The Lateran Church in Rome and the Ark of the Covenant 9781783273881

Citation preview

eivor andersen oftestad holds a PhD in Church History and is Church historian at MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and Society. Cover image: Arch of Titus, Rome. Detail of inner relief showing spoils from the Siege of Jerusalem. Photo: Line Melballe Bonde.

Studies in the History of Medieval Religion

T H E L AT E R A N C H U R C H I N R O M E A N D T H E A R K O F T H E C O V E N A N T

The author explores the history of the Lateran Ark of the Covenant through a reading of the description of the Lateran Church (Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae), composed around 1100. She follows the transmission of the text both in the Lateran Archive and in monastic settings in northern France and Belgium, comparing the claim to the Ark with similar claims in texts from Jerusalem. The book also includes a new edition of the Descriptio and an English translation.

EIVOR ANDERSEN O F T E S TA D

W

hy did the twelfth-century canons at the Lateran church (San Giovanni in Laterano) in Rome claim the presence of the Ark of the Covenant inside their high altar? This book argues that the claim responded to new challenges in the aftermath of the First Crusade in 1099. The Christian possession of Jerusalem questioned the legitimation of the papal cathedral in Rome as the summit of sacerdotal representation. To meet this challenge, what may be described as translatio templi (the transfer of the temple) was used to strengthen the status of the Lateran. The Ark of the Covenant was central as part of the treasure from the Jerusalem temple, allegedly transported to Rome, and according to contemporary accounts depicted on the arch of Titus.

E I V O R A N D E R S E N O F T E S TA D

H O U S I N G T H E H O LY R E L I C S O F J E R U S A L E M

Studies in the History of Medieval Religion VOLUME XLVIII

the lateran church in rome and the ark of the covenant

Studies in the History of Medieval Religion ISSN 0955–2480 Founding Editor Christopher Harper-Bill Series Editor Frances Andrews

Previously published titles in the series are listed at the back of this volume

the lateran church in rome and the ark of the covenant housing the holy relics of jerusalem with an edition and translation of the descriptio lateranensis ecclesiae (bav reg. lat. 712)

eivor andersen oftestad

the boydell press

© Eivor Andersen Oftestad 2019 All Rights Reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner The right of Eivor Andersen Oftestad to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 First published 2019 The Boydell Press, Woodbridge ISBN 978-1-78327-388-1 The Boydell Press is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF, UK and of Boydell & Brewer Inc. 668 Mt Hope Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620-2731, USA website: www.boydellandbrewer.com A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library The publisher has no responsibility for the continued existence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate This publication is printed on acid-free paper typeset by thewordservice.com

For Victoria, Birgitta, Maria and Theodor with love

Contents

List of Tables

viii

Acknowledgements ix List of Abbreviations

x

Author’s Note

xi

Prologue xiii 1 Introduction 1 2 The Description of the Lateran Church

21

3 In the Roman Context

36

4 In the Northern French Context

56

5 In the Jerusalem Context

84

6 The Temple of the New Covenant

121

7 Nikolaus Maniacutius and John the Deacon

157

Epilogue 187 Appendix 1: Manuscripts Transmitting the Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae

193

Appendix 2: Different Versions of the Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae

204

Appendix 3: Edition and Translation of the Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae (Reg. lat. 712)

216

Bibliography 233 Index 251

List of Tables

Table 1: Synopsis of relevant common texts or types of texts in the manuscripts Reg. lat 712, Brussels BR 9828, BNF lat. 5129, Cambrai BM 802 and BNF lat. 6186, based on the order of Reg. lat. 712.

196

Table 2: Stemma for Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae (according to C. Vogel). 205

Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure for me to acknowledge the financial support that I have received from various sources. I am grateful to the Research Council of Norway, which has provided me with several scholarships since 2002; and to the Faculty of Theology at the University of Oslo, my working place through two research projects (2002– 2014), and to MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and Society (2015–). I am also indebted to the Norwegian Institute in Rome, and in particular to the staff at the Lateran Archive and at the Vatican Library, not least Dr Massimo Ceresa and the late Father Leonard Boyle O.P., who once introduced me to the treasure chamber of this wonderful library through the F.I.D.E.M course at the Vatican. I am grateful to several researchers and good colleagues who have read and commented on parts of this book in different stages: to Tarald Rasmussen at the University of Oslo, who deserves special thanks for his guidance and support; to Damien Kempf, Bernard Hamilton, Colin Morris, Kurt Villads Jensen, Mette Birkedal Bruun, Aleida and Jan Assmann, Brenda Bolton and Marie-Thérèse Champagne, who all gave me important feedback; to Jan Schumacher, who also once inspired my initial interest in the church history of the Middle Ages; to my dear fellows at the research project ‘Tracing the Jerusalem Code’ at MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and Society, in particular Kristin B. Aavitsland, Ragnhild Zorgati, Line M. Bonde, Victor P. Tschudi, Arne Bugge Amundsen and Joar Haga; and to my father, Ragnar Andersen, with whom I have discussed numerous Latin quotations. Virginia Clark deserves a special thank you for her work on the translation of Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae. Therese Sjøvoll and Line M. Bonde have both assisted me through the last barriers of footnotes and style sheets; to them I am sincerely grateful. Last, but not least, a special thanks to Caroline Palmer at Boydell & Brewer, who made the publication come true, and to Laura Napran, who has proofread and indexed this volume. To all of these, and many others, I am much indebted.

List of Abbreviations



ACL AHP BHLM BM BNF CCCM CCSL CSEL Descriptio MGH MGH Concilia MGH FiGa MGH Ldt MGH Leges

Rome, Archivo Capitolare Lateranense Archivum Historiae Pontificiae Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina Manuscripta Bibliothèque Municipale Bibliothèque Nationale de France Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Medievalis Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae Monumenta Germaniae Historica Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Leges: Concilia Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Fontes Iuris Germanici Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Libelli de lite Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Leges Nationum Germanicarum MGH SS Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores (in Folio) MGH SRG Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum ÖNB Vienna, Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek PG Patrologia Graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne, 162 vols (Paris, 1857–1886) PL Patrologia Latina, ed. J.-P. Migne, 221 vols (Paris, 1844–1865) RHC.Hocc Recueil des historiens des croisades. Historiens occidentaux (Paris, 1844–1895) RSVCE Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition SC Sources chrétiennes

Author’s Note

The Latin term translatio templi is central in this book. It could be translated ‘transfer of the temple’ or ‘translation of the temple’. I have, however, chosen to use the Latin term wherever possible. For names of churches I use the Italian name with the English name in brackets on first occurrence. For names of persons I use the English name when possible. These two principles result in some inconsistency: for example, St Peter (person)/ San Pietro (the church). A large number of the manuscripts studied in this book originate from medieval Flanders, which included parts of what are today northern France and Belgium. I have used modern locations (northern France and Belgium) to designate the area of origin. I refer to the Descriptio according to the Roman numbers organized by Cyrille Vogel (see Vogel, ‘La Descriptio Ecclesiae Lateranensis’, pp. 465–72, and discussion on Vogel in Appendix 2). Vogel studied and numbered all the different elements in the tradition of the Descriptio, and hence the numbers refer to textual elements, not to chapters or paragraphs. As it is the most accurate reference system to the Descriptio, my edition of Descriptio from Reg. lat. 712 (Appendix 3) has been labelled according to Vogel’s numbers. In respect to textual elements in the tradition of the Descriptio which are not included in Reg. lat. 712 – for example, in the version composed by John the Deacon (see Chapter 7) – I refer to the edition of Valentini and Zuchetti, or in some instances to the edition of Philippe Lauer. Several of the texts referred to in this study do not exist in any English translation. The ideal of the publication has been to translate all Latin quotations. However, I have not supplied a full English translation where the text paraphrases the salient points of the Latin.

Prologue

And they shall make an ark of shittim wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof. And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a crown of gold round about.1 In May 1745, after his pastoral visit to San Giovanni in Laterano (St John Lateran) in Rome, Pope Benedict XIV ordered the removal of three objects that had been displayed for veneration in the church for centuries: the so-called Ark of the Covenant, the rod of Moses and the rod of Aaron.2 The pope had observed the special objects on display in a chapel in the ambulatory alongside the table of the Last Supper. The Ark, a decorated wooden chest covered with a cloth of silk, was placed above a glass box through which the rods were visible.3 Votive lamps in front of the objects designated their sacredness. When Pope Benedict XIV stood before the Ark, he was in the presence of an age-old tradition at the Lateran. The first mention of the Ark in the Lateran basilica occurred in a tract from around 1100, later known as the Descriptio

Exodus 25:10–11. All Bible quotations in translation are from the King James Version (KJV). 2 Acts of the visitation by Benedict XIV, Vatican City, Archivio Segreto Vaticano, S.C. Visita Apostolica 98, no. 3 and 5, Relatio (1 May 1745), Decreta (2 May 1745). Referenced in Sible de Blaauw, ‘The Solitary Celebration of the Supreme Pontiff: The Lateran Basilica as the New Temple in the Medieval Liturgy of Maundy Thursday’, in Omnes circumadstantes: Contributions Towards a History of the Role of the People in the Liturgy, ed. C. Caspers and M. Schneiders (Kampen, 1990), pp. 120–43, at p. 132, n. 49. 3 A description of the Ark appears in the records of the visitation by Pope Alexander VII in 1656. See S.C. Visita Apostolica 98, fasc. 1, fol. 32v, referred to in Jack Freiberg, The Lateran in 1600: Christian Concord in Counter-Reformation Rome (Cambridge, 1995), p. 284. 1

xiv the lateran church and the ark of the covenant Lateranensis Ecclesiae (Description of the Lateran Church (hereafter Descriptio)).4 This text stated that the high altar of the basilica covered the Ark of the Covenant and included the rods of Aaron and Moses, the seven-branch candelabra, the tablet of the testament and a number of relics from the lives of Christ and the apostles. What had happened between this description of the hidden treasure in the twelfth century and the display in the ambulatory during Pope Benedict’s visit in the eighteenth century? In 1308 the high altar had been opened during a fire at the Lateran. The clerics strove to rescue the treasures inside the altar.5 According to the reports they found and saved an ampoule of Christ’s blood, objects from his life and the Ark, apart from the old wooden altar which, according to tradition, originated from the first pope, St Peter.6 The recordings of the fire did not mention the rods of Aaron and Moses; however, they reappeared later. After the restoration of the basilica, the Ark was not replaced in the high altar but was placed together with the rods and the table of the Last Supper in the chapel of San Tommaso (St Thomas).7 A pilgrimage guide from the late fourteenth century mentions that the Jews also came to the chapel to see and venerate the Ark.8 Edited in: J. Mabillon and M. Germain, eds, Museum Italicum, seu Collectio veterum scriptorum ex bibliothecis italicis, 2 vols (Paris, 1689), II, pp. 560–76 (from an unknown manuscript); D. Giorgi, De Liturgia Romani Pontificis in Solemni Celebratione Missarum, 3 vols (Rome, 1744), III, pp. 542–55 (from Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Reg. lat. 712); PL 78, cols 1379–1392 (a version of John the Deacon), and PL 194, cols 1543–1560 (the version of Mabillon and Germain); Philip Lauer, Le Palais de Latran (Paris, 1911), pp. 392–406 (based on the version of Mabillon and Germain, with indicated variations); ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, in Codice topografico della città di Roma, ed. R. Valentini and G. Zucchetti, 4 vols (Rome, 1946), pp. 319–73. For analysis of the transmission of the text, see Cyrille Vogel, ‘La Descriptio Ecclesiae Lateranensis du Diacre Jean’, in Mélanges en l’Honneur de Monseigneur Michel Andrieu (Strasbourg, 1956), pp. 457–76; Sible de Blaauw, Cultus et decor. Liturgia e architettura nella Roma tardo-antica e medievale. Basilica Salvatoris, Sanctae Mariae, Sancti Petri, 2 vols (Vatican City, 1994), I, pp. 205–6. 5 ‘Lateranensis basilice combustio tempore Clementis V rythmo descripta’, in Lauer, Le Palais de Latran, pp. 245–50; De Blaauw, ‘The Solitary Celebration of the Supreme Pontiff ’, p. 129. 6 The Ark was therefore probably produced between the date of the Descriptio c. 1100 and the fire of 1308. De Blaauw, ‘The Solitary Celebration of the Supreme Pontiff ’, p. 137, suggests that the Ark was a thirteenth-century fabrication. 7 Ibid., p. 131. Towards the end of the sixteenth century Pope Clement VIII planned to install the table of the Last Supper in the high altar and the other objects in the crypt beneath it, Visitation acts of 1592, in ibid., p. 131, n. 45. His plans were not realized, however. 8 Lauer, Le Palais de Latran, p. 408; De Blaauw, ‘The Solitary Celebration of the Supreme Pontiff ’, p. 130, n. 42.

4

prologue

xv

After the demolition of the chapel of San Tommaso in 1647, the table and the temple relics were transferred to the ambulatory of the apse in the same church. At the same time votive lamps had been installed in front of the Ark and treatises were composed to assert its authenticity and origin in Jerusalem.9 One of them was written by Famiano Nardini (d.  1661), an archaeologist and author of the seminal topographical work Roma antica. He concluded: But after having diligently studied this Ark which resembles the one described in Exodus, I cannot imagine that it is a thing produced in Rome for some other use, nor do I dare to declare that it is a work made out of vain pretense.10 With these words Nardini joined the line of canons and historians of the Lateran who, for more than six hundred years, had defended the authenticity and associated importance of these objects. According to the recorded acta from the papal visit in 1745, Pope Benedict XIV had examined the objects and reserved some of them to meet his judgement the next day. That night he probably pondered what to do with them. On the subsequent morning, he ordered that the table of the Last Supper should be kept for veneration: it can still be seen enshrined above the sacrament altar of Pope Clement VIII. The Ark and the rods of Moses and Aaron were to be removed and no longer shown.11 No physical traces can be found of the Ark or the rods after the pope’s visit in 1745. And the history of these peculiar objects is forgotten. However, ancient libraries and the archive of the Lateran still hold the written pieces of a puzzle telling the story of the Lateran Church and the Ark of the Covenant.

The lamps were installed by Cesare Rasponi (1615–1675), historian of the Basilica: ibid., p. 131. 10 ‘Io nondimeno osservata bene quest’Arca alla descritta nell’Esodo somigliante, non so immaginarlami cosa fabbricata in Roma ad altro uso, né ardisco pronunciarla opera vanamente fatta per finzione.’ Famiano Nardini, Roma antica, ed. A. Nibby, 4 vols (Rome, 1818), I, p. 280. 11 Decreta (2 May 1745) (see n. 2): ‘In visitatione Sacrarum Reliquarum hexterna die peracta … Tabula coene Domini Nostri in suo loco solitaque veneratione permaneat; amoveantur vero ea, quae asseruntur Archa Foederis, virga Moysis et Baculus Aaronis, et amplius non ostendantur.’ (‘On a visitation to the sacred relics carried out a later day … the Table of Our Lord’s supper would remain alone in its place for veneration; indeed, those things would be removed which were claimed to be the Ark of the Covenant, the rod of Moses and the Staff of Aaron, and would no longer be displayed.’) 9

Chapter 1

Introduction

The right education of that part of the human race which consists of the people of God has, like that of a single man, advanced through certain epochs or, as it were, ages, so that it might rise upwards from temporal to eternal things, and from the visible to the invisible.1 From the beginning of the twelfth century and for more than six hundred years, the canons of San Giovanni in Laterano in Rome claimed that the actual Ark of the Covenant, together with other paraphernalia from the temple of Jerusalem, was part of their treasures. The aim of this book is to analyse liturgical and historical sources from the twelfth century in order to understand the context and purpose of this claim. The most important source in this study is the tract later known as Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae (the Descriptio), probably composed around 1100.2 The Ark of the Covenant is a central object in the Descriptio, and the claim of this study is that the Ark was presented as a proof that San Giovanni was ‘the temple of the New Covenant’ and the successor to the temple of Jerusalem. The basilica of San Giovanni in Laterano is unique in western Christian history as it was the first church built by the emperor Constantine, who had converted to Christianity in the early fourth century.3 According to the legends, the basilica was dedicated to the Saviour himself and, after 600, the name Basilica Salvatoris Augustine, De civitate Dei, Lib. X, 14. See Augustine, De civitate Dei: The City of God Against the Pagans, ed. and trans. R. W. Dyson (Cambridge, 1998), p. 412. 2 See above, p. xiv, n. 4. 3 ‘Rome and Constantine’, in Richard Krautheimer, Rome: Profile of a City, 312–1308 (Princeton, 2000), pp. 3–31. The complex history of the basilica is discussed in Sible de Blaauw, Cultus et decor. Liturgia e architettura nella Roma tardo-antica e medievale. Basilica Salvatoris, Sanctae Mariae, Sancti Petri, 2 vols (Vatican City, 1994), I, pp. 109– 80; Philip Lauer, Le Palais de Latran (Paris, 1911), pp. 1–339; Richard Krautheimer, Spencer Corbett and Wolfgang Frankl, eds, Corpus Basilicarum Christianarum Romae, 5 vols (Rome, 1937–1977), V, pp. 1–92; Peter Cornelius Claussen, Die Kirchen der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter 1050–1300. Band 2: S. Giovanni in Laterano (Stuttgart, 2008), pp. 23–353. 1

2

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

(Basilica of the Saviour) was in use. In the period studied in this book, the sources also use the title Basilica Salvatoris et Johannis Baptistae et Evangelistae (Basilica of the Saviour, John the Baptist and John the Evangelist).4 Unlike other major extramural basilicas of Rome, the church was not founded on any earthly remains of saints. Its supreme position therefore had to be legitimized in other ways. The claim of the Ark and the other objects from the Old Covenant represents one possible strategy of legitimization from the twelfth century. According to the prologue of the Descriptio the purpose was to reveal the treasures, the relics and the traditions, thereby making manifest the dignity of the basilica. Since the Lateran held dominion and primacy over all other churches of the world, its dignity was claimed as the supreme sanctuary, not only of Rome, but of all Christendom.5 The physical transfer of the Ark from Jerusalem could legitimize the claim that this basilica was the true heir of the temple.

The Legitimate Heir: Question and Sources With the Descriptio as the point of departure, the important question of this study is: How did the text function in its contemporary context and how was the promotion of the Lateran Church as the new temple shaped and perceived? Today the Descriptio exists in about twenty (twenty-one) exemplars in seventeen (eighteen) known medieval and early modern manuscripts preserved at the Lateran archive in Rome and in a handful of manuscript collections throughout Europe.6 Several of the exemplars are carefully examined by Philippe Lauer in his seminal work on the history of the Lateran, by Roberto Valentini and Giuseppe Zuchetti, and by Cyrille Vogel.7 The present study offers new perspectives on the Descriptio and the canons’ argumentation, based on the context in which the texts were composed, circulated and interpreted. Attention will be drawn to two From the very outset, the basilica was named ‘Lateranum’ as it had been built on the site of the Domus Laterani, which had become imperial property under Constantine. From the end of the fifth century, the most common name was ‘Basilica Constantiniana’. On the titles of San Giovanni, see de Blaauw, Cultus et decor, I, pp. 112, 161–2, 204; de Blaauw refers (p. 204) to a passage in a letter by Pope Anastasius IV of 30 December 1153, which reads ‘sacrosancti patriarchii basilice Salvatoris domini, que Constantiniana vocatur, pariterque beati Iohannis baptiste et Iohannis evangeliste’. The first indication of the naming of the basilica after the two Johns is from 635–42: see G. B. de Rossi, ed., La Roma sotterranea cristiana descritta e illustrata, 2 vols (Rome, 1864), I, p. 143. 5 See below, p. 22, and Descriptio, II (Appendix 3, p. 217). 6 The enumeration of manuscripts depends on how to define the late version of Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique, MS 6932. See Appendix 1 for a detailed introduction to the transmission of the manuscripts. 7 See Prologue, p. xiv n. 4. 4

introduction

3

important manuscript contexts, namely in Rome and in northern France and Belgium (one manuscript). In the Roman context of the Descriptio, the investigation includes both manuscripts from the Lateran archive which contain the Descriptio, and liturgical sources. The most important manuscript is Rome, Archivio Capitolare Lateranense, MS  A  70 (henceforth ACL  A  70), a composite of different texts, written by different scribes (twelfth to fourteenth centuries). The codex includes a revision of the first version of the Descriptio, as well as a second and third version of the same tract.8 Regarding liturgical sources particular attention is paid to the ritual of Maundy Thursday as described in the Ordo of the Lateran canons by Prior Bernard (1139–1145),9 sources describing the dedication feast of St John Lateran, and the sermon on the image of the Saviour in San Lorenzo (St Lawrence) by Nikolaus Maniacutius (c. 1145).10 For a description, see Cyrille Vogel, ‘La Descriptio Ecclesiae Lateranensis du Diacre Jean’, in Mélanges en l’Honneur de Monseigneur Michel Andrieu (Strasbourg, 1956), pp. 461–2. 9 Bernard of Porto, Bernhardi Cardinalis et Lateranensis Ecclesiae Prioris Ordo Officiorum Ecclesiae Lateranensis, ed. L. Fischer (Munich, 1916), p. 1. The author introduces himself in the prologue as ‘ego Bernardus Lateranensis ecclesie humilis prior’ (‘I, Bernard, humble prior of the Lateran church’). He was further identified by John the Deacon as ‘dominus Bernardus, prior istius basilicae, qui postea factus est cardinalis Sancti Clementis, ac deinde episcopus Portuensis’ (lord Bernard, prior of that basilica, who afterwards was made cardinal of Saint Clement, and then bishop of Porto’); Descriptio, XXX (see also ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, in Codice topografico della città di Roma, ed. R. Valentini and G. Zucchetti, 4 vols (Rome, 1946), III, pp. 319–73, at p. 349). The sole extant copy of the Ordo was made for use at the regular chapter of Salzburg (c. 1200): see Edward B. Garrison, ‘Three Manuscripts for Lucchese Canons of S. Frediano in Rome’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 36 (1975), 1–52. Pierre-Marie Gy, ‘L’influence des chanoines de Lucques sur la liturgie du Latran’, Revue des Sciences Religieuses 58 (1984), 31–41, at 31, considers the dating certain. 10 ‘Tractatus Nicolai Maniacutie de ymagine Lateranensis palatii’, in a twelfth- or thirteenth-century manuscript now preserved in Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Fondo S.  Maria Maggiore 2, fols 237v–244r (according to the printed numbering in the codex); Albertus Poncelet, Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum latinorum bibliothecarum Romanarum praeter quam Vaticanae (Brussels, 1909), pp. 85–95; Nicolaus Maniacutius, Historia Imaginis Salvatoris (Rome, 1709). Parts of the sermon are published in Gerhard Wolf, Salus Populi Romani. Studien zur Geschichte des römischen Kultbilder im Mittelalter (Weinheim, 1990), pp. 321–5, with bibliography on Maniacutius at p.  269, n.  205. On Maniacutius, see Marie-Thérèse Champagne, ‘Both Text and Subtext: The Circulation and Preservation of Two Manuscripts of Nicolaus Maniacutius in Twelfth-Century Europe’, Textual Cultures 6 (2011), 26–47; and Marie-Thérèse Champagne, ‘Christian Hebraism in Twelfth-Century Rome: A Philologist’s Correction of the Latin Bible through Dialogue with Jewish Scholars and Their Hebrew Texts’, Studies in Church History 53 (2017), 71–87. On the sermon, see Gerhard Wolf, ‘“Laetare filia Sion. Ecce ego venio et habitabo in medio tui”: Images of 8

4

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

In northern France and Belgium the Descriptio appeared within a monastic context. The most important manuscripts in this context are the Reg. lat. 712; Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique, MS 9828; Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS lat. 5129; Cambrai, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 802; and Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS lat. 6186. In four of these codices the Descriptio was placed together with texts that concerned either Jerusalem or the interpretation of the First Crusade. These included descriptions of the First Crusade and descriptions of Jerusalem and the temple of the Lord (Templum Domini), not least from Robert the Monk’s and Fulcher of Chartres’ chronicles from the First Crusade.11 Based on this observation, a main hypothesis of the present study is that the Lateran claim to the Ark of the Covenant and the other treasures from the temple was part of a theology shaped in the wake of the First Crusade. When the Christian Franks had conquered Jerusalem in 1099, the Muslim Dome of the Rock was soon converted into the Christian Templum Domini. A question that immediately arose was that of continuity between the temple of Solomon and the Templum Domini. The discussion of this question is part of the manuscript context of the Descriptio, and it is my assertion that the manuscript context supplies previous research with new information relevant both to the dating and to the interpretation of the Descriptio. In a broader sense, the present investigation sheds new light on the impact of Jerusalem and the crusades on the West, and on the relationship between the old Israel and the medieval Latin Church, not least in terms of the papacy. The old Israel and the Old Testament temple cult were of fundamental significance for the legitimization of the Christian Church. This legitimization has always depended on the idea of continuity between Jewish worship and Christian worship; the continuity has, however, been described differently throughout history. To the medieval Church a transfer of both divine presence and sacerdotal authority from the Old to the New Covenant was crucial. This study uses the notion of translatio (transfer) to interpret the twelfth-century idea that San Giovanni was the successor to the temple of Jerusalem. The notion of translatio, which will be discussed further below, can be used Christ Transferred to Rome from Jerusalem’, in The Real and Ideal Jerusalem in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Art: Studies in Honor of Bezalel Narkiss on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, ed. B. Kühnel (Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 418–29. 11 Robert the Monk, The Historia Iherosolimitana of Robert the Monk, ed. D. Kempf and M. G. Bull (Woodbridge, 2013); Robert the Monk, Robert the Monk’s History of the First Crusade: Historia Iherosolimitana, trans. C. Sweetenham (Aldershot, 2005); Fulcher of Chartres, Fulcheri Carnotensis Historia Hierosolymitana (1095–1127), ed. H. Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg, 1913); Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem 1095–1127, trans. F. R. Ryan, ed. H. S. Fink (Knoxville, TN, 1969).

introduction

5

to characterize a wide range of phenomena and has been one of several related approaches to establish continuity over time in Western history.12 The study proposes that certain strategies that can be described as translatio templi (‘transfer of the temple’) appeared in the aftermath of the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099.

Dating and Interpretation of the Descriptio The listing of manuscripts of the Descriptio is incomplete as a result of the loss and dispersal of medieval manuscripts. Through age and reuse, not least because of damage following the French Revolution, several exemplars of the text have probably been lost or remain undiscovered.13 Work on the Descriptio is thus limited by the exemplars known so far.14 An important question, however, is how these texts and manuscripts should be read. The previous dating and interpretation of the Descriptio have depended on the works of Valentini and Zuchetti (1946) and Cyrille Vogel (1956). They analysed the different versions of the text according to the classical text-critical approach, and Cyrille Vogel constructed a stemma and identified four redactions of the text, the first supposedly from ‘sometime between 1073 and 1118’ and the last from before 1311.15 According to this arrangement, the versions of the Descriptio preserved in the Lateran archive occur in different groupings even when they appear in the same codex. In his work, Vogel expresses no interest in the manuscripts as such. When was the first version composed? Based on notes about papal burials, the possible dating of the first version must be limited to between 1073 and 1118. Based on John the Deacon’s description of the tract in his address to Pope Alexander III (1159–1181), Vogel has argued for an early composition shortly after 1073. John was responsible for the third redaction of the text and whilst working on it, he records that he used an exemplar that was of ‘old age’ and ‘almost destroyed’. According to Vogel these characteristics indicate that the text may be dated closer to 1073 than to 1118.16 This argument has been widely used and quoted by later See below, p. 11. An indicative example is the first printed edition of the Descriptio by Mabillon and Germain in 1689. They reproduced an exemplar of John the Deacon’s version. The manuscript is now unknown and probably lost. 14 In addition to the manuscripts known to Lauer and Vogel, I have worked on copies of the Descriptio in BNF lat. 6186; Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique, MS 220; and ACL A 69. 15 Vogel, ‘La Descriptio Ecclesiae Lateranensis du Diacre Jean’, pp. 472–6. See also Appendix 2. 16 ‘La première rédaction a donc été exécutée entre 1073 et 1118, vraisemblablement peu après 1073, car Jean Diacre, qui écrivait sous Alexander III (1159–1181) dit qu’il s’est servi d’un exemplaire de la Descriptio “antiquitatis vetustate iam quasi abolitum”, ce qui 12 13

6

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

scholars.17 However, Vogel’s argument is based neither on the text nor on the context, but on a prologue written at least two generations later, and on a statement that should probably be understood rhetorically rather than factually. An argument for the earliest dating – not after 1073 but after 1099 – will be proposed in Chapter 5, which discusses the relationship between the Descriptio and the Historia Hierosolymitana (History of Jerusalem) of Fulcher of Chartres. Valentini and Zuchetti and Cyrille Vogel have strongly influenced the interpretation of the Descriptio by presenting and defining the text as a form of competitive opposition to the promotion of the basilica of San Pietro in Vaticano (St Peter’s).18 From this perspective the Descriptio can be read as an attempt to legitimize the position of the Lateran Church within the ‘sacred topography’ of Rome.19

se comprend mieux si la date de la première rédaction est plus proche de 1073 que de 1118’ (ibid., p. 473). Valentini and Zuchetti suggested the same dating, albeit based on a similarly unsatisfactory argument: ‘Questa prima redazione sembra debba porsi poco dopo il 1073, poichè l’ultimo pontefice di cui si ricordi la tomba è Alessandro II, morto appunto in quell’anno’ (‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, ed. Valentini and Zucchetti, III, p. 319). Pope Gregory VII (d.  1085) was buried in the cathedral of Salerno, Pope Victor III (d. 1087) at Monte Cassino and Urban II (d. 1099) at St Peter’s. The fact that the Descriptio does not mention their tombs thus has no significance. 17 Ingo Herklotz,‘Der mittelalterliche Fassadenportikus der Lateranbasilika und seine Mosaiken: Kunst und Propaganda am Ende des 12. Jahrhunderts’, Römisches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 25 (1989), 25–95, at 71; Sible de Blaauw, ‘The Solitary Celebration of the Supreme Pontiff: The Lateran Basilica as the New Temple in the Medieval Liturgy of Maundy Thursday’, in Omnes circumadstantes: Contributions Towards a History of the Role of the People in the Liturgy, ed. C.  Caspers and M.  Schneiders (Kampen, 1990), pp. 120–43, at p. 126; de Blauuw, Cultus et decor, I, p. 205; Herbert E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Pope Urban II and the Idea of Crusade’, Studi Medievali 36.2 (1995), 721–42, at 733; Erik Thunø, Image and Relic: Mediating the Sacred in Early Medieval Rome (Rome, 2002), p. 17; Umberto Longo, ‘Da Gerusalemme a Roma: il papato e l’eredità tra XI e XII secolo’, in La presenza ebraica a Roma e nel Lazio. Dalle origini al ghetto, ed. R. Padovano (Padua, 2009), pp. 143–85, at p. 155. Bruno Galland, Les Authentiques de reliques du Sancta Sanctorum (Vatican City, 2004), pp. 59–60, also refers to Valentini and Zuchetti’s dating in his treatise on the relics of the Sancta Sanctorum – ‘composé après 1073’ – but it seems to me that Galland has not consulted the first redaction of the Descriptio. He bases his presentation of the Descriptio only on the third redaction of John the Deacon (1159–1181) and wrongly describes this as the oldest description of the relics, as if the older redactions were lost. 18 ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, ed. Valentini and Zucchetti, p. 321; Vogel, ‘La Descriptio Ecclesiae Lateranensis’, pp. 457–8; Debra J. Birch, Pilgrimage to Rome in the Middle Ages (Woodbridge, 1998), pp. 111–13. De Blaauw, Cultus et decor, I, pp. 205–7, interprets the Descriptio as a promotion of the Lateran as the new temple, although he situates it primarily in the context of the conflict with the Vatican. 19 Jochen Johrendt, Die Diener des Apostelfürsten. Das Kapitel von St. Peter im Vatikan (11.–13. Jahrhundert) (Berlin, 2011), p. 262.

introduction

7

And, as Valentini and Zuchetti and Vogel have shown, an obvious context can be established if one compares the Descriptio with a parallel text from San Pietro, the Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae (Description of the Vatican Basilica), composed by Canon Pietro Mallio at San Pietro in the middle of the twelfth century.20 This text was a direct response to the Lateran’s Descriptio, and the comparison of the two treatises has led to a reading of the description of the Lateran within the local Roman context of the rivalry between the two shrines. Both texts aim to attract pilgrims to the increasing collections of relics, and, understood in this context, they appear as the clearest evidence of a ‘competition for holiness’. Traces of a conflict between the chapters of the Lateran and San Pietro may also be discerned in the polemical poems Contra Lateranenses, later transmitted with the description of San Pietro.21 However, this interpretation of the Descriptio does not take chronology into account. The description of San Pietro was a response to an updated version of the Descriptio, probably the version by John the Deacon (written during the papacy of Alexander III (1159–1181)).22 The conflict between the canons at the two main shrines of Rome is an interpretative perspective that belongs primarily to the later versions of the Descriptio, since it relates to the specific response of Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae. Besides, the conflict is only one part of the picture: an internal Roman context fails to encompass the wider significance of the temple objects in the text. Why were the temple objects so important in promoting the Lateran? Sible de Blaauw attempts to resolve this difficult question in his article on the Maundy Thursday ritual at the Lateran. He presents a wide range of sources and interprets the various elements of the high altar and the papal ritual partly in terms of a typological imagery of the temple cult performed by the high priest of the Old Covenant on the Day of Atonement. De Blaauw also suggests that the claim for the presence of the Ark in the high altar was incidental and a product of ‘linguistic and allegorical associations and confusions’ that were readily at hand.23 Likewise, he refers to another description of the altar, also from the end of the eleventh century, written by Bonizo of Sutri. Bonizo affirms a similarity between the Lateran high altar and the Jewish Ark but not an actual identity. De Blaauw ‘Petri Mallii Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae aucta atque emendata a romano Presbitero’, in Codice topografico della città di Roma, ed. Valentini and Zucchetti, III, pp. 375–442. 21 Ibid., pp. 379–80 (see also below, p. 183). See Vogel, ‘La Descriptio Ecclesiae Lateranensis’, pp. 465–72. 22 Valentini and Zuchetti suggest that the description of the Vatican basilica was a response to the version by John the Deacon (1159–1181) or to the prior version (1154–1159). See ‘Petri Mallii Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae’, p. 379. 23 De Blaauw, ‘The Solitary Celebration of the Supreme Pontiff ’, p. 135. 20

8

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

refers to Bonizo’s text as a contemporary text which avoided ‘lapsing into the confusion of the Descriptio’.24 Based on these suggestions, de Blaauw understands the further tradition of the Descriptio, which intensified the emphasis on the authenticity of the temple objects, as an acceptance of the previous redactions of the tract. And he asserts that the insistence on the presence of the temple objects was an isolated view in the twelfth century. While building on de Blaauw’s important works on the Lateran Church, this study will, nevertheless, argue that the identification of the Ark of the Covenant in the altar did not represent a lapse into confusion but was rather part of a strategy of interpretation generated by the historical situation and a specific ideological interpretation. This proposal is not based on any paradigm of authenticity versus falsification but on a perspective that interprets sacred objects within a contemporary liturgical context, which is where their meaning is produced.25 Both Ingo Herklotz and H.  E.  J. Cowdrey have attempted to interpret the Descriptio in a wider context than mere internal Roman competition. In explaining why the temple relics were ‘discovered’ at this time, Herklotz points to the argument of succession from Jerusalem. In the tradition of medieval historiography, represented for example by the transmission of the late antique chronicle of Orosius (c. 385–420), Titus’ destruction of the temple of Jerusalem in ad 70 was interpreted as the transition from Judaism to Christianity.26 Herklotz concludes that, if medieval historiography understood the destruction of the old temple as a turning point from Judaism to Christianity, then the Church that was ‘mother and mistress of all churches’ (‘mater et caput cunctarum ecclesiarum’) would surely have the strongest claim to being the real successor to the most important Jewish sanctuary. This, he argues, was the underlying idea which later led to the ‘discovery’ of the Lateran relics. The historical context that provoked the discovery was, according to Herklotz, an anti-Roman attitude that since the second half of the eleventh century had led to new definitions of the hierarchy between the patriarchates.27 Byzantine and Greek critics contested the primacy of Rome: Herklotz Ibid. ‘In order for an object to be venerated as a relic, a new symbolic function had to be assigned – a function that had its origin in the fabric of the society in which it was to be venerated. Thus the symbolic value of a new or rediscovered relic was only a reflection of the values assigned by the society that honored it … in its new location it became an important symbol only if that society made it one, and this symbolism was necessarily a product of that society’ (Patrick Geary, Furta sacra: Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages, 2nd edn (Princeton, 1990), pp. 6–7). Thunø, Image and Relic, p. 15, applies this perspective to the Sancta Sanctorum objects. 26 Orosius, Histoires (contre les païens), ed. and trans. M.-P. Arnaud-Lindet, 3 vols (Paris, 2003); Herklotz, ‘Der mittelalterliche Fassadenportikus der Lateranbasilika’, p. 79. 27 Herklotz, ‘Der mittelalterliche Fassadenportikus der Lateranbasilika’, p. 77. 24 25

introduction

9

refers to Nicetas Seides, a theologian at the imperial court of Constantinople at the beginning of the twelfth century, who in 1112 argued against Rome by pointing to the primacy of Jerusalem and claiming that Constantinople was the true successor. In his article on Pope Urban II and the idea of crusade, Cowdrey also draws attention to the text from a perspective other than the usual one of Roman rivalry. He focuses on the relics described in the Descriptio and uses the text as a witness to the impact of Jerusalem on the Western Church before the First Crusade of 1096–1099: ‘For the relics and images of the Lateran as for the traditions that were associated with it, historians have an excellent, though somewhat neglected, source in the Descriptio ecclesiae Lateranensis.’28 The relics brought to life the history and holy places of Jerusalem present in Rome and were meant to have an impact on the faithful. According to Cowdrey, they also served to focus the minds of the popes towards the East and thus contributed to the role of Jerusalem in the appeal for a crusade in 1095.29 Cowdrey’s use of the Descriptio represents an interpretative approach to the text which is not substantiated by the parallel text from St Peter’s or any possible conflict between the two shrines. His approach relates to the wider context of pilgrimage and religious topography, which includes the earthly and heavenly city of Jerusalem and the historical event of the First Crusade. Cowdrey’s argument also relates to an interpretation of the papal reform movement in which the role of Jerusalem and an interest in the restoration of its holy places were strong. The reform programme was based on a particular understanding of history where a restored Jerusalem held a central place in the search for a new outpouring of God’s mercy, and it culminated in the First Crusade.30 Cowdrey’s approach to the text is highly relevant to this study, but his results depend on Vogel’s dating to ‘probably soon after 1073’, which determines his use of the text: ‘It therefore provides evidence for the Lateran which Urban knew as cardinal and as pope, and also for widespread public interest in its traditions and its relics.’31 The dating suggested in this study (after 1099) questions Cowdrey’s use of the text. Cowdrey, ‘Pope Urban II and the Idea of Crusade’, p. 733. This argument is part of a debate as to whether a crusade to Jerusalem was an intended goal for Urban II before his appeal in 1095. ‘Urban’s mind and experience were surrounded by tangible evidences of Jerusalem which are likely to have assured for it a central place in the schema of his Crusading ideology. By 1095, Jerusalem had in all probability assumed in Urban’s own mind the significance that it was to retain for all the popes of the Crusading centuries’ (ibid., p. 739). 30 Cowdrey builds on Alfons Becker and his schema of Urban’s understanding of Christian history. See Alfons Becker, Der Papst, die griechische Christenheit und der Kreuzzug, Vol. 2: Papst Urban II (1088–1099) (Stuttgart, 1988); a summary of the schema is found on pp. 352–3. 31 Cowdrey, ‘Pope Urban II and the Idea of Crusade’, p. 134. 28 29

10

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

a new approach This study offers another basis for the investigation of Descriptio than Vogel’s dating and identification of redactions. An important objection to Vogel’s schematic overview is that it is limited by a modern approach that sought to reproduce the original redaction of the text. This approach extracts the different versions of the Descriptio from their contexts. In his article Vogel expresses no interest in the manuscripts as such, but only in those parts that contain the Descriptio. A new approach based on the manuscript’s context and transmission enables perspectives overlooked by earlier scholars. When we take the provenance of the manuscripts into consideration, we can sort out distinct groups of traditions. One obvious group is the transmission of the Descriptio in the Lateran archive. Apart from this transmission, most of the manuscripts come from a small area in present-day northern France and Belgium. At least five of the manuscripts were connected to the abbey of St Amand, while the others originated from nearby monasteries. Compared to Vogel’s redactions, an alternative array appears in four groups, one containing the versions from the archive (I), and three that render different versions transmitted in northern France/Belgium (II–IV).32 When the claim of the temple objects in the Descriptio is analysed based on the manuscript context, it questions both an isolated Roman context of interpretation and the previous dating of the text. In the following chapters, I will argue that the preserved description of the Lateran has to be understood in relation to Templum Domini in Jerusalem and that it was, therefore, composed after 1099.

Theoretical Approach manuscripts and method The reading of manuscripts is an entrance to the medieval mindset.33 In this study the manuscript context is established as an important basis both for the dating of the Descriptio and for the interpretation of its significance. An important characteristic of the source material is that the theology is expressed as interwoven traditions, concepts and legends undergoing a constant transformation. This feature of the material comes to the fore through the dynamics of See Appendix 2 for details. Important contributors to this emphasis on manuscripts include Sylvia Huot, The Romance of the Rose and Its Medieval Readers (Cambridge, 1993); John Dagenais, The Ethics of Reading in Manuscript Culture: Glossing the ‘Libro de buen amor’ (Princeton, 1994); Keith Busby, Codex and Context: Reading Old French Verse Narrative in Manuscript, 2 vols (Amsterdam, 2002).

32 33

introduction

11

the manuscripts themselves and provides a certain point of entry into the interpretation. To grasp the significance, one should look to the supposed purpose, to comparable texts in a relevant context and to the actual use of the text. All these perspectives are subject to changes during the ‘lifetime’ of the text. The Descriptio of the Lateran does not have a constant meaning, but rather a meaning that has changed according to different contexts during the manuscript transmission.34

the translatio of the temple In order to answer the question of how the Lateran Church came to be ‘the temple of the New Covenant’ in the twelfth century, this study proposes to use the idea of translatio (transfer) as an interpretative grip. The notion of translatio, which has been discussed by Aleida Assmann and other scholars, could characterize a wide range of phenomena.35 One phenomenon was the ‘transfer of empire’, translatio imperii, defined by medieval historiographers as the continuum of one single imperial authority throughout history, transferred from the East to the West. The ‘transfer of knowledge’, translatio studii, was another comparable concept. Hugh of Saint-Victor (1096–1141) regarded the ideas of translatio imperii and translatio studii as two parallel movements, expressed in the Eruditio Didascalia, while his student, the Cistercian monk Otto of Freising, united them.36 This study argues that what can be characterized as translatio templi legitimized sacerdotal authority and can be understood according to a similar logic as translatio imperii and translatio studii. The term translatio templi was not used in medieval exegetical literature; hence it does not occur explicitly in the sources of this study. It is a modern construction which enables us to understand the claim of the Ark and the other temple objects in the description of the Lateran. On the mobility and dynamic character of a medieval text, see Damien Kempf, ‘Der mittelalterliche Text zwischen Theorie und Praxis’, in Theorie in der Geschichtswissenchaft, ed. J.  Hacke and M.  Pohlig (Frankfurt-am-Main and New York, 2008), pp.  53–66. Kempf refers (p. 57) to Paul Zumthor, Essai de poétique médiévale (Paris, 1972), p. 72. 35 Aleida Assmann, Zeit und Tradition. Kulturelle Strategien der Dauer (Cologne, Weimar and Vienna, 1999), p. 111. See also Herbert Grundmann, ‘Sacerdotium – Regnum – Studium: zur Wertung der Wissenschaft im 13. Jahrhundert’, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 34 (1952), 5–21; Werner Goez, Translatio imperii. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Geschichtsdenkens und der politischen Theorien im Mittelalter und in der früheren Neuzeit (Tübingen, 1958); Frans J. Worstbrock, ‘Translatio artium: über die Herkunft und Entwicklung einer kulturhistorischen Theorie’, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 47 (1965), 1–22; Marie-Dominique Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century: Essays on New Theological Perspectives in the Latin West, trans. J. Taylor and L. K. Little (Chicago, 1968), pp. 162–210. 36 Worstbrock, ‘Translatio artium’, p. 14. 34

12

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

A translatio of the temple as a general idea was not new in the twelfth century. Even in the very earliest Christian interpretations, the temple had been connected to the body of Christ and, by allegorical interpretation, to the Christian soul and the Church.37 The Church Fathers and the medieval exegetes continued this allegorical interpretation, and the historiographers’ reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in ad 70 strengthened an understanding of historical fulfilment.38 Peter Damian’s (1007–1072) explanation is representative for this medieval mindset: For Jerusalem was the royal city where a most renowned temple had been constructed for God; but after that [city] came that which was the true temple of God, and the heavenly Jerusalem began to reveal the mysteries; the earthly one was destroyed where the heavenly one appeared.39 What was new in the promotion of the Lateran Church in the twelfth century, however, was a translatio of the temple, conceived of as a physical succession. The physical Ark guaranteed that the altar, which contained the Ark, was the successor to the innermost area of the temple. This idea corresponds to a more general phenomenon in the same period. Materiality was incorporated into the traditional typological thinking, and this tendency was met in several areas. One of them concerned the disputes on the Eucharist, where the orthodox view was a physical transformation of the elements in contrast to a symbolic transformation, represented by the heretic Berengar of Tours (999–1088).40 The focus on the material elements in the Eucharist culminated in the feast of Corpus Christi in the thirteenth century. In her study Christian Materiality, Caroline Walker Bynum points to the decades around 1100 as a period that saw a new enthusiasm for holy matter in both older and new forms. The crusades made possible a new access to traditional relics from the Holy Land, and the period also saw the appearance John 2:19–21; 1 Cor. 3:16. For example, Augustine’s tractates on the Gospel of John, nos 10.11, 12.7–8, 15.25, in Augustine, In Iohannis Evangelium Tractatus CXXIV, ed. R. Willems, CCSL 36 (Turnhout, 1954), pp. 107, 124–5, 161; and Leo the Great’s sermons nos 48.1, 731, in Leo the Great, Léon le Grand, Sermones, II, ed. R. Dolle (Paris, 1969), pp. 74–6, and Leo the Great, Léon le Grand, Sermones, III, ed. R. Dolle (Paris, 1976), p. 135. 39 ‘Erat namque Hierusalem urbs illa magna regalis, ubi templum famosissimum Deo fuerat constructum; postea vero quam venit illa, qui erat verum Templum Dei, et caelestis Hierusalem caepit aperire mysteria, deleta est illa terrena, ubi caelestis apparuit’ (PL 145, 66D). Quoted according to Henri de Lubac, Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture, trans. M. Sebanc, 9 vols (Edinburgh, 1998), II, p. 184 (Latin original in n. 59). 40 Miri Rubin, Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 16–21. 37 38

introduction

13

of new kinds of animated materiality. According to Bynum this pertains to new phenomena that culminated in the later Middle Ages and developed into a paradoxical challenge to the Christian culture.41 Materiality mattered in several ways. The physical translatio of the Ark can also be understood in the context of the physical transferral of relics and sacred bodies, which was an important element in medieval culture. The holiness of a church was based on the ‘real presence’ of the saints and transfer was a means to provide this presence. In twelfth-century Rome, this was perhaps most powerfully expressed in the basilica of San Pietro, which was built as a house for the prince of the apostles – literally over his body. There the apostolic succession was made visible by the physical contact of the pallium of a metropolitan with the tomb of St Peter, and there dozens of St Peter’s successors were buried and hence are still present.42 The dignity of the Lateran basilica was likewise built on physical transfers which, according to the Descriptio, guaranteed both priestly and royal authority.43 When the Descriptio claimed that the physical objects from the Jewish temple were present in the high altar, it was a notion that corresponded to similar claims that had emerged during the new Frankish transformation of Jerusalem. What was also new in mid-twelfth-century Rome was the explicit interpretation of the papal liturgy of Maundy Thursday as a realized imitation of the high priest’s entrance to the Holy of Holies, and the explicit interpretation of the papal chapel as the Holy of Holies in the sermon of Maniacutius.44 All these expressions can be understood according to what can be characterized with the construct translatio templi, which meant that the place of God’s grace was relocated from Jerusalem to Rome. This notion was confirmed by physical signs, namely the Ark in the tradition of the Descriptio and the image of Christ in Maniacutius’ sermon. A construct of translatio templi has to be understood within the same cultural and mental framework and in relation to the phenomenon of translatio imperii. This model was, according to Assmann, expressed not least in the mid-twelfthcentury Chronica sive historia de duabus civitatibus (Chronicle or History of the Two Cities) by Otto of Freising.45 This world chronicle, which spans from the Caroline Walker Bynum, Christian Materiality: An Essay on Religion in Late Medieval Europe (New York, 2011), p. 21. 42 On the ritual and symbolism of the pallium, see Steven A. Schoenig, S.J., Bonds of Wool: The Pallium and Papal Power in the Middle Ages (Washington, DC, 2016). 43 See Chapter 3 for a further discussion. 44 See above, p. 3, n. 10. 45 Otto of Freising, Chronica sive historia de duabus civitatibus, ed. A. Hofmeister (Hannover and Leipzig, 1912); Otto of Freising, The Two Cities: A Chronicle of Universal History to the Year 1146, trans C. C. Mierow (New York, 2002). Otto of Freising (c. 1112–1158) was born at Klosterneuburg and was the son of Leopold III, Margrave of Austria, and Agnes of Germany, who was the daughter of the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV. Otto was the 41

14

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Creation to the Last Judgement, was a new expression in the development of medieval historiography and became one of the most important historico-philosophical works of the Middle Ages. The model for Otto’s chronicle was the vision of the four empires in the book of Daniel. He interpreted the Roman Empire as the fourth and final one.46 According to this model of history, the ensuing empires would have to be a continuation of the Roman one, and Otto, himself born in one of the most powerful families of Central Europe, in that way legitimized the Holy Roman Empire of his own time as the final one in this succession. This empire followed the empire of Constantinople, which was the direct heir to Rome through Constantine the Great’s transfer of his capital from the West to the East. The idea of the continuation of history and the translatio of the empire are both a comparable model to a translatio of the temple and also an idea intimately connected to the Roman Church. Christ had assumed human flesh when the Roman Empire reached its zenith. The unity of the empire thus implied the unity of the world and constituted the condition of the universal Kingdom of Christ in the sixth age of the world, the era of the incarnation.47 Hugh of Saint-Victor explained that Christ had ‘waited until the whole world had brought its forces together under one empire and until victorious Rome had reared its head with proud disdain over all kingdoms’.48 This era, the time of the Church, was governed by two authorities, royal power and ecclesiastical authority, regnum and sacerdotium, a distinction described by Pope Gelasius I (492–496), which henceforth defined the political theory of the Roman Church: ‘There are indeed two things … by which this world is principally ruled: the consecrated authority of bishops and

uncle of Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor, also known as Frederick Barbarossa. For Assmann’s discussion of the Translatio, see Assmann, Zeit und Tradition, pp. 110–15. Assmann relies on earlier research and refers to Grundmann, Goez and Worstbrock (see above, p. 11, n. 35). See also Johannes Fried, ‘Donation of Constantine’ and ‘Constitutum Constantini’: The Misinterpretation of a Fiction and its Original Meaning. With a Contribution by Wolfram Brandes: ‘The Satraps of Constantine’ (Berlin, 2007), pp. 10–33. 46 This model built on earlier interpretations, especially those of Jerome (347/8–419/20) and Orosius (c. 385–420). It had been systematically applied to the history of the world in the chronicle of Frutolf of Michelsberg dated 1100: see Ekkehard of Aura, Ekkehardi Abbatis Uraugiensis. Chronica, ed. G. Waitz (Stuttgart, 1844), pp. 33–210; Frutolf of Michelsberg, Chronicles of the Investiture Contest: Frutolf of Michelsberg and His Continuators, ed. and trans. T. J. H. McCarthy (Manchester, 2013); Hans Thomas, ‘Translatio Imperii’, in Lexicon des Mittelalters (Munich, 1997), VIII, cols 944–6. 47 Otto of Freising, The Two Cities, Lib. III, Prologue, pp. 221–2. 48 ‘Idcirco expectavit donec mundus totus in unum vires suas conflasset imperium, et Roma victrix super regna omnia superbo fastu caput extullisset’ (Hugh of Saint-Victor, De vanitate mundi et rerum transeuntium usu libri quatuor […], PL 176, cols 732–3). See also Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society, p. 186.

introduction

15

the royal power’.49 These two authorities were legitimized by the translatio imperii and what I have characterized as translatio templi. In a historical perspective, translatio templi might constitute a construct which is complementary to the translatio imperii. Both the model of translatio imperii and the construct of translatio templi can hence be analysed according to some of the same characteristics, but with some important differences. The first characteristic was the aim to maintain continuity through discontinuity. According to Aleida Assmann, translatio imperii was a strategy to continue an imperial time construction by means of an epoch-making transfer.50 According to the medieval historians it guaranteed that the empire would continue despite shifting historical reigns. In the imperial myth the idea of translatio thus covered the history of the rise of an empire and the corresponding fall of another, and of the conquerors and the vanquished in wars. It could hence guarantee the installation of a new legitimate ruler. Another characteristic of the concept of translatio imperii was exclusivity: different centres of authority followed one another. A simultaneous blossoming of several cultures was unthinkable.51 In the Donation of Constantine from the eighth century, the model of sacerdotal translatio was involved in and interacted with the classical concept of the imperial translatio.52 The Donation was referred to in the Constitutum Constantini, which was understood to be an imperial rescript and was referred to in the Descriptio. At the same time, the idea of a translatio of sacerdotal authority was expressed according to a Christian interpretation of the stages of salvation history from the Old to the New Covenant, from Synagogue to Church. The translatio of sacerdotal authority implied a break with the Jewish priesthood and the superiority of the Christian priesthood. In terms of exclusivity as a characteristic of translatio, the analytical concept of translatio templi is thus able to contribute not only to an understanding of the translatio from Jerusalem to Rome, but also to an understanding of a twelfth-century church in a reciprocal though asymmetrical relationship with Judaism and the Jews. An important distinction has to be drawn between translatio imperii and translatio templi. Both aim at constituting continuity but it is important to note the difference between imperial time, which relates to secular time, and the time ‘Duo quippe sunt …, quibus principaliter mundus hic regitur, auctoritas sacrata pontificum et regalis potestas’ (Gelasius I to Emperor Anastasius, in Gelasius, Epistolae romanorum pontificum … a Hilaro usque ad Pelagium II, ed. A. Thiel (Braunsberg, 1868), I, Ep. 12, pp. 350–1). 50 Assmann, Zeit und Tradition, p. 111. 51 Ibid., p. 112. 52 Horst Fuhrmann, ed., Constitutum Constantini (Hanover, 1968); Fried, ‘Donation of Constantine’, pp. 129–37. 49

16

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

of the temple, which is expressed through the concept of salvation history. Jacques Le Goff has succinctly explained the difference between sacred history and profane history, ‘the two diptychs of history’: In sacred history the dominant note is an echo. The Old Testament foretells the New, the parallels being pushed to the absurd … The only things and people who really existed were those which recalled something or someone who had already existed. In profane history the theme was that of transfer of power. The world in every age had one heart; the rest of the universe lived according to its rhythm and impulse alone. The succession of the empires, based on Orosius’s exegesis of the dream of Daniel, from the Babylonians to the Medes and Persians, then to the Macedonians and after them to the Greeks and the Romans, was the guiding thread of the medieval philosophy of history.53 The time of salvation history was not reckoned according to historical chronology, but was understood according to advancing stages of reality where significant events were juxtaposed, which Le Goff has described through his image of echoing. According to this perspective, it is important to ask which events were juxtaposed when the Lateran was promoted as the new temple and what reality it expressed. Although translatio templi was not an established term in medieval exegetical literature, it does relate to other expressions which all pertained to the transition from ‘the time of law’ (tempus sub lege) to ‘the time of grace’ (tempus sub gratia) in Christian theology. In his study of translatio imperii, Werner Goez pointed out that a parallel notion of transfer of religion, translatio religionis, did not exist in the literature of the medieval chroniclers.54 What did exist, however, was a notion of the translatio of the grace of God from the Jews to the Gentiles, which runs through the medieval exegetical literature, and was expressed in several ways. This notion was based both on Old Testament prophecies and on New Testament passages such as Matthew 21:43: ‘Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God [regnum Dei] shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.’55 In the exegetical literature the notion Jacques Le Goff, Medieval Civilization, trans. J. Barrow (Oxford, 1988), p. 171. For the French original see Jacques Le Goff, La Civilisation de l’occident médiéval (Paris, 1977), p. 218. 54 See ‘Translatio religionis’ in Goez, Translatio imperii, pp. 378–81. 55 See also the Latin of 2 Esdras 1:24: ‘Quid tibi faciam, Jakob? Noluisti obedire, Juda. Transferam me ad alias gentes, et dabo eis nomen meum, ut custodiant legitima mea.’ (‘What shall I do to you, O Jacob? You, Judah, would not obey me. I will turn to other 53

introduction

17

of transfer was used to express this change, as in this quotation from Jerome: ‘Then every sacrament of the Jews and their old community with God was transferred to the nations by the apostles’.56 Goez showed how the transfer of the Kingdom of God, Regnum Dei, was frequently combined with the notion of the City of God, Civitas Dei, from Augustine, and he pointed to Otto of Freising, who asserted that the Jews in a special way were citizens of the City of God until the crucifixion of Christ. They were then punished by God with political extermination and deprived of his mercy: ‘Dominus ergo civitatem suam de illo populo ad gentes transferens’ (‘The Lord transferred his city from his people to the heathens’).57 Goez emphasized the grace of God and the Kingdom of God. In addition, it is highly relevant to consider the notion of Israel and the chosen people as defined by genealogy. The claim to be the true Israel, Verus Israel, was one of the principal strategies in the disputes between Christian and Jewish theologians in the period.58 In the eyes of the Christians, they held the position of the chosen people through a transfer of the birthright from the lineage of the flesh to the lineage of the spirit. Another term that expressed the transfer of grace among the medieval exegetes was the transfer of priesthood, translatio sacerdotii. The transfer of priesthood was connected to the transfer of the law, translatio legis, and was derived from Hebrews 7:12: ‘translato enim sacerdotio necesse est ut et legis translatio fiat’ (‘For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law’). The verse pertained to the transition from the Jewish priesthood to the royal priesthood according to ‘the order of Melchizedek’, explained by the previous verse: ‘Now if perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood – for on this basis the people received the law – what further need would there be to speak of appointing another kind of priest according to the order of Melchizedek, not one according to the order of Aaron?’ The Glossa ordinaria to Hebrews 7:12 explains that the transfer of priesthood was prefigured in the Old Covenant by the calling of Samuel (1 Samuel 3) and the rejection of the sons of Eliab (Numbers 16), an interpretation which was used in John the Deacon’s prologue to his version of the Descriptio to legitimize the sacerdotal authority of Pope Alexander III (Chapter 7, p. 174). nations and will give them my name, so that they may keep my statutes.’) See Theodore A. Bergren, Fifth Ezra: The Text, Origin and Early History (Atlanta, 1990). 56 ‘tunc omne sacramentum Iudaeae et antiquam dei familiaritatem per apostolos in nationes fuisse translatam’, from Jerome, Epistula 46: Paulae et Eustochiae ad Marcellam, in I. Hilberg, ed., Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae (Vienna and Leipzig, 1910), p. 334. 57 Otto of Freising, Chronica, p. 189; Otto of Freising, The Two Cities, Lib. IV, 4, p. 281. 58 Joseph Kimchi, The Book of the Covenant, trans. F. Talmage (Toronto, 1972), pp. 23, 43–5.

18

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

What characterizes the term translatio templi when compared to Goez’s translatio religionis is that the temple does not describe ‘grace’. The temple is a particular place and a physical localization of the grace of God. Goez did not analyse how the transition between the Old and the New Covenant was thought to have taken place – whether this was by physical transfer or by spiritual transformation – but, interestingly, he claims that the term translato sacerdotio in Hebrews 7:12 is an incorrect rendering of the Greek original (metáthesis).59 As it is used in the Vulgate, it was Jerome who first introduced the Latin term translatio. According to Goez the linguistically correct translation, ‘verändern’, was reintroduced at the end of the Middle Ages by Martin Luther (‘Denn wo das Priestertum verändert wird, da muß auch das Gesetz verändert werden’60) and is likewise expressed in the modern translations of this verse (‘For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law’). Goez’s observations reflect the fact that a modern interpretation of the transition from the Old to the New Covenant differs from a medieval interpretation. According to the terminology of several medieval exegetes, the transition could be understood as a continuous physical succession of the priesthood. This idea was most clearly expressed in the poem Super templo Salomonis by Acard of Arrouaise (d. 1137/8), the prior of the Templum Domini in Latin Jerusalem.61 He described how James and the other apostles of Jerusalem served at the temple and thus how they also constituted a physical continuity with the Old Covenant. To sum up: according to Aleida Assmann’s analysis of the concept of translatio imperii, the strategy of translatio established the continuity of time and the legitimization of authority.62 It was exclusive, only permitting one legitimate empire at time. A concept of translatio templi can be established with similar characteristics. The continuity in this case did not relate primarily to secular time and the time of the empire, but to the time of the temple, which meant God’s presence on earth, behind the veil. The Roman sources from the twelfth century See Goez’s introductory discussion of the origin of the term translatio imperii in Goez, Translatio imperii, pp. 16–17. Goez rejects the notion that the term has a biblical origin and contradicts the argument of Alois Dempf who pointed to the use of Matt. 21:43 in the light of Hebrews 7 as influential on the political terms of translation (Alois Dempf, Sacrum Imperium. Geschichts- und Staatsphilosophie des Mittelalters und der politischen Renaissance (Munich, 1962), p. 74). 60 Martin Luther, Bibel. Die gantze Heilige Schrifft Deudsch (Wittenberg, 1545), Hebrews 7:12. 61 The poem is published in Paul Lehmann, ‘Die mittellateinischen Dichtungen der Prioren des Tempels von Jerusalem Acardus und Gaufridus’, in Corona Quernea. Festgabe Karl Strecker zum 80. Geburtstage dargebracht (Leipzig, 1941), pp. 296–330, at pp. 307–30. See also below, Chapter 5, p. 112. 62 See above, p. 11. 59

introduction

19

investigated in this study described the relationship between the Jewish temple and the Lateran Church in terms of a transfer of sacerdotal authority, the priestly office before God. It is not only the legitimization of sacerdotal authority that becomes evident in these sources, but also the legitimization of exclusive papal authority. All churches imitated the old temple by allegorical interpretation, and all priests took part in the imitation of the old priesthood. But the emphasis on a physical transfer from the innermost area of the temple to the Lateran guaranteed a realization of the imitation and thus legitimized the summit of sacerdotal authority as belonging exclusively to the cathedral of the pope. The exclusive legitimization of the papal office can be understood according to ideological and political contexts, reform ideology, the relation to Constantinople and, in the early twelfth century, the challenge of a newly established Christian Jerusalem. But in the perspective of Christian theology, the exclusivity of the legitimate temple pertained not least to the Christian claim to have inherited the sacred scriptures and traditions of the Jews of the Old Covenant.63 Just as there could be only one God and one chosen people, so there could be only one temple. In the view of the Christians, the Jews differed from the Gentiles because they had been the chosen people but were now ‘blinded’ and ‘deprived’ of God’s grace. Similarly, they were stubborn and resisted conversion as reflected in the introduction to Sozomen’s Ecclesiastical History (440–443), one of the sources of John the Deacon’s version of the Descriptio.64

tradition and legitimization When the continuity of time, as given in the medieval sources, is presented as ‘tradition’ in this study, it should not be understood as a continuity of ideas through the retrospective lens of a researcher. ‘Tradition’ refers to ways of actively presenting continuity by the person who transmits the ideas.65 In this context, it is important to stress the difference between a pre-modern and a post-modern accentuation of tradition. Aleida Assmann describes how a post-modern concept of tradition ensures identity, whereas the pre-modern concept of tradition accen See also Heb. 8:13, ‘In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.’ 64 ‘My mind has been often exercised in inquiring how it is that other men are very ready to believe in God the Word, while the Jews are so incredulous, although it was to them that instruction concerning things of God was, from the beginning, imparted by the prophets, who likewise made them acquainted with the events attendant upon the coming of Christ, before they came to pass.’ Sozomen, The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen: Comprising a History of the Church from a.d. 323 to a.d. 425 (New York, 1891), pp. 179–427, at p. 239 (Book I, Chap. I). For the Greek original, see Sozomen, Histoire Ecclésiastique, Livres I–II, trans. A. J. Festugière (Paris, 1983), p. 109. 65 Assmann, Zeit und Tradition, p. 63. 63

20

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

tuates its character of legitimization as it ensures a continuous normative validity with the past.66 When legitimization is used as a key perspective in the analysis of the promotion of the Lateran, it should be understood according to a pre-modern concept of tradition.

The Structure of the Book After a presentation of the Descriptio in Chapter 2, attention will be drawn to two important manuscript contexts where the Descriptio circulated and was interpreted, namely Rome and northern France/Belgium. Chapter 3 explains the Roman context of the Descriptio: the Lateran chapter and archive, and the Descriptio’s involvement with the Roman reform papacy. In Chapter 4, the transmission of the Descriptio is followed to northern France/Belgium where the Descriptio and the temple objects enter a different frame of interpretation. The text reappears within a monastic context where the interpretation of the First Crusade was an important motif, and it is transmitted together with several texts pertaining to Jerusalem and the First Crusade. Chapter 5 moves to Jerusalem and investigates strategies for establishing continuity with the temple of Solomon. There then follows a close reading and comparison of the descriptions of the temple treasures of the Templum Domini in Jerusalem and the description of the similar treasures in the Lateran basilica in Rome. Finally, Chapters 6 and 7 return to a Roman context, tracing how the concept of the new temple was transformed in the course of the twelfth century and how it shaped the legitimization of the Lateran Church.

‘Dieser Begriff postuliert “die Gegenwart der Vergangenheit” (Adorno) im Sinne fortgesetzter normativer Geltung’, ibid., p. 89.

66

Chapter 2

The Description of the Lateran Church

First the scribe cleanses the parchment of fat and coarse dirt with a knife. Then he removes the hairs and fibres with a pumice stone. If he did not do this, the written letters would be worthless and impermanent. Then he rules the parchment, so that the writing will be regular. All this you must do with your hearts.1

The Descriptio The presentation of the Descriptio in this chapter, as well as the edition in Appendix 3, is based on the text in manuscript Reg. lat. 712.2 This manuscript belongs to the French manuscripts in group III, which all present an early, consistent version of the Descriptio. Choosing this group as the basis for the presentation of the text is both a pragmatic and an intentional choice. It is pragmatic because several versions of the text exist. It is not certain which is the oldest version, and both the oldest versions – in groups II and III – have survived only in northern France and Belgium, with no extant copy in Rome. I have chosen to present the version according to group III, and not group II, because the Descriptio according to the manuscripts in group II appears more like an abridged version. In the Lateran archive, however, it is difficult to define any certain text at all, since all the versions emerge as variations of different elements.3 In addition to the fact that the oldest version in ACL A 70 is partly illegible, all the versions of the archive are composed differently. In other words, there is no fixed text of the Descriptio in the archive. The version edited as John the Deacon’s version by Valentini and Zuchetti is a reconstruction which does not exist. From a sermon on Deut. 4:1 ascribed to Hildebert of Lavardin (d. 1133). See Hildebert of Larvardin, Ven. Hildeberti sermones, CII [De diversis xv]. De libro vitae, PL 171, col. 815C. 2 See the edition of the text in Appendix 3. Reg. lat. 712 was also the basis for the edition by Giorgi in 1744. 3 See also Chapter 3, pp. 38–41. 1

22

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

One explanation for the difference between the versions transmitted in northern France and Belgium, and those in the Lateran archive, may be that, when the promotion of the cathedral was transmitted to a context other than the archive, it resulted in a fixed text that was copied repeatedly in the related monasteries. When we compare this version with the oldest version currently preserved at the Lateran archive, it is easy to see that the presentation of the cathedral was not static, but that arguments were relocated or inserted in the text as needed. In general, it seems that the oldest version in the archive is an extended and revised version of an even older text, perhaps similar to the one presented here and translated at the end of this book. The claim that the Descriptio was composed in Rome at the Lateran is based on internal, textual evidence as the text reveals detailed knowledge of the Lateran basilica. If it was not produced by the canons living there, it must at least have been written in connection with a stay at that location. The different versions preserved together in the Lateran archive indicate, however, that the alteration and rearranging of the text took place at the basilica. In the archive, the Descriptio may have been replaced and supplemented by newer, updated versions, according to a strategy that appears to be the logic underlying the composition of the ACL A 70 (see Chapter 3). It seems reasonable to suggest that two versions of the description of the Lateran were transferred from Rome to northern France and Belgium: a short version which is the earlier one, and then a later and extended version.

1. The Prologue: The Supreme Sanctuary of the Roman Church According to the Descriptio, dozens of pilgrims from far and near gathered in the Lateran Church to pray. The prologue specifies the intent of their prayers, thereby imbuing the basilica with a special character: people gather from the whole world to pray to the Son of God ‘for the peace of the Holy Church, for the forgiveness of all sins, for the attainment of the glory of the eternal vision of God, for the company of the heavenly citizens and the blessed souls’.4 However, these people may not have understood the nature of the place to which they had come. And this is offered as the reason for writing the Descriptio: the purpose of the tract is to reveal the treasures, the relics and the old traditions, as those who pray are unaware of how valuable a shrine of God is contained within the church. The honour which is then manifested is to be the supreme sanctuary of all Christendom. This is presented according to divine consent (divino nutu), which has bestowed on the Lateran the glorious name of both apostolic honour and Descriptio, II. (On the references to the Descriptio, see Author’s Note.)

4

description of the lateran church

23

the Roman Empire. The prologue sets out the supreme position of the basilica, according to both imperial and sacerdotal authority, and proclaims that the traditions and treasures of the church can legitimize this position.

2. The Legend of Foundation The first part of the Descriptio opens with the mission of the apostles Peter and Paul in Rome, and thus establishes a connection with and a tradition stemming from Christ himself. The apostles guaranteed authenticity because they were witnesses of Christ’s time on earth.5 The text describes the connection according to a parallel structure between the earthly and heavenly kingdoms. When St Peter and St Paul, ‘senators’ of the heavenly kingdom, were sent to Rome to lay the foundations of the faith in honour of Christ, the faith was claimed to be founded ‘on the rock, which is Christ’ (‘supra petram, idest Christum’). This statement connects the interpretation of the rock (petrus) in Matthew 16:18 with the basilica of the Lateran.6 As a consequence of their love and endeavours to build up the Church, the apostolic founders were martyred on earth but then crowned with laurels when they reached the court of the heavenly kingdom. Pilgrims arrived in Rome because they regarded it not only as the city of St Peter and the pope but also as the city of martyrs. The presence there of saints and martyrs was unrivalled in Christendom, and in Rome pilgrims walked for several stages of the established route to pray ad limina, at the graves of the martyrs, and to touch their relics. But the Lateran was not a church linked solely to martyrs; rather, it was a manifestation of the shift from persecution to supremacy and dominion. The Descriptio recounts how the period of persecution began with the leaders of the apostolic age in Rome and lasted for more than three hundred years until the era of Constantine. According to a classical interpretation of the relation between ‘the heavenly kingdom and the earthly kingdom’ (regni caelestis and regni terrestris), the turning point was emphasized as the time of Constantine.7 The Descriptio describes how, after the period of persecution, at the end of the See Luke 1:2. The text thus presents an interpretation of Matthew 16 which diverges from the tradition later connected to St Peter’s Basilica (see Chapter 3). As early as the writings of Irenaeus (d. c. 203), the connection of both St Peter and St Paul with Rome was established as the reason for the supremacy of that city. On the early medieval development of this tradition, see Damian Bracken, ‘Authority and Duty: Columbanus and the Primacy of Rome’, Peritia 16 (2002), 168–213. 7 The same turning point is commented on by Otto of Freising in his Chronica (1146), where he interprets it as a unification of the two realms: ‘But from that time on, since not only all the people but also the emperors (except a few) were orthodox Catholics, I seem to myself to have composed a history not of two cities but virtually of one only, which I 5 6

24

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

third century, God took pity on his people and raised Constantine to the pinnacle of the empire, thereby ending the preceding tyranny. The Descriptio then proceeds with the narration of the miraculous conversion and healing of Constantine, based on the legendary Acts of Sylvester. When the leprous emperor refused to follow the advice of the heathen priests, the apostles Peter and Paul appeared to him during the night, exhorting his conversion and baptism the following day by St Sylvester. After the baptism, when Constantine rose from the pool, he confessed that he had seen Christ, who had wholly cleansed him of leprosy. In gratitude for the miracle performed with the aid of the Roman apostles, the emperor granted the Roman pontiff power over all the bishops of the Roman world. This should be understood as a reference to the Donation of Constantine: he conferred this privilege on the pontiff of the Roman Church, which [privilege] laid down that the priests throughout the Roman world should regard him as their head and leader, in the same way that all judges were accustomed to regard the king.8 Constantine’s conversion lies at the heart of the history of the Lateran, and the Descriptio then describes the conversion of the whole empire from the persecutions to the defence of God.9 The signs of the divine affirmation of this new period of history are Constantine’s vision of the victorious cross and Helena’s discovery of the true cross in Jerusalem:10 And so the aforementioned queen made for Jerusalem with a great crowd of men, and carefully sought the long-yearned-for wood of the Holy Cross, and found what she sought and, having found it, caused it to be cut down the middle, so that she could leave part of the Cross hidden in silver chests at Jerusalem, and take part of it back to her son at Constantinople.11



8 9



10



11

call the Church’. Otto of Freising, The Two Cities: A Chronicle of Universal History to the Year 1146, trans C. C. Mierow (New York, 2002), Lib. V, Prologue, pp. 323–4. See also Marie-Dominique Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century: Essays on New Theological Perspectives in the Latin West, trans. J. Taylor and L. K. Little (Chicago, 1968), p. 189. For the Latin text, see Otto of Freising, Chronica sive historia de duabus civitatibus, ed. A. Hofmeister (Hannover and Leipzig, 1912), p. 228, ‘Liber V, prologus’. Descriptio, IV. Descriptio, XVI. Descriptio, XVI. The Descriptio refers to Sozomen: see Sozomen, Historia Ecclesiastica/ Kirchengeschichte, ed. G. C. Hansen (Turnhout, 2004). Descriptio, XVI.

description of the lateran church

25

According to the text, Helena did not merely bring back a part of the cross12 but also ‘the nails, with which the Lord’s body had been fixed to the Cross, along with nearly the entire sanctuary, which had been hidden by the ancients in Jerusalem before the incarnation of the Lord’. She also returned with ‘relics from that same Redeemer of ours, preserved in Jerusalem after His ascension’. What is crucial, however, is not only the quantity of the relics but that the final dwelling place of the treasures from Jerusalem appears not to have been Constantinople, the city of the emperor, but Rome, the city of the pope and of the Lateran Church. The Lateran is stated to be the rightful dwelling – habitaculum – of the treasures from Jerusalem and worthy of opening the heart of God. The reason for this seems to be the affirmation of the Lateran as the summit of both imperial and sacerdotal authority: Yet almighty God thought it right to open up the tenderness of His mercy to His Roman Church, when the oft-mentioned queen transferred the relic which, with divine approval, she had brought with her from Jerusalem to her son, into the dwelling-place of this holy church, which is priestly and also royal.13 The quotes above from the Descriptio make up a composite drawing on different sources. When the notion of treasures hidden in Jerusalem from the time before Christ is introduced it probably refers to some of the objects from the temple believed to be in the Lateran high altar. However, they are not specified at this point in the Descriptio, and the transfer of the Ark is later said to have been made by Titus and Vespasian, and not linked to the celebrated transfer of the cross from Jerusalem as in this paragraph.14 The legendary templates in this first part of the Descriptio are elements in a foundation myth of the Lateran Church, and legitimize various aspects of the dignity of the church.15 In the first place, the Roman apostles who appear in connection with the conversion of the emperor legitimize the apostolic author According to the logic of relics, a part of the cross was as valuable as the entire cross. Descriptio, XVI, XVII. For an introduction to the legendary sources, see Stephan Borgehammar, How the Holy Cross Was Found: From Event to Medieval Legend (Stockholm, 1991). 14 On the different traditions of the legend of the cross and the transfer from Jerusalem to Rome, see Sible de Blaauw, ‘Jerusalem in Rome and the Cult of the Cross’, in Pratum Romanum. Richard Krautheimer zum 100. Geburtstag, ed. R. Colella et al. (Wiesbaden, 1997), pp. 54–74. 15 Unlike the later versions of the Descriptio this early one does not refer explicitly to the building of the Lateran Church. 12 13

26

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

ity represented by the succession of the pope. Secondly, the conversion of the emperor and his donation to the Roman church legitimizes a translatio of imperial authority. The third element is embodied in the translatio of holy objects from Jerusalem, which functions both as a divine affirmation of the new course of history and as legitimization of the dignity of the basilica. All these aspects resulted from the will of God and seem to place the Lateran on the threshold of a new period of salvation history. In a rhetorical gesture of humility, the author of the Descriptio states that, even though he is unworthy to utter the names of the treasures, he will not delay in doing so. He continues by explaining the destination of the treasures from Jerusalem – how some of them had found their resting place in the principal altar of the cathedral, and some of them in the imperial palace of the popes16 – before giving a comprehensive description and listing all the relics in the following paragraphs. The naming of the imperial palace is evidently a reference to the material donation of Constantine according to the Constitutum Constantini. The emperor not only built the cathedral and a baptistery within his Lateran complex but also endowed the pope with the imperial palace.17

3. The Treasures The inclusion of a portrayal of the papal private oratory of San Lorenzo in the Descriptio was an important element in constituting the unity between the basilica and the papal palace. In the tract, the relic collections of the two high altars – in the basilica and in San Lorenzo – appear complementary. The treasures of the altars of the palace oratory of San Lorenzo are first described, and then the treasures of the high altar in the basilica.18 This structure seems to be the intention of this version of the text. The other early version from northern France and Belgium (group II) starts directly with the description of the Lateran high altar.

Descriptio, XVII. The donation of the imperial palace is affirmed in Constitutum Constantini, 17; see Johannes Fried, ‘Donation of Constantine’ and ‘Constitutum Constantini’: The Misinterpretation of a Fiction and its Original Meaning. With a Contribution by Wolfram Brandes: ‘The Satraps of Constantine’ (Berlin, 2007), p. 136. For an English translation, see ibid., p. 144. 18 A translation of the lists of relics is printed as an appendix in Herbert E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Pope Urban II’s Preaching of the First Crusade’, History 55 (1970), 740–2. 16 17

description of the lateran church

27

the oratorio di san lorenzo 19 The ancient chapel of San Lorenzo housed an impressive collection of relics and sacred objects, which were an expression of its raison d’être and enabled it to compete as one of the most attractive sacred places of Christendom.20 While the canons of the basilica claimed to possess a hidden treasure from the temple of Jerusalem, linking the significance of the basilica to the Old Covenant, the oratory of San Lorenzo owned numerous relics connected to the Holy Land and to the life of Christ in the New Covenant. These relics were placed in three altars and are described according to their arrangement. The high altar contained a cypress chest provided by Pope Leo III (795–816).21 In this chest there were three boxes, and one of them, a box in the shape of a cross, contained a golden jewelled cross and hid relics of the Saviour himself:22 and in the middle of that cross is the navel of the Lord23 and the foreskin from His circumcision, and it is anointed on top with balsam. And every year this anointing is renewed when the Lord Pope with his cardinals makes a procession for the exaltation of the Holy Cross from that very church of San Lorenzo to the church of San Giovanni.24 Descriptio, XVIII. On the architecture and typology of the twelfth-century chapel, see Julian Gardner, ‘L’architettura del Sancta Sanctorum’, in Sancta Sanctorum, ed. Carlo Pietrangeli (Milan, 1995), pp. 19–37. The chapel was destroyed by an earthquake at the end of the thirteenth century and the current chapel is the one restored by Pope Nicholas III (1277–1280). For photographs and descriptions of the treasures of the chapel, see Hartmann Grisar, Die römische Kapelle Sancta sanctorum und ihr Schatz (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1908), pp. 58–145; Erik Thunø, Image and Relic: Mediating the Sacred in Early Medieval Rome (Rome, 2002), pp. 17–127, 157–78, 217–304; Herbert L. Kessler and Johanna Zacharias, ROME 1300: On the Path of the Pilgrim (New Haven and London, 2000), pp. 38–63; Bruno Galland, Les Authentiques de reliques du Sancta Sanctorum (Vatican City, 2004), pp. 19–33. 21 The chest has a label ‘Sancta Sanctorum’ which was added in the later Middle Ages. It may perhaps have replaced an earlier label as Kessler and Zacharias argue. See Kessler and Zacharias, Rome 1300, pp. 50–2. 22 Thunø, Image and Relic, pp. 79–117, pl. III, fig. 2. The cruciform shrine that contained the relics was a gift from Pope Paschal I (817–824). The precious inner reliquary disappeared during the Second World War. 23 According to Grisar the reference to the umbilical cord was based on a misunderstanding. The relic of the circumcision was placed in a capsule affixed to the central point (umbilicus) of the cross, and this expression was taken to refer to a second relic. Grisar, Die römische Kapelle Sancta sanctorum und ihr Schatz, pp. 95–6. See also Cowdrey, ‘Pope Urban II and the Idea of Crusade’, p. 740, n. 61. 24 Descriptio, XVIII.

19

20

28

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

The text describes the second box, a silver-gilt shrine, which contained an enamelled cross reliquary,25 and a third box, also of silver, which contained the sandals of the Lord, as well as a smaller box in which was a part of the Holy Cross, rescued from the Persians by the Byzantine emperor Heraclius (610–641).26 In addition to these relics, the Descriptio lists a number of martyrs’ relics contained in the cypress chest, as well as more relics connected to the passion of Christ: In this cypress chest there is one of the loaves from the Lord’s Supper, and some of the cane, that is, the reed, and thirteen vessels of the Lord’s Supper, and some of the vinegar-soaked sponge that was placed in the mouth of the Lord, and some wood from the sycamore which Zacchaeus climbed.27 The text then turns to the image of the Saviour, the Imago Salvatoris, above the main altar of the chapel, and refers to its miraculous origin: ‘And above this altar is an image of the Saviour wonderfully painted on a certain tablet, which Luke the Evangelist sketched out, but the power of the Lord completed it through angelic obedience.’28 The feet on the image rested on numerous stones from the Holy Land.29 An account of the relics of the two other altars follows: In yet another altar of the same oratory are contained the heads of the apostles Peter and Paul, and the heads of the Blessed Virgins Agnes and Eufemia. In still a third [altar] are coals sprinkled with the blood of St Lawrence and the fat of his body. There are also in the same [altar] the relics of the forty Blessed Martyrs and of many others.30 Both the enamelled cross and the silver box were made for Pope Paschal I. See Thunø, Image and Relic, pp. 25–51, pls I and II. 26 For descriptions and illustrations, see Francis E. Hyslop Jr, ‘A Byzantine Reliquary of the True Cross from the Sancta Sanctorum’, Art Bulletin 16.4 (1934), 333–40. See also the illustration in Kessler and Zacharias, Rome 1300, p. 55. For more about this tradition, see Barbara Baert, A Heritage of Holy Wood: The Legend of the True Cross in Text and Image (Leiden, 2004), pp. 133–93. 27 Descriptio, XVIII. 28 Ibid. For a description and illustration of the Imago Salvatoris, see Hans Belting, Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art (Chicago, 1994), pp. 64–9; Kessler and Zacharias, Rome 1300, pp. 60–3. See also Nicolaus Maniacutius’ sermon on the image (Chapter 7, pp. 157–69). The bejewelled silver cover that today covers the Acheropita was probably a gift from Pope Innocent III (1198–1216): see Belting, Likeness and Presence, p. 65. 29 Descriptio, XVIII. For an illustration see Kessler and Zacharias, Rome 1300, p. 54. 30 Descriptio, XVIII.

25

description of the lateran church

29

After describing the treasures and altars in the oratory of San Lorenzo, the Descriptio explains that the chapel was reserved for the pope’s private liturgical functions. The most holy altar, designated by the image of the Saviour, was accessible only to the pope, while a second altar was available to the cardinal bishops, and a third to the priests.31 According to liturgical custom, the significance of the altars in the Descriptio is thus expressed through an ecclesiastic hierarchical structure.

the main altar of the basilica salvatoris The first lines of the paragraph describing the relics of the high altar of the Lateran Church have the character of a new introduction within the text.32 The paragraph starts in a similar way to the prologue of the Descriptio by declaring that the Lateran is caput mundi as the see of patriarchal and imperial authority and as the place of the pontifical cathedra of the apostolic Church. The altar itself is then described: and the principal [altar] of that same church is the Ark of the Lord’s Covenant; or rather, as they say, the Ark is on the inside, and on the outside it is hidden by an altar, which measures the same as the Ark in length and width … Inside the altar, then, which is small and made from wood covered in silver, is a holy object of the following kind, a seven-branch candelabra which had been in the earlier tabernacle, of which Paul says: ‘the first tabernacle was made, etc.’ In that place there is also the rod of Aaron, which had put forth leaves, and the tablets of the testament, and the rod of Moses, with which he struck the granite twice, and the waters flowed.33 Beside these specific cultic objects from the temple of the Old Covenant, the text also presents an impressive list of relics connected to the passion of the Saviour and to the two St Johns who had been associated with the church since the early seventh century:34

Ibid., XIX. This part formed the beginning in the other early version of the Descriptio (group II). If the resemblance of this paragraph with a new introduction is due to the copying of the short version of group II, it supports the hypothesis of version II as an earlier text than the version of group III. 33 Descriptio, XX. 34 Sible de Blaauw, Cultus et decor. Liturgia e architettura nella Roma tardo-antica e medievale. Basilica Salvatoris, Sanctae Mariae, Sancti Petri, 2 vols (Vatican City, 1994), I, pp. 161–2. 31

32

30

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant There are also relics from the cradle of the Lord. Of the five barley loaves and the two loaves from the table of the Lord. The cloth, with which he wiped dry the feet of the disciples. The seamless tunic, which the Virgin Mary made for her son the Lord Jesus Christ. The purple robe of the Saviour. Two flasks of the blood and water from the side of the Lord. The sudarium which was on his head. There is also [a relic] of the place of his ascension to heaven. Of the blood of St John the Baptist, and the dust and ash of his burned body, his robe made from camel hair. A full flask of manna from the tomb of St John the Evangelist.35 The tunic of the same apostle, which, when it was placed over the bodies of three young men, caused them to stand up. They had died by means of poison, which they had drunk.36

The list includes a relic of the blood and water of Christ. The origin of this relic is not mentioned in the Descriptio but we know that it had a specific cultic function in the papal ritual on Maundy Thursday, described in liturgical sources from the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries. This ritual became one of the main elements in the liturgical enactment of the Lateran Church as the new temple in this period.37 The description of the high altar concludes with a reference to its exclusiveness: ‘On this sacred altar, no one celebrates mass except only the pope or a cardinal bishop.’ While the high altar of the papal chapel was designated by the image of Christ, this altar was designated by the images of the apostles Peter and Paul. ‘Above this [altar] is a certain wooden tablet, on which are painted the images of the apostles Peter and Paul, who the Emperor Constantine admitted to Saint Sylvester had actually spoken to him in a dream before his baptism.’38 The altar was thus legitimized by apostolic authority. It was believed that manna (see Exod. 16:31), or holy dust, was annually produced by the body of St John to prove his presence at his tomb in Ephesus. See Maggie DuncanFlowers, ‘A Pilgrim’s Ampulla from the Shrine of St. John the Evangelist at Ephesus’, in The Blessings of Pilgrimage, ed. R. Ousterhout (Chicago, 1990), pp. 125–39. 36 Descriptio, XX. 37 As discussed in Sible de Blaauw, ‘The Solitary Celebration of the Supreme Pontiff: The Lateran Basilica as the New Temple in the Medieval Liturgy of Maundy Thursday’, in Omnes circumadstantes: Contributions Towards a History of the Role of the People in the Liturgy, ed. C. Caspers and M. Schneiders (Kampen, 1990). The ritual will be further explored in Chapter 6, pp. 127–30. 38 Descriptio, XXI. If these portraits mentioned in the Descriptio are identical with the ones now preserved in the Vatican Museum, they date from the early Middle Ages and were later transferred from the high altar to the papal chapel of San Lorenzo, the Sancta Sanctorum. The small panels (8.5 × 5.8 cm) have a frame that is recessed and raised so that they fit into each other. See Belting, Likeness and Presence, p. 121, figs 73a and b. See also Grisar, Die römische Kapelle Sancta Sanctorum und ihr Schatz, pp. 118–19, pl. V, 5–6. 35

description of the lateran church

31

There were a number of relics that together constituted the sacredness of the Lateran. But there were also several images that testified to the dignity of the cathedral and the presence of Christ and the saints. The Descriptio explains that underneath the altar (sub altari) were imagines of electrum-gold, silver and amber: images of Christ, the Virgin, St John, St Peter and St Paul, and the other apostles.39 The text also mentions another group of images between the altar and the choir. The motifs are not specified but the images are of such value that there has to be a burning oil lamp above them.40

exclusiveness of the altar: hierarchical and topographical centre Visitors who were lucky enough to attend a mass celebrated by the pope at the Lateran would have been witness to the manifestation of the high altar as the summit of sacerdotal authority. This altar was the heart of the basilica and was served by the pope himself or by one of his seven vicars, the cardinal bishops. As a unique source outlining the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the twelfth century, the Descriptio lists all the assisting clergy, and the significance of the place as the pinnacle of sacerdotal authority is also revealed.41 At a papal mass, either on Sundays or for other feasts, the whole Roman ecclesiastical hierarchy should be represented: the seven cardinal bishops and the twenty-eight cardinals42 presiding over

Descriptio, XXII. De Blauuw discusses the meaning of this placement and refers to a cave underneath the altar. For his discussion of sub altari and imagines, see de Blaauw, Cultus et decor, I, pp. 239–44. 40 Descriptio, XXIII. See also de Blaauw, Cultus et decor, I, p. 239; and Reg. lat. 712, fol. 87v. 41 Descriptio, XXVI; Reg. lat. 712, fol. 87. For interpretation and further references, see Ian Robinson, The Papacy 1073–1198: Continuity and Innovation (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 34–7. During the reign of Paschal II (1099–1118), the cardinals and the curia extended their powers and assumed the right, hitherto reserved for the pope alone, to judge all other orders in the hierarchy. This is a right that is explicit in this paragraph of the Descriptio: ‘These men have the power of giving judgement over all the bishops of the whole Roman Empire, in all councils or synods to which they have been summoned or which they attend.’ See also Hayden V. White, ‘Pontius of Cluny, the “Curia Romana” and the End of Gregorianism in Rome’, Church History 27.3 (1958), 195–219, at 200, n. 37. 42 In this list, the title of cardinal is reserved for the bishops. In other sources, the title is used for other hierarchical orders as well, e.g. cardinal-deacons, cardinal-priests, cardinal-acolytes and so forth. This discrepancy is due to the development of the conception: the name of ‘cardinal’ was, as in this text of the Descriptio, linked with participation in the papal mass or in services at the principal papal churches of Rome. For further references, see Robinson, The Papacy 1073–1198: Continuity and Innovation, p. 33.

39

32

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

all the titular churches within the walls of Rome,43 the Roman archdeacon, the six deacons of the papal palace and the twelve regional deacons. Furthermore, there should be present the seven subdeacons of the papal palace, the Scola Cantorum (the choir associated with the papal singing school), and the seven regional subdeacons. Finally, there should be acolytes, torch-bearers, lectors, exorcists and doorkeepers. The clergy’s duty to assist seems to be linked to the dignity of the pope, who is described as the vicar of St Peter’s, but is also in keeping with the dignity of the cathedral itself, with the pope serving as royal priest and imperial bishop, as patriarch and Apostolicus.44 The relational structure within the hierarchy is described and made manifest through the Roman system of stational liturgy. This was the mobile papal liturgy of Rome, presided over by either the pope or his representative and celebrated in different churches or shrines according to the feast or commemoration being celebrated.45 The cardinals represented each of the stational churches, and the deacons and the subdeacons served either at the Lateran palace or in the regions. This structure constituted the ecclesiastical hierarchy of Rome, and the papal service at the Lateran altar was at the very centre.

4. The Surroundings After presenting the high altar, the Descriptio lists all the other treasures of the basilica; this takes the form of a kind of virtual round trip, beginning from the high altar and its images and then fanning out to all the other altars of saints, papal tombs, other tombs and inscriptions, and images.46 In the case of the papal tombs and the various altars of saints, the emphasis is placed on the bodily remains that rest in the basilica.47 Oratories in and around the basilica follow: the oratorio di San Tomasso, which was also the pope’s sacristy, and the four oratories behind the basilica, including the oratorio di San Giovanni Battista (oratory of St John the Baptist, or the Baptistery), which was originally Emperor Constantine’s room, and the oratorio della Santa Croce (oratory of the Holy Cross). The number of tituli churches varies in different sources. On the development of the tituli and the stational system of Rome, see John F. Baldovin, The Urban Character of Christian Worship: The Origins, Development, and Meaning of Stational Liturgy (Rome, 1987), pp. 112–15. 44 Descriptio, XXVI. 45 Baldovin, The Urban Character of Christian Worship, pp. 36–7. On the stational liturgy of Rome, see ibid., pp. 105–66. 46 De Blaauw Cultus et decor, I, pp. 256–62, provides a chronology of the arrangement of the cathedral according to the Descriptio. 47 This emphasis on the bodily remains contributed to the establishment and legitimacy of the Lateran as a holy place and it will be further explored in Chapter 6. 43

description of the lateran church

33

5. Defending the Authenticity of the Ark Towards the end of the text, the continuity of the description breaks down. The text returns to the main treasure of the high altar, the Ark of the Covenant: Since some people doubt that the Ark of the Covenant is in the church of the Saviour because of what is read in the second book of Maccabees, that when some wanted to mark the place where it was hidden, Jeremiah rebukes them and says that the place should be unknown until God gathers the congregation of his people, and shows his mercy, and then God will make this clear, and the majesty of God will appear, etc.48 The earlier listing of the treasures of the high altar had referred to the Ark of the Covenant in terms of ‘as they say’. The Ark was obviously not visible and neither does the writer give the impression of having seen it. To counter any doubts with regard to its actual presence, the author presents two arguments. The first refers to the Church Father Ambrose, who assured his readers that the prophecy of Jeremiah had been fulfilled at the time of the Incarnation: But St Ambrose, in the book De officiis, plainly dissolved the fog of this kind of ambiguity, asserting that the time had already come, and the majesty of the Lord appeared at that time, when our Saviour Himself deigned to appear in the flesh.49 The Roman Arch of Titus, raised after the siege of Jerusalem in the year ad 70, constituted the second argument: This very Ark, with the Menorah and other temple objects, Titus and Vespasian carried off from Jerusalem, or rather, they caused them to be carried away by the Jews themselves, just as it still can be seen until this day on the triumphal arch celebrating the victory, their monument, built by the senate and the Roman people.50

Descriptio, XLIX. Ibid. See Ambrose, De officiis, III, XVIII, in Ambrose, De officiis, ed. and trans. I.  J. Davidson, 2 vols (Oxford, 2001), I, p. 416. See further discussion in Chapter 5, pp. 108–9 and Chapter 7, pp. 182–3. 50 Descriptio, LII. 48

49

34

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

As far as medieval viewers were concerned, among the spoils which were carried in the imperial procession of triumph portrayed on the Arch of Titus was the Ark of the Covenant.51 The Arch of Titus, as material testimony from Roman history, seems to have been presented as the most important evidence for the presence of the temple treasures in the Lateran high altar, since it supposedly testified to the transfer from Jerusalem to Rome. This argument, which links the transfer of the temple objects to Titus and Vespasian, seems to contradict the earlier reference to Helena’s transfer of the treasures from Jerusalem. The relation between the two traditions is a complex issue in the transmission of the text.

6. Conclusion: Representation of the Heavenly Jerusalem Towards the end of the text, the exclusiveness of the high altar is mentioned once more and some of the relics are highlighted again, such as the seamless tunic of the Lord and ‘the incomparable treasure’ within the altar.52 The Descriptio then shifts to another level of interpretation and explains the symbolic significance of the Lateran: And since this church is the image of the celestial church, for that reason Mass, matins and vespers are introduced by festive ringing of the bells every day, by which the everlasting glory of the saints is symbolized.53 And in this church it is not said at Mass as it is in other churches: Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, grant us peace, since Christ, the absolute peace of the saints, is there.54 The omission of ‘grant us peace’, replaced with ‘have mercy on us’, in the liturgical chant of the Agnus Dei, was a special continuation of the original version of the Agnus Dei at the Lateran. Elsewhere, the rite had changed in the tenth or eleventh century and the threefold ‘Lamb of God’ was followed twice by ‘have mercy on us’,

What is here interpreted as a reproduction of the Ark is probably a table with utensils from the temple. See Diana E. E. Kleiner, Roman Sculpture (New Haven, 1992), p. 187. 52 Descriptio, LIV. The Ark is not mentioned explicitly here, but in the early version of the Descriptio preserved in ACL A 70 (L1) the Ark is mentioned once more: ‘And the venerable altar of this church is the Ark of the Covenant, above which is the table of atonement.’ For more on manuscript sources see Appendix 2. 53 This represents the practice of a major church. See de Blaauw, Cultus et decor, I, p. 278. 54 Descriptio, LV. 51

description of the lateran church

35

and the last time by ‘grant us peace’.55 This suffices as a technical explanation for the liturgical phenomena but the interpretation of their significance is a different matter. For those who had the eyes to see and the ears to hear, they were signs that called one’s attention to the heavenly Church, superna Ecclesia, and to the heavenly Jerusalem. The signs pointed to eternal glory and peace, characteristics of the triumphant Church of heaven as was known not least from the book of Revelation. The last sentence in this version of the Descriptio thus defines the basilica according to the characteristics of the heavenly Jerusalem, in a state of eternal peace.56

7. and 8. Added Elements The description of Santa Maria Maggiore (St Mary the Great) and its treasures (Descriptio, LVII, LVIII, LIX), as well as the list of cardinal bishops, deaconries and abbeys of Rome (LX), are considered as parts of the Descriptio by Vogel, by Valentini and Zuchetti, and by the edition of the version of Reg. lat. 712 by Giorgi from 1744. Arguably, however, these texts constitute elements that do not necessarily belong to a proper description of the Lateran Church, but were added to the text later.

Joseph A. Jungmann, S.J., The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development (Missarum Sollemnia), trans. F. A. Brunner, 2 vols (Westminster, 1992), II, pp. 338–9. 56 See Revelation 21. The interpretation of the Lateran as a type of the heavenly Church was continued at the basilica. This is not least evident in the books of the archive, such as De Sacrosancta Ecclesia Lateranensi et Prerogativa eiusdem. Syllabus auctorum qui scripserunt de Ecclesia Lateranensis (eighteenth century), which contains excerpts from i.a. Domenico Macris Notitia De vocaboli ecclesiastici: ‘in Roma la chiesa Lateranense Madre Capo di tutte le chiese ritiene l’vero anticho de dire la terza volta Miserere Nobis, qual rito devono osservare tutti li Sacerdoti, che celebrano in detta chiesa per essere figura della celeste Patria, e Lontana da ogni sorte di tribulatione’ (‘in Rome, the Lateran church, the Mother Head of all churches, retains the ancient truth of saying the Miserere Nobis the third time, which rite all the priests who celebrate in the said church must observe, as a figure of the celestial Fatherland, and distant from every kind of tribulation’). ACL, A 27, fol. 225. 55

Chapter 3

In the Roman Context

… the little book containing the memory of the most holy things, which have been preserved in the archive of this most holy Basilica by our predecessors until our time, of old age and now almost perished; because it is to the pleasure and delight of Your Holiness, and demanded because it is necessary.1 The canons of the Lateran were the prime movers in arguing for the supremacy of their basilica. The extant manuscripts in the Lateran archive provide written evidence of the canons’ thoughts and debates, and it is not difficult to imagine one of the canons talking about the site in a way that resembled the Descriptio as presented in the previous chapter. What was the context for their promotion, and who were their addressees? An important audience of the Descriptio was provided by the many pilgrims and the legates who arrived in Rome from all over Europe. At the beginning of the twelfth century, the Roman papacy claimed universal jurisdiction, regulating dioceses and monasteries throughout Western Christendom. The papal administration evolved as an organization that governed from Iceland in the north to Sicily in the south, from Portugal in the west to Poland in the east. The most important and effective instrument of papal government was the legation. Legates were dispatched from Rome as envoys with the instruction to implement papal decrees.2 At the same time, a constant flow of European prelates wended their way to Rome. Among these were newly appointed metropolitans and archbishops who were about to receive their pallia at St Peter’s and ecclesiastical representatives who wished to bring appeals before the pope. The Pseudo-Isidorean decretals stated ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, in Codice topografico della città di Roma, ed. R. Valentini and G. Zucchetti, 4 vols (Rome, 1946), III, pp. 319–73, at p. 326. All references to John the Deacon’s version of the Descriptio are to this edition. 2 Ian S. Robinson, The Papacy 1073–1198: Continuity and Innovation (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 146–78. On the institution of legation within medieval papal government, see Robert Figueira, ‘The Classification of Medieval Papal Legates in the “Liber Extra”’, Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 21 (1983), 211–28. 1

in the roman context

37

that ‘Appeals are to be made to the Roman church by all, but especially by the oppressed. They should flock to her as to their mother, to be nourished by her breasts, defended by her authority and relieved of their oppressions.’3 Until Pope Paschal II (1099–1118) began to delegate cases to members of the curia, the pope judged all cases personally.4 This meant that the petitioners had to wait, often for weeks or months, until they were summoned into the papal presence. Herman of Tournai was one such disgruntled petitioner who described the delay that he experienced in 1142 when he ‘almost starved from boredom in the Lateran palace’ while awaiting the pope’s response.5 In Rome, the prelates met the local Roman clergy, probably well acquainted with the supreme dignity and authority of the papal see. The encounter with the city of Rome itself attested to the impression of the same dignity. Any prelate visiting the curia would undoubtedly have been amazed by the omnipresent antiquity of the city as he approached the Lateran: not only by the nearby remains of the fori imperiali, the Coliseum, the Arch of Titus, the Arch of Constantine and other structures, but also by the evidence of the antiquity and supremacy of the Roman Church. In the square in front of the Lateran a group of statues testified to papal authority.6 Most impressive of all was perhaps the so-called equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius. Opinions differed as to whom it was supposed to represent, but, for a medieval pilgrim or prelate standing before it, it would have been difficult not to think of Emperor Constantine, who had endowed the pope with terrestrial authority. Within the Lateran basilica the visiting prelates and the pilgrims must have been overwhelmed by the immense collection of relics, which not only included objects allegedly transferred from Jerusalem but also relics of the saints, holy images and all the bodies of the popes buried within the altars of the basilica. Perhaps the texts which today still exist in ACL A 70 were used by the canons as sources for oral or written explanations of the Lateran. A look at this particular codex tells a lot about the promotion of the Lateran Church and the function of the Descriptio in the twelfth century. P. Hinschius, ed., Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae et Capitula Angilramni (Leipzig, 1863), p. 132. English translation according to Robinson, The Papacy, p. 180. The reform papacy derived its judicial supremacy partly from the tradition of Pope Gelasius I (d. 496) and partly from the tradition of the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals. 4 Robinson, The Papacy, pp. 190–1. 5 Herman of Tournai, The Restoration of the Monastery of Saint Martin of Tournai, ed. and trans. L. H. Nelson (Washington, DC, 1996), p. 12. Nelson’s translation is based on that of Waitz; see Herman of Tournai, ‘Herimanni liber de restauracione monasterii Sancti Martini Tornacensis’, ed. G. Waitz, MGH SS 14, pp. 274–317. 6 Described in Herbert L. Kessler and Johanna Zacharias, Rome 1300: On the Path of the Pilgrim (New Haven and London, 2000), p. 21. 3

38

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

‘A Little Book Containing the7 Memory of the Holy of Holies’  acl a 70: ‘il mallone’ An early modern inventory of ‘bulls, books and scripts’ that existed in the archive of the Lateran Church in the year 1584 is preserved in ACL A 9.8 It records papal bulls, liturgical books and inventories, as well as several books, referred to as Liber antiquus, which deal with the supreme sanctuary of the basilica.9 One of these books is described as an old book of parchment, with a chain, and which in the vulgar tongue is called ‘il Mallone’.10 This is probably a description of ACL A 70, the oldest codex of the archive. The sixteenth-century Italian nickname, Il Mallone, implies that it resembles a paste of boiled turnips – hinting, perhaps, at the worn-out state of the codex. The codex is a complex composite consisting of nine gatherings with different numbers of folios, composed in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.11 Among the texts are three succeeding versions of the description of the Lateran Church. Apart from ACL A 70, the archive contains several copies and another version of the Descriptio,12 which means that the description of the Lateran was redacted and copied repeatedly within the same archive. The description of the Lateran was most probably considered a tract, but at the same time the copying of the Descriptio in the archive does not appear as a fixed entity but as compositions of evolving fragments. ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, ed. Valentini and Zucchetti, p. 326: ‘libellum de Sanctis Sanctorum memoriam continentem’. 8 ACL A 9: ‘Vetus inventarium Archivis Lateranensis (Ex Dono Josephi Mariae Soresini. Romani 1666) (Tratto da quello compilato da Gregorio Massa e Curzio De Alexiis)’. No modern inventory of the archive existed until Msgr Louis Duval-Arnould’s inventory of the medieval sources: see Louis Duval-Arnould, Le Pergamene dell’Archivio Capitolare Lateranense (Vatican City, 2010). 9 ACL A 9, pp. 52–3. 10 ‘Liber antiquus ex carta pergamena ad quod ad catena quo vulgatus dicitur il Mallone.’ Ibid. 11 A composite differs from a miscellany (in a codicological sense) in that the time of origin, the writing, the layout and the format are not the same for all the different parts of the codex (the codicological units). See Appendix 1 for a codicological description of ACL A 70. 12 ACL A 69 and ACL A 32 (copies), and ACL A 33 (a later version), as well as several books that in different ways promote the Lateran: the eighteenth-century ACL A 27 (De Sacrosancta Ecclesia Lateranensi et Prerogativa eiusdem. Syllabus auctorum qui scripserunt de Ecclesia Lateranensis); and ACL A 7 (De Oratorio St Thomae & Narratio de Archa Testamenti). 7

in the roman context

39

In order to understand the archival character and function of the text, a comparison between an archive and a library may be useful: Archives are an organized collection of documents emanating from or received by a corporate body in the course of its activities. Unlike libraries, which are purely cultural institutes, archives have functional and administrative purposes in the service of the bodies for which they were formed.13 The transmission of the Descriptio within the archive exhibits an archival function, where the internal process of preservation and copying produced and strengthened the evidence of the supremacy of the papal basilica. The specific composition of the different gatherings in ACL A 70 seems to be the result of a process whereby several shorter texts were put together in an archival depository containing important texts on the constitution and primacy of the Lateran Church. The format of the codex is tall and narrow (400 ×120 mm) and all the different gatherings more or less fit this size, although they were not written at the same time or even by the same hand. This size was a common archival format and made the book easier to carry around in the sleeves of a cowl.14 Perhaps the canons carried it with them from their bookshelves in the archive to the parlatory to show it to important guests. Or perhaps they brought guests to the library to give them a glimpse of the documentation of the status of the basilica. Whatever the case, at some point the codex was equipped with a chain to prevent its removal from the archive. As the result of a copying process, the ACL A 70 seems to be an unstructured collection of miscellaneous texts. Arguably, however, the codex is not a random collection but a product of the archival function of transmission. This can be illustrated by a reading of the prologue by John the Deacon. John presented his version in a new prologue dedicating the work to Pope Alexander III (1159–1181). The first version was written about two generations earlier, and according to John it seems to have been preserved in a little book in the archive of the basilica. He restored the book, which may be the first version of the Descriptio in ACL A 70, and refers to it as ‘the book about the Holy of Holies’, librum de Sanctis Sanctorum.15 John describes the process of conservation, tradition, consignment to oblivion, and new presentation of the text, resulting in his task of offering it once more to the pope and delivering it to his successors at the Lateran: Martino Giusti, ‘The Vatican Secret Archives’, Archivaria 7 (1978), 16–27, at 16. Msgr Duval-Arnould, prefect of the Lateran archive, brought my attention to this custom of carrying the codices within the sleeves of the cowl. On this size of codex, see Bernhard Bischoff, Latin Paleography: Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1995), p. 26. 15 This is a designation for the Jewish sanctuary, the Holy of Holies. See Chapter 6. 13 14

40

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant the little book containing the memory of the most holy things, which have been preserved in the archive of this most holy basilica by our predecessors until our time, of old age and now almost perished; because it is to the pleasure and delight of Your Holiness, and demanded because it is necessary, so that the famous memory of the Sanctuary which our predecessors diligently preserved and passed on, will not vanish through our neglect in the forgetfulness of our successors, I have undertaken to renovate the book for the successors to keep this memory for the benefit of their devotion, on the authority and mandate of Your Holiness, and on the mandate and will of the venerable John, prior and brother of the same church, and to the glory of the Lord and saviour Jesus Christ.16

John’s version of the text is not presented as a renewal, but as conservation of the old. Nothing new is to be added, he claims, except either what is beyond doubt (referring to what reliable witnesses have testified to with their own eyes17) or what is known from history or sacred authorities. While the information from eyewitnesses pertains to cases such as the translation of St Grisans and St Daria and the discovery of the remains of St Rufina and St Secunda, the second kind of addition relates mainly to the objects supposedly from the temple of Jerusalem, which are hidden in the high altar of the basilica. As far as these objects are concerned, John the Deacon states that the historical documentation and authoritative written

‘Hoc itaque considerationis respectu considerans libellum de Sanctis Sanctorum memoriam continentem, qui in archivio huius sacrosanctae basilicae a praedecessoribus nostris usque ad nostra tempora conservatur, antiquitatis vetustate iam quasi abolitum, quoniam beatudini vestrae beneplacitum est et gratum, erogatum quia per necessarium, ne tam celebris sacrorum memoria, quae ab antecessoribus nostris nobis diligenter conservata est et tradita, per nostram neglegentiam posteris nostris oblivione deficeret, sanctitatis vestrae auctoritate et praecepto, mandato quoque et voluntate venerabilis prioris Iohannis et fratrum eiusdem ecclesiae, ad honorem Domini et Salvatoris Ihesu Christi renovare curavi posteritati conservandam, ipsorumque devotioni profuturam.’ ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, ed. Valentini and Zucchetti, pp. 326–7. 17 ‘… me nullatenus superstitionis causa aliquas novitates praesumptionis inserere: sed simpliciter antiquorum seriem scribendo conservans, si qua alia superaddo, illa sunt procul dubio, quae vel ipse iam per quinque lustrorum spatia, in hac sacrosancta basilica in canonicali proposito vivens, propriis oculis vidi, vel ab antecessoribus nostris veridica relatione cognovi’ (‘… I have by no means inserted any new presumptuous things for the sake of superfluity: but I am simply preserving the sequence of ancient writing; if I have added anything, they are undoubtedly those things which either I have already seen with my own eyes during the space of five years, living in this sacred basilica as canonical provost, or I have known from the truthful report of my predecessors’). Ibid., p. 327. 16

in the roman context

41

testimonies will ‘drive away’ all doubts and manifest their fate as clearly as liquid.18 The new version of the text was thus prompted and shaped by John’s claim as to the antiquity and authenticity of the objects. John the Deacon’s prologue expresses important aspects in terms of the reading and significance of medieval texts. When he transmits the text to his successors, this is not done by directly reproducing an old text he has found in the archive. The transmission is rather an actualization corresponding not only to the new altars and relics that have to be documented, but also to a contemporary discussion of the temple objects’ authenticity.19 But as the authority of his text relies on the authenticity of the tradition he claims to be preserving, he downplays the inherent process of actualization and refers to the preservation of antiquity, identified as an old and gravely damaged book from the archive. This notion has to be understood according to the characteristics of medieval textuality, where antiquity was claimed to secure authority.20 As a material artefact, the codex reflects and embodies the process of actualization in different historical contexts.

a memoria of the basilica What can be concluded regarding the function and use of the Descriptio in ACL A  70? As the codex is threadbare, shows obvious signs of use and is of a convenient size, and as the quality of its parchment seems to have been chosen for utility and not splendour, one may reasonably conclude that it was intended for use by the cathedral canons. It seems reasonable to think that the texts of ACL A 70 – not least the description of the cathedral – were used as sources for oral or written explanations of the Lateran. They could be used to provide information to pilgrims or to construct a sermon on special days when remembering the tra-

‘… vel etiam quae de historiis et auctoritatibus sanctorum ad repellendam ambiguitatis opinionem quorundam de absconsione Tabernaculii et Arcae, et his quae continebantur in ea, vel altaris incensi; quae nimirum ut liquido clarescant et historiographorum nomina et libros et tempora, seu doctorum nomina vel volumina, manifestius in sequentibus declarare curavi’ (‘… or I have also taken care to declare clearly in sequences these things from sacred histories and authorities which ought to drive away the impression of any kind of ambiguity concerning the concealing of the Tabernacle and Ark, and those things which are contained in them, or the altar of incense; these names and books and periods of histories are no doubt as clear as liquid, whether the names of teachers or volumes’). Ibid. 19 On actualization see Damien Kempf, ‘Der mittelalterliche Text zwischen Theorie und Praxis’, in Theorie in der Geschichtswissenchaft, ed. J. Hacke and M. Pohlig (Frankfurtam-Main and New York, 2008), pp. 53–66, at p. 53. 20 This invalidates Vogel’s argumentation for the oldest possible age of the text: see Chapter 1, pp. 5–6. 18

42

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

ditions of the Lateran was important.21 In addition, the archival character of the Descriptio suggests yet another function. John the Deacon calls it a memoria of the sanctuary. His claims to be preserving and restoring an old tradition are legitimized and authenticated by the very transmission of the text in codex ACL A 70. The codex can be considered a sort of archival repository in itself, with the older versions proving its claimed authenticity and antiquity. The codex contained the written manifestation of the cathedral’s holiness, and as an old libellus preserved in the archive it could be brought out or reproduced whenever the clergy needed to justify their claims. What to modern minds may seem like an unstructured repetition of texts represented to medieval minds a strengthening of authenticity.

The Emergence of the Lateran Chapter in the Age of the Reform Papacy In the Middle Ages the liturgical life at the Lateran centred on three main sites: the basilica, the baptistery and the papal palace, each one possessing its proper cultural and liturgical identity.22 Sible de Blaauw has emphasized that the dynamic centre was the papal palace, while the main relation within the complex was between the basilica and the papal palace. The baptistery functioned as an appendix to the basilica. The significance of the basilica was thus closely linked to the papal palace and vice versa. The palace needed the basilica, as the latter was most explicitly associated with Constantinian traditions; and the basilica, which had always suffered from being at the geographical margins of Rome, depended on the palace as a political and administrative centre of the Roman Church. This resulted in an important symbiotic relationship. The dependency of the basilica on the palace had in fact already been made evident in the Actus Silvestri (Acts of Sylvester) from the fifth century and in the Donation of Constantine, from the eighth century.23 The latter text describes the basilica and the baptistery as constructions within the area of the palace. As a parallel to the honour given to the pope, the emperor had announced – to all people of all races and nations – that he had constructed a church to the Saviour within his own imperial palace and that this James M. Powell, ‘Honorius III’s “Sermo in Dedicatione Ecclesie Lateranensis” and the Historical-Liturgical Traditions of the Lateran’, Archivium Historiae Pontificiae 21 (1983), 195–209. 22 Sible de Blaauw, ‘Il patriarchio, la basilica lateranense e la liturgia’, in Mélanges de l’École française de Rome: Antiquité, Rome–Paris 116.1 (2004), 161–71, at 161. 23 H. Fuhrmann, ed., Constitutum Constantini (Hanover, 1968); Johannes Fried, ‘Donation of Constantine’ and ‘Constitutum Constantini’: The Misinterpretation of a Fiction and its Original Meaning. With a Contribution by Wolfram Brandes: ‘The Satraps of Constantine’ (Berlin, 2007), pp. 129–37. See also Chapter 2, p. 26. 21

in the roman context

43

most holy church should be pronounced and venerated as the head and crown of all churches.24 In his analysis, de Blaauw has pointed to the sole medieval source which emphasizes somewhere other than the palace as the nucleus of the Lateran complex, namely the Descriptio. In this tract, for the first time, a voice emerges speaking on behalf of the basilica, as does the claim that the Ark and the other Old Testament relics were present in its high altar.25 As de Blaauw has also commented, it is by no means coincidental that this voice appeared during the decisive period of the formation of the Lateran chapter.26 The chapter at the Lateran was one of the three important chapters of Rome, along with San Pietro and Santa Maria Maggiore. They all had roots in the basilical monasteries of Rome.27 The monastery attached to the Lateran was not included in the reform of Odo of Cluny (c.  878–942) during his travels to Rome,28 and during the tenth century it was transformed into a chapter of canons.29 Within the sacred topography of Rome, all the chapters had their specific characteristics. Santa Maria Maggiore resembled a Bethlehem of Rome, with parts of the crib, several relics of the Virgin (the sanctuaria), the tomb of St Matthew the Evangelist and the grotto of St Jerome.30 The basilica of San Pietro claimed its status based on the presence of the tomb of the prince of apostles, St Peter himself. The Lateran basilica, however, had a weaker tradition of material holiness. More than the other chapters, its prominence depended on its relation to the pope and his palace.31 It was the liturgical space both for the station liturgy of the pope and for the basilical liturgy of the chapter.32 The coexistence of a local chapter with the papal office, which claimed universality, became one of the special features of the Lateran in this period. And, although the chapel of the pope belonged to his residence, and did not come under the supervision of the chapter, the canons Fuhrmann, Constitutum Constantini, p. 13. Fried, ‘Donation of Constantine’, p. 134. De Blaauw, ‘Il patriarchio, la basilica lateranense e la liturgia’, p. 171. 26 Ibid. 27 Guy Ferrari, Early Roman Monasteries: Notes for the History of the Monasteries and Convents at Rome from the V through the X Century (Vatican City, 1957). See also Jochen Johrendt, Die Diener des Apostelfürsten. Das Kapitel von St. Peter im Vatikan (11.–13. Jahrhundert) (Berlin, 2011), pp. 17–25. 28 In contrast to other Roman monasteries such as Santa Maria in Aventino, San Paolo fuori le mura (St Paul outside the walls) and the monastery at Monte Cassino. 29 Ferrari, Early Roman Monasteries, pp. 253, 366 and 402–3. The chapter preserved some of its monastic consuetudines as one of its characteristics. 30 The first explicit mention of these relics occurs in the description of Santa Maria Maggiore that was attached to the Descriptio: see Appendix 2. See also Sible de Blaauw, Cultus et decor. Liturgia e architettura nella Roma tardo-antica e medievale. Basilica Salvatoris, Sanctae Mariae, Sancti Petri, 2 vols (Vatican City, 1994), I, pp. 398–403. 31 See also Johrendt, Die Diener des Apostelfürsten, pp. 261–2. 32 Analysed in de Blaauw, Cultus et decor, I, pp. 278–80. 24 25

44

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

nevertheless benefited from the papal presence and the relics linked to his office and his chapel, as portrayed in the Descriptio. The Donation of Constantine, in the Constitutum Constantini, gives reason to regard the Lateran basilica as the stage for and the expression of the pinnacle of Roman sacerdotal and imperial authority. And in light of the reciprocal relation between the basilica and the papacy, portrayed in the Descriptio as a symbiosis between the basilica and the papal palace, the tract affirms the emerging claims of the Roman papacy in the twelfth century. What kind of canons wrote the Descriptio and argued for the presence of the temple relics from Jerusalem? In order to answer this question a presentation of the regular canons and the ecclesiastical reform movement is needed. Sometime between 1139 and 1145, Prior Bernard of the Lateran canons composed the office book for the Lateran, the Ordo Officiorum Ecclesiae Lateranensis, thus providing a vivid picture of life at the chapter. Bernard stated that the clergy came from different parts of the world and, ‘by the mercy of God’, they led a life of regular canons at the church.33 This regular life was ordered according to the Augustinian rule, defined as a renewal of the apostolic life of the early Church in Jerusalem. The canons are thus presented as being part of the movement of ecclesiastical reform with a new emphasis on a common life and the reform of the priesthood.34 As has been shown not least by J. C. Dickinson in his history of the origin of the Austin (i.e. Augustine) canons, the ideals of the union of clerical status and a full common life could barely be found in the first thousand years of the Church’s history. The reform that resulted in the regular canons was, however, not a movement centred purely on the sphere of canonical life. As Dickinson has also pointed out, it was ‘part and parcel of that spectacular movement destined to transform the eleventh-century Church in almost every aspect, and known to historians as the Gregorian Reform’.35 In his work The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250, Colin Morris portrays the development of the supreme age of the papal monarchy, Bernard of Porto, Bernhardi Cardinalis et Lateranensis Ecclesiae Prioris Ordo Officiorum Ecclesiae Lateranensis, ed. L. Fischer (Munich, 1916), pp. 140 and 274. 34 Johannes Laudage, ‘Ad exemplar primitivae ecclesiae: Kurie, Reich und Klerusreform von Urban II. bis Calixt II.’, in Reformidee und Reformpolitik im spätsalisch-frühstaufischen Reich, ed. S. Weinfurter and H. Seibert (Mainz, 1992), pp. 47–73, at p. 47; Johannes Laudage, Priesterbild und Reformpapsttum im 11. Jahrhundert (Cologne, 1984), p. 46. See also John C. Dickinson, The Origin of the Austin Canons (London, 1950); Brenda Bolton, The Medieval Reformation (London, 1983); Giles Constable, The Reformation of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, 1996); Herbert E.  J. Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII 1073–1085 (Oxford, 1998); Ian S. Robinson, ‘Reform of the Church, 1073–1122’, in The New Cambridge Medieval History IV c. 1024–1198, Part I, ed. D. Luscombe and J. RileySmith (Cambridge, 2004), pp. 268–334. 35 Dickinson, The Origin of the Austin Canons, p. 25. 33

in the roman context

45

which started with the Gregorian Reform. Christendom was ruled by kings and princes under the supervision of the clergy, and especially of the Roman Church, which alone possessed the fullness of power.36 Morris describes how, at the beginning of this period, the dominant thinking of the Roman Church changed rapidly, developing a strong anti-imperial tinge. This challenged the classical interpretation of the relation between regnum and sacerdotium, the royal and the ecclesiastical government, as a collaboration in the service of God.37 This attitude to the secular government coincided with one of the main principles of the reform, namely the purification of the clergy for divine service. This was achieved by their separation from the world (lay affairs) and their pursuit of apostolic perfection.38 The aim of the reform papacy was to liberate the clergy from secular dependence, and the means to achieve this was canonical reform. The Lateran synod of 1059 was the first official attempt to reform the order of canons. At this synod, Archdeacon Hildebrand (later Pope Gregory VII (1073–1085)), pleaded for a re-examination and renewal of the canonical common life of the Church, in particular in Rome and the surrounding dioceses which were directly subject to it.39 At the heart of this initiative was a new interpretation of ‘the apostolic life’ (vita apostolica), understood as ‘the common life’ (vita communis). The common life of the apostles in Jerusalem was a model that influenced the concept of both monasticism and priesthood in the years to come. The protection which Pope Urban II gave to the new foundation of canons at Rottenbuch in 1092, established by Duke Welf of Bavaria and his wife, has been interpreted as a formal definition of the reform of the order of canons.40 The privilege of Rottenbuch Colin Morris, The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250 (Oxford, 1989), p. 2. 37 Ibid., p. 79. 38 Ibid., p. 101. 39 Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII 1073–1085, pp. 44–7; Dickinson, The Origin of the Austin Canons, p. 36. 40 Urban II, Bulla confirmationis Urbani II. P. M. Anno 1092, in Das Stift Rottenbuch in der Kirchenreform des XI.–XII. Jahrhunderts, ed. J. Mois (Munich, 1953), pp. 76–7; and Urban II, Beati Urbani II pontificis romani epistolae et privilegia, LVIII. Confirmatio erectionis canonicae S. Mariae in Rettenbach, quae sub apostolicae sedis protectione recipitur; confirmatisque bonis omnibus ad eam spectantibus, nonnulla eidem conceduntur privilegia, PL 151, cols 337B–339C. See Marie-Dominique Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century: Essays on New Theological Perspectives in the Latin West, trans. J. Taylor and L. K. Little (Chicago, 1968), p. 216. See also Bolton, The Medieval Reformation, p. 52: ‘a “charter of institutional dualism”, which allowed the canonical aspect and the monastic aspect both to be valid and equal forms of the apostolic life. Urban’s choice of words was significant. He asserted that canons who had revived lost fervour and monks who maintained the fervour which they had never lost were both equally faithful to the Holy Spirit.’ See also Laudage, Priesterbild und Reformpapsttum, pp. 297–9. 36

46

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

placed the canonical vita communis at the same level as the monastic way of life in stating that, since the very foundation of the Church, there had been two groups of people – canons and monks – striving for the vita beata (‘the blessed life’). The common life of the canons was thus not understood as an imitation of the life of monks, but had an independent status as an original form of life within the Church – a life instituted by apostolic practice and originating in the earliest days of the Church. The privilege affirmed the foundation laid down at the synod of 1059 and formed the basis of an effective diffusion of canonical life. Several privileges to reformed chapters exist from Urban II’s pontificate41 and more from the period of Pope Paschal II (1099–1118). During the reign of Paschal II the new order of reformed canons spread tremendously, resulting in many new foundations. During the first half of the twelfth century, the new movement put the traditional monastic order on the defensive.42 From about 1130, it became conventional to distinguish between the regular canons (living according to a new version of Augustinian rule) and secular canons.43 In the first period of the Gregorian reform, the priestly ideals of the movement affected above all a number of reform centres which were in frequent contact with the popes of this era.44 Because of their close connection to the papal see, we might perhaps assume that the synod of 1059 had repercussions for the Roman chapters. However, it seems that only the chapter of the Lateran was changed into a chapter of regular canons. This probably occurred during the papacy of Alexander II (1061–1073), as described in an addition to the Descriptio by John the Deacon.45 How this new clerical life was effected (perhaps gradually) and in what sense the chapter was reformed are questions that have been discussed by a number of scholars. One of the moot points is when the pope called for the canons of San Frediano to realize the new ideals. Despite attempts at reform, and although the Lateran Church was ‘the mother and mistress of all other churches’, Laudage, Priesterbild und Reformpapsttum, pp. 301–2. Ibid., pp. 47, 300. 43 Four different groups of canons can be distinguished from the middle of the twelfth century. See Morris, The Papal Monarchy, p. 247. 44 Laudage, Priesterbild und Reformpapsttum, p. 292. See also Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII 1073–1085, pp. 318–9. 45 ‘Inde penes istum iacet Alexander papa II, qui fuit episcopus Lucensis, qui et condidit optimum privilegium praedictae basilicae, et renovavit communem regularium canonicorum vitam in ipsa’ (‘Then Pope Alexander II, who had been bishop of Lucca, declared concerning it, who also established the most excellent privilege of the aforesaid basilica, and renovated the communal life of the regular canons in it’). Descriptio, XXXII, quoted from ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, ed. Valentini and Zucchetti, p. 349. Johrendt, Die Diener des Apostelfürsten, pp. 263–75, discusses reform attempts at the chapters of San Giovanni and San Pietro. 41 42

in the roman context

47

it was another chapter, San Frediano in Lucca in Tuscany, that effected the new patterns of clerical life at the Lateran.

the canons of san frediano of lucca The city of Lucca enjoyed an important location on the Via Francigena, the pilgrims’ road from north-western Europe to Rome. It was also a significant centre of the reform movement and of opposition to imperial authority. The city had fostered important reformers such as Pope Alexander II (1061–1073), who had been bishop of Lucca (as Anselm I (1057–1061)),46 as well as his nephew Bishop Anselm II of Lucca (1073–1086). The city was frequently visited by the reform popes, and it was in the fields of Lucca that Pope Urban II met the first crusaders on their way to the Holy Land. Within its city walls, Lucca had numerous reformed canonries, and San Frediano was both an especially prominent centre of reform and offered a pattern for other reformed canonries.47 In 1110, Pope Paschal II gave thanks to God for the light, now also brought to the Lateran, by the brothers from Lucca: Like yourselves, we must give thanks to God almighty, because through your church the divine light of the common and apostolic life has spread to the summit of the first see. In fact, although the Roman Church is the mother and mistress of all churches, nonetheless she is pleased to assume the order of the regular life from the church of San Frediano both through your leader, the prior Rotho, and through others of your brothers.48 Based on the information inserted by John the Deacon, older historians such as Onofrio Panvinio (d. 1568) claimed that the Luccan canons were called to Rome during the pontificate of Alexander II (1061–1073). Other historians have pointed Anselm was present at the Lateran synod of 1059. On Alexander II see Tillmann Schmidt, Alexander II (1061–1073) und die römische Reformgruppe seiner Zeit (Stuttgart, 1977). 47 Charles Buchanan, ‘Spiritual and Spatial Authority in Medieval Lucca: Illuminated Manuscripts, Stational Liturgy and the Gregorian Reform’, Art History 27.5 (2004), 723–44. 48 ‘Et a nobis et a vobis omnipotenti Domino gratiae referendae sunt, quod per ecclesiam vestram divinum illud communis et apostolicae vitae lumen usque ad primae sedis verticem diffusum est. Etsi enim Romana Ecclesia mater sit Ecclesiarum omnium et magistra, ei tamen de beati Fridiani ecclesia regularis vitae ordinem sibi assumere et per dominum R. priorem et alios vestros fratres disponere placuit.’ The letter is part of a group of sources from Pope Paschal concerning the convent of San Frediano, edited by P. Kehr, who argues based on these sources that the Lateran Church was reformed through this convent. See Paul F. Kehr, Italia Pontificia, 10 vols (Berlin, 1906–1976), III, pp. 414–18. 46

48

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

to other sources and have suggested that Pope Paschal II (1099–1118) was the first to call the canons of San Frediano to the Lateran.49 Tillmann Schmidt contributed with a new model in claiming that it was unnecessary to link a reform at the Lateran exclusively with the canons from Lucca.50 On the contrary, the sources may suggest that there were a number of attempts to reform local canons before a new, non-local group was brought from outside under Paschal II. Schmidt pointed out that the investiture conflict between the pope and parties friendly to the emperor probably contributed to the unsuccessful early attempts at reform. However, around the turn of the eleventh century political conditions and constellations changed, strengthening the reform papacy in Rome, at least for a while. Nevertheless, there seems to have been sufficient stability and authority to effect attempts at reform by new methods.51 Extensive correspondence from the papal see exists that confirms San Frediano’s privileged position as a centre of reform.52 But it is difficult to tell whether Paschal II’s praise of San Frediano in 1110 meant more at this time than its status of being an example to the Lateran chapter. According to Wolf Gehrt, the transfer of the Lateran chapter to the Luccan canons cannot be dated any earlier than between October 1116 and January 1118.53 And this reform attempt also encountered difficulties. The successor of Paschal II, Gelasius II (1118–1119), had to ask for support from Lucca before the imperial antipope, Gregory VIII (Mauritius Burdinus), invaded the Lateran, drove away the pope and probably expelled the reformed canons (1118).54 It was not possible to recall the Luccan canons until the controversies surrounding the conflict over investiture had calmed down. This happened during the pontificate of Calixtus II (1119–1124), when the reformed canons were re-established at the Lateran (1121).55 Laudage, Priesterbild und Reformpapsttum, p. 289. Tilmann Schmidt, ‘Die Kanonikerreform in Rom und Papst Alexander II’, Studi Gregoriani per la Storia della Libertas Ecclesiae 9 (1972), 201–21. See also Laudage, Priesterbild und Reformpapsttum, p. 290. 51 Schmidt, ‘Die Kanonikerreform in Rom und Papst Alexander II’, p. 220. See also Wolf Gehrt, Die Verbände der Regularkanonikerstifte S. Frediano in Lucca, S. Maria in Reno bei Bologna, S. Maria in Porto bei Ravenna und die cura animarum in 12. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt-am-Main and New York, 1984), p. 43. 52 Gehrt, Die Verbände der Regularkanonikerstifte, p. 20. 53 Ibid., p. 42. 54 Ibid., p. 43. See also Gelasius II, Gelasii II pontificis romani epistolae et privilegia, PL 163, col. 0487A. 55 Gehrt, Die Verbände der Regularkanonikerstifte, p. 44. See also Calixtus II, Calixti II pontificis romani epistolae et privilegia, CXXVII. Ad A. priorem S. Frigdiani Lucensis, PL 163, col. 1201C. Claussen dates the final regulation according to the Augustinian rule of the regular canons to the pontificate of Pope Calixtus (1119–1124): see Gehrt, Die Verbände der Regularkanonikerstifte, pp. 30–1, 255. 49

50

in the roman context

49

Thus it is still uncertain which canons wrote the first description of the Lateran Church. There is certainly a possibility that the Descriptio, as a description of the ‘supreme sanctuary of the Lateran’, was composed in direct relation to a new establishment of the canonry between 1116 and 1121. The text does not specify this, but at that point the canonry was in need of enhanced promotion. The reformed chapter of the Lateran underwent great changes during the twelfth century. The sources testify to a gradual process towards independence from San Frediano56 – and at the same time the chapter was an ecclesiastical household that gradually fell under the shadow of the rising papal curia. In the privilege given to the Lateran by Pope Anastasius IV (1153), San Frediano is not mentioned, but the order of canons following the rule of St Augustine is: ‘ordo canonicorum secundum beati Augustini regulam’. The canons and their prior were placed directly under the pope’s supervision. The Lateran Church was free and independent of everyone except the pope.57 And, as Michele Maccarone has pointed out, this papal supervision confirmed that the Lateran chapter had become the canonry of the pope.58 The period of the reformed canons at the Lateran chapter lasted until the end of the thirteenth century. In September 1299, Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303) decided that the regular canons should be expelled and replaced by fifteen secular canons. These belonged to the patrician families of Rome, who longed for honourable seats in the main cathedral as well as control over the properties of the chapter.59 By this time, the specific traditions that were shaped or reshaped in the twelfth century, in connection with the transmission of the Descriptio, had become established and were not rejected until the Enlightenment. The history is described in detail in Gehrt, Die Verbände der Regularkanonikerstifte, pp. 42–5. ‘… sancimus, ut eadem ecclesia tanquam principalis mater et domina omnino libera sit et nulli penitus, nisi soli Romano pontifici sit subiecta, atque idem episcopi salubri providentia, veluti cooperatores et vicarii nostri, ipsius venerabilis basilice utilitatem et honestatem attente provideant’ (‘We confirm … that this same church, just as the foremost mother and lady, should be free and troubled by nothing, except that it should be subject to the Roman pontiff only, and likewise the bishops should with beneficial providence provide attentively for the advantage and reputation of that venerable basilica, as our fellow-workers and vicars’). Laterani, 1153.12.30, ACL Q.1.A.6. The text is edited in Acta Pontificum Romanorum inedita. Urkunden der Päpste (590–1197), vol. 3, ed. J. von Pflugk-Harttung (Graz, 1958), p. 133, no. 126: ‘Anastasius IV bestätigt dem Konvente von San Giovanni in Laterano zu Rom die Besitzthümer und Rechte seiner Kirche’. See also Duval-Arnould, Le Pergamene dell’Archivio Capitolare Lateranense, pp. 227–8. 58 Michele Maccarrone, ‘I papi del secolo XII e la vita comune e regolare del clero’, in La vita comune del clero nei secoli XI e XII, ed. Cinzio Violante and Cosimo D. Fonsega (Milan, 1962), p. 377. 59 K. Egger, ‘Die Lateranensiche Chorherren-Kongregation’, In unum congregati 3 (1956), 59–63, at 61. 56

57

50

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Sacerdotal Identity and the Roman Papacy The chapters of the two main patriarchal basilicas of Rome, San Giovanni in Laterano and San Pietro in Vaticano, jostled for position in both the city of Rome and the Christian world (Urbs and Orbis). Jochen Johrendt discusses the Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae which was presented to Pope Alexander III (1159–1181), and points to how the canons exhibited a certain degree of self-esteem linked to the office and body of St Peter. ‘This rock’ (‘hanc petram’), from the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18 – ‘you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church’ – was explicitly interpreted as indicating the physical presence of St Peter,60 while ‘this rock’ in the earlier description of the Lateran was interpreted as Christ himself (see Chapter 2). In the description of San Pietro the sacerdotal authority depended directly on the body of Peter as its foundation, expressed not least by the pallia which were blessed by contact with his tomb.61 A specific expression of the exclusive authority of the pope was the description of the dozens of popes’ graves in the basilica, a list far longer than that of popes entombed in the Lateran Church. This confirmed the interpretation of the pope as Vicarius Petri (‘Vicar of Peter’),62 a title that had been applied to the pope in Roman sources since the early Middle Ages.63 ‘Et quoniam haec sacrosancta Dei et beati Petri basilica est fundamentum et caput omnium aliarum ecclesiarum, dicente Domino beato Petro: “Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam; et tu vocaberis Cephas, idest Caput”’ (‘And since this basilica was founded as sacred to God and blessed Peter and as head of all the other churches, with God saying to blessed Peter: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church; and you will call it Cephas, that is Head”’). Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae, 4. See ‘Petri Mallii Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae aucta atque emendata a romano Presbitero’, in Codice topografico della Città di Roma, ed. Valentini and Zucchetti, III, pp. 375–442, at p. 385. 61 ‘quadam praerogativa in ea tantum vigilantur pallia, quae romanus pontifex mittit patrarchis, archiepiscopis, per universum orbem constitutis; et inde est quod legatus sanctae romanae Ecclesiae dicit: “Accipe pallium, de corpore beati Petri sumptum, in plenitudinem officii tui”’ (‘by this same prerogative the pallia are watched over in that place so greatly, which the Roman pontiff sends to the patriarchs and archbishops who are established throughout the whole world; and for that reason the legate of the holy Roman Church says: “Receive the pallium, taken up from the body of blessed Peter, in the fullness of your office”’). Ibid. This legitimization was later directed explicitly against the Lateran, as is evident in two polemical poems transmitted with the description of the Vatican basilica. See Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. lat. 6757 (beginning of the eighth century). The poems are published in ‘Petri Mallii Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae’, ed. Valentini and Zucchetti, pp. 379–80. 62 See Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae, 39, in ‘Petri Mallii Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae’, ed. Valentini and Zucchetti, p. 423. 63 This pertained especially to the Roman sources that stressed the Roman-ness of the papal office. In the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals, which were composed outside Rome,

60

in the roman context

51

The logic behind the promotion of San Pietro seemed to be that the more the pope emphasized the Petrine roots of his office, the more the burial church of St Peter’s would have to be valued.64 While the canons of San Pietro exhibited a collective identity as the servants of the tomb of St Peter and as the keepers of the pallium,65 the identity of the Lateran canons seems to have been more obscure. It was, however, not lacking.66 There seems to have been a new emphasis on the Lateran Church in the twelfth century. The popes of the eleventh century had preferred San Pietro as their burial place but popes from Paschal II onwards favoured San Giovanni.67 The Lateran also became the place of councils and of a new rite of papal installation, following the enthronement and consecration at San Pietro.68 The Descriptio mentions the pope as Vicarius Petri once, but stresses strategies other than the succession of Peter to legitimize sacerdotal self-esteem and authority.69 When both the tradition of the Descriptio and the context in which it was transmitted are taken into consideration, the Lateran canons clearly promoted a collective identity as the servants of the new temple (see also Chapters 6 and 7). The concept of the new temple was expressed through liturgy, and their sacerdotal identity was articulated in relation to the papal office. In the first part of the twelfth century, the title of Vicarius Christi (‘Vicar of Christ’) was promoted not least by the defenders of Innocent II against Anaclet II during the schism of 1130–1138. Some years later, Pope Eugene III (1145–1153) was the first pope to define himself by use of this title. The title became important and was preferred

the title was not mentioned. See Michele Maccarrone, Vicarius Christi. Storia del titolo papale (Rome, 1953), p. 70. 64 Johrendt, Die Diener des Apostelfürsten, p. 324. 65 Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae, 4, in ‘Petri Mallii Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae’, ed. Valentini and Zucchetti, pp. 385–6. 66 Johrendt emphasizes the self-esteem of the canons of San Pietro, but alleges that a similar self-esteem is lacking in the Lateran Descriptio. See Johrendt, Die Diener des Apostelfürsten, p. 322. 67 Leo IX (d. 1054), Alexander II (d. 1073) and Urban II (d. 1099) were buried at San Pietro. In the twelfth century Paschal II (d. 1118), Calixtus II (d. 1124), Honorius II (d. 1130), Celestine II (d. 1144), Lucius II (d. 1145), Anastasius IV (d. 1154), Alexander III (d. 1181), Clement III (d. 1191) and Celestine III (d. 1198) were buried at San Giovanni in Laterano. During this century, only two popes were buried at San Pietro: Eugenius III (d. 1153) and Adrian IV (d. 1159). 68 Johrendt, Die Diener des Apostelfürsten, pp. 316­–17. On the ritual of enthronement and installation, see Susan Twyman, ‘Papal Adventus at Rome in the Twelfth Century’, Historical Research 69 (1996), 233–53; and Susan Twyman, Papal Ceremonial at Rome in the Twelfth Century (London, 2002). 69 Descriptio, XXVI: see Appendix 3.

52

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

to the title of Vicarius Petri.70 The interpretation of Vicarius Christi developed not least within the context of the Lateran Church as the new temple.

Legitimization of the Papacy The description of the Lateran Church was written in a chapter which was closely connected to the reform papacy and which confronted the imperial authority. The reformers based their actions on the claimed authority of the Roman papacy,71 and in this context the Lateran provided a stage for the reformers’ ideology. While the ideas of the reformers in the eleventh century were based on the papal teachings of past centuries, important elements were new. As Colin Morris has pointed out, ‘above all the primacy of Rome was taught with more warmth and vehemence than ever before. Peter Damian (1007–1072) formulated the doctrine that all other churches have founders, but Christ alone founded the Roman Church.’72 A new term for the papacy – papatus – reflected a new status for the apostolic see. It expressed the idea of a rank or order higher than that of a bishop.73 It thus became necessary to define the apostolic authority of Rome, and papal theorists went back to earlier canons and documents. The Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries and the Constitutum Constantini, built on the legend of the Acts of Sylvester, became important sources.74 When this collection of texts was used as a complementary tradition to the transfer of the empire (the translatio imperii), the theologians interpreted the relationship between secular and sacerdotal authority according to the sovereignty of the Roman papacy. Dictatus Papae of 1074 expressed this.75 The demands of the papacy called into question all the accepted principles of obedience to traditional authority, giving the pope a quasi-royal position within the Church. This was expressed by the new custom of the papal coronation.76 Morris has commented that this represented a claim akin to papal monarchy, but at the same time he emphasizes that ‘it is hard to determine its See Maccarrone, Vicarius Christi, pp. 85–107. See also Chapter 6, p. 124. Morris, The Papal Monarchy, p. 107. 72 Morris refers to Peter Damian (Disceptatio Synodalis, MGH LdL, I, 78), based on the Isidorian decretals (Gratian, Deer. D. XXII, c. 2 (73)): ibid. 73 Apparently first used by Clement II in 1047: see ibid. 74 Fried discusses the origin of the Constitutum Constantini in connection with the Carolingian monasteries of Corbie and St Denis in the first part of the ninth century. See Fried, ‘Donation of Constantine’, pp. 73–110. 75 Brian Tierney, ed., The Middle Ages, Vol. I: Sources of Medieval History (New York, 1983), pp. 142–3. 76 Morris, The Papal Monarchy, pp. 129–30: ‘We first hear of papal coronation in 1059 and from 1075 we hear of ceremonies in which, as at a royal crown-wearing, the pope appeared with crown and imperial robe.’ 70 71

in the roman context

53

exact meaning’. According to Morris, the imperial claim has to be understood in the light of the Church’s perspective, which saw the sphere of religion as incomparably more important than secular affairs – they differed as do the sun and the moon. Pope Gregory VII (1073–1085) thus ‘continued to see regnum and sacerdotium as both founded by God, and by the monarchical symbols he was claiming not a right to worldly authority, but a power better than that of the world’.77 In 1076, one of the most critical conflicts of the Western medieval Church culminated in the excommunication of the German king Henry IV by Pope Gregory VII. It directly pertained to the relation between the Church and secular authorities and was the beginning of a period of conflict and of increasing claims of authority by the papal see. The conflict (which has been dubbed the ‘investiture conflict’) came to a head in the first decades of the twelfth century and it pertained to the right to appoint bishops. The first phase was settled by a compromise laid out in the Concordat of Worms in 1122. A new break with the empire arose when Frederick I Barbarossa entered the stage in 1152 and announced that the ‘majesty of the Roman Empire should be reformed, by God’s help, to the original strength of its excellence’.78 He pursued the imitation of the great Roman emperors and declared that he would never obey a pope who strove to diminish the rights of the empire or who ‘under the name of pope wishes to rule not only over the clergy but also over the kingdom’.79 Several strategies were developed to legitimize the authority of the Roman pope. One important driving force was the development of canonical law connected to the University of Bologna and the edition of Gratian’s decree, Concordantia disconcordantium canonum (Decretum Gratiani) in 1140.80 As a complement to civil law, the collection of canon law supplied the papacy with legal legitimization and a competence that made it the head of the supreme court among all earthly rulers. It thus brought about what was to be the papal monarchy.81 One of the corpora included in the decree was the Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries, where the Constitutum Constantini transmitted the legendary Donation of Constantine. The conversion of Emperor Constantine and the granting of legal status to the Church in the fourth century had been a turning point in the relationship between Ibid., pp. 130–1. In a letter to Eugene III, MGH, Leges IV, Constitutiones et acta publica imperatorum et regum, I, 137, pp. 191–2. See also Morris, The Papal Monarchy, p. 188. 79 Frederick I to Eugene III, p. 195. On Fredrick Barbarossa’s secular Roman ideology, see Walter Ullmann, A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages (London and New York, 2003), chapter 8. 80 ‘Decretum Magistri Gratiani’, in Corpus Iuris Canonici, I, ed. E. Friedberg (Leipzig, 1879; repr. Graz, 1959). 81 See Ullmann, A Short History, pp. 180–1. 77 78

54

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

imperial and priestly authorities. According to the Constitutum Constantini, Constantine had handed over the governance of the western part of the empire to the Roman bishop, while moving the imperial capital to the east, establishing the city of Constantinople. The reason was clear: as the head of the Christian religion had been established in Rome, no mere earthly ruler should have jurisdiction at the same place.82 The imperial authority and insignia were bestowed on the Roman pope, and the supposed Donation of Constantine thus transferred secular authority to the papacy. According to the Constitutum, the emperor in this way showed his reverence for the heavenly king. When the emperor announced – to all people of all races and nations – that he had constructed a church to the Saviour within his own imperial palace and that this most holy church should be pronounced and venerated as the head and crown of all churches, it was as a parallel to the honour given to the pope. The Donation of Constantine thus established the Lateran palace and basilica not only as an important stage for the complex relation between imperial and priestly authority, but also as the material expression of the supremacy of priestly authority.83 Even if the legendary donation was a classical pattern that defined the relation between the royal and the ecclesiastical authorities, the regnum et sacerdotium, it represented an ambiguous heritage to the reformers. On the one hand it guaranteed the authority of the Church; on the other hand, the authority was also bestowed by the empire and did not thus secure any unconditional superiority for the Roman see. The Constantinian Donation was linked to the transfer of imperial authority, and the masters of canon law transformed this idea into what Werner Goez has described as ‘die kuriale Translationstheorie’ (the Papal Curia’s theory of translatio).84 This compensated for the earlier imbalance and ambiguity, not only by arranging the imperial donation to the papacy but also by defining the pope’s sovereignty and legal right to appoint the emperor.85 Goez connects the shaping of this theory to Pope Alexander III (1159–1181).86 In this context, it is relevant to note that the tradition of the Descriptio in the Lateran archive Fuhrmann, Constitutum Constantini, p. 18; see Fried, ‘Donation of Constantine’, p. 136. What the ‘imperial palace’ in Constitutum Constantini actually referred to is discussed in Fried, ‘Donation of Constantine’, pp. 74–87 (chap. VIa, ‘The Palatium Lateranense’). 84 See Werner Goez, Translatio imperii. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Geschichtsdenkens und der politischen Theorien im Mittelalter und in der früheren Neuzeit (Tübingen, 1958), pp. 137–56. 85 Ibid. The same ideas of papal sovereignty were expressed in an earlier context in the Dictatus Papae. 86 Ibid., p. 155. Goez also states that ‘Die Anfänge der kurialen Translationstheorie liegen im Dunkel’ (‘the beginnings of the Curial theory of translatio are obscure’; p. 137). 82 83

in the roman context

55

expresses an increased emphasis on legal documentation, as the excerpts from the Constitutum Constantini are enlarged through the transmission. Accompanied by the fact that Alexander III was the addressee of the most elaborate version of the tract, edited and presented by John the Deacon, this strengthens the characterization of the Descriptio as part of a legitimization of the Roman papacy – of sacerdotal authority and of the Roman see as the pinnacle of this authority. When the Descriptio is taken into consideration – which neither Werner Goez does in his study of translatio imperii, nor Colin Morris in his study of the rise of the papal monarchy – a broader picture of the legitimization of the papacy emerges. Both the early version and, more importantly, the later version of the Descriptio by John the Deacon (between 1159 and 1181) seem to demonstrate strong efforts to legitimize the papal basilica and thus the papacy according to traditions other than the Donation of Constantine, not least the translatio of the objects from Jerusalem.

Chapter 4

In the Northern French Context

If you were to go into the cloister, you would see more than twelve young monks sitting in chairs in front of small tables and silently writing careful and skillful compositions. One could find all of the books of Jerome in explanation of the prophets, all of the books of St. Gregory the Great, and various books of St. Augustine, Ambrose, Isidore, Bede, and also Lord Anselm, abbot of Bec at the time and later archbishop of Canterbury.1

‘The Group of St Amand’: The Group of Northern France and Belgium The oldest versions of the Descriptio underwent a remarkable diffusion in monasteries of present-day northern France and Belgium, thereby entering a different frame of interpretation from the Roman reform context.2 Three of the manuscripts containing the Descriptio were composed at the abbey of St Amand in Picardy,3 while two of the others refer to the copying of an old book from the same abbey.4 In the twelfth century, the abbey of St Amand possessed one of the richest libraries in medieval Flanders. The Index major from this period (ed. 1150–1160) records a total of 389 volumes apart from liturgical books. According to the account of Herman of Tournai, a monk at a nearby monastery, we may assume that the different scriptoria borrowed books from each other. The con Herman of Tournai, The Restoration of the Monastery of Saint Martin of Tournai, ed. and trans. L. H. Nelson (Washington, DC, 1996), p. 114. 2 See Author’s Note regarding the use of modern locations. 3 BNF lat. 2287; BNF lat. 5129; and Valenciennes, BM 40 (54). On the library of St Amand, see André Boutemy, ‘Le scriptorium et la bibliothèque de Saint-Amand d’après les manuscrits et les anciens catalogues’, Scriptorium 1 (1946), 6–16; Françoise Simeray, ‘La constitution d’une bibliothèque monastique au XIIe siècle: l’exemple de l’abbaye de Saint-Amand-les-Eaux (Nord)’, Historiens et Géographes 343.3 (1994), 145–55. 4 BNF lat. 15669 and ÖNB 1433. 1

in the northern french context

57

nection between the different monasteries is particularly evident in the transmission of the description of the Lateran. It seems that all or most of the codices in groups II and III stem from the same geographical area centring around the abbey of St Amand. Lauer introduced the label ‘group of St Amand’.5 The ‘group of northern France and Belgium’ covers more of the relevant manuscripts and is consequently a more appropriate label, though less poetic.

from rome to northern france The French manuscripts and the Belgian one contain earlier versions of the Descriptio than those in the Lateran archive. This means that the Descriptio was probably brought to northern France and Belgium before the middle of the twelfth century.6 A pilgrim may have brought the text back to his homeland on his return from Rome, or more probably it was brought by a prelate who had been sent on a mission to Rome and who spent his time writing and collecting texts while negotiating with the papal see. A closer look at BNF lat. 6186 reveals one of the many possible methods of transmission. The catalogue of popes, combined with palaeographical observations, indicates that the codex was finally composed sometime between 1265 and 1268.7 Most of the content, however, seems to belong together as an older group of texts. Apart from two versions of the description of the Lateran Church, the codex also contains papal ordinals which can all be identified as elements that were collected in the Liber Polypticus by Canon Benedict (c. 1140–1143). It also contains excerpts from the Liber Pontificalis and a description of Rome, which is the oldest version of the text, later labelled Mirabilia Urbis Roma (‘Marvels of the City of Rome’), composed sometime before 1143, and excerpts from the Gesta Romanorum.8 The description of the papal chapel and the Lateran Church appears after, or is possibly incorporated into, the description of Rome. Perhaps they were transmitted together, copied during a stay in the papal city. One of the several possible occasions during the first half of the twelfth century was that of the disgruntled petitioner Herman of Tournai’s stay at the papal curia in 1142. During his time in Rome, Herman wrote a book about the restoration of the monastery of St Martin of Tournai. An excerpt from this book is also included in the codex BNF lat. 6186, which strengthens the hypothesis of Herman as a copyist of the

7 8 5

6

See Philip Lauer, Le Palais de Latran (Paris, 1911), p. 392. Before the second version of the Descriptio in ACL A 70 was composed (1154–1159). The catalogue ends with Clement IV (1265–1268). For details on the transmission of the texts and the composition of the manuscript, see Appendix 1.

58

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Descriptio.9 In the introduction he describes his apparently ‘unbearable’ visit to the Lateran: I see now that I will be detained here in Rome from the octave of Easter until the octave of Pentecost awaiting the response of the Lord Pope. Lest I should starve mentally from such a long period of boredom or perish from inactivity here in the Lateran Palace, I am undertaking to write a narrative of the restoration of the abbey, and I wish to send the work to you. If it should happen that this Roman heat should grow worse and cause my death, which I very much fear, I earnestly beg you to commend through your prayers the soul of your humble servant to God.10 Herman’s stay in Rome in 1142 was at least his second visit to the papal city. As a former abbot and an ecclesiastical man of affairs, he had returned from Rome ‘shortly after Christmas’ the same winter with letters from Pope Innocent II, which he delivered to Sampson, the lord archbishop of Reims. The correspondence with Rome pertained to the right of Tournai to choose its own bishop, independently of Noyon.11 The canons of the cathedral anticipated that they would win the right of election, and Herman recounts that ‘they therefore chose Absalom, lord abbot of St Amand, as bishop, and I was immediately asked to return to Rome on his behalf ’.12 What is particularly interesting about this information is that Herman’s text shows a possible route taken by the description of the Lateran Church, not only to northern France but to the monastery of St Amand as well. Herman returned with papal confirmation of the election and it is certainly reasonable, not least owing to his boredom at the Lateran palace, to assume that he brought other types of information as well. What would seem more natural than that he brought back information about the customs of the papal court and descriptions of the papal city to the newly established bishopric? Several circumstances seem to support this possibility. Herman had an obvious interest in books and book production,13 evident not least from his description of Herman of Tournai, The Restoration of the Monastery of Saint Martin of Tournai, p. 12. The excerpts in BNF lat. 6186 are ‘Incipit de comitibus Flandrensibus’, BNF lat. 6186, fols 61v–78r (which includes chapters 12–33, but omits chapters 15–16 of Liber de restauratione); and ‘De pontificibus noviomensibus ac tornacensibus’, ibid., fols 78r–90v. See also Appendix 2. 10 Herman of Tournai, The Restoration of the Monastery, p. 12. 11 In 532, the episcopal see of Tournai was offered to Medard, bishop of Noyon, who accepted it without giving up Noyon. The two dioceses, separated by over a hundred miles, were united for more than six centuries. See ibid., pp. xv and 170–1, nn. 4 and 5. 12 Ibid., p. 12. 13 See ibid., esp. chaps 77 (pp. 110–12) and 80 (pp. 113–14).

9

in the northern french context

59

the scriptorium at his own monastery: ‘If you were going into the cloister, you would see more than twelve young monks sitting in chairs in front of small tables and silently writing careful and skilful compositions.’14 According to Herman, the scribes of St Martin were famous for their accuracy, leading to the spread of books in the neighbouring monasteries: ‘He had them so carefully written that you would soon find similar ones in the libraries at the neighbouring abbeys, and they all would ask for exemplars from our own monastery for the correction of their own books.’15 One of these abbeys was definitively St Amand, about 25 kilometres away; it was an abbey with close connections to St Martin – not only through personal relations but also through spiritual responsibility.16 Of course, there are many other possible methods of transmission from Rome to northern France. The theological milieux in France – those connected to monasteries such as Cluny and Clairvaux, and the cathedral schools such as St Victor and Chartres – were among the leading and most influential ones in Christian Europe. St Amand was also an important centre of learning, not least because of its impressive book collection. In addition, it had close relations with the papacy since it was under papal protection, confirmed by a privilege of 1107.17 The popes themselves were in close contact with the northern French and Flemish clergy, thanks not least to various periods of residence by the pope or his cardinals in France, for example at the councils of the city of Reims in 1119, 1131 and 1148, and when French and Flemish clergy were present at the Lateran councils of 1123 and 1139. Pope Innocent II (1130–1143) also had strong support from the northern French clergy against the ‘Jewish’ antipope, Anaclet II (1130–1138).18

A Reading of the Descriptio in Manuscript Contexts The compositions of the manuscripts from northern France and Belgium seem to confirm their classification as miscellanies.19 In modern usage, this term refers to almost all manuscripts containing works by different authors. The term may Ibid., p. 114. Ibid. 16 See ibid., chaps 35 (pp. 50–2), 46 (pp. 69–70), 64 (pp. 94–5). St Amand and St Martin were obviously ‘friends’. 17 Paschal II, Paschalis II romani pontificis epistolae et privilegia, CCXIII.  Possessiones abbatiae Elnonensis, seu S. Amandi, ordinis S. Benedicti, confirmat easque apostolicis munit privilegiis, PL 163, cols 211C–213C. 18 See Richard Cusimano, A Translation of the Chronicle of the Abbey of Morigny, France, c.1100–1150 (Lewiston, NY, 2003); Mary Stroll, The Jewish Pope: Ideology and Politics in the Papal Schism of 1130 (Leiden, 1987), pp. 179–81. 19 Stephen G. Nichols and Siegfried Wenzel, eds, The Whole Book: Cultural Perspectives on the Medieval Miscellany (Ann Arbor, 1997). 14 15

60

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

conceal significant structures in the manuscripts, and it is relevant to ask whether the compositions contain structures that can shed light on the Descriptio and the interpretation of the Lateran Church. Perhaps the other texts in the manuscripts present perspectives and connections which were obvious to medieval readers but which are hidden from us owing to an isolated reading of the Descriptio. The literal context of the manuscripts might reveal or clarify interpretative perspectives that were implicit at the Lateran as well, ones that can illuminate the construction of the religious ideas. Medieval Flanders was one of the areas which responded most eagerly to the call for a crusade by Pope Urban II in Clermont in 1095, and the content of several of the northern French manuscripts reveals questions which were brought up in the wake of the crusades. As mentioned in Chapter 1, this pertains especially to the five manuscripts Reg. lat. 712, Brussels BR 9828, BNF lat. 5129, Cambrai BM 802 and BNF lat. 6186. A simplified synopsis of relevant common texts or types of texts within these manuscripts is presented in Appendix 1. These codices share their region of origin and have texts related to the Holy Land (the Terra Sancta) and the crusades. Although the manuscripts were copied in the second half of the twelfth century and in the thirteenth century, the texts related to Jerusalem were mainly composed in the first half of the twelfth century. They thus do not reflect the loss of Jerusalem in 1187 but the conquest of 1099 and the following rearrangement of Jerusalem. The texts represent different genres: 1) historical accounts of the crusades; 2) descriptions of the Holy Land, Jerusalem, the Lateran Church in Rome (the Descriptio) and the sanctuary of Constantinople; and 3) catalogues of kings, patriarchs, popes and bishops. Most of the codices also include various poems. The majority reflect their local origin in northern France, which means that they were not only copied but also probably composed in this area. In these codices, the Descriptio was placed within a wider cultural framework, which encouraged other actualizations of the text than a mere internal Roman one. One relevant feature of the manuscript context is the way in which the continuity of history is expressed. The chroniclers interpreted the contemporary crusade and conquest of Jerusalem as an echo – an imitation and fulfilment of the Old Covenant – and this shaped a continuity within salvation history. In the codices, the construction of continuity was most visibly expressed by the various catalogues of bishops, patriarchs and kings of Jerusalem which appear as a continuation of the biblical lists. Likewise the catalogues of popes expressed continuity from the princeps apostolorum, St Peter, to the present pope. Physical succession from the models of sacred history thus legitimized contemporary authority. This strategy of legitimization enlightens the insistence on the presence of the temple objects at the Lateran. When the concept of succession

in the northern french context

61

between the Jewish temple and the new temple was intensified and guaranteed by the continuity of the physical temple objects, it was done in accordance with the contemporary argument for the constitution of the continuity of history and the legitimization of institutions. The five manuscripts listed above all place the description of the Lateran as a strategic part of the interpretation of Jerusalem after the First Crusade. The following argues that the Descriptio was important in this context because the First Crusade caused a shift from allegorical to literal interpretation as far as Jerusalem was concerned. The chronicles of the crusade, the descriptions of Jerusalem and the description of the Lateran Church in the northern French manuscript context expressed a new interpretation of Jerusalem.

The Challenge of 1099 ‘This day, which I affirm will be celebrated in the centuries to come, changed our grief and struggles into gladness and rejoicing. I further state that this day ended all paganism, confirmed Christianity and restored our faith.’20 Raymond of Aguilers wrote his history of the Franks shortly after the siege of Jerusalem in 1099. His interpretation of the event displays not only immense relief and enthusiasm but also a new condition for the status of the Church. After almost four hundred years of Muslim rule the Christian reconquest of the city transformed it into a Christian capital.21 The Latin kingdom of Jerusalem was established as well as a Latin patriarchate and the city was under Christian control for about ninety years.22 During this ‘rebuilding of Zion’, the Temple Mount with its mosques was included as a holy place in the liturgy of the Latin Church, and the Dome of the Rock was transformed into Templum Domini.23 The conquest of Jerusalem influenced its status both as an earthly city and as a paradigmatic model for the stages of salvation history. On medieval maps of the world, Jerusalem was increasingly placed at the centre after the events of

Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem, ed. J. H. Hill and L. L. Hill (Philadelphia, 1968), chap. XIV, p. 128. For a Latin edition, see Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem, RHC.Hocc, III, pp. 231–309. 21 Jerusalem was conquered by the Romans in the year 44 bc and occupied by Muslim Arabs in ad 638. On the period before 1099, see Joshua Prawer, The History of the Jews in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Oxford, 1988). 22 Bernard Hamilton, The Latin Church in the Crusader States: The Secular Church (London, 1980). 23 Bernard Hamilton, ‘Rebuilding Zion: The Holy Places of Jerusalem in the Twelfth Century’, in Renaissance and Renewal in Christian History, ed. D. Baker (Oxford, 1977), pp. 105–16. 20

62

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

1099,24 and descriptions of the holy city flourished. These maps were no longer based mainly on sacred scripture or on the accounts of authorities such as Arculf (seventh century), Adomnan (d. 704) or the Venerable Bede (d. 735), but on pilgrims’ observations in the Holy Land.25 Several of the new descriptions are found in the northern French manuscripts, which included only a short fragment of the traditional text by the Venerable Bede. How did this new situation and the transformation of Jerusalem challenge the position of Rome and the Lateran? To answer this, one must grasp how the Church of Rome conceived of its relation to Jerusalem and to the temple in the years before the First Crusade.

jerusalem and the church The hierarchy of Western Christianity was conceived on different levels. At an institutional level the Church of Rome attempted to defend its superiority over secular authority and the other patriarchates according to the Pseudo-Isidorian theory of Church organization.26 Before the First Crusade, Jerusalem was under Muslim control and posed no threat to Rome in institutional status. On a theological and spiritual level, however, the hierarchy of the Church was based on the veneration of sacred sites constituted by history, relics and martyrs’ tombs. Jerusalem held its supreme position because of the Holy Sepulchre, which was the place of Christ’s resurrection.27 The most sacred relics of Christendom were connected to the life of Christ in Jerusalem and valued in the East and West alike. The supreme holiness of Jerusalem was shaped by the history of Christ. This holiness was also transferable, as had been demonstrated by the Emperor Constantine when he endowed his newly established imperial capital with the rediscovered cross from Jerusalem – which was still venerated in the twelfth century. Translated relics had become a highly important reason of holiness; Jerusalem was thus transported to the West. Relics, soil and stones from the Holy Land, and replicas of the Holy Sepulchre provided the representation of Jerusalem.28 See Sylvia Schein, Gateway to the Heavenly City: Crusader Jerusalem and the Catholic West (1099–1187) (Aldershot, 2005), pp. 141–57. 25 The number of pilgrims’ descriptions from the whole period between 333 and 1099 was the same as that from 1099 to 1187. See John Wilkinson, Joyce Hill and W. F. Ryan, eds, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185 (London, 1988). This book includes nineteen pilgrimage accounts written between 1099 and 1185. 26 Schein, Gateway to the Heavenly City, p. 49. 27 See Colin Morris, The Sepulchre of Christ and the Medieval West (Oxford, 2005). 28 See Colin Morris, ‘Memorials of the Holy Places and Blessings from the East: Devotion to Jerusalem before the Crusades’, in The Holy Land, Holy Lands, and Christian History, ed. R. N. Swanson (Woodbridge, 2000), pp. 90–109. Morris, The Sepulchre of Christ;

24

in the northern french context

63

The description of the Lateran Church includes a long list of relics brought from the Holy Land to the West. During the early Middle Ages the arrival of relics from the Holy Land had increased, and legends had evolved to guarantee their Palestinian origin. When new relics were promoted, they were soon given an earlier date based on legend. The most important pattern of the transmission of the Jerusalem relics was the legend of Constantine and his mother, Helena. According to tradition, Helena travelled to the Holy Land to find the sign revealed in the sky to her son: a cross accompanied by the phrase later referred to as ‘In this sign, you will conquer’ (‘In hoc signo vinces’). Numerous relics were ascribed to the translation by Constantine and Helena (see Chapter 2), and the translation of the temple objects of the Lateran was partly linked to the same story in the description of the basilica. As the physical site of Christ’s resurrection, Jerusalem was both a site located in the East and transferred through material holiness to nearly every corner of the West. But Jerusalem was more than holy stones. Throughout the Christian tradition, a distinction had been drawn between the earthly and the heavenly Jerusalem. The earthly city was the site of the sepulchre of Christ and the site of pilgrimages. The heavenly city was attested by the biblical texts as the homeland and goal of the Church. In the book of Revelation, for example, the heavenly reality was described as a transformed and golden Jerusalem: ‘And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband’ (Rev. 21:2). The Church was on its way to this final destination, its true home: ‘But the Jerusalem which is above is free, and she is the mother of us all’ (Gal. 4:26). These and similar texts had laid the ground for a manifold interpretation of Jerusalem: allegorically as the Christian Church, anagogically as the heavenly city and tropologically as the Christian soul.29 Robert G. Ousterhout, ‘The Church of Santo Stefano: A “Jerusalem” in Bologna’, Gesta 20 (1981), 311–21; Bianca Kühnel, Galit Noga-Banai and Hanna Vorholt, eds, Visual Constructs of Jerusalem (Turnhout, 2014). 29 The classical example is John Cassian’s quadriga model in Conference, XIV, 8, 4: ‘Igitur praedictae quattuor figurae in unum ita, si uolumus, confluunt, ut una atque eadem Hierusalem quadrifarie possit intellegi: secundum historiam ciuitas Iudaeorum, secundum allegoriam ecclesia Christi, secundum anagogen ciuitas Dei illa caelestis, “quae est mater omnium nostrum”, secundum tropologiam anima hominis’ (‘And if we wish it, these four modes of representation flow into a unity so that one Jerusalem can be understood in four different ways, in the historical sense as the city of the Jews, in allegory as the church of Christ, in anagoge as the heavenly City of God “which is mother of us all” (Gal. 4: 26), in the tropological sense as the human soul.’) See John Cassian, Conférences, Tome 2, VIII–XVII, ed. and trans. E. Pichery (Paris, 2009), p. 368. English translation from John Cassian, Conferences, trans. C. Luibheid, ed. J. Farina (New York, 1985), p. 160.

64

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Before the First Crusade the heavenly Jerusalem was conceived of quite independently of the earthly city. When every Christian church and monastery was held to constitute an image of Jerusalem through the liturgy, it meant the heavenly city.30 And when the Church was interpreted as Jerusalem in theological treatises, this likewise pertained mainly to the heavenly city.31 When it comes to the descriptions of Jerusalem before 1099, most of them do not express any relationship between the earthly and the heavenly city.32 A new attitude towards pilgrimage to Jerusalem may, however, be observed in the Histories of the Cluniac monk Rudolfus Glaber (c. 980–1046). John Wilkinson has characterized this text according to a new tendency where the ‘heavenly and earthly Jerusalem seem to have merged in the pilgrims’ minds’.33 This new tendency is relevant in trying to comprehend the movement that culminated in the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and the significance of the crusaders’ city for the twelfth-century Church. The twofold significance of Jerusalem, earthly and heavenly, was particularly evident in regard to the temple. Although the earthly temple was in ruins and the Temple Mount had been laid to waste, the old temple as described in the sacred texts was still allegorically interpreted as a figure of the Church and the heavenly truth.

the temple and the church before 1099 Jerusalem had been the city of the Jewish temple, but the temple was not rebuilt after its destruction by the Romans in ad 70. In Christian topography, the Temple Mount was a neglected spot and the place of the temple had never been an integral part of any Christian liturgical tradition. By neglecting the Temple Mount, Christian topography reflected its relation to Judaism and a specific theological interpretation. In the Christian tradition, what happened to the Jewish temple See e.g. Ann R. Meyer, Medieval Allegory and the Building of the New Jerusalem (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 69–97. See also the discussion of Bruno of Segni below, p. 66–8. 31 To what extent Jerusalem as a heavenly city influenced the status of the earthly city is a question that should be nuanced by different social and theological contexts. See Kaspar Elm, Umbilicus Mundi. Beiträge zur Geschichte Jerusalems, der Kreuzzüge, des Kapitels vom Hlg. Grab in Jerusalem und der Ritterorden (Brugge, 1998), chap. 1: ‘Jerusalem: Die irdische und die himmlische, die verworfene und die heilige Stadt’, pp. 3–22; Schein, Gateway to the Heavenly City, pp. 5 and 189–93. 32 An exception might be the account of Adomnán, which demonstrates a conviction that God provides for the earthly Jerusalem in a special way; see Adomnán, De Locis Sanctis, Lib.1.13, English translation in John Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims Before the Crusades (Warminster, 1977), p. 95. 33 Ibid., p. 14. Wilkinson comments on Glaber’s Histories, Book IV (p. 18). See also Rodulfus Glaber, The Five Books of Histories, trans. J. France and P. Reynolds (Oxford, 1989), pp. 199–201. 30

in the northern french context

65

during the capture of Jerusalem by Titus and Vespasian was regarded as the fulfilment of the prophecy of Jesus: ‘As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.’34 As a place, the Temple Mount thus signified the ruins of Judaism. To the theologians the Church was the fulfilment of the Old Testament history, prophecies, prescriptions and cult. This attitude relied not least on the biblical hermeneutics of St Augustine and his perception of the Jews’ role in salvation history. The significance of the Jewish heritage had to be found in the Church, and traditionally the interpretative strategy of the Church was allegorical.35 The attitude towards the Jews corresponded to this; they were ‘living letters of the law’ and by their existence they witnessed to the truth of the Church.36 Every church was a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem. At the same time it continued the significance of the old temple, as declared in the sacred scriptures and the liturgy, and expressed not least in the rite of dedication.

the allegorical explanation of the temple: bruno of segni and bonizo of sutri The allegorical interpretation of the temple of the Old Covenant had been an important theme in the Christian tradition for centuries, building on the argument in the Letter to the Hebrews and elaborated particularly by Bede in his writings ‘On the tabernacle’ (De tabernaculo) and ‘On the temple’ (De templo).37 In the Roman context at the time of the Descriptio, Bruno of Segni (c. 1040–1123) contributed to this allegorical tradition.38 He was closely linked to the reform movement and the papal court, both as chief librarian of the Roman Church and as papal legate under Urban II and Paschal II. During the reign of Urban II Bruno actively helped prepare the crusade and also accompanied the pope on his Luke 21:6. See also Matt. 24:2 and Mark 13:2. See e.g. Marie-Dominique Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century: Essays on New Theological Perspectives in the Latin West, trans. J. Taylor and L. K. Little (Chicago, 1968), chap. 4: ‘The Old Testament in Twelfth-Century Theology’, pp. 146–61. 36 See Jeremy Cohen, Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jew in Medieval Christianity (Berkeley, 1999); Paula Fredriksen, Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism (New York, 2008). 37 Bede, De Tabernaculo. De Templo. In Ezram et Neemiam, ed. D. Hurst (Turnhout, 1969). 38 Bruno of Segni was a disciple of Gregory VII and worked for Popes Victor III and Urban II. See Réginald Grégoire, Bruno de Segni. Exégète médiéval et théologien monastique (Spoleto, 1965); Louis I. Hamilton, ‘A Liturgy of Reform: Bruno of Segni’s De sacramentis ecclesiae and the Gregorian Reform’, Essays in History 39 (1996), http:// www.essaysinhistory.com/a-liturgy-of-reform-bruno-segris-de-sacramentis-ecclesial-and-the-gregorian-reform/ (accessed 24 September 2018). 34 35

66

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

journey to France in 1095. Moreover, he wrote an exposition of the Pentateuch, probably before 1089.39 In this treatise, the explanation of the tabernacle in Exodus 25 is wholly allegorical. The significance is spiritual: it concerns the Church and the heavenly truth, as demonstrated by Bruno’s interpretation of the Ark of the Covenant: … What do we understand by this Ark, if not the universal Church? But not the one that lives in this world until now, and that suffers much injustice, but on the contrary the one which already dwells in heaven after having gone through the curtain, and waits in the Holy of Holies. It is about this the apostle says: ‘But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all’ (Gal. 4:26). And about the Ark the apostle John says: ‘And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament’ (Rev. 11:19).40 In his treatise Libri Sententiarum (date unknown), Bruno explains his view of the Church – his ecclesiology – through allegorical interpretations. He explains paradise, the ark of Noah, the tabernacle, the temple of Solomon, the woman of the Song of Songs, the city of Jerusalem and the cathedrals as different figures of the Church.41 He interprets the three tabernacles described in the Letter to the Hebrews – the holy (9:2), the Holy of Holies (9:3) and the heavenly, not made by human hands (9:11) – as ‘shadow’, ‘image’ and ‘truth’ (umbra – imago – veritas). They represent the Synagogue, the Church and the heavenly Church.42 While both the Synagogue and the Church live by signs, in heaven there will no longer be figures, only truth: Grégoire, Bruno de Segni, pp. 28, 67. The exposition is published in Bruno of Segni, S. Brunonis Astensis signiensium episcopi expositio in Pentateuchum, PL 164, cols 147–550. 40 ‘Quid enim per hanc arcam, nisi Ecclesiam catholicam intelligamus? Non autem hanc, quae in hoc mundo adhuc degens, multas injurias patitur; imo, illam, quae coeli velamentum transgressa jam habitat, et moratur in Sancta sanctorum. De qua Apostolus ait: “Illa autem Jerusalem, quae sursum est, libera est, quae est mater nostra” [Gal. 4:26]. De hac autem arca et Joannes apostolus ait: “Et apertum est templum Domini in coelo, et visa est arca testamenti ejus in templo ejus” [Rev. 11:19].’ The full passage begins ‘Arcam de lignis Setim compingite, cujus longitudo habeat duos et semis cubitos; latitudo cubitum et dimidium; altitudo similiter cubitum, et semissem, et deaurabis eam auro purissimo intus et foris’ (‘You shall construct an Ark from acacia wood, the length of which should be two and half cubits; the width one and a half cubits; the height similarly one and a half cubits, and you shall gild it with the most pure gold inside and out’) (Ex. 25:10). Bruno of Segni, Expositio in Pentateuchum, XXV, PL 164, col. 308C. 41 Bruno of Segni, Brunonis Astensis episcopi signiensis sententiarum, Liber primus. De figuris ecclesiae, PL 165, cols 875–902. 42 Ibid., III, PL 165, col. 882. 39

in the northern french context

67

It remains that we proceed to the third tabernacle, by which we say heavens are signified. It does not benefit anyone to have remained in these [others] if we never proceed to the [third] one. For we work in these, so that we one day will reach it [the third tabernacle]. There are no figures; what happens there is truth. For not only in the Synagogue, but truly also in the Church we see that many things happen in figures and signs.43 The tripartite structure expresses the relationship between the Synagogue, the Church and the heavenly reality according to different stages of salvation history as a gradual progression to truth (veritas). The final revelation is in heaven, while the Synagogue and the Church relate to this as shadow and image. What makes the ancient Jewish figures significant to the Church is their relation – expressed as likeness (similitudo) – to truth (veritas). The theological basis for this connection was an interpretation of God’s command to Moses on Mount Sinai, here represented by the theologian Peter Damian (1007–1072) in his comment on the Jewish tabernacle: That this tabernacle is not truth itself, but is meant to be the better image of the truth, was testified by the Lord when he said to Moses: ‘And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount’ [Ex. 25:40; see also Heb. 8:5]. Therefore, what Moses saw on the mountain was our truth; the tabernacle of the Israelites was only the image of the truth.44 In Bruno’s interpretation of the temple of Solomon, the physical construction is referred to and the allegorical explanation is stated: ‘This temple is the Church, we are this temple, about which the apostle says: “for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” [1 Cor. 3:17].’45 When Bruno speaks of the sacred temple objects, ‘Restat nunc ut ad tertium tabernaculum transeamus, per quod coelum significari diximus. Nihil enim prodest in istis mansisse, nisi ad illud aliquando transeamus. Ideo enim in his laboramus, ut ad illud quandoque perveniamus. Ibi figura nulla est: quidquid ibi fit, veritas est. Non solum enim in Synagoga, verum etiam in Ecclesia multa in figura, et significatione fieri videmus.’ Ibid., cols 884B–C. 44 ‘Nam quod illud tabernaculum non ipsa veritas, sed potius fuerit veritatis exemplar, testatur Dominus, dum praecipit Moysi: “Vide, inquit, omnia facito secundum quod tibi monstratum est in monte” [Ex. 25; Heb. 8]. Quod ergo Moyses vidit in monte, veritas nostra fuit; quod Israelitis tabernaculum fecit, imago fuit tantummodo veritatis.’ Peter Damian, 511–522 Opusculum vicesimum septimum. De communi vita canonicorum. Ad clericos fanensis ecclesiae. Caput primum. Quod clerici non habent proprietatem rerum, quas possident, PL 145, cols 506A–B. 45 ‘Hoc templum Ecclesia est, hoc templum nos sumus, de nobis Apostolus dicit: “Templum Dei sanctum, quod estis vos”.’ Bruno of Segni, Sententiarum, PL 165, col. 885B. 43

68

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

there are no references to the contemporary city of Jerusalem, nor to any relics in the Lateran Church. They are understood according to the same allegorical pattern: As there were instruments in the ark, so are there relics in the Church. There thurible, here apostles; there a golden urn, here Christ, God and man; there the tables of the law, here the fullness of all wisdom; there the rod of Aaron, here a rod from the root of Jesse.46 In his interpretation Bruno also explains Jerusalem as a figure of the Church, in a section titled ‘On the holy city of Jerusalem’ (De civitate sancta Jerusalem).47 The concept of the city is wholly spiritual. He does not mention the earthly city, but takes the apocalyptic vision of St John as the basic description of the holy Jerusalem. He also provides an allegorical interpretation of the Church according to this vision: ‘This City is the Holy Church’ (‘Haec civitas sancta Ecclesia est’). The text seems to be in accordance with his interpretation of the Pentateuch. Both texts are highly representative of the endeavour to legitimize the Church as the fulfilment of Scripture: the significance of the Old Covenant had to be found in the Church. Bruno’s interpretations pertained to the Christian Church in general. Another reform theologian, Bonizo of Sutri (1045–1095), in the same ecclesiastical context of Rome, described the high altar of the Lateran as associated with the temple of Jerusalem. In his Book on the Christian Life (Liber de vita Christiana) (1090–1095) he presented the high altar as representing a combination of two traditions. It was the portable altar of St Peter and the papal martyrs – and it was associated with the Ark of the Covenant.48 The portable altar of St Peter pertained to the wooden altar inside the structure, and this tradition might also be implicitly referred to in the Descriptio, which states that the altar is ‘simple, and of wood, covered with silver’. However, the Descriptio does not explicitly mention the tradition of St Peter’s altar.49 In Bruno’s interpretation of the tabernacle: ‘Talia instrumenta erant in arca, tales reliquiae sunt in Ecclesia. Ibi thuribulum, hic apostoli: ibi urna aurea, hic Christus Deus, et homo: ibi tabulae Testamenti, hic omnis scientiae plenitudo, ibi virga Aaron, hic autem virga de radice Jesse.’ Bruno of Segni, Sententiarum, PL 165, col. 884B. 47 Ibid., cols 891C–D. 48 Bonizo of Sutri, Bonizo Liber de Vita Christiana, ed. E. Perels (Hildesheim, 1998), IV, pp. 98, 164–5. See also the discussion in Sible de Blaauw, ‘The Solitary Celebration of the Supreme Pontiff: The Lateran Basilica as the New Temple in the Medieval Liturgy of Maundy Thursday’, in Omnes circumadstantes: Contributions Towards a History of the Role of the People in the Liturgy, ed. C. Caspers and M. Schneiders (Kampen, 1990), pp. 120–43, at pp. 128–9. 49 This tradition reappeared in the thirteenth century. See James M. Powell, ‘Honorius III’s “Sermo in Dedicatione Ecclesie Lateranensis” and the Historical-Liturgical Traditions of the Lateran’, Archivium Historiae Pontificiae 21 (1983), 195–209.

46

in the northern french context

69

Bonizo’s association of the high altar of the Lateran with the Ark of the Covenant was based on the reasoning that the altar had to be portable as the Church had no stable location during its early period of persecution. This portability supplied the association with the portable Ark of the Israelites during the period before the building of the temple (1 Kings 8). Bonizo consequently describes the portable altar of the apostle according to the terminology of the Ark of the Covenant: Because of the furious madness of the persecutors, there was no stable episcopal place from the episcopacy of the prince of the apostles until the most happy time of St Sylvester, but wherever it was necessary, either in catacombs or cemeteries, or in houses of religious men or women, or in workshops, according to what we said above, did they celebrate mass with the things consecrated to God, above the wooden altar which was carved in the mode of the Ark, having rings in the four corners, in which they placed the poles that were carried by the priests, wherever the Roman bishop hid himself or where he chose to celebrate the mass.50 In this text, the Ark is referred to because of its allegorical significance, as are the tabernacle and the temple.51 However, there is a significant difference between Bonizo’s description of the altar ‘in the mode of the Ark’ (‘in modum arce’) and the concept in the Descriptio. In the description of the Lateran, the altar is no longer described according to similarities or associations as like the Ark, but rather as the Ark. In effect, this also brings the other temple objects on to the stage. As mentioned, the present study suggests a dating of the Descriptio as later than Bonizo’s text (1090–1095). A rich range of general conditions and interpretations evoked associations between a Christian church and the temple. But scholars have also argued that these associations were connected in a special way, both by architecture and by traditions in the Lateran complex (see also Chapter 1). It seems, however, that the comparison between the Lateran Church and the temple significantly increased ‘Ab episcopatu apostolorum principis usque ad sancti Silvestri felicissima tempora seviente persecutorum rabie certa non erat episcopalis statio, set ubicumque necessitas impulerat, sive in criptis sive in cimiteriis sive in dominibus religiosorum virorum vel mulierum sive in fabricis, secundum quod superius diximus, Deo dicatis missam celebrabant super altare ligneum in modum arce concavum, habens in quattuor angulis circulos, in quibus vectes immettebantur, quibus a sacerdotibus portabatur, ubicumque Romanus episcopus latitabat vel ubi collectam disposuerat celebrare.’ Bonizo of Sutri, Bonizo Liber de Vita Christiana, p. 165, Lib. IIII, 98. 51 Ibid., p. 166, Lib. IIII, 100, which quotes Decreta Felicis IV, one of the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals (see ibid., n. 1). 50

70

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

in the twelfth century but was not especially promoted before this. The assertion of a specific comparison between the Lateran and the temple pertains to some older elements such as the so-called ‘columns of Solomon’ and the inscriptions in the apse, attributed to Sergius III (904–911). The inscriptions defined this area of the basilica as Sinai, the origin of the law,52 but as an indication of a relation to the temple the reference is quite vague. The ‘columns of Solomon’ is an explicit reference, which probably referred to the four huge bronze columns of the Constantinian fastigium across the nave. These were most likely spoils from the second century.53 They were first described as from Solomon by the Jewish traveller Benjamin of Tudela (1160), and were included in the canons’ own description of the Jerusalem spoils held in the cathedral, written towards the end of the thirteenth century.54 The dating of the temple objects beneath the high altar is uncertain. They are not described until the Descriptio – that is, in the early twelfth century. The mosaic panels on the façade, which presented a line of typologies between the Old and New Covenants and scenes from the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans, were probably produced in the late twelfth century.55 These observations and the dating of the individual elements thus point to the twelfth century as a period of increased associations between the Lateran and the temple.

1099: From Allegory to Reality a new stage of interpretation When the Frankish knights climbed the walls of Jerusalem and drove out the ‘infidels’, the status of Jerusalem changed in the Christian interpretation. The prophecies and passages in the Old Testament which had previously been thought to warrant only an allegorical interpretation were suddenly being fulfilled.56 What The inscriptions read: ‘Aula Dei haec similis Synai sacra iura ferenti … lex hinc exivit mentes quae ducit ab imis’. See G. B. de Rossi, ed., Inscriptiones Christianae urbis Romae septimo saeculo antiquiores, 2 vols (Rome, 1857), II, p. 306. Translation provided by de Blaauw, ‘The Solitary Celebration of the Supreme Pontiff ’, p. 134: ‘This house of God is like Sinai, the bearer of the holy law … from here proceeded the law which moves the spirits from the depths’. See also Ingo Herklotz,‘Der mittelalterliche Fassadenportikus der Lateranbasilika und seine Mosaiken: Kunst und Propaganda am Ende des 12. Jahrhunderts’, Römisches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 25 (1989), 25–95, at 74–5. 53 Peter Cornelius Claussen, Die Kirchen der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter 1050–1300. Band 2: S. Giovanni in Laterano (Stuttgart, 2008), p. 184. 54 Dale Kinney, ‘Spolia’, in St. Peter’s in the Vatican, ed. William Tronzo (Cambridge, 2005), pp. 16–47, at pp. 35–6. 55 Herklotz, ‘Der mittelalterliche Fassadenportikus der Lateranbasilika’. 56 See Jonathan Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading (London, 1986), p. 143. 52

in the northern french context

71

had earlier been said about the heavenly Church was now applied to the earthly Jerusalem. Whereas the texts about Jerusalem or Zion had previously been interpreted allegorically as signifying the Church, they could now also signify the earthly Jerusalem. This caused a revolutionary change in the attitude toward the earthly Jerusalem and in the understanding of the correlation between the heavenly and the earthly city. The city of Palestine not only became the gateway to the heavenly fatherland, but was simultaneously transformed into the figure and likeness of the heavenly city.57 Baldric of Dol describes this in his speech before the final attack on Jerusalem: The city which you see is the cause of all our labours. This Jerusalem is the likeness (instar) of Heavenly Jerusalem; this city has the form of that to which we aspire … Clearly, if you will consider well and diligently, this Jerusalem which you see, to which you come, at which you are present, prefigures and reflects the heavenly city.58 Several researchers have interpreted this change in the concept of Jerusalem, as exemplified by Peter Raedts: ‘From now on the Heavenly City was not only foreshadowed by the Church and its liturgy, but also, and perhaps foremost, by the city in Palestine.’59 The Frankish crusaders aimed to restore Jerusalem to its former dignity, and initiated a transformation of the city that corresponded to the change in interpretation. An intense interest in connecting physical places with scriptural testimonies shaped this transformation, which is attested by various itineraries, maps and inscriptions.60 It included the integration of the Temple Mount and the Dome of the Rock into the Latin liturgy.61 During the rule of the Abbasids, the temple area, the Mesjid al Aqsa, had been closed to Christians, and the sanctuaries had See Schein, Gateway to the Heavenly City, p. 27. Baldricus Dolensis, Historia Jerosolimitana, RHC.Hocc, IV, pp. 100–1. For the English translation, see Schein, Gateway to the Heavenly City, p. 27. 59 Peter Raedts, ‘Jerusalem: Purpose of History or Gateway to Heaven? Apocalyptism in the First Crusade’, in Church, Change and Revolution, ed. J. van den Berg and P. G. Hoftijzer (Leiden, 1991), pp. 31–40, at p. 37. 60 Recorded by John of Würzburg and by the German monk Theodoric (both around 1170). For English translations see Wilkinson, Hill and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185, pp. 244–314. Several of the inscriptions were derived from the liturgy, and were interpreted both through references to the sacred history and through liturgical re-enactment at the specific location. See also Chapter 5, p. 94. 61 A description of the Muslim Temple Mount and its environs is found in Dan Bahat, ‘The Physical Infrastructure’, in The History of Jerusalem: The Early Muslim Period 638–1099, ed. J. Prawer and H. Ben-Shammai (New York, 1996), pp. 38–100, at pp. 70–87. 57 58

72

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

been known only from the outside. According to Greek Orthodox Christians the buildings were conceived as continuations of the Jewish temple.62 The religious significance connected to the place, however, was in both Greek and Latin traditions transferred to the church of the Holy Sepulchre. When the crusaders besieged the temple site in 1099, the Al-Aqsa mosque was turned into the temple of Solomon, Templum Salomonis, and a royal palace, while the Dome of the Rock was integrated into the liturgical life of the newly established Latin Church of Jerusalem known as Templum Domini.63 The physical site of the supposed temple of Jerusalem was thus changed in the Christian topography from non-existence to major significance – and its status in some respects competed with that of the Holy Sepulchre.64

monastic historiography Jonathan Riley-Smith has proposed that the shift from an allegorical to a literal interpretation of the references to Jerusalem was caused by the ‘shock’ of realizing that important passages from scripture were suddenly being fulfilled.65 Sylvia Schein, on the other hand, opposed this interpretation, arguing that this was rather ‘a complete revolution in biblical interpretation, and cannot be explained in terms of “shock treatment”’. Instead she explained this revolution ‘in the context of the general trend in scriptural exegesis at this time, which inclined towards a rather literal interpretation’.66 It is difficult to explain this shift in terms of causality, but both these elements were surely important. Another important condition which served to prepare the Christian or theological mentality for the new status of Jerusalem after its conquest was the religious imagery cultivated by the monastic culture. H. E. J. Cowdrey, Bernhard McGinn and Jonathan Riley-Smith, as well as other scholars, have elucidated how monastic life shaped the interpretation of Patriarch Photius of Constantinople (867–868) wrote that ‘The court of Solomon, itself the ancient holy of holies, but now occupied by the godless Saracens and providing them with a site for a mosque, has not been familiar to any one of the Christians in Jerusalem, for Christians cannot enter the places kept holy by the Saracens.’ Translated in Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims Before the Crusades, p. 146. The monk Bernard wrote of his pilgrimage in 870 ‘To the north is the temple of Solomon, which contains a Saracen synagogue’. Ibid., p. 141. 63 The name seems to have been established during the very first year of the conquest according to the earliest descriptions. 64 See chapter 5, p. 85. 65 See Riley-Smith, The First Crusade, p. 143, and above, p. 70, n. 56. 66 Schein, Gateway to the Heavenly City, p. 25. Schein refers among others to the classic work of Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1952), pp. 83–263. 62

in the northern french context

73

human existence and how this in turn influenced the concept of Jerusalem in the crusade ideology. This is evident not least in the narrations by monastic writers and chronicles transmitted in the manuscript context of the Descriptio. One of these was the Historia Iherosolimitana (The History of Jerusalem) completed by the Benedictine Robert the Monk in about 1110.67 This work soon became the most widespread and popular account of the First Crusade.68 Four of the manuscripts that transmit the Descriptio open with this famous text, and since it is the first text in the manuscripts it probably influenced the interpretation of the other texts. As the title suggests, and as Robert himself asserts,69 the whole book revolved around Jerusalem, from the very first chapter, in which the Franks are exhorted to set out for the Holy Sepulchre and the promised land, through their long and hazardous journey, until they reach their goal: ‘O good Jesus, when your forces saw the walls of the earthly Jerusalem, what rivers of tears poured from their eyes!’70 They then finally and ‘miraculously’ conquer the holy city. Robert’s account reveals distinctive theological ideas, not least in the prologue, where he places the Historia Iherosolimitana within the accounts of the deeds of God, as part of his plans from the beginning of time. He states that the conquest of Jerusalem was comparable only to Christ’s own redeeming mystery. As we know that this was considered to be the turning point in salvation history, it raises the question of how the conquest was conceived according to the dynamics of the different stages in salvation history – a question I will soon return to. The conditions of monastic culture shaped the patterns of historiography.71 Monastic life breathed within the atmosphere of the Old Testament psalms, where Jerusalem was God’s dwelling place among his chosen people, and the ‘filthy’ enemies of God were eliminated by holy war. In Cowdrey’s words, it is impor See chapter 1, p. 4, n. 11. Note that Sweetenham (Robert the Monk, Robert the Monk’s History of the First Crusade Historia Iherosolimitana, trans. C. Sweetenham (Aldershot, 2005)) based the translation on the version in RHC.Hocc III. Historia Iherosolimitana is one of several crusade accounts that used the Gesta Francorum as a source. 68 See the introduction by Kempf and Bull in Robert the Monk, The Historia Iherosolimitana of Robert the Monk, ed. D. Kempf and M. G. Bull (Woodbridge, 2013), pp. ix–xvi. 69 ‘Quia vero historicus sermo iste ab Ierosolima nominis sui sumpsit exordium, et finem retinet sicut et medium …’. Robert the Monk, The Historia Iherosolimitana, p. 109, Lib. IX (881). Translated into English: ‘Since this historical sermon took its beginning and its end and its middle from Jerusalem …’ (Robert the Monk, Robert the Monk’s History of the First Crusade, p. 212). 70 ‘O bone Ihesu, ut castra tua viderunt huius terrene Ierusalem muros quantos exitus aquarum oculi eorum deduxerunt’, Robert the Monk, The Historia Iherosolimitana, p. 96, Lib. IX (863). Translation in Robert the Monk, Robert the Monk’s History of the First Crusade, p. 196. 71 See e.g. Jonathan Riley-Smith, ‘Crusading as Act of Love’, in Medieval Religion: New Approaches, ed. C. H. Bermann (New York and London, 2005), pp. 49–67. 67

74

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

tant to emphasize that ‘Nothing embeds religious imagery more deeply in the mind than regular liturgical recitation.’72 Cowdrey’s concern in this context was the possible influence of the Cluniac liturgy on the monk later to become Pope Urban II, who may be viewed both as the initiator and as the representative of a movement. The pope preached the first crusade at Clermont in 1095, and Robert the Monk, Fulcher of Chartres and other chroniclers portray him as its initiator. Urban had become a monk at Cluny in the late 1060s and grand prior by 1076. He left for Rome, probably in 1079, became cardinal-bishop of Ostia and finally pope from 1088 to 1099. Bearing in mind Psalm 78 (79), Cowdrey states: ‘Cluny’s impressive round of liturgical worship is likely to have imprinted upon his mind the imagery of Jerusalem in the Psalms.’ No passage in sacred scripture was to be quoted more often in connection with crusading than the opening words of Psalm 78 (79): ‘O god, the heathen are come into thine inheritance’.73 The rest of the verse was no less relevant: ‘thy holy temple have they defiled; they have laid Jerusalem on heaps’. According to the Christian and monastic imagery, Jerusalem was the goal of the journey of God’s people – the journey of pilgrimage and of life itself. The psalms expressed the praise of and a longing for Jerusalem, then captured by the Babylonians,74 and in the eleventh century by the Saracens. They, as well as other passages from Scripture, were regularly recited by European monks, spurring their desire for Jerusalem. This naturally also shaped the image of Jerusalem as it was later expressed by Fulcher of Chartres in his praise of the day of conquest: Oh this day so ardently desired! … Desired indeed, because in the inner longing of the heart it had always been hoped by all believers in the Catholic faith that the place where the Creator of all creatures, God, made man, where He, in his manifold pity for mankind, by His birth, death, and resurrection, conferred the gift of redemption, would be restored to its pristine dignity by those believing and trusting in Him … They desired that this place, so long contaminated by the superstition of the pagan inhabitants, should be cleansed from their contagion.75 Herbert E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Pope Urban II and the Idea of Crusade’, Studi Medievali 36.2 (1995), 721–742, at 730. See also Chapter 1, pp. 00. 73 See also Riley-Smith, The First Crusade, p. 21. 74 See Ps. 136 (137). 75 From Fulcher of Chartres, Fulcheri Carnotensis Historia Hierosolymitana (1095–1127), ed. H. Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg, 1913), p. 306, Book I, XXIX. For the English translation, see Schein, Gateway to the Heavenly City, pp. 28–9. On Fulcher, see Dana Carleton Munro, ‘A Crusader’, Speculum 7.3 (1932), 321–5. Fulcher lived as a priest and as the king’s chaplain in the eastern kingdom for thirty years until his death in 1127 or 1128.

72

in the northern french context

75

Passages from Fulcher’s chronicle follow the account of Robert the Monk in Reg. lat. 712 and are also part of one of the other manuscripts from northern France (BR 9828). The presence of yet another chronicle of the crusade strengthens the importance of the interpretation of this historical event in the manuscripts.

the notion of imitation The chroniclers pointed to the Christian conquest of Jerusalem as new and unique in salvation history. This was clearly expressed in Robert the Monk’s prologue. At the same time, the history of the events was retold as an echo of previous events, which was a characteristic whenever sacred history was narrated.76 One model echoed in the narration of the crusades was the journey of the Israelites towards the Promised Land, as told in the Bible.77 As the new chosen people and the new Israelites, the Frankish crusaders were interpreted and narrated as imitators of the chosen people of the Old Testament.78 Since the story of the crusade was told by monks, who were especially familiar with the Christian interpretation of sacred history, it is easy to accept that the Old Testament model was something more than pure example or analogy. According to the classical paradigm of interpretation, the history of the Jews signified the Church of Christ. This Church was nothing other than the body of Christ, and through the imitation of the Israelites the crusade was simultaneously a re-enactment of the history of Christ. The corresponding events of the different stages of salvation history culminated in the liturgy of Easter. In the crusade narrative this came to a peak in the three-day capture of Jerusalem from Friday 13 July to Sunday morning 15 July 1099.79 This was interpreted based on the time from Christ’s suffering on the cross on Good Friday until his resurrection on Easter Day. The same day – 15 July – was also the Feast of the Dispersion of the Apostles (Divisio See Chapter 1, p. 00. Another pattern was to interpret the crusaders as imitators of the Maccabees, as expressed in the prologue of Fulcher, which confirms the likeness to both the Maccabees and Israelites: see Fulcher of Chartres, Fulcheri Carnotensis Historia Hierosolymitana, p. 117. For the early use of this imagery, see Riley-Smith, The First Crusade, pp. 91–2. See also Elizabeth Lapina, ‘Anti-Jewish Rhetoric in Guibert of Nogent’s Dei gesta per Francos’, Journal of Medieval History 3 (2009), 239–53. 78 See e.g. Bernard McGinn, ‘Iter Sancti Sepulchri: The Piety of the First Crusaders’, in Essays on Medieval Civilization: The Walter Prescott Webb Memorial Lectures, ed. B. K. Lackner and K. R. Philp (Austin, 1978), pp. 33–71; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade, pp. 135–52. 79 Fulcher of Chartres, Fulcheri Carnotensis Historia Hierosolymitana, Book I, XXVII, 10; Robert the Monk, The Historia Iherosolimitana, Lib. IX; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francorum, chap. XIV. 76 77

76

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Apostolorum), which corresponded with the interpretation of the crusades as an imitation of apostolic life.80 William J. Purkis has shown how the ideals of the apostolic life, Vita Apostolica, and the imitation of Christ, Imitatio Christi, were two foundations in the early development of crusading spirituality. These ideals were present in the first generations of narrative crusade historians such as Robert the Monk and Fulcher of Chartres. Purkis furthermore points out that they were probably also important in the ideology of Urban II during the preaching of the First Crusade.81 In this way, he connects the First Crusade to the ideology of the reform papacy and interprets Urban II’s initiative in 1095 as a response to lay interest in the ideals of apostolic life. Purkis also stresses that, through the direction of his message to the lay people, and not primarily to the professed religious, Urban II ‘demonstrated that the ideal of “taking the cross to follow Christ” did not just have to be interpreted allegorically, but could also be seen to have a literal meaning as well’.82 This concept of imitation constitutes a pattern relevant to the interpretation of the temple objects in the Lateran high altar because it outlines a context for the objects. They were not merely relics from a distant past. The temple objects were important to the twelfth century because they belonged to the models that were being imitated. In the manuscript context of the Descriptio, the manuscript Brussels BR 220 from St Aulne most convincingly expressed the connection between the biblical text and the physical objects.83 The first part of the codex is the exposition of Leviticus by Ralph of Flaix (d. before 1157), where the treasures of the tabernacle are described and interpreted allegorically according to Leviticus and the Letter to the Hebrews.84 The other text contained in this codex is the description of the Lateran Church, where the same sacred objects, described in exactly the same terms, are stated to be physically present within the main altar of the papal cathedral. The juxtaposing of these texts seems to confirm that the See William J. Purkis, Crusading Spirituality in the Holy Land and Iberia (Woodbridge, 2008), p. 51. 81 Ibid., pp. 30–58. 82 Ibid., p. 184. 83 See Appendix 1, p. 194. 84 Brussels, BR 220 (II.1109), fol. 10r. Ralph of Flaix was one of the important French Hebraists who developed the Christian strategy of refuting the Jewish readings, and his commentary on Leviticus was a response to the challenge of Jewish biblical exegesis. This commentary was a success and became highly influential. See John Van Engen, ‘Ralph of Flaix: The Book of Leviticus Interpreted as Christian Community’, in Jews and Christians in Twelfth-Century Europe, ed. M. A. Signer and J. Van Engen (Notre Dame, 2001), pp. 150–70. Ralph of Flaix’s commentary is preserved in some fifty manuscripts, one of them also found in St Amand’s Major Index, no. CCXXIX (edited in 1536), now preserved in Valenciennes, BM, MS Va 26 (20). 80

in the northern french context

77

sacred objects of the Lateran were the same as those described in Leviticus. It likewise shows how the promotion of the Lateran involved the claim of ownership of the Jewish sacred texts, objects and associated traditions. The Church was the legitimate heir and the interpretation of the papal basilica validated this fact not only according to allegory, but also as a literal succession.

the fulfilment of prophecies The events of the crusade were interpreted both as unique and as an imitation of previous events. The discrepancy between these perspectives can be understood as being in accordance with the interpretation of the conquest as the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies as seen in Robert the Monk, Fulcher of Chartres and several other chroniclers.85 As a fulfilment it surpassed the level of imitation because the event itself was the goal of the previous models. The liberation of Jerusalem had been foretold long before by the prophets. This is affirmed by Robert’s conclusion: ‘We have found this and many other things in the books of the prophets which fit exactly the context of the liberation of the city in our era.’86 Robert’s interpretation of the events is synthesized in his statement ‘what Isaiah says about the spiritual Church of the faithful came true in reality’.87 He thereby articulates this important change: what had previously signified the Church was now physically fulfilled in Jerusalem. There is reason to ask how this interpretation affected the concept of the Church and challenged the position of Rome if we are to comprehend the promotion of the Roman Church as it appears in the tradition of the Descriptio. It is relevant to point to Robert’s explanation of the crusade against Muslim Jerusalem as an act of purification – an interpretation which corresponds to several other accounts of the

This twofold relation to the Old Testament is also noted in Riley-Smith, The First Crusade, p. 142. 86 Robert the Monk, Robert the Monk’s History of the First Crusade, p.  214. The Latin original reads: ‘Hec et multa alia invenimus in propheticis libris, que congruunt huic liberationi facte etatibus nostris.’ Robert the Monk, The Historia Iherosolimitana, p. 110, Lib. IX (882). 87 Robert the Monk, Robert the Monk’s History of the First Crusade, p. 212. The Latin original reads: ‘Tunc realiter implebatur quod spiritualiter per Isaiam de ecclesia fidelium dicitur.’ Robert the Monk, The Historia Iherosolimitana, p. 109, Lib. IX (880). The paragraph refers to the rejoicing of the people after the battle of Ascalon. According to Robert, music echoed from the hills, which he interprets as the hills and mountains joining the people and rejoicing in God, ‘and so what Isaiah says about the spiritual Church of the faithful came true in reality: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing’. Robert the Monk, Robert the Monk’s History of the First Crusade, p. 212. See also Isa. 65:12. 85

78

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

First Crusade.88 The context of Robert’s last chapters suggests that the purification of Jerusalem was seen by theologians as the purification of Zion – the bride – and thus intimately connected to Jerusalem as the image of the Church. The prophets longed for Jerusalem to be prepared for and presented to God as a shining jewel: For Zion’s sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest, until her righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth … Thou shalt also be a crown of glory in the hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God. (Isa. 62:1, 3) This picture of Jerusalem corresponds to the eschatological Jerusalem which is described in the Revelation: ‘And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband’, and further: ‘Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal’ (Rev. 21:2, 11). According to these patterns, the crusaders had purified the earthly Jerusalem and thus fulfilled the prophecies, and the city’s likeness to the heavenly Jerusalem was thereby increased. In this way, the chroniclers manifested the status of Jerusalem as the figure of the heavenly city. In Robert’s interpretation, this purification also seems to be a continuation of the acts of Christ. Jerusalem had already been glorified by Christ, but this glory had been hidden and forgotten because of the time of the ‘filthy’ gentiles. The glory of the city finally shone forth when it pleased God to send the Franks to free the city from the gentiles.89 In the scholarly discussions of whether or not Jerusalem was the actual object of the first crusade, it has been pointed out that Fulcher of Chartres does not refer to Jerusalem in his version of Urban II’s speech.90 What Fulcher mentions is not the city of Jerusalem but the raising of the status of the Church. According to his summary of the pope’s speech, Urban II exhorted all to resume the powers of their faith and arouse in themselves a fierce determination to overcome the machinations of the devil, and to try to fully restore Holy Church, cruelly weakened by the wicked, to its honourable status as of old.91 Schein, Gateway to the Heavenly City, pp. 9–20, discusses this interpretation. She does not, however, connect it to the concept of Zion, the bride. 89 Robert the Monk, The Historia Iherosolimitana, pp. 109–10 (881–2). 90 Schein, Gateway to the Heavenly City, p. 14. 91 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, Lib. I, I. See also Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem 1095–1127, trans. F.  R. Ryan, ed. H.  S. Fink (Knoxville, TN, 1969), p. 62.

88

in the northern french context

79

While Fulcher’s emphasis on restoring the Church could be seen as contradicting other chroniclers’ emphasis on restoring and purifying Jerusalem, they could equally well be taken as complementary accounts. Thus, they can at once be understood according to the reform papacy’s idea of purifying the Church and restoring her to her former dignity, and as a quest for the final glorification of the city of the redemption that makes Jerusalem shine forth as what she is – the figure of the heavenly Church. This occurs when the signs come true in reality: the city of Jerusalem becomes a visual and purified bride, a physical sign of the heavenly Church. Raising the status of the figure was synonymous with raising the status of the Church. Establishing Jerusalem as a physical figure was a visual triumph of the Church as the only legitimate interpreter and heir – not only to the prophecies and stories of the Old Covenant but also to the sacredness that clung to the site. As Raymond of Aguilers exclaimed, the day of the conquest ‘ended all paganism, confirmed Christianity and restored our faith’.92

A Challenge to the Position of Rome? The fulfilment of the prophecies about Jerusalem confirmed that this city was a special place of intercession. As Robert the Monk put it, the heavenly Jerusalem was a mystic sacrament open to the righteous nation.93 Importantly, interpreting the conquest as a divine act and fulfilment of prophecies seems to have been accepted early on by papal Rome. Pope Paschal II declared that the Lord had ‘renewed his miracles of old’ explaining this as the fulfilment of Leviticus 26:11: ‘And I set my tabernacle among you: and my soul shall not abhor you’ (‘ponam tabernaculum meum in medio vestri’), in a letter to the army in April 1100.94 But this acceptance had ambiguous repercussions. Sylvia Schein has pointed to variations in attitude between different social groups; as far as the spiritual leaders of monasticism were concerned, she has observed a ‘sharp and significant increase in opposition to earthly Jerusalem’ after the early enthusiasm.95 The thinking of Bernard of Clairvaux was highly influential on the activity of later crusades and on the attitude towards the Holy Land. As has been clearly demonstrated by scholars such as Peter Raedts, Sylvia Schein and William Purkis, the earthly Jerusalem was still paramount in the thinking of Bernard See above, p. 61. ‘Pro his et huiusmodi figurativis actionibus forma est et mysticum sacramentum illius Ierusalem celestis.’ Robert the Monk, The Historia Iherosolimitana, p. 110. 94 H. Hagenmeyer, ed., Die Kreuzzugsbriefe aus den Jahren 1088–1100 (Innsbruck, 1901), no. XII, p. 178. See also Schein, Gateway to the Heavenly City, pp. 21–34. 95 Schein, Gateway to the Heavenly City, pp. 124–5. 92 93

80

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

of Clairvaux and the Cistercians. They did not try to play down the ‘geopiety’ associated with the holy city since – to them – the earthly Jerusalem was a sacrament.96 What is evident in Bernard’s writing, though, is that he addressed laymen and monks differently: In his opinion, for monks, the Earthly Jerusalem was an obstacle as monks did not need visible signs. For the laymen, however, such visible signs as Earthly Jerusalem were necessary. Therefore, when Bernard addressed the laity, he described this Jerusalem as the prefiguration of the Heavenly City. Thus he claimed that all Christians are on the road to the true Jerusalem; but only the road of laymen leads through the Earthly Jerusalem, as the gateway to the Heavenly one.97 This tendency has also been noted by William Purkis, who has asserted that Bernard of Clairvaux and the Cistercians attempted to redefine the significance of the crusade in omitting the ideal of the imitation of Christ (imitatio Christi) from their exhortations; they reserved this ideal for monks.98 The shift in strategy of the Cistercians occurred in relation to the Second Crusade, several decades after earthly Jerusalem had been established as a Christian city. These later examples show that the conquest of 1099 was not unproblematic with regard to the ideology of what the Church should be and what the ideals of its clergy were. A treatise written by the ‘Norman Anonymous’ appeared immediately after the conquest and perfectly illustrates the potential challenge of 1099.

the norman anonymous The reform papacy had emphasized the Church of Rome as the ‘mother of all churches’ (mater ecclesiarum); this was also one of the titles of the Lateran Church, inscribed on its façade. It was an expression influenced not least by the usage of Gregory VII. In his rhetoric about the mother Church, Gregory included the freedom of a mother (libertas ecclesiae), the discipline of the children (imposing uniformity on liturgical observance), the reconciliation of the daughter and mother (Constantinople and Rome), and the relation to St Peter, the father (papal sovereignty). In this rhetoric, the metaphor of mater ecclesiarum has a specific sig-

Purkis, Crusading Spirituality, pp. 86–119; Schein, Gateway to the Heavenly City, pp. 128–40; Peter Raedts, ‘St Bernard of Clairvaux and Jerusalem’, in Prophecy and Eschatology, ed. M. Wilks (Oxford, 1994), pp. 169–82. 97 Schein, Gateway to the Heavenly City, p. 130. Schein refers to Raedts in her conclusions on Bernard. 98 Purkis, Crusading Spirituality, p. 117.

96

in the northern french context

81

nificance. Gregory describes the Church not as like a mother, but as the mother.99 What could be thought about the newly organized Church of Jerusalem? Was it also the daughter of Rome, or, as in the biblical texts, the mother of all? In his enthusiastic account of Urban’s speech, Guibert of Nogent applied the metaphor of the mother to characterize the newly restored city: ‘And you should also consider with the utmost care whether God is working through your efforts to restore the church that is the mother of all churches’.100 While the reform papacy emphasized the supreme sanctity and power of Rome, a critical voice, the Norman Anonymous, has been preserved in one manuscript only.101 His anti-Gregorian treatise, the Apology for the Archbishop of Rouen (Apologia Archiepiscopi Rotomagensis), was composed in 1100, one year after the conquest of Jerusalem by his own kinsmen, the Franks. His argument was not assertive, but his logic is nevertheless relevant to understanding what the rhetoric was about. He argued for the primacy of Jerusalem, the city of Christ and of the apostle James. As such, the Church of Jerusalem was not founded by human beings (as was the Roman see) but owed its existence to Christ and his apostles. He confronted the position of the Roman Church as ‘mother and mistress’ (mater et magistra): It would be indecent and unjust if a daughter was placed in front of a mother, and a student in front of a teacher, and the one who follows in faith, conversion and doctrine, was placed in front of the one who precedes and is previous. For the Church that is in Jerusalem is herself the mother of all churches.102 In arguing for the maternal position of Jerusalem the Norman Anonymous also referred to the new emphasis on the earthly Jerusalem as the image of the heavenly city. He spoke of a direct connection between the earthly and heavenly city, a connection which makes Jerusalem superior to Rome. Rome, after all, could only claim a connection due to imitation or figure: H. E. J. Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII 1073–1085 (Oxford, 1998), pp. 520–9. The speech of Urban II according to Guibert of Nogent. See Guibert de Nogent, The Deeds of God through the Franks: A Translation of Guibert de Nogent’s ‘Gesta Dei per Francos’, ed. R. Levine (Woodbridge, 1997), p. 43. 101 A selection of his tracts is edited in Norman Anonymous: Tractatus Eboracenses II, MGH Ldt, III, pp. 642–87, and in George H. Williams, The Norman Anonymous of 1100 a.d. (Cambridge, 1951). See also Schein, Gateway to the Heavenly City, pp. 54–5. 102 ‘Indecens etenim iniustumque erat, ut filia preponeretur matri et magistre discipula et, que in fide sequitur, conversione et doctrina, ei que precedit et previa est. Ecclesia enim, que est in Hierosolimis, ipsa omnium ecclesiarum mater est.’ Norman Anonymous, p. 659. 99

100

82

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant Just as she was the first on earth, as the first she had communion in heaven and through this she is named the heavenly Jerusalem, about whom the apostle says: But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. And about whom John in the Revelation: And I saw, he said, the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. For she was the bride of God the Father and because of this she deserves to be named the mother of God’s children. This is not written or foretold about Rome, unless perhaps it is called ‘Jerusalem’ by imitation and figure, but not by primacy.103

In this treatise, the author compares the sanctity of the Church of Rome and the Church of Jerusalem. He does not value the Churches as sacramental representations, but values their sanctity with reference to the immediate connection with the history of Christ himself. Consequently, the Church of Rome, which was based on the concept of imitation and figure, was of inferior status. This way of constituting holiness is also found in the concurrent descriptions of Jerusalem. For example, John of Würzburg stresses the superfluous character of the consecration of the church of the Holy Sepulchre since it had already been consecrated by the blood of Christ himself. The holy city itself was sanctified by the bodily presence of the Lord, his mother and his disciples.104 The voice of the Norman Anonymous illustrates how the conquest of Jerusalem could potentially challenge the status of the papal church. A sort of competition between the two cities is also reflected in the northern French manuscript context, where the description of the papal cathedral is copied alongside descriptions of Jerusalem. In this competition, the Descriptio, as a treatise that originated in close connection with the papacy, naturally provides a solution which contradicts that ‘Ipsa, sicut prima fuit in terris, prima conversationem habuit in celis ac per hoc celestis Hierusalem vocata est, de qua dicit apostolus: Illa autem, que sursum est Hierusalem, libera est, que est mater nostra. Et de qua Iohannes in Apocalipsi: Vidi, inquit, civitatem sanctam Hierusalem novam descendentem de celo, a Deo paratam, sicut sponsam ornatam viro suo. Ipsa etenim Dei patris sponsa erat ac per hoc filiorum Dei mater merito debet nominari. Hec de Roma non sunt scripta vel predicta, nisi forte per imitationem et figuram, non per primatum dicatur Hierusalem.’ Ibid. 104 John of Würzburg, chap. 13, in Wilkinson, Hill and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099– 1185, pp. 244, 263. On the sanctification of Jerusalem by the bodily presence of Christ, see Yamit Rachman-Schrire, ‘Evagatorium in Terrae Sanctae: Stones Telling the Story of Jerusalem’, in Jerusalem as Narrative Space, ed. A. Hoffmann and G. Wolf (Leiden, 2012), pp. 353–66; Yamit Rachman-Schrire, ‘The Rock of Golgotha in Jerusalem and Western Imagination’, in Räume der Passion. Raumvisionen, Erinnerungsorte und Topographien des Leidens Christi in Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit, ed. H.  Aurenhammer and D. Bohde (Bern, 2015), pp. 29–48. 103

in the northern french context

83

of the Norman Anonymous. While the Norman Anonymous argues that the holiness of Jerusalem is due to the immediate connection to Christ, the Lateran description emphasizes not only the immense presence of holy objects but also, in later versions, the direct revelation of Christ in the Roman basilica.105 Before 1099 Jerusalem had posed no threat to the status of papal Rome. But when the city was conceived of as divinely liberated, as the fulfilment of prophecies, and was integrated into the Christian liturgy it challenged the conception of sacerdotal authority, whose summit was in Rome.

See Chapter 6.

105

Chapter 5

In the Jerusalem Context

Thus saith the Lord, ‘The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?’1

The Dome of the Rock and Templum Domini an ‘open spot’ In Jerusalem there was one place that particularly exhibited the potentially competitive relationship between the earthly Church and the earthly Jerusalem: the Dome of the Rock.2 When the crusaders besieged Jerusalem in July 1099, the site was an ‘open spot’ and there was no established interpretation of the Dome. It was probably regarded as a pagan building, as the ‘righteous’ spoils of war. This can at least be suggested based on Albert of Aachen’s description of Tancred’s plundering of the Dome: … Tancred, who ran quickly ahead to the Temple of the Lord in the first invasion of the city, pulled back the bolts and entered it, and tore off an incomparable quantity of gold and silver from the walls, which were gilded about with columns and pillars, with the strength and assistance of his escort, exerting himself for two days in the seizure of this treasure, which had been brought together by the Turks to decorate the chapel.3 Isaiah 66:1. For the history and description of the Dome of the Rock/Templum Domini, see Denys Pringle, Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus, Volume III: The City of Jerusalem (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 397–413. On the Christianization of the Dome of the Rock, see also Pamela Berger, The Crescent on the Temple: The Dome of the Rock as Image of the Ancient Jewish Sanctuary (Leiden, 2012), pp. 75–92. 3 Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana: Albert of Aachen’s History of the Journey 1

2

in the jerusalem context

85

The description of the pillaging – which took place immediately after the conquest – shows that the Dome of the Rock was a confusing building to the first crusaders. This was not least because the temple platform had been closed to the Christians during Abbasid rule. Unlike the situation at the Holy Sepulchre and other Christian churches, there was thus no continuity between the beliefs of the Byzantine Christians and the (Western) Christian interpretations of the place after the siege of the city. Shortly after the conquest, in 1099–1100, the chapter of Templum Domini was established, and in the following decades its status could compete even with that of the chapter of the Holy Sepulchre.4 The newly settled Christians and the pilgrims of Jerusalem put forward various ideas about the origin of the building of Templum Domini: some maintained that it had been built by Solomon;5 the pilgrim Saewulf (1101–1103) proposed that its builder was the Roman emperor Hadrian;6 Albert of Aachen suggested ‘Christian worshippers’;7 while Acard of Arrouaise proposed a Byzantine emperor.8 Some years later –from 1106, according to John Wilkinson’s estimate – it became commonplace to assert that



4



5



6



7 8

to Jerusalem, ed. and trans. S.  B. Edgington (Oxford, 2007), p. 433. William of Tyre also mentions the plunder: see William of Tyre, Chronique, ed. R. B. C. Huygens et al. (Turnhout, 1986), Lib. 8, 20, pp. 411–12. Not in the eyes of the pilgrims, but according to hierarchical relation. Fulcher of Chartres reports that canons were installed at the Holy Sepulchre as well as at the temple at the same time as Godfrey was elected prince of Jerusalem in 1099. See Fulcher of Chartres, Fulcheri Carnotensis Historia Hierosolymitana (1095–1127), ed. H. Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg, 1913), Lib. I, XXX. Pringle examines the sources and concludes that the canons were most probably introduced under Godfrey’s reign (1099–1100). See Pringle, The City of Jerusalem, p. 401. Rudolf Hiestand reports that in the middle of the century the prior and abbot of Templum Domini was second after the patriarch, and ranked before the prior of the Holy Sepulchre within the charters. See Rudolf Hiestand, ‘Gaufridus abbas Templi Domini: An Underestimated Figure in the Early History of the Kingdom of Jerusalem’, in The Experience of Crusading, 2: Defining the Crusader Kingdom, ed. P. Edbury and J. Phillips (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 48–59, at p. 51. As, for instance, the author of ‘First Guide’ (1101–1104): see John Wilkinson, Joyce Hill and W. F. Ryan, eds, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185 (London, 1988), p. 88. Probably also by Robert the Monk: see Robert the Monk, The Historia Iherosolimitana of Robert the Monk, ed. D. Kempf and M. G. Bull (Woodbridge, 2013), Lib. IX (881), p. 109. ‘Saewulf ’ (1101–1103), in Wilkinson, Hill and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185, p. 101. Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana, Lib. VI, 24, pp. 433–5. Acard (d.  1137/8) presents various alternatives: Justinian, Helena, the mother of Constantine, or Heraclius. See Paul Lehmann, ‘Die mittellateinischen Dichtungen der Prioren des Tempels von Jerusalem Acardus und Gaufridus’, in Corona Quernea. Festgabe Karl Strecker zum 80. Geburtstage dargebracht (Leipzig, 1941), pp. 296–330, at p. 329.

86

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

a Muslim ruler had built the temple, an affirmation which was in accordance with Greek authors.9 Despite the uncertainty concerning the origin of the building, various strategies soon emerged to establish continuity between what was recognized as Templum Domini and the previous Jewish temple. The concrete strategies, which will be discussed below, implied new interpretations of sacred scripture which involved both the rock within the Dome and what were regarded as hidden treasures from the temple of Solomon. The earliest guides that specifically commented on the possible presence of the ancient temple objects are Qualiter (1099–1103),10 the Ottobonian guide (1099–1103)11 and the guide of Saewulf (1101–1103),12 all of which described the objects, albeit with some variations.

the muslim dome and the jewish temple When Christians argued for continuity between The Dome of the Rock and the temple of Solomon they were also influenced by local Jewish and Muslim traditions. In this respect it is important to remember that the Muslim dome, which the crusaders conquered, was understood according to an Islamic view of Jerusalem before the crusades. Suleiman Ali Mounrad has argued that in this period the city’s biblical heritage was of primary importance for the sanctity of the Islamic city.13 This heritage focused on Jerusalem as the town of God’s temple and the location of the binding of Isaac. Following Christian rule and the Muslim re-conquest of the city in 1187, ‘the biblical aspect became an afterthought’, and the emphasis on Muhammad increased as part of an interpretative strategy, as Muslims were required to liberate a holy place that was exclusively theirs.14 One example of the Islamic interpretation of the temple before the crusades was provided by the Muslim scholar al-Ramli (d. 912), who recounted in his work Daniel the Abbot, cited in Wilkinson, Hill and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185, p. 132. Daniel the Abbot (1106–1107) nevertheless presented the Dome of the Rock as ‘the Holy of Holies’. Wilkinson argues that ‘from 1106 onwards some Latins and, we may suppose, all Greeks realised that it had been built by “pagans” or Muslims’: ibid., pp. 42–3. 10 T. Tober and A. Molinier, eds, Itinera Hierosolymitana et descriptiones Terrae Sanctae Bellis Sacris Anteriora (Geneva, 1879), pp. 347–9; Wilkinson, Hill and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185, pp. 90–1. For a discussion on Qualiter, see ibid., pp. 4–7. 11 In Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Cod. Ottobon. lat. 169, discussed in Wilkinson, Hill and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185, pp. 6 and 350. For a translation see ibid., pp. 92–3. 12 See above p. 85. 13 Suleiman A. Mourad, ‘The Symbolism of Jerusalem in Early Islam’, in Jerusalem: Idea and Reality, ed. T. Mayer and S. A. Mourad (New York, 2008), pp. 86–102. 14 Amikam Elad, Medieval Jerusalem and Islamic Worship: Holy Places, Ceremonies, Pilgrimage (Leiden, 1995), p. 98. 9

in the jerusalem context

87

on Jerusalem that the first temple was built by Solomon.15 He then referred to the prophecy of Jesus, ‘Truly I say to you that God will destroy the stones of this mosque because of the sins of its people’,16 moving on to a Jewish prophecy: ‘it is written in the Torah: “Yerushalam – meaning Jerusalem and the Rock, which is known as the Temple – I shall send you my servant ‘Abd al-Malik to build you and embellish you”’.17 Suleiman A. Mourad concluded that these sources and the construction of the second prophecy might indicate that some Muslim and Jewish groups in Palestine had become convinced that ‘Abd al-Malik was rebuilding the temple when the Dome of the Rock was constructed in the seventh century. This typological interpretation based on Jewish and Muslim exegesis suggests that the Christian pilgrims and crusaders would have encountered weighty traditions at the Temple Mount – traditions intimately connected to and interwoven with their own religious heritage. In addition to a new and literal interpretation of Jerusalem in sacred scripture, these traditions probably also helped challenge the classical Christian interpretation of the rejected Temple Mount and helped force through a reintegration of the site into the Latin liturgy. Some years after the conquest, it was usual for descriptions of the city to include the temple. For example, to Ekkehard of Aura (c. 1115) the temple was obviously a Christian shrine and he was greatly indignant at pagan use of the temple under the Saracens.18 The same emphasis is shown by the maps of Jerusalem, which depicted the Templum Domini as a parallel building of similar importance to the Holy Sepulchre. One of the codices that transmit the Descriptio (Brussels BR 9828) contains an idealized map of the holy city and its surroundings.19 It is shaped as a perfect circle and there seem to be two centres within the city walls, also represented as perfect circles, namely the Templum Domini and the Sepulchrum Domini. While the map of this manuscript appears to give these cultic sites the same importance, the famous thirteenth-century Uppsala map sets off the Templum Domini by way of its golden doors, size, centrality and the use of

In his text Fada’il Bayt al-Maqdis (‘The Merits of the Holy House’): see Mourad, ‘The Symbolism of Jerusalem in Early Islam’, p. 91. 16 Ibid., p. 97. Mourad refers to al-Wasiti, 60, no. 95, and to Abu al-Ma’ali, 230, no. 340. The Christian sources of the prophecy are Matt. 26:61 and John 2:19. 17 According to Mourad, the prophecy probably built on a Midrash on Isaiah. Ibid., p. 97, refers to al-Wasiti, 86, no. 138, and Abu al-Ma’ali, 63–4, no. 50. 18 Ekkehard of Aura, Hierosolymitana, chap. IV. See Ekkehard of Aura, Ekkehardi Abbatis Uraugiensis, Hierosolymita, RHC.Hocc, V, p. 14. Ekkehard went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 1101 and wrote his Hierosolymitana c. 1115. 19 Maps like these were added to the crusade narratives and some of the maps are inscribed with narrative text. See e.g. Milka Levy-Rubin, ‘The Rediscovery of the Uppsala Map of Crusader Jerusalem’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 111 (1995), 162–7. 15

88

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

colour.20 This depiction of the temple was the outcome of years of discussion and changing interpretations of the building.

The Continuation of the Temple Continuity between the Jewish temple and the present shrine was differently argued according to subsequent stages in the Christian transformation of Jerusalem. In the initial years after 1099, the foundation stone within the Dome of the Rock was discussed and also, in relation to this, the possible presence of the hidden temple objects. Later, an increasing emphasis on the sites of the life of Christ became a general trend in the descriptions from Jerusalem. In the case of the Templum Domini, this meant that the traditions from the New Testament, such as the presentation of the Lord, became more important than other traditions.

the foundation stone The building of the Muslim Dome of the Rock was initiated by ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan in 685 to mark the victory of Islam over Christianity (and completed in 691).21 It was built as a shrine over the rock, which then came to be regarded as the foundation stone (even shetiyyah) of Herod’s temple.22 The rock had not been included in the oldest Jewish traditions but had acquired an increasing significance after the destruction of the temple in ad  70.23 The attention to the rock in Jewish tradition is one of the clearest examples indicating the rise of the

Uppsala, Uppsala University Library, MS C. 691. Al-Muqaddasi (984) records that ‘Abd al-Malik built it to mark this victory and to rival the dome of the Holy Sepulchre. See Pringle, The City of Jerusalem, p. 399. 22 The position, function and significance of the rock, which is still present today in the Dome of the Rock, pose several unresolved questions with respect to earlier temples. Peter Richard summarizes: ‘There are three main suggestions: it was under the altar, under the holy of holies, or poking through a courtyard somewhere. Most arguments have been theologically driven, leaning to the first or second solution.’ See Peter Richardson, Building Jewish in the Roman East (Waco, TX, 2004), p. 296. For a description of the interior of the Dome of the Rock, see Jörg Dendl, ‘Der Heilige Felsen: der Felsendom in Zeitalter der Kreuzzüge’, in Miszellen aus dem Schülerkreis. Festschrift für Prof. Dr. K. Elm (Berlin, 1995), pp. 1–2. 23 Gradually, the legends associated with a foundation stone were attached to the rock present at the Temple Mount. See Yaron. Z. Eliav, ‘The Temple Mount in Jewish and Early Christian Traditions: A New Look’, in Jerusalem: Idea and Reality, ed. T. Mayer and S. A. Mourad (New York, 2008), pp. 47–66. The earliest mention of the stone is in the Mishnah’s tractate Yoma, within the Holy of Holies (BT Yoma 53b). The foundation stone replaced the lost Ark in the Talmudic tradition: see Dendl, ‘Der Heilige Felsen’, p. 3. 20 21

in the jerusalem context

89

Temple Mount as an independent holy site after the destruction of the temple.24 Yaron Z. Eliav has described a transition from its significance as the ‘temple stone’ to a ‘cosmic stone’, the very place where the world was created.25 According to Talmudic tradition it marked the very centre of the world: The Land of Israel is the middle of the earth. Jerusalem is the middle of Israel. The Temple is the middle of Jerusalem. The Holy of Holies is the middle of the Temple. The Holy Ark is the middle of the Holy of Holies. And the Stone of Foundation is in front of the Holy of Holies.26 The ‘Bordeaux Pilgrim’ described the annual Jewish tradition of mourning the destruction of the temple on Tisha B’Av, probably on this spot.27 This tradition endured throughout Muslim rule of the city. As is well known, the rock came to possess a central position in the Muslim religious topography of Jerusalem as well.28 As in Jewish tradition, here too the rock was connected to historical traditions and was regarded as a cosmic centre, the first piece of earth on land that dried in the creation, as the centre of the world, and as the site closest to heaven.29 Based primarily on transformations of the Jewish traditions, early Islam developed an intense sanctification of the Temple Mount and especially of the rock.30 In the early Christian concept of Jerusalem the Temple Mount had lost its importance as a geographical site, and both the location of the foundation stone and the ideas associated with it were relocated to Golgotha, to the church of the

‘It is in this light that one must understand the better known sources unfolding the notion that God’s divine presence (shekhina) never left the locality of the temple, even after its destruction, hence the site’s holiness is not dependent on the existence of the temple.’ Eliav, ‘The Temple Mount in Jewish and Early Christian Traditions’, p. 62. 25 Ibid., p. 63. See also Philip S. Alexander, ‘Jerusalem as the “Omphalos” of the World: On the History of a Geographical Concept’, in Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, ed. L. I. Levine (New York, 1999), pp. 104–19. 26 Midrash Tanhuma Qedoshim 10. 27 ‘Bordeaux Pilgrim’, 333: ‘a pierced stone which the Jews come and anoint each year. They mourn and rend their garments, and then depart.’ See John Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels to the Holy Land (Jerusalem and Warminster, 1981), p. 157. 28 See Moshe Gil, ‘The Political History of Jerusalem During the Early Muslim Period’, in The History of Jerusalem: The Early Muslim Period (683–1099), ed. J. Prawer and H. BenShammai (New York, 1996), pp.  1–37, at pp. 11–13; Izhac Hasson, ‘The Muslim View of Jerusalem’, in ibid., pp. 349–85, at pp. 356–9. See also Elad, Medieval Jerusalem and Islamic Worship, pp. 78–81; Mourad, ‘The Symbolism of Jerusalem in Early Islam’. 29 Translation of the Praises of Jerusalem from the Commentary on the Koran by Muqatil b. Suleman (d. 768) in Hasson, ‘The Muslim View of Jerusalem’, pp. 383–5. 30 Mourad, ‘The Symbolism of Jerusalem in Early Islam’. 24

90

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Holy Sepulchre.31 The foundation stone was thus a physical site, but it was also present in the biblical texts and interpreted allegorically in Christian exegesis in terms of fulfilment in Christ (‘Jesus saith unto them, “Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes”?’ Matt. 21:42). In the mid-eleventh century the Roman theologian Peter Damian had used the stone described in Zechariah 3:9 to describe the altar of the Lateran, and to identify the Lateran basilica as ‘the priest house’, the mother of all churches, and the Holy of Holies.32 This altar, served by seven bishops, and thus by ‘seven pairs of eyes’, Damian interpreted as the rock of the Holy of Holies of the temple, but also as the rock that Jesus refers to as the foundation of his Church in Matthew 16:18: ‘upon this rock I will build my church’.33 At this point we will leave out of consideration the fact that a hundred years later, the physical body and the altar of San Pietro were promoted as the foundation stone of the Church in the Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae,34 and we will return to how the texts describing Christian Jerusalem responded to the rock in the midst of the temple. The early sources from the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem refer to a physical transformation of Templum Domini. This included the erection of an altar above the rock in the middle of the building. The arrangement is explained in Fulcher of Chartres’ Historia Hierosolymitana, which was probably begun in 1101 and Eliav, ‘The Temple Mount in Jewish and Early Christian Traditions’, p. 63. ‘Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the branch. For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.’ Zech. 3:8–9. 33 ‘Haec septem cardinales habet episcopos, quibus solis post apostolicum, sacrosanctum illud altare licet accedere, ac divini cultus mysteria celebrare. In quo nimirum illud Zachariae continetur evidenter oraculum: “Ecce inquit, lapis, quem dedi coram Jesu: super lapidem unum septem oculi sunt.” Lapis autem iste illa procul dubio petra est, de qua versus Jesus Petro pollicetur, dicens: “Super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam.”’ (‘These seven cardinals have bishops, who alone after the apostles are permitted to approach that sacrosanct altar, and celebrate the mystery of the divine worship. No doubt that prophecy concerning this is plainly contained in Zechariah: “Behold I say, the stone which I set before Joshua: there are seven eyes on one stone.” Yet that very stone is without doubt that rock concerning which Jesus promised to Peter, saying: “Upon this rock I will build my Church.”’) Peter Damian, 51–52 Epistola prima, ad s. r. e. episcopos cardinales, PL 144, cols 255C–D. See also Umberto Longo, ‘Da Gerusalemme a Roma: il papato e l’eredità tra XI e XII secolo’, in La presenza ebraica a Roma e nel Lazio: dalle origini al ghetto, ed. R. Padovano (Padua, 2009), pp. 143–85. Longo refers to the texts of Peter Damian as clear evidence of the prominent role of the Lateran Church in the Roman reform movement. 34 Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae, 4; see Chapter 3, p. 50. 31 32

in the jerusalem context

91

continued through several redactions until it abruptly ended during the reign of Baldwin II in 1127.35 As Fulcher was appointed to be the king’s chaplain in 1100, he is a first-hand source of the liturgical rearrangements in the holy city. As chaplain it is likely that he lived in the palace of the kings, the former Al-Aqsa Mosque, and wrote his description and history from the Temple Mount itself. After this, he became a canon and probably also treasurer at the church of the Holy Sepulchre around 1114.36 Fulcher’s earliest description of the temple records a disturbing rock: ‘in the middle [of the temple] is a great natural rock that really disfigures and blocks the temple itself. I don’t know why it was allowed to occupy this place from old times, rather than being destroyed’.37 After some years the rock was covered, as described in Fulcher’s second redaction: ‘Moreover this rock, because it disfigured the temple of the Lord, was afterwards covered over and paved with marble. Now an altar is placed above it, and there the clergy have fitted up a choir.’38 The marble pavement, the altar and the choir were probably created in about 1115.39 The Jewish and Muslim holy rock was thus transformed into a Christian altar. Templum The first redaction was edited at the end of 1105 (according to Hagenmeyer), or 1106 (according to Fink). It was known in the West through two independent texts: ‘Codex L’ and the Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium. See Codex L, Cambridge, Cambridge University Library MS K.K, VI, 15. The description of Jerusalem from Codex L is published in the footnotes of Historia Iherosolymitana, in RHC.Hocc, III (1864), pp.  311–485, at pp. 355–7; see also Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium, RHC. Hocc, III, pp. 487–543. Fulcher’s second redaction was edited in 1127. Discussions of the dating of the text are found in Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 42–8 and 91–104, and in Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem 1095–1127, trans. F. R. Ryan, ed. H. S. Fink (Knoxville, TN, 1969), pp. 18–24. 36 Verena Epp, Fulcher von Chartres Studien zur Geschichtsschreibung des ersten Kreuzzuges (Düsseldorf, 1990), pp. 27–8. 37 ‘in cuius medio est rupes nativa et ingens, de qua deturpatur satis et impeditur ipsum templum: nescio quare ab aeterno permittitur locum occupare, quin prorsus exciditur.’ Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, Lib. I, XXVI, in Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, p. 286. Hagenmeyer prints the whole chapter with the text of the first redaction in the apparatus, pp. 281–92. 38 See Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem 1095–1127, p. 118. In Latin: ‘rupes autem illa, quia Templum Domini deturpabat, postea cooperta est et marmore pavimenta, ubi nunc est altare suppositum et clerus ibi adaptavit chorum’; see Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, p. 289. 39 An insertion in the second edition of the text provides a clue to when this happened. Fulcher states ‘In the middle of the temple, when we first entered it and for fifteen years thereafter, was a certain native rock’ (my italics); see Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem 1095–1127, p. 118. In Latin ‘cum in temple medio, quando prius intravimus et postea per XV fere annos, rupes quaedam ibi native habetur’; see Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, p. 287. 35

92

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Domini soon became the station church for the concurrent celebrations of the purification of the Virgin Mary and the presentation of the Lord.40 Fulcher’s statements seem to disregard the Jewish and Muslim traditions linked to the site. According to Jörg Dendl, Fulcher seems to regard the rock only as a ‘landmark’ of the site of the temple of Solomon.41 However, as Dendl also points out, the rock is at the centre of Fulcher’s reflections on the building. His dislike of the rock has to be understood in the context of an early phase in transforming Jerusalem, when traditions had not yet been established and various arguments abounded. Moreover, other Christian sources expressed a special reverence for the rock. Several of the early descriptions from pilgrimages identify the rock as a natural formation within the temple of Solomon, or as the Holy of Holies, or as the tabernacle. If the guide Qualiter (1099–1103) refers to the rock when the text says ‘in the middle of this temple’, it identifies the rock with the tabernacle and with a certain ‘temple made without hands’: In the middle of this Temple is the ‘Temple made without hands’, that is, the Tabernacle. In it are preserved, so it is believed, the rod of Aaron, the head of Zechariah, the son of Berachiah,42 the altar which Jacob built to the Lord,43 the two tablets of the Testament, the Ark of the Covenant, and the manna44 with which the children of Israel were nourished in the desert ….45 Although the ‘temple made without hands’ could refer to the natural stone formation, the expression also generates associations with passages in the New Testament referring to the work of Christ: ‘We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands’ (Mark 14:58), and to the description of a heavenly temple in Hebrews 9:11: ‘[Christ entered] by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building’. The expression can thus Pringle, The City of Jerusalem, pp. 401–2. Dendl, ‘Der Heilige Felsen’. 42 ‘Zecharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar’: see Matt. 23:35 and Luke 11:51. In rabbinic literature, see Git. 57b; Sanh. 96b; Lam.R.iv.13. 43 Gen. 28:10–17. 44 Aaron was told to put an omer of manna in a vessel and lay it ‘before the Testimony’: see Ex. 16:33–4. 45 ‘In quo templo in medio est templum non manufactum, id est tabernaculum; & virga Aaron, & caput Zacharie, filii Barachie, & altare quod Iacob edificavit Domino, & due tabule Testamenti, & archa federis Domini, & manna unde pascebantur filii Israel in deserto, condita esse creduntur.’ Qualiter, 5; see Tober and Molinier, Itinera Hierosolymitana, p. 348. For an English translation, see Wilkinson, Hill and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185, pp. 90–1. 40 41

in the jerusalem context

93

be regarded as an early attempt to establish Christian associations with the Temple Mount. In the description in Qualiter the various sacred objects are presented as inside the ‘tabernacle’, which is beneath the rock. Several of the guides refer to a cave beneath the rock as the Holy of Holies, or, as the place of the most holy things in the old temple as in Saewulf ’s description (1101–1103): ‘In the middle of this temple is to be seen a great high rock, hollow underneath, in which were the Holy of Holies.’46 Writing in the first decade of the twelfth century, the chronicler Albert of Aachen also seems to regard the rock with reverence and provides a detailed description: Moreover, in the middle of this modern tabernacle, a stone mountain of natural rock sticks up, comprising almost the third part of an acre in area, two cubits in height, on one side of which there are positioned steps leading down to cavernous places; on another side, indeed, there is something which in truth those who observed it call a little door of stone, but always sealed. And in that place certain holies of holies are said still to be kept in the opinion of some people.47 The Arabic chronicle of Ibn al-Athir (1160–1233) similarly described the Christian arrangements of the rock as resulting from a certain reverence: pieces of the ‘In cuius templi medietate rupes conspicitur alta et magna et subtus concauata, in qua erant sancta sanctorum. Ibi imposuit Salomon Archam federis, habens manna et uirgam aaron que ibidem floruit et fronduit et amigdalum protulit; et duas tabulas testamenti.’ Saewulf, chap. IV: see S. de Sandoli, ed., Itinera Hierosolymitana Crucesignatorum, 4 vols (Jerusalem, 1980), II, p. 16. English translation in Wilkinson, Hill and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185, p. 104: ‘In the middle of this Temple is to be seen a rock which is high and large and hollow underneath, in which was the Holy of Holies. There Solomon put the Ark of the Covenant with the Manna and the Rod of Aaron, which grew flowers and leaves, and produced an almond, and the Two Tables of the Covenant.’ See also De Situ, written before 1114: ‘and below the rock which is in the middle of the temple one goes down by steps to the place which once was the holy of holies’; see Wilkinson, Hill and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185, p. 178. Peter the Deacon identifies the rock with the place of the tabernacle: see ibid. p. 212. On the cavern beneath the rock, see also Muhammad al Idrisi (1154), in ibid., p. 225; and the ‘seventh guide’ (1160) which identifies it with the Holy of Holies, ibid., p. 234. 47 Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana, lib. VI, 24, p. 435. The Latin reads ‘In medio autem hoc moderno tabernaculo mons lapideus natura fundatus prominet fere in latitudine continens terciam partem iugeri, in altitudine habens duos cubitos, cuius uno in latere gradus collocati ad caua loca descendentes perducunt, alio uero in latere ut in ueritate referunt qui rem considerauerunt hostiolum habetur lapideum, sed semper signatum. Et illic ex quorumdam opinione quedam sancta sanctorum adhuc reseruari perhibentur’; ibid., p. 434. Books I–VI of Albert’s Historia were probably completed in the first years of the twelfth century. 46

94

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

rock were sold by the priests to the pilgrims because of its presumed holiness and the king consequently decided that it should be paved over to preserve it.48 Some Christian sources that refer to the transformation of the Muslim shrine also describe the octagonal iron grille that surrounded the marble floor or the rock.49 The grille was probably made in accordance with a desire to protect the stone from eager pilgrims collecting relics or souvenirs. Even though Fulcher of Chartres stated that the rock was a hindrance to the canons of the temple, he nevertheless included it in his argument for the holiness of the place. He claims that the Templum Domini was built at the same place as the old temple50 and refers to the legends and traditions attached to the place, concluding with its significance: This is certainly the house of God, of which it is written: ‘firmly built on solid rock’ and in which Solomon devoutly offered his prayer to God that his eyes should watch over it night and day, and that the one who, directed towards this sanctuary, prayed from a sincere heart, should be heard by him …51 According to this conclusion Templum Domini had the same spiritual purpose as the old temple of Solomon. As such there was no break caused by ancient demolitions or re-builds. The temple is identified with the words ‘firmly built on solid rock’ (‘bene fundata est supra firmam petram’) derived from the liturgical Feast of Dedication. Extracts from this liturgy, including this quotation, were later inscribed on the walls of Templum Domini.52 In light of this text, and in light of ‘The reason why it had been paved over was that the priests sold much of it to the Franks who came to them from overseas on pilgrimage. They would buy it for its weight in gold, hoping to benefit from its sanctity. When one of them returned to his homeland, with a little piece of it he would build a church for it and place it on its altar. One of their kings feared that it would be all lost, so he ordered it to be paved over to preserve it.’ See Ibn al-Athīr: The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athīr for the Crusading Period from al-Kāmil fī’l-ta’rīkh. Part 2: The Years 541–589/1156–1193: The Age of Nur al-Din and Saladin, ed. D. S. Richards (Aldershot, 2007), p. 334. 49 See ‘Icelandic Guide’ (c. 1150), in Wilkinson, Hill and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099– 1185, p. 221. 50 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, Lib. I, XXVI. See Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 281–93, at pp. 285–6. 51 ‘Haec pro certo domus est Dei, de qua scriptum est: “bene fundata est supra firmam petram”. in qua cum Salomon devote Domino precem suam funderet, ut ocoli eius die ac nocte super eam aperti essent, et qui ad sanctuarium illud oraret recto corde, ab eo exaudiretur’; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 289–90. 52 The inscriptions include antiphons (First Vesper, Ps. 111), responsories and lessons, as well as some lines from the hymn Urbs beata Jerusalem which was used during the octave of dedication. There were also inscribed verses that commemorated the presentation 48

in the jerusalem context

95

the reverence shown to the rock reflected in a number of contemporary Christian sources, it seems that the rock of the temple was understood as the foundation stone of the Christian Church and thus that the Templum Domini was a physical prototype of every church. What had earlier been regarded as an allegorical significance bestowable on every church, such as when Peter Damian interpreted the Lateran altar as the foundation stone, is here re-established physically in Templum Domini. The process reflected the literalization of the interpretation of Jerusalem after 1099. Through the traditions and interpretations associated with the rock, and despite the complicated arrangements within the building, the rock of the Dome was seen as the foundation stone and was one of the elements of continuity between the Jewish and the Christian temple. When the canons erected an altar above the stone it should not necessarily be interpreted as disregarding the rock, as such an interpretation would correspond to a modern sense of disrespecting a specific place. It might instead be interpreted according to the tradition of erecting altars at the site of a theophany, as the patriarch Jacob did after his dream about the angels descending and ascending the ladder to heaven: ‘How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.’53

the presence of the hidden temple objects The focus on the rock and the discussion of its content and arrangement decreased in the subsequent descriptions of Jerusalem. During the period of the Latin Kingdom, the holiness of Templum Domini was increasingly legitimized by episodes from the life of Christ. Because of this new tendency, Jörg Dendl has argued that Templum Domini entered the series of the other purely Christian cult places in and around Jerusalem.54 He argues that the reason for this was that the old traditions of the temple had been transferred to the Holy Sepulchre. Hence it became necessary to find other traditions for the temple site, such as in the stories of Christ from the Gospels.55 However, this reasoning does not take into account that the Ark of the Covenant and the other temple objects were supposed to have been lost, and were thus not included in the traditions that were transferred to the site of the Holy Sepulchre. On the other hand there existed Jewish traditions that promoted or discussed the presence of the temple objects kept beneath the Dome of the Virgin: see Wilkinson, Hill and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185, p. 250. Templum Domini was consecrated in 1141 and perhaps the inscriptions were completed on this occasion. 53 Gen. 28:17. On altars and holy places in medieval Christian religion  see Arnold Angenendt, Geschichte der Religiosität im Mittelalter (Darmstadt, 1997), pp. 431–9. 54 Dendl, ‘Der Heilige Felsen’, p. 11. 55 Ibid.

96

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

of the Rock. The earliest pilgrimage guides from crusader Jerusalem suggest that this became an important argument when continuity between Templum Domini and the temple of Solomon was to be established. A crucial question was what had happened to the Ark after King Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the first temple and the inhabitants of Jerusalem were taken captive to Babylonia in 587 bc. The rumours circulating in the twelfth century about the Ark of the Covenant and the other objects were probably fostered by attempts in the Jewish tradition to answer this question.56 The biblical tradition was silent about what had happened to the Ark during this dramatic event. But according to that tradition the other temple vessels were replaced in the second temple, built after the Jews returned from Babylonian exile in 538 bc.57 According to Josephus, in ad 70 Titus and Vespasian brought the objects to Rome as spoils of war.58 In 455 the spoils from Jerusalem were seized by the Vandals and taken from Rome to Carthage.59 The Byzantine general Belisarius brought them to Constantinople in 543, where Emperor Justinian was said to have sent them to a church in Jerusalem,60 before they probably disappeared at an unknown date.61 Significantly, these references spoke about temple objects but none of them included the Ark of the Covenant. According to these accounts, the Ark and the tablets were never present in the second temple, which was constructed after the Jews’ return in 538 bc. According to a reading of Josephus, the Holy of Holies was empty during the later destruction and sacking of Jerusalem in ad 70.62 Through the centuries, different interpreta Concerning the memorialization and function of the temple vessels in different Jewish traditions, see Ra’anan S. Boustan, ‘The Spoils of the Jerusalem Temple at Rome and Constantinople’, in Antiquity in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Pasts in the GrecoRoman World, ed. G. Gardner and K. Lee Osterloh (Tübingen, 2008), pp. 327–72. 57 Ezra 1:7–11. 58 See Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian, a Study in Political Relations (Leiden, 1976), p. 329. 59 Theophanes, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, ad 284–813, trans. C. Mango (Oxford, 1997), p. 167. 60 Procopius, History of the Wars, trans. H. B. Dewling, vol. II (London and New York, 1916), IV, ix, 1–9, pp. 278–81. See also Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, p. 329. 61 Marie-Thérèse Champagne argues that the temple spoils may have been seized by the Persians during their sacking of Jerusalem in 614, and, furthermore, presents alternative theories. See Marie-Thérèse Champagne, ‘The Relationship Between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-century Rome: Papal Attitudes Toward Biblical Judaism and Contemporary European Jewry’, PhD thesis, Louisiana State University, 2005, pp. 39–41 (https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/1931/ (accessed 25 September 2018)). 62 ‘… although … Titus Caesar [has] defeated us in war and occupied our temple, they have not discovered there anything of that sort, but only the purest form of piety’; Ap. 56

in the jerusalem context

97

tions had emerged among Jewish scholars and historians attempting to answer the question of the lost Ark. One rabbinic argument maintained that the Ark had been taken into exile in Babylonia with the other vessels.63 Consequently, it was taken to Rome based on the testimony of Eliezer ben Jose from the mid-second century: ‘I saw it in Rome and there were upon it many drops of blood both of the bullock and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement’.64 Other rabbinic traditions maintained that the Ark was somehow still hidden within the temple.65 These traditions could refer to King Josiah’s order in 2 Chronicles 35:3: And he said unto the Levites that taught all Israel, which were holy to the Lord, Put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David king of Israel did build; it shall not be a burden upon your shoulders …66 In the twelfth century, the Jewish philosopher Maimonides (1135–1204) and Rabbi Kimchi (probably twelfth century) also wrote that the Ark was hidden in a secret chamber within the temple. According to a baraita quoted by Maimonides some decades later than Fulcher of Chartres’ text, this secret chamber had been ordered by Solomon as he had foreseen the destruction of the temple when he

2.82 in Flavius Josephus, Translation and Commentary, Vol. 10: Against Apion, trans. J. M. G. Barclay (Leiden, 2007), p. 214. See also commentary in ibid., p. 214, n. 295. 63 Yoma 53b–54a: ‘The Mishnah does not teach “After the ark had been hidden away”, but “After the ark had been taken away”, this is in accord with him who holds that the ark went into exile to Babylonia, for it was taught: R. Eliezer said: The ark went into exile to Babylonia, as it was said: In the following year King Nebuchadnezzar sent and had him brought to Babel together with the precious vessels of the house of the Lord. | R. Simeon b. Yohai said: The ark went into exile to Babylonia, as it was said: Nothing shall be left, saith the Lord, i.e., the Ten Commandments contained therein. R. Judah b. Ilai said: The ark was hidden [buried] in its own place, as it was said: And the staves were so long that the ends of the staves were seen from the holy place, even before the sanctuary; but they could not be seen without; and there they are unto this day. Now he disputes ‘Ulla for ‘Ulla said: R. Matthiah b. Heresh asked R. Simeon b. Yohai in Rome: Now since R. Eliezer had taught us on the first and second occasion that the ark went into exile to Babylonia (the first was the one which we said just now: “And he had him brought to Babel together with the precious vessels of the house of the Lord,” but what is the second one? – Because it is written: And gone is from the daughter of Zion all her splendour. What does “all her splendour” mean? All that is enclosed within her.)’ 64 BT Yoma 57a. See also Me’il. 17b; Sukk. 5a; Midr. Esther R. I, 12, acc. to Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, p. 329, n. 161. 65 See Yoma 53b quoted above (R. Judah b. Ilai refers to a literal reading of 1 Kings 8:8); Yoma 54a: ‘R. Nahman said: It was taught that the ark was hidden away in the Chamber of the wood-shed’, and the traditions based on Josiah’s order (see n. 66). 66 See Tosefta Sotah 13.1; Yer.Schek 6; Yoma 52b; Horayoth 12a.

98

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

built it.67 According to Maimonides, the exact position of the hiding place was supposedly forgotten when the Jews returned from Babylon. Some apocryphal and pseudo-epigraphical literature relied on a tradition telling that the Ark was hidden by the prophet Jeremiah, not in the temple, but in an unknown place in accordance with the Second Book of Maccabees (which was also referred in the Descriptio (see Chapter 2)). The popular Jewish chronicle Sefer Yosippon (tenth century) was probably an important factor in disseminating this view.68 This text reported the hiding of the Ark by Jeremiah and said that he had placed the Ark in a cave on Mount Nebo. One testimony to the transmission of Yosippon that is preserved from the mid-twelfth century reads thus: But the ark was not there, because Jeremiah took the ark with all the curtains which Moses, the servant of God, made in the wilderness, and he carried them up to Mount Nebo and placed them in a cave. The priests of that time pursued him to find out the place of the ark, and of the tablets, of the curtains of the Tabernacle, and of the tent of the congregation. When Jeremiah looked behind him and saw the priests, he became angry with them, and swore to them: ‘You shall never discover the place you desired to know until I and Elijah appear. Then we shall restore the Tabernacle and the tent of the congregation to its original place, as well as the ark of the testimony and the two tables of stone which it contains. Then we shall enter the Holy of Holies’.69

the earliest pilgrimage guides When the earliest pilgrimage guides from crusader Jerusalem – Qualiter (1099– 1103), the Ottobonian Guide (1099–1103) and the guide of Saewulf (1101–1103) – comment on the possible presence of the temple objects, their references are Maimonides, Beth Habech chap. IV and Rabbi Kimchi to 2. Chron. 35; see Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, p. 288, n. 22. Hagenmeyer does not identify which Rabbi Kimchi this was: it may have been Joseph Kimchi (1105–1170?), or one of his sons, Moses Kimchi (d. c. 1190) or David Kimchi (1160?–1235?). 68 Jerahmeel ben Solomon, The Chronicles of Jerahmeel, or, The Hebrew Bible Historiale: Being a Collection of Apocryphal and Pseudo-Epigraphical Books Dealing With the History of the World From the Creation to the Death of Judas Maccabeus, ed. M. Gaster (London, 1899). On this source see Jacob Reiner, ‘The Original Hebrew Yosippon in the Chronicle of Jerahmeel’, Jewish Quarterly Review 60.2 (1969), 128–46. For a summary of the early traditions see also Marilyn F. Collins, ‘The Hidden Vessels in Samaritan Traditions’, Journal for the Study of Judaism 3.2 (1972), 97–116. 69 The Chronicle of Jerahmeel, LXXVII, 9; see Jerhameel ben Salomon, The Chronicles of Jerahmeel, pp. 233–4. 67

in the jerusalem context

99

derived from Jewish, Christian and Muslim traditions. The Ottobonian Guide refers to an oral tradition about the temple objects: ‘There they say was the Ark of the Lord. And there are the tables of the Covenant and the seven golden lamps and the rod of Aaron.’70 The Qualiter lists the temple objects inside, as discussed above.71 Saewulf refers to the most holy objects in the cave beneath the rock: ‘There Solomon put the Ark of the Covenant, with the Manna and the Rod of Aaron which grew flowers and leaves and produced an almond, and the Two Tables of the Covenant.’72 He lists here the same objects as are listed in the description of the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle in the Letter to the Hebrews (9:4).73 In the Christian tradition this list had also been transmitted through the description of the tabernacle by the Venerable Bede (672–735).74 The Russian abbot Daniel, who wrote an account of his pilgrimage to the Holy Land probably in 1106–1107, did not comment on the specific temple objects despite his detailed descriptions of the temple’s decoration and the various traditions connected to it. He was guided by a Greek monk from the great Lavra of St Saba outside Jerusalem.75 This may indicate that the idea of the holy objects circulated primarily within the Latin Church.

See Wilkinson, Hill and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185, p. 92. See p. 93. 72 See p. 93, n. 46. On discussion on the sources of ‘Saewulf ’, see Sylvia Schein, Gateway to the Heavenly City: Crusader Jerusalem and the Catholic West (1099–1187) (Aldershot, 2005), p. 99; and Wilkinson, Hill and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185, pp. 6–7. 73 ‘Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered Ark of the Covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant.’ Heb. 9:1–4. 74 Bede, De Tabernaculo, Lib. I, 4. See De Tabernaculo. De Templo. In Ezram et Neemiam, ed. D. Hurst, (Turnhout, 1969), p. 17. Bede writes ‘And if you want to know what “testimony” might be that Moses received from the Lord to be put into the ark, listen to the Apostle, who says: And behind the second curtain was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, containing a golden censer and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which there was a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant.’ Bede, On the Tabernacle, trans. A. G. Holder (Liverpool, 1994), pp. 15–16. 75 See Wilkinson, Hills, and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185, pp. 120–71. 70 71

100

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

the tradition of fulcher of chartres 76 In both of his redactions, Fulcher refers to and discusses the idea that the temple objects are hidden below the rock of the temple.77 His discussion resembles the descriptions in the earlier guides and seems strikingly similar to the Descriptio’s portrayal of the hidden treasures within the high altar of the Lateran Church. Both his copyists, the authors of Codex L and Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium (The Deeds of the Franks Who Attacked Jerusalem),78 continue to discuss the supposed presence of the temple objects. Fulcher reports the presence of the temple objects as based on an oral tradition, not on eye-witness accounts. The first redaction reads thus: ‘they say that the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord with the rod and the tablets of the law are well closed in that rock’.79 In the second redaction the wording is slightly different: ‘They claimed to know by prophecy that the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord with the urn and with the tablets of Moses were enclosed and sealed in it.’80 In attempting to interpret the newly re-established temple of Jerusalem, Fulcher and his copyists refer to claims and rumours. These seem to have accorded with Jewish traditions and discussions and were probably encountered by the crusaders in Jerusalem. Unlike the early guides, Fulcher and his anonymous rewriters commented on the different opinions about the temple objects and presented the arguments for and against their presence. Their argumentation relies entirely on rabbinic interpretations and Jewish apocryphal literature and leads to two possible conclusions: either the temple objects were present within the Templum Domini or they were not. In Fulcher’s text the argument that supports the hidden presence is King Josiah’s order that the Ark and the other objects should be placed in the sanctu The chapter of Fulcher that describes Jerusalem (Lib. I, XXVII) functions both as a pilgrim’s guide and as part of a historical narration. This is evident from the manuscript’s transmission, e.g. in Reg. lat. 712 where this chapter is introduced as a description of Jerusalem, relatively independent of the rest of the text; see fols 37v–38r. 77 The most important written sources of Fulcher’s Historia seem to have been the anonymous Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium and the Historia Francorum of Raymond of Aguilers, both presumably finished shortly after the siege of Jerusalem in 1099. See Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem 1095–1127, pp. 41–2. These accounts of the crusade history do not mention the specific temple objects. This lack of interest is probably to be expected since the temple did not become an important shrine until after the conquest. 78 See above, p. 91, n. 35. 79 ‘aiuntque in ipsa rupe arcam foederis Domini esse cum virga et tabulis Testamenti bene sigillatam’; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 286–7. 80 ‘in qua divinabant esse arcam foederis Domini cum urna et tabulis Moysi sigillatim conclusam’; ibid., p. 287. Hagenmeyer comments that divinabant is to be understood more as ‘prophecy’. 76

in the jerusalem context

101

ary of the temple accompanied by the words: ‘you need no longer carry it from this place’ (‘nequaquam portabitis eam de loco isto’).81 Fulcher understood King Josiah’s decision to hide the Ark in a secret chamber beneath the earth as a consequence of the King’s foreseeing the captivity of the Jews. This argument, probably derived from a Jewish tradition, corresponded to a rabbinic discourse known in the Talmud (ad 500–600) and reflected an earlier tradition: At the time when the Holy Ark was hidden away there were also hidden the anointing oil, the jar of manna, Aaron’s rod with its almonds and blossoms, and the coffer which the Philistines had sent to Israel as a gift … And who hid them? It was Josiah, King of Judah, who hid them; because having observed that it was written in the Torah, The Lord will bring thee and thy king … [unto a nation that thou hast not known], he gave orders that they shall be hidden away, as it is said, And he said unto the Levites that taught all Israel, that were holy unto the Lord, ‘Put the Holy Ark into the house which Solomon the son of David, King of Israel, built; there shall no more be a burden upon your shoulders; now serve the Lord your God and his people Israel.’82

This reference from Fulcher offers another meaning than the one in the Vulgate: ‘you need no longer carry it’ (‘nequaquam enim ultra portabitis’) – the Levites are not to carry the ark any more; they will serve the temple instead. In the biblical context the statement concerns the amount of labour, not a permanent resting place for the ark as in the text of Fulcher, where ‘de loco isto’ is added. The whole paragraph reads: ‘in qua divinabant esse arcam foederis Domini cum urna et tabulis Moysi sigillatim conclusam, eo quod Iosias, rex Iuda, poni eam iussit dicens: “nequaquam portabitis eam de loco isto”. Praevidebat enim captivitatem futuram; sed istud obest, quod in descriptionibus Ieremiae legimus in libro Machabaeorum secundo, quod ipse Ieremias eam in Arabia occultaverit, dicens nequaquam illam esse inveniendam, donec gentes multae congregarentur. Ipse quidem contemporaneus huius regis Iosiae fuit; tamen vivendi finem fecit rex, antequam Ieremias defungeretur occisus.’ (‘in which they predicted the Ark of the covenant of the Lord with the urn and tablets of Moses were enclosed and sealed, because Josiah, king of Judah, ordered it to be placed there saying: “you will by no means carry it from this place”. For he foresaw the future captivity; but contrary to this we read the descriptions of Jeremiah in the second book of the Maccabees, that this same Jeremiah hid it in Arabia, saying that it would by no means be found until a great people were assembled. Indeed he was a contemporary of this same king Josiah; yet the king came to the end of his life before Jeremiah was killed.’) Fulcher, Historia Hierosolymitana, Lib. I, XXVI (second redaction). See Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 287–9. 82 Horayoth 12a. The same tradition is found in Yoma 52b. See also Aggadah, where we can read that King Josiah concealed the ark and its contents because he foresaw the forthcoming catastrophe (Tosef., Soṭah, 13a).

81

102

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Fulcher confronts this supposed hiding by Josiah with the other Jewish tradition, which is preserved in apocryphal literature. He states in both his redactions that the first reading contradicts the Second Book of Maccabees. The prophet Jeremiah hid the Ark in Arabia and said that it would not be found until many peoples had gathered together. 83 In Fulcher’s first redaction, he concludes that, since King Josiah died before Jeremiah, he does not believe that the Ark is still in the temple.84 In his second redaction, he omits the statement that the Ark is probably not in the temple. This might indicate that Fulcher was never really sure. He refers to different traditions and his text seems to be part of a contemporary interpretation, which is not yet established.85 The same can be said of his two copyists, who put forth contradictory arguments and conclusions. The author of Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium, which is based on Fulcher, relies on and interprets the apocryphal tradition: They were there up to the time of Josiah, King of Judah, as one can read in the Book of Maccabees. But later on Jeremiah is said to have hid the Ark in Arabia near Mount Sinai. There even today, with the Mountain smoking and covered with clouds, those wishing to go there are turned back by the darkness and fierce heat. It is still forbidden to go into the Mount, and it can be found written in the same prophecy of Jeremiah that the Ark is not to be found until many nations are gathered together. So now the Ark is not in the Temple, even though some believe it to be so.86 The description of the smoking, cloudy mountain which could still be seen seems likely to refer to a contemporary tradition. At the same time it resembles the 2 Macc. 2:4–8. See Chapter 2, p. 33. ‘ipse quidem contemporaneus huius regis Iosiae fuit; tamen vivendi finem fecit, antequam Ieremias obiret. Non credimus igitur arcam in templo esse’ (‘indeed he was a contemporary of this king Josiah; yet the king came to the end of his life before Jeremiah died. We therefore do not believe that the Ark is in the temple’). See Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, p. 289. 85 Hagenmeyer read the two redactions of Fulcher’s text as mutually contradictory and suggested that Fulcher changed his conclusion in the second redaction. This presupposes that the reference to the chronology of Josiah and Jeremiah produced different results in the different texts. I find this conclusion problematic. 86 Gesta, chap. XXXII. See Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium, p. 510. For the English translation see Wilkinson, Hill and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185, pp. 173–4. The previous lines state, based on Fulcher, that in the time of Solomon, and up to the time of Josiah, ‘there used to be the Golden Lid and the Ark of the Covenant in which were the Tables of Moses, the Rod of Aaron which sprouted leaves, the Manna, and the other objects which are called the Holy Things of the Holiest’; ibid. 83

84

in the jerusalem context

103

legendary account of the hiding of the Ark that was transmitted by the Jewish apocryphal writing The Lives of the Prophets: The rock is in the wilderness where the ark was at first, between the two mountains on which Moses and Aaron are buried, and by night there is a cloud as it were of fire, according to the primal ordinance that the glory of God should never cease from his law.87 This ancient, legendary description indicates that there existed traditions that localized the hiding place of the temple vessels.88 Unlike the author of Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium, the author of Codex L seems to rely on the rabbinic tradition described above – recounting that King Josiah hid the Ark in the temple. He concretizes this even more by referring to the hiding place as ‘between the twelve marble pyramids’ (‘inter duodecim pyramides marmoreas’).89 This description probably refers to the twelve marble columns that constitute the inner construction of the dome. The early descriptions of the supposed hidden temple objects were probably derived not only from biblical and Christian traditions (such as Hebrew 9 and the Venerable Bede), but also, importantly, from Jewish traditions. This pertains both to the pilgrimage guides and to the transmission of Fulcher, where the different arguments seem to stem from legends and scholarly traditions. It is difficult to reconstruct how these assertions were transmitted to the Christian pilgrims and writers. One reasonable reading of the different versions of Fulcher is that it was the Jews who transmitted the tradition of the temple objects because ‘the Hebrews’ are referred to (in Codex L) when other local traditions about the temple are presented.90 Besides this, several of the early guides, as well as Albert C.  C. Torrey, ed. and trans., The Lives of the Prophets: Greek Text and Translation (Philadelphia, 1946), p. 36. 88 E.g. Josephus, Antiq. XVIII, 4, 1. See Collins, ‘The Hidden Vessels in Samaritan Traditions’, p. 7. 89 Codex L (see above, p. 91, n. 35) refers to an oral tradition of the various relics – including the Ark of the Covenant – in the rock: ‘Habeturque ibi arca, ut aiunt, in qua est virga Aaron et tabulæ Testamenti, firmiter sigillata in saxo ibi nativo, quem Josias, rex Juda, poni jussit in sanctuario templi, inter duodecim pyramides marmoreas, dicens non eam ulterius portandam de loco ipso.’ (‘And the Ark was held there, as they say, in which were the rod of Aaron and the tablets of the Testament, firmly sealed in local rock there, which Josiah, king of Judah, ordered to be put in the sanctuary of the temple, between twelve marble pyramids, saying that it ought not to be carried away from that place.’) See Historia Iherosolymitana, p. 356. 90 ‘istud tamen opera mirabilissimo et forma speciosissima factum est. Est in eo locus ille ubi Hebræi dicunt hunc lapidem quem Jacob erexit, prius fuisse altare Habraam 87

104

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

of Aachen, seem to refer to groups of people with specific opinions regarding the traditions about the temple and the location of its treasures.91 This may indicate that the group of people who confirmed the hidden presence of the Ark were Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem, or Christians informed by Jewish local traditions about the temple. However, there are some important objections to this suggestion. According to several sources, the Jews were barred from Jerusalem and absent from the city,92 and the Hebrew pilgrim descriptions that exist from the period of the Latin Kingdom do not mention any traditions about the temple objects at this site.93 They do, however, mention the site of the Templum Domini, or the sacred rock, as the location of the Holy of Holies and as a site for prayer.94 It is thus difficult to state whether or not there was any communication on these subjects between the Christians and the Jews. But it seems reasonable to conclude that the discussion of the hidden objects was derived from knowledge of Jewish legends and interpretations of shared biblical traditions.

… Et dicitur ibi Habraam filium suum obtulisse. Habeturque ibi arca, ut aiunt, in qua est …’ (my italics) (‘yet that was made with most marvellous effort and most beautiful form. There was in that place as the Hebrews say that stone which Jacob erected, before there was an altar of Abraham …. And it is said that it was brought there by the son of Abraham. And the Ark was held there, as they say, in which is …’). See Historia Iherosolymitana, p. 356. 91 See Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana, p. 434. Albert bears witness to a variety of opinions and rumours circulating among the crusaders who returned from Jerusalem. 92 Joshua Prawer, The History of the Jews in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Oxford, 1988), p. 47. See e.g. Acard of Arrouaise, who wrote that ‘The Lord who was born on earth without sin, was killed by them [the Jews] for our sins. Since then the Jewish nation was dispersed and it is absent from this place’ (ibid.). For the Latin text see Lehmann, ‘Die mittellateinischen Dichtungen’, p. 327 (708–10). 93 On the basis of Prawer’s discussion of the ten extant Hebrew itineraries in Prawer, The History of the Jews, pp. 169–250. As some of the itineraries have not been translated, I cannot be certain that they do not mention the temple objects. 94 See both Maimonides (1165) and Benjamin of Tudela (1169–1171). Maimonides writes ‘And I entered the Great and Holy House and I prayed in it on Thursday, the sixth day of Marheshvan [16 October]’; Prawer, The History of the Jews, p. 142. Benjamin of Tudela writes ‘Upon the site of the sanctuary Omar ben al Khataab erected an edifice with a very large and magnificent cupola, into which the Gentiles do not bring any image or effigy, but they merely come there to pray. In front of this place is the western wall, which is one of the walls of the holy of holies. This is called the Gate of Mercy, and thither come all the Jews to pray before the wall of the court of the temple.’ Quoted from Benjamin of Tudela, The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela: Critical Text, Translation and Commentary, ed. and trans. M. N. Adler (London, 1907), p. 23.

in the jerusalem context

105

The sources presented above makes it reasonable to conclude that the Christians in the earliest period after the first crusade were hesitant about how to legitimize physical continuity between the Templum Domini and the Jewish temple. The Dome of the Rock certainly lacked any Christian traditions, and Christian pilgrims and theologians thus sought Jewish authority to confirm the significance of the place. This resembles a usual pattern in medieval Christianity in the case of objects from the Holy Land. The legends often assert that the authenticity of the objects were guaranteed by the Jews. The classical example of this pattern is the finding of the Cross, revealed to St Helena by way of the knowledge of the Jews.95 Similarly, the early descriptions of Jerusalem show efforts to find and use the Jewish traditions. According to Jewish tradition the Ark had either been lost or hidden and would not be revealed until the right time. Furthermore, according to the quotation from Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium, people were even hindered by physical obstruction from finding it. The most striking element in this discussion, however, is that Fulcher and his copyists seem to rely only on Jewish interpretations; there is no Christological interpretation of the prophecies. It is important to emphasize this if we are to make a comparison with the Roman description of the Lateran Church.

Description and Discussion of the Temple Objects in Rome With the description of the Lateran Church, a new position in the discussion of the temple objects came to the fore and another strategy of authentication and legitimization of continuity was proposed. As already mentioned, the canons of the Lateran stated: … and the principal [altar] of that same church is the Ark of the Lord’s Covenant; or rather, as they say, the Ark is on the inside, and on the outside it is hidden by an altar, which measures the same as the Ark in length and width … Inside the altar, indeed, which is small and made from wood covered in silver, is a holy object of the following kind, a seven-branch candelabra which had been in the earlier tabernacle, of which

See Ora Limor, ‘Christian Sacred Space and the Jew’, in From Witness to Witchcraft: Jews and Judaism in Medieval Christian Thought, ed. J. Cohen (Wiesbaden, 1996), pp. 55–78. Limor mentions other important relics described according to the same pattern: Saint Stephen’s bones, the mantle of the Lord, the Virgin’s robe and the shroud of the Lord; ibid., pp. 63–72.

95

106

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Paul says: ‘the first tabernacle was made, etc.’ In that place there is also the rod of Aaron, which had put forth leaves, and the tablets of the testament, and the rod of Moses,96 with which he struck the granite twice, and the waters flowed.97 A comparison of the description of the Lateran Church and the descriptions of Templum Domini in Jerusalem makes it necessary to ask if there were some sort of relationship between the milieux in which the arguments were discussed and the texts were written. An interrelationship between the discussion of the presence of the Ark in the Descriptio and the discussion of the Ark in Jerusalem seems reasonable when looking at the wording of the Descriptio. This text appears to have been influenced – though not verbatim – by the early twelfth-century descriptions of Jerusalem. The Ark of the Covenant is introduced in the Descriptio by ‘ut aiunt’ (‘as they say’) and other objects by ‘ut asserunt’ (‘as they claim’).98 The objects are hidden and their presence is reportedly based on oral tradition, as is also the case with the description of the Ark and the objects in Templum Domini. The author of the Descriptio seems to imply that there are rumours of the hidden treasures; people claim that there are holy things but they do not know what they are.99 The author then reveals the hidden treasures. Compared to the list in the Letter to the Hebrews, and compared to the descriptions of Jerusalem, one object – the rod of Moses – is added in the Lateran description. This rod was part of Jewish and Christian traditions, but it is difficult to find a reference to the position of the rod within the Ark or the tabernacle. One possible explanation is that it was considered a relic in the Lateran and added to the list of the temple objects when this was written in the Descriptio. A similar object is found in the list of relics compiled by Abbot Guido of Farfa (c. 1010): ‘In imagine sancti Petri continentur hae reliquiae: … de virga Moysi’, in Guido of Farfa, Disciplina farfensis et monasterii s. pauli romae, Caput L, De reliquiis sanctorum, PL 150, col. 1284C. It is also found in the eleventh-century list of the contents of the Arca Santa of Oviedo. The list is preserved at the monastery of St Amand, Valenciennes, BM, MS 99 (92). See Auguste-Francois Lièvre and Auguste Molinier, Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France (Paris, 1894), XXV, pp. 206–8. See also Donatien de Bruyne, ‘Le plus ancien catalogue des reliques d’Oviedo’, Analecta Bollandiana 45 (1927), 93–6; and Francisco J. Fernández Conde, El libro de los testamentos de la Catedral de Oviedo (Rome, 1971), pp. 160–2. In both these lists, the rod of Moses appears without any connection to the other temple objects. This indicates that the relic was not unique and that it may have been associated with the other temple objects of the Lateran altar because of its Old Testament origin, rather than a specific tradition. 97 Descriptio, XX. For Latin text see Appendix 3, pp. 219–20. 98 Descriptio, XX. 99 ‘in quo quidem ut asserunt multum est sanctuarium, sed quale sit non agnoscunt nam nomen eius nesciunt’; ibid. This statement refers to objects within the canopy. 96

in the jerusalem context

107

As discussed in Appendix 2 the text relies explicitly on the Letter to the Hebrews, chapter 9, namely the quotation ascribed to St Paul, whom the medieval authors considered to be the writer of letter, and also the reference to the candelabra, the rod of Aaron and the tablets of the covenant. These references are also in accordance with the descriptions of the Templum Domini of Jerusalem, which, with some variations, are built on the same structure, though without explicit reference to the Letter to the Hebrews. Apart from being presented as the first object among the treasures of the altar, the Ark of the Covenant reappears in the Descriptio towards the end (Descriptio XLIX (also quoted in Chapter 2, p. 33)). This paragraph is easier to explain if the text is read as depending on the Jerusalem descriptions. The authenticity of the Ark is here discussed with the same arguments as those of Fulcher of Chartres and the author of Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium. As in the Jerusalem texts, a group of people and a discussion are referred to, and once again they doubt the authenticity of the Ark: … some people doubt that the Ark of the Covenant is in the church of the Saviour because of what is read in the second book of Maccabees, that when some wanted to mark the place where it was hidden, Jeremiah rebukes them and says that the place should be unknown until God gathers the congregation of his people, and shows his mercy, and then God will make this clear, and the majesty of God will appear, etc.100 The reliance on Fulcher’s argumentation is not verbatim. But this does not constitute an argument against a relationship between the texts. Both refer to a discussion of the Ark and the temple objects, and the fact that the Descriptio treats the argument in a more or less independent way is probably because the text is part of a discussion, not merely a compilation or a copy of an argument. The canons of the Lateran had to contradict both Jewish history and Jewish theology in order to argue for the presence of the Ark being in Rome. To do so they introduced a Christological interpretation of the history of the Ark, which asserted that it was present in the temple at the time of Titus and Vespasian. Consequently, it could have been brought to Rome with the triumphant emperors. To medieval spectators, the Arch of Titus at the entrance of Forum Romanum attested to this. In the twelfth century the Arch of Titus was known as ‘the Arch of the seven-branched candlestick’.101 It was understood as a memorial of the transfer of the Descriptio, XLIX. See Richard Krautheimer, ROME: Profile of a City, 312–1308 (Princeton, 2000), p. 290.

100 101

108

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

spoils from Jerusalem to Rome after the destruction of the Jewish temple in ad 70. This visible memorial accompanied the written testimonies by Jewish and Roman historians, who described the victory and the triumphal procession, here quoted according to Josephus: The spoils in general were borne in promiscuous heaps; but conspicuous above all stood out those captured in the Temple at Jerusalem. These consisted of a golden table, many talents in weight, and a lampstand, likewise made of gold, but constructed on a different pattern from those which we use in ordinary life … After these, and last of all the spoils, was carried a copy of the Jewish Law.102 Apart from the Jerusalem Torah, which the Jews claimed was preserved in one of the Roman synagogues, both the historical accounts and the Jewish tradition maintained that the spoils from the temple were then lost.103 Even though one rabbinic tradition did argue that the Ark had once been present in Rome, it would have been lost during the later sacking by the Vandals. As I have already mentioned, the Jewish tradition held that the Ark had never been present in the second temple and was thus not transferred with the other spoils in ad 70. Contrary to the accounts of the Roman historians and the mainstream Jewish tradition, the composer of the Descriptio employed the Arch of Titus and the transfer in ad 70 to support the presence of the Ark in Rome. If it were true that the temple objects which Titus brought to Rome, and which were depicted on the triumphal arch, included the Ark, it would be necessary to prove that the Ark had in fact been present in the temple at the time of the plundering. The exegetical argument which follows the portrayal of the arch in the Descriptio is introduced to prove the truth of this interpretation and the purported significance of the relief.104 As Fulcher did in his discussion, the author of the Descriptio refers to the prophecy of Jeremiah when it came to the mystery of the Ark. Jeremiah had stated that the hiding place of the Ark ‘should be unknown until God gathers the congregation of his people, and shows his mercy, and then God will make this clear, and the majesty of God will appear, etc.’105 What is significant about the interpretation in the Descriptio is its literal explanation. While the Church Father Ambrose had emphasized that the prophecy had been fulfilled by the coming of Christ, which

Josephus, The Jewish War, Lib. VII, pp. 148–50. See Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, Books 1–7, ed. and trans. H. St. J. Thackeray (London, 1990), p. 549. 103 See above pp. 98–9. 104 See pp. 33–4. 105 Descriptio, XLIX. 102

in the jerusalem context

109

resulted in the coming of the Holy Spirit to the Church, the description of the Lateran interpreted Ambrose’s statement literally. If the fulfilment was achieved at the time of Christ’s passion, it meant that the Ark and the other hidden objects were present before the time of the plundering. The Ark could thus have been brought to Rome with the other temple spoils. The Christian interpretation of the fulfilment of Jeremiah’s prophecy in the time of Christ resembled the Jewish tradition – which also was recounted by Yosippon – that the Ark and its contents would remain unknown until the prophet Elijah revealed them in the Messianic age.106 If the author of the Descriptio was familiar with this Jewish tradition, we should probably interpret the presentation of the temple objects in the Lateran in a polemical sense – as a Christian claim to the shared sacred texts. As we will see in Chapter 7, this perspective is further elaborated in the version of the Descriptio by John the Deacon. He broadened the discussion of the temple spoils and emphasized the reference to Ambrose even more strongly. In Rome, Bonizo of Sutri had presented the main altar of the Lateran Church as having an appearance associated with the Ark, as mentioned in Chapter 4. The wooden altar was ‘carved in the mode of the Ark, having rings in the four corners’.107 It is possible to explain the portrayal of the Ark in the Descriptio as a transformation of this local tradition. But the insistence on the physical presence of the Ark is strikingly different from the previous tradition. The reference to the Ark as a physical object is a new phenomenon when compared with earlier texts. This literalization can be explained as a response to the new interpretation of Jerusalem and especially of the newly established Templum Domini.

the temple objects after the first redaction of the descriptio Compared to the early guides discussed above, some later descriptions of Jerusalem reach a new conclusion about the temple objects, a conclusion that corresponds to the Roman argument. Descriptio locorum was written in 1128–1137 and became an important source for later accounts.108 It included detailed descriptions of the history of the temple, without mentioning the temple objects. These objects were left until the end of the text:

See above, p. 98 (Sefer Yosippon). See also Aggadah; Num. R. 18:23; Mek. Besh. IV, 60. See Chapter 4, p. 69. 108 ‘Descriptio locorum circa Hierusalem adjacentum’, in M. de Vogüé, ed., Les Églises de la Terre Sainte (Paris, 1860), pp. 414–33. For an English translation see Wilkinson, Hill and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185, pp. 181–211. For a discussion of the text see ibid., pp. 12–15 and p. 352. Descriptio locorum was copied in three of the manuscripts which contain the Descriptio: see Appendix 1. 106 107

110

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Titus and Vespasian, when they had destroyed the city, deprived it not only of its inhabitants but also of the Ark of the Covenant and the things inside it. They took them with them to Rome, as appears in the sculpture on the triumphal arch which is between the Palladium and the Palatine Hill, next to the church of Sta Maria Nova.109 Although Titus and Vespasian are presented in earlier guides, they are never linked to the temple relics in this way. The same conclusion is evident in the guide Liber de locis Sanctis written by the librarian of Monte Cassino, Peter the Deacon, in 1137.110 In this description, obviously influenced by earlier guides, it is stated that the Ark was brought to Rome: ‘In the middle of the Temple is a great mount surrounded by walls, in which is the tabernacle; there also was the Ark of the Covenant which, after the destruction of the Temple, was taken away to Rome by the Emperor Vespasian.’111 Presumably, this new fate for the temple objects relied on the argumentation in the Descriptio. What strengthens this notion is that Peter the Deacon also commented on other relics mentioned in the Descriptio, which were similarly venerated in Rome: And the headcloth with which Christ wiped his face, otherwise known as the Veronica, was taken away to Rome in the time of Tiberius Caesar.112

The Latin reads: ‘Tytus autem et Vespasianus delata urbe non tantum ab incolis, sed et ab archa federis et que in ea erant eam privaverunt, et secum Rome detulerunt, ut inter Palladium et montem Palatium juxta Ecclesiam sancte Marie Nove in arcubus triumphalibus sculptum apparet’; Descriptio locorum, pp. 432–3. For the English translation see Wilkinson, Hill and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185, p. 210. 110 PL 173, cols 1115–34. Extracts in ‘Appendix ad itinerarium Egeriae’, in Itineraria et alia geographica: itineraria Hierosolymitana, ed. P. Geyer et al., 2 vols (Turnhout, 1965), I, pp. 91–103. For a partial translation see Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels, pp. 180–210. The main source was Bede’s work on the holy places; he also used Egeria’s travels and twelfth-century guides. In addition, Wilkinson points to the use of some twelfth-century guides, as is the case regarding the temple: see ibid., pp. 179–80; and Wilkinson, Hill and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185, p. 17. 111 ‘In medium templi est mons magnus circumdatus parietibus, in quo tabernaculum, illuc et arca testamenti fuit, quae a Vespasiano imperatore, destructo templo, Romae delata est.’ Peter the Deacon, Petri Diaconi liber de locis sanctis. Incipit liber de locis sanctis, PL 173, col. 1120A. For the English translation see Wilkinson, Hill and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185, p. 212. 112 On the history of the Roman Veronica, see Hans Belting, Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art (Chicago, 1994), pp. 215–24, 541–4. The sudarium is presented in Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae. See ‘Petri Mallii Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae aucta atque emendata a romano Presbitero’, in Codice topografico della città di Roma, ed. R. Valentini and G. Zucchetti, 4 vols (Rome, 1946), III, pp. 375–442, at p. 420. 109

in the jerusalem context

111

And the reed with which his head was struck, his sandals and the bonds with which he was bound, his circumcision and his blood are reverently honoured in the Constantinian basilica in Rome.113 While the sudarium was revered at St Peter’s, the sandals, along with Christ’s foreskin and blood, were revered in the Lateran. While Peter the Deacon probably sat in his library at Monte Cassino to write a guide to the Holy City, the text of Descriptio Locorum referred to above was probably composed in the Holy Land itself. Both of these texts differ from the earlier guides in terms of the temple objects. This indicates that the discussion of the objects was not just a coherent concept that was adapted or copied from Jerusalem texts to the Descriptio in Rome, but pertained to things understood as real objects. Some guides still present the old discussion, while others do not mention the objects at all. As noted above, the general trend was for an increasing emphasis on the sites of the life of Christ in the descriptions of the Holy City of Jerusalem. A claim to possess the temple objects seems to have been limited to a short period in Christian Jerusalem. Gradually the references to the history of Christ dominated in the Latin sources. This was part of an increasing interpretation of Jerusalem as a Christian city. Sylvia Schein has characterized this much-noted shift in mentality and piety regarding the city of Jerusalem as ‘from the “City of the Holy Sepulchre” to the “City of the humanity of Christ”’.114 And, unlike the situation in the early years of the kingdom, the Jewish traditions were no longer as important as confirmations of the status of the Christian temple. In Rome the situation was different. The translatio of the sacred objects was strongly promoted by the tradition of the Descriptio and by Peter the Deacon. It was also included in the new genre of descriptions of Rome; according to the Graphia aureae urbis Romae: ‘In Templum Pacis next to the Lateran, the Ark of

‘Sudarium vero, cum quo Christus faciem suam extersit, quod ab aliis Veronicae dicitur, tempore Tiberii Caesaris Romae delatum est. Arundo vero cum qua caput ejus percussum est, et sandalia ejus, et lora cum quibus ligatus est, et circumcisio ejus, et sanguis ejus in basilica Constantiniana Romae venerabiliter honorantur.’ Peter the Deacon, Hugonis de folieto ut videtur de claustro animae libri quatuor, Liber secundus, Cap. XIX, De fenestris templi, PL 176, col. 1121C. For the English translation see Wilkinson, Hill and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185, p. 213. 114 Schein, Gateway to the Heavenly City, pp. 63–90. This shift corresponds to the interest of later medieval piety in the life of Christ, described by Bernard Hamilton as ‘one of the most enduring achievements of the crusading movement’. See Bernard Hamilton, ‘The Impact of Crusader Jerusalem on Western Christendom’, Catholic Historical Review 80.4 (1994), 695–713, at 713. 113

112

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

the Covenant was hidden by the Emperor Vespasian and his son Titus.’115 The Ark allegedly included all the temple spoils.116 The texts from both Jerusalem and Rome above are traces of a discussion that took place within certain milieux in Rome and Jerusalem respectively at about the same time. The available sources do not permit us to identify a concrete relation, but it is possible to point to more than a merely textual relationship.

the version of the canons of templum domini: super templo salomonis The first prior of the canons at Templum Domini, Acard, was a former canon of Arrouaise in Picardy and had also been archdeacon of the cathedral of Thérouanne.117 Scholars tend to suggest that he arrived in the Holy Land in 1108 with the papal legate, Conon, the founder of the reformed canons of Arrouaise and bishop of Palestrina.118 Acard of Arrouaise is mentioned as prior of the Templum Domini in sources from 1112 onwards, which suggests that the chapter The Graphia is dated sometime after the death of Anastasius IV in 1154. According to the tradition of Mirabilia Urbis Romae, it is labelled MUR II. Published as ‘Graphia Aurea Urbis’, in Codice topografico della città di Roma, ed. Valentini and Zucchetti, III, pp. 67–110. 116 Graphia 20: ‘In templo Pacis iuxta Lateranum a Vespasiano imperatore et Tito filio eius recondita est archa Testamenti. In qua sunt haec: ani aurei, mures aurei, tabulae Testamenti, virga Aaron, urna aurea habens manna, vestes et ornamenta Aaron, candelabrum aureum cum VII lucernis, tabernaculum, septem candelabra, septem cathedra argentea, mensa, proposito sancta, turibulum aureum, virga Moysi cum qua percussit mare, mensa aurea, panes ordacei, vestis inconsutilis, circumcisio, sandalia, vestimentum sancti Iohannis Baptistae, forcipes unde fuit tonsus sanctus Iohannes Evangelista. (‘In Templum Pacis next to the Lateran, the Ark of the Covenant was hidden by the Emperor Vespasian and his son Titus. In this there are: gold tumours, gold mice, the tablets of the Testament, the rod of Aaron, a golden urn holding manna, the garments and trappings of Aaron, a gold candelabra with seven lamps, a tabernacle, seven candelabra, seven silver cathedra, a table said to be holy, a gold censer, the rod of Moses with which he struck the sea, a gold table, barley loaves, seamless garments, the circumcision [foreskin], sandals, clothing of Saint John the Baptist, the scissors with which Saint John the Evangelist was shaved’.) ‘Graphica Aurea Urbis’, pp. 83–4. Champagne refers to a fairly similar version of this text (where the objects are hidden in the Lateran, not in Templum Pacis), which she presents as an excerpt of Mirabilia Urbis Romae (MUR I) written before 1143. This is wrong, however. The references to the Ark and the treasures of the Temple do not occur in MUR I, as Champagne states. See Champagne, ‘The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews’, p. 47. 117 Thérouanne in Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Northern France. 118 See Bernard Hamilton, The Latin Church in the Crusader States: The Secular Church (London, 1980), p. 96; Cristina Dondi, The Liturgy of the Canons Regular of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem (Turnhout, 2004), p. 49, n. 40, pp.  55–56, p.  59, n. 90; and Pringle, The City of Jerusalem, p. 401. 115

in the jerusalem context

113

was regularized according to Augustinian rule that year. He was the author of the poem Super templo Salomonis, in 817 verses.119 This was later revised and extended by his successor, Geoffrey, who became the first abbot of the Templum Domini in 1137.120 The poem was dedicated to King Baldwin, but it is uncertain whether the first version by Acard was addressed to Baldwin I (1100–1118) or Baldwin II (1118–1131).121 Whatever the case, the re-consecration of the temple, for which Acard longed, did not take place before 1141.122 In the poem Acard places the present dome within a continuous history of the destruction and restoration of the temple. This continuity was based on the temple as a sign of the relation to God. He renders the history of the various temples that had been built, destroyed and rebuilt, and he interprets this course according to a relation between God and his people expressed through sin, contrition, punishment and mercy. Just as God had earlier shown his mercy to the Jews, it was now the Christians who constituted the people of God. The aim of the poem was to argue that, as a response to the mercy of God in the present time, the temple would have to be rebuilt. Acard developed a theology of the temple as well as a concept of the translatio of the temple. The idea of the Templum Domini was thus probably shaped not least by the canons of the temple themselves, and Acard’s poem is an important source for reflection on the relationship between this temple and the Lateran basilica. The poem Super templo Salomonis was written because of the great state of disrepair of the Templum Domini. Acard describes the reason for its current decay as due to violation by the Christians themselves. He refers to the plundering of precious stones, gold and silver by Tancred during the siege of the city.123 His aim is to move the king to restore the temple to its former dignity, and the poem ends with a plea to the king to pursue the restoration of all these spoils, and to re-consecrate the shrine. Significantly, he argues not only for the restoration of the missing mosaics and jewels, but also for the dignity of the temple and for the Christian significance of the Temple Mount and the present building. This is the title of the poem according to Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Reg. lat. 150. The first of the three books of the poem is published in Lehmann, ‘Die mittellateinischen Dichtungen’, pp. 307–30. 120 On Geoffrey, see Hiestand, ‘Gaufridus abbas Templi Domini’. While Acard’s poem pertained to the history of the temple, the two books added by Geoffrey related respectively to the First Book of Maccabees and Josephus’ De bello Judaico. 121 While previous researchers date the poem to 1114 and as addressed to Baldwin I, Pringle leaves open the question of whether it is addressed to Baldwin I or Baldwin II; see Pringle, The City of Jerusalem, p. 402. 122 See Lehmann, ‘Die mittellateinischen Dichtungen’, p.  300; Pringle, The City of Jerusalem, p. 402. 123 See Acard of Arrouaise, ‘Super templo Salomonis’, vv. 794–804, in Lehmann, ‘Die mittellateinischen Dichtungen’, pp. 329–30. 119

114

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Acard’s argumentation is based on continuity with the temple of Solomon.124 In the poem the whole history of the temple is unfolded from King David until Acard’s own time. The first destruction of the temple is interpreted as God’s punishment, and the destruction by the Romans in the year ad 70 is interpreted as his vengeance for the death of Christ (vv. 683–6).125 The poem elaborates on the stubbornness and blindness of the Jews (vv. 696–754) and concludes that, because the Jews did not recognize God, they had to be scattered (v. 710) and lost their homeland (vv. 755–8): But according to the Lord’s hidden and righteous judgement, those who denied God the Father and likewise the Son, lost their place as well as their people, by the father Vespasian and the son Titus.126 After describing the history of the temple as a continuum of events, Acard returns to the contemporary temple and presents different opinions about who built it. He then gives thanks to God for liberating the temple in his own time.127 The conclusion of the poem follows the logic of God’s mercy and punishment. Based on an interpretation of the Christian rule of Jerusalem as a new era in history – Deo gratias – Acard exhorts Baldwin to restore the temple and order the return of the plundered treasures (vv. 803–4). According to the dynamics of history, which Acard has demonstrated throughout the poem, he proclaims that it would be a shame if the temple remained in ruins during Christian rule of the city, and he suggests that a new and everlasting Christian dedication of the temple could complete the earlier Jewish ones (vv. 805–17).128 After the introductory verses addressed to Baldwin, the narration of the temple begins with the question of dignity and presumes a continuity with the old temple: ‘Quante semper dignitatis templum dei fuerit, / Qua de causa quove loco vel quis hoc fundaverit, / nullus legens libros regum ignorare poterit.’ (‘The temple of God was always of such great dignity, / For what reason would it have been established in this or that place, / no one reading the books of kings could be ignorant.’) Ibid., p. 308 (vv. 33–5). 125 ‘Evolutis a diebus passionis domini / quadraginta et duorum annorum curriculis / Titus et Vespasianus, Romanorum principes / superveniunt tantorum peccatorum vindices’ (‘When the days of the Lord’s passion had passed / after a period of forty-two years / Titus and Vespasian, Roman princes, invaded as avengers of such great sins’); ibid., p. 326. See also the following verses at pp. 326–8. 126 ‘Sed per iustum occultumque domini iudicium, / Qui negarunt deum patrem atque simul filium, A Vespasiano patre atque Tito filio / Perdiderunt locum suum pariter cum populo’; ibid., p. 328. 127 Ibid., p. 329 (vv. 779–89). 128 ‘Erit enim sempiternum nobis hoc opprobrium, / si ruinam patiatur tempore fidelium, / quod honeste tenuerunt nationes gentium, / que tamen ipsius templi non noverunt dom124

in the jerusalem context

115

In the poem, continuity between the former temple of Solomon and the present Templum Domini is not tied to the building itself, nor is it based on a claim to the temple objects. Acard certainly relates the history of the Ark, how it was placed in the Holy of Holies, and what it contained – namely the two tablets of the law, the urn containing manna, and the rod of Aaron. But then he presents the allegorical significance of these objects: This was enclosed within the Ark together with the two tablets And this is, as I said, signs to our times. For the Ark signified the heads of the Church, The law written on the tablets, the doctrine of prudence, And the rod displayed the rigour of righteousness, The manna that was sweet and white as snow, Means that there will be no lack of mercy in the time of judgement.129 The allegorical interpretation differs from the earlier descriptions of the temple. Acard’s poem also differs from the earlier descriptions when it refers to common traditions pertaining to the temple and the Ark without any reflections on the destiny of the Ark after its installation in the temple.130 This is significant because there was a discussion of this very issue during the first years of the Latin Kingdom. inum. / Dedicatio ter facta diversis temporibus / a Iudeis fuit, sicut dictum est superius. / Facienda Christianis reservatur ultima, / ut tocius anni plene distinguantur tempora. / Fiet enim in estate, largiente domino, / et sollempnitas preclara Christiano populo / in eternum permanebit illa dedicatio. / Confortare, rex, in Christo et age viriliter! / Per te Christus hostes suos conterat velociter.’ (‘For this disgrace will be everlasting for us, if in this time of the faithful it is left a ruin, because the nations of people have held it honourably, yet they do not repair those temples of the Lord. The dedication was made thrice in different seasons by the Jews, just as it is told above. The final task is reserved for Christians, so that the seasons of the whole year may be fully distinguished. For it may take place in the summer, with the Lord granting, and that dedication will remain a noble solemnity for the Christian people for eternity. Establish it in Christ, O king, and act manfully! Christ has eradicated his enemies through you.’) Ibid., p. 330. 129 ‘Hec in archa claudebatur cum duabus tabulis / Et, ut dixi, sacramenta sunt presentis temporis. / Archa namque figurabat rectores ecclesie, / Lex in tabulis conscripta doctrinam prudencie, / Virga quoque demonstrabat rigorem iusticie, / Manna quidem dulce fuit et candoris nivei, / Ne desit mansuetudo tempore iudicii.’ Ibid., p. 315 (vv. 260–6). The altar of incense, the mensa propositionis and the candelabra are described later on in the poem: ibid., p. 317 (vv. 365–9). 130 Paul Lehman discusses the sources of Acard and argues that it is not possible to reduce these to biblical texts and some authoritative texts such as Eusebius-Rufinus and Josephus. He notes the tradition developed through centuries of descriptions of Jerusalem and the temple, both literal and allegorical, and points to a new interest in this literature following the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099. Ibid., pp. 301–6.

116

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

The omission of any such reflection probably indicates that, after some years, the actual presence of the temple spoils were not of importance in legitimizing the Templum Domini. This may be because the alleged translatio to Rome had become a generally accepted idea among ecclesiastics. In this case, there is no reason to doubt the loyalty of the canons of the Templum Domini to the papal cathedral of Rome. Acard claims a continuous history of the temple from the time of David to the present building at the Temple Mount, reconquered by Christians in his own time. The Muslim origin of the present building does not interest him; what counts is the relation between the Christians and the Jews. The status of the Christians is proclaimed at the very beginning of the poem. Here they are contrasted not specifically with the Jews but with the pagan authors who did not know God the creator. The pagans preferred fables to truth and consequently they ‘deserved’ the punishment of hell.131 ‘But we’, states Acard, ‘illuminated by the gift of the Holy Spirit, freed from the ties of the original sin, we are singing praise to our Redeemer, the true God in order that we may enjoy his heavenly gifts.’132 The status of the Christians is defined by the gift of the Holy Spirit. The status of the Jews unfolds later in the poem. The Jews did not recognize the signs, neither the star that led to the crib of Christ nor the signs of the elements during his death on the Cross.133 As a blinded people who did not recognize the miracles of Christ during his life, the Jews also refused to repent after the vengeance of Titus and Vespasian. The blindness of the Jews led to the loss of ‘their place’, and in Acard’s history of the temple it also led to the succession of the church at that particular spot. This occurred when James, the brother of Christ, was presented as the first bishop: ‘James became the first bishop of this temple’ (v. 762). In chronological lists it was common to present James as bishop of Jerusalem,134 but in this poem he is not only bishop of the city but bishop of the temple itself. According to Acard, the transition from the temple of the Jews to the church of the Christians took place through the apostolic community, which constituted the early church of Jerusalem.135 Ibid., p. 307 (vv. 1–6). ‘Nos autem illuminati dono sancti spiritus / Originalisque culpe liberati nexibus / Redemptori nostro laudes, deo vero, canimus, / Eius donis ut possimus perfrui celestibus.’ Ibid., p. 307 (vv. 7–10). 133 Ibid., p. 326 (vv. 687–95). 134 As in the lists in the manuscripts described in Chapter 4 (and see Appendix 1). The lists of bishops of Jerusalem were preserved in the West through Eusebius and Epiphanius, and in Jerusalem through the Greeks. See Richard Bauckham, ‘James and the Jerusalem Community’, in Jewish Believers in Jesus, ed. O. Skarsaune and R. Hvalvik (Peabody, MA, 2007), pp. 66–70. 135 Lehmann, ‘Die mittellateinischen Dichtungen’, esp. pp. 328–9 (vv. 765–74).

131

132

in the jerusalem context

117

The history of St James was constitutive of the patriarchal see of Jerusalem, and the Norman Anonymous had argued that this see had primacy over that of St Peter’s. The reference to St James in Acard’s poem was thus not new. Nevertheless, it shows how the model of the apostles and the early apostolic community is stressed in connection with the temple. The church of the apostle James is constituted as the direct successor at this place. Based on the concurrence of time and space (dies et locus), which characterized the station liturgy of Jerusalem, Kaspar Elm has argued that the liturgical participants in Jerusalem – the patriarch and the clergy – were in a particularly close relation to the real actors of the story of salvation. In Jerusalem an intensified sense of imitation was roused. For the canons this meant an even more intensive participation in the life of the apostles and disciples than the canonical life normally invoked.136 Although Elm is discussing the liturgy at the Holy Sepulchre, the same can certainly be said of the Templum Domini. Acard argues that the continuity of the temple is constituted by the transfer of sacerdotal authority from the Jewish priestly hierarchy to the apostolic community at the temple, represented by the apostle James, the first bishop. Through the physical community of the apostles in Jerusalem, the Church both continued and surpassed the significance of the temple. The ideas set out by Acard of Arrouaise are highly relevant to an interpretation of the promotion and significance of the Lateran Church, since it is reasonable to assume that the canons of Jerusalem and the canons of the Lateran shared theological references.

dialogic relationship Acard of Arrouaise belonged to the small group of educated clergy who settled in the Latin Kingdom. As Bernard Hamilton has pointed out, the average level Elm, ‘Das Kapitel der regulierten Chorherren vom Hlg. Grab in Jerusalem’, in Kaspar Elm, Umbilicus Mundi. Beiträge zur Geschichte Jerusalems, der Kreuzzüge, des Kapitels vom Hlg. Grab in Jerusalem und der Ritterorden (Brugge, 1998), pp. 107–37, at p. 113. Furthermore, Elm writes ‘Für den Patriarchen, der wie Christus am Palmsonntag in die Stadt einzog und am Gründonnerstag im Coenaculum die Fusswaschung vornahm, bedeutete dies, dass er noch stärker zum Abbild Christi wurde, als es ohnehin beim sacerdos und episcopus der Fall war’ (‘To the Patriarch, who like Christ entered the city on Palm Sunday and performed the washing of feet in the Coenaculum on Maundy Thursday, this meant that he became the image of Christ even more strongly than was the case for the sacerdos or the episcopus’); ibid. A similar emphasis is later found in the writings of Bernard of Clairvaux, who acknowledged that the patriarch of Jerusalem was especially favoured by God because ‘You alone … have been chosen by the Lord to be his own bishop … you enter his tabernacle every single day, and you adore him in the place where his feet have stood’; quoted in William J. Purkis, Crusading Spirituality in the Holy Land and Iberia (Woodbridge, 2008), p. 97. For the Latin text see Bernard of Clairvaux, Sancti Bernardi opera, ed. J. Leclercq, H.-M. Rochais and C. H. Talbot, 8 vols (Rome, 1957–1977), VIII, p. 365, Ep. 393.

136

118

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

of education was generally not very high and there were never enough educated clergy to create a flourishing milieu of Latin learning.137 The small group of educated men also included Arnulf of Cocques (c. 1055–1118), a former pupil of Lanfranc of Bec and teacher at the school of St Stephen of Caen. Arnulf was the chaplain who accompanied Robert, duke of Normandy, on the crusade. He was the first unratified patriarch of Jerusalem, and later the third canonical patriarch (1112–1118).138 The educated circle also included Fulcher of Chartres, who similarly belonged to the inner circles of the Latin Kingdom, since he was the chaplain of the king himself. Fulcher was probably educated at the cathedral school of Chartres and thus brought with him a scholarly education from one of the leading intellectual milieux in Europe.139 The early canons of Jerusalem were eager to shape the canonries according to the model of the ecclesiastical reform and also eager to receive Western aid.140 Acard of Arrouaise was probably one of the men sent from the West to meet this need.141 The Holy Sepulchre was regulated for the first time in 1114, two years after Arnulf ’s appointment as patriarch.142 Cristina Dondi has pointed to the probable contribution made by Fulcher of Chartres in the process of reforming Jerusalem, as he was the pupil of one of the great reformers of the French Church, Ivo of Chartres, and became a canon and thesaurarius of the Holy Sepulchre around 1114. Contact with Western canonries was not limited to the motherhouses in France. An interesting report pertaining to the formation of canonries in Jerusalem was made by William of Tyre (1130–1186). He described how Acard of Arrouaise and Arnulf, then archdeacon of the Holy Sepulchre, were sent to Rome to Pope Paschal II in 1110 to discuss the possible elevation of Bethlehem to a bishopric. Scholars have suggested that the reform of the canons of the Holy Sepulchre was very likely to have been discussed on this occasion.143 This could also reasonably apply to the reform of the Templum Domini, and this journey from Jerusalem to Rome, by two of the most influential clergy of Latin Jerusalem, was probably one of several opportunities for exchanging information and ideas between the canons of the Lateran and the clerics of Jerusalem and the Templum Hamilton, ‘The Impact of Crusader Jerusalem on Western Christendom’, p. 134. Dondi, The Liturgy of the Canons Regular of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem, pp. 49–57. 139 The intellectual milieu of Jerusalem also included Ralph of Caen, who arrived as the chaplain of Bohemond of Taranto. Ralph was an elegant Latinist and the author of Gesta Tancredi, dedicated to Arnulf of Cocques, his former teacher in Flanders. 140 Dondi, The Liturgy of the Canons Regular of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem, pp. 55–6. 141 Ibid. 142 G. Bresc-Bautier, ed., Le Cartulaire du Chapitre du Saint-Sépulcre de Jérusalem (Paris, 1984), Actes nos 20, 74 and 77. See also Elm, ‘Das Kapitel der regulierten Chorherren vom Hlg. Grab in Jerusalem’. 143 See Dondi, The Liturgy of the Canons Regular of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem, p. 56. 137 138

in the jerusalem context

119

Domini. We do not know how long Arnulf and Acard stayed in Rome, nor what they did. Presumably they stayed at the Lateran, and as canons they would have attended the regular service in the cathedral. Given the eager promotion of the Lateran, they also probably encountered the associations of the temple and the basilica. Perhaps they discussed the theological premises on which to interpret the history of their own time, premises which were referred to in texts from both Jerusalem and Rome. The textual relationship between the different descriptions can be labelled ‘dialogic’, and they provide a trace of a relationship between the clerical milieux that produced them – the clerics of Jerusalem and the Templum Domini – and the canons of the Lateran in Rome. Both milieux represent canonries undergoing early formation connected to the ecclesiastical reform movement.

Conclusion: Dating of the Descriptio A relationship between the Jerusalem texts and the description of the Lateran Church of Rome emerges when comparing the texts. The early descriptions of the Templum Domini and the description of the Lateran present the same physical objects, namely the hidden treasure of the temple. The temple objects are not to be conceived of as purely literary speculations or as products of biblical interpretations. Rather, they should be understood as ideas of real objects, which were discussed both in Jerusalem and in Rome. It is not possible to identify the concrete transmission of an idea, and the suggested relationship between the texts from Jerusalem and Rome is based on similar or related wordings in the descriptions and discussions. The Lateran text probably influenced later descriptions of Jerusalem, where the transfer of the temple objects from Jerusalem to Rome seems to have been generally accepted. Just as the argumentation for the physical continuity of the temple was new in Jerusalem, so too was the claim to the physical temple objects in the promotion of the Lateran. Based on a comparison between the descriptions of Jerusalem and the description of the Lateran, as well as the polemical argumentation, it seems reasonable to suggest that the Descriptio was written after Fulcher of Chartres’ Historia (1106 at the earliest). It presupposes not only the description of the sacred objects allegedly hidden in the Templum Domini in the early guides, but also the argumentation by Fulcher, which is further elaborated in the Descriptio. This dating of the text gives another context of interpretation than the usual ‘somewhere between 1073 and 1118’. According to my argument above, the Descriptio can be read in the context of an ongoing transformation of Jerusalem in the wake of the crusaders’ conquest of 1099. In this context, the Descriptio appears with a new claim to possess the temple objects. In the new situation after the First Crusade, it

120

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

was not enough to claim the allegorical significance of the Old Covenant. A new, literal interpretation of passages of the Old Testament demanded a visualization of the Church as the legitimate successor of the Old Covenant and the Jewish temple. The Roman Church had to claim the physical heritage of the temple to secure its status as the legitimate successor. According to this, the Roman claim to possess the temple objects can be regarded as an early trace of a new and concrete concept of the translatio templi from Jerusalem to Rome. This concept was not an isolated idea, but was absorbed into the Roman promotion of sacerdotal authority, as the tradition of the Descriptio clearly shows. This will be further explored in Chapters 6 and 7.

Chapter 6

The Temple of the New Covenant

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.1

The House of God According to the Scriptures, the temple was the house of God and characterized by two basic qualities: first, God dwelt within this house – it was the place of his throne – and, second, it was served by a hierarchically ordered priesthood set apart from the rest of the community. These qualities made the temple the exclusive meeting place between God and humanity. The priesthood functioned as mediators of God’s presence and the high priest represented the summit of mediation and sacerdotal authority. Important aspects of the liturgical life at the Lateran Church were shaped according to the model of the temple but also as a superior continuation. The same can be argued for the papal private chapel – the oratory of San Lorenzo – as described by Nikolaus Maniacutius in his sermon about the image of the Saviour from about 1145.2 Two questions will structure the investigation below. First, we will explore how the priesthood of the Lateran understood itself in relation to the priesthood of the Jewish temple. The starting point for this will be the ritual of Maundy Thursday as described by the Ordo of the Lateran canons by Prior Bernard (composed between 1139 and 1145).3 This text will be read in light of texts from the tradition of the regular canons. Secondly we will ask how, or in what way, the presence of God at the Lateran Church – and at the papal private chapel – was conceived as surpassing the presence of God at the temple. The answer, provided in this chapter and developed in Chapter 7, will be based on the sources of the dedication feast, Hebrews 8:13. See chapter 1, p. 3, n. 10. 3 See chapter 1, p. 3, n. 9. 1 2

122

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Maniacutius’ sermon and John the Deacon’s extended version of the Descriptio (1159–1181), which also summarizes an increased emphasis on the temple objects. The sources of Chapters 6 and 7 are dated several decades after the first version of the Descriptio, all from around the mid-twelfth century. They provide a glimpse of insider perspectives on the Lateran liturgy and an understanding of the reception history of the Descriptio. The aim of the chapters is thus to analyse the promotion of the basilica according to the concept of translatio templi. These chapters will argue that this concept underwent a significant development between the first and third redactions of the Descriptio and that Maniacutius’ sermon exhibits a somewhat different concept from that of the canons in the tradition of the Descriptio.

Historical Outline For the papacy, the Concordat of Worms in 1122 had ended the investiture controversy, and initiated a new period in the relationship between Rome and the rest of Western Christendom.4 In Rome the Church faced new challenges in the form of rival parties within the college of cardinals supported on each side by Roman noble families, especially by the Frangipani and the Pierleoni. In the spring of 1130, two different Roman cardinals were elected to the papal see, Cardinal Gregory of St Angelo as Innocent II, and Peter Pierleone as Anaclet II. The campaign in favour of Innocent II, and against Anaclet II, was joined by several of the religious leaders of Western Christianity. The schism lasted until the death of Anaclet II in 1138. One perspective on this schism, first developed by Hans-Walter Klewitz in 1939, is that it was caused by changed spirituality within the curia.5 The old Gregorian party, which was closely related to Benedictine Colin Morris, The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250 (Oxford, 1989), pp. 184–5. 5 The interpretation of the schism as a conflict between old Gregorians and new ideas was first offered in Hans-Walter Klewitz, ‘Das Ende des Reformpapsttums’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 3 (1939), 372–412. Important contributors to the discussion following Klewitz’s article have been Pier Fausto Palumbo, Franz-Joseph Schmale, Stanley Chodorow and Mary Stroll. Schamale and Chodorow agree with Klewitz and have continued his line of research, while Palumbo disagrees with Klewitz’s view that the Concordat of Worms represents a watershed that was crucial to shaping new attitudes towards ecclesiastical reform. Stroll has also criticized Klewitz’s approach. See FranzJosef Schmale, Studien zum Schisma des Jahres 1130 (Cologne, 1961); Stanley Chodorow, Christian Political Theory and Church Politics in the Mid-Twelfth Century: The Ecclesiology of Gratian’s Decretum (Berkeley; Los Angeles; London, 1972); Pier F. Palumbo, Lo Scisma del MCXXX. I precedenti, la vicenda Romana e le ripercussioni Europee della lotta tra Anelecto e Innocenzo II, Miscellanea della R. Deputazione Romana de Storia Patria (Roma, 1942); Mary Stroll, The Jewish Pope: Ideology and Politics in the Papal Schism of 1130 (Leiden, 1987), pp. 1–9. See also Morris, The Papal Monarchy, pp. 183–4, 606–7. 4

temple of the new covenant

123

monasticism and supported by the Pierleoni, was hostile to the Holy Roman Empire and discontent with the Concordat of Worms. The other party had stronger links to France and new monastic orders. Klewitz’s view was followed up by Franz-Joseph Schmale, who argued that Anaclet II concentrated his vision of the Church so exclusively on Rome that he did not see that the reform movement had created a new, wider Church.6 Another element in what Mary Stroll has dubbed ‘the anatomy of the schism’ is provided by the arguments against Anaclet II as ‘the Jewish Pope’.7 This argumentation was based on Anaclet’s belonging to the Pierleoni family, who had converted from Judaism only two generations earlier. Stroll demonstrates how the supporters of Innocent II, even though they had their individual reasons for preferring him to Anaclet, in Anaclet’s Jewish background had ‘a devastating weapon in their arsenal’.8 This reasoning has to be understood within the context of increasing hostility – especially in the northern part of the European continent – towards the Jews after the First Crusade (1095–1099). According to Stroll, in utilizing this antipathy towards the Jews Innocent’s supporters succeeded in shifting the general sympathy in favour of their pope; the head start of Anaclet soon culminated in a landslide against him.9 Anaclet II was thus staged as a descendant of the people, namely the Jews, who had killed Christ. To make matters worse, he had even been elected at the hour when the Saviour had been crucified. As servitude was considered to be the punishment for the crucifixion, it was intolerable that a Jew, a slave and an exile had risen to the summit of the Church. The historian Walter Ullmann has emphasized that the medieval papacy was the embodiment and concrete manifestation of Christianity conditioned by a particular time and space.10 When Bernard of Clairvaux (d.  1153) declared that slavery was the place of the Jews, and the agitators for Innocent II used this to argue against the ‘Jewish Pope’, this clearly demonstrates how an ideology of the papacy could reflect twelfth-century Christianity. The schism between Innocent II and Anaclet II divided the Western Church for eight years (1130–1138). Innocent II’s triumph marked its end, and the new era of the Church was launched by his holding the Second Lateran Council in 1139. At this council, the supremacy of the Church was expressed not least in the pope’s opening words. Innocent II declared ‘that Rome is the head of the world, that Schmale, Studien zum Schisma des Jahres 1130, p. 285. See Stroll, The Jewish Pope, pp. 156–68. 8 Ibid., p. 168. 9 Ibid., p. 159. 10 Walter Ullmann, A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages (London and New York, 2003), p.  vii. See also Walter Ullmann, The Papacy and Political Ideas in the Middle Ages (London, 1976), pp. i–iii. 6 7

124

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

promotion to ecclesiastical dignity is requested from the Roman pontiff as if by the custom of feudal law and is not legally held without his permission’.11 In 1145, Eugene III (Bernard of Pisa) was elected pope (1145–1153). He was the friend and pupil of Bernard of Clairvaux, had been the abbot of Tre Fontane outside Rome and was the first Cistercian to be elected pope. His pontificate strengthened the claims of the Church and, as one of his modern biographers has described, he was ‘on the direct road to universal rule’.12 However, it must be stressed that this did not necessarily pertain to secular authority, but to ecclesiastical rights, as Colin Morris has pointed out. His pontificate seemed to confirm the reality of the papal triumph, but one must notice its limitations. Innocent and Eugenius were bringing under the control of the Roman Church rights which were essentially ecclesiastical: to summon a crusade or anoint a ruler.13 The emphasis on the papal titles in this period corresponded to the universal ambitions of the pope. The ideology of the primacy of the pope was developed not least by Bernard of Clairvaux, who defined the pope as the sole vicar of Christ on earth.14 The title Vicarius Christi was not new, but, as mentioned in Chapter 3, it had been particularly strongly promoted by the defenders of Innocent II against Anaclet II during the schism.15 The significance of the title was elaborated by Bernard and other theologians such as Anselm of Havelberg (d. 1158). During the pontificate of Eugene III (1145–1153) the title finally entered the terminology of the papal chancellery.16 Walter Ullmann has stressed that the notion was substantially the same as that of the successor of Peter. The difference, however, was that the new title ‘brought into the clearest possible relief that St Peter was given vicarious powers by Christ Himself and that as successor of St Peter the Pope acted vicariously as Christ would have acted’.17 At the same time, the Morris, The Papal Monarchy, p. 187. Morris refers to Chronicon Mauriacense, Mauriniacensis Monasterii Chronicon. Ab anno Christi 1108 usque ad annum 1147, quo rex Rex Ludovicus VII in Terram Sanctam profectus est. Auctoribus Teulfo et aliis ejusdem loci monachis, Liber III, PL 180, col. 168A. See also MGH SS 26, pp. 37–45. 12 Helmut Gleber, Papst Eugen III (Jena, 1936), p. 176. See also Morris, The Papal Monarchy, p. 185. 13 Morris, The Papal Monarchy, p. 187. 14 Michele Maccarrone, Vicarius Christi. Storia del titolo papale (Rome, 1953), pp. 85–107; Ullmann, A Short History, pp. 182–3. 15 See p. 51. 16 Maccarrone, Vicarius Christi, p. 100. 17 Ullmann, A Short History, p. 183. Ullmann’s perspective accords with the following explanation by Anselm of Havelberg: ‘Quemadmodum autem solus Romanus pontifex vice Petri vicem gerit Christi, ita sane caeteri episcopi vicem gerunt apostolorum sub 11

temple of the new covenant

125

title was also attached to the high-priestly role of the pope. This was strongly emphasized in the theology which characterized the reformed canons, and was also indicated by Bernard of Clairvaux. In his text to the newly elected Eugene III, De Consideratione, Bernard explained the pontifical dignity: Who are you? the high priest, the sovereign pontiff. You are the prince of bishops, the heir of the apostles; in priority you are Abel, in government Noah, as a patriarch you are Abraham, in order Melchizedek, in rank Aaron, in authority Moses, as a judge you are Samuel, in power Peter, in virtue of your anointing you are Christ.18 To simplify the argument in Chapter 3 of this book, the interpretation of sacerdotal authority according to Christ’s priestly office corresponded to a promotion of the Lateran, the church of the Saviour, as the new temple. This was in contrast to the promotion of the basilica of St Peter’s as the legitimate place of the successor of the head of the apostles. The liturgical sources pertaining to the Lateran Church, such as the Ordo of Prior Bernard, schedule liturgical life as if the pope were constantly present in Rome. But this was not the case, as the pope and the curia often stayed outside Rome owing to the climate and to conflicts within the city walls. During his pontificate, Eugene III was hardly ever in Rome, which was then governed by the Roman commune from 1143 to 1155.19 What the liturgical sources describe is an ideal. Nevertheless, it sheds a great deal of light on the ideology of the writers and their ecclesiastical milieu. Finally, we must ask how the Roman Lateran Church related to the Templum Domini of Jerusalem in the middle of the twelfth century. The conquest of Christo, et vice Christi sub Petro, et vice Petri sub Romano pontifice eius vicario.’ (‘Yet just as the Roman pontiff alone, because of Peter, acts in the place of Christ, so doubtless the other bishops act in the place of the apostles under Christ, and under Peter because of Christ, and under the Roman pope his vicar because of Peter.’) See also Anselm of Havelberg, Anselmi Hvelbergensis Episcopi dialogi, Capitulum X.  Quod licet non soli Petro, sed etiam caeteris apostolis data sit potestas ligandi et solvendi; et licet non super solum Petrum, sed etiam super alios apostolos Spiritus descenderit; tamen principatus Petri caeteris omnibus est excellentior, PL 188, col. 1223A. 18 ‘Quis es? Sacerdos magnus, summus Pontifex. Tu princeps episcoporum, tu haeres Apostolorum, tu primatu Abel, gubernatu Noe, patriarchatu Abraham, ordine Melchisedech, dignitate Aaron, auctoritate Moyses, judicatu Samuel, potestate Petrus, unctione Christus.’ Bernard of Clairvaux, De Consideratione, Liber II, Caput VIII, De pontificiae dignitatis et potestatis excellentia disserit, PL 182, col. 751C. 19 On the complicated relations between Pope Eugene and Rome, see Michael Horn, Studien zur Geschichte Papst Eugens III (1145–1153) (Frankfurt-am-Main, 1992), pp. 175–83.

126

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Jerusalem in 1099 had taken place more than a generation earlier. In 1141 the restoration of the Templum Domini had been completed and it had been consecrated by the papal legate, Bishop Alberic of Ostia, assisted by the Latin patriarch and bishops. The significance of Templum Domini had been established as the place of the presentation of Jesus in the temple, as can be seen in the contemporary descriptions from Jerusalem. The Christian possession of the Dome of the Rock had been normalized. It no longer provoked confusion or eager interpretations to the same extent as in the initial years after the siege. After the fall of Edessa in 1144, Pope Eugene III called for a Second Crusade. It was launched by the encyclical letter Quantum praedecessores20 and preached across Europe by authorities such as Bernard of Clairvaux. The two largest armies were commanded by Emperor Conrad III and King Louis VII of France. In imitation of Pope Urban II – expressed in Quantum praedecessores – Pope Eugene III had placed himself at the head of the crusade. Similarly, Alexander III in 1165 and Gregory VIII in 1187 announced their leadership over the crusade movement in encyclicals modelled on Eugene’s letter.21 In the words of I. S. Robinson, the popes of the twelfth century institutionalized the crusade in imitation of its initiator, Urban II.22 In the last part of the century, the appeal for a crusade was considered to be a papal obligation and the physical possession of Jerusalem had become constitutionally vital to the Church. The historical conditions were quite different in the middle of the century from those at its beginning, when the first description of the Lateran Church was probably composed. During the same period the concept of the Lateran as the new temple changed. From a claim to possess the physical temple objects, as in the early version of the Descriptio, the later sources – the Ordo of the canons, Maniacutius’ sermon and the third version of the Descriptio – are instead distinct interpretations of the temple objects.

Part I: The Priesthood of the Temple To understand how the priesthood of the Jewish temple related to the priesthood of the Lateran Church, it is necessary to examine specific features of early twelfth-century theology. The notion of imitation – which was important in understanding religious life in Christian Jerusalem – serves as a basic structure in

The papal bull was issued by Pope Eugenius III in Viterbo on 1 December 1145. See the text of the bull in P. Rassow, ‘Der Text der Kreuzzugsbulle Eugens III. vom. 1 März 1146’, Neues Archiv 45 (1924), 300–5. 21 Ian S. Robinson, The Papacy 1073–1198: Continuity and Innovation (Cambridge, 1996), p. 323. 22 Ibid. 20

temple of the new covenant

127

the analysis. Imitation was an aspect both of religious life and of the priesthood, of the liturgy of the Church, and of the faithful themselves. As has been widely discussed by scholars, the concept of imitation and the pursuit of the perfect Christian life varied in different historical periods. Caroline Walker Bynum has characterized the eleventh and twelfth centuries as a time of an intense interest in the concept of imitation and role models.23 During this period the forms of Christian life underwent fundamental changes. The contemporary discussion about the interpretation of the vita apostolica in connection with ecclesiastical reform is well known (see Chapter 3). Another matter was the imitation of the earthly life of Christ that was emphasized in the devotion to the Holy Land later in the twelfth century. But dominant expressions and aspects of Christian culture were also based on models from the Old Testament. This determined not least the attempts to explain the crusades as imitations of the Israelites and the Maccabees. The twelfth-century conception of imitation was also related to the concept of signs, which in turn was understood according to the dichotomy between earthly figures and heavenly veritas. Both the Jewish priesthood and the priesthood at the Lateran complex had a specific place within this concept.

maundy thursday Several decades after the transfer of the temple objects was presented in the first version of the Descriptio, a highly significant interpretation of the papal celebration of Maundy Thursday, in Rome, had developed among Roman theologians. The earliest traces of this interpretation can be found in the Ordo Officiorum Ecclesiae Lateranensis, composed between 1139 and 1145 by Prior Bernard.24 ‘Historians of spirituality, of monasticism, of heresy, of the papacy and ecclesiastical institutions, all agree that the years between 1050 and 1215 saw a fundamental turning point in the history of Christianity, a change perhaps as deep and as lasting as the fragmentation of the church in the sixteenth century or the spread of Christianity in the second to fourth centuries a.d. This twelfth-century religious revival, which contemporaries described as a search for the “apostolic life”, resulted in the emergence of a large number of new religious orders: Cistercians, Carthusians, Premonstratensians, Victorines, Waldensians, and Franciscans – to mention only a few well-known examples.’ Caroline Walker Bynum, Docere verbo et exemplo: An Aspect of Twelfth-Century Spirituality (Missoula, MT, 1979), p. 1. See also Marie-Dominique Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century: Essays on New Theological Perspectives in the Latin West, trans. J. Taylor and L. K. Little (Chicago, 1968), pp. 202–38; Caroline Walker Bynum, ‘The Spirituality of Regular Canons in the Twelfth Century’ and ‘Did the Twelfth Century Discover the Individual’, both in Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1982), pp. 22–58, 82–109. 24 De Blaauw has analysed this special ritual of Maundy Thursday according to its different elements. The elevation of the mensa is also an element of an earlier liturgy, but the interpretation according to the temple occurs for the first time in Bernard’s Ordo. See

23

128

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

The Ordo describes the life of the canons during the liturgical year. It also describes the complex interaction between the canons of the basilica and the papal curia. On Maundy Thursday, the canons were supposed to prepare for the papal mass and the consecration of the chrism in the major church at noon.25 The whole curia, as well as all the canons, was supposed to be present, and Bernard tells us that people from different parts of the world gathered in the church. While the pope gave his sermon to the people, the upper table of the high altar was removed and borne to the canon’s chapel of San Pancrazio. The high altar was laid open and Bernard writes that the archa was prepared. The word archa (‘chest’) alludes both to the inside of the altar and to the Ark of the Covenant, supposedly hidden there. The interpretation of the papal celebration then follows: this is done so that the lord pope himself in the figure of the hands of the high priests can enter the temple to sacrifice, according to what is written by the apostle: ‘… into the second [tent] went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people’.26 The pope communicates above the hollow altar – with direct access to its inner parts – and, unlike on other days, he communicates alone.27 In this way, Sible de Blaauw, ‘The Solitary Celebration of the Supreme Pontiff: The Lateran Basilica as the New Temple in the Medieval Liturgy of Maundy Thursday’, in Omnes circumadstantes: Contributions Towards a History of the Role of the People in the Liturgy, ed. C. Caspers and M. Schneiders (Kampen, 1990), pp. 120–43, at pp. 122–3. 25 This occurs after the mandatum pauperum, the reconciliation of the penitents and the canons’ own mass in San Pancrazio after terce. See Bernard of Porto, Bernhardi Cardinalis et Lateranensis Ecclesiae Prioris Ordo Officiorum Ecclesiae Lateranensis, ed. L. Fischer (Munich, 1916), p. 47 (119) and p. 50 (127). 26 See Hebrews 9:7. The entire paragraph reads ‘Sciendum quoque est, quod, dum domnus papa in hac die populo, qui ex diversis mundi partibus in hanc ecclesiam conuenerit, sermonem facit, maioris altaris mensa cum omnibus suis uestibus a presbyteris cardinalibus et diaconis curie ex toto auferri debet a cita archa preparari ut ipse domnus papa in figura illius summi pontificis [manibus] ad sacrificandum ingrediatur secundum apostoli dictum: In secundo tabernaculo semel in anno solus pontifex introibat non sine sanguine, quem offeret pro sua et populi ignorantia.’ (‘It should also be known that, while the lord pope on this day gives a sermon in this church to people gathered from different parts of the world, the table of the greater altar was totally removed by the priests, cardinals and deacons of the curia in all their vestments and the said ark prepared; this is done …’). Bernard of Porto, Ordo Officiorum Ecclesiae Lateranensis, p. 50 (128). 27 Ibid., p. 51 (129, lines 22–4).

temple of the new covenant

129

he re-enacts the entrance of the high priest to the Holy of Holies, as described in Hebrews chapter 9. After mass the mensa (the upper table) remains in the chapel of San Pancrazio until Holy Saturday. The opened altar is covered with a pallium and a wooden cover specifically designed for this purpose. The chancellor of the curia seals the altar by its four corners and then leaves it to be watched day and night by the canons.28 Bernard does not describe a specific procedure for this vigil, but it was probably an important task. It consisted of watching over the opened heart of the basilica once a year, and the symbolic significance was not only of the tomb of the dead Lord but also – according to the interpretation of the pope’s role – probably of the opened Holy of Holies. As was the custom, the altar was lit by seven lamps29 and the canons had to ensure that the seals were unbroken and that nothing was removed. Bernard’s description points to the priesthood of the Old Covenant as a model to be imitated by the clergy at the basilica. His interpretation of the papal celebration is explicitly based on Hebrews chapter 9. This includes both a description of the inventory of the sanctuary and an interpretation of Christ as the eternal high priest. As described in Chapter 4, Hebrews 9 was used both in the portrayals of the temple objects in the Descriptio and in the pilgrims’ descriptions of Jerusalem. The interpretation of Christ as the eternal high priest, ‘according to the allegorical sense’, was also emphasized by the Church Fathers, not least by the Venerable Bede.30 Based on the Letter to the Hebrews, the office performed by the high priest at the tabernacle, and later at the temple, was thus, by means of an allegorical explanation, inseparably connected to the work of Christ in the Christian tradition. This connection between the priesthood of the Old Covenant and the office of Christ was emphasized particularly by the reform theologians of the eleventh century; it was fundamental to the concept of priesthood as promoted by Peter Damian. According to Damian, who paraphrases Ibid., p. 51 (128, lines 3–7). See Breve recordationis, a text that occurs twice in ACL A 70, which is edited at the end of the Descriptio in R. Valentini and G. Zucchetti, ed., Codice topografico della città di Roma, 4 vols (Rome, 1946), III, pp. 371–3 (here at p. 373, lines 8–9). 30 Bede had presented the interpretation of Christ as the eternal high priest as the apostle’s explanation, and summarized it by the quotation from Heb. 9:24; see Bede, De Tabernaculo. De Templo. In Ezram et Neemiam, ed. D. Hurst (Turnhout, 1969), Lib. II, 8. The passage in English translation reads ‘But [the Apostle] understands the high priest who went into the holy of holies with the blood of victims once a year to be the great High Priest himself, of whom it was said: “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” He who as both priest and victim had offered himself through his own blood once for our sins entered into heaven itself, that he might now appear in the presence of God on our behalf.’ Bede, On the Tabernacle, ed. and trans. A. G. Holder (Liverpool, 1994), p. 79. 28 29

130

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Hebrews 9, Christ is our high priest who resides in the heavenly tabernacle, a tabernacle not made by human hands but by God himself. The priesthood of the Church was constituted by this priestly office of Christ.31 The ritual described and explained by Prior Bernard was clearly based on this interpretation. But a significant difference between his interpretation and the allegorical interpretations was the supposed transfer of the physical inventory of the sanctuary from Jerusalem to Rome. His interpretation has to be seen in light of the presence of this inventory at the Lateran, on which the tradition of the Descriptio insisted. The pope acted as the figure of the high priest, and with the Lateran clergy he imitated the most holy ritual of the old sanctuaries. This was performed in the midst of what were claimed to be the physical remains of the temple. The effect is reminiscent of the manuscript from Aulne, described in Chapter 4, where the juxtaposition of the explanation of Leviticus and the Descriptio expressed this very link between the biblical models and the physical objects.32 The papal ritual on Maundy Thursday can be regarded as the summit of the expression of the Lateran Church – as the temple of the New Covenant. It is thus relevant to suppose that this ritual expressed the function and significance of the Ark and the other temple treasures within the altar. The exposure of the Ark, on the pope’s entrance to the inner space of the altar, echoed the high priest’s entrance into the Holy of Holies. In light of the supposed presence of the Ark within the altar, this was, however, not an interpretation according to simple (or spiritual) allegory. Rather, it was a realization of the fulfilment of the Old Covenant, an act that demonstrated the transition between the stages of salvation history.

‘Unus est enim sacerdos magnus, unus pontifex summus, qui introvit semel, non in quaelibet sancta sanctorum, sed in ipsum coelum, ut appareat vultui Dei pro nobis. Ex quo videlicet, tanquam quodam vertice, omne Sacerdotium per Ecclesiae membra diffunditur; omne, quod sacrum est, ineffabiliter propagatur.’ (‘For there is one great priest, one highest pontiff, who once entered, not into the aforesaid Holy of Holies, but into heaven itself, so that he appears before the face of God on our behalf. From this clearly, like a whirlpool, the whole Priesthood is spread through the members of the Church; all that is sacred is disseminated.’) Peter Damian, 85–86 Opusculum sextum. Liber qui appellatur gratissimus. Ad Henricum archiepiscopum Ravennatem. 88 Caput II. Quod sacerdos exterius ministrat, sed Deus invisibiliter consecrat., PL 145, col. 101D. See also [Peter Damian], B. Petri Damiani sanctae romanae ecclesiae cardinalis, episcopi ostiensis, ordinis s. benedicti, sermones ordine mensium servato, Sermo Primus, In epiphania Domini, PL 144, col. 0510C; Peter Damian, B. Petri Damiani sanctae romanae ecclesiae cardinalis, episcopi ostiensis, ordinis s. benedicti, sermones ordine mensium servato, Sermo LIII, De S. Luca Evangelista, PL 144, cols 799–807B; Peter Damian, Sancti Petri Damiani sermones, ed. G. Lucchesi (Turnhout, 1983), p. 340. See also Anselm of Canterbury, Homiliae et exhortationes: Homilia prima, PL 158, cols 588A–B. 32 See p. 76. 31

temple of the new covenant

131

figures of the truth To answer the question of why the imitation of the old figures was important, and how the concept of priesthood and the figures of the Old Covenant were understood, we may look to the writings of the Roman theologian Bruno of Segni. In a letter to Bishop Walter of Maguelonne, sometime after 1112, Bruno reports that he had reflected on similar questions: Since we were together in Rome on the Island in the house of the Bishop of Porto, and when we were reading in the book of Exodus typological passages concerning the tabernacle and Aaron’s vestments, signifying a great mystery, you began to wonder, and I too began to wonder what other things like these might be seen to take place in the Church, since now the old things have passed away and all things have been made new. Because many things are done in the consecrations of churches, and many things in the other sacraments of the Church, that – no less than these things – are seen to happen in a shadow and a figure.33 In this glimpse from twelfth-century Rome, Bruno and his colleague reflect on the figures of the Jewish praxis and the similarities to the figures of the Church. This resembles the distinctions drawn by Bruno in his treatise Libri Sententiarum, where the three levels described in Hebrews 9 are interpreted as the Synagogue, the Church and the heavenly Church.34 They are characterized as umbra, imago and veritas (shadow, image and truth). Bruno states that while the first two consisted of related signs and figures, in the third – in heaven – there will be no figures, only truth. He expressed an interest in the very same questions that generally interested contemporary theologians. His view of the Old Covenant has two characteristics: the old things have passed away, but they are still testimonies, mysteries and figures ‘Cum Romae quondam in Insula in domo episcopi Portuensis simul essemus; cumque in libro Exodi de tabernaculo testimonii, et de vestibus Aaron, typica quaedam, et magni mysterii significativa legeremus, coepisti mirari tu, coepi mirari et ego, quod aliqua illis similia adhuc in Ecclesia fieri videamus, cum jam vetera transierint, et facta sint omnia nova. Multa enim fiunt in ecclesiarum dedicationibus, multa et in aliis Ecclesiae sacramentis, quae non minus quam illa, sub umbra, et figura fieri videntur.’ Bruno of Segni, 595 Tractatus Tertius. De Sacramentis Ecclesiae, Mysteriis atque ecclesiasticis ritibus, PL 165, cols 1090A–1090C. Louis Hamilton argues that it was composed after 1112: see Louis Hamilton, ‘A Liturgy of Reform: Bruno of Segni’s De Sacramentis Ecclesiae and the Gregorian Reform’, Essays in History 39 (1996), http://www.essaysinhistory.com/a-liturgy-of-reform-bruno-segris-de-sacramentis-ecclesial-and-the-gregorian-reform/ (accessed 24 September 2018). 34 See Chapter 4, p. 66; Bruno of Segni, Brunonis Astensis episcopi signiensis sententiarum, Liber primus. De figuris ecclesiae, III, PL 165, col. 882. 33

132

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

of the new things. Bruno emphasizes the connection between the Jewish figures and the praxis of the Church and his reflections shed light on Bernard’s interpretation of the pope as the figure of the high priest: the old figures had passed away, but as a figuration they were still the language of the Church. Peter Damian also referred to the figures of the Old Covenant because they were imitations of the veritas revealed to Moses on the mountain.35 The old figures were figures of the truth and thus valid for the Church, as the divinely revealed pattern for imitation. This also sheds light on the status of the physical Ark, supposedly transferred to the Lateran Church. Its significance has to be understood according to the divine pattern revealed to Moses, and the command: ‘And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount’.36 The Ark, the seat of God’s presence, was the most important item to be produced according to this vision. The physical Ark could thus be seen as a physical guarantee for the transfer of figures of truth to the Church. The presence of the Ark of the Covenant in the Lateran could also guarantee a continuity of access to veritas and this was expressed by the papal entrance to this object during the Maundy Thursday liturgy. The Ark was thus transferred both as an object from the innermost space of the Jewish temple and as an object that imitated the heavenly pattern. The transfer was a physical expression of how the access to truth and the mediation between God and humankind had left the Jewish temple and was now exclusive to the Church.

the regular canons and the imitation of the levites The revelation to Moses included not only the Ark and the sacred objects of the sanctuary, but also the institution of the sacred priesthood of the Old Covenant.37 As figures of the revealed truth, though still in the shadows, both the physical cult and the priesthood of the tabernacle, and later of the temple, constituted models for the medieval Church. Among the different forms of religious life that emerged in this period, the regular canons were an important group. A contemporary description of their model of imitation was given in Libellus de diversis ordinibus (On the Diverse Orders), an elegant expression of the new orientation of the period. It was probably written between 1121 and 1161 and thus fairly close in time to Prior Bernard’s Ordo. It was also contemporary with the tradition of the Descriptio.38 See Chapter 4, p. 67. Ex. 25:40. The vision is described in Ex. 24:9–18 and the commands in Ex. 25–31. The Ark is the first object to be described, Ex. 25:10. 37 Exodus 28. 38 G. Constable and B. Smith, eds, Libellus de diversis Ordinibus et Professionibus qui sunt in Aecclesia (Oxford, 1972). Probably from the diocese of Liège, dated between 1121 and 1161, according to the discussion in the preface, p. xv. 35

36

temple of the new covenant

133

The author of Libellus de diversis ordinibus states that the diversity among men and among the orders of the Church is mirrored by the harmonious diversity of nature, and that that diversity reaches its goal in the unity of God.39 This unity is not to be understood as an unspecified spiritual union but as diverse embodied communities, which have various functions according to the principle of commodity (utilitas). The different orders are described with different mystical significances connected to the imitation of Old Testament types and according to the relation between these types. The early regular canons are described according to the model of the Levites and their service at the sanctuary. This was in accordance with the tradition of the canons as transmitted by Isidore of Seville (c. 560–636) and by the Institutio Canonicorum of Amalar of Metz (816/17).40 The legitimization of religious diversity and the concept of imitation, described by Libellus, provide a perspective on the interpretation of the Lateran Church. Prior Bernard’s interpretation of the papal celebration appears to offer us a glimpse of a wider structure based on existing models. The canons’ promotion of their church can likewise be understood as an attempt to legitimize their position within a system of coexisting diversities. Prior Bernard interpreted the pope in accordance with the figure of the high priest and it thus makes sense to interpret the Lateran canons in relation to the Levites. Watching over the opened altar on Maundy Thursday corresponds to watching over the Ark, which was the duty of the Levites in the Old Covenant. Although this is not stated explicitly in the Ordo, this hypothesis does find support in the tradition of the canons, which was strongly emphasized by the Roman reform theologians. As mentioned above, a central element in this tradition was the Amalar of Metz’s treatise Institutio canonicorum. This treatise was not only presupposed in the Libellus de diversis ordinibus but also played a central role at the Lateran synod of 1059. The synod emphasized both a continuity of tradition and a reinterpretation, which meant that certain passages of the Institutio, mainly concerning private property, were renounced according to a renewed understanding of the ideal of the vita apostolica.41 Modern research has concentrated most strongly on this initiative of renewal. It is thus important to remember, too, that the inherited ideals of priesthood were important premises for the legitimization Ibid., p. 14. Isidore of Seville, De ecclesiasticiis officiis, ed. C. M. Lawson (Turnhout, 1989). Amalar of Metz, Institutio canonicorum. De regula canonicorum (Concilium Aquisgranense a816), ed. A. Werminghoff, in MGH Concilia 2, I (Hannover and Leipzig, 1906), pp. 312–421. 41 Institutio canonicorum has 145 chapters, of which chaps 39–93 were abrogated at the synod of 1059. On the treatment of the Aachen regula see H. E. J. Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII 1073–1085 (Oxford, 1998), pp. 45–6; Uta-Renate Blumenthal, Gregor VII. Papst zwischen Canossa und Kirchenreform (Darmstadt, 2001), pp. 98–119. 39 40

134

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

of the sacerdotal authority connected to the Lateran Church in this period. Since these ideals envisage an imitation of the Levites, they merit a presentation here. Amalar’s Institutio Canonicorum was composed in the ninth century and was strongly based on the interpretations of Isidore of Seville from the seventh century. In these texts, the relation between the models of the Old Covenant and the priesthood of the Church is described by designating the models as figurae, and by calling that which determines the relation similitudo.42 The entire priesthood of Western Christianity is understood in comparison with, but also as superior to, the figures of the Jewish priesthood. The connection is understood according to different stages of reality. This is described by the image of the veil, as will be explained below. The introduction of the Institutio described the priesthood as a chosen people distinguished by the clerical attribute of the tonsure.43 The tonsure was conferred by the bishop or abbot with the words ‘Dominus Pars’ and marked the juridical status of the cleric and his incardination in the diocese.44 The Institutio explains the use of the tonsure according to the model of the Nazirites, interpreted as ‘the holy ones of God’ (sancti Dei). The Nazirites were men sanctified to God by a vow, as described in Numbers 6. According to the law of the Nazirites, they were obliged to let their hair grow and, after a long life of devotion, to shave their heads and put the hair in the sacrificial fire and thus consecrate the fulfilment of their promise.45 According to the Institutio, this practice was continued by the apostles, who were thus also Nazirites.46 The Institutio hence emphasizes the shaving of the An explicit expression of this concept of signs is given when the significance of Moses is discussed: ‘Sed forsitan quaeritur et hoc: cujus figuram faciebat Moyses? Si enim Aaron filii presbiterorum figuram faciebant, et Aaron summi sacerdotis, id est episcopi, Moyses cujus? Indubitanter Christi et vere per omnia Christi, quoniam fuit similitudo mediatoris Dei … ’ (‘But perhaps this also should be asked: whose figure does Moses represent? For if the sons of Aaron represent the figure of priests, and Aaron is the figure the highest priest, that is of a bishop, whose figure is Moses? Without doubt he is the figure of Christ and truly through all things of Christ, since he was the likeness of the mediator of God …’). Amalar of Metz, Institutio canonicorum, chap. IX, p. 323. 43 Amalar of Metz, Institutio canonicorum, chap. I, pp. 318–19. The whole chapter is derived from Isidore of Seville. 44 See Andreas Rüther, ‘Tonsur’, in Lexikon des Mittelalters (Munich and Zürich, 1996), pp. 861–2. 45 See Alamar of Metz, Institutio canonicorum, chap. I, p. 318. Numbers 6:18: ‘And the Nazirite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.’ 46 See Acts 18:18: ‘And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.’ The apostle James of Jerusalem was 42

temple of the new covenant

135

head as a sign of consecration, and both tonsure and hair crown are interpreted as signs which fulfil the words of scripture: ‘But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood’ (1 Peter 2:9). Unlike the Nazirites, the men of the Church do not let their hair grow; the reason for this is set out in accordance with the two covenants. The hair of the Nazirites covered their heads in the same way as the veil covered the face of Moses after he had descended the holy mountain, where his meeting with God took place. But, the Institutio states, ‘whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away’.47 The conclusion connects the Christian priesthood to the appearance of truth: Therefore it is no longer necessary that the heads of those who are consecrated to the Lord are veiled by hair, but rather that they may be unveiled, because what was hidden in the secret of the prophecy is now revealed in the Gospel.48 The explanation of the sign of the tonsure thus points to the priesthood of the New Covenant as conditioned by a superior stage of reality, a stage defined by the unveiled. The following chapters of the Institutio clarify the relation between the old and the new. Here, all the offices of the Church are explained according to models of the Old Covenant, especially the various offices of the temple of Solomon.49 The service of the Levites, a group chosen by God as his property, consisted of three different types: the high-priestly service of Aaron; the sons of Aaron; and the rest of the Levites, who were consecrated to the Lord to serve the cult and guard the tabernacle day and night.50 According to the Institutio, these three offices were the models of the bishop, the priests and the deacons of the Church. ‘The rest of the Levites’ served the priests, meaning the sons of Aaron and the high priest Aaron himself. These Levites looked after the tabernacle and the Ark and took care of the transfer of the tabernacle, along with all the equipment and



47



48



49 50

likewise interpreted as a Nazirite by Acard of Arrouaise: see Acard’s poem Super Templo Salomonis, vv. 769–74, in Paul Lehmann, ‘Die mittellateinischen Dichtungen der Prioren des Tempels von Jerusalem Acardus und Gaufridus’, in Corona Quernea: Festgabe Karl Strecker zum 80. Geburtstage dargebracht (Leipzig, 1941), pp. 296–330, at p. 329. ‘Cum transieris ad Christum, auferetur velamen’. Alamar of Metz, Institutio canonicorum, chap. I, p. 319. The text paraphrases 2 Cor. 3:16: ‘Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away’. ‘Proinde iam non oportet ut velentur crinibus capita eorum qui Domino consecrantur, sed tantum ut revelentur: quia quod erat occultum in sacramento prophetiae, iam in evangelio declaratum est.’ Ibid. Ibid., chaps II–IX, p. 319. Based on Isidore of Seville. Ibid., chap. VII, p. 321.

136

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

vessels of the cult: ‘The Levites bring the offering to the altar; the Levites prepare the altar of the Lord; the Levites cover the Ark of the Lord.’51 According to the Institutio, the deacons were essential to the priests of the Church, just as these Levites were essential to the cult: ‘without these the priests have names, but no service’.52 The comparison was illustrated by the prescription that the priest was not allowed to lift the chalice from the altar but had to have it handed to him by a deacon.53 Chapter VIII of the Institutio explained the priesthood in accordance with the sons of Aaron and Chapter IX the office of the bishop. The priesthood was deduced from the bishop in the same way as the sons of Aaron operated on behalf of their father.54 Peter Damian’s treatises from the mid-eleventh century confirm that the Levites were a model used by theologians to shape the identity of the priests according to reform ideals. A significant example is found in his Contra Intemperantes Clericos (Against the Immoderate Clerics), addressed to the archpriest of the Lateran canons, Peter, around 1065/66.55 In this treatise, Peter Damian explained the corruptness of his own age, and the need for reform based on the analogy of the history of the Israelites in the desert. His goal was thus to encourage a continuing reform, in particular regarding celibacy.56 To call for the punishment of the unchaste life of the priests, Damian used the story of Moses and Phinehas, which occurs in Numbers 25, after God has proclaimed his wrath and his punishment of the people because of the Israelites’ adultery with local women. In a horrible situation of wrath and repentance, one of the men, Zimri, appears with a Midianite woman, Kozbi. He brings her openly to his house before the very eyes of Moses and the whole congregation. This provokes Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the high priest, to kill the couple with a spear going through Zimri and into

‘Levitae inferunt oblationes in altaria; Levitae conponunt mensam Domini; Levitae operiunt arcam testamenti’; ibid., chap. VII, p. 321. 52 ‘Sine ipsis sacerdos nomen habet, officium non habet’; ibid., chap. VII, p. 321. 53 Ibid., chap. VII, p. 321. 54 Based on Ex. 29:4–9. 55 Peter Damian, 383–384 Opusculum decimum octavum. Contra intemperantes clericos, Contextum ex tribus aliis beati Damiani de eo argumento dissertationibus, PL 145, cols 387–398. Dating according to Kurt Reindel, ‘Studien zur Überlieferung der Werke des Petrus Damiani’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 15.1 (1959), 23–102, at 77. See also Johannes Laudage, Priesterbild und Reformpapsttum im 11. Jahrhundert (Cologne, 1984), pp. 291–2. 56 Tillmann Schmidt concludes that this letter is earlier than the supposed reform of Alexander II (see below) and that this reform in turn can be better understood in light of the Contra intemperantes clericos. See Laudage, Priesterbild und Reformpapsttum, p. 216. 51

temple of the new covenant

137

the woman’s stomach.57 Phineas, the Aaronite and Levite, in this way showed an ‘eager zeal’ for the Lord and was in turn rewarded by the covenant of perpetual priesthood.58 The story is recounted by Peter Damian, who exhorts the archpriest of the Lateran to enter the battle with the Midianites. In order to deserve the Lord’s covenant of peace and be worthy of the eternal priesthood, the clerics should penetrate the adulterous couple Zimri and Kozbi by the sword of the word of God, as zealous Levites.59 As the institution of the Levites related to ‘the eternal priesthood’, so did the priesthood of the Church. The priesthood of the Church thus continued the office of the Levites. At the same time the Christian priesthood was also understood in terms of a new beginning: Up to this point, [we have spoken] about the origin of the priesthood in the Old Covenant: in the New Covenant, after Christ, the priestly order began with Peter; for the pontifical office in the Church of Christ was given to him for the first time.60 The priesthood of the Church is of a different kind, not based on a bloodline like the Jewish one, but on divinely ordained merit (meritum).61 The relation between continuity and break, represented by this new beginning, is interpreted according to the prophecy of God in his rejection of the House of Eli as recounted in 1 Samuel: Therefore the Lord the God of Israel declares: ‘I said indeed that thy house, and the house of your father, should walk before me for ever’; but now the Lord declares: ‘Be it far from me … And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever …’62 This prophecy indicates strong discontinuity between the priesthood of the Old and New Covenants. At the same time, the office of ministering before God is 59 60

Num. 25:7–9. Num. 25:10–13. See Peter Damian, Contra intemperantes clericos, chap. VI, PL 145, col. 396B. ‘[H]actenus de primordiis sacerdotalibus in veteri testamento; in novo autem testamento post Christum sacerdotalis ordo a Petro coepit. Ipsi enim primum datus est pontificatus in ecclesia Christi.’ Alamar of Metz, Institutio canonicorum, chap. IX, p. 323. 61 ‘Qui non iam ex genere carnis et sanguinis eliguntur sicut primum secundum ordinem Aaron, sed pro uniuscuiusque merito, quod in eum gratia divina contulerit’ (‘They are chosen now, not from the lineage of flesh and blood like the first and second order of Aaron, but by virtue of individual merit, which is conferred on them by divine grace’); ibid., p. 323. 62 1 Samuel 2:30–5. 57 58

138

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

continued. The status of the two kinds of priesthoods was thus guaranteed by their presence before God and therefore according to truth (veritas). As explained by the use of the prophecy, however, the two kinds differed according to stages in salvation history.

the model of the levites in the lateran church As shown above, Bernard’s interpretation of the pope on Maundy Thursday, as the figure of the high priest, was firmly rooted in the tradition of the canons. This tradition was inherited in the official texts that constituted the new establishment of canonical identity in 1059, such as the Institutio Canonicorum. It was applied and promoted by contemporary theologians, as we have seen in, for instance, Damian’s text. The model was thus not specific to the clergy of the Lateran. However, the application and significance of the model was specific, because of the office of the pope and because of the supposed presence of the temple objects, especially the Ark of the Covenant. This application of the model emerged most clearly in the liturgy on Maundy Thursday, with the pope, representing the summit of sacerdotal authority, entering the most holy place in the Lateran basilica, as an imitation of the high priest of the temple. The transferral of the temple objects made possible an intensified imitation in a similar sense to that in Jerusalem, where the clergy, according to Kaspar Elm, were especially close to the historical actors of the story of salvation.63 In most cathedrals, the tripartite model of Institutio Canonicorum – the high priest, his sons and the rest of the Levites – could be applied to the bishop, priests and deacons. The Lateran, however, was ideally served by two ecclesiastical bodies: the pope and his cardinals on the one hand, and the chapter on the other. The coexistence of these bodies entailed a different framework for the imitation and application of the model of the Levites, which differed from that in other cathedrals. Prior Bernard stated that the pope imitated the high priest and it seems most likely that the cardinal bishops, who represented the pope in a hebdomadarian service, should be regarded as the family of the high priest. The canons of the Lateran should then be understood as the ‘rest of the Levites’, whose task it was to serve the priests. This interpretation is supported by some of the sources that treat the relation between the chapter and the pope, or his representatives.64 The papal privilege of Anastasius IV from 1154 presents retrenchments in the liturgical administration.65

See Chapter 5, p. 117. One significant aspect of the relation between the canons and the pope was the hierarchical ordering of access to the different altars, as described in Descriptio, XXI, XXIV. 65 Anastasius IV, Anastasii IV Romani Pontificis Epistolae et Privilegia, XXIX. Ad canonicos regulares Lateranenses – Confirmat eorum instituta, PL 188, cols 1019C–1021B. 63 64

temple of the new covenant

139

The canons were to observe strictly what the earlier Pope Alexander II (1061–1073) was said to have laid down: namely that no altar vessels, altar cloths or sacred utensils were to be touched, or brought out, or put back in place by any unconsecrated person. Nor should the unconsecrated touch or remove any of the offerings at the altar.66 In this retrenchment of access to the holy, we may recognize the reform issue of the separation of the laity and priests. This was part of securing the sacramental order, which was threatened by simony and impurity, and the prescriptions were thus closely linked to the development of sacramental teaching and practice in the reform period.67 At the same time, it is highly relevant to point to the constructive model of these prescriptions, which are obviously derived from the Mosaic Law strictly regulating access to the holy. The retrenchment by Pope Anastasius expresses an actualization of the traditional interpretation of priesthood, transmitted in particular by the Institutio Canonicorum. While the high priest Aaron and his sons were priests and had access to the altar behind the veil of the tabernacle, the rest of Levi’s descendants were to serve the priests and carry out various duties at the sanctuary.68 The function of the canons was likewise to assist in liturgical services; and, in the privilege ‘Illud vero quod a memorato praedecessore nostro Alexandro statutum est, maxime observare praecipimus: videlicet ut vasa, seu vestes altaris, et cuncta sacri mysterii ornamenta non tangantur, vel proferantur, seu reponantur, aut etiam qualescunque oblationes desuper altari a non sacratis Deo ministris tollantur’ (‘Indeed that which was established by our remembered predecessor Alexander, we order to be observed precisely: namely that vessels, altar cloths, and all utensils of sacred mystery should not be touched, or brought out, or put back, or should any kind of offering even be removed from the altar by those not consecrated to God’). Ibid., PL 188, col. 1021A. It is impossible to be certain of the exact wording of Alexander II, since his privilege is lost. 67 On this see Laudage, Priesterbild und Reformpapsttum, pp. 235–50. 68 Num. 18:1–7: ‘And the Lord said unto Aaron, Thou and thy sons and thy father’s house with thee shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary: and thou and thy sons with thee shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood. And thy brethren also of the tribe of Levi, the tribe of thy father, bring thou with thee, that they may be joined unto thee, and minister unto thee: but thou and thy sons with thee shall minister before the tabernacle of witness. And they shall keep thy charge, and the charge of all the tabernacle: only they shall not come nigh the vessels of the sanctuary and the altar, that neither they, nor ye also, die. And they shall be joined unto thee, and keep the charge of the tabernacle of the congregation, for all the service of the tabernacle: and a stranger shall not come nigh unto you. And ye shall keep the charge of the sanctuary, and the charge of the altar: that there be no wrath any more upon the children of Israel. And I, behold, I have taken your brethren the Levites from among the children of Israel: to you they are given as a gift for the Lord, to do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation. Therefore thou and thy sons with thee shall keep your priest’s office for everything of the altar, and within the veil; and ye shall serve: I have given your priest’s office unto you as a service of gift: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.’ See also Num. 1:50–51; 3:1–4; 18:1–7; 36–7. 66

140

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

of Anastasius IV, the canons were asked to perform a function similar to ‘the rest of the Levites’. Pope Anastasius IV claimed to be reiterating the retrenchments of Pope Alexander II (1061–1073). It is thus easy to imagine that the prescriptions probably acquired an intensified significance in light of the supposed presence of the temple objects, when they were repeated in the middle of the twelfth century. The temple objects constituted the equipment of which the Levites took care: ‘the ark, and the table, and the candlestick, and the altars, and the vessels of the sanctuary wherein they minister, and the hanging, and all the service thereof ’ (Numbers 3:31).69 The chapel of the canons, San Pancrazio, served as a sacristy for the conservation and care of the altar vessels, as well as of the mensa (the upper table) during the sacred Triduum (the three days from the evening of Maundy Thursday to Easter Sunday), as seen in Bernard’s Ordo.70 The canons of the Lateran chapter, functioning as ‘the rest of the Levites’, are one part of the application of the tripartite model of the Levites to the Lateran clergy. The other parts are the models of the high priest and his sons, applied to the offices of the pope and his cardinal vicars. The 1154 privilege of Anastasius IV also strengthens the probability of this interpretation. It describes the relation between the Lateran canons and the pope as a liturgical and administrative relation which can be understood in light of the model of the high priest and his family. The privilege stated that the Lateran Church – as the principal church, mother and mistress (ecclesia principalis, mater et domina) – was free and independent of everyone and everything, only answering to the pope and his cardinal bishops.71 The letter closes with the prescription that one of the bishops, who performs the weekly altar service, should also hold the weekly chapter about the observance of the rule.72 As pointed out in Chapter 3, this relation to the pope and his vicars made the Lateran chapter the pope’s chapter. This was not merely administrative but was based on a specific cultic relation to the pope as the highest office-bearer in the community. The relation depended on the cardinal bishop who, at any given time, represented the pope at the main altar in the Lateran. In the perspective of the tradition represented by the Institutio, these cardinal bishops probably represented the sons of Aaron, the family of the high priest who had access to the Holy of Holies by means of a system of alternating representation. Johannes Laudage has pointed to the understanding of the pope as the high priest. He has also argued that this cultic function in the hierarchy of the Church This concerned the Kohathite clan of the Levites. The Gershonite and the Merarite branches were to take care of the different materials of the tabernacle, such as the curtains and ropes and the crossbars and tent pegs (Num. 3:25–6; 36–7). 70 See Bernard of Porto, Ordo Officiorum Ecclesiae Lateranensis, pp. 50–1 (128–9). 71 Anastasius IV, Ad canonicos regulares Lateranenses, PL 188, col. 1020D. 72 Ibid., col. 1021B. 69

temple of the new covenant

141

determined the reform of the canons. His point was not specific to the Lateran Church; rather it concerned the total reform of the priesthood. This was encouraged by Urban II, who defined canonical life as enjoying equal status with monastic life, both being expressions of the vita apostolica: ‘This initiative was based in the pope’s awareness of himself as the Summus sacerdos [high priest] and at the same time belonging to the community of the canons.’73 While this can be said to hold in the context of a wider reform of the canons, the most explicit expression of the pope as the Summus sacerdos is found in the twelfth-century liturgy of Maundy Thursday at San Giovanni in Laterano. Here, a reciprocal relation between the idea of the papacy and that of the Lateran Church as the new temple is clearly expressed. In every respect, the idea of the Lateran as the temple of the New Covenant strengthened and gave meaning to the interpretation of the pope as the Summus sacerdos, and the liturgical performance of the pope confirmed the basilica as a superior temple. The transferral and presence of the temple objects were insisted on in the Descriptio, which was probably composed by the canons themselves. It is thus no surprise that the first interpretation of the papal Maundy Thursday ritual as the ‘figure of the high priest’ occurs in the Ordo of the very same canons. The traditional interpretation of the priesthood, combined with the particular interpretation of the transferral of the temple objects from Jerusalem to the Lateran Church, explains this occurrence. It took another fifty years for the same interpretation to be found in the papal ordinal.74 Besides being an argument in the interpretation of the papacy, the model of the Levites and the high priest confirmed the canons’ self-understanding as a special group – the only ones permitted to assist the high priest and his family, the specially elected clergy of the temple.

Part II: The Presence of God I have demonstrated above how the hierarchical priesthood of the Lateran Church was understood in relation to and in continuity with the hierarchical priesthood at the temple. Both the high priest of the temple and the pope at the Lateran were thought of as entering the presence of God. I now explore the place of this pres Laudage, Priesterbild und Reformpapsttum, p. 300: ‘Diese Handlungsweise gründete in dem Bewusstsein des Papstes, selbst Summus sacerdos zu sein und zugleich der Gemeinschaft der Kanoniker anzugehören.’ Laudage refers to Alfons Becker, ‘Urban II und die deutsche Kirche’, in Investiturstreit und Reichsverfassung, ed. J. Fleckenstein (Sigmaringen, 1973), pp. 241–75. 74 In the ordinal of the papal court, from the pontificate of Innocent III: see S. J. P. Van Dijk and J. Hazelden Walker, eds, The Ordinal of the Papal Court from Innocent III to Boniface VIII and Related Documents (Fribourg, 1975), p. 236. 73

142

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

ence and ask in what sense the divine dwelling at the Lateran Church surpassed the divine dwelling in the Jewish temple. This investigation will be based on specific features of medieval theology: how the presence of holiness was interpreted through physical remains such as relics, tombs and images; and how the Church claimed superiority to and ownership of the Jewish heritage. To comprehend the claim that the Lateran was the temple of God, it is necessary to start with a general characterization of the Lateran as a place of divine presence and intercession. Under which conditions could God be understood as inhabiting the place? In the introduction to the first version of the Descriptio, the aim of the pilgrims who came to the basilica was said to be to pray to Jesus Christ, the son of God, for the peace of the Holy Church, for the forgiveness of all sins, for the attainment of the glory of the eternal vision of God, for the company of the heavenly citizens and the blessed souls.75 This sentence clearly describes the Lateran Church as a centre of intercession. The relation to the heavenly communion was further expressed at the end of the tract, where the basilica was described as the image of the celestial Church, with Christ himself present as the highest peace among his saints.76 A co-reading of the Descriptio, which is more or less an elaborate guide to the basilica, and the Ordo of Prior Bernard may help us grasp both the place and the manner of this intercession. Prior Bernard described a life characterized by regular prayer, the daily office and mass, and not least the commemoration of the saints in different forms. The weekly procession and ritual at the altar of St John reveal the church as a communion of saints (communio sanctorum).77 Every Sunday after vespers, the canons processed to the altar of St John the Baptist in the adjacent baptistery.78 The canons honoured the Baptist as the precursor of Christ and, according to the words of the Saviour himself, as the greatest man born of a woman (Luke 7:28). At his altar they prayed for his intercession. If this day or the following was a feast day, there was a commemoration of the saint by an antiphon and prayer, before the commemorations of the other saints whose mortal remains were in the church.79 The last rite was the prayer for the dead brethren of the community, the vesperae defunctorum.80 Descriptio, II. Descriptio, LV. 77 Bernard of Porto, Ordo Officiorum Ecclesiae Lateranensis, p. 4 (8). 78 Except during certain periods of the year (Christmas and Eastertide); ibid. 79 ‘Postea facimus commemorationem sanctorum, quorum ibi corpora requiescunt’ (‘Afterwards we made a commemoration of saints, whose bodies rest there’); ibid. 80 On the officium defunctorum in general see John Harper, The Forms and Orders of Western Liturgy from the Tenth to the Eighteenth Century (Oxford, 1991), p. 105.

75

76

temple of the new covenant

143

In this weekly ritual, the corporal presence of the holy ones constituted a salvific connection between the earthly life and the life to come. The antiphons commented on the presence of the saints through their relics and proclaimed that, while the bodies of the saints rested in peace, their souls rejoiced in eternal glory.81 Their presence before God enabled the saints to act as intercessors, and the canons prayed for the mercy of God trusting in the intercession of these citizens of heaven who, through their earthly remains, also dwelt in the church. The holy ones were thus present in heaven and on earth at the same time. With reference to Dinzelbacher, Arnold Angenendt has described this as the ‘real presence of the holy’82 and has identified it as the inner core of the veneration of the saints: Certainly the souls of the saints reposed in heaven, but they were simultaneously present in the world with their bodies. In this particular constellation, in their continuous bilocation, were the prerequisites for their veneration: standing in front of God, and also acting vividly in the world.83 The saint reposed in his or her church, as the antiphon proclaimed in the Lateran baptistery, but he or she could at any time also be invoked as a living person.84 In a co-reading of the Descriptio and the order of the canons the basilica is revealed as a place where the connection between earth and heaven is constituted through the corporal presence and intercession of certain saints. The paragraph of the Descriptio which describes the high altar and its administration continues with a description of the other altars: ‘There are also in this aforesaid Lateran basilica altars of some saints, of which these are their names’ (XXVII). In the list, the popes’ tombs and saints’ altars are collocated and the focal point is thus expressed as the bodily presence of the holy ones.85 See the antiphons ‘Corpora sanctorum in pace sepulta sunt et vivent nomina eorum in aeternum’ and ‘Exultabunt sancti in gloria alleluia’, in Bernard of Porto, Ordo Officiorum Ecclesiae Lateranensis, p. 4 (8). 82 Peter Dinzelbacher, ‘Die “Realpräsenz” der Heiligen in ihren Reliquiaren und Gräbern nach mittelalterlichen Quellen’, in Heiligenverehrung in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. D. R. Bauer (Ostfildern, 1990), pp. 115–74. See also Arnold Angenendt, Geschichte der Religiosität im Mittelalter (Darmstadt, 1997), p. 114. 83 ‘Mit Sicherheit weilten ihre Seelen im Himmel, zugleich aber blieben sie mit ihrem Leib auch auf Erden gegenwärtig. Genau in dieser Konstellation, in ihrer ständigen Bilokation, lag die Voraussetzung für ihre Verehrung: vor Gott stehend und doch auf Erden lebendig handelnd.’ Arnold Angenendt, Heilige und Reliquien (Munich, 1997), p. 115. 84 Dinzelbacher, ‘Die “Realpräsenz”’, p. 127. In his analysis of the Real Presence of the saints, Dinzelbacher refers to an abundance of visions and miracles in the vita sanctorum that very explicitly expressed the idea that the saint lived in his or her grave or reliquary. 85 Descriptio, XXIX, XXXI, XXXIII, XXXIV. See Appendix 3.

81

144

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

While the Descriptio emphasized the saints’ material presence, the Ordo expressed their function: the direct relation between their earthly remains, their commemoration and their intercession in heaven. We have seen this in the case of the patron saint, John the Baptist, with the procession to the baptistery, but it was also expressed on the feasts of several other saints who were present somewhere in the altars of the basilica. On their feasts, the canons processed after vespers to their specific altars to pray the vigil in the presence of the relics of the saint.86 It is important to remember that the significance of this act has to be understood in the light of common eschatological concepts, before such concepts were transformed in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The patristic scheme, which envisaged a collective waiting period of the righteous souls, was still the basic concept throughout the eleventh and early twelfth centuries. The high scholastic period, however, abandoned this, turning to a concept of an individual process to be undergone by each soul.87 This change illuminates one aspect of the Lateran Church as a place of intercession during the age of the Descriptio and Bernard’s Ordo. The twofold existence of body and soul, as expressed in the Descriptio and the Ordo, points not particularly to an individual process of salvation but rather to different locations of the Church. The communio sanctorum, consisting of the living and the dead, is imagined as a spatial communion rather than as a communion based on individual processes towards salvation. The communio sanctorum inhabits the earth – as opposed to the saints inhabiting the churches through their relics – the waiting place and the heavenly Jerusalem. The number of relics and holy bodies at the Lateran Church, as well as in the oratory of San Lorenzo, meant that the basilica and the oratory were powerful places of holy presence and intercession.

the dedication of the lateran church For centuries the Lateran had been associated with the two saints John the Baptist and John the Evangelist. The basilica was, however, primarily Ecclesia Salvatoris, the church of the Saviour, as explained in the legend of Constantine and in the foundation of the church as recounted in the Descriptio. Christ could not inhabit Several illustrative examples are provided in Bernard of Porto, Ordo Officiorum Ecclesiae Lateranensis, pp. 123–4 (249–50). The examples include St Andrew, St Nicholas, St Lucy and St Thomas. 87 Angenendt, Heilige und Reliquien, p. 105. Angenendt writes ‘Nunmehr gilt: Nach dem Tod und einem sofortigen individuellen Gericht treten die Seelen in den Himmel oder in die Hölle ein. Der Gedanke an einen allgemeinen zwischenzeitlichen Wartezustand, wie ihn noch bei der heilige Bernhard so beredt dargelegt hatte, wird abgelehnt. Als Zwischenzustand bleibt allein für die weniger Vollkommenen noch eine Phase der Läuterung im Purgatorium.’ The theology of Thomas Aquinas expressed the new concept of individual judgement: see Summa Theologica III Suppl., qu. 69, 2, referred to in Angenendt, Heilige und Reliquien, p. 105. 86

temple of the new covenant

145

the church in the same way as the saints could through their relics. The patronage and presence of Christ was a complex issue related to theological discussions of his resurrection and bodily presence in heaven. To argue the dwelling of the Saviour was thus more complicated than for the other patrons of Roman churches, such as San Pietro and San Paolo fuori la mura (St Paul outside the walls), which were built over the bodies of the apostles. Towards the middle of the twelfth century, however, the sources exhibit a new, or intensified, perspective on the presence of Christ. This presence is now described in accordance with the presence of God in the (Jewish) temple of Jerusalem and even as surpassing that presence. One of the traces of this understanding is the development of the interpretation of the dedication feast. This can be explored according to liturgical sources, the legendary readings of the day, Maniacutius’ sermon on the image of Christ, and the tradition of the Descriptio. While the model for the dedication feast in these texts is still the (Jewish) temple, the supposed temple objects do not play a major part in the interpretation of the feast; the focus is rather on the dwelling of God. During the late tenth and early eleventh centuries, the dedication feast of the Lateran Church had been established to be on 9 November.88 However, the feast was not mentioned in the oldest versions of the Descriptio. It first appears in a revision of the first edition, which is the first Descriptio text of codex A 70 in the Lateran archive.89 The author refers to the building and dedication of the basilica in relation to the legend of Constantine and inserts the statement that, on the eighth day following the emperor’s baptism, he went to the confessio of St Peter and laid the foundation of the basilica at the Vatican. On the next day, he began to erect the foundations of a basilica within his own Lateran palace. The text then refers to the dedication of the Lateran Church as the construction of the material church in honour of the Saviour, as well as of John the Baptist and John the Evangelist.90 In the Pierre Jounel has shown how the feast of Dedicatio basilicae Salvatoris was associated with 9 November in sources, mostly Roman, from the late tenth/early eleventh century onwards and how it developed, until John the Deacon stated that it was the most celebrated festival in Rome. See Pierre Jounel, Le Culte des saints dans les basiliques du Latran et du Vatican au douzième siècle (Rome, 1977), pp. 305–7. 89 Dated before 1118. See Cyrille Vogel, ‘La Descriptio Ecclesiae Lateranensis du Diacre Jean’, in Mélanges en l’Honneur de Monseigneur Michel Andrieu (Strasbourg, 1956), pp. 457–76, at pp. 472–6. 90 ‘Altera vero die, simili modo intra palacium suum Lateranensis basilicæ fundamenta coepit ipse collocare, quam penitus edificans in nomine Jhesu Xpisti feliciter consummare procuravit. Peracto siquidem hujus æcclesiæ competenter opere materiali, speciali benedictione divini oficii fecit ipse sublimari cum eandem domum in honore sanctissimi Salvatoris Domini nostri Jhesu Xpisti et sancti Johannis Baptistæ necnon sancti Johannis Evangelistæ per sanctum Sedis apostolicæ Silvestrum episcopum quito idus novembris fecit ipse dedicari.’ Descriptio, V; see Philip Lauer, Le Palais de Latran (Paris, 1911), p. 394. 88

146

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

first stages of the tradition of the text there is no explicit interpretation either of the dedication or of the Feast of Dedication.91 This changes significantly in the version composed by John the Deacon, dedicated to Pope Alexander III (1159–1181).92 In John’s version the building and dedication of the basilica are introduced, according to a reading of the Acts of Sylvester and the Constitutum Constantini.93 This means that the dedication to the Saviour is in focus at the expense of the tradition of the two patron saints. John the Evangelist and John the Baptist are not explicitly mentioned, however. The text declares the solemnity of the feast; the consecration took place on the ‘v. Idus novembris’, which was until ‘this day’ the most celebrated feast in Rome.94 The Latin rite of church dedication was based on biblical and liturgical texts that referred both to the Jewish sanctuaries – the tabernacle and the temple – and to the heavenly temple. The annual dedication feast was shaped according to the same pattern. Before we look at the liturgy in Bernard’s Ordo, it is relevant to note that the meaning of the liturgy of dedication was transformed according to a mystical interpretation of the collective body of the Church connected to the pope, as Louis Hamilton has pointed out.95 This interpretation corresponded to the ideas and the development of the reform papacy: ‘The dedications of the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries were part of a larger process transforming the broadly diffused religious zeal of the late tenth and early eleventh century into institutional reform.’96

According to Vogel, the next version of the Descriptio copied in ACL A 70 was probably composed during the papacy of Adrian IV (1154–1159). With minor variations, this version presents the same notion of the building and dedication as the previous one. 92 Descriptio, VII, VIII, X; see ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, in Codice topografico della città di Roma, ed. Valentini and Zucchetti, III, pp. 319–73, at pp. 332–4. 93 Constitutum Constantini, 13; see Johannes Fried, ‘Donation of Constantine’ and ‘Constitutum Constantini’: The Misinterpretation of a Fiction and its Original Meaning. With a contribution by Wolfram Brandes: ‘The Satraps of Constantine’ (Berlin, 2007), p. 134 (lines 188–96). 94 ‘Quam postea aedificatam et consummatam beatus Silvester publice (quod non fiebat antea) sollempniter consecravit.v. idus novembris; et est illa usque hodie celeberrima festivitas in Urbe, in qua prima ecclesia publice consecrata est.’ (‘Afterwards the blessed Sylvester publicly (which had not been done before) and solemnly consecrated the building and completion on fifth day before the Ides of November; and up to this day it is the most celebrated feast in the City, on which the first church was publicly consecrated.’) See ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, ed. Valentini and Zucchetti, pp. 332–3. 95 Louis I. Hamilton, ‘To Consecrate the Church: Ecclesiastical Reform and the Dedication of Churches’, in Reforming the Church before Modernity: Patterns, Problems, and Approaches, ed. C. M. Bellito and L. I. Hamilton (Aldershot, 2005), pp. 105–37. 96 Ibid., p. 109.

91

temple of the new covenant

147

‘arise, o lord, into thy rest; thou and the ark of thy strength’ Bernard’s Ordo provides an impression of the liturgy of the Feast of Dedication as it was celebrated around 1145. The Ordo states that this important feast had to be celebrated solemnly (solemniter) like the feasts of the Saviour, and that all the best utensils and ornaments had to be used.97 The theme of the feast was introduced by the first vespers, when the pope, bishops and other cardinals entered the cathedral to celebrate with the canons. The psalms of the office refer to Jerusalem and the temple as the dwelling place of God.98 In particular, Psalm 131 (132) demonstrates the connections between the first construction of the temple, the promise of God’s permanent presence and the life of the priesthood. The psalm opens with a reference to the oath of David that he would find a dwelling place for the Lord. It continues with an exhortation and a plea sung by the priests: ‘We will go into his tabernacles: we will worship at his footstool. Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou and the ark of thy strength’ (vv. 7–8).99 The psalm also states certain conditions for the presence of God, namely keeping his covenant and being clothed in righteousness (vv. 9, 12). It confirms the promise of the Lord: ‘For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest for ever: here will I dwell; for I have desired it’ (vv. 13–14).100 On the lips of the Lateran clergy, surrounding the altar and the presumed Ark of the Covenant, the words of this psalm expressed nothing less than the Lateran basilica as the new dwelling place of the Lord, accompanied by the clergy’s commitment to reform as a premise of this status.101 ‘In dedicatione itaque ecclesie nostre sollempniter sicut in festivitatibus domini cuncta celebrentur. Omnis nobilior apparatus tam in ecclesie ornamentis quam in officii celebrioris cultu et, quod magis curandum est, in maioris erga deum deuotionis affectu sollempniter exhibeatur.’ See Bernard of Porto, Ordo Officiorum Ecclesiae Lateranensis, p. 157 (301). 98 Ps. 121 (122), 126 (127), 131 (132) and 147 (148). Ps. 121 (122) does not refer explicitly to Jerusalem, but to the throne of God in heaven. 99 ‘introibimus in tabernacula eius adorabimus in loco ubi steterunt pedes eius / surge Domine in requiem tuam tu et arca sanctificationis tuae.’ 100 ‘quoniam elegit Dominus Sion / elegit eam in habitationem sibi / haec requies mea in saeculum saeculi / hic habitabo quoniam elegi eam.’ 101 The use of this psalm can also shed light on the significance of the rite of dedication and the dedication feast in the context of the struggle between ecclesiastical and secular authority. This is because the psalm relates to the anointed kings as well as to the priests and the temple of the Lord. On this perspective of the rite of dedication see Hamilton, ‘To Consecrate the Church’, pp. 105–37. Hamilton shows how the meaning of the liturgy of dedication was transformed through the work of the reform theologians of the late eleventh century. 97

148

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

After the five psalms, two of the canons were to sing in front of the altar: ‘Hec est domus Domini firmiter edificata’ (‘This is the house of the Lord, firmly built’), to which the choir replied: ‘Bene fundata est’ (‘It is firmly built’).102 The antiphons and versicles recorded by Bernard confirmed the interpretation of the church as the dwelling place of God in continuation with the old temple.103 The liturgical texts of the feast also refer to the church as the sign of the heavenly Jerusalem, with the readings from the Revelation of St John, ‘Vidi civitatem sanctam’ (‘I John saw the holy city’) and ‘Et audivi vocem de throno’ (‘And I heard a great voice out of heaven’).104 Finally, the texts referred in a tropological sense to the congregation as the temple of God through the reading ‘Fratres, nescitis, quia templum dei estis’ (‘Know ye not that ye are the temple of God …?’).105 The continuity between the temple, the Church and the heavenly worship of God was established through the liturgy of dedication. When the texts of the liturgy are read as a description of the Church, presided over by the pope, the papal basilica appears within this concept to be the only legitimate place for the restoration and realization of the new temple.

the readings of augustine All the readings prescribed for the vigil were supposed to be sermons of St Augustine.106 The first sermon, identified in Bernard’s Ordo as ‘Quotiescumque, fratres karissimi, altaris’, explained that the material cult of the Jews signified that which was to be completed spiritually by the Church (see 1 Corinthians 3:17). The realization of the signs depended on the listeners’ living in accordance with this significance and the sermon thus emphasized the life of the clergy as the fulfilment of the earlier signs.107 ‘Bene fundata est’ is probably an abbreviation for ‘Bene fundata est domus domini’; see Cardinal Bernhard of Porto, Ordo Officiorum Ecclesiae Lateranensis, p. 158 (155). 103 This interpretation applied to both the vespers and the other horae, as in the invitatorium of the matins, ‘Sanctificantem dominum tabernaculum suum’. See Bernard of Porto, Ordo Officiorum Ecclesiae Lateranensis, p. 159 (156). 104 Ibid. See Rev. 21:2–3. These incipits indicate readings at terce and sext. 105 Ibid. See 1 Cor. 3:16, read at noon. 106 ‘Quotiescumque, fratres karissimi, altaris’ (sermon 229, in Augustine, Sermo CCXXIX, In dedicatione ecclesiae vel altaris consecratione, I, PL 39, col. 2166); ‘Recte festa ecclesie colunt’ (sermon 231, Augustine, Sermo CCXXXI. In dedicatione ecclesiae vel altaris concecratione, III, PL 39, col. 2171); ‘Beatos apostolos sermo divini’ (not located); ‘Celebritas huius congregationis’ (sermon 336, in Augustine, Sermo CCCXXXVI. In dedicatione ecclesiae, PL 38, col. 1471); ‘Dominus noster Iesus Christus virtute patris’ (not located). The last lection seems to have been three readings from Augustine’s sermon on ‘Ingressus Iesus perambulabat Iericho’ (Luke 19:1) (not located). 107 The theme of the sermon is stated in the introduction ‘Quod in templis manufactis, id spiritualiter completur in nobis. Quotiescumque, fratres charissimi, altaris vel templi 102

temple of the new covenant

149

The introduction of the next sermon, ‘Recte festa ecclesie colunt’, also focuses on the relation between the Jewish and Christian cults. This relation expresses the status of the Church: she is the mother of all believers because she was subsequently called to the Synagogue, but was promised before the Synagogue. This paradigmatic status enables the exegesis of the sermon where Old Testament events are interpreted as pre-figurations of the Church.108 The sermon ‘Celebritas huius congregationis’ refers, like the first one, to Christian believers as the spiritual temple of God, the place of God’s dwelling. The house of God is now being built and it will be consecrated at the end of time.109 The sermon also comments on Psalm 29 (30), a psalm prescribed to be used at the dedication feast of the temple, and to the words of David: ‘I will extol thee, O Lord; for thou hast lifted me up, and hast not made my foes to rejoice over me.’ This is interpreted according to the victory of Christ, which was proclaimed at his resurrection after the ‘hostile’ Jews had attempted to kill him. As the fulfilment of this, the Church too joins in the praise.110 The readings from Augustine confirmed the theme of the liturgy presenting the Church as a new and superior temple. The allegorical interpretation, based both on a dependency on Judaism and on a triumph by the Christian Church festivitatem colimus, si fideliter ac diligenter attendimus, et sancte ac juste vivimus, quidquid in templis manufactis agitur, totum in nobis spirituali aedificatione completur. Non enim mentitus est ille qui dixit, Templum enim Dei sanctum est, quod estis vos [1  Cor.  3:17]; et iterum, Nescitis quia corpora vestra templum sunt Spiritus sancti [1 Cor. 6:19].’ (‘Those which are material objects in temples, are spiritually completed in us. However often, my most dear brothers, we honour a feast of the altar or temple, if we attend faithfully and diligently, and we live both piously and justly, whatever has been done with material objects in the temples will be completed totally in our spiritual edifice. For he did not deceive who said “for the Temple of God is holy, that is you”; and also, “Do you not know that your bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit”.’) Augustine, Sermo CCXXIX, PL 39, col. 2166. 108 See Augustine, Sermo CCXXXI, PL 39, col. 2171. 109 ‘Celebritas hujus congregationis, dedicatio est domus orationis. Domus ergo nostrarum orationum ista est, domus Dei nos ipsi. Si domus Dei nos ipsi, nos in hoc saeculo aedificamur, ut in fine saeculi dedicemur’; see Augustine, Sermo CCCXXXVI, PL 38, col. 1471. 110 ‘Proponitur dedicatio, et cantatur liberatio: jubilatur canticum dedicationis domus, et dicitur, Exaltabo te, Domine, quoniam suscepisti me, et non jucundasti inimicos meos super me [Ps. 29:2]. Attendite Judaeos inimicos, qui se putabant occidisse Christum, vicisse quasi inimicum, perdidisse quasi hominem caeteris similem atque mortalem. Resurrexit tertia die, et haec est vox ejus, Exaltabo te, Domine, quoniam suscepisti me … Modo quando implentur ecclesiae, putamus jucundari Judaeos? Ecclesiae aedificantur, dedicantur, implentur, quomodo illi jucundantur? Non solum non jucundantur, sed etiam confunduntur; et impletur vox exsultantis, Exaltabo te, Domine, quoniam suscepisti me, et non jucundasti inimicos meos super me. Non jucundasti super me: si mihi credant, jucundabis in me.’ Augustine, Sermo CCCXXXVI, PL 38, col. 1473.

150

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

over the older faith, is one of the most widely explored themes of Augustine’s theology.111 It is nonetheless most relevant to emphasize this interpretation in the context of the Lateran Feast of Dedication in the twelfth century. The sermons of the day expressed the relation between the Church and the Synagogue as a fulfilment, but also as a triumph and victory. This points to the two themes of the day: the establishment of the new temple, and the violation of Christ by the Jews, which will be treated below.

the passio ymaginis domini: the transformation of the synagogue The liturgy of the dedication feast and the sermons of Augustine, prescribed by Prior Bernard, emphasized the Lateran Church as the new temple. But the dedication feast of the Lateran was also connected to another feast celebrated on the same day: the Passio Ymaginis Domini (The Passion of the Image of the Lord). This feast commemorated the miracle in Beirut when an image of Christ had supposedly shed blood miraculously after being violated by a Jew.112 It was originally meant as a Latin counterpart to the Byzantine Feast of Orthodoxy and was widespread in several areas of Europe. According to the hypothesis of Michele Bacci, the Passio Ymaginis feast started being replaced by the dedication feast of the Lateran from the twelfth century onwards.113 The passionary of the Lateran, A 80, exhibits the relation between the feasts in that all the texts on 9 November, which is entitled ‘Dedicatio basilica Salvatoris’,

On this see e.g. Paula Fredriksen, Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism (New York, 2008). 112 See Jounel, Le Culte des saints, pp. 305–7. See also Michele Bacci’s publications detailed in the following note. 113 Michele Bacci, ‘The Volto Santo’s Legendary and Physical Image’, in Envisioning Christ on the Cross: Ireland and the Early Medieval West, ed. J. Mullins, J. Ní Ghrádaigh and R. Hawtree (Pamplona, 2013), pp. 216–18. See also Michele Bacci, ‘The Berardenga Antependium and the Passio Ymaginis Office’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 61 (1998), 1–16; Michele Bacci, ‘“Quel bello miracolo onde si fa la festa del santo Salvatore”: studio sulle metamorfosi si una leggenda’, in Santo Croce e Santo Volto. Contributi allo studio dell’ origine e della fortuna del culto del Salvatore (secoli IX–XV), ed. G. Rossetti (Pisa, 2002), pp. 9–86; Michele Bacci, ‘The Mise-en-Scène of the Holy in the Lateran Church in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries’, in Romanesque Cathedrals in Mediterranean Europe: Architecture, Ritual and Urban Context, ed. G. B. Varela and J. Kroesen (Turnhout, 2016), pp. 187–203. (Bacci refers inter alia to Eivor A. Oftestad, ‘The House of God: The Translation of the Temple and the Interpretation of the Lateran Cathedral in the Twelfth Century’, PhD thesis, University of Oslo (2010)). Liturgical formulae connected with the Passio Ymaginis feast seem to have survived for a long time in some areas, such as Catalonia. 111

temple of the new covenant

151

refer either to the miracle of Beirut or to similar ones.114 The Lateran sources from the middle of the twelfth century combined the different traditions and revealed a specific interpretation of the Lateran as the new temple. The introduction to the readings in the passionary states that this day is the celebration of the solemnity and dedication of the temple of the Saviour.115 The introduction, which clearly pertains to the dedication feast, is, however, followed by five miracle stories, all about different images and related to the tradition of the feast of Passio Ymaginis Domini.116 Pronounced at the Feast of Dedication, the readings, which told of a number of miraculous images offended by Jews, offered specific interpretations of the superior presence of God at the Lateran Church. First, the Jews’ killing of Christ appears to have been understood as a precondition for the interpretation of the Lateran as the new temple. Secondly, the divine presence is taken to be enabled through images of Christ. The legends were originally composed and used in opposition to the imperial iconoclastic policy in the seventh and eighth centuries. The first legend tells of a miracle that took place in Constantinople where a Jew pierced an image of Christ.117 Blood poured out of it and the Jew threw it into the well at the church of Hagia Sophia. The wounded image was discovered and shown to the emperor, who exclaimed: ‘Truly a Jew did this’ (‘Vere iudeus hoc fecit’). He ordered that the violator would go unpunished if he revealed himself, but that if he was involuntarily found he would be punished. Stains of blood on his clothes had given the Jew away to his wife, who immediately declared his guilt. Confronted with the emperor’s excitement about the great miracle, the Jew instantly converted For a description of ACL A 80, see Jounel, Le Culte des saints, pp. 47–8. He dates the passionary to the first years of the twelfth century. 115 ACL A  80, fol. 215r (223r according to Poncelet). For Poncelet’s description of ACL A 80, see Albertus Poncelet, S.J., Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum latinorum bibliothecarum Romanarum praeter quam Vaticanae (Brussels, 1909), pp. 62–9. According to Poncelet these date to the eleventh or twelfth century. 116 Bacci has pointed out that most Roman passionaries from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries only celebrated the Passio Ymaginis Domini on 9 November, and only sometimes combined it with the dedication. See Bacci, ‘The Berardenga Antependium and the Passio Ymaginis Office’, p. 11. The legend of Beirut is recorded in e.g. Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Archivio del Capitolo di S. Pietro, MS A 5 (eleventh century); and Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Fondo Sta Maria Maggiore MS 2, where it follows the sermon of Maniacutius. 117 ‘Miraculum de imagine Domini in Constantinopolitana urbe’; see ACL A 80, fols 223r– 224r. According to Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina Manuscripta (BHLM), the same version of the legend was copied during the first half of the twelfth century: see Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. Lat. 01192. BHLM records several other Latin versions of the same legend but the version in ACL A 80 appears to be the oldest in existence. 114

152

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

and was baptized with his wife. Since he had confessed he avoided punishment because of the miracle, even though it had been caused by his ‘evil’ act. The second reading is a legend recorded by Andrew of Crete (660–740).118 It refers to the apostles who bought a synagogue in Lydda and turned it into a church.119 An illustrious image of Mary, the mother of God, an image not made by human hand, was preserved in the church. After a while, however, the Jews appealed to the emperor to have their synagogue returned to them. The emperor decreed that the apostles and the Jews should seal the house for forty days and observe whether God showed whose house it was. During these days, Mary, who at that time was alive and lived at Mount Sion, confirmed that she would be in the church. When the Jews entered the church after forty days, the eyes of Mary’s image were staring vividly at them, and both Jews and Christians were assured of her presence. A Jew stated: ‘Truly that woman is in this house!’ After the miracle of Lydda follows a note about yet another image, also not by human hand, of Mary and the Christ Child.120 The image appeared on a rock in the garden of Gethsemane where Mary’s tomb was located.121 The fourth legend related in ACL A 80 is a version of the popular story about the miraculous imprint of Christ’s face brought to King Abgar of Edessa.122 The king sent his legate to Christ in Jerusalem to ask for a sign whether or not he should serve him. Christ ‘took up the sindon and when he wiped his face the image of himself the Saviour immediately appeared’.123 The sindon was brought to Edessa and the story goes that it was hidden beneath a tile where the image also appeared.124 At the end of the text it is stated that the sindon was brought to Rome and ‘until this day’ it could be seen there. This might refer to the image that was in the possession 120 121

See ‘Miraculo de himago S Marie’, in ACL A 80, fol. 224r–v. See Acts 9:32–5. ‘In sancta gethsemani’, in ACL A 80, fol. 224v. The tradition of the tomb of Mary at the base of the Mount of Olives was one of several claims to her tomb in the late Patristic period. A church was erected in the sixth century, destroyed by the Persians in 614 and then rebuilt. The crusaders found the church in ruins and built a new one in 1130 (the abbey church of St Mary of Josaphat). 122 ‘Augarus quidem rex edesse’, in ACL A 80, fol. 224v. Early versions of the legend can probably be dated to the third century ad and were recorded by Eusebius in the fourth century, though without referring to an image; see Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 1.13.5–22. On the traditions of the image see Mark Guscin, The Image of Edessa (Leiden and Boston, 2009). 123 ACL A 80, fol. 224v: ‘Dominus autem noster his xps accipiens sindonem, tergens faciem suam in qua statim imago ipsius salvatoris apparuit’. The image is referred to as sindon in the Roman tradition, not as mandylion. 124 This duplication of the image is in accordance with a description of the relics of Constantinople from the twelfth century; see Hans Belting, Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art (Chicago, 1994), p. 527. 118 119

temple of the new covenant

153

of the nuns of the order of St Clare in the convent of San Silvestro in Capite (the Basilica of St Sylvester).125 The tile, on the other hand, remained in Edessa and was venerated there. The last legend related to the dedication feast of the Lateran is ascribed to St Athanasius and records a miraculous occurrence in Beirut.126 According to the story, a Christian rented a room next to the synagogue in this city, where many Jews lived, and he put up an image of the Saviour above his bed. When he later moved, he forgot to take the image with him. A visitor to the house later discovered the image of Christ and summoned the high priest and the elders. They were very angry, seized the image and exclaimed: ‘Just as our fathers mistreated him, in the same way also we will mistreat him.’ There follows a remarkable and detailed story about how the Jews of Beirut punished and treated the image to a second passion of the Christ. The interpretation of the story is clear: ‘For now you are crucified again in your image, Lord, as a manifestation against the impious and all the infidels.’127 When the Jews pierced the side of the image with a lance, blood and water immediately poured out. As it was thought that Christ performed miracles, the high priest and the elders decided to take the blood and water to the synagogue. The Jews of Beirut gathered in front of the synagogue. All the sick, the lame and the blind, those possessed by evil spirits, and the lepers were miraculously cured. The miraculous deeds led even the high priest, the elders and all the Jewish men, women and children to believe in and to glorify Christ.128 A crowd of Jews rushed to the bishop of the town, showed him the image and told him everything. They were all baptized and the synagogue was converted in the name of the Saviour Jesus Christ.129 Athanasius’ story concludes with the tradition of dedicating churches to the Saviour and ordering that the miracle be celebrated on 9 November. From the late tenth and eleventh centuries onwards, a number of ampoules of the miraculous blood and water from the miracle in Beirut began to be venerated in important centres of pilgrimage. The Beirut cult was widespread in the Middle Ages and was especially deeply rooted in Tuscany. Several ampoules were Ibid., p. 210. ‘Miraculum expostium a beato Athanasio’, in ACL A 80, fols 224v–226v. The Greek version is first cited at the anti-iconoclastic council of Nicaea of 787 ad; see PG 28, cols 797–812. The legend also exists in Syriac and Coptic texts. It was introduced to the West by the Latin version of the Nicaean acts, compiled by the librarian Anastasius around 872 ad; see Bacci, ‘The Berardenga Antependium and the Passio Ymaginis Office’, p. 4. 127 ‘Nunc autem in imagine tua iterum crucifixus es domine, ad argumentum impiorum et omnium infidelium’, ACL A 80, fol. 226v. 128 Ibid. 129 Ibid. 125 126

154

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

preserved in this area and in particular in Lucca, where, according to Michele Bacci, it probably gave rise to the veneration of the Volto Santo, which supposedly contained a blood relic.130 As noted in Chapter 3, at some point in the early twelfth century reformed canons from the city of Lucca were transferred to the pope’s own canonry at the Lateran cathedral. These canons most likely brought with them traditions from their hometown. The tradition of the image of Beirut was the subject matter of the Feast of Passio Ymaginis Domini celebrated on 9 November, which was also the date of the dedication feast of the Basilica Salvatoris. When the miracle of Beirut and the associated legends appear as readings in exactly that feast that establishes the Lateran Church as the new temple, a specific interpretation of the legitimization of the basilica emerges. Prescinding from the origin of the legends in the Greek iconoclastic dispute, one of the most evident features of the legends was the description of the status of the Church as depending upon the actions of the Jews. The relationship between the Jews and the Christians is most evident in the Constantinople legend and the Beirut legend, both of which concerned images of Christ violated by Jews. In the legend from Constantinople, the Jews’ responsibility is explicitly stated, not least by the exclamation of the emperor: ‘Truly a Jew did this’. In the Beirut legend the violation is described in detail. It is a parallel to the Crucifixion as declared by the Jews themselves. In both stories, moreover, the Jews’ dual role is accentuated. They convert, thereby escaping punishment despite their heinous actions, as these did indeed occasion a miracle. The outcomes of the stories express a certain relation between the Jews and the Church. The rise of the Church was dependent on the Jews. In other words, the ‘evil acts’ of the Jews were necessary triggers within the dynamics of salvation history. This dependence manifests itself in the conversion of the synagogues described in the legends of both Lydda and Beirut. According to these readings the conversion is the very reason for the feast, announced not least by the latter legend, where the former synagogue was consecrated in the name of the Saviour. This template is thus the literary link between the two traditions – the Feast of the Passio Ymaginis Salvatoris and the dedication feast of the Ecclesia Salvatoris.131 The Beirut tradition was integrated into the celebration of the Lateran Church and with similar legends it came to express a relation that was embodied in the Lateran as the triumph of the Church conditioned by the sacrilege of the Jews. The reciprocal, though asymmetric, relation between the Jewish and Christian Bacci, ‘The Berardenga Antependium and the Passio Ymaginis Office’, pp. 1–16. See also Jounel, Le Culte des saints, p. 307: ‘“synagoga(m) quidem Iudeorum in nomine Salvatoris nri Ihu Xri consecravit” (fol. 218v). C’est là évidemment le substrat de la fête de ce jour.’

130 131

temple of the new covenant

155

devotions is a striking feature of the legends prescribed for the feast. Another feature is the miraculous images, which must be understood in relation to the physical presence of holiness, which is described above through relics, tombs and images at the Lateran. The legends related in ACL A 80 were produced during the earlier iconoclastic disputes of the East and belonged to a strong Christian tradition that defended holy images. In the West this tradition was present not least in Rome, where the holy images were an important part of the liturgical structure of the city.132 The author of the Descriptio described several holy images connected to the Lateran Church and the papal palace during the twelfth century (see Chapter 2). The miraculous image of the Saviour, used in the annual procession on 15 August, was the most important one.133 In the twelfth century it was placed above the main altar of the papal private chapel: ‘And above this altar is an image of the Saviour wonderfully painted on a certain tablet, which Luke the Evangelist sketched out, but the power of the Lord completed it through angelic obedience.’134 The Descriptio also says that the main altar of the basilica hid images beneath it: an illustrious image of Christ and images of the Virgin Mary, of Saints John the Baptist and John the Evangelist, of the Roman apostles Peter and Paul, and of other apostles.135 In addition to these golden images, the wooden tablet that contained the images of the apostles Peter and Paul, as they were revealed to Emperor Constantine before his conversion, is said to be above the altar. All these images were detailed in the early versions of the Descriptio. Later in the twelfth century more interpretations of images at the Lateran complex appeared. One of the most important was the apse mosaic of Christ’s head in the basilica, first described by Bonizo of Sutri at the end of the eleventh century, and then by John the Deacon (1159–1181). Another was an image of the Saviour above the entrance to the chapel of San Silvestro in the Lateran palace. In the later twelfth century the story about this image conformed to the models from the dedication feast described above. According to the Ordo Albinus (c. 1180) the image had once shed blood when it was struck by a Jew.136 There does seem to be a strong connection between the Lateran Church and the Beirut miracle, at least from the twelfth century onwards. The structure of the Gerhard Wolf and Hans Belting have discussed this issue at length; see Gerhard Wolf, Salus Populi Romani. Die Geschichte römischer Kultbilder im Mittelalter (Weinheim, 1990); Belting, Likeness and Presence. 133 On this see Belting, Likeness and Presence, pp. 63–73. The earliest information about the image dates to the eighth century. 134 Descriptio, XVIII. 135 Ibid., XXII. 136 Cardinal Albinus, Le liber censuum de l’église romaine, vol. II, ed. P. Fabre and L. Duchesne (Paris, 1910), p. 123. See Wolf, Salus Populi Romani, p. 80. 132

156

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Beirut legend was intrinsic to the significance of the Lateran, and the connection to this legend also shaped the later explanation of the blood relic within the main altar. The Descriptio mentioned ampoules of blood and water among the relics without any further reference to their importance or origin.137 Gerald of Wales, however, explained them as deriving from the blood miracle that had allegedly taken place above the entrance to the chapel of San Silvestro at the Lateran. He recounted how some Jews had struck the image of Christ, causing the immediate outpouring of an abundant flow of blood from the head of Christ. The offender died at once in frenzy, while the other Jews were struck by fear and fled. When the blood was collected, it caused miracles and the conversion of many Jews.138 The thirteenth-century pontifical also states that the blood relic in the altar derived from a bleeding image of Christ, which can probably be linked to the same story told by Gerald of Wales.139 According to this tradition the fault of the Jews was directly constitutive of the blood cult at the Lateran. When the legends of A 80 were read at the Feast of Dedication, they confirmed the presence of those depicted in the images in the church, especially those of the Saviour, to whom the Lateran Church was dedicated. The Saviour, but also the Virgin Mary, Saints John the Baptist and John the Evangelist, and Saints Peter and Paul, all dwelt within the basilica and within the papal chapel in the palace through their images, just as Mary lived in the converted synagogue of Lydda and Christ lived in the converted synagogue of Beirut. The legends affirmed that the holy presence was dependent on the history and actions of the Jews.

‘De sanguine et aqua lateris domini ampulle due’; Descriptio, XX (see Reg. lat 712, fol. 87r). John the Deacon gives the same information. See also de Blaauw, ‘The Solitary Celebration of the Supreme Pontiff ’, p. 124. 138 Gerald of Wales, Gemma ecclesiastica, I, 31, in Gerald of Wales, Giraldi Camembrensis Opera, ed. J. S. Brewer, 8 vols (London, 1873), II, p. 103. See also de Blaauw, ‘The Solitary Celebration of the Supreme Pontiff ’, pp. 141–2. 139 De Blaauw, ‘The Solitary Celebration of the Supreme Pontiff ’, pp. 141–2. 137

Chapter 7

Nikolaus Maniacutius and John the Deacon

I do not have the gold of intelligence and the silver of eloquence, or the precious stones of virtue, I wish to offer Your Holiness, in memory of this sanctuary, ram skin depicted and rubricated …1

Nikolaus Maniacutius: Historia Imaginis Salvatoris The images in the Lateran Church and in the papal chapel showed who inhabited the sanctuaries. In a passionary preserved in Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, we find a peculiar sermon concerning the most important image at the Lateran, which was the image of the Saviour in the oratory of San Lorenzo (c. 1145).2 The sermon is ascribed to Nikolaus Maniacutius and describes a vision of a most extraordinary procession of saints, confessors, martyrs and apostles, followed by the glorious mother of God, all of whom enter the papal chapel. The spectator, a penitent praying outside the chapel, is told by angels that what he is seeing is the return visit of the mother of God after her Son had visited her on the Feast of the Assumption.3 After the entrance of saints, a fire fills the palace as if it were being consumed by flames. The spectator is astonished and afraid, but the angels comfort him:

Descriptio, I; see ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, in Codice topografico della città di Roma, ed. R. Valentini and G. Zucchetti, 4 vols (Rome, 1946), III, pp. 319–73, at p. 327. References to the Descriptio in later notes in this chapter are to this edition. 2 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Fondo S. Maria Maggiore 2, fols 237v– 244r. See also Chapter 1, p. 3, n. 10. 3 This refers to the procession of the Imago Salvatoris from the Lateran to Santa Maria Maggiore on 15 August, where it was annually venerated with the icon of Mary, Regina Caeli. On this tradition see Gerhard Wolf, Salus Populi Romani. Studien zur Geschichte des römischen Kultbilder im Mittelalter (Weinheim, 1990); Herbert L. Kessler and Johanna Zacharias, ROME 1300: On the Path of the Pilgrim (New Haven and London, 2000). 1

158

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

‘Don’t be afraid. This is the glory of God who is about to enter.’ Comforted by their words, he then lifted his eyes and saw the glorious throne of the great God being lifted up by the angels of God, but he saw no one sitting on the throne. As soon as the doors of this holy basilica had been opened, he was led to the heavenly thrones.4 The vision described by Maniacutius is clearly modelled on the visions of God in his temple described in the Old Testament, especially in Ezekiel’s vision of the return of the glory of God to the new temple.5 Maniacutius’ description seems to correspond with the idea that the papal private chapel can be regarded as the Holy of Holies in the temple of the New Covenant.6 In the passionary the sermon is placed between other texts connected to the dedication feast of the Lateran Church: ‘Legend on the Church of the Saviour’ (‘Legenda Ecclesie Salvatoris’), the legend about the miracle of Beirut (‘De Passione Ymaginis Domini Salvatoris’) and ‘The Vengeance of the Lord’ (‘Vindicta Domini’).7 This placing makes it seem reasonable to connect the sermon to this feast. The content of the sermon, on the other hand, is relevant both to the Feast of Dedication and to the Feast of the Assumption on 15 August. A great part of the sermon focuses on the use of the image of the Saviour in the Assumption procession. At the same time, the fact that the sermon deals with the specific miraculous image depicting the Saviour guarantees his indwelling in the papal palace chapel in exactly the same manner as the legends described in Chapter 6.8 The visibility and presence of the Saviour is a leitmotiv in the sermon. ‘Noli timere, hec est enim maiestas domini que iam ingredietur. Tunc ille ad eorum confortatus sermonem, attollit oculos, et videt thronum glorie magni dei, ab angelis inaltu portari, sedentem autem super illud nemine videt. Mox patefacte sunt ianue sancte huius basilice, et thronis illuc celestis inducitur.’ Fondo S. Maria Maggiore 2, fol. 241v. 5 Ezek. 43:1. See also Isa. 6:1–4, where God is seated on a high and exalted throne in the temple. 6 This point is also made by Wolf, Salus Populi Romani, p. 63. 7 ‘Legenda Ecclesie Salvatoris’ (Fondo S. Maria Maggiore 2, fols 236r–237v), which speaks of the church of the Saviour ‘que ponitur prope arcum pietatis’ (‘which is close to the Arcus Pietatis’), not the Lateran Church; ‘De Passione Ymaginis Domini Salvatoris’ (ibid., fols 244r–248r, with an introduction about the tradition); ‘De vindicta Domini’ (ibid., fols 248r–251v), which legend treated the vengeance taken on the Jews by the Roman emperors Titus and Vespasian. 8 The purpose is described in the preface ‘Ad audiendam Historiam Imagis Salvatoris … ut quae cuncto Romano Populo, maxime in Festo, et Octava Assumptionis tam solemniter celebratur, et colitur, qualiter fuerit condita, et ad Urbem delata, vel quam stupenda miracula per eam Deus effecerit, et quam sit Sacra Basilica, in qua constitit, patenter omnibus innotescat’ (‘Concerning the History of the Saviour’s Image which 4

nikolaus maniacutius and john the deacon

159

Nikolaus Maniacutius was one of the learned men of his age and had an ecclesiastical career in Rome around the middle of the twelfth century.9 As M. T. Champagne has argued, he was a deacon at the titular church of San Lorenzo in Damaso (St Lawrence in Damaso), then a member of the Cistercian community of Santi Vincenzo e Anastasio alle Tre Fontane (Saints Vincent and Anastasius at Tre Fontane) outside Rome, and one of the spiritual centres of the ecclesiastical reform.10 When the abbot of Tre Fontane, Bernard of Pisa, became Pope Eugene III in 1145 Maniacutius probably followed him to the Lateran. According to Champagne, he then became a canon of the Lateran palace.11 Maniacutius seems to have been one of those who had the greatest influence on the Roman curia around the middle of the century. His sermon, inserted among the readings of the dedication feast, is thus written on the basis of an intimate knowledge of the Lateran basilica and probably also of the papal palace. He refers to the same ought to be heard … as this is solemnly celebrated by all the Roman People, especially during the Feast and the Octave of the Assumption, and is revered, just as it has been established and handed down to the City, or how God has brought about stupendous miracles through it, and how the Basilica where it is situated, it becomes clearly known to all’). See Wolf, Salus Populi Romani, p. 321. 9 In her study, Smalley treats Maniacutius along with Stephen Harding (d.  1134) and Abelard (1079–1142) who all attempted to correct the biblical text according to the ‘Hebrew truth’. See Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible (Oxford, 1952), pp. 79–81. Maniacutius’ contribution to the development of philology is likewise appreciated by modern scholars and in recent years he has been regarded as one of the most important Christian Hebraists of the twelfth century. See Michael A. Signer, ‘Polemic and Exegesis: The Varieties of Twelfth-Century Hebraism’, in Hebraica Veritas? Christian Hebraists and the Study of Judaism in Early Modern Europe, ed. A. Coudert and J. S. Shoulson (Philadelphia, 2004), pp. 21–32. Maniacutius’ interest in the revision of the biblical text should not be reduced to a pre-humanistic philological project, but has to be understood in relation to his liturgical interest and his understanding of the Church. Vittorio Peri is one of the few scholars who has pointed to this connection: ‘la sua ricerca filologica e critica, spesso inappuntabile, non è fine a se stessa, ma trova il proprio stimolo originario nelle esigenze di devozione liturgica della comunità ecclesiastica’, Vittorio Peri, ‘Nicola Maniacutia: un testimone della filologia romana del XII secolo’, Aevum 41 (1967), 67–90, at 87. 10 See references in Chapter 1, n. 10. On Tre Fontane as an ecclesiastical centre of the period see Lucinia Speciale, ‘Una cellula e i suoi libri: i SS. Vincenzo ed Anastasio alle Tre Fontane e Casamari’, Arte Medievale 2 (1994), 47–76. She comments on Maniacutius, ‘Maniacutia sembra essere stato intorno alla metà del secolo una delle personalità di maggior rilievo della curia romana’ (p. 47). See also Kristin B. Aavitsland, Imagining the Human Condition in Medieval Rome: The Cistercian Fresco Cycle at Abbazia delle Tre Fontane (Aldershot, 2012). 11 Marie-Thérèse Champagne, ‘Both Text and Subtext: The Circulation and Preservation of Two Manuscripts of Nicolaus Maniacutius in Twelfth-Century Europe’, Textual Cultures 6 (2011), 26–47, at 28.

160

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

discussion of the temple objects as did the canons in the Descriptio. Likewise, his theological reflections seem to constitute a basis for the further discussion of the Lateran basilica as the new temple in John the Deacon’s revision of the Descriptio some years later. One main concern in Maniacutius’ sermon is the attitude towards the Jewish heritage of the Church. When he and other Hebraists of his time consulted Jews in order to learn Hebrew and to familiarize themselves with Jewish religious practice, it was more than a mere scholarly exchange. Exploring the Hebrew Bible, the Hebraica Veritas, and the Jewish rituals was a way of exploring the figures of the Church. While some of Maniacutius’ other works were about philology, this sermon concerned the liturgy and the advancing stages of salvation history, where the same figures of the Church had their place. This way of thinking was also emphasized by contemporary Roman theologians. Maniacutius’ view of the miraculous image is thus most interesting with regard to the interpretation of the papal private chapel in terms of the continuity between the Jewish and Christian temples, as places of God’s presence. His reasoning reveals a different strategy in arguing for the translatio templi to Rome than that of the canons in the tradition of the Descriptio.

the origin The history of the miraculous image in the palace chapel starts in Jerusalem, when the disciples were gathered after the Ascension of Christ. They mourned his bodily absence and were talking about what they had seen and heard of the miracles of the Saviour and not least about his outstanding physical beauty. Maniacutius introduces Old Testament texts that describe the beauty of Christ: the word of the bride in the Song of Songs 1:16, ‘Ecce tu pulcher es dilecte mi, et decorus’ (‘Behold, thou art fair, my beloved, yea, pleasant’), and similar descriptions from the Psalms.12 None of these Old Testament poets had seen what they were describing in their texts. According to the history, the prophets yearned not only to see the miracles of the Lord but also to take delight in the sight of his countenance. Maniacutius confirms this by a reference to Luke 10:23–24: And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see: For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which you hear, and have not heard them. Ps. 44:3–5 and Ps. 92:1. See Wolf, Salus Populi Romani, p. 321. Wolf comments that the quotation of Ps. 44 is the ‘locus biblicus’ for the image of Christ at the Lateran, and for images of Christ in general: ibid., p. 269, n. 209.

12

nikolaus maniacutius and john the deacon

161

To comfort all those who in later times would similarly long for this most desirable vision, the disciples decided to paint his admirable shape, the ‘form that bore the impression of his soul’.13 According to Maniacutius the image was prepared by the hands of Luke the Evangelist and completed by divine intervention.14 He thus presented the image as an Acheropita, miraculously fashioned with a supernatural likeness to the truth.15 It was a mediator of divine grace and a medium for the presence of the Saviour during his bodily absence.16 When the Virgin Mary and the apostles contemplated the image, they were filled with all spiritual joy. After the apostles separated to preach the Gospel around the world, the image remained with the mother of Jesus, Mary, who lived in the house of John the Evangelist. Maniacutius expresses the mediation by the image in his short passage on Mary and her death. While she was now lifted above the angels and able to contemplate his face, it was the gaze of his image that nurtured her maternal affections on earth.17 In these passages, it is clear that the image served as a mediator in the time between the earthly life of Christ and the heavenly reunion of mother and son.

the vengeance on jerusalem Following the description of the death of the Virgin Mary, Maniacutius states that ‘religious men’ preserved the image until the ‘evil things’ occurred which destroyed the Jewish people because of the betrayal of the Saviour.18 The evil things to which he ‘eius forma … qui hanc animo gerebant impressam.’ Ibid., p. 321. Ibid., p. 321. Maniacutius uses several metaphors to describe the incomprehensible origin of the image, and concludes: ‘Cum enim per manus praefati Evangelistae tantum designate foret, et nec dum essent colores adhibiti, repente inventa est eadem gloriosa Salvatoris Imago stupendo admodum decore prefulgens, utpote non humano opera, sed ineffabili divina virtute peracta.’ (‘For when it had only been outlined by the hand of the aforementioned Evangelist and while the colours were not yet applied, suddenly the most glorious Image of the Saviour was found glittering with amazing decoration, as if not by human labour, but accomplished by ineffable divine virtue.’) Ibid., p. 321. 15 On the development of these types of images, see Hans Belting, Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art (Chicago, 1994), pp. 47–77. 16 ‘Et idcirco invenere remedium, volentes eum habere, ut poterant, in Imagine tali, quem secum jam habere non poterant praesentia corporali’ (‘And therefore they found a remedy in such an Image, wishing to have, as they could, that which they could not have now in physical presence’). See Wolf, Salus Populi Romani, p. 322. Wolf comments that the sermon exhibits a Roman concept of the holy image, with ‘Praesentia’ as the central notion: ibid., p. 64. 17 Ibid., p. 322. 18 ‘Porro praefatam Salvatoris Imaginem servaverunt viri religiousi, donec mala coeperunt emergere, quae Judaeorum gentem pro insidiis, quas adversus Salvatorem moliti sunt, vastaverunt’; ibid., p. 322. 13 14

162

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

refers are the Jewish uproar and the Roman plundering and destruction of Jerusalem in the years ad 66–70. This is elaborated in a whole chapter in the sermon.19 The story relies heavily (though not verbatim) on the version of Eusebius/Rufinus, where the destruction of Jerusalem is presented as the vengeance of the Roman emperors because of the death of Christ. The famine of the captured Jews is described in grotesque details, as when the text recounts the legend of the Jewish noblewoman Mary, who roasted her own baby, ate half of it and offered the rest to the Jewish rioters.20 Maniacutius refers briefly to the legendary healing of the Roman emperor, a template that occurs in several legendary cycles such as ‘The Cure of Tiberius’ (Cura Sanitatis Tiberii) and ‘The Vengeance of the Lord’ (Vindicta Domini).21 According to the template, the emperor is cured by Christ and consequently wishes to avenge his healer and saviour, who was killed by the Jews. The legends underwent several transformations in both Christian and Jewish traditions. During the twelfth century a popular version was the legend of Veronica, which explained the transfer of the veil of Veronica from Jerusalem to the West, in connection with the miraculous cure of the Emperor Tiberius.22

the transfer to rome The following chapter in Maniacutius’ sermon is based on the subsequent plundering of Jerusalem and he provides an interpretation of this event that leads to the transfer of the Imago Salvatoris to Rome. According to custom, the victor, Titus, required the most precious objects of the conquered town to be brought back in triumph to Rome. Maniacutius states that the Ark and the tablets, the candelabra, the trumpets and all the other vessels of the temple were thus brought back to Rome. He obviously refers to the discussion of the temple objects in the Descriptio. He does not doubt their being Fondo S. Maria Maggiore 2, fols 240r–241r. Not included in the edition by Wolf. See Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, Lib. III, cap. 5 and 6. Eusebius relied on and commented on Josephus, De bello Judaico VI.iii.3–4. One idea not derived from Eusebius or his translator, Rufinus, is Maniacutius’ interpretation of Titus and Vespasian according to Ps. 79 (80); ‘It is these two of whom it is to be read in the Psalms: “Boar from the forest ravages it, and all that move in the field feed on it”.’ 21 Ernst von Dobschütz, Christusbilder. Untersuchungen zur Christlichen Legende (Leipzig, 1899), chap. 6, pp. 197–262; Israel J. Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2006), pp. 38–49; Amnon Linder, ‘Jews and Judaism in the Eyes of Christian Thinkers of the Middle Ages: The Destruction of Jerusalem in Medieval Christian Liturgy’, in From Witness to Witchcraft: Jews and Judaism in Medieval Christian Thought, ed. J. Cohen (Wiesbaden, 1996), pp. 113–23. The identity of the emperor varies in the different versions; in Maniacutius’ version, it is Titus. 22 Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb, p. 41. Yuval refers to Heinz Schreckenberg, Rezeptionsgeschichtliche und textkritische Untersuchungen zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden, 1977), p. 58. 19 20

nikolaus maniacutius and john the deacon

163

in the Lateran Church, but he does demonstrate a new position, presenting two possibilities for their origin: either the temple objects had been hidden by Jeremiah and then rediscovered, or they had been made by later generations after the restoration of the temple.23 In his sermon, the temple objects in the basilica were not the main reason for the holiness transferred to the Lateran complex. However, he also points to the image of the Saviour from San Lorenzo as coming from among the spoils: ‘It is said that among them was brought this most precious and venerable image of the Saviour, which was dedicated to the divine worship’.24 Maniacutius elegantly connects the image to the miraculous cure of the leprous Roman emperor, Titus, and consequently to the vengeance of the Lord and the destruction of Jerusalem: Indeed we strongly believe that Titus revered this image because he heard it was the figure of the one the Jews had crucified, in order to avenge whom all this had happened, and of the one he himself had intended to avenge not long ago when he was cured from the cancerous growth.25 The legendary reason for the translatio is then completed, and Maniacutius refers to the first location of the image, as well as the other objects in the basilica: ‘Truly all these holy things, which were transported from Jerusalem, are contained in the altar of the holy patriarchate of the Lateran, where also this image of the Saviour has been preserved for a long time.’26 ‘Tunc arca, et tabulae, candelabrum, et tubae, atque alia vasa templi Romam delata sunt, seu illa utique, quae Jeremias occultasse in secundo Machabeorum libro legitur, seu alia post restaurationem templi a Patribus sequentibus condita, quod evidenter apparet in arcu triumphali quem erexit Divo Tito Divi Vespasiani filio Senatus, Populusque Romanus’ (‘Then the Ark, and tablets, candelabra, and trumpet, and all vessels of the temple were carried away to Rome, whether those at least which Jeremiah had hidden as we read in the second book of Maccabees, or others made by later Fathers after the restoration of the temple, which clearly appears on the triumphal arch which the Senate and the Roman People erected for Divine Titus, son of Divine Vespasian’). Fondo S. Maria Maggiore 2, fol. 241r, col. 1. See Wolf, Salus Populi Romani, pp. 322–3. 24 ‘Inter quae pretiosissima, et divino quondam cultui mancipata, haec reverenda Salvatoris Imago delata dicitur’; Wolf, Salus Populi Romani, p. 322. This translation of the image from Jerusalem is not an entirely new element in Maniacutius. A testament from 1029, edited in 1675, mentions a translation of an image of Christ from Jerusalem to Rome by Titus and Vespasian; see ibid., p. 317. 25 ‘Magnopere autem credimus Titum hanc Imaginem fuisse reveritum, audiens figuram illius esse, quem Judaei crucifixerant, in cujus ultionem haec omnia passi essent, et quem ipse dudum vindicare proponens a cancri ulcere sit curatus.’ Ibid., pp. 322–3. 26 ‘Sane omnia illa Sacra, quae de Hierosolymis asportata fuerunt, in Sacro Lateranensis Patriarchii continentur altari, ubi et haec Salvatoris Imago longo tempore conservata est.’ Ibid., p. 323. 23

164

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

In this passage Maniacutius connects the temple objects and the image of the Saviour not only to the believed transfer from Jerusalem but also to the location of the objects within the altar of the basilica. However, he elegantly shifts the focus of transfer from the basilica to the papal palace. The image was not to rest in the high altar of the basilica, but was moved, owing to divine inspiration, to the papal chapel of San Lorenzo. Maniacutius describes this next transfer according to the model of the temple and the high priest applied to the papal private chapel and the pope. He calls the papal chapel Sancta Sanctorum (Holy of Holies),27 a label that in this context cannot be understood as anything other than according to the imitation – or rather the surpassing – of the temple: until the Lord inspired the high priest [the pope] to bring it to this palace, and place it honourably above the altar of the most holy basilica of San Lorenzo, which is in the Holy of Holies. Because just as only the high priest was permitted to enter the Holy of Holies long ago, so only the high priest [the pope] is permitted to celebrate the divine mysteries above this altar.28 Lastly, Maniacutius describes the image in terms of the permanent presence of Christ in the palace of his vicars. This is conceived as a fulfilment of the Saviour’s promise to stay with his disciples for all time. Because of the presence of Christ, the sanctuary of this church outshines the sanctuary of the temple, ‘because the glory of the Lord, which there only occasionally appeared in the cloud, here remains continuously in the image’.29 The presence of Christ in this chapel is interpreted as the fulfilment both of the promise of Christ and of the Old Testament prophecies: ‘Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst Wolf identifies Maniacutius as the first to label the papal chapel Sancta Sanctorum; see ibid., p. 64. De Blaauw has, however, shown that Reinerus, Vita Reginardi (from 1050–1082), uses the same label: Sible de Blaauw, ‘Il patriarchio, la basilica lateranense e la liturgia’, Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Antiquité, Roma-Paris 116.1 (2004), 161–171, at 171. See Reiner of Liège, Vita Reginardi, ed. W. Arndt (Hannover; 1868), p. 575, who writes ‘Siquidem in palatio Lateranensi basilica est ipsius martyris, que dicitur sancta sanctorum, propter excellentiam scilicet reliquarium, que illic habentur’ (‘Certainly in the Lateran palace is the basilica of that martyr, which is called Holy of Holies, namely on account of the excellence of the reliquaries which are kept there’). 28 ‘donec Summo Pontifici Dominus inspiravit, ut eam in Palatium hoc subveheret, atque super Altare Sacrosanctae Basilicae B. Laurentii, quae est ad Sancta Sanctorum, honorifice collocaret. Nam ut intra Sancta Sanctorum soli Summo Pontifici licebat olim intrare, ita super hoc Altare soli Summo Pontifici divina licet mysteria celebrare’. Wolf, Salus Populi Romani, p. 323. See also Fondo S. Maria Maggiore 2, fol. 241. 29 ‘quia majestas Domini, quae illic quandoque apparebat in nube, hic continue permanet in Imagine’. Wolf, Salus Populi Romani, p. 323.

27

nikolaus maniacutius and john the deacon

165

of thee.’30 When Maniacutius wishes to confirm the status of the church, he uses a vocabulary connected to the temple and the text for the introitus of the mass of the dedication of a church.31

the vision of god’s throne After Maniacutius’ explanation of the image, there follows the vision that explicitly refers to the majesty of God enthroned in his temple.32 The visionary witnesses a procession of the holy ones who reign with Christ in heaven – confessors, martyrs, apostles and the mother of God – followed by a great fire and the majesty of God, which fills the church. One probable model for this vision is the return of God to the new temple, described in Ezekiel 43. The imitation of this model is continued in a description of the celebration of the mass in the presence of the Lord. When the visionary asks who is celebrating the divine mysteries, two angels respond: ‘the prince of the apostles’, which must be understood as St Peter.33 This resembles the vision described by Ezekiel when the prince is the only one allowed to eat in the presence of the Lord.34 What is striking in this vision is the description of the empty throne. According to Gerhard Wolf, the emptiness implies that the image of Christ was regarded as the nearest possible approach to the vision of God on earth.35 In this vision, the papal chapel is interpreted as the place where God is majestically present and visible through his image. The truth of the vision is attested to by the material evidence, when the chalice and paten were left miraculously on ‘Gaude et laetare filia Sion; ecce Ego venio, et habito in medio tui’; ibid. See Zech. 2:10. ‘Et ut apertius clareat quam terribilis est locus iste, et quod vere domus Dei sit, et Aula Sancta, quid ibi quodam tempore acciderit, audiatis’ (‘And may you hear, so that it may be made absolutely clear how terrible that place is, and that it is truly the house of God, and a Holy Court, what happens there at a certain time’). Wolf, Salus Populi Romani, p. 323 (my italics). 32 Fondo S. Maria Maggiore 2, fol. 241v. Not included in Wolf ’s edition. 33 Together with St Lawrence and St Vincent: ‘Princeps Apostolorum, atque subiungitur ministrent ei Laurentius ac Vicentius’; ibid. 34 Ezek. 44:1–3: ‘Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut. Then said the Lord unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut. It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the Lord; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.’ 35 The image was the way in which he exhibited his person: ‘suam quodammodo personam per hanc imaginem exhibet’. See Gerhard Wolf, ‘“Laetare filia Sion. Ecce ego venio et habitabo in medio tui”: Images of Christ Transferred to Rome from Jerusalem’, in The Real and Ideal Jerusalem in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Art: Studies in Honor of Bezalel Narkiss on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. B. Kühnel (Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 418–29. 30 31

166

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

the altar after the heavenly mass.36 In the next chapter, the reason for the vision is further elaborated as the presence of Christ, first through his precious image37 and then via his precious relics.38 Maniacutius presents a shorter list of relics than we find in the tradition of the Descriptio (see Descriptio, XVIII). The selection emphasizes the presence of Christ through his physical relics – objects used by him and stones from the places he had been. While the earlier lists of the relics of the papal chapel in the tradition of the Descriptio similarly emphasize the presence of Christ, it is even more explicit in the sermon of Maniacutius. He omits other saintly relics and guarantees the physical presence of Christ by both his relics and his miraculous image. As the vision shows, Christ was enthroned in heaven but his throne was simultaneously accessible in this Holy of Holies. The rest of the sermon concerns the procession at the Feast of the Assumption,39 before concluding with an urgent request to be prepared for the Day of Judgement ‘Quibus tandem sollempniter celebratis, cum omnes pariter recessissent, calix et patena cum ipsis dominicis sacramentis, super altare relicta sunt, in testimonium stupende admodum visionis, ut scilicet assertio viri qui hanc viderat, vera per omnia probaretur’ (‘At last when these things were solemnly celebrated, when everyone had gone away together, the chalice and paten along with the sacrament of the Lord were left on the altar, as a testament of this very amazing vision, namely so that the assertion of the man who had seen this would be shown to be true in all things’). Fondo S. Maria Maggiore 2, fols 241v–242r. 37 ‘Nec immerito ubi talia eveniunt cum pretiosissima ibidem pignora contineantur tam ipsius domini salvatoris cuius laudabilis ibi nitet ymago quam etiam beatorum apostolorum, martyrum, confessorum et virginum’ (‘Not undeservedly did such things happen there, because it contains the most precious sacred relics of the lord saviour whose praiseworthy image shines there, and of the blessed apostles, martyrs, confessors and Virgin’). Ibid., fol. 242r. 38 ‘Est enim ibi precisio umbilici et preputium circumcisionis pueri ihesu Christi, et sandalia, idest calciamenta quibus utebatur, et magna pars de ligno crucis inqua pependit. Porro ad pedes sepedicte salvatoris ymaginis unus est ordo de lapidibus terre sancte. Est enim ibi lapis de sancta Bethlehem, de presepio inquo reclinatus est Christus, de monte inquo transfiguratus est, de monte oliveti, de loco quo dicitur lithostratus, de columpna ad quam ligatus est Christus, de calvarie loco, de ligno crucis dominice, de lancea qua perforatus est latus eius, de sepulcro domini, de lapide in quo sedit angelus, de monte syon, de monte synai, de sepulchro sancte dei genitricis marie.’ (‘For there is the umbilical cord and foreskin of the circumcision of the boy Jesus Christ, and the sandals, that is the footwear which he used, and a great part of the wooden cross on which he was suspended. Moreover at the feet of the aforesaid image of the saviour is a row of stones from the Holy Land. For there is a stone of holy Bethlehem, from the manger where Christ laid, from the mountain where he was transfigured, from the Mount of Olives, from the place where is called Lithostratus, from the column to which Christ was bound, from the place of Calvary, from the wood of the Lord’s cross, from the lance which pierced his side, from the tomb of the Lord, from the stone on which the angel sat, from Mount Syon, from Mount Sinai, from the tomb of Mary holy mother of God.’) Ibid. 39 Ibid., fols 242r–243v. See Wolf, Salus Populi Romani, pp. 324–5. 36

nikolaus maniacutius and john the deacon

167

– ‘Trim your lamps, and adorn your conscience with virtue’40 – and the subsequent entrance of the believers into heaven. This is described according to the bride’s entrance into the bridal chamber, a motif that corresponds to the core concept of the Feast of the Assumption.41

the translatio templi Maniacutius’ sermon is a unique source that combines a number of motifs. The sermon expresses a new interpretation of the Lateran complex when compared to the tradition of the Descriptio and the sources for the Feast of Dedication. The legends connected to the dedication feast in the Lateran passionary ACL A 80 all pertained to the divine presence in several images and they set out a general pattern of history, where the historical actions of the Jews were necessary for the rise of the Church. Maniacutius’ sermon, on the other hand, concretizes this pattern in the divine presence through one particular image. The relation between the Synagogue and the Church is not explained as the transformation of one occasional synagogue into a church, as in the legends described above. Instead, it is explicitly presented as the historical event of the destruction of the Jewish capital and sanctuary. This event was the means for the transfer of God’s presence from Jerusalem to Rome and is thus also connected to the Feast of Dedication.42 Maniacutius identifies the papal private chapel in the Lateran palace as the legitimate dwelling place of God. It is the new temple of his chosen people and the supreme place of intercession. This followed the dynamics of both secular and sacred history. By divine providence, the translatio of the dwelling of God was a historical necessity carried out by the Roman Empire because of the Jews’ killing of Christ and the vengeance of the Lord. The concept of translatio aimed at establishing continuity with the Jewish temple. But as Maniacutius’ text is not about the Lateran basilica, but about the papal palace nearby, it is not primarily the material temple objects that constitute this continuity. The temple objects seem instead to have status as the conqueror’s spoils – not only from the perspective of the Roman emperors but also from the perspective of the Church – and Maniacutius focuses on the presence of Christ ‘Aptate vestras lampadas, et conscientias virtutibus adornate’; Fondo S. Maria Maggiore 2, fol. 243v. 41 In the sermon this is described both in the historical sense (Christ descended from heaven to lift his mother up), in the ritual of the Church (the image of Christ that goes to the cathedral of Santa Maria Maggiore to meet his mother) and in the anagogical sense of Christ coming to lead his bride into heaven. 42 Amnon Linder analyses the Christian commemoration of the destruction of Jerusalem in the Easter liturgy, in ‘the destruction of Jerusalem Sunday’ and in several late medieval mystery plays. See Linder, ‘Jews and Judaism in the Eyes of Christian Thinkers of the Middle Ages’. The Lateran Feast of Dedication can be understood in terms of a similar commemoration in the twelfth-century sources. 40

168

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

through the image in the chapel. The transfer of the temple objects, on the other hand, made manifest the death of Christ and the ensuing vengeance on Jerusalem as a discontinuity with regard to God’s dwelling in his house. The dwelling of God had definitively left the Jewish temple. The continuity of the temple and the translatio of the temple are thus not guaranteed by physical objects, but rather by God’s presence according to a higher level of reality. Instead of the presence in a cloud, he is now present through his image. This continuity is visualized in Maniacutius’ sermon in the description of the mass celebrated by St Peter in the presence of God, in accordance with the pattern of the temple visions of the Old Testament. It also corresponds to the way in which sacerdotal authority was legitimized in contemporary sources, in terms of the continuity of the eternal priesthood before God.

the superior presence When God’s presence in the papal chapel surpasses his presence at the (Jewish) temple, it must be understood according to the stages of salvation history towards the fully revealed truth. Maniacutius furthermore emphasized how the prophets and poets of the Old Covenant longed for the sight of Christ and how his presence fulfilled the longings and prophecies of the Old Testament. Christ’s image surpassed the figures of the Old Covenant because it made the eternal truth directly visible. In the sermon the difference is explained according to a revelation and as the sight of something previously unseen. In a way, the Ark of the Covenant and the other figures of the Old Testament were retrospective imitations, while the image of Christ was a witness of the time to come. In the sermon, what completed the superiority of the divine dwelling at the papal palace was the divinely inspired transfer of Christ’s image from the high altar of the Lateran Church. In the tradition of the Descriptio, ‘Sancta Sanctorum’ was the name given to the relics of the high altar in the basilica, while the papal chapel, San Lorenzo, was not described specifically according to the temple model. Although the Descriptio had included the papal private chapel and treated the two entities of basilica and papal chapel symbiotically, Maniacutius’ separation of the two might be understood according to a degree of rivalry. But it might also have expressed, even more strongly, the Church’s triumph over the Jewish temple. In the sermon, it is the papal chapel that is called Sancta Sanctorum, rather than the temple relics or their location.43 Although the image and the temple objects had been transferred together, they were now separated and the location of the image, because of its higher level of representation, was the new Sancta Sanctorum of the Church – accessible to the new, legitimate high priest See also Wolf, Salus Populi Romani, p. 63; and Wolf, ‘Laetare filia Sion. Ecce ego venio et habitabo in medio tui’, p. 425.

43

nikolaus maniacutius and john the deacon

169

alone. Through the legend of the image of the Saviour, Maniacutius described the papal chapel as the place of God’s visible presence during the intermediate time between the Ascension of Christ and the eschatological crowning of his bride, the Church. Compared with the time of the earliest version of the Descriptio, there was an increased attention in the mid-twelfth century on the Lateran complex as the location of the temple of the New Covenant. Important traces of this attention may be found in the liturgies of Maundy Thursday and the dedication feast. Maniacutius’ sermon clearly exhibits a different model of the temple. The principal stage is moved to the papal chapel, the Jewish inheritance is toned down and the physical dwelling of Christ is strongly emphasized.

John the Deacon’s Version of the Descriptio John the Deacon probably composed his version of the Descriptio several decades after Maniacutius’ sermon, namely between 1159 and 1181. John belonged to a younger generation than Maniacutius and was probably a deacon at the Lateran chapter. While Maniacutius identified the papal chapel as the Holy of Holies, John reinforced and strongly promoted the identification of the Lateran basilica as the temple of the New Covenant. This can be seen in his elaborate explanation of the Feast of Dedication, in his description of priesthood and not least in his updated discussion of the temple objects, in which he brought in several new arguments for, and interpretations of, the transfer from Jerusalem. As mentioned in Chapter 6, John the Deacon provided several new explanations of the yearly celebration of the dedication feast that had not previously been mentioned in the tradition of the Descriptio. In keeping with the legend, he linked the dedication to Constantine’s building of the basilica at his palace. It is described as the first ever public consecration. It expressed the integration of Empire and Church, and the subordination of the terrestrial empire, as demonstrated by the Constitutum Constantini. In the context of the Descriptio, the consecration of the emperor’s basilica confirmed the papal claim to both temporal and spiritual authority. As the first public consecration was to the Saviour, John the Deacon added a miraculous apparition to confirm the Saviour’s actual presence: ‘And the image of the Saviour appeared fixed to the walls and became visible for the first time to all the Roman people. And it was written DEDICATIO BASILICAE SALVATORIS.’44 He then explains that, because of this miraculous first consecration, all of the churches ‘Et imago Salvatoris infixa parietibus, primum visibilis omni populi Romano apparuit. Inscribitur enim DEDICATIO BASILICAE SALVATORIS’. See Descriptio, X (‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, p. 327).

44

170

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

in Rome and in the rest of the world that bear the name of the Saviour should venerate and nourish this celebrated memory.45 The image of Christ referred to by John the Deacon does not correspond to the image of the Saviour of the Sancta Sanctorum. Rather, he refers to the head of Christ in the apse mosaic of the basilica. This image was thus another miraculous image possessing the direct likeness of Christ that guaranteed his presence.46 John the Deacon seems to rely on a tradition expressed by Bonizo of Sutri, who in his Book on the Christian Life (1090–1095) explained the apse mosaic in a similar manner.47 In the tradition of the Descriptio, however, John’s version is the first one to comment on this supposedly miraculous apparition in connection with the dedication of the church.48 One function of the apparition is as a divine sanctioning of the newly established Christian empire.49 But the apparition as recounted in the twelfth century can also be interpreted in keeping with the increased focus on the identification of the new temple and the Lateran Church towards the middle of that century and in contrast to Maniacutius’ sermon, which emphasized a different location for the Saviour’s presence. The description of the apparition in the basilica alluded to the consecration of the temple of Solomon. Christ entered and remained in his house just as God had dwelt there in Solomon’s temple after its consecration: And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the Lord, So that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord. Then spake Solomon, The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness.50

Ibid. See Chapter 6, p. 155. 47 ‘in qua prima ecclesia publice consecrata est et imago salvatoris depicta parietibus primum visibilis omni populo Romano apparuit’ (‘in this first publicly consecrated church the image of the Saviour depicted on the walls appeared visibly to all the Roman people for the first time’); Bonizo of Sutri, Bonizo Liber de Vita Christiana, ed. E. Perels (Berlin, 1930; repr. Hildesheim, 1998), IV, p. 98, and pp. 164–5. 48 See discussion in Peter Cornelius Claussen, Die Kirchen der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter 1050–1300: A–F, Corpus Cosmatorum II, 1 (Stuttgart, 2002), p. 106, n. 423. See also Pierre Jounel, Le Culte des saints dans les basiliques du Latran et du Vatican au douzième siècle (Rome, 1977), pp. 305–7. 49 Jack Freiberg, The Lateran in 1600: Christian Concord in Counter-Reformation Rome (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 110–15. 50 1 Kings 8:10–12. 45

46

nikolaus maniacutius and john the deacon

171

Maniacutius had referred to the same dwelling of the cloud in the temple and contrasted it with the visible presence of Christ through his image in Sancta Sanctorum. The image on the vault, referred to in the Descriptio by John the Deacon, was visible in the same manner and manifested the superiority of the Lateran over the old temple. This interpretation is supported by the next point in John’s explanation: the dedication must be celebrated for eight days. This is explained first in relation to the subsequent celebration of the basilicas of San Pietro and San Paolo fuori le mura (18 November) and then, by a comparison, with the number of days (seven) of the celebration of the old temple.51 Through its number of days, the feast of the church superseded the feast of the temple. Additionally, because God answered Solomon’s prayers on the eighth day, the pope, who was the vicar of the Saviour himself, ordained the remission of sins for those who attended the joyful celebration with contrition and confession before the eighth day. According to Roman custom, the degree of remission was specified according to the distance travelled by the penitent: to those from Rome and the surrounding region, a (thousand) year(s); to those from Tuscany and Lombardy, two (thousand) years; and to those who came from over the sea, three (thousand) years.52 The remission of sins connected to the dedication feast and also to Maundy Thursday53 was not a tradition unique to the Lateran. However, in John the Deacon’s description, it is obvious that the significance of the remission was derived from the consecration of the temple of Jerusalem. The remission of sins came as a result of God’s promise to dwell in the temple. Some decades before John’s edition, the clerics of Jerusalem had affirmed that the location of God’s dwelling constituted the holiness of the Templum Domini of Jerusalem.54 It was thus deeply attached to the physical place of the temple and based on the prayer of Solomon: That thine eyes may be open toward this house night and day, even toward the place of which thou hast said, My name shall be there: that thou mayest hearken unto the prayer which thy servant shall make toward this place. Descriptio X; see ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, p. 333. The text of John the Deacon in ACL A 70 speaks of one, two and three years, and ‘mille’ is later added above the text; ACL A 70, fol. 59v. A discussion of the development of the theology of penance in the eleventh and twelfth centuries is found in Ane Bysted, The Crusade Indulgence: Spiritual Rewards and the Theology of the Crusades, c. 1095–1216 (Leiden, 2014), pp. 75–155. 53 Descriptio, X; see ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, p. 334. See also Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae, 3, in ‘Petri Mallii Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae aucta atque emendata a romano Presbitero’, in Codice topografico della città di Roma, ed. Valentini and Zucchetti, III, pp. 375–442, at p. 385. 54 See Chapter 5, for the description of Templum Domini by Fulcher of Chartres, and Acard of Arrouaise’s poem Super Templo Salomonis (pp. 112–17). 51 52

172

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

And hearken thou to the supplication of thy servant, and of thy people Israel, when they shall pray toward this place: and hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place: and when thou hearest, forgive.55 The answer of God was similarly attached to his permanent presence in the temple which was consecrated to his name: ‘I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually.’56 The prayer of Solomon was an important element in the ritual of church dedication and thus significant for all Christian churches. In the description of John the Deacon, however, it is connected especially to the Lateran Church as a place demonstrating the visible and tangible presence of the Saviour through his images and as a place of abundant remission through his vicar. John’s description of the basilica as the Templum Misericordiae (‘temple of mercy’) confirms this function.57 John the Deacon’s text was, as earlier noted, written after Maniacutius’ sermon. Accordingly, when he chooses to disagree with Maniacutius’ model and follow the early Descriptio transmitted by the Lateran canons, it may indicate differing positions within the Roman ecclesio-political landscape. Following a more detailed reading of John the Deacon’s prologue and treatise on the temple objects, the different theological concepts of the most holy place – whether at the canons’ cathedral or at the papal chapel, put forward by Maniacutius and John the Deacon respectively – will be compared and discussed.

the prologue John the Deacon added a new prologue and a new title to the Descriptio, both of which exhibit increased attention to the model of the temple. While the earlier versions of the Descriptio were entitled in terms of the supreme holiness of the Lateran basilica – ‘Descriptio Sanctuarii Lateranensis ecclesie’ (‘Description of the Sanctuary of the Lateran Church’) and ‘scriptum de supremo sanctuario sancte dei romane’ (‘Tract on the supreme sanctuary of God’s Holy Roman Church’)58 – John’s version specifies the holiness according to the model of the temple: ‘Incipit prologus in Libro de Sanctis Sanctorum’ (‘Here begins the prologue of the Book on the Holy of Holies’). ‘Liber de Sanctis Sanctorum’ (‘Book on the Holy

1 Kings 8:29–30. 1 Kings 9:3. 57 See Descriptio, X; ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, pp. 333–4. 58 See Appendix 2. 55 56

nikolaus maniacutius and john the deacon

173

of Holies’) is thus a title that is repeated throughout the prologue.59 According to the biblical terminology, sanctum sanctorum designated a most holy thing, which could also mean a (physical) place. The Holy of Holies was simultaneously labelled in this way and as sancta sanctorum in the plural, which designated the holy things contained in the innermost area of the temple.60 Accordingly, the paragraph on the temple objects later in John’s version starts with the heading ‘De arca et sanctis sanctorum, quae sunt in basilica Salvatoris’ (‘On the Ark and the most holy things, which are in the basilica of the Saviour’). The book is introduced as a gift to Pope Alexander III, and with eloquent rhetoric John the Deacon identifies the basilica with terms conventionally used of the sanctuary of the Old Covenant. Referring to the history of the tabernacle in Exodus 25,61 he identifies the Lateran with the destination of the Israelites’ gifts, the ‘sanctuary’: And because each one, according to the proper gift he has received from God, should offer gold or silver or precious stones to the Lord’s tabernacle to the building on the sanctuary, because I am poor in mind, if only it was in spirit, I do not have the gold of intelligence and the silver of eloquence, or the precious stones of virtue, I wish to offer Your Holiness, in memory of this sanctuary, ram skin depicted and rubricated … 62 John own gift is the Descriptio, referred to, following the text from Exodus, as ‘ram skin depicted and rubricated’. In Italy manuscripts like this were usually made of the skin of sheep or goats,63 and John thus allocates his own manuscript See ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, p. 326: ‘librum de Sanctis Sanctorum’ (l. 6); ‘libellum de Sanctis Sanctorum’ (l. 23). 60 For sancta sanctorum, see Ex. 26:34; Heb. 9:3. For sanctum sanctorum, see Ex. 29:37; Ex. 30:10, 29; 1 Kings 8:6; Ezek. 48:12. 61 Ex. 25:1–8: ‘And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering. And this is the offering which ye shall take of them; gold, and silver, and brass, And blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats’ hair, And rams’ skins dyed red, and badgers’ skins, and shittim wood, Oil for the light, spices for anointing oil, and for sweet incense, Onyx stones, and stones to be set in the ephod, and in the breastplate. And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.’ 62 ‘Et quoniam unusquisque, secundum proprium donum quod habet a Deo, studet offerre in tabernaculo Domini ad opus sanctuarii aurum et argentum vel lapides pretiosos, quia pauper sensu, utinam spiritu, non habeo intelligentiae aurum et eloquientiae argentum vel pretiosos lapides virtutum, de memoria ipsius sanctuarii vestrae beatitudini offerre cupio pelle arietum depictas et rubricatas …’ Descriptio, I; ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, p. 327. 63 Bernhard Bischoff, Latin Paleography: Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1995), p. 9. 59

174

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

within the story he is telling, as one of the gifts for the tabernacle (see Exodus 25:5, 26:14). The tabernacle of the Israelites was the first sanctuary, ordered by God to be constructed during their journey to the Promised Land. It consisted of the Sanctuarium and the Sancta Sanctorum, wherein the Ark of the Covenant was kept. The significance of the sanctuary, which John the Deacon describes, alternates between the Lateran Church and the sanctuary of the Old Testament. The Lateran was the supreme sanctuary of the chosen people of God. A similar use of identification occurs at the very end of the prologue, when the priesthood is described according to the model of the priesthood of the Old Testament. John the Deacon wishes for God’s protection of the pope and that he who is crowned with eternal glory (i.e. the pope) and he who resides on the most holy and sacred throne with the blessed popes will be able to join God in the eternal condemnation of the sons of ‘Heliab’ (Eliab) who committed desecration and sacrilege.64 The sons of Eliab, in this context, refers to the unfaithful priests and to an episode of rebellion during the Israelites’ journey through the desert (see Numbers 16). A group of the Israelite men revolted against Moses and Aaron, because they held themselves to be above the rest of the people. The rebellion thus pertained to the interpretation of priesthood and leadership. As a result, God intervened and laid bare who were the holy ones, exterminating the rebels and their houses. In the biblical story, the fate of Eliab’s sons became a warning to future generations.65 The sign that then affirmed the authority of the chosen priest was the blossoming of Aaron’s rod (Numbers 17), supposedly also preserved in the papal altar. In the theological tradition, ‘the sons of Eliab’ was used as a topos for the schismatics,66 and in John’s prologue the reference therefore confirms the papal authority and sovereignty as ordained by God. The context for this is likely to have been the need to affirm papal authority – not only against Emperor Frederick Barbarossa and the Roman commune, which supported him, but also See Descriptio, I; ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, p. 328. See Num. 26:10–11: ‘And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up together with Korah, when that company died, what time the fire devoured two hundred and fifty men: and they became a sign’. See also Deut. 11:6. 66 A similar interpretation of the sons of Eliab is found in texts by authors such as Augustine, Isidore, the Venerable Bede and Rabanus Maurus. See Augustine, Liber Primus. De Moysi Pentateucho. Caput XXXVIII, De Aetiopissa uxore Moysi, et lepra murmuratricis Mariae, PL 35, col. 2171; Isidore of Seville, Ex veteri Testamento, PL 83, col. 110A; Bede, Explanatio in Quartum Librum Moisis, Qui Hebraice Vaiedabber, latine Numeri dicitur, Caput XVI, PL 91, col. 366A; Bede, Explanatio in Quintum Librum Mosis, Qui Hebreaice Ellehaddebarim, Graece, Deuteronomium, Latine Altera Lex dicitur, Capp. VII–XII, PL 91, col. 386A; and Rabanus Maurus, Incipiunt enarrationes in numeros. Liber secundus. Caput XVII. De sedition Chore, Dathan et Abiron contra Moysen, et poena eorum, PL 108, col. 681A. 64 65

nikolaus maniacutius and john the deacon

175

against the antipopes supported by the Empire, who were elected during one of the great schisms of the Roman Church in the twelfth century. No fewer than three antipopes challenged Pope Alexander III (to whom John the Deacon dedicated his version) during his reign.67 Thus John the Deacon describes the Lateran Church as the new temple according to the models of the sanctuaries of the Old Covenant. This is evident both in his explanation of the dedication feast and in his prologue.

the discussion of the temple objects John the Deacon introduces the temple objects as a main theme in the prologue. He states that he will present evidence from historians and saintly authorities to dismiss all doubts about the hiding of the tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant.68 The discussion concerns the interpretation of the Second Book of Maccabees, chapter 2, and asks: were the temple objects, or were they not, rediscovered after the prophet Jeremiah had hid them? In John’s text, as it is copied in ACL A 70, the topic of the temple objects is treated as a book within the book, which clearly demonstrates their importance. The heading of this part of John’s version is elaborated in a similar manner to the Incipit of the Descriptio itself. The intention is clear: ‘About the Ark and the most holy things which are in the Saviour’s basilica’.69 The first paragraph of this part, with slight variations, is identical to the presentation of the relics of the main altar, as in earlier versions. The extended argumentation is then introduced in the following paragraphs: 5 (‘Argumentation against those who oppose the hiding of the tabernacle and the Ark and the altar of incense’) and 6 (‘That at the time of Titus and Vespasian, the things which were in the temple were transferred to Rome’).70 John the Deacon introduces the dispute by dismissing his detractors’ competence. Using the words of St Paul against erroneous interpretation of scripture, he states that his opponents do not understand what they are reading.71 See Colin Morris, The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250 (Oxford, 1989), pp. 192–7, ‘The Alexandrine Schism (1159–1177)’. 68 Descriptio, I; ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, p. 327. See text and translation in Chapter 3, p. 41, n. 18. 69 ‘De arca et sanctis sanctorum, quae sunt in basilica Salvatoris’; ACL A 70, fol. 32v. See Descriptio, XX; ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, p. 336. 70 ‘Ratio circa eos, qui opponent de absconsione tabernaculi et arcae, vel altaris incense’, ‘Quod tempore Titi et Vespasiani quae in templo fuerant Romae translatae fuerunt’; ACL A 70, fol. 33r–v. See Descriptio, LI, LII and LIII; ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, pp. 339, 341. This exemplar was copied in the thirteenth century and consequently we do not know whether the title originates from John the Deacon or not. 71 See 1 Tim. 1:7. This passage was widely used within the discussion of textual interpretation from the time of St Augustine onwards. 67

176

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

They use the text from the Second Book of Maccabees as an argument for the absence of the objects. Moreover, they believe that the objects have been hidden until the Day of Judgement, when they will appear in the midst of the congregation and God’s atonement will be revealed.72 John the Deacon characterizes this reading, which had also been proposed by Fulcher and his copyist (Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium), as a ‘superfluous opinion’. He then announces that he will rebut this worthless opinion with several testimonies.73 His point, as in the previous versions of the Descriptio, is to prove that the Ark and the altar of incense were in use at the (Jewish) temple when the Roman emperors plundered it – otherwise, it could not have been transferred to Rome. Accordingly, he has to explain the fulfilment of the atonement of God in a way other than as the future Judgement Day. As in the previous versions, Ambrose is used to prove that the time had come at the first advent of the Lord. In John’s version he is quoted even more explicitly and extensively than in the previous versions.74 In addition to this argument derived from Christian exegesis, John the Deacon introduces the works of Josephus and Hegesippus as evidence for the presence of the temple objects in the Sancta Sanctorum following the Babylonian

‘Verum quam plurimi sacrorum voluminum et historiarum profunda misteria minus prudenter investigantes, “nec intelligentes neque quae locuntur, neque de quibus affirmant”, propter hoc quod in IIo libro Machabaeorum de absconsione tabernaculi et arcae, seu etiam altaris incensi repperitur, superflua opinione existimant, ipsum tabernaculum et arcam vel altare, hactenus occultata et usque ad tempus futuri iudicii latere et ignorari; tuncque in congregatione populi et propitiatione Domini revelanda’ (‘Truly how several sacred volumes and histories investigate profound mysteries by no means prudently, “they neither understand nor tell of these things, nor do they confirm these things”, concerning what is found in the second book of Maccabees about the removal of the tabernacle and the ark, or also the altar of incense, there exists an overabundance of opinion, that the tabernacle or ark or altar, hitherto hidden, will be concealed and unknown until the time of future judgement; and then will be revealed to the assembly of people and the propitiation of the Lord’). Descriptio, LI; ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, p. 339. 73 John the Deacon comments that this was done without referring to Jerome’s assessment that the reading of the Books of Maccabees was suitable for the edification of the Church, although they were not part of the canonical books. Ibid., p. 339. 74 Another difference is that the first redaction of the Descriptio alluded to the incarnation as the time of God’s atonement, but this version refers literally to the passion on the cross: ‘congregationem, inquit, populi tenemus, propitiationem Domini agnoscimus, quam propitiator in sua operatus est passione’ (‘we consider the congregation of people, it is said, we recognize the propitiation of the Lord, as the propitiator working in his passion’). Descriptio, XLIX; ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, p. 339. See also Chapter 2, p. 33, and Chapter 5, p. 108. 72

nikolaus maniacutius and john the deacon

177

exile of the Jews.75 John presents Hegesippus’ version of the story about Pompey, who violated the temple, to show that the cultic objects from the tabernacle were still there: [Pompey] saw the second tabernacle, which was open to the high priest alone in a solemn approach, and within he saw the lamp and table and vessels for incense and the tablets of the covenant above which the cherubim were in a cloud of fragrance, and two thousand talents of sacred money.76 He also records the offering ordered by Pompey in the temple the following day. According to Hegesippus, the Jews lamented that the hidden and sacred mysteries had been laid open to the foreign peoples.77 To remove all doubt, John the Deacon records yet another situation that testified to the presence of the temple objects, namely the story of Zechariah. Zechariah served in the temple when an angel appeared before him and promised him the birth of John the Baptist. According to the Gospel, the text states that the angel was standing at the right side of the altar.78 The conclusion of the chapter is unambiguous:

‘Quod autem post captivitatem et reditum de Babilone Iudaei habuerunt tabernaculum et ea quae in Sancta Sanctorum continebantur pertissimi historiarum scriptores Iosephus in XIIIo atque Egisippus, apostolorum tempore vicinus, christianae fidei defensor et cultor, in primo libro suarum narrationum commemorant …’ (‘Yet that they had the tabernacle and those things contained in the Holy of Holies after the captivity and return from Babylon, is mentioned by the most skilled writers of history Josephus in XIIIo and Hegesippus, [who lived] near the time of the apostles, defender and cultivator of the Christian faith, in the first book of his histories’). Descriptio, LI; ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, pp. 339–40. 76 ‘vidit tabernaculum secundum quod soli principi sacerdotum sollempni accessu patebat atque introspexit lucernam et mensam et timiamateria et tabulas Testamenti super quas Cherubin in multitudine aromatum dispersa et sacrae pecuniae talenta duo milia.’ Ibid. See also Egissipus I, XVII, 2, in Egissipus I, Hegesippi qui dicitur Historiae libri V, ed. V. Ussani, vol. I (Vienna, 1932), p. 28. 77 ‘nichil tamen gravius in illa miseria ingemuerunt Iudaei, quam quod illa abscondita et sanctificationum misteria detecta gentibus alienis fuerint et manifesta[ta]’ (‘yet in that misery the Jews groaned over nothing more than that that mystery of sanctifications had been removed and laid bare and revealed to foreign people’). Descriptio, LI; ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, p. 340. See also Egissipus I, XVII, 2, in Egissipus I, Hegesippi qui dicitur Historiae libri V, pp. 27–8. 78 See Luke 1. 75

178

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Consequently, it is clearly demonstrated by these authorities, and there ought to be no doubt in the mind of anyone, in what way, after the captivity, the Jews had the tabernacle and that which was venerated in the Holy of Holies, before the incarnation of the Lord.79 Lastly, it is confirmed by the authority of St Augustine that the Sancta Sanctorum, which Zechariah entered, was nothing less than that place behind the veil which held the Ark and the tablets of the law, Aaron’s rod, the golden urn containing manna, the Cherubim, the atonement cover and the altar of incense.80 John the Deacon’s point is clear: the sacred objects were present in the temple at the time of the Roman destruction. Furthermore, this point forms the premise for the claim of the transfer from the temple to the Lateran, as he argues in the following chapter of his version of the Descriptio.

from the temple to the lateran church To support the claimed transfer, John the Deacon in his chapter 6 refers to Jerome, ‘whose advantage was always to search new things and throw light on the concealed things’,81 and who also testified when, and by whom, the objects were transferred from Jerusalem to Rome. John refers to Jerome’s commentary on the Book of Joel and states that: … the Roman princes, Titus and Vespasian, after the ascension of the Lord, when the city of Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed, because of the victory and the monument for the Roman people, took with them all the special and beautiful things that the Jews had in the temple. They even commanded it to be transported by the Jews themselves …82

‘Liquido itaque his auctoritatibus demonstratur, nec ambiguum in mente alicuius residere debet, qualiter, post captivitatem, Iudaei ante incarnationem Domini tabernaculum et ea quae in Sancta Sanctorum venerabantur habuerint.’ Descriptio, LI; ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, p. 341. 80 I have not been able to identify the reference, nor could Valentini and Zuchetti: see ibid., p. 341, n. 1. 81 ‘cui proprium fuit semper nova quaerere, et absconsa dilucidare’. Descriptio, LII; ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, p. 341. 82 ‘Titus et Vespasianus, Romani principes, post ascensionem Domini destructa civitate Hierosolima et templo, ob victoriam et monimentum populi romani, omnia illa quae in templo praecipua et speciosa Iudaei habuerant, secum asportaverunt, immo ab ipsis Iudaeis asportari iusserunt’. Descriptio, LII; ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, p. 341. John the Deacon here paraphrases Jerome, S. Eusebii Hieronymi Stridonensis presbyteri commentariorum in Joelem Prophetam liber unus. Ad pammachium. Incipit liber, PL 25, col. 981. 79

nikolaus maniacutius and john the deacon

179

According to Jerome, though this is not directly related in the Descriptio, the transfer of the temple spoils was connected to the interpretation of vengeance for the blood of Christ and to the conversion of Jerusalem.83 John the Deacon adds the evidence of the triumphal arch (as in earlier versions) to Jerome’s argument and connects it to the story just told.84 The last part of chapter 6 in John’s version introduces additional authorities that attest to the presence of the temple objects in the Sancta Sanctorum at the time of the passion of Christ. Texts by Pope Leo the Great and the Venerable Bede are given as evidence, but at the same time they provide an interpretation of the significance of the objects. A quotation from Pope Leo the Great interprets the rending of the veil of the sanctuary in relation to the enlightenment of the Christians and the blindness of the Jews.85 Leo the Great states that all the elements of creation protested against their blindness (referring to the eschatological signs at the moment of the death of Christ, as described in Matthew 27): … but, if neither the signs from heaven nor from the underworld are sufficient to convince you [the Jews], and the rocks and tombs understand more of the cross of Christ than your hearts, and not even what happened in the ‘Hoc illi referunt, ut ultionem sanguinis Christi et subversionem Jerusalem, quae Dei judicio accidit, contra Tyrum et Sidonem per se accidisse confirment.’ (‘They relate this, so that they may confirm that the vengeance for the blood of Christ and the overthrow of Jerusalem, which came to pass by the judgement of God, happened through them against Tyre and Sidon.’) Jerome, S. Eusebii Hieronymi Stridonensis presbyteri commentariorum in Joelem Prophetam liber unus, col. 981. 84 ‘Hoc idem usque hodie liquido perpenditur in triumphali arcu, qui appellatur Septem Lucernarum, qui constructus fuisse probatur ad memoriam praedictorum principum totiusque Romani populi iuxta ecclesiam Sanctae Mariae Novae, in quo candelabra, quae fuerunt in priori tabernaculo, et arca cum vectibus suis, quae fuit in secundo intra velum, manifeste ac mirifico opere sculpta fuisse cernuntur’ (‘To this day this same matter is clearly understood in the triumphal arch, which is called [the Arch] of the Seven Lamps, which is shown to have been constructed to the memory of the aforesaid princes and of the entire Roman people next to the church of Sancta Maria Nova, on which are the candelabra, which were in the first tabernacle, and the ark with its rods, which were in the second tabernacle inside the veil, and are understood to have been fashioned with clear and marvelous care’). Descriptio, LII; ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, pp. 341–2. 85 ‘Hoc etiam … Leo papa in sermonibus Dominicae Passionis, cum de velo scisso in templo sub ipso tempore passionis Christi contra perfidiam Iudaeorum contestando inveheret, declarare videtur, dum ipsorum caecitatem Iudaeorum omnia mundi elementa evidentius arguisse protestaretur in sermone, qui sic incipit’ (‘This also … Pope Leo in his sermons on the Lord’s Passion is seen to declare, when he inveighs against the perfidy of the Jews by calling as witness the torn veil in the temple at the time of Christ’s Passion, when it is declared in his sermon, which begins thus, that all elements of the world clearly prove the blindness of those same Jews’). Ibid., p. 342. 83

180

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

temple is enough, then diligently observe. The veil, with which they like a shade shut up the Holy of Holies, was torn in two from top to bottom, and the sacred and mystical secret place, which only the high priest was ordered to enter, was laid open.86 According to Leo’s interpretation, the consequence was that no difference remained; that is, there remained no separate place for the holy things.87 Leo understood this in the context of the relation between the Old and the New Covenants. The Jews had refused to acknowledge their guilt and thus lost their priestly rights.88 A statement of Jesus is also cited: ‘If you believed Moses, you would believe me.’ Consequently, Leo’s quotation concludes that the Jews are condemned by both testaments: because they lost the old one, they do not deserve the new one. Any further elaboration, or conclusion, on these reflections is not stated explicitly in the Descriptio. In the original sermon, Leo states that, in contrast to the blind Jews, the Church is liberated from the darkness of ignorance and illuminated by the light of faith. By adoption, the Church has become the heir to the new covenant.89 The last authority quoted in the chapter is the Venerable Bede: ‘Scinditur velum ut appareat Arca Testamenti’ (‘The curtain was torn in two so that the Ark of the Covenant appeared’).90 John the Deacon introduces this sentence with ‘inter cetera’, which points to its supposedly known context in Bede’s text. In this context, Bede confirms not only the presence of the temple objects in the inner sanctuary but also the transfer from the temple to the Church: ‘Quod ad arguendos vos, nec caelestia, nec inferna sufficiunt, et crucem Christi magis potuerunt petrae atque monumenta, quam vestra corda sentire, saltem quod in templo actum est, scienter advertite. Velum, cujus objectu intercludebantur Sancta Sanctorum, a summo usque ad ima diruptum est, et sacrum illud mysticumque secretum quo solus summus pontifex iussus fuerat intrare, reseratum est.’; ibid. See Leo the Great, Sermo LXI [AI. LIX], De Passione Domini X, Cap. III–V, PL 54, cols 348–9. 87 ‘ut nichil iam esset discretionis, ubi nichil resederat sanctitatis’ (‘as there is no distinction now, where no sanctity resides’). Descriptio, LII; ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, p. 342. 88 ‘Repudiatos vos igitur debuistis agnoscere, et omne ius sacerdotum perdidisse’ (‘Therefore you ought to acknowledge that they repudiated and lost every right as priests’), ibid. 89 ‘Nos autem, dilectissimi, qui ab ignorantiae tenebris liberati, fidei lumen accepimus, et in novi Testamenti haereditatem per electionem adoptionis intravimus’ (‘Yet we, most esteemed ones, who are freed from the shadows of ignorance, accept the light of faith, and we have entered into the inheritance of the New Testament through the choice of adopting it’). Leo the Great, Sermo LXI, PL 54, col. 349. 90 See Bede, In Marci evangelium, Lib. IV, XV, 38; Bede, In Lucae evangelium expositio. In Marci evangelium expositio, ed. D. Hurst (Turnhout, 1960), p. 636. 86

nikolaus maniacutius and john the deacon

181

And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The curtain of the temple was torn, so that the Ark of the Covenant and all the mysteries of the law, that were hidden, appeared and were transferred to the people of all nations.91 Bede identifies the revelation of the innermost area of the temple with the transfer from the Jews to the Gentiles (i.e. the Church). Later in the text he substantiates his interpretation with several biblical testimonies. In Bede’s comments, the synagogue is not blind but mute. In contrast, the Church is portrayed by the confession of the soldier.92 John the Deacon, like Maniacutius in his sermon, emphasizes the new temple as a superior point of access to the secret or heavenly truth – the truth is no longer behind the veil. In John’s version, this is most evident in his interpretation of the dedication. However, he also strongly emphasizes the physical temple objects, and the text appears to be the most elaborate and intense contribution to the discussion of the objects’ fate in the twelfth century. The references to the Church Fathers thus establish the status of the Ark and of the other temple objects in his text. Leo’s interpretation of the disclosure of the Holy of Holies locates the temple objects in the centre of the transition between the stages of salvation history. The exposure of the Ark meant that the secret place of the temple objects lost its legitimacy; it meant the end of the Jewish temple and priesthood. When the Ark was then transferred to Rome, it was a physical sign confirming the fulfilment of the Church and the Lateran as the legitimate heir to the temple. This can be understood in terms of the view that the temple objects belonged to those who had legitimate access to their significance. Their presence in the Lateran high altar thus showed that this church was the new and superior temple. Before this ‘book within the book’ about the temple objects, John the Deacon adjusts and clarifies the reference to St Helena’s expedition to Jerusalem and the treasures she brought back home.93 Although the earlier versions of the Descriptio referred to the objects that were hidden from ancient times – that is, before the ‘Et uelum templi scissum est in duo a sursum usque deorsum. Scinditur uelum templi ut archa testamenti et omnia legis sacramenta quae tegebantur appareant atque ad populum transeant nationum’; Bede, In Marci evangelium, Lib. IV, XV, 1585–8. 92 ‘Unde merito per centurionem fides ecclesiae designatur quae uelo mysteriorum caelestium, per mortem domini reserato continuo Iesum et uere iustum hominem et uere Dei filium sinagoga tacente confirmat’ (‘For this reason the faith of the Church is denoted by the centurion, which veil of the celestial mysteries is opened by the death of the Lord and continually confirms Jesus both truly as a just man and truly as the son of God, with the synagogue remaining silent’); see ibid., IV, XV, 1601–5. 93 See Chapter 2, p. 25. 91

182

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

incarnation of Christ – and that remained in the temple after his ascension,94 John the Deacon refers to the objects that were hidden from ancient times and remained in the temple after its destruction by Titus and Vespasian.95 No specific relic is mentioned in this paragraph – only ‘incomparabilis sanctuarii thesauro’ (‘the incomparable treasure of the sanctuary’ – and the change may have been introduced to avoid inconsistency in the text. All the redactions speak of two transportations from Jerusalem to Rome, but John’s version states explicitly that St Helena transferred the remains after the destruction by the Romans and, consequently, that it could not include the Ark or the other temple objects. This clarification was probably necessitated by the discussion on the Ark. It functions as a reaffirmation of the idea of the translation by the Roman emperors Titus and Vespasian in keeping with God’s vengeance on the Jews.

A Comparison of the Descriptio and Maniacutius’ Sermon The discussion of the temple objects, both in Jerusalem and afterwards in Rome, shows that the translatio of the temple in the twelfth century involved a reading of the Greek and Roman historiographers – as John the Deacon states – and scriptural exegesis. In the tradition of the Descriptio, a central argument was, with reference to the Church Father Ambrose, that the prophecy of Jeremiah in 2 Maccabees 2:7 was fulfilled at the time of the incarnation of the Lord. This fulfilment asserted that the Ark was present in the temple at the time of Titus and Vespasian and that it consequently could have been brought to Rome with the triumphant emperors.96 It is significant that Maniacutius does not follow this Christological interpretation of the prophecy of Jeremiah as a main argument in his sermon, but his silence about the Ark in the Lateran basilica can be explained according to Jerome’s principles of textual interpretation. The Hebraist Maniacutius was an eager imitator of Jerome. In his exegesis of the prophets, Jerome accepted both the literal/historical meaning of the Jews, which related to Old Testament history, and the spiritual/ allegorical meaning of the Church, which related to the present or the future. This is expressed in his principle ‘Whatever took place “carnally” among the former Descriptio, XVI, XVII. ‘quod ab antiquis ante incarnationem Domini ibidem fuerat reconditum, et post destructionem, quae a Tito et Vespasiano, Romanis principibus, facta legitur, inibi habebatur residuum’ (‘what remained was kept there, that which had been concealed from ancient times before the incarnation of the Lord, and after the destruction which we may read was done by Titus and Vespasian, Roman princes’). Descriptio, XV; ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, p. 335. 96 See Chapter 2, pp. 33–4. 94 95

nikolaus maniacutius and john the deacon

183

people is fulfilled spiritually in the Church.’97 What Jerome rejects in the reading of the prophets is what he describes as ‘Judaizing’: looking for literal fulfilment of the prophecies in the future, fulfilments that are not directly attributed to Christ.98 While the interpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy in the Descriptio was in fact Christological, it is nevertheless reasonable to believe that the specific reading of Ambrose would have been classified as Judaizing in the Roman theological context. Maniacutius, who is closely connected to the Lateran complex, does not reject the presence of the Ark or accuse the canons of being Judaizers, but neither does he promote its presence. Half a century later, a clear accusation was expressed by the canons of St Peter’s, who accused the Lateran canons of being like Jews. This certainly refers to the claim of the temple objects at the Lateran. In a polemical poem, written at the beginning of the thirteenth century and transmitted along with the description of the Vatican basilica (Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae), the church of St Peter mocks the Lateran cathedral: I glory in Peter and Paul but you, Synagogue, Rejoice only in signs and ancient anointings. I consider those men at the same time Jews and followers of Moses Who believe the old Synagogue to be the head of the Church. For that old figure says nothing about the Prince without equal.99

‘Quicquid in priore populo fiebat carnaliter, in ecclesia spiritualiter conpleretur.’ See M. Graves, ‘“Judaizing” Christian Interpretations of the Prophets as Seen by Saint Jerome’, Vigiliae Christianae, 61 (2007), 142–56, at 149. Graves refers to Jerome, Comm. Jer. 30, 18–22. 98 Ibid., p. 151. 99 This is the second part of one of two poems Contra Lateranensem translated in Freiberg, The Lateran in 1600, p. 205, n. 101. The entire poems reads: ‘Contra Lateranenses I: Hic cathedram Petri populi venerentur, honorent / Principis ecclesiam, caput orbis et urbis adorent. / Tunc ego prima parens, mater, caput ecclesiarum / Constituta fui; socios cum Petrus in omnes / Primatum tenuit, Deus et mihi contulit illum, / Ut clarus populus cathedrales Principis aedes / Me solam dominam teneat orbisque magistram. / Glorior in Petro Paulo, sed tu, synagoga, / In signis tantum gaudes vetustisque lituris. / Hos ego iudaeos reputo simul et moysistas, / Qui caput ecclesiae veterem credunt synagogam: / Principe absque pari taceat vetus illam figura. / Contra Lateranenses II / Cum Petrus ecclesiae det pallia, non Lateranum, / Linguosi tacitam ponit in ore manum, / Et caput et princeps Laterani Petrus habetur, / Ut fidei pietas omnibus una detur. / Hic Vaticanum fuit antea quam Lateranum, / Cum Petrus esset ibi tractus ab ore canum, / Raptus et inde fuit, rediit tamen, ut locus idem  / Per stabilem toto praesit in orbe fidem.’ See ‘Petri Mallii Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae’, pp. 379–80. For a complete translation, see Marie-Thérèse Champagne and Ra’anan S. Boustan, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past: The Jewish Experience of Rome in the Twelfth Century’, Medieval Encounters 17 (2011), 464–94, at 479.

97

184

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Both the tradition of the Descriptio and Maniacutius’ sermon can be read as expressions of translatio templi in the twelfth century – but their argumentation differs in the use of the Old Testament prophecies. Based on an exegesis that could be characterized as Judaizing, the tradition of the Descriptio promotes a physical transfer of the temple objects as a guarantee for the localization of the grace of God and of sacerdotal authority.

summary: translatio templi John the Deacon’s version of the Descriptio expressed the transition between the stages of salvation history according to the Church Fathers as being the moment of the passion of Christ. Then the veil of the temple was torn in two and the Ark of the Covenant was exposed. As figures that imitated the heavenly pattern revealed to Moses at the mountain, the Ark and the other temple objects constituted a physical continuity of the signs of truth. These signs had been guarded by the Jews, and the signs had conditioned the Jews’ access to God through the high priest. When the death of Christ opened a new stage in salvation history, the temple objects were exposed and the significance of the first figures was revealed. Access to God was no longer confined to these objects, but to belief in Christ, through the new priesthood of the Church. Both Maniacutius and the various versions of the Descriptio describe the transfer of the temple objects by the Roman emperors to Rome according to divine providence. The transfer was a historical event and a triumph of war, as Maniacutius emphasizes, but it can also be understood in terms of the Ark and the other objects being signs. The latter seems to be the case presented in the Descriptio, especially in John the Deacon’s version. The revelation of the signs – that is, the interpretation of the Old Covenant and access to the truth – rightly belonged to the Church. The relation between the Jewish temple and the Church is described in terms of a transfer of sacerdotal authority and as a transfer of the location of God’s presence. These two characteristics were inseparably connected and constituted by the concept of the translatio templi.

A Jewish Perspective The physical transfer of the most holy objects of the Jewish temple pertained not only to exegetical discussions of the sacred texts but also to objects that were holy to both Judaism and the Church. An interesting question, before leaving the Descriptio, is whether it is possible to find traces of the Lateran claim to possess the temple objects in the Jewish sources from Rome. In the time of John the Deacon, the Jews of Rome were protected by the papacy. According to the itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela (1169–1171), a Spanish

nikolaus maniacutius and john the deacon

185

Jewish traveller, some of them even served at the pope’s court.100 Benjamin was well acquainted with Jewish traditions. When he describes what was worth seeing at the Lateran, he refers to a local custom (c. 1170): In the church of St John in the Lateran there are two bronze columns taken from the temple, the handiwork of King Solomon, each column being engraved ‘Solomon the son of David.’ The Jews of Rome told me that every year upon the 9th of Ab they found the columns exuding moisture like water. There also is the cave where Titus the son of Vespasian stored the temple vessels which he brought from Jerusalem.101 Benjamin of Tudela and the Roman Jews thus confirmed the physical transfer of the temple vessels from Jerusalem to Rome, which accorded with historiography and the Talmudic tradition. It seems that, in their view, the columns mourned the transfer and the objects’ destiny, when they sweated at the annual day of Tisha B’Av, the day on which the Jews commemorated the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. However, there is no evidence that they acknowledged the existence of the Ark or the other temple vessels. Mainstream Jewish tradition believed that the Ark had been lost before the destruction by the Romans and that most of the other objects had been taken from Rome to Carthage by the Vandals in 455 and later lost. One object that had not been taken to Carthage, but had remained in Rome, was the Torah, which, according to Josephus, had been brought from Jerusalem in the same transfer. This was supposedly still present in the Roman synagogue named after Emperor Alexander Severus. The Torah was also venerated by the Christians in a ritual that appears to have been introduced in the twelfth century. It required the Jews to be present at the papal adventus, bearing their laws in the form of the scrolls of the Torah.102 Abbot Suger of St Denis (d. 1151) described a similar ritual in 1131, when Pope Innocent II, on receiving the Torah, offered a ‘Rome is the head of the kingdoms of Christendom, and contains about 200 Jews, who occupy an honourable position and pay no tribute, and amongst them are officials of the Pope Alexander, the spiritual head of all Christendom. Great scholars reside here, at the head of them being R. Daniel, the chief rabbi, and R. Jechiel, an official of the Pope. He is a handsome young man of intelligence and wisdom, and he has the entry of the Pope’s palace; for he is the steward of his house and of all that he has. He is a grandson of R. Nathan, who composed the Aruch and its commentaries.’ See Benjamin of Tudela, The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela: Critical Text, Translation and Commentary, ed. and trans. M. N. Adler (London, 1907), pp. 5–6. 101 Ibid., p. 7. 102 Susan Twyman, ‘Summus Pontifex: The Ritual and Ceremonial of the Papal Court’, in Adrian IV, The English Pope (1154–1159): Studies and Texts, ed. B. Bolton and A. J. Duggan (Aldershot, 2003), pp. 49–73. 100

186

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

supplication on behalf of the ‘blinded Synagogue’ that the almighty God would ‘lift the veil from your heart’.103 In light of Maniacutius’ sermon, it is worth comparing the significance of the Torah of the Jewish community with the image of the Saviour at the papal private chapel. According to the Church, the objects expressed the presence of God in communities that existed at different stages in salvation history. In their blindness, the Jews were still preservers of the truth that had been fully revealed to the Church. Lastly, a curious source ought to be mentioned. A fifteenth-century version of the description of the Lateran, which appeared in northern France (Brussels BR 6932), states that the Jews came to venerate the Ark of the Covenant at the Lateran Church.104 It is impossible to know whether this is true. In any case, it is a description of two different communities relating to the same object: a triumphant Christian Church that relies on Jewish witness and the vengeance on the Jewish Christ-killers, and a mourning Jewish Diaspora deprived of its God-given covenant because of Christ.

Ibid., p. 71, referring to Abbot Suger of St Denis in Vita Ludovici grossi; Henri Waquet, Vie de Louis VI le Gros (Paris, 1929), pp. 262–4. 104 See Appendix 1. 103

Epilogue

And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.1 From the first version of the Descriptio and throughout the following six hundred years, the Ark of the Covenant played a significant role at the Lateran Church, whether as argument, as liturgical object or as relic. The transferral of the sacred Ark and the rods from the innermost area of the papal high altar to devotional exposure in the fourteenth century (after the fire at the Lateran in 1308), and finally into oblivion in the eighteenth century, is a story about changed meanings and changed contexts of interpretation. When Pope Benedict XIV realized, in 1745, that the basilica still had these obscure artefacts on display, they had already lost their significance as liturgical objects. The Ark and the rods served no purpose in this ‘rationalist’ time. The Ark was moreover regarded as a fake and thus not even given a place in the pope’s collection of treasures.2 A modern visitor to the Lateran Church enters a very different space from the one described by the twelfth-century canons. Pilgrims from all over the world still gather in the basilica and most of them probably do not know what the church hides – rather akin to the situation described in the prologue of the Descriptio. As noted above, the history of the Ark of the Covenant at the Lateran was brought to a definitive end in the eighteenth century. Nonetheless, traces of the ideology supporting the claim to possess the Ark can still be seen in the baroque furnishings and decorations that replaced the medieval interior. The frescoes in Rev. 11:19. In 2008, I wrote to the head of the Vatican Museum in Rome asking whether there were any remnants of an object known as the Ark of the Covenant, which had been removed from San Giovanni in Laterano in the eighteenth century. Was it perhaps stored with the many other objects in the Vatican collection? I received a reply a few weeks later. I was not surprised that neither the curator nor his colleagues were familiar with such a tradition, which apparently stemmed from medieval sources.

1 2

188

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

the transept depict the Constantinian foundation of the cathedral, as well as the legendary apparition of Christ during the first consecration. The sacrament altar is flanked by statues of Moses and Aaron. On the left of the door to the sacristy, a thirteenth-century tablet is bricked up in the wall.3 The inscription says that the Ark of the Covenant and the other temple objects are underneath the high altar and that Titus and Vespasian caused them to be transferred from Jerusalem to Rome by the Jews. The medieval legitimization of the Lateran shows that these traces and obscure traditions are in fact possible to grasp today, when read within the contexts that produced them. The Lateran Ark of the Covenant, found in all of the medieval texts, tells a story of the legitimization of sacerdotal authority in twelfth-century Rome. This legitimization process took place within disputing communities, all relating to the same sacred traditions and objects.

The translatio templi – from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance The Church Fathers’ interpretations, along with those of subsequent influential historiographers, of the destruction of Jerusalem as God’s vengeance for the crucifixion of Christ prepared the way for the concept of translatio templi. However, it was the argument favouring the material continuity at the Temple Mount in the time of the crusades that was transferred to Rome, thus shaping the translatio templi at the Lateran basilica. In establishing the translatio templi as an idea comparable to other phenomena of translatio in the history of Western culture, it is necessary to investigate corresponding examples related to the Lateran Church. As an exhaustive investigation is not possible here, it suffices to point to the ideology linked to the building of the new San Pietro in the sixteenth century. This undertaking was promoted as a rebuilding of the temple and a fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies.4 In defending the dignity and authority of the Roman papacy, the Italian Renaissance humanists turned to models from the biblical past: to Moses and Aaron, to the sons of Eliab and to the Letter to the Hebrews, as well as to the theological discussions from previous centuries. Charles L. Stinger has analysed the ideology, art and ceremony of the Renaissance papacy, stating: ‘What might be called the theme of the “translatio

The tablet dates to the papacy of Nicholas IV (1288–1292). See Peter Cornelius Claussen, Die Kirchen der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter 1050–1300. Band 2: S. Giovanni in Laterano (Stuttgart, 2008), p. 343, pl. 67. 4 Charles L. Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome (Bloomington, 1985), pp. 201–6. On the rebuilding of the temple see e.g. Giles of Viterbo (1507), cited in ibid., p. 220. 3

epilogue

189

templi” thus assumed a fixed place in the Roman Renaissance view of the Eternal City’s past.’5 Stinger does not discuss the content of this notion, but brings forth a wide range of fascinating sources that seek to legitimize the papal office as a successor to the high priestly office of the Old Covenant, with St Peter’s as the new temple. As in the twelfth-century sources, the translatio of the temple here also pertains to the specific place chosen by God for his divine ruling. According to Piero da Monte’s words, addressed to Pope Nicholas V (1447–1455), the Apostolic See of Rome had to be understood as this very place chosen by God. The cardinals, who aided the pope in administering justice, had to be understood as Levitical priests.6 But what is particularly striking in the promotion of the new temple of the Renaissance is that the Ark of the Covenant is not emphasized as an object and that the seven-branched candlestick is held as a guarantee of the translatio of the temple, not the Ark. This is made visible in Raphael’s fresco Expulsion of Heliodorus in the Vatican palace (1512–1514).7 Julius II (1503–1513), wearing the high priest’s ephod, is depicted kneeling in front of an altar, on which is placed a Torah scroll in front of a blazing seven-branched candlestick. These objects designate the identification of the temple of Jerusalem with the new San Pietro, which can be recognized in the architecture of the sanctuary depicted in the same fresco. In Lilio Tifernate’s commentary on Philo’s About the Life of Moses (De Vita Moysi), written during the pontificate of Sixtus IV (1471–1484), the history of the candelabra is also underlined. The candlestick was located in Jerusalem, but is claimed to have originated in Mount Sinai. According to Tifernate it was brought to Rome by Emperor Titus.8 Tifernate states that the real significance of the candelabra’s transfer was as a tangible sign: the Church of God and the dignity of his priesthood had shifted from Jerusalem to Rome. It is thus tempting to suggest that Tifernate is actually reflecting the argumentation of the Descriptio, which at his time seems to have had a continuous history – at least in the Lateran’s archive. This suggestion becomes even more reasonable in light of Tifernate’s description of the evidence: the Arch of Titus. Tifernate assures his readers that, just as he was preparing his Latin translation of the portion of About the Life of Moses, he discovered the relief sculpture on the Arch of Titus that shows the candelabra, immediately recognizing what it was. He goes on to say that this relief Ibid. For similar interpretations of the Lateran in periods later than the twelfth century see Jack Freiberg, The Lateran in 1600: Christian Concord in Counter-Reformation Rome (Cambridge, 1995). 6 See Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome, p. 204. 7 For a discussion and illustrations see ibid. pp. 218–19. 8 Ibid., pp. 224–5. 5

190

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

had long lain forgotten, nearly buried, but once again – after thirteen hundred years – saw the light of day to the felicity of the Holy Roman Church and to the joy of the city of Rome.9 In the translatio templi of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the seven-branched candlestick marked a physical sign of continuity with the (Jewish) temple. The canons of the Lateran continued to promote the presence of the Ark in their church and this may be the reason for emphasizing another temple object than the Ark at the Vatican. In Tifernate’s commentary, however, the candelabra was promoted as a physical sign rediscovered in ancient sources – not as a holy object which was present. This obviously underlines the difference between the two concepts of the translatio templi in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance respectively. While the Lateran basilica was understood in terms of a physical succession, which was a feature of the contemporary religious culture in the twelfth century, the new San Pietro of the Renaissance can be described as an ideal reconstruction of the temple. Tifernate described his rediscovery of the relief on the Arch of Titus in accordance with the rediscovery of the ancient text of Philo. His description thus seems to fit the characteristics of the period’s idea of rebirth, just as San Pietro was conceived as a reconstruction. The concept of translatio templi in these sources thus differs from the concept of a physical translatio in the medieval period. The common feature, however, is the legitimizing argument for the summit of sacerdotal authority. In both strategies, this is linked exclusively to the papal basilica, San Giovanni in Laterano or San Pietro in Vaticano, by means of the localization of God’s grace according to the model of the Jewish temple.

The Templum Domini Broadly viewed, the story of the Lateran Ark of the Covenant belongs to the larger, intertwined history of Jews, Christians and Muslims. Each of these religions claimed ownership to, and continuity with, the traditions of Jerusalem. It thus seems relevant to conclude with a note on the Templum Domini in Jerusalem. Almost as if mirroring the events of 1099, the Arabic accounts of the re-conquest of Jerusalem ninety years later provide vivid descriptions of the immediate reintegration of the Temple Mount into Muslim sacred topography and thus to Muslim religious life. It was a process that basically reversed the Frankish transformation of the site. The great cross on the top of the Templum Domini, placed there at its Ibid. As the relief on the arch was well known to the composers of both the Descriptio and the topographical descriptions of Rome (Benedict’s Mirabilia Urbis Romae) in the twelfth century, Tifernate’s statement is probably either an exaggeration or a rhetorical device.

9

epilogue

191

consecration as a church, was the first mark of the Christian city to be removed. According to the Arabic chronicler, the cross was removed on the very first day of the re-conquest (Friday 2 October 1187), stirring powerful, albeit contrasting, reactions from the Christian and Muslim onlookers respectively: When they did so and it fell, everyone in the city and outside, both Muslims and Franks, cried out as one. The Muslims shouted ‘God is great!’ in joy, while the Franks cried out in distress and pain. People heard a clamour so great and loud that the earth well-nigh shook under them.10 After the conquest and the departure of the ‘infidels’, Saladin ordered the restoration of the buildings of the Haram al-Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary) to their former glory, as well as the cleansing of ‘filth’ and ‘impurities’ from the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. This ritual essentially mirrors Robert the Monk’s emphasis on the purification of the city, when the Franks entered it. At the following Friday prayer (9  October) the cultic reintegration of the site was confirmed by Saladin in the Dome of the Rock. The chronicler also described the ensuing restoration of the Dome: The Franks had laid a marble pavement above the Rock and covered it over. This he ordered to be uncovered … After the Rock was uncovered, Saladin transferred there handsome Koran copies and fine reading stands. He also established Koran reciters and provided large stipends for them. Islam was restored there fresh and new.11 The Frankish conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 had transformed the city into a Christian capital. Through the Muslim reversal and accompanying reintegration of the holy places into a Muslim context, the sacred topography of the Latin Christendom changed once again. The Church was no longer in possession of the earthly Jerusalem and slowly the memories of Templum Domini faded away. This book has explored the legitimization of St John Lateran in Rome as the new temple in sources from the twelfth century. The description of the Lateran and the idea of the transfer of the temple were presented and read in codices and contexts that involved broad perspectives on religious topography and historiography. Ibn al-Athīr, The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athīr for the Crusading Period from al-Kāmil fī’lta’rīkh. Part 1: The Years 491–541/1097–1146: The Coming of the Franks and the Muslim Response, ed. and trans. D. S. Richards (Aldershot, 2006), p. 334. 11 Ibid. 10

192

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

This included descriptions of other holy places such as Constantinople, Oviedo and Jerusalem, as well as interpretations of a history extraordinarily preoccupied with the task of understanding the recent conquest of Jerusalem in 1099. A reading of the Descriptio within its manuscript context reveals inescapable connections between the description of the Lateran Church of Rome and that of the Jerusalem of the crusaders. This indicates that what happened in Jerusalem was significant to the interpretation of the Ark of the Covenant in the Lateran. When the text is discussed in this perspective, an important question arises: was it written before or after the crusaders’ conquest of Jerusalem in 1099? The previous dating ‘sometime between 1073 and 1118’ does not address this question. The assertion of this book is that the Descriptio presupposes the crusaders’ conquest. The identification of the Lateran Church as the new temple was intensely developed throughout the twelfth century. At the same time, a parallel argument was presented for the oratory of San Lorenzo. In both cases the temple motif was one of the main factors shaping the ideology of the twelfth-century papacy. Connecting this ideology and the identification of the Lateran as the new temple to the theology informed by the First Crusade and the Christian Jerusalem offers a new perspective on this part of medieval history. Hopefully it provides new insight into the impact of Jerusalem and the crusades on the Western Church.

Appendix 1

Manuscripts Transmitting the Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae My intention is by no means to provide an exhaustive account of the whole process of transmission and transformation of the Descriptio. Within the Lateran archive, this process continued down to the eighteenth century. Rather, I hope that my presentation will suffice to explain and expound the investigation carried out in this book regarding the translatio of the temple. The list follows the arrangement of different versions of the Descriptio (see also Appendix 2).

I. Rome archivio capitolare lateranense, rome ACL, MS A 70: composite of different texts and different scribes, twelfth– fourteenth centuries (includes a revision of the first version, and second and third versions of the Descriptio).1 ACL, MS A 33: 1522–1523 (includes a fourth version of the Descriptio).2 ACL, MS A 69: copy of A 70, end of the sixteenth century.

other manuscripts preserved in rome Rome, Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele III, MS 2044 (Sess 290): end of the sixteenth century.3 Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, MS B 51 n. 3: different scribes, fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (includes John the Deacon’s version of the Descriptio, copied during the papacy of Pius II (1458–1564)).4

For a description, see Cyrille Vogel, ‘La Descriptio Ecclesiae Lateranensis du Diacre Jean’, in Mélanges en l’Honneur de Monseigneur Michel Andrieu (Strasbourg, 1956), pp. 457–76, at pp. 461–2. 2 Ibid., p. 462. 3 Ibid., p. 463. 4 This manuscript also includes a treatise entitled ‘De sanctuario et arca in basilica Salvatoris’. See ibid., pp. 463–4. 1

194

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

II. Northern France/Belgium Group 1 5 Cambrai, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 802: northern France (belonged to the abbey of St Sepulchre in Cambrai in the thirteenth century), second half of the twelfth century.6 Reims, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 378: St Thierry, Reims, twelfth century (contains mainly texts by St Ambrose and St Jerome, apart from the Descriptio).7 Valenciennes, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 40 (54): St Amand, twelfth century (contains fifty psalm commentaries, the trial of Abelard, Constantinopolitanum, some writings of St Augustine, and the Descriptio).8 Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, MS 220 (II.1109): St Aulne, twelfth century (contains an exposition of Leviticus by Radulphus Flaviacensis and the Descriptio).9

III. Northern France Group 2 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Reg. lat. 712: St Quentin, between 1181 and 1185.10 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS lat. 2287: St Amand, twelfth century (contains mainly letters of St Gregory and the Descriptio).11 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS lat. 5129: St Amand, thirteenth century.12 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS lat. 15669: Paris, thirteenth and One manuscript originates in Belgium: Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, 220 (II.1109). Auguste Molinier, Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France, Departments, XVII (Paris, 1891), pp. 291–2. 7 Henri Loriquet, Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France, Departments, XXXVIII (Paris, 1904), pp. 488–90. 8 Auguste-François Lièvre and Auguste Molinier, Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France, Departments, XXV (Paris, 1894), pp. 206–8. 9 Joseph van den Gheyn, ed., Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque royale de Belgique, I (Brussels, 1901), pp. 100–1. 10 Louis Halphen, ‘Le manuscrit latin 712 du fonds de la reine Christine au Vatican’, in Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’École Française de Rome 25 (1905), 107–26. For additional literature on this manuscript, see Vogel, ‘La Descriptio Ecclesiae Lateranensis du Diacre Jean’, p. 463. 11 Philip Lauer, Bibliothèque Nationale, Catalogue général des manuscrits latins (Paris, 1940), pp. 386–8. 12 Commented on in Philip Lauer, Le Palais de Latran (Paris, 1911), p. 392. 5 6

appendix 1

195

fourteenth centuries, several fascicles written by different scribes (contains a version of the Descriptio (followed by De septem miraculi mundi), copied ‘by the hand of Jacobus de Padua’ (master of theology, d. c. 1353) from an ‘old book of St Amand’).13 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS lat. 6186: French, between 1265 and 1268.14 Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique, MS 9731: St Rictrud (Marchiennes). St Amand is mentioned in a note (fol. 1), different scribes, twelfth and thirteenth centuries (contains the Descriptio (twelfth century) and texts by Bernard of Clairvaux (thirteenth century)).15 Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique, MS 9828: probably Flanders/ northern France, beginning of the thirteenth century.16 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS 1433 (Theol. 179): French, fourteenth century (contains the Descriptio copied ‘by the hand of Jacobus de Padua’ from an ‘old book of St Amand’).17

IV. Northern France Group 3 Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique, MS 6932: Marchienne, fifteenth century (noted 1469) (contains Mirabilia Romae, Historia de vita Caroli Magni (Pseudo-Turpin), Eusebius interpreted by Jerome, ‘Palmerius, Matthaeus, Florentinus’ and the Descriptio).18

Paul O. Kristeller, Iter italicum. Accedunt Alia Itinera: A Finding List of Uncatalogued or Incompletely Catalogued Humanistic Manuscripts of the Renaissance in Italian and Other Libraries, III (London, 1983), p. 261. 14 Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Biblithecæ Regiæ. Pars tertia, IV (Paris, 1744), pp. 212–13. For a recent description, see Lucie Dolezalová, Reception and Its Varieties: Reading, Re-Writing, and Understanding Cena Cypriani in the Middle Ages (Trier, 2007), pp. 415–17. 15 Joseph Van den Gheyn, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque royale de Belgique, II (Brussels, 1902), p. 349. 16 Joseph Van den Gheyn, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque royale de Belgique, XI (Brussels, 1927), pp. 295–7. 17 See Michael Denis, Codices manuscrits theologici Bibliothecae Palatinae Vindibonensis latini aliarumque occidentis linguarum (Vienna, 1795), I, 3, cols 2680–4. 18 Joseph Van den Gheyn, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque royale de Belgique, X (Brussels, 1919), pp. 130–1.

13

196

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

The Transmission of the Descriptio in Manuscript Contexts Related to the Crusades A number of the manuscripts from the monasteries of northern France present the Descriptio in a context where the relation between Jerusalem and Rome appears to be ideologically and theologically significant. As noted in Chapter 4, this pertains especially to the following manuscripts: Reg. lat. 712, Brussels BR 9828, BNF lat. 5129, Cambrai BM 802 and BNF lat. 6186. Table 1: Synopsis of relevant common texts or types of texts based on the order of Reg. lat. 712.

Chronicles of the First Crusade

Reg. lat 712

Brussels BR 9828

BNF

Robert the Monk, Historia

Robert the Monk, Historia

Robe

Fulcher, Historia

Fulcher, Historia Chronicle of the First Crusade

Poem on the First Crusade

Gilo

Descriptions of Jerusalem

Descriptio locorum circa Jerusalem adiacentium

Descriptio locorum circa Jerusalem adiacentium

Desc Jerus

De situ urbis Jerusalem

De si

Catalogues of Jerusalem

Catalogues of bishops, patriarchs and kings of Jerusalem

Catalogues of bishops and patriarchs of Jerusalem, et al.

Cata patri

Lamentation on the failure of the Second Crusade, 1148

Lamentum Lacrymabile

The Venerable Bede on Jerusalem

De monumento Domini

Description of the Lateran Descriptio

Catalogues of the popes

Catalogue of the popes

Description of the imperial chapel of Constantinople

Descriptio sanctuarii Constantinopoli

Lam

De monumento Domini

De m

Descriptio

Desc

Cata

Hildebert of Lavardin

Hystoria de Mahumet

Map

Map of Jerusalem

Histo

appendix 1

197

The manuscripts are rearranged in Table 1, which presents a simplified synopsis of relevant common texts or types of texts based on the order of Reg. lat. 712. Given the similarities and the order, it seems obvious that there are close relations between the codices, especially between Brussels BR 9828, Reg. lat. 712 and BNF lat. 5129, as well as between Reg. lat. 712 and BNF lat. 6186. Although the Cambrai manuscript was composed in the same area and period, it seems to stem from a different tradition of transmission, as far as the Descriptio and the text of Robert the Monk are concerned.19

.

m

BNF lat. 5129

Cambrai BM 802

Robert the Monk, Historia

Robert the Monk, Historia

BNF lat. 6186

Gilo of Paris, Historia Descriptio locorum circa Jerusalem adiacentium First Guide (Innominatus 1) De situ urbis Jerusalem Catalogues of bishops and patriarchs of Jerusalem

Catalogues of bishops, patriarchs and parishes of Jerusalem

Lamentum Lacrymabile

De monumento Domini Descriptio (excerpt)

Descriptio

Descriptio (excerpt: San Lorenzo) Descriptio

Catalogues of the popes

Catalogues of the popes Descriptio sanctuarii Constantinopoli

Historia de Mahumet

19

See also Robert the Monk, The Historia Iherosolimitana, pp. xlii–xlvii.

198

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

The different lists in the manuscripts may indicate the periods when the collections of texts were redacted, but it is also possible that the codices present collections from other periods as well. Although the catalogues of the popes have been brought up to date,20 the lists of patriarchs, kings and princes of the Latin Kingdom seem to be copied from older lists. In BNF lat. 5129, the last patriarch mentioned is Fulcher (1146–1157) and the last king is Baldwin III (1143–1163). In Reg. lat. 712, the last king is Amalric (1163–1174).21 The lists of Brussels BR 9828 can similarly be dated to 1154–1164.

Content vatican city, biblioteca apostolica vaticana, ms reg. lat. 712 Robert the monk, Historia Hierosolimitana (fols 1r–37v). Fulcher of Chartres, Gesta Francorum, Lib. I, XXVI–Lib. III (omits Lib. I, XXVII–XXIX) (fols 37v–72r). R Fretellus, Liber locorum (Patri H) (fols 72r–84r).22 Catalogues of the bishops, patriarchs and kings of Jerusalem (fol. 84r–v). Lamentum Lacrymabile,23 poem and epitaph (fol. 85r–v).24 Bede, De monumento Domini (fols 85v–86r).25 Descriptio, description of Santa Maria Maggiore and catalogue of cardinals, deaconries and abbeys (fols 86r–89r). Correspondence between Jerome and Pope Damasus (fol. 89r).26 One indication that this was an important issue is that the catalogues of the popes are maintained by other hands, and space is reserved for the continuing list; cf. Reg. lat. 712, fol. 90r/v; BNF lat. 5129, fol. 89r. 21 The different lists of patriarchs, kings and princes are not chronologically coordinated. In both these manuscripts, the list of the kings seems to be the most up to date. 22 The text is discussed in John Wilkinson, Joyce Hill and W. F. Ryan, eds, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185 (London, 1988), pp. 12­–15. The text is dated after 1157. 23 Entitled in the manuscript by a later hand ‘De Jerusalem itinere Crucesignatis precluso Lamentatio’, dated after the Second Crusade, 1149. See Lamentum Lacrymabile. Super his qui in expeditione Jerosolymitana diversis mortibus, justo quidem, sed occulto et inscrutabili Dei judicio interierunt, PL 155, cols 1095–8. 24 From De brevi sussistentia hominis. See Halphen, ‘Le manuscrit latin 712 du fonds de la reine Christine au Vatican’, p. 110. 25 The text is incorrectly labelled ‘on the gospel of Luke’ in ibid. It must be from the commentary on Mark, Lib. IV, XV; See Bede, In Marci Evangelium Expositio. Caput XV, PL 92, col. 294A, or Bede, Homilia LIII. In Feria tertia post Dominicam Palmarum, PL 94, col. 410C. 26 See PL 30, col. 293, n. 44.

20

appendix 1

199

Catalogue of popes (fols 89r–90v).27 Genealogy of the counts of Boulogne and of the kings of France (fol. 91r–v). Descriptio sanctuarii … Constantinopolim (fols 91v–92r).28 Catalogue of bishops in Vermandois and Noyon (fol. 92r).29 Lamentatio de morte Karoli comitis Flandrie (fol. 92r–v).30 Two poems and texts of St Ambrose.31

brussels, bibliothèque royale de belgique, ms lat. 9828 Robert the Monk, Historia Hierosolimitana (fols 2r–57r). De situ urbis Jerusalem (fols 57r–58v).32 Bede, De monumento Domini (fol. 58v).33 Fulcher of Chartres, Gesta Francorum (fols 59r–123v).34 Chronicle of the First Crusade (fols 123v–126v).35 Descriptio locorum circa Jerusalem adiacentium (fols 127–139).36 Catalogues of bishops and patriarchs of Jerusalem, et al. (fols 139v–142v).37 Descriptio and description of Santa Maria Maggiore (fols 142r–146r). Relatio miraculi in regione Saxonum (fols 146r–147r).38 The dating of the manuscript is based on the last pope mentioned by the same hand, i.e. Lucius III (1181–1184). Names are added by different hands until Innocent VI (1352–1362). 28 Published in P. Riant, ed., Exuviae sacrae constantinopolitanae, 3 vols (Geneva, 1878), II, pp. 216–17, principally based on this text in Reg. lat. 712 and BNF lat. 6168. 29 Published in Halphen, ‘Le manuscrit latin 712 du fonds de la reine Christine au Vatican’, pp. 111–13. 30 See ibid., pp. 114–26. 31 One of the poems is about St Ambrose. The texts are extracts from Hexameron, Lib. I, ‘De dignitate sacerdotali’ and ‘De Elia et jejunio’; see ibid., p. 111. 32 Published in M. de Vogüé, ed., Les Églises de la Terre Sainte (Paris, 1860), pp. 412–14. Translation in Wilkinson, Hill and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, pp. 177–80. On the text see ibid. pp. 11, 352. De situ was written before 1114. 33 Entitled ‘Beda in expositione super evangelium Marci’. 34 Entitled ‘De comitibus Flandrensibus’. 35 According to van den Gheyn, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque royale de Belgique, II, p. 296. 36 Published in de Vogüé, Les Églises de la Terre Sainte, pp. 414–33 (the main text of the edition is according to BNF lat. 5129). Translation in Wilkinson, Hill and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, pp. 181–211. On the text see ibid., pp. 12–15, 352. 37 Van den Gheyn, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque royale de Belgique, II, p. 296. Fols 139v–140v: ‘Nomina episcoporum Iherosolimitarum, patriarcharum, regum Judeorum, ducum et regum Latinorum, comitum Edessanorum, principum Antiochie, principum Galillee, comitum Tripolitanorum’. Fols 141r–142r: ‘Hec est parrochia sancta Dei civitatis Jherusalem’. 38 ‘Relatio miraculi in regione Saxonum facti tempore Sancti Heriberti Colonensis archiepiscopi’. On the history of the text, see Henrik Schück, ‘En medeltida balladstrof ’, 27

200

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

De septem miraculis mundi (fol. 147r–v).39 Genealogia Francorum regum (fols 147v–148v). Hystoria de Mahumet (fols 149–156v). Map of Jerusalem (fol. 157). Genealogy of the counts of Flanders (fols 158r–161v).

paris, bibliothèque nationale de france, lat. 5129 Robert the Monk, Historia Hierosolimitana (fols 1v–54v). Descriptio locorum circa Hierusalem adiacentum (fols 54v–65v).40 Catalogues of bishops and patriarchs of Jerusalem (fols 66r–67r).41 Bede, De monumento Domini (fol. 67r–v).42 Relatio miraculi in regione Saxonum (fols 67v–68r).43 Lamentum Lacrymabile (fols 68v–69v). De situ urbis Jerusalem (fols 70r–71r). Letter from St Calixtus – de lapsu (fol. 71r). Gilo of Paris, Historia de via Hierosolimitana (fols 71v–86r).44 Hildebert of Lavardin, De operibus sex dierum (fols 86v–87v).45 Catalogues of popes, cardinals, deaconries and abbacies (fols 88v–89v).46 Descriptio47 and description of Santa Maria Maggiore (fols 89v–93r). Hildebert of Lavardin, Versus de nummo (fols 94r–101r).48

Samlaren: Tidskrift för Svensk Litteraturvetenskaplig Forskning 29 (1908), 57–63. Schück dates the begging letter to the middle of the eleventh century (ibid., p. 59). 39 The same text is also in Brussels BR 9731, which also includes the Descriptio. 40 See above, n. 36. 41 ‘Nomina episcoporum Ierosolimitarum, nomina patriarcharum, nomina latinorum, nomina regum iudeorum, nomina ducum et regum latinorum, comites edessani, principes antiocheni, principes Galilee, comites tripolitani, descriptio ecclesie sancte civitatis Ierusalem.’ The catalogues have the same structure as in Reg. lat. 712 and Brussels BR 9828. 42 Entitled ‘Beda in expositione super evangelium Marci’. 43 See above, n. 38. 44 See Gilo of Paris, The Historia vie [sic] Hierosolimitanae of Gilo of Paris, ed. C.  W. Grocock and J. E. Siberry (Oxford, 1997). 45 Published in Hildebert of Lavardin, Ildebertus Cynomanensis de operibus sex dierum, PL 171, cols 1213–1218A. 46 This catalogue is identical with the listing that follows the Descriptio in Reg. lat. 712, fols 88r–89r. 47 Entitled ‘Descriptio Sanctuarii Lateranensis Ecclesie’. 48 Published in Hildebert of Lavardin, Ven. Hildeberti carmina miscellanea, tam sacra quam moralia. sive libellus qui dicitur floridus aspectus. L. Versus Cynomannensis episcopi de Nummo seu satyra adversus avaritiam, PL 171, cols 1402B–1406A, which is primarily based on the text of this manuscript.

appendix 1

201

Text from Physiologus (fols 96v–101r).49 Various texts, including epitaphs and poems (fols 101r–127r). Hildebert of Lavardin, Historia de Mahumet (fols 127r–135v).50

cambrai, bibliothèque municipale, 802 Robert the monk, Historia Hierosolimitana (fols 1r–64v). First Guide (Innominatus 1) (fols 64v–65v).51 Historia Apollonii Regis Tyri (fols 65v–76r). Hildebert of Lavardin and others, Proverbs and poems (fols 76r–81v). Descriptio (fols 82r–84v).52 ‘Miracle of the Virgin’ (fol. 84v).

paris, bibliothèque nationale de france, lat. 6186 Alexander and Dindimus (fol. 4r). Einhard, Vita Caroli Magni (fols 4r–31v).53 Hugh of Fleury, Liber de modernis Regibus Francorum (History and genealogy of the Frankish Kings);54 Visio Karoli III (fols 31v–61v).55 Excerpt from Herman of Tournai, Liber de restauratione monasterii Sancti Martini Tornacensis (fols 61v–90v).56 Cronice de quibusdam sub veteri lege notans (fols 90v–93v).57 Theobald, Theobaldi ‘Physiologus’, ed. P. T. Eden (Leiden and Cologne, 1972). Published in Hildebert of Lavardin, Historia Hildeberti cenomanensis episcopi de mahumete, Breve monitum, PL 171, cols 1345A–1366A, the text of this manuscript. 51 Published in de Vogüé, Les Églises de la Terre Sainte, pp. 412–14. Translated in Wilkinson, Hill and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, pp. 87–9. The text was attached to the first record of the invasion of 1099, the Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolymitanorum, which was completed between 1101 and 1104. The guide forms part of every version of the Gesta; see Wilkinson, Hill and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 4. 52 Entitled ‘In ecclesia Lateranensi que caput est mundi’. 53 Composed c. 817–830; see Matthias M. Tischler, Einharts ‘Vita Karoli’. Studien zur Entstehung, Überlieferung und Rezeption (Hannover, 2001). 54 By Hugh of Fleury (d. between 1118 and 1135), written after 1114, treats the period of 848–1108. 55 Description in Georg H. Pertz, Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde (Hannover, 1858), p. 293. 56 Chapters 12–33 (omits 15 and 16). Edition in Herman of Tournai, ‘Herimanni liber de restauratione monasterii Sancti Martini Tonacensis’, ed. G. Waitz, MGH SS 14, pp. 274–317. Translated in Herman of Tournai, The Restoration of the Monastery of Saint Martin of Tournai, ed. and trans. L. H. Nelson (Washington, DC, 1996). The heading in the manuscript as well as the catalogues is de comitibus Flandrensibus. 57 Chronicle of the rulers (Jewish kings and Roman emperors) of Judea, from Judas Maccabeus until Vespasian, who besieged Jerusalem in ad 70. The captivity of Jerusalem under Titus and Vespasian is commented on thus: ‘Tunc cessavit omne sacerdotium et omnis regalis progenies apud Judeos’ (fol. 91r). 49

50

202

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Excerpts from Canon Benedict, Liber Polypticus (fol. 94r–v).58 Excerpt from Liber Pontificalis (fols 94v–101r).59 Description of Rome60 (Mirabilia urbis Romae) (fols 101r–115v).61 The treasures of the oratory of San Lorenzo in the Lateran palace (excerpt from the Descriptio) (fols 115v–117v).62 The treasures of the imperial chapel of Constantinople (fols 117v–118r). Descriptio and description of Santa Maria Maggiore and catalogue of cardinals and deaconries (fols 118v–127v).63 Correspondence between Jerome and Pope Damasus (fragment) (fol. 128r).64 Catalogue of popes (fols 128r–132v).65

Papal ordinals collected in the Liber Polypticus by Canon Benedict (c. 1140–1143): ‘De festivitatibus in quibus papa debet coronari’ (fol. 94r), ‘De stationibus nocturnis’ (fol. 94r– v), ‘De stationibus diuturnis’ (fol. 94v). On the dating of the text see Dale Kinney, ‘Fact and Fiction in the Mirabilia urbis Romae’, in Roma Felix: Formations and Reflections of Medieval Rome, eds É. Ó Carragain and C. Neuman de Vegvar (Aldershot, 2007), pp. 235–52. These elements are likewise presented in Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae. 59 ‘Quod Romani pontifices fecerunt in vita sua’, excerpts (with interpolations) from chronicles of the popes, starting with Anaclet (76–88) and ending with Urban II (1088–1099). 60 No title. It follows the previous text with no special indication of either an ending or a beginning. The text is a version of the first redaction of Mirabilia Urbis Romae (MUR I). For discussions of the dating, possible authorship (which some argue to be Canon Benedict), manuscripts and editions, see Kinney, ‘Fact and Fiction in the Mirabilia urbis Romae’; Benedict, The Marvels of Rome, Mirabilia Urbis Romae, ed. and trans. Francis Morgan Nichols, 2nd edn by E. Gardiner (New York, 1986), pp. xv–xxii; and Nine R. Miedema, Die ‘Mirabilia Romae’. Untersuchungen zu ihrer Überlieferung mit Edition der deutschen und niederländische Texte (Tübingen, 1996). An edition of MUR I based on twelfth-century manuscripts is found in Roberto Valentini and Giuseppe Zucchetti, eds, Codice topografico della città di Roma, 4 vols (Rome, 1946), III, pp. 3–65. 61 Miedema, Die “Mirabilia Romae”, discusses the relation between these texts which were disseminated together. The Descriptio and the description of the papal chapel are missing in Miedema’s description of BNF lat. 6186 (ibid., p. 65). The latest version of the Descriptio transmitted in France occurs in a similar combination of texts, in Brussels BR 6932 (14024–8): Mirabilia Romae (fols 2–10); De ecclesia Lateranensi et aliis templis Romae (fols 11–14). 62 ‘In palatio lateranense est quodam sancti Laurentii oratorium’. Similar to the paragraph on the papal chapel of San Lorenzo in the Descriptio, with small variations. A supplement at the end treats the ornamentation of the image of the Saviour in the chapel. 63 ‘In nomine sancte et individue trinitatis incipit scriptum de supremo sanctuario sancte dei romane ecclesie’. The catalogue ends at the bottom of the folio in the middle of a title of a deaconry, ‘Sancti nicholai in’. The listing of abbeys is missing. 64 It seems that one folio may be lost. The text is the last part (five lines) of the letter from Pope Damasus to St Jerome, of the same text as in Reg. lat. 712, fol. 89r. 65 Ends with Clement IV (1265–1268); by one hand.

58

appendix 1

203

Catalogues of bishops,66 patriarchs and parishes of Jerusalem (fols 132v–133v). Notitia Galliae (fragment) (fols 134v–135v).67 Incipit Cena Cipriani (fols 136r–141v).68 De christianis, de Iudeis, de Grecis, de Egiptiis (fols 141v–146r).69 Gesta Romanorum (fragments) (fols 146v–150v).70 De edificiis palatiis urbis Romae (fols 150v–151r).

Title: Nomina episcoporum iherosolimitanorum (starts from James, the cousin of Jesus). Listing of cities of Gaul. 68 See Coena, cypriano falso inscripta, PL 4, cols 925C–932C. See also Dolezalová, Reception and Its Varieties. 69 I have not been able to identify this text. 70 I have not been able to identify this text. One paragraph refers to the Gesta romanorum: ‘Quomodo virgilis fecit exire ignem de vulva filie neronis’. This is edited in John Webster Spargo, Virgil the Necromancer: Studies in Virgilian Legends (Cambridge, 1934), p. 372. 66 67

Appendix 2

Different Versions of the Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae

Vogel’s Grouping of Manuscripts Cyrille Vogel provided a schematic overview of the transmission of the Descriptio in his 1956 article ‘La Descriptio Ecclesiae Lateranensis du Diacre Jean’.1 The main objective of Vogel’s article is to locate the ‘original’ redaction of the Descriptio. Despite his limiting (and anachronistic) approach, this article constitutes the basis for most modern research on the text. Vogel’s characterizations and descriptions of the manuscripts are thus kept to a minimum: the century of production, and indication of the folios that contain the Descriptio. In his article Vogel is not interested in the manuscripts as such, but only in the parts containing the Descriptio. His approach reaches its goal in the construction of the stemma of the text and in the preparations for a critical edition. He intended to edit the text of the Descriptio with full descriptions of the manuscripts used, as well as a more detailed stemma, but did not complete this endeavour before his death. From my perspective on the Descriptio, his main contribution is the precise overview of the different sections of the text, which provides a succinct tracing of the supposed redactions.2 The article provides an amount of detailed information and his conclusion is schematically summarized (see also Table 2): 1.

First redaction: R (Reg. lat. 712), P1 (BNF lat. 2287), P2 (BNF lat. 5129), P3 (BNF lat. 15669), B1 (Brussels BR 9731), B2 (Brussels BR 9828), W (Vienna ÖNB 1433). 2. First redaction revised: L1 (ACL A 70). Revised before 1118. 3. Second redaction: L2 (ACL A 70). Between 1154 and 1159. Cyrille Vogel, ‘La Descriptio Ecclesiae Lateranensis du Diacre Jean’, in Mélanges en l’Honneur de Monseigneur Michel Andrieu (Strasbourg, 1956), pp. 457–76. 2 His schema (ibid., pp. 471–2) does include some errors. In the identification of the different sections, Vogel builds on the (more confusing) work of Philip Lauer in Le Palais de Latran (Paris, 1911). Lauer’s work in turn is not sufficiently reliable because it does not account for all the variations in the manuscripts listed by Lauer himself. 1

appendix 2

205

4. Third redaction: L3 (ACL A 70) and V (Rome BV B51). Between 1151 and 1181, and with interpolations until the fourteenth century. 5. Fourth redaction: L4 (ACL A33) and Sess (Rome BNVE 2044). Before 1311.3

Table 2. Stemma according to Vogel, ‘La Descriptio Ecclesiae Lateranensis’. X R

P1

P2

P3

B1

B2

W

y L1 L2 X

X1 L3

y

V

L4 Sess

Alternative Grouping of Manuscripts An alternative grouping of manuscripts, presented in Chapter 2, takes provenance into account. This approach reveals four distinct groups of manuscript traditions, here named I–IV. At least five of the manuscripts can be linked to the abbey of St Amand, while the others originated in nearby monasteries.

Vogel, ‘La Descriptio Ecclesiae Lateranensis’, p. 476. Vogel used a letter to signify each exemplar of the text. Thus R, P1, P2 and so forth refer to a part within a manuscript and not to the manuscript itself. I have added the information about the manuscript in brackets.

3

206

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

1. The tradition of the Lateran archive:4 ACL A 70 contains three different versions of the text: a revision of the text similar to group C, before 1118 (L1); a second version, dated 1154–1159 (L2);5 and a third version, dated 1159–1181 (with additions until the fourteenth century) (L3).6 A fourth version of the Descriptio (before 1311) is also contained in the archive, in ACL A 33, as well as in another Roman manuscript, Rome BNVE 2044.7 2. Northern France (and Belgium) Group 1: Cambrai BM 802, Reims BM 378, Valenciennes BM 40 and Brussels BR 220. This group contains a shorter part of the version composed before 1118, and all the manuscripts originate from monasteries in northern France or Belgium. Vogel described these exemplars (except Brussels BR 220), but did not take them into serious consideration as he labelled them ‘abridgements’.8 3. Northern France Group 2: Reg. lat. 712, BNF lat. 2287, BNF lat. 5129, BNF lat. 15669, BNF lat. 6186, Brussels BR 9731, Brussels BR 9828, Vienna ÖNB 1433. This group of manuscripts renders a homogenous version of the Descriptio composed before 1118.9 Six of the versions originated in northern French monasteries; two have an uncertain origin but are probably connected to the same area. 4. Northern France Group 3: Brussels BR 6932. A shorter description of the Lateran, obviously based on the older descriptions, from the abbey of Marchienne. In addition to these versions, the archive contains several later copies of the texts that are not included in this scheme: see Appendix 1. 5 The composer of the second redaction assisted at the consecration of the altar of Santa Rufina and Santa Secunda. The consecration was celebrated by Pope Anastasius (1153– 1154) and Vogel argues that the redaction dates to shortly after this pontificate; see Vogel, ‘La Descriptio Ecclesiae Lateranensis’, p. 474. It is possible that John the Deacon was the composer of the second redaction; see ibid., p. 474. 6 John the Deacon is named as composer of this version, which includes a dedication of the work to Pope Alexander III (1159–1181). L1 can be dated to the twelfth century, L2 to the late twelfth century and L3 to the early thirteenth century (suggestions in consultation with Dr. Åslaug Ommundsen, Professor in Medieval Latin Philology, University of Bergen). L3 seems to have been copied into A 70 some time between 1216 and 1226, as the information concerning events later than this has been added by different hands. 7 According to Vogel, ‘La Descriptio Ecclesiae Lateranensis’, pp. 462–3, ACL A 33 is to be dated 1522–1523 and Rome BNVE 2044 to the end of the sixteenth century. 8 Vogel, ‘La Descriptio Ecclesiae Lateranensis du Diacre Jean’, p. 464. 9 It is not possible, according to Vogel, to consider one of the versions from this group as the archetype or original, as they appear as a particularly homogenous group of texts, with respect both to the ordering of the text and to the variations; ibid., pp. 472–3. 4

appendix 2

207

Versions of the Descriptio When and where was the oldest version of the Descriptio composed? Vogel holds the version of group III to be the oldest, as he considers the group II version to be abridged.10 However, if these versions can be established as groups, it seems uncertain which is the oldest version of the text. Group II contains the simplest and shortest version of the text and has most similarities to L1 of the Lateran,11 but also to the other group of French manuscripts (group III).12 When it comes to the description of Roman customs, this version has clear signs of being an older composition. It differs from the Lateran tradition and it gives the shortest version of the listing of the clergy at the Lateran.13 Another significant indicator of this is the addition of ‘sacra’ or ‘sanctissima’ in the descriptions of the Roman objects both in the Lateran tradition and in the ‘tradition’ of group III — but not in group II.14 Group II also bears signs of being composed, or at least copied, outside Rome. This is evident in the title of the paragraph defending the Ark, which mentions Rome as the location: De archa federis utrum rome sit quidam dubitant. This is not found either in the Lateran texts, where it was probably not necessary (Inde non nulli dubitant …), or in group III.15 Based on these observations, it seems probable that the shortest version, labelled group II, is the oldest. Another possibility is to see this as an early short version of the text, which included only the most important treasures of the basilica. Ibid., pp. 464–5. Based on my comparison of the texts, supported by the edition by Lauer. The text mostly presents the variations of L1. Significant examples are: the first line (In ecclesia Lateranensi que caput est mundi …) which is approximately similar to L1, while it has several variations in group III. In the description of the altar, the versions of group II and L1 present a variant of Heb. 9:2–4, while group III renders an abbreviated version: tabernaculum factum est primum et cetera. In the listing of cardinals, both group II and L1 have numbers added to the titles (e.g. epc sce rufine III), whereas the other versions do not. 12 Significant examples are: in the description of St Lawrence, groups II and III render ‘St Iohannis’, while L1 and the Lateran tradition read ‘St Salvatoris’; in the listing of relics in St Lawrence, group II and III read De Lapide …, de lapide, … de lapide etc., while the Lateran tradition reads Lapis de…, lapis de…, lapis de … etc. 13 Cambrai BM 802, fols 82v–83r. 14 For example concerning San Lorenzo, where group II reads: In palatio est … in quo tria sunt altaria (Cambrai BM 802, fol. 83v), while L1 and group III read: In eodem namque sacro palatio … in quo tria sanctissima altaria. 15 Group II: De archa federis utrum rome sit quidam dubitant: propter illud quod de abscondisione illius arche legitur iheremie prophete (Cambrai BM 802, fol. 83r); L1: Inde non nulli dubitant propter illud quod de absconsione ipsius arce legitur yeremye prophete (ACL A 70, fol. 6v); group III: Quia vero nonnulli dubitant de archa foederis quod sit in ecclesia salvatoris propter illud quod legitur in secundo libro machabaeorum (Reg. lat. 712, fol. 88r).

10 11

208

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

the descriptio according to group ii (northern france (and belgium) group 1) The disposition of the Descriptio in group II can be constructed as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.

The relics and images of the Lateran high altar (XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII)16 Liturgical dispositions (XXIII, XXIV, XXVI) Defence of the authenticity of the temple spoils (XLIX, LII) The relics of the papal chapel (XVIII), liturgical dispositions (XIX)

In contrast to the versions of the other groups, the texts of group II bear no specific title in the manuscripts.17 And, as we have seen above, they are composed of only a few paragraphs. Both groups II and III have a different character from the tradition of the text that was developed in Rome. The text is more or less continuous, without the subheadings that the later Roman versions have, and the texts of group II in particular, but also of group III, are remarkably shorter than the subsequent versions.18 These versions seem more coherent and logical than later versions, just as one might expect of a text before it has become an extended compilation, updated at various times and in various contexts. It is reasonable to suggest that the Descriptio was composed in Rome by a canon with an interest in establishing the prominent status of the Lateran Church and who had an intimate knowledge of and access to the archive. But there are no traces of a transmission of the oldest version in the Lateran archive. This suggestion thus has to be based on internal textual evidence: the text reveals detailed knowledge of the Lateran basilica. At the Lateran an older version may have been replaced and supplemented by newer updated versions, according to a strategy that seems to be the logic behind the composition of ACL A 70. It seems reasonable to suggest that two versions of the description of the Lateran were transferred from Rome to northern France (and Belgium): a short version, which is the earliest one, and later on an extended version.

Roman numbers refer to Vogel’s overview of textual elements (not paragraphs); see Vogel, ‘La Descriptio Ecclesiae Lateranensis’, pp. 466–71. 17 In ecclesia lateranensi que caput est mundi …. 18 See the overview in ibid., pp. 471–2. 16

appendix 2 209

the descriptio according to group iii (northern france group 2) Most of the versions in this group have the heading Descriptio Sanctuarii Lateranensis ecclesie.19 When the text lacks a heading the opening line defines the subject as the specific Roman sanctuary: In nomine sancte et individue Trinitatis, incipit scriptum de supremo sanctuario sancte dei romane, idest Lateranensis ecclesie compositum (my emphasis).20 The catalogue of St Amand presents yet another heading: descriptione dignitatis Romanae ecclesiae.21

Disposition Descriptio Sanctuarii Lateranensis ecclesie 1. 2.

The purpose:22 Short prologue (II). The legend of foundation: Saints Peter and Paul continue the work of Christ in Rome; age of persecution (III). Constantine is the instrument of God and the persecution comes to an end. The conversion and baptism of Constantine; reference to the Donation of Constantine (III, IV). The expedition of St Helena to Jerusalem; translation of treasures to Rome by the empress (XVI, XVII). 3. The treasures: The relics of the papal chapel (XVIII); liturgical dispositions (XIX). The relics and images of the Lateran high altar (XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII); liturgical dispositions (XXIII, XXIV, XXVI). 4. The surroundings: Within the church: other altars, tombs of popes (XXVII, XXIX, XXXI, XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV); outside the church: the four oratories (XXXVI, XXXVII, XL, XLII, XLIII, XLV, XLVII). This pertains to BNF lat. 5129, Brussels BR 9731 and Brussels BR 9828, and probably Reg. lat. 712 (it is difficult to read in the manuscript). In BNF lat. 15669 and Vienna ÖNB 1433, which are much later copies, the title is mentioned in the explicit, here quoted according to BNF lat. 15669: Explicit descriptio sanctuarii lateranensis ecclesie quam copiavit Jacobus de Padua de antiquo libro abbacie sancti Amandi in Picardia (Vienna ÖNB 1433 is almost identical). 20 BNF lat. 2287, BNF lat. 15669 and BNF lat. 6186. 21 Index major (1150–1160) in BNF lat. 1850 (twelfth century); edition in Julius Desilve, ed., De Schola Elnonensi Sancti Amandi a Saeculo IX ad XII Usque (Louvain, 1890), pp. 154–78, at p. 177, no. CCCXV, with regard to BNF lat. 5129. 22 The headings are my constructions; they do not exist in the manuscripts. I have followed the marked capitals and the content of the Descriptio when organizing the text. 19

210

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

5. 6.

Defence of the authenticity of the temple spoils (XLIX, LII). Conclusion: Repetition of important relics and the dispositions of the altar (LIV). The liturgical character of the church as a ‘type’ of the heavenly Church (LV).

Added elements: 7. Short description of Santa Maria Maggiore and its treasures (LVII, LVIII, LIX). 8. Listing of cardinal bishops, deaconries and abbeys of Rome (LX). It becomes evident that the textual elements 7 and 8 have been ‘added’ when we look at the transmission of these elements in relation to the Descriptio. Like other elements commented on in connection with the early Lateran version of the text, these listings and the description of Santa Maria Maggiore belonged to the same archival context as the Descriptio, and were thus connected with this text in the transmission. The northern French manuscripts exhibit several variations regarding the connection between these elements and the Descriptio. As part of a broader transmission of the Descriptio, the added elements can be considered as relevant, but they are not examined in this book.

Group III (Northern France Group 2) and the Early Lateran Version: A Comparison The differences between the oldest Descriptio transmitted in the Lateran archive (L1) and the version that circulated between the monasteries of medieval Flanders can be found in Vogel’s schematic analysis of the components of the texts, as well as in Lauer’s edition. In general, it seems that the oldest version in ACL A 70 is an extended and revised version of an even older text, probably similar to the Northern French Group 2 (here numbered group III). The two versions follow the same disposition in the main part of the text (see points 1–4 above), except for one very significant addition in the Lateran version: the foundations of San Pietro and San Giovanni, including the dedication feast of the Lateran, are introduced.23 This addition is a trace of a development in the concept of the Lateran, which pertains to the idea of translatio templi. It is discussed in Chapter 6.24 There also occurs a small but quite significant difference in Descriptio, V, ACL A 70, fols 6v–7r. See p. 145.

23 24

appendix 2

211

the presentation of the sacred temple objects within the altar. When the high altar is described in the oldest version of ACL A  70, the reference to St Paul (in fact Hebrews 9:2–4) is employed in a different way from that in the northern French version. In the latter, an abbreviated reference documented and explained the placing of the candelabra in the old temple. The Lateran text, on the other hand, incorporates the entire quotation in a way that includes, in the Lateran altar, all the objects from the biblical description. In the northern French version the list is thus both more extensive and more directly connected to the Letter to the Hebrews: Inside the altar, then, which is small and made from wood covered in silver, is a holy object of the following kind, a seven-branch candelabra which had been in the earlier tabernacle, of which Paul says: the first tabernacle was made. And the table, and the shewbread, this was called the holy place, and the golden thurible, and the Ark of the Covenant, and the golden jar of manna, this was in the second tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies. And there is the rod of Aaron that put forth leaves, and the tablets of the law, and the rod of Moses, with which he struck the rock twice and the waters flowed.25 Each new relic is introduced with a red capital letter and there is no deviation in the objects from the quotation of the Letter to the Hebrews. It seems that the named objects are included on the same level as the other treasures of the altar. The difference between the two versions of the description of the temple objects is a significant trace of a specific, and seemingly increased, interest in these relics and their transferral from Jerusalem to Rome.26 Following the descriptions of the treasures and the surroundings of the church respectively, the northern French version returns to the discussion of the presence of the Ark of the Covenant. The Lateran version, however, incorporates other elements and continues with a different structure, which can be outlined as follows.

Descriptio, XX, ACL A 70, fol. 7r: ‘In altari vero, quod parvum est, et ligneum, de argento coopertum, est tale sanctuarium: septem candelabra, quae fuerunt in priori tabernaculo. Unde Paulus dicit apostolus: (Tabernaculum factum est primum), et mensa, et proposito panum, (quae dicitiur sancta), et (aureum turibulum), et (archa Testamenti), et urna aurea habens (manna), (quod habuit secundum tabernaculum) quod dicitur Sancta Sanctorum. Est (ibi etiam virga Aaron, quæ fronduerat.) Et tabulæ testamenti, et (virga Moysi, qua percussit bis silicem, et fluxerunt aquæ).’ The text is difficult to read in the manuscript and the suggested reading by Lauer is indicated by the brackets: see Lauer, Le Palais de Latran, p. 397. 26 See Chapter 7, pp. 181–2. 25

212

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

the tradition of the archive acl a 70: the early lateran version (l1) (1–4. The purpose, the legend of foundation, the treasures, and the surroundings (+ addition: Constantine’s foundation of St Peter’s and the Lateran basilica (V)). 5. Short description of Sta Maria Maggiore and its treasures (LVII, LVIII, LIX). 6. Reference to the Donation of Constantine (IV), excerpt from the Constantinum Constantini (VI). 27 8. Donations to the Lateran:28 Listing of the donations of Constantine to the basilica and the baptistery (LXI). 9. The treasures brought back by St Helena (XV). The liturgical character of the church as a ‘type’ of the heavenly Church (LV). 10. Defence of the authenticity of the temple spoils (XLIX, LII). 11. Renewed presentation of important relics and the dispositions of the altar (LIV). As noted in Chapter 2, this version of the Descriptio introduces extended documentation concerning the status of the Lateran by way of excerpts from the Constitutum Constantini and Liber Pontificalis.29 The connection to Constantine and the immense treasures of the Lateran are additionally documented by a list of donations to the basilica and to the baptistery by the emperor.30 The following Paragraphs 11–13; see Johannes Fried, ed., ‘Donation of Constantine’ and ‘Constitutum Constantini’: The Misinterpretation of a Fiction and its Original Meaning. With a contribution by Wolfram Brandes: ‘The Satraps of Constantine’ (Berlin, 2007), pp. 133– 134. Fried mentions the Descriptio, but he wrongly dates the text to the time of Pope Alexander III (1159–1181) (ibid., p. 23), which means that he ignores this earlier transmission of the excerpt within the Lateran archive. 28 In Vogel’s schema, the list of cardinals, deaconries and abbeys of Rome are registered here – which must be a mistake since the list is not included in this version of the Descriptio. 29 The lists refer to Liber Pontificalis 34, chapters 9–15. According to Lauer, there seem to have been an ‘official’ register of the Constantinian donations at the Lateran: see Lauer, Le Palais de Latran, p. 32; and Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, in Codice Topografico della città di Roma, eds R. Valentini and G. Zucchetti, 4 vols (Rome, 1946), III, pp. 319–73, at p. 362. 30 ACL A 70, fols 10v–11r. 27

appendix 2

213

paragraph continues on the topic of donations, as it emphasizes the treasure brought back by Helena (fol. 11r) to the basilica. The paragraph seems to be a revision of the conclusion of the manuscripts in group III.31 It is significant that the paragraph, unlike the previous French versions, mentions the Ark within the altar: St Helena enriched this basilica with an incomparable holy treasure, namely that which the queen herself transferred from Jerusalem according to the plea of her son. And there is the seamless tunic which the glorious Virgin made for her son, our Lord Jesus Christ. As long as God shall have kept it there, there will be no heresy or division among the faithful of my Lord. He who wishes to know other relics from the same treasure, might search in lists on the tablets in this church.32 And the venerable altar of this church is the Ark of the Covenant, above which is the table of atonement.33 This is followed by an outline of the liturgical character of the church as a type of heavenly Church (fol. 11r–v) before the text concludes with a paragraph maintaining the presence of the temple spoils. This is done with references to the history of Jeremiah and the interpretation of St Ambrose, and to the spoils of Titus and Vespasian, witnessed to by the Arch of Titus (fol. 11v). The paragraph ends with the confirmation of the exclusivity of the altar.34 Ibid., fol. 11r (XV, LV) (these seem to be a revision of both LIV and LV). Lauer edits several of the inscriptions at the Lateran, some of them lists of relics, such as the inscription of Alexander II (1061–1073); see Lauer, Le Palais de Latran, pp. 151–2. Schmidt argues that this inscription originally belonged to another church; see Tillmann Schmidt, Die Kanonikerreform in Rom und Papst Alexander II’, Studi Gregoriani per la Storia della Libertas Ecclesiae 9 (1972), 201–21, at 217–18, n. 58. 33 The original is almost illegible and I have followed the edition of Lauer: ‘Hanc itaque basilicam beatissima Elena ycomparabiles sanctuarii thesauro ditavit quod videlicet de Ierosolimitanis partibus regina rogatu filii ipsa asportavit : Inibi denique habetur tunica inconsutilis quam gloriosa virgo fecit filio suo Domino nostro Jhesu Xpisto, Quandiu Deus inibi reservaverit heresis vel scissura non erit fidei Domini mei. Alia patrocinia ipsius nosse desiderat in dipticiis istius tabulis ejusdem ecclesie requirat. Venerabilis vero ara ipsius ecclesie est arca federis Domini. Super quam est mensa propitiatoris.’ Descriptio, XV, in Lauer, Le Palais de Latran, p. 396. 34 Compared to group III, the repeated reference to the relic of the cross is omitted: ‘Ad hoc igitur tam sollempne altare, ubi, sicut diximus, vestimentum habetur sortitum non scissum, et aliud multum et incomparabile sanctuarium, quod totum hic nominare supersedemus; nullus ad sacrificandum audet accedere præter domnum Apostolicum, et septem cardinales episcopus ejusdem ecclesiæ hebdomadarios’ (‘Therefore according to this, in the very solemn altar where, as we have said, is kept clothing of an unseamed kind, and other things of the sanctuary both many and incomparable, that we refrain

31

32

214

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Vogel (and Lauer) include two more parts in this version of the Descriptio: the restoration by Pope Sergius III (LXII, ACL A 70, fols 11v–12v) and Breve recordationis de consuetudine (LXIII, ACL A  70, fols 12v–13v). However, ACL A  70 clearly shows that, while these parts are included in some later versions of the Descriptio,35 they are not part of this early one – nor were they part of the northern French versions. The account of Sergius III’s restoration is a new element, added after the description of the Lateran and by another and more recent hand (from the end of the twelfth century).36 Breve recordationis then follows in yet another and much later hand (thirteenth century) and is given an ornamented incipit. It looks like a new element, which was added to the last, and probably empty, folio of the gathering. As already implied, the codex of ACL A 70 thus exhibits a particular characteristic of the Descriptio. It shows that the description of the Lateran is transmitted as textual elements, which were juxtaposed and redacted in varying orders throughout the process of archiving. This is evident not least in the elements of the restoration of Sergius III and the Breve recordationis, which are first presented as independent texts, then included within some, but not all, versions of the Descriptio.37

the tradition of the archive acl a 70: l2 and l3 After the first version of the Descriptio (L1, before 1118) had been in use at the Lateran chapter for half a century, an updated version was produced (L2, composed 1154–1159). A few years later, a third version appeared (L3, composed 1159– 1181), in which the redactor introduced himself as ‘Johannes Diaconus, canonicus’ at the Lateran Church. In its Roman context, the description of the basilica appears to be a work of compilation, which grew through transmission. Even though it seems reasonable to conclude that the Lateran transmission indicates a usage and from listing it all here; no one dares to enter for the sacrifice other than the lord of the Apostles, and the seven hebdomadary cardinals of the bishop of this same church’). Descriptio, LIV, in ibid., p. 399. 35 See Vogel, ‘La Descriptio Ecclesiae Lateranensis’, p. 472. 36 The datings of the copies are my suggestions, in consultation with Prof. Åslaug Ommundsen. 37 The Breve recordationes was copied at the very beginning of ALC A 70, fols 2r–3r, then after the first version of the Descriptio, fols 12v–13v. It is not included in the other versions of the Descriptio in ALC A 70, but is present in later Roman versions, viz. the sixteenth-century version of ACL A 33 and the seventeenth-century version of Rome Sess 290. See Vogel, ‘La Descriptio Ecclesiae Lateranensis’, pp. 462–3, 472. The paragraph on the restoration of Sergius III was included in the second version of the Descriptio as rendered within ACL A 70 (fol. 25r), as well as in Rome BV B 51 n. 3 (according to Vogel, La Descriptio Ecclesiae Lateranensis’, p. 472) and in the later versions mentioned above (ACL A 33 and Rome BNVE 2044).

appendix 2

215

an alteration of the text within a successive tradition, the process is not entirely clear. The second and third versions of the Descriptio were copied and added to codex ACL A 70 later than the actual ‘redactions’, both of them probably at the beginning of the thirteenth century. One can thus ask why the second version was copied when the third version was probably already in use in an exemplar, now lost. As a result of the copying process, ACL A 70 seems to be an unstructured collection of miscellaneous texts. However, I have argued that the codex is a product of the archival function of transmission (see Chapter 3).

Appendix 3

Edition and Translation of the Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae (Reg. lat. 712) In 1689 Mabillon and Germain edited a first version of the Descriptio from an unknown manuscript, now probably lost.1 Not until the twentieth century did two critical editions emerge. The first one was Philip Lauer’s publication of 1911, based on Mabillon and Germain’s edition but with indications of several variations of the text. The second one, Valentini and Zuchetti’s edition of 1946, was based on the version of John the Deacon in ACL A 70. For the purposes of this book, one of the representative versions of Descriptio is edited below. This edition is based on a single manuscript, Reg. lat. 712, the version that was also the basis for the edition by D. Giorgi of 1744.2 The edition follows the articulation of the manuscript (the structure of breaks and sections). In the manuscript, sections are introduced with large initials equivalent in depth to between two and eight lines of text. Within the sections there are some subdivisions introduced with bold initials on the same line as the text. In contrast to Giorgi’s normalized edition, the present edition largely follows the rules of diplomatarian editions. There is a minimum of editorial interventions in the text – the spacing and orthography are given as in the manuscript with dissolved abbreviations. Some obvious omissions and spelling errors are commented on. The edition mostly follows the punctuation of the manuscript, the sentence divisions being indicated by capitals, punctus and punctus interrogativus. Given the different logic of medieval and modern forms of punctuation, some modernization has been necessary. The Roman numbers indicated in brackets refer to Vogel’s analysis of the elements of the text. Although they disturb the text to some extent, they have been included to facilitate further comparative study.

See Prologue, p. XIV, n. 4. D. Giorgi, De Liturgia Romani Pontificis in Solemni Celebratione Missarum, 3 vols (Rome, 1744).

1 2

appendix 3

217

Text (II)3 In nomine sancte et individue trinitatis incipit scriptum de supremo sanctuario sancte dei Romane idest lateranensis, [ecclesie], compositum, que patriarchalis est, que sancte sedis apostolice dignitatem et excellentiam que dono gratie dei super omnes ecclesias totius orbis terrarum obtinet dominatum et principatum, que divino nutu apostolici culminis et romani imperii nomen possidet gloriosum. Et quoniam totus orbis terrarum huic matri ecclesie debitum subiectionis exhibere debet obsequium multi et diuersis regionibus oratores huic conueniunt. Quibus nescientibus quantum et quam preciosissimum in hac predicta ecclesia sanctuarium dei fit reconditum per istarum insinuationem litterarum uolumus esse manifestum saltim quando hi ueniunt ad exorandum dei filium iesum christum pro pace sancte ecclesie pro remissione omnium peccatorum pro adquirenda gloria eterne visionis dei pro societate supernorum ciuium et sanctarum animarum. (III) Igitur post beatam ac salutiferam iesu christi passionem et ab inferis resurrectionem seu in celo admirabilem ascensionem percepta consolatione spiritus sancti in fortem sue predicationis suum iter erexerunt et dispositione misericordie dei regni celestis senatores4 eximii petrus et paulus caput totius orbis hanc romanam civitatem ingressi sunt. In qua ad honorem iesu christi catholice fidei fundamentum supra petram, idest christum fideliter collocarunt. Pro cuius aedificationis incremento ad mortem usque decertauerunt, pro cuius amore gloriosum suum sanguinem fuderunt, ac denique mortem crucis et gladii teporalem subeuntes, regis eterni curiam laureati petieru[n]t. Isti sunt uiri sancti quorum doctrina fulget ecclesia quam antiquus hostis per neronem primum deinde per succedentes principes per tercentos annos et eo amplius impugnauit et concussit, sed nullatenus euertere ualuit. Cum enim placuit ei qui fideles suos igne passionis permisit exanimari constantinus augusti constantii et helene filius culmen imperii subiit et precedentium tyrannidem principum in servos christi exercuit. Sed immensa dei pietas electorum suorum clamantium ad se, dolori et angustiae compatiens calamitati et miserie tante persecutionis finem bonum imponere non distulit. The Roman numbers refer to Cyrille Vogel’s organization of the Descriptio (see Cyrille Vogel, ‘La Descriptio Ecclesiae Lateranensis du Diacre Jean’, in Mélanges en l’Honneur de Monseigneur Michel Andrieu (Strasbourg, 1956), pp. 465­–72). They refer to textual elements in the tradition of the Descriptio, elements that do not necessarily occur in every version. This explains the omission of certain numbers in this edition of the text according to Reg. lat. 712. 4 Ms: senatoris. 3

218

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Quid plura? Sicut in vita sancti silvestri legitur prefatus imperator constantinus elephantie lepra a deo percutitur. Cui pontifices capitolii hoc dederunt responsum quatenus in piscinam occisorum infantium sanguine plenam nudus descenderet et a lepra sic mundatus pristinam sanitatem sic reciperet. Ipse vero tantum facinus efficere abhorruitinnoxium quod sanguinem puerorum effundere non permisit. Nocte igitur insequente assunt apostoli dei petrus et paulus a deo missi a quibus optatam recuperande sanitatis consolationem recipere meruit. In crastin[un]um vero beatum sylvestrum accersiri ad se fecit et secundum apostolicam revelationem in christum credidit per eiusdem. sancti pape predicationem. A quo et sacro chrismatis sancti oleo perunctus in nomine domini baptismi gratiam percepit vespere sabbati in lateranensi palatio. De quo mundus exurgens predictus rex se vidisse confessus est christum in lavacro qui se mundasset penitus a lepre periculo. (IV) Deinde privilegium romane ecclesie pontifici contulit ut in orbe romano sacerdotes hunc ita caput et principem habeant, sicut omnes iudices regem habere consueverant. (XVI) Constantinus cultor Dei sic effectus talem se exhibuit sancte ecclesie ut regum precedentium in christianos persecutionem per misericordiam dei in pacem vertet et defensionem. Hinc divinitus est concessum ut eius tempore mater eius helena preciosum crucis dominice lignum quereret et quesitum inveniret. Na[m] divinitus per somnium monitus antequam baptismi gratiam percipisset, cum contra maxentium suscepisset bellum ut refert sozomenus, vidit signum crucis in celo splendore collocatum miraque visione astiterunt angeli qui dicerent, Constantine in hoc vinces. Occupato siquidem imperatore in proeliis hostium delegatum est ab ipso sancte matri helene preciosum huiusmodi negotium ut quereret crucem christi, cuius odore reviviscunt mortui. Predicta itaque regina cum multa turba hominum iherosolimam petiit diu desideratum sancte crucis lignum diligenter quesivit et quesitum invenit, et inventum fecit secari per medium, ut et crucem thecis argenteis reconditam ihierosolimis relinqueret, et crucem constantinopolim ad filium deferret. Clavos quoque quibus corpus dominicum fuerat cruci affixum eadem regina portavit ad filium cum omni fere sanctuario (XVII) quod ab antiquis ante incarnationem domini iherosolimis fuerat reconditum et post ascensionem ipsius de eodem redemptore nostro inibi habebatur residuum. Tamen deus omnipotens viscera misericordie sue romane ecclesie dignatus est aperire, cum regina sepe dicta sanctuarium quod divinu nutu de iherusalem secum attulerat ad filium, in huius sancte ecclesie que sacerdotalis est et regia transtulit habitaculum.

appendix 3

219

Quod quia nondum5 proprio designatur ex nomine licet indignus sum nomen eius exprimere tamen honorem sue laudis non differam nominare. Pars quedam huius sanctuarii in lateranensi collocatur principali altario pars altera requiescit in romani pontificis imperiali palatio. (XVIII) In eodem namque sacro palatio quod est sancti laurentii oratorium, in quo tria sanctissima computantur altaria. Primum quidem in archa cypressina, quam leo tertius condidit, tres capse sunt. In una est crux de auro purissimo adornata gem[m]is et lapidibus preciosis, idest iacinthis et smaragdis et prasinis, et in media cruce illa est umbilicus domini et preputium circumcisionis eius et desuper inuncta est balsamo. Et singulis annis eadem unctio renovaturquando dominus papa cum cardinalibus facit processionem in exaltatione sancte crucis ab ipsa sancti laurentii ecclesia in ecclesiam sancti iohannis. Et in alia capsa argentea et deaurata cum hystoriis est crux de smalto depicta et infra capsam illam est crux domini nostri iesu christi. In tertia capsa que est argentea sunt sandalia. idest ca[l]lciamenta domini. Est ibi iterum alia capsa que deaurata. Ibi est de ligno sancte crucis quam eracleus victo cosdroe secum rome detulit de perside, una cum corpore sancti anathasii martyris, et est in altari quod ibi est sancti laurentii de marmore. Ibi etiam est brachium sancti cesarii martyris, quod ibi valentianus imperator attulit. Ossa duo sancti iohannis baptiste et os unum sancti iheronimi et spatula sancti dionisii ariopagite et os de crure sancti stephani pape, et sancti damasi reliquie, et sanctorum primi et feliciani et sancte praxedis caput et sancte anastasie reliquie cum aliis multis, et sanctarum agape et chionie et hyrenee, pistis et helpis virginum, nerei et achillei, prisce et aquile. Item sunt ibi reliquie de genu sancti tyburtii filii chromatii. In hac archa cypressina est panis unus cene domini, et de canna idest arundine, et tredecim de lenticulis cene domini, et de spongia cum aceto ad os domini posita, et lignum de sichomoro ubi zacheus ascendit. Et super hoc altare est quedam ymago salvatoris mirabiliter depicta in quadam tabula quam lucas evangelista designavit, sed virtus domini angelico perfecit obsequio. Sub cuius pedibus in quadam preciosorum lapidum linea pignora sanctuarii sunt recondita quorum ista sunt nomina. De lapide in quo sedit sancta maria. De lapide iordanis ubi sedit iesus dum baptizaretur. De lapide sancte Bethleem. De lapide montis oliveti ubi dominus oravit ad patrem. De lapide in quo sedit angelus ad sepulchrum. De colum[p]na ubi dominus ligatus fuit et flagellatus. De sepulchro domini. De lancea qua latus domini perfora-

Ms: nundum.

5

220

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

tum fuit. De ligno crucis domini. De loco qui dicitur lithostratos.6 De calvarie loco. De lapide in quo dominus conditus fuit. De lapide montis syon. De lapide in quo dominus transfiguratus est. Lignum de presepi domini in quo positus fuit. Lapis de monte syna, ubi lex data fuit. De lapide sepulchri sancte marie. [I]n alio vero altari eiusdem oratorii sunt capita apostolorum petri et pauli, et capita sanctarum virginum agnetis et eufemie. In tertio vero sunt carbones aspersi de sanguine sancti laurentii et arvina sui corporis. Sunt etiam in eodem reliquie sanctorum xl martyrum multorumque aliorum. (XIX) In illo vero altari super quod est predicta ymago domini missam non celebrat nec aliquod divinum officium nisi papa tantum. In alio sancti petri altario, nisi papa vel episcopus cardinalis. In tercio vero cardinalis vel sacerdos legitimus. (XX) In ecclesia lateranensi que est caput mundi que patriarchalis vel imperialis est sedis, est apostolice [ecclesie] cathedra pontificalis et eiusdem ecclesie principalis est archa federis domini, vel ut aiunt archa est interius (et altare ad mensuram longitudinis latitudines et altitudinis arche conditum est exterius),7 inter quatuor colum[p]nas de rubeo p[h]orphirio sub quodam pulchro cyborio in quo quidem ut asserunt multum est sanctuarium, sed quale sit non agnoscunt nam nomen eius nesciunt. In altari vero quod parvum est et ligneum de argento coopertum, est tale sanctuarium, septem candelabra, que fuerunt in priori tabernaculo,8 unde paulus dicit, Tabernaculum primum factum, et cetera. Est ibi etiam virga aaron que frondu[du]erat, et tabule testamenti et virga moysi, qua percussit bis silicem et fluxerunt aque. Item sunt ibi reliquie de cunabulo domini. De quinque panibus ordeaceis et duobus panibus de mensa domini. Linteum unde extersit pedes discipulorum suorum. Tunica inconsutilis, quam fecit virgo maria filio suo domino iesu christo. Purpureum vestimentum salvatoris. De sanguine et aqua lateris domini ampulle due. Sudarium quod fuit super caput eius. Est ibi de loco ascensionis in celum. De sanguine sancti iohannis baptiste et de pulvere et cinere combusti corporis eiusdem, cilitium eiusdem pilis camelorum. De manna sepulture sancti iohannis evangeliste ampulla plena. Tunica eiusdem apostoli qua superposita corporibus trium iuvenum surrexerunt mortui enim fuerant propter venenum quod biberant. (XXI) Super hoc etiam sacrosanctum altarium non celebrat missam nisi papa tantum vel cardinalis episcopus super quod est tabula quedam lignea in qua depicte sunt ymagines apostolorum petri et pauli, quas constantinus imperator Ms: listrostatos. Inserted by the same hand in the manuscript. 8 Ms: tabernaculum. 6 7

appendix 3

221

confessus est sancto sylvestro ante baptismum secum revera locutas fuisse per somnium. (XXII) Sub altari isto sancto de quo nunc loquimur est quedam ymago tota aurea domino iesu christo dicata et sancte marie virginis et sancti iohannis baptiste, sanctorumque apostolorum petri et pauli, et sancti iohannis evangeliste ymagines de electro auree et argentee. Necnon et aliorum apostolorum penitus argentee quas constantinus imperator dei servus qui easdem ad honorem domini nostri Iesu Christi suorumque9 discipulorum ymaginari studuit sic in quodam geneceo molitus est recondere, quod ulli artifici per quodcunque ingenium nunquam licet accedere. (XXIII) Inter chorum et altare huius templi sunt plurime ymagines super colum[p] nas quatuor de courino mirabiles ibi super luminare preciosum debet esse, quod sicut nunc de oleo ita olim fuerat de balsamo.10 Nam eorum per debitum huic mittebant hoc debitum,11 sed formosus quidam papa condonavit pecunia. Episcopi vero septem domini pape vicarii, qui missas ibi celebrant in altare salvatoris, oblationem dividunt cum clericis qui ibi sunt, et peracta ebdomada ad sedes suas redeunt, (XXIV) quorum civilia hic posita sunt nomina. Episcopus hostiensis qui debet benedicere et consecrare apostolicum pre omnibus aliis. Episcopus sancte Ruphine. Episcopus portuensis. Episcopus albanensis. Episcopus tusculanensis. Episcopus prenestiensis. Episcopus sabinensis. (XXVI) Quando papa sancti petri vicarius in dominicis vel in precipuis sollem[p] nitatibus missam celebrat in altare sancti salvatoris lateranensis ecclesie, ipsi qui sacerdos est regalis et imperialis episcopus, immo patriarcha et apostolicus, predicti vii episcopi debent assistere, cum xxviii cardinalibus, totidem ecclesiis infra muros urbis rome presidentibus. Qui potestatem obtinent iudicium faciendi super omnes episcopos totius romani imperii in omnibus conciliis vel synodis quibuscumque accersiti vel presentes fuerint. Debet etiam ibi presens esse a[r]chidiaconus rome cum vi diaconibus palatinis qui in p[a]latio legere debent evangelium, et in ecclesia lateranensi, et alii xii diacones regionarii qui solent evangelium legere in stationibus ecclesiarum rome constitutis.

Inserted in the ms: ‘que’. See Sible de Blaauw, Cultus et décor. Liturgia e architettura nella Roma tardo-antica e medievale. Basilica Salvatoris, Sanctae Mariae, Sancti Petri, 2 vols (Vatican City, 1994), I, pp. 249–50. 11 Ms: debutum. 9

10

222

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Isti xviii diaconi totidem ecclesias habent intra muros civitatis, et tamen omnes isti canonici patriarchalis ecclesie lataranensis. Debent etiam ibi esse vii subdiacones palatani et scola cantorum, sed et alii vii subdiaconi, qui regionarii vocantur. Isti debent legere lectiones et epistolas in stationibus rome constitutis. Alii vii subdiacones et scola cantorum debent canere cantum dum papa missam celebrat in ecclesia lateranensi et in aliis. Alii vero vii palatini subdiacones epistolas legere debent in palatio ad missam domini pape, necnon et in ecclesia lateranensi etiam legere debent ad prandium apostolici. Sunt etiam ibi a[c]coliti presentes vel ceroferarii, Lectores, exorciste et hostiarii, quorum uniusquisque nititur adimplere officium suum, sicut a sanctis patribus inibi est constitutum. (XXVII) Sunt autem in hac predicta lateranensi basilica quorundam sanctorum altaria quorum ista sunt nomina. (XXIX) Altare sanctorum crisanti et darie ubi requiescunt corpora eorum. In dextero latere ecclesie iacet agapitus papa, et quidam alius papa iuxta sepulchrum eius. Et est in eadem parte infra ecclesiam oratorium et altare sancte marie et sancti panchratii martyris. Postea vero est altare sancti vincentii et anastasii martyrum. Ibi quippe jacet gerbertus remorum archiepiscopus qui papa effectus silvester fuit vocatus. Et in eadem parte in medio ecclesie altare sancte crucis et sanctorum xl martyrum. (XXXI) Iterum in eadem parte iuxta fores ecclesie requiescit quidam papa qui sergius ex petro vocatus erat, et alexander papa qui fuit episcopus luccensis. (XXXIII) Et inter duas fores quidam alius papa qui non habet epytaphium. (XXXIV) In alia vero parte idest in sinistro latere ecclesie est altare sancti laurentii, deinde altare sancti Nicolai. Postea vero in medio ecclesie est altare sancti antonii, in eadem parte inter duas colum[p]nas sicut est in alia parte altare sanctorum xl martyrum. (XXXV) Iterum in hac parte iuxta fores pontificis summi pausant ibi membra iohannis. Hic eandem renovavit ecclesiam. Et iterum inter duas fores ecclesie in ista parte cernitur hic tumulus qui presulis esse iohannis dicitur, sic quomodo dictus erat. Iste iohannis xvii papa. Et ante fores ecclesie quidam presul requiescit qui petrus nomen habuit. Super ipsas fores ecclesie scriptum est interius. Sergius i[m]peras pius papa hanc qui cepit ab imis. Tercius explevit totam quam conspicis aulam. (XXXVI) Exterius vero super easdem fores ecclesie est ymago salvatoris, hinc et hinc ymagines michaelis et gabrielis. (XXXVII) In porticu vero oratorium est pulchrum, et est ibi altare sancti thome apostoli. In hoc oratorio quod fecit iohannes papa qui renovavit hanc ecclesiam, induit se papa vestimenta sacerdotalia et pontificalia, quando debet celebrare missam in sepedicta ecclesia sancti salvatoris et sancti iohannis baptiste. De hoc enim oratorio exiens cum processione intrat ecclesiam, et vadit ad altare sancti salvatoris principale quod omnium solum habet principatum.

appendix 3

223

(XL) Retro ecclesiam sancti salvatoris iiiior sunt oratoria.12 Unum est quod habet duas absidas. Sub una est altare sancti andree et sancte lucie. Sub alia absida est altare sanctarum Rufine et secunde sororum, in quo earum condita sunt corpora. (XLII) Aliud vero oratorium est huic predicto contiguum quod unam sub absida tantum habet aram sub qua sunt condita sanctorum corpora, quorum ista sunt nomina. Sanctus venantius. Sanctus domnio. Sanctus maurus. Sanctus septimus. Sanctus antiochianus. Sanctus gaius. Sanctus anastasius. Sanctus asterius. Sanctus telius. Sanctus paulianus. Tercium vero oratorium est postea ubi fontes sunt inter duo altaria.13 Unum est sancti iohannis baptiste, aliud sancti iohannis evangeliste. Fontes vero sunt rotondi inter colum[p]nas positi in medio ecclesie que pulchra est et rotunda ubi fuit imperatoris camera. (XLIII) Hylarius papa fecit hoc oratorium. (XLV) Quartum vero sancte crucis oratorium in quo eiusdem sancte crucis multum est sanctuarium. Ibi dictante angelo sanctus gregorius dictavit anthiphonarium. Hoc oratorium est pulcherrimum in modum crucis factum de musivo decoratum. (XLVII) Est iterum huic oratorio satis proximum aliud sancti pape gregorii oratorium ubi usque hodie lectulus in quo ipse sanctus solebat quiescere videtur iuxta aram permanere. (XLIX)14 Quia vero nonnulli dubitant de archa federis quod sit in ecclesia salvatoris propter illud quod legitur in secundo libro machabeorum, quod cum quidam vellent notare locum ubi abscondebatur, culpans eos iheremias dicit, quod ignotus erat locus donec congreget deus congregationem populi sui, et propitius fiat, et tunc deus ostendet hec et apparebit maiestas domini et caetera. Sed beatus ambrosius in libro officii huiusmodi ambiguitatis caliginem aperte dissolvit, asserens hoc tempus impletum fore, ac maiestatem domini tunc apparuisse quando salvator noster apparere dignatus est in carne. (LII) Hanc autem archam cum candelabro et ceteris utensilibus templi tytus et vespasianus asportaverunt immo ab ipsis iudeis asportari fecerunt de iherosolimitanis partibus sicut in triumphali fornice ob victoriam et monimentum eorum a senatu et populo romano constructum usque hodie cernitur. (LIV) Ad hoc igitur tam sol[l]empne altare ubi sicut diximus vestimentum domini sortitum habetur non scissum et aliud multum incomparabile sanctuarium, quod totum hic nominare supersedimus nullus ad sacrificandum audet accedere preter apostolicum vel septem collaterales episcopos, eiusdemque ecclesie ebdomadarios.

See de Blaauw, Cultus et Decor, pp. 262–4. Should probably be understood as one ‘font’. 14 There is an error here in Vogel’s numbering: he renders XLXI instead of XLIX. 12 13

224

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

In hac ecclesia ut supra dictum, est et tunica domini inconsutilis, et de ligno domini, quod beata helena ibi de iherusalem attulit. (LV) Et quia hec ecclesia typum gerit superne ecclesie ideo cotidie missa, matutini et vesperi festive pulsantur, quibus perpetua sanctorum gloria figuratur. Et in hac ecclesia non dicitur ad missam sicut in aliis ecclesiis, Agnus dei qui tollis peccata mundi dona nobis pacem, quoniam ibi summa pax sanctorum christus est.

Translation (II) In the name of the Holy and indivisible Trinity, here begins the treatise written about the highest sanctuary of God of the holy Roman Church, that is, the Lateran, which is a patriarchal church, which possesses the dignity and excellence of the holy Apostolic See, and also possesses, by a gift of God’s grace, mastery and pre-eminence over all the churches of the whole world, which, by divine assent, possesses the apostolic dignity and the glorious name of the Roman Empire. And since the whole world ought to show the duty of submission to this mother church, pilgrims from many different regions assemble here. To those who do not know, we wish to reveal by the publication of this treatise how great and precious a shrine of God is hidden in this aforesaid church, at least when they come to pray to Jesus Christ, the son of God, for the peace of the Holy Church, for the forgiveness of all sins, for the attainment of the glory of the eternal vision of God, for the company of the heavenly citizens and the blessed souls. (III) So then, after the blessed and salvation-bringing passion of Jesus Christ and his resurrection from the dead, and his wonderful ascension into heaven, Peter and Paul, the distinguished senators of the heavenly kingdom, having received the consolation of the Holy Spirit to strengthen their preaching, set their path, and by the disposition of God’s mercy, entered this Roman city, the capital of the whole world. In Rome, to the honour of Jesus Christ, they faithfully set the foundation of the catholic faith on the rock, which is Christ. For the augmentation of this [the catholic faith] they fought to the death, for the love of that [faith] they poured out their glorious blood, and finally undergoing the temporal death of the cross and the sword, crowned with laurel, they sought the court of the eternal king. They were holy men and the Church shines with their doctrine, the Church which the ancient enemy attacked and shook, first through Nero, then through successive emperors for three hundred years and more, but he [the enemy] was in no way able to overthrow it. Since it seemed right to him [God] who allowed his faithful to be tried by the fire of suffering, Constantine, son of Constantius Augustus and Helena, succeeded

appendix 3

225

to the throne of the empire and practised the tyranny of the preceding emperors against the servants of Christ. But the immense kindness of God towards his chosen ones crying out to him, taking pity on the grief and distress, did not delay in putting a good end to the disaster and misery of so great a persecution. What more? As it is read in the Life of St Sylvester, the said Emperor Constantine was struck by God with the great leprosy. The Capitoline priests gave this reply to him, saying that he should go down naked into a pool filled with the blood of slaughtered infants, and thus cleansed of the leprosy he would gain complete health. But he shrank from committing so great a crime, that he did not allow the blood of innocent children to be poured out. The following night then, Peter and Paul, the apostles of God, came to him, sent from God, and he was found worthy of receiving from them the longed-for consolation of recovered health. On the very next day he caused the blessed Sylvester to be summoned to him, and he believed in Christ according to the apostolic revelation, thanks to the preaching of that same holy pope. Having been anointed by him (Sylvester) with the holy oil of the sacred chrism, he received the favour of baptism in the name of the Lord on the evening of the Sabbath in the Lateran palace. When the aforementioned king was rising from this, clean, he confessed that he had seen Christ in the font, who had cleansed him completely from the threat of leprosy. (IV) Then he conferred this privilege on the pontiff of the Roman Church, which [privilege] laid down that the priests throughout the Roman world should regard him as their head and leader, in the same way that all judges were accustomed to regard the king. (XVI) Constantine, having been made a servant of God in this way, showed himself also to be such a servant of the Holy Church that he turned the persecution of the previous kings against the Christians into peace and defence, through the mercy of God. So it was divinely granted that in his time his mother Helena should seek the precious wood of the Lord’s cross and should find what she sought. For having been divinely advised in a dream, before he had received the favour of baptism, when he had undertaken war against Maxentius, as Sozomenus relates, Constantine saw the sign of the Cross set in splendour in the sky, and angels stood next to this wonderful vision who said: ‘Constantine, you will conquer with this.’ Since the emperor was occupied in battles with the enemy, he entrusted this precious task to his blessed mother Helena, that she should seek the Cross of Christ, the fragrance of which can bring the dead to life.

226

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

And so the aforementioned queen made for Jerusalem with a great crowd of men, and carefully sought the long-yearned-for wood of the Holy Cross, and found what she sought and having found it, caused it to be cut down the middle, so that she could leave part of the Cross hidden in silver chests at Jerusalem, and take part of it back to her son at Constantinople. The same queen also brought the nails, with which the Lord’s body had been fixed to the Cross, along with nearly the entire sanctuary, which had been hidden by the ancients in Jerusalem before the incarnation of the Lord. After his ascension, the relics from that same Redeemer of ours were held there. Yet almighty God thought it right to open up the tenderness of his mercy to his Roman Church, when the oft-mentioned queen transferred the relic which, with divine approval she had brought with her from Jerusalem to her son, into the dwelling-place of this holy church, which is priestly and also royal. Although I am unworthy to express it, I will not delay honouring and praising this which is not yet designated by its proper name. A certain part of this sanctuary is placed in the main altar in the Lateran, the other part rests in the imperial palace of the Roman pontiff. (XVIII) In the same sacred palace is the oratory of San Lorenzo, in which are counted three most sacred altars. First, there are three boxes in a cypress chest which Leo III had created. In one is a cross made of the purest gold, decorated with jewels and precious stones, that is to say sapphires, emeralds and green stones, and in the middle of that cross is the navel of the Lord and the foreskin from His circumcision, and it is anointed on top with balsam. And every year this anointing is renewed when the Lord Pope with his cardinals makes a procession for the exaltation of the Holy Cross from that very church of San Lorenzo to the church of San Giovanni. And in another box, which is of silver and gilded with stories, is an enamel cross. And inside that holder is the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. In a third box, which is made of silver, are sandals, that is to say the shoes of the Lord. There is yet another box there, which is gilded. In there is a part of the wood of the Holy Cross, which Heraclius, having defeated Khosrau, brought back to Rome with him from Persia, together with the body of St Anastasius the martyr, and it is in the marble altar of San Lorenzo. In that place is also an arm of St Caesarius the martyr, which the Emperor Valerian brought there. There are two bones of St John the Baptist and one bone of St Hieronymus, and the humerus of St Dionysius the Areopagite, also a bone from the leg of St Stephen the Pope. And relics of St Damasus, and of

appendix 3

227

the Saints Primus and Felicianus, and the head of St Praxedes, and relics of St Anastasia along with many others, and of the Saints Agape and Chionia and Irene, and of the virgins Pistis and Helpis, and of Nereus and Achilleus, Prisca and Aquila. There are also relics there from the knee of St Tiburtius, the son of Chromatius. In this cypress chest there is one of the loaves from the Lord’s Supper, and some of the cane, that is the reed, and thirteen vessels of the Lord’s Supper, and some of the vinegar-soaked sponge that was put to the mouth of the Lord, and some wood from the sycamore which Zacchaeus climbed. And above this altar is an image of the Saviour wonderfully painted on a certain tablet, which Luke the Evangelist sketched out, but the power of the Lord completed it through angelic obedience. Beneath his feet in a particular line of precious stones, the relics of the sanctuary are found, and these are their names. Some of the stone on which St Mary sat. Some of the stone of Jordan, on which Jesus sat while he was being baptized. Some of the stone of sacred Bethlehem. Some of the stone of the Mount of Olives, where the Lord prayed to the Father. Some of the stone on which the angel sat at the tomb. Some of the column where the Lord was tied and whipped. From the tomb of the Lord. Some of the lance with which the side of the Lord was pierced. Some of the wood of the Lord’s Cross. From the place which is called Lithostratus. From the place of Calvary. From the rock in which the Lord was hidden. From the rock of Mount Sion. From the stone on which the Lord was transfigured. Wood from the crib of the Lord, in which he was placed. Stone from Mount Sinai, where the law was given. From the rock of the tomb of St Mary. In yet another altar of the same oratory are the heads of the apostles Peter and Paul, and the heads of the blessed virgins Agnes and Eufemia. In still a third [altar] are coals sprinkled with the blood of St Lawrence and the fat of his body. There are also in the same [altar] the relics of the forty blessed martyrs and of many others. (XIX) On that altar, indeed, above which is the aforementioned image of the Lord, no one may celebrate mass, nor any other holy service, excepting only the pope. On the other altar of St Peter, no one but the pope or a cardinal bishop. On the third one, indeed, a cardinal or an appropriate priest. (XX) In the Lateran church, which is the capital of the world, which is a patriarchal or imperial see, there is the pontifical throne of the Apostolic [church], and the principal [altar] of that same church is the Ark of the Lord’s Covenant; or rather, as they say, the Ark is on the inside, and on the outside it is hidden by an altar, which measures the same as the ark in length and width, between four columns of red porphyry, beneath a certain beautiful canopy, in which indeed, as

228

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

they say, is a great sanctuary; but they do not understand of what kind it is, since they do not know its name. Inside the altar, then, which is small and made from wood covered in silver, is a holy object of the following kind, a seven-branched candelabra which had been in the earlier tabernacle, of which Paul says: ‘the first tabernacle was made, etc.’ In that place there is also the rod of Aaron, which had put forth leaves, and the tablets of the testament, and the rod of Moses, with which he struck the granite twice, and the waters flowed. There are also relics from the cradle of the Lord. Of the five barley loaves and the two loaves from the table of the Lord. The cloth, with which he wiped dry the feet of the disciples. The seamless tunic, which the Virgin Mary made for her son the Lord Jesus Christ. The purple robe of the Saviour. Two flasks of the blood and water from the side of the Lord. The sudarium which was on his head. There is also [a relic] of the place of his ascension to heaven. Of the blood of St John the Baptist, and the dust and ash of his burned body, his robe made from camel hair. A full flask of manna from the tomb of St John the Evangelist. The tunic of the same apostle, which, when it was placed over the bodies of three young men, caused them to stand up. They had died by means of poison, which they had drunk. (XXI) On this sacred altar, no one celebrates mass except only the pope or a cardinal bishop. Above this [altar] is a certain wooden tablet, on which are painted the images of the apostles Peter and Paul, whom the Emperor Constantine admitted to St Sylvester had actually spoken to him in a dream before his baptism. (XXII) Beneath that holy altar we are now discussing, is a certain image all in gold, dedicated to the Lord Jesus Christ, and images of the blessed Virgin Mary, and St John the Baptist, and of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, and St John the Evangelist, made of electrum-gold and silver. There are also images of the other apostles, entirely made of silver, which the Emperor Constantine, servant of God, who was eager to have these images made, as well as images of his disciples, yet tried to hide in a certain geneceo,15 since it is not permitted for any artist to make likenesses with any talent whatsoever. (XXIII) Between the choir and the altar of this temple are many images on the four columns, wonderful ones made from bronze, above which a precious lamp should burn, whereas now it is oil, once it had been balsam. For they were sending what was owed here as a debt, but a certain Pope Formosus remitted the money. It is unclear what geneceo means; see de Blaauw, Cultus et Decor, p. 239. The dispositions of the altar are discussed in ibid., pp. 233–47.

15

appendix 3

229

There are indeed seven bishops, vicars of the Lord Pope, who celebrate masses on the altar of the Saviour, and they divide the offering with the priests who are there. And when the week is finished they return to their sees, (XXIV) whose city names are placed here: the bishop of Ostia, who should bless and consecrate the pope, before all others. The Bishop of Santa Rufina, the Bishop of Porto, the Bishop of Alba, the Bishop of Tusculum, the Bishop of Praeneste, the Bishop of Sabina. (XXVI) When the pope, the vicar of St Peter, celebrates mass on Sundays or on especially solemn occasions on the altar of the Lateran church of the Holy Saviour, those seven aforementioned bishops should assist him, who is the kingly priest and imperial bishop, or rather patriarch and pope, along with twenty-eight cardinals, as many as preside over the churches within the walls of the city of Rome. These men have the power of giving judgement over all the bishops of the whole Roman Empire, in all councils or synods to which they have been summoned or which they attend. The archdeacon of Rome should also be present, along with the six palatine deacons, who should read the Gospel in the palace and in the Lateran church, and the other twelve regional deacons, who are accustomed to read the Gospel in the other appointed station churches of Rome. Those eighteen deacons have the same number of churches within the walls of the city, and yet they are all canons of the patriarchal church of the Lateran. The seven palatine subdeacons should be there also, as well as the school of singers and also the other seven subdeacons who are called ‘regional’. These men should read the readings and epistles in the appointed stations in Rome. The (first set of) seven subdeacons and the school of singers should sing the chant while the pope celebrates mass in the Lateran church and in others. The other seven palatine subdeacons should read the epistles in the palace at the mass of the Lord Pope, and also in the Lateran church, and they should also read at the pope’s luncheon. There are also acolytes or candle-bearers there, and lectors, exorcists and doorkeepers, of whom each one strives to fulfil his duty as it was therein drawn up by the Holy Fathers. (XXVII) There are also in this aforesaid Lateran basilica altars of some saints, of which these are their names. (XXIX) The altar of Saints Chrysanthus and Daria, where their bodies rest. On the right side of the church lies Pope Agapetus, and a certain other pope next to his tomb. And there is in the same part, in the south of the church, an oratory and altar of Santa Maria and of San Pancrazio the martyr.

230

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Next then is an altar of the martyrs Saints Vincentius and Anastasius. There in fact lies Gerbert, Archbishop of Reims, who was called Sylvester after he was made pope. And in the same part, in the middle of the church, is an altar of the Holy Cross and of the forty holy martyrs. (XXXI) Again, in the same part, next to the doors of the church, rests a certain pope who had been called Sergius ex Petro. And also Pope Alexander who was bishop of Lucca. (XXXIII) And between the two doors another pope, who has no epitaph. (XXXIV) In another part of the church, then, on its left side, is the altar of St Lawrence, then the altar of St Nicholas. Next, in the middle of the church, is the altar of St Anthony. In the same part, between two columns, just as in the other part, is an altar of the forty blessed martyrs. (XXXV) Again in this part next to the doors [it is written]: ‘here rest the limbs of the highest priest, John’. This man renovated this very church. And further, between the two doors of the church, in that part can be seen the tomb which is said to be of Bishop John, as he was called. That John was the seventeenth pope. And in front of the doors of the church a certain bishop rests, who had the name Peter. Over those very doors of the church is written on the inside: Sergius [III], the pious pope, who raised this up from the foundations. [Sergius] the third finished the whole hall which you see. (XXXVI) Then on the outside, above the same doors of the church, is an image of the Saviour. On either side are images of Michael and Gabriel. (XXXVII) In the portico, indeed, is a beautiful oratory, and there is an altar of St Thomas the apostle. In this oratory, which Pope John built, who renewed this church, the pope puts on his sacerdotal and pontifical garments, when it is time to celebrate mass in the oft-mentioned church of the Holy Saviour and of St John the Baptist. From this oratory, then, he goes out and enters the church with a procession, and goes to the principal altar of the Holy Saviour, which alone holds pre-eminence over all of them. (XL) Behind the church of the Holy Saviour are four oratories. There is one which has two apses. Beneath one is an altar of St Andrew and St Lucia. Under the other apse is an altar of the Saints Rufina and Secunda, sisters, in which their bodies are laid. (XLII) But another oratory adjoins this first one, and it has only one altar beneath the apse. Below this are laid the bodies of saints, whose names are: St Venantius, St Domnio, St Maurus, St Septimus, St Antiochianus, St Gaius, St Anastasius, St Asterius, St Telius, St Paulianus. The third oratory is behind it, and in it there is the font between two altars. One is an altar of St John the Baptist, the other is of St John the Evangelist. The

appendix 3

231

fonts [sic] are round, and placed between columns in the middle of the church, which is beautiful, and round, where the chamber of the emperor was. (XLIII) Pope Hylarius built this oratory. (XLV) The fourth oratory is of the Holy Cross, and in it there is a great relic of the Holy Cross. There, with an angel dictating, St Gregory composed the Antiphonary. This oratory is extremely beautiful, built in the shape of a cross, decorated with mosaic. (XLVII) There is even, quite near to this oratory, another oratory of St Gregory the Pope, where, up to this day, a small couch can be seen surviving next to the altar, on which the saint himself used to rest. (XLIX)16 Since some people doubt that the Ark of the Covenant is in the church of the Saviour because of what is read in the second book of Maccabees, that when some wanted to mark the place where it was hidden, Jeremiah rebukes them and says that the place should be unknown until God gathers the congregation of his people, and shows his mercy, and then God will make this clear, and the majesty of God will appear, etc. But St Ambrose, in the book De officiis, plainly dissolved the fog of this kind of ambiguity, asserting that the time had already come, and the majesty of the Lord appeared at that time when our Saviour himself deigned to appear in the flesh. (LII) This very Ark, with the candelabra and other temple objects, Titus and Vespasian carried off from Jerusalem, or rather, they caused them to be carried away by the Jews themselves, just as it still can be seen until this day on the triumphal arch celebrating the victory, their monument, built by the senate and the Roman people. (LIV) This is a very solemn altar, where, as I have said, the uncut robe of the Lord for which they drew lots is held, and a great, incomparable treasure besides, which I shall not describe in its entirety here. No one dares to approach this altar for sacrifice, except for the pope or the seven collateral bishops, and the hebdomadaries of that same church. In this church, as said above, is also the seamless tunic of the Lord, and some of the wood of the Lord which the blessed Helena brought there from Jerusalem. (LV) And since this church is the image of the celestial Church, for that reason mass, matins and vespers are introduced by festive ringing of the bells every day, by which the everlasting glory of the saints is symbolized. And in this church it is not said at mass as it is in other churches: Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, grant us peace (agnus dei qui tollis peccata mundi dona nobis pacem), since Christ, the absolute peace of the saints, is there. There is an error here in Vogel’s numbering: he renders XLXI instead of XLIX.

16

Bibliography

Sources For the Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae, see Appendix 1. Acta Pontificum Romanorum inedita. Urkunden der Päpste (590–1197), vol. III, ed. J. von Pflugk-Harttung (Graz, 1958). Al-Athīr, Ibn, The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athīr for the Crusading Period from al-Kāmil fī’l-ta’rīkh. Part 1: The Years 491–541/1097–1146: The Coming of the Franks and the Muslim Response, ed. and trans. D. S. Richards, Crusade Texts in Translation 13 (Aldershot, 2006). ——, The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athīr for the Crusading Period from al-Kāmil fī’lta’rīkh. Part 2: The Years 541–589/1156–1193: The Age of Nur al-Din and Saladin, ed. and trans. D. S. Richards, Crusade Texts in Translation 15 (Aldershot, 2007). Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana: History of the Journey to Jerusalem, ed. and trans. S. B. Edgington (Oxford, 2007). Albinus, Le liber censuum de l’église romaine, ed. P. Fabre and L. Duchesne, 2 vols (Paris, 1910). Amalar of Metz, Institutio canonicorum. De regula canonicorum (Concilium Aquisgranense a 816), ed. A. Werminghoff, in MGH Concilia 2, I (Hanover; Leipzig, 1906), pp. 312–421. ——, ‘Eglogae Amalarii abbatis in ordinem romanum’, De Romano Ordine, PL 78, cols 1371B–1380A. Ambrose, De Officiis, ed. and trans. I. J. Davidson, 2 vols (Oxford, 2001). Anastasius IV, Anastasii IV Romani Pontificis Epistolae et Privilegia, XXIX. Ad canonicos regulares Lateranenses – Confirmat eorum instituta, PL 188, cols 1019C–1021B. ‘Anonymi Descriptio Basilicæ Lateranensis’, in De Liturgia Romani Pontificis in Solemni Celebratione Missarum, ed. D. Giorgi (Rome, 1744), III, pp. 542–55. Anselm of Canterbury, Homilia et exhortationes: homilia prima, PL 158, cols 585–594C. Anselm of Havelberg, Anselmi Hvelbergensis Episcopi dialogi, Capitulum X. Quod licet non soli Petro, sed etiam caeteris apostolis data sit potestas ligandi et solvendi; et licet non super solum Petrum, sed etiam super alios apostolos

234

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Spiritus descenderit; tamen principatus Petri caeteris omnibus est excellentior, PL 188, cols 1222A–1223A. ‘Appendix ad itinerarium Egeriae’, in Itineraria et alia geographica: Itineraria Hierosolymitana. Itineraria Romana. Geographica, ed. P. Geyer et al., 2 vols, CCSL 175–6 (Turnhout, 1965), I, pp. 91–103. Augustine, bishop of Hippo, Aurelii Augustini, In Iohannis Evangelium Tractatus CXXIV, ed. R. Willems, CCSL 36 (Turnhout, 1954). ——, De civitate Dei: The City of God Against the Pagans, ed. and trans. R. W. Dyson, Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought (Cambridge, 1998). ——, Liber Primus. De Moysi Pentateucho. Caput XXXVIII, De Aetiopissa uxore Moysi, et lepra murmuratricis Mariae, PL 35, col. 2171. ——, Sermo CCXXIX, In dedicatione ecclesiae vel altaris consecratione, I, PL 39, cols 2166–8. ——, Sermo CCXXXI, In dedicatione ecclesiae vel altaris concecratione, III, PL 39, cols 2171–2. ——, Sermo CCCXXXVI, In dedicatione ecclesiae, PL 38, cols 1471–2. Baldricus Dolensis, Historia Jerosolimitana, RHC.Hocc, IV, pp. 1–111. Bede, De locis sanctis, ed. J. Fraipont, in Itineraria et alia geographica: Itineraria Hierosolymitana. Itineraria Romana. Geographica, ed. P. Geyer et al., 2 vols, CCSL 175–6 (Turnhout, 1965), I, pp. 244–80. ——, De Tabernaculo. De Templo. In Ezram et Neemiam, ed. D. Hurst, CCSL 119A 2A (Turnhout, 1969). ——, On the Tabernacle, ed. and trans. A. G. Holder (Liverpool, 1994). ——, Explanatio in Quintum Librum Mosis, Qui Hebreaice Ellehaddebarim, Graece, Deuteronomium, Latine Altera Lex dicitur, Capp. VII–XIII, PL 91, cols 384D–386A. ——, Explanatio in Quartum Librum Moisis, Qui Hebraice Vaiedabber, latine Numeri dicitur, Caput XVI, PL 91, cols 365D–366D. ——, Homilia LIII. In Feria tertia post Dominicam Palmarum, PL 94, cols 389C–410D. ——, In Lucae evangelium expositio. In Marci evangelium expositio, ed. D. Hurst, CCSL 120 (Turnhout, 1960). ——, In Marci Evangelium Expositio. Caput XV, PL 92, cols 283C–294C. Benedict, The Marvels of Rome, Mirabilia Urbis Romae, ed. and trans. Francis Morgan Nichols, 2nd edn by E. Gardiner (New York, 1986; first published 1889). Benjamin of Tudela, The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela: Critical Text, Translation and Commentary, ed. and trans. M. N. Adler (London, 1907). Bernard of Clairvaux, De Consideratione, Liber II, Caput VIII, De pontificiae dignitatis et potestatis excellentia disserit, PL 182, cols 751C–752C. ——Sancti Bernardi Opera, ed. J. Leclercq, H.-M. Rochais and C. H. Talbot, 8 vols (Rome, 1957–1977). Bernard of Porto, Bernhardi Cardinalis et Lateranensis Ecclesiae Prioris Ordo Officiorum Ecclesiae Lateranensis, ed. L. Fischer (Munich, 1916).

bibliography

235

Bonizo of Sutri, Bonizo Liber de Vita Christiana, ed. E. Perels (Hildesheim, 1998; first published Berlin, 1930). Bresc-Bautier, G. ed., Le Cartulaire du Chapitre du Saint-Sépulcre de Jérusalem, Documents relatifs à l’histoire des croisades 15 (Paris, 1984). Bruno of Segni, S. Brunonis Astensis episcopi signiensis sententiarum, Liber primus. De figuris ecclesiae, PL 165, cols 875–902. ——, S. Brunonis Astensis signiensium episcopi expositio in pentateuchum, PL 164, cols 147–550. ——, 595 Tractatus Tertius. De Sacramentis Ecclesiae, Mysteriis atque ecclesiasticis ritibus, PL 165, cols 1089B–1110. Calixtus II, Calixti II pontificis romani epistolae et privilegia, CXXVII. Ad A. priorem S. Frigdiani Lucensis, PL 163, cols 1201C–1201D. Chronicon Mauriacense, Mauriniacensis Monasterii Chronicon. Ab anno Christi 1108 usque ad annum 1147, quo rex Rex Ludovicus VII in Terram Sanctam profectus est. Auctoribus Teulfo et aliis ejusdem loci monachis, Liber III, PL 180, cols 165–176D. Coena, cypriano falso inscripta, PL 4, cols 925C–932C. Constable, G. and B. Smith, eds, Libellus de diversis Ordinibus et Professionibus qui sunt in Aecclesia, (Oxford, 1972). Cusimano, Richard, ed. and trans., A Translation of the Chronicle of the Abbey of Morigny, France, c.1100–1150 (Lewiston, NY, 2003). ‘Decretum Magistri Gratiani’, in Corpus Iuris Canonici, I, ed. E. Friedberg (Leipzig, 1879; repr. Graz, 1959). de Rossi, G. B., ed., Inscriptiones Christianae urbis Romae septimo saeculo antiquiores, 2 vols (Rome, 1857). ——, ed., La Roma sotterranea cristiana descritta e illustrata, 3 vols (Rome, 1864–1877). ‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, in Codice topografico della città di Roma, ed. R. Valentini and G. Zucchetti, 4 vols (Rome, 1946), III, pp. 319–73. Egeria: Itinerarium. Reisebericht. Mit Auszügen aus Petrus Diaconus: De locis sanctis. Die heiligen Stätten, trans. G. Röwekamp, Fontes Christiani 20 (Freiburg, 1995). Egissipus I, Hegesippi qui dicitur Historiae libri V, ed. V. Ussani (Vienna, 1932). Ekkehard of Aura, Ekkehardi Abbatis Uraugiensis, Chronica, ed. G. Waitz, MGH (Stuttgart, 1844). ——, Ekkehardi Abbatis Uraugiensis, Hierosolymita, RHC.Hocc, V, pp. 1–40. Fried, Johannes, ‘Donation of Constantine’ and ‘Constitutum Constantini’: The Misinterpretation of a Fiction and its Original Meaning. With a Contribution by Wolfram Brandes: ‘The Satraps of Constantine’, Millennium Studies in the Culture and History of the First Millennium C.E. 3 (Berlin, 2007). Frutolf of Michelsberg, Chronicles of the Investiture Contest: Frutolf of Michelsberg and His Continuators, ed. and trans. T. J. H. McCarthy (Manchester, 2013). Fuhrmann, H., ed., Constitutum Constantini, MGH FiGa 10 (Hanover, 1968). Fulcher of Chartres, Fulcheri Carnotensis Historia Hierosolymitana (1095–1127), ed. H. Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg, 1913).

236

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

——, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem 1095–1127, trans. F. R. Ryan, ed. H. S. Fink (Knoxville, TN, 1969). Gelasius I, Epistolae romanorum pontificum … a Hilaro usque ad Pelagium II, ed. A. Thiel, I (Braunsberg, 1868). Gelasius II, Gelasii II pontificis romani epistolae et privilegia, PL 163, col. 487. Gerald of Wales, Giraldi Camembrensis Opera, ed. J. S. Brewer, 8 vols (London, 1873). Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium, RHC.Hocc, III (1864), pp. 487–543. Gilo of Paris, The Historia vie [sic] Hierosolimitanae of Gilo of Paris, ed. C. W. Grocock and J. E. Siberry (Oxford, 1997). Giorgi, D., De Liturgia Romani Pontificis in Solemni Celebratione Missarum, 3 vols (Rome, 1744). ‘Graphia Aurea Urbis’, in Codice topografico della città di Roma, ed. R. Valentini and G. Zucchetti, 4 vols (Rome, 1946), III, pp. 67–110. Guibert de Nogent, The Deeds of God through the Franks: A Translation of Guibert de Nogent’s ‘Gesta Dei per Francos’, ed. R. Levine (Woodbridge, 1997). Guido of Farfa, Disciplina farfensis et monasterii s. pauli romae, Caput L, De reliquiis sanctorum, PL 150, cols 1284C–D. Hagenmeyer, H. ed., Die Kreuzzugsbriefe aus den Jahren 1088–1100 (Innsbruck, 1901). Herman of Tournai, ‘Herimanni liber de restauratione monasterii Sancti Martini Tonacensis’, ed. G. Waitz, MGH SS 14, pp. 274–317. ——, The Restoration of the Monastery of Saint Martin of Tournai, ed. and trans. L. H. Nelson (Washington, DC, 1996). Hildebert of Lavardin, Historia Hildeberti cenomanensis episcopi de mahumete, Breve monitum, PL 171, cols 1345A–1366A. ——, Ildebertus Cynomanensis de operibus sex dierum, PL 171, cols 1213–1218A. ——, Ven. Hildeberti carmina miscellanea, tam sacra quam moralia. sive libellus qui dicitur floridus aspectus. L. Versus Cynomannensis episcopi de Nummo seu satyra adversus avaritiam, PL 171, cols 1402B–1406A. ——, Ven. Hildeberti sermones, CII [De diversis xv]. De libro vitae, PL 171, cols 814D–818C. Hinschius, P. ed., Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae et Capitula Angilramni (Leipzig, 1863). Historia Iherosolymitana, RHC.Hocc, III (1864), pp. 311–485. Hugh of Saint-Victor, De vanitate mundi et rerum transeuntium usu libri quatuor, In quorum duobus collocutores signatos inveni singulis litteris D et I, quibus docens et interrogans satis indicantur intelligendi, Liber Quartus. De inquisitione mysticae arcae, et de contextu historiae sacrae et profanae, per quam cognoscitur etiam regnorum instabilitas; concluditque, rebus transeuntibus prudenter utendum. Loquitur autem in exordio, ut opinor, Ratio significata per R, PL 176, cols 729–740C. Isidore of Seville, De ecclesiasticiis officiis, ed. C. M. Lawson, CCSL 113 (Turnhout, 1989). ——, Ex veteri Testamento, PL 83, cols 99–116C. Jaffé, P. and S. Loewenfeld, eds, Regesta pontificum Romanorum (Leipzig, 1885).

bibliography

237

Jerahmeel ben Solomon, The Chronicles of Jerahmeel, or, The Hebrew Bible Historiale: Being a Collection of Apocryphal and Pseudo-Epigraphical Books Dealing With the History of the World From the Creation to the Death of Judas Maccabeus, ed. M. Gaster (London, 1899). Jerome, Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae, ed. I. Hilberg, CSEL 54 (Vienna and Leipzig, 1910). ——, S. Eusebii Hieronymi Stridonensis presbyteri commentariorum in Joelem Prophetam liber unus. Ad pammachium. Incipit liber, PL 25, cols 949–988D. John Cassian, Conférences: Tome 2, VIII–XVII, ed. and trans. E. Pichery, SC 54 (Paris, 2009; first published 1958). ——, Conferences, trans. C. Luibheid, ed. J. Farina (New York, 1985). John the Deacon, Joannis Diaconi Liber de ecclesia Laterensi, PL 78, cols 1379–92. ——, Joannis Diaconi liber de ecclesia lateranensi, PL 194, cols 1543–1560C. Josephus, Flavius, The Jewish War, Books 1–7, ed. and trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, Loeb Classical Library (London, 1990). ——, Translation and Commentary, Vol. 10: Against Apion, trans. J. M. G. Barclay (Leiden, 2007). Kimchi, Joseph, The Book of the Covenant, trans. F. Talmage (Toronto, 1972). Lamentum Lacrymabile. Super his qui in expeditione Jerosolymitana diversis mortibus, justo quidem, sed occulto et inscrutabili Dei judicio interierunt, PL 155, cols 1095–8. ‘Lateranensis basilice combustio tempore Clementis V rythmo descripta’, in Philip Lauer, Le Palais de Latran (Paris, 1911), pp. 245–50. Lehmann, Paul, ‘Die mittellateinischen Dichtungen der Prioren des Tempels von Jerusalem Acardus und Gaufridus’, in Corona Quernea. Festgabe Karl Strecker zum 80. Geburtstage dargebracht (Leipzig, 1941), pp. 296–330. Leo the Great, Léon le Grand, Sermones, II, ed. R. Dolle, SC 49 (Paris, 1969). ——, Léon le Grand, Sermones, III, ed. R. Dolle, SC 74 (Paris, 1976). ——, Sermo LXI [AI. LIX], De Passione Domini X, Cap. III–V, PL 54, cols 348–9. Luther, Martin, Bibel. Die gantze Heilige Schrifft Deudsch (Wittenberg, 1545). Mabillon, J. and M. Germain, eds, Museum Italicum, seu Collectio veterum scriptorum ex bibliothecis italicis, 2 vols (Paris, 1689). Maniacutius, Nicolaus, Historia Imaginis Salvatoris (Rome, 1709). Nardini, Famiano, Roma antica, ed. A. Nibby, 4 vols (Roma, 1818–1820). Norman Anonymous: Tractatus Eboracenses II, MGH Ldt 3, pp. 642–87. Orosius, Histoires (contre les païens), ed. and trans. M.-P. Arnaud-Lindet, 3 vols (Paris, 2003). Otto of Freising, Ottonis episcopi frisigensis Chronica; sive historia de duabus civitatibus, ed. A. Hofmeister, MGH SRG 45 (Hanover and Leipzig, 1912). ——, The Two Cities: A Chronicle of Universal History to the Year 1146, trans C. C. Mierow (New York, 2002). Paschal II, Paschalis II romani pontificis epistolae et privilegia, CCXIII. Possessiones abbatiae Elnonensis, seu S. Amandi, ordinis S. Benedicti, confirmat easque apostolicis munit privilegiis, PL 163, cols 211C–213C. Peter Damian, 51–52 Epistola prima, ad s. r. e. episcopos cardinales, PL 144, cols 253–259C.

238

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

——, 85–86 Opusculum sextum. Liber qui appellatur gratissimus. Ad Henricum archiepiscopum Ravennatem. 88 Caput II. Quod sacerdos exterius ministrat, sed Deus invisibiliter consecrat, PL 145, cols 101C–101D. ——, 383–384 Opusculum decimum octavum. Contra intemperantes clericos, Contextum ex tribus aliis beati Damiani de eo argumento dissertationibus, PL 145, cols 387–98. ——, 511–522 Opusculum vicesimum septimum. De communi vita canonicorum. Ad clericos fanensis ecclesiae. Caput primum. Quod clerici non habent proprietatem rerum, quas possident, PL 145, cols 505C–506C. ——, B. Petri Damiani sanctae romanae ecclesiae cardinalis, episcopi ostiensis, ordinis s. benedicti, sermones ordine mensium servato, Sermo Primus, In epiphania Domini, PL 144, cols 505C–514B. ——, B. Petri Damiani sanctae romanae ecclesiae cardinalis, episcopi ostiensis, ordinis s. benedicti, sermones ordine mensium servato, Sermo LIII, De S. Luca Evangelista, PL 144, cols 799–807B. ——, Disceptatio Synodalis, MGH LdL I, 78. ——, Sancti Petri Damiani sermones, ed. G. Lucchesi, CCCM 57 (Turnhout, 1983). Peter the Deacon, Hugonis de folieto ut videtur de claustro animae libri quatuor, Liber secundus, Cap. XIX, De fenestris templi, PL 176, cols 1121C–1121D. ——, Petri Diaconi liber de locis sanctis. Incipit liber de locis sanctis, PL 173, cols 1117–1134B. ‘Petri Mallii Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae aucta atque emendata a romano Presbitero’, in Codice topografico della città di Roma, ed. R. Valentini and G. Zucchetti, 4 vols (Rome, 1946), III, pp. 375–442. Procopius, History of the Wars, trans. H. B. Dewing, vol. II, Loeb Classical Library (London and New York, 1916). Rabanus Maurus, Incipiunt enarrationes in numeros. Liber secundus. Caput XVII. De sedition Chore, Dathan et Abiron contra Moysen, et poena eorum, PL 108, cols 681A–682A. Rassow, P., ‘Der Text der Kreuzzugsbulle Eugens III. vom. 1 März 1146’, Neues Archiv 45 (1924), 300–5. Raymond of Auguilers, Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem, RHC.Hocc, III (1864), pp. 231–309. ——, Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem, ed. J. H. Hill and L. L. Hill (Philadelphia, 1968). Reiner of Liège, Reinerus S. Laurentii Leodiensis, Vita Reginardi, ed. W. Arndt, MGH SS 20 (Hanover, 1868). Riant, P. ed., Exuviae sacrae constantinopolitanae, 3 vols (Geneva, 1877–1904). Robert the Monk, Historia Jherosolimitana, RHC.Hocc, III (1864), pp. 717–882. ——, The Historia Iherosolimitana of Robert the Monk, ed. D. Kempf and M. G. Bull (Woodbridge, 2013). ——, Robert the Monk’s History of the First Crusade: Historia Iherosolimitana, trans. C. Sweetenham, Crusade Texts in Translation 11 (Aldershot, 2005). Rodulfus Glaber, The Five Books of Histories, trans. J. France and P. Reynolds (Oxford, 1989).

bibliography

239

Sandoli, S. de, ed., Itinera Hierosolymitana Crucesignatorum, 4 vols (Jerusalem, 1980). Sozomen, The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen: Comprising a History of the Church From a.d. 323 to a.d. 425, Select Library of the Post-Nicene Fathers (New York, 1890). ——, Historia Ecclesiastica/Kirchengeschichte, ed. G. C. Hansen, Fontes Christiani 73 (Turnhout, 2004). ——, Histoire Ecclésiastique, Livres I–II, trans. A.-J. Festugière, SC 306 (Paris, 1983). Theobald, Theobaldi ‘Physiologus’, ed. P. T. Eden, Mittellateinische Studien und Texte 6 (Leiden and Cologne, 1972). Theophanes, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, ad 284–813, trans. C. Mango (Oxford, 1997). Tobler, T. and A. Molinier, eds, Itinera Hierosolymitana et descriptiones Terrae Sanctae Bellis Sacris Anteriora (Geneva, 1879). Torrey, C. C., ed. and trans., The Lives of the Prophets: Greek Text and Translation, Journal of Biblical Literature, Monograph Series 1 (Philadelphia, 1946). Urban II, Beati Urbani II pontificis romani epistolae et privilegia, LVIII. Confirmatio erectionis canonicae S. Mariae in Rettenbach, quae sub apostolicae sedis protectione recipitur; confirmatisque bonis omnibus ad eam spectantibus, nonnulla eidem conceduntur privilegia, PL 151, cols 337B–339C. ——, ‘Bulla confirmationis Urbani II. P. M. Anno 1902’, in Das Stift Rottenbuch in der Kirchenreform des XI.–XII. Jahrhunderts, ed. J. Mois (Munich, 1953), pp. 66–7. Van Dijk, S. J. P. and J. Hazelden Walker, eds, The Ordinal of the Papal Court from Innocent III to Boniface VIII and Related Documents (Fribourg, 1975). Vogüé, M. de, ed., Les Églises de la Terre Sainte (Paris, 1860). William of Tyre, Chronique, ed. R. B. C. Huygens et al., CCCM 63, 1 (Turnhout, 1986).

Secondary Works Aavitsland, Kristin Bliksrud, Imagining the Human Condition in Medieval Rome: The Cistercian Fresco Cycle at Abbazia delle Tre Fontane (Aldershot, 2012). Alexander, Philip S., ‘Jerusalem as the “Omphalos” of the World: On the History of a Geographical Concept’, in Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, ed. L. I. Levine (New York, 1999), pp. 104–19. Angenendt, Arnold, Geschichte der Religiosität im Mittelalter (Darmstadt, 1997). ——, Heilige und Reliquien (Munich, 1997; first published 1994). Assmann, Aleida, Zeit und Tradition. Kulturelle Strategien der Dauer (Cologne, Weimar and Vienna, 1999). Bacci, Michele, ‘The Berardenga Antependium and the Passio Ymaginis Office’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 61 (1998), 1–16. ——, ‘The Mise-en-Scène of the Holy in the Lateran Church in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries’, in Romanesque Cathedrals in Mediterranean

240

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Europe: Architecture, Ritual and Urban Context, ed. G. B. Varela and J. Kroesen, Architectura Medii Aevi 7 (Turnhout, 2016), pp. 187–203. ——, ‘“Quel bello miracolo onde si fa la festa del santo Salvatore”: studio sulle metamorfosi si una leggenda’, in Santo Croce e Santo Volto. Contributi allo studio dell’ origine e della fortuna del culto del Salvatore (secoli IX–XV), ed. G. Rossetti (Pisa, 2002), pp. 9–86. ——, ‘The Volto Santo’s Legendary and Physical Image’, in Envisioning Christ on the Cross: Ireland and the Early Medieval West, ed. J. Mullins, J. Ní Ghrádaigh and R. Hawtree (Pamplona, 2013), pp. 214–33. Baert, Barbara, A Heritage of Holy Wood: The Legend of the True Cross in Text and Image, Cultures, Beliefs, and Traditions 22 (Leiden, 2004). Bahat, Dan, ‘The Physical Infrastructure’, in The History of Jerusalem: The Early Muslim Period 638–1099, ed. J. Prawer and H. Ben-Shammai (New York, 1996), pp. 38–100. Baldovin, John F., The Urban Character of Christian Worship: The Origins, Development, and Meaning of Stational Liturgy (Rome, 1987). Bauckham, Richard, ‘James and the Jerusalem Community’, in Jewish Believers in Jesus, ed. O. Skarsaune and R. Hvalvik (Peabody, 2007), pp. 55–95. Becker, Alfons, Der Papst, die griechische Christenheit und der Kreuzzug, II: Papst Urban II (1088–1099) (Stuttgart, 1988). ——, ‘Urban II und die deutsche Kirche’, in Investiturstreit und Reichsverfassung, ed. J. Fleckenstein (Sigmaringen, 1973), pp. 241–75. Belting, Hans, Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art (Chicago, 1994). Berger, Pamela, The Cresent on the Temple: The Dome of the Rock as Image of the Ancient Jewish Sanctuary, Studies in Religion and the Arts 5 (Leiden, 2012). Bergren, Theodore A., Fifth Ezra: The Text, Origin, and Early History, Septuagint and Cognate Studies 25 (Atlanta, 1990). Birch, Debra J., Pilgrimage to Rome in the Middle Ages (Woodbridge, 1998). Bischoff, Bernhard, Latin Paleography: Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1995). Blumenthal, Uta-Renate, Gregor VII. Papst zwischen Canossa und Kirchenreform (Darmstadt, 2001). Bolton, Brenda, The Medieval Reformation (London, 1983). Borgehammar, Stephan, How the Holy Cross Was Found: From Event to Medieval Legend (Stockholm, 1991). Boustan, Ra’anan S., ‘The Spoils of the Jerusalem Temple at Rome and Constantinople’, in Antiquity in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Pasts in the GrecoRoman World, ed. G. Gardner and K. L. Osterloh (Tübingen, 2008), pp. 327–72. Boutemy, André, ‘Le scriptorium et la bibliothéque de Saint-Amand d’après les manuscrits et les anciens catalogues’, Scriptorium 1 (1946), 6–16. Bracken, Damian, ‘Authority and Duty: Columbanus and the Primacy of Rome’, Peritia 16 (2002), 168–213. Buchanan, Charles, ‘Spiritual and Spatial Authority in Medieval Lucca: Illuminated Manuscripts, Stational Liturgy and the Gregorian Reform’, Art History 27.5 (2004), 723–44.

bibliography

241

Busby, Keith, Codex and Context: Reading Old French Verse Narrative in Manuscript, 2 vols (Amsterdam, 2002). Bynum, Caroline Walker, Christian Materiality: An Essay on Religion in Late Medieval Europe (New York, 2011). ——, Docere verbo et exemplo: An Aspect of Twelfth-Century Spirituality (Missoula, MT, 1979). ——, ed., Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1982). Bysted, Ane, The Crusade Indulgence: Spiritual Rewards and the Theology of the Crusades, c. 1095–1216, History of Warfare 103 (Leiden, 2014). Canning, Joseph, A History of Medieval Political Thought 300–1450 (New York, 1996). Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Biblithecæ Regiæ. Pars tertia, IV (Paris, 1744). Champagne, Marie-Thérèse, ‘Both Text and Subtext: The Circulation and Preservation of Two Manuscripts of Nicolaus Maniacutius in TwelfthCentury Europe’, Textual Cultures 6 (2011), 26–47. ——, ‘Christian Hebraism in Twelfth-Century Rome: A Philologist’s Correction of the Latin Bible through Dialogue with Jewish Scholars and Their Hebrew Texts’, Studies in Church History 53 (2017), 71–87. ——, ‘The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-century Rome: Papal Attitudes Toward Biblical Judaism and Contemporary European Jewry’, PhD thesis, Louisiana State University, 2005, https://digitalcommons. lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/1931/ (accessed 25 September 2018). Champagne, Marie-Thérèse and Ra’anan S. Boustan, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past: The Jewish Experience of Rome in the Twelfth Century’, Medieval Encounters 17 (2011), 464–94. Chenu, Marie-Dominique, Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century: Essays on New Theological Perspectives in the Latin West, trans. J. Taylor and L. K. Little (Chicago, 1968). Chodorow, Stanley, Christian Political Theory and Church Politics in the MidTwelfth Century: The Ecclesiology of Gratian’s Decretum (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1972). Claussen, Peter Cornelius, Die Kirchen der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter 1050–1300: A–F, Corpus Cosmatorum II, 1 (Stuttgart, 2002). ——, Die Kirchen der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter 1050–1300. Band 2: S. Giovanni in Laterano, Corpus Cosmatorum II, 2 (Stuttgart, 2008). Cohen, Jeremy, Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jew in Medieval Christianity (Berkeley, 1999). Collins, Marilyn F., ‘The Hidden Vessels in Samaritan Traditions’, Journal for the Study of Judaism 3.2 (1972), 97–16. Comfort, William Wistar, ‘The Literary Role of Saracens in the French Epic’, Publications of the Modern Language Association 55.3 (1940), 628–59. Constable, Giles, ‘II: The Ideal of the Imitation of Christ’, in Three Studies in Medieval Religious and Social Thought, ed. G. Constable (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 143–248.

242

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

——, The Reformation of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, 1996). Cowdrey, Herbert Edward John, Pope Gregory VII, 1073–1085 (Oxford, 1998). ——, ‘Pope Urban II and the Idea of Crusade’, Studi Medievali 36.2 (1995), 721–42. ——, ‘Pope Urban II’s Preaching of the First Crusade’ History 55 (1970), 177–88. Dagenais, John, The Ethics of Reading in Manuscript Culture: Glossing the ‘Libro de buen amor’ (Princeton, 1994). de Blaauw, Sible, Cultus et decor. Liturgia e architettura nella Roma tardoantica e medievale: Basilica Salvatoris, Sanctae Mariae, Sancti Petri, 2 vols, Studi e testi 355–6 (Vatican City, 1994). ——, ‘Il patriarchio, la basilica lateranense e la liturgia’, Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome. Antiquité, Roma-Paris 116.1 (2004), 161–71. ——, ‘Jerusalem in Rome and the Cult of the Cross’, in Pratum Romanum. Richard Krautheimer zum 100. Geburtstag, ed. R. Colella et al. (Wiesbaden, 1997), pp. 54–74. ——, ‘The Solitary Celebration of the Supreme Pontiff: The Lateran Basilica as the New Temple in the Medieval Liturgy of Maundy Thursday’, in Omnes circumadstantes: Contributions Towards a History of the Role of the People in the Liturgy, ed. C. Caspers and M. Schneiders (Kampen, 1990), pp. 120–43. de Bruyne, Donatien, ‘Le plus ancien catalogue des reliques d’Oviedo’, Analecta Bollandiana 45 (1927), 93–6. de Lubac, Henri, Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture, trans. M. Sebanc, 9 vols (Edinburgh, 1998). Dempf, Alois, Sacrum Imperium. Geschichts- und Staatsphilosophie des Mittelalters und der politischen Renaissance (Munich, 1962). Dendl, Jörg, ‘Der Heilige Felsen: der Felsendom in Zeitalter der Kreuzzüge’, in Miszellen aus dem Schülerkreis. Festschrift für Prof. Dr. K. Elm (Berlin, 1995), pp. 1–11. Denis, Michael, Codices manuscripti theologici Bibliothecae Palatinae Vindibonensis latini aliarumque occidentis linguarum (Vienna, 1795). Desilve, Julius, De Schola Elnonensi Sancti Amandi a Saeculo IX ad XII Usque (Louvain, 1890). Dickinson, John C., The Origin of the Austin Canons (London, 1950). Dinzelbacher, Peter, ‘Die “Realpräsenz” der Heiligen in ihren Reliquiaren und Gräbern nach mittelalterlichen Quellen’, in Heiligenverehrung in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. D. R. Bauer (Ostfildern, 1990), pp. 115–74. Dobschütz, Ernst von, Christusbilder. Untersuchungen zur Christlichen Legende (Leipzig, 1899). Dolezalová, Lucie, Reception and its Varieties: Reading, Re-Writing, and Understanding Cena Cypriani in the Middle Ages (Trier, 2007). Dondi, Cristina, The Liturgy of the Canons Regular of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem, Bibliotheca Victorina 16 (Turnhout, 2004). Duncan-Flowers, Maggie, ‘A Pilgrim’s Ampulla from the Shrine of St. John the Evangelist at Ephesus’, in The Blessings of Pilgrimage, ed. R. Ousterhout (Chicago, 1990), pp. 125–39.

bibliography

243

Duval-Arnould, Louis, Le Pergamene dell’Archivio Capitolare Lateranense (Vatican City, 2010). Egger, K., ‘Die Lateranensiche Chorherren-Kongregation’, In unum congregati 3 (1956), 59–63. Elad, Amikam, Medieval Jerusalem and Islamic Worship: Holy Places, Ceremonies, Pilgrimage, Islamic History and Civilization 8 (Leiden, 1995). Eliav, Yaron Z., ‘The Temple Mount in Jewish and Early Christian Traditions: A New Look’, in Jerusalem: Idea and Reality, ed. T. Mayer and S. Ali Mourad (New York, 2008), pp. 47–66. Elm, Kaspar, Umbilicus Mundi. Beiträge zur Geschichte Jerusalems, der Kreuzzüge, des Kapitels vom Hlg. Grab in Jerusalem und der Ritterorden (Brugge, 1998). Epp, Verena, Fulcher von Chartres Studien zur Geschichtsschreibung des ersten Kreuzzuges (Düsseldorf, 1990). Fernández Conde, Francisco J., El libro de los testamentos de la Catedral de Oviedo (Rome, 1971). Fernández González, Etelvina, ‘Estructura y simbolismo de la capilla palatina y otros lugares de peregrinación: los ejemplos asturianos de la Cámara Santa y las ermitas de Monsacro’, in Las peregrinaciones a Santiago de Compostela y San Salvador de Oviedo en la Edad Media. Actas del Congreso Internacional celebrado en Oviedo del 3 al 7 de diciembre de 1990, ed. J. I. Ruiz de la Peña Solar (Roma, 1993), pp. 335–98. Ferrari, Guy, Early Roman Monasteries: Notes for the History of the Monasteries and Convents at Rome from the V through the X Century (Vatican City, 1957). Figueira, Robