἡ κρόκη ἔριόν ἐστιν τὸ αὐτὸ ὁμοειδὲς καὶ ὁμόχροον, διαφθορὰν τὸ σύνολον οὐχ ὑπέμεινεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅλη ἐστὶν ἀπαθῆς, ὅλη συνεστῶσα καὶ ἀδιάφθορος, τὸ ἀδιάφθορόν τε καὶ ἀπαθὲς τῆς ἀμφιασαμένης ὑποσημαίνουσα καὶ μεγάλα εἰκότως.
‘And see the divine miracles of the Word of God! For there was seen at once the truth of the wonder and the manifest power of the Theotokos. For the imperial purple was totally destroyed and worn away, although silk cloth lasts a long time. But the divine robe, woven from perishable wool – both warp and woof the same wool of the same colour – had suffered no destruction at all, but was completely intact, whole and indestructible, evidence of the indestructibility and untouchability of the wearer, as one might fully expect.
13. The author goes on to explore the idea of the garment’s sanctity ‘when we believe that it not only clothed the Mother of God, but that in it she actually wrapped the Word of God Himself, when he was a little child, and gave him milk’ (ἣν οὐ μόνον αὐτὴν πεπιστεύκαμεν ἠμφιέσθαι τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου μητέρα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ᾗ καὶ αὐτὸν πάντως ἔτι νήπίον ὄντα τὸν Θεὸν Λόγον ἐδέξατό τε καὶ ἐγαλούχησεν.).
14. Ταῦτα τοίνυν ὁ ἱεράρχης ἅπαντα, τῷ τε νοΐ καὶ τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς θεασάμενος ὄμμασιν καὶ ὥσπερ ἔνθους ὑφ᾽ ἡδονῆς γενόμενος, οὐκ ἔκρυψεν ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸν πλοῦτον τῆς χάριτος, οὐκ ἀφῆκεν ἀμάρτυρον τὸ μυστήριον ἐν ἑαυτῷ μόνῳ περιλαβὼν τούτου τὴν δύναμιν, ἀλλὰ παντὶ τῷ πληρώματι τῆς ἐκκλησίας τὴν χάριν ὑπέδειξεν, τρέμων μὲν ὅλος καὶ δακρύων πηγὰς ἀφείς, τρεμούσαις δὲ ταῖς χερσὶν τὴν ὕψωσιν τοῦ μυστηρίου ποιούμενος, τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ αὖθις ὀλολυγμοῖς καὶ βοαῖς ἀσήμοις συμμιγνύντος ἀπαύστως τὸ «κύριε ἐλέησον» .
‘Seeing all of this then in his mind and with the eyes of the spirit and as if inspired by joy, the patriarch did not conceal in himself the richness of the grace. He did not leave the matter unwitnessed, keeping its power to himself alone, but revealed the grace to the whole company of the church, trembling all over and weeping streams of tears, lifting the wonder with trembling hands, as the people again with cries and mingled chants cried without ceasing in unison the ‘Lord have mercy’.
15.-16. Having revealed the robe to the congregation, the patriarch again wraps it in purple and places it into the three-shelled reliquary. He then continues to celebrate the mass. It is decreed that a yearly festival should commemorate the event.
17.-18. Finally, the author exalts the Theotokos; he implores her to safeguard Constantinople from any kind of danger or harm (‘turn away from it every barbarian of whatever race, who plots hostility against it, making manifest that the city is fortified by your power’ - πάντα τε βάρβαρον ἐξ οἱουδήποτε ἔθνους ὑπάρχοντα, πολέμιόν τι κατ᾽ αὐτῆς βουλευόμενον, ἀπόστρεψον ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς, ἐμφανῶς δεικνῦσα ὅτι τῇ σῇ ἡ πόλις δυνάμει τειχίζεται) and to protect the emperors, the patriarch, and the people.
Text: Loparev 1895, 592–612.
Translation: Cameron 1979, 48–56, lightly modified.
Summary: Nadine Viermann.
Sermon/homily
Procession
Chant and religious singing
FestivalsAnniversary of relic invention/translation
Cult PlacesCult building - independent (church)
Non Liturgical ActivitySaint as patron - of a community
MiraclesMiracle after death
Miraculous protection - of communities, towns, armies
Miraculous behaviour of relics/images
Bodily incorruptibility
RelicsContact relic - saint’s possession and clothes
Discovering, finding, invention and gathering of relics
Transfer, translation and deposition of relics
Transfer/presence of relics from distant countries
Construction of cult building to contain relics
Public display of relics
Reliquary – institutionally owned
Protagonists in Cult and NarrativesEcclesiastics - bishops
Ecclesiastics - lesser clergy
Women
Cult Related ObjectsPrecious material objects
Source
The homily In depositionem pretiosae vestis Deiparae in Blachernis (BGH 1058) is preserved in various manuscript, some of which transmit it anonymously, while others attribute it to Theodore Syncellus/Synkellos (Wenger 1955, 114–115). This Theodore is known as the author of another homily, De obsidione Constantinopolis, on the siege of Constantinople by the Avars and Persians in 626 (BHG 1016). Possibly composed to celebrate the anniversary of the Roman victory, this latter homily remembers the existential danger the city had been in and appreciates how it was saved by the divine intercession of the Virgin. As synkellos, Theodore was a high-ranking ecclesiastical official, responsible for communication between the patriarchate of Constantinople and the imperial court. Theodore is also attested as a member of an embassy to the Avar Khagan during the first days of the 626 siege (Chron. Pasch. a. 626, Dindorf p. 721). Although it is impossible to prove beyond dispute the identity of the author of In depositionem, stylistic and contextual similarities render it quite plausible that he is identical with Theodore, the author of De obsidione (Wenger 1955, 114–124).Just as De obsidione, In depositionem culminates in an account of recent events. Whereas De obsidione puts the 626 siege into the context of Old-Testament typology and the Christian history of salvation, In depositionem opens with the story of how the robe of the Virgin Mary first arrived in Constantinople during the reign of Leo I (r. 457–474). This account, centring on the activity of the patricians Galbius and Candidus, is a redacted version of a 5th or 6th-century hagiographical text (Wenger 1955, 128–136, 294–303). In depositionem then goes on to reflect on the Avar raids of 623 and the temporary removal of the relic from the Blachernae church, which the author seems to have witnessed from a privileged position close to the patriarch. The homily was likely composed and presented in the immediate aftermath of the said events; it certainly appears to date prior to the siege of 626, of which it does not show any knowledge.
By establishing an authoritative narrative of what happened and why, both homilies attributed to Theodore Syncellus engage in a process of collective sense-making after periods of threat and insecurity, that builds on the idea of Constantinople being a divinely protected city with a special relation to the Virgin.
Discussion
The cult of the Virgin was on the rise in Constantinople throughout Late Antiquity, after a decree of the Council of Constantinople in 381 acknowledged her as Theotokos, Mother of God. It was in the early 7th century, however, that her cult reached a first peak when she solidified her reputation of protecting the city in times of danger (Cameron 1978, 1979; Mango 2000) – an idea that remained at the centre of Constantinople’s collective identity throughout the Middle Ages.Constantinople developed several focal points of Marian devotion, the most important of which was the church of the Mother of God in the Blachernae quarter which housed the relic of the Virgin’s robe (the Chalkoprateia church in the city centre was credited with holding her girdle). The early history of the Blachernae church and its relic is contested: One string of sources, represented amongst others by In depositionem, credits two patricians, Candidus and Galbius, with bringing the relic to Constantinople from the Holy Land, and the emperor Leo I (r. 457–474) and his wife Verina with building a church in the Blachernae quarter, just outside the Theodosian Walls; another string, although firmly attested only later, ascribes the acquisition of Marian relics as well as the building of the Blachernae church to Pulcheria, sister of Theodosius II and wife of Marcian (Wenger 1955, 113–139; Mango 1998; Shoemaker 2008). Justin I (r. 518–527) built a three-ailed basilica on the site, which seems to have been an addition to the initial, smaller church (Proc. De aed. 1.3.3–5); this smaller church or martyrion is referred to as ἡ ἁγία Σορός and contained the relic of the Virgin’s robe (De cer. 1.27, 1.34, 2.9, 2.12). Parts of the basilica were restored under Justin II (Anth. Palat. 1.2–3). After the double siege of 626, Heraclius extended the Theodosian Walls to incorporate the Blachernae quarter and its precious church into the fortification (Chron. Pasch. a. 627, Dindorf p. 726).
The temporary removal of the Virgin’s robe from the Blachernae church, that In depositionem focuses on, happened in the aftermath of a failed summit meeting between the emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641) and the Avar Khagan in Heracleia, 100 km west of Constantinople, when the Avars broke through the Long Wall and raided the rich suburbs of the capital (Chron. Pasch. a. 623, Dindorf p. 712). While some scholars propose a date of 619 (Cameron 1979), the date of 623, given by the Chronicon Paschale, seems most likely. It was during that year that Heraclius briefly returned to Constantinople from his first campaign against the Persians in 622/23, before setting out again for his major counteroffensive in 624.
With no archaeological or material traces remaining of the early Byzantine Blachernae church or its relic, In depositionem offers valuable insights into how the relic was stored. The Virgin’s robe itself was hidden from view, kept within several caskets of precious materials like a Russian doll (the outermost casket of gold and silver, the middle one of stone, the innermost one of non-specified material; within the smallest casket, the robe was wrapped in purple fabric, see §5). This three-shelled reliquary seems to have been connected to the altar and was directly accessible only to the clergy (§11). In late antique settings, it was common for relics to be concealed from view and incorporated into the altar or even under the church floor. In Blachernae, however, the precious reliquary must have evoked and drawn attention to the presence of the holy object. The arrangement described by In depositionem – a reliquary formed by various caskets – is corroborated by archaeological evidence from others sites (Viermann 2023).
When removed from this setting due to the Avar threat, the Virgin’s robe, contained in its innermost casket, was brought into Constantinople’s main church, Hagia Sophia, for safekeeping. By that time, Hagia Sophia had developed into the central node of the city’s sacred topography. While the church itself was not founded on relics, it served as temporary storage and space of veneration for relics coming into or circulating within Constantinople (Viermann 2023).
The return of the Virgin’s robe to Blachernae, after the threat had passed, took the form of a lavish ceremony led by the patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius; it congregated, as the text highlights, a cross-section of urban society, from priests and officeholders to private citizens, men and women (§ 7–11). In Late Antiquity, the movement of relics, be it their translation from one place to another or their circulation within a city, were often public matters inspired by a range of urban ritual traditions like the adventus ceremony, the arrival and reception of a prominent individual.
In the case of the Virgin’s robe, the return to the Blachernae Church posed a unique opportunity to reveal the usually hidden relic and for Sergius to present it to the congregated people (“Here, priests and people,” he said, “(…) Come and see the treasure till now hidden.” § 7). The robe, kept in its precious container, was first venerated in the church of St Laurence, built by the Augusta Pulcheria and located close to the northern branch of the Mese, Constantinople’s main street, on the way between the city centre and Blachernae. The actual revealing of the relic happened after the procession had reached the Blachernae church. In the sanctuary, the area of the church that was reserved for clerics, the patriarch opened the reliquary to find that the robe ‘made from perishable wool’ had ‘suffered no destruction’ (§ 12) at all. However, despite the indubitably prominent position of the patriarch, the text suggest that it was not enough for him alone to see the relic in its undefiled state: ‘he revealed the grace to the whole company of the church … lifting the wonder with trembling hands’ (§ 14) before it was returned to its resting place in the sanctuary and again withdrawn from sight and direct access.
Throughout Late Antiquity, we see different ways of authenticating a relic: Other accounts of relic translations record healing miracles to prove that what was carried around and venerated had in fact wonder-working capacities; in the case of the Virgin’s robe, it was the undefiled state of the relic that authenticated the object and represented the undefiled nature of the Virgin Mary herself. This again was representative of a broader trend, as incorruptibility, be it of a body or a secondary relic, often served as a way to identify a relic. Finally, the broad communal participation and affirmation of the ceremony was crucial in the process of authentication and propagation. When Sergius, having opened the casket, presented the robe to the congregation, the people bore witness to the relic’s undefiled state; simultaneously, this act ingrained the idea of the Virgin’s presence in the collective conscience of Constantinoople. The restitution of the Virgin’s robe was commemorated yearly on 2 July (J. Mateos, Le Typicon de la Grande Église I, Rome 1962, 328–331).
Only a couple of years after the restitution of the Virgin’s robe to Blacharnae, her presence once again became apparent to the people. Several contemporary accounts credit the Virgin Mary for repelling the Avar Siege of 626 from her Blachernae sanctuary, which certainly reflects a broad public sentiment (besides Theodore Syncellus’ De obsidione, there are George of Pisidia’s Bellum Avaricum and the Chronicon Paschale a. 626, Dindorf 715–726). As Cameron (1978) has shown, Marian veneration became quite prominent in Constantinople already in the 6th century, but the public veneration and authentication of the Virgin’s robe in 623 might have contributed to a collective sense of her intercession and protection that could be activated in times of danger, channelled through her relic in the Blachernae church.
Bibliography
Editions:Combefis, E., Historia Haeresis Monothelitarum (Bibliotheca Patrum Novum Auctuarium; Paris: Antonius Bertier, 1648), 751–788.
Loparev, C. “Staroe Svidetelstvo o Polozhenii rizy Bogorodnitsy vo Vlakherniakh,” VizVrem 2 (1895), 592–612. (Re-edition of the parts of the text that related recent events, i.e., the Avar threat and the temporary removal of the relic.)
Translation:
Cameron, A., "The Virgin’s Robe: An Episode in the History of Early Seventh-Century Constantinople," Byzantion 49 (1979), 42–56. (Translation of Loparev’s edition.)
Further reading:
Cameron, A., “The Theotokos in Sixth-Century Constantinople: A City Finds Its Symbol,” The Journal of Theological Studies 29 (1978), 79–108.
Mango, C. “The Origins of the Blachernae Shrine at Constantinople,” in: N. Cambi & E. Marin (ed.), Acta XIII Congressus Internationalis Archaeologicae Christianae II (Rome: Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, 1998), 61–76.
Mango, C. “Constantinople as Theotokoupolis,” in: M. Vassilaki (ed.), The Mother of God: Representations of the Virgin in Byzantine Art (Milan: Skira Editore, 2000), 17–25.
Shoemaker, S. “The Cult of Fashion: The Earliest ‘Life of the Virgin’ and Constantinople’s Marian Relics,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 62 (2008), 53–74.
Viermann, N. “Holy Objects on the Move. Relics in Constantinople between City Centre and Urban Periphery,” in: C. Machado & R. Sweetman (ed.), Lived Spaces in Late Antiquity (Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge 2023), in proof.
Wenger, A., L’Assomption de la très Sainte Vierge dans la tradition byzantine du VIe au Xe siècle (Paris: Institut Français d’Études Byzantines, 1955).
Nadine Viermann
20/07/2023
| ID | Name | Name in Source | Identity | S00008 | Paul, the Apostle | Certain | S00033 | Mary, Mother of Christ | Certain | S00036 | Peter, the Apostle | Certain | S00037 | Laurence/Laurentius, deacon and martyr of Rome | Certain |
|---|
Please quote this record referring to its author, database name, number, and, if possible, stable URL:
Nadine Viermann, Cult of Saints, E08473 - http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E08473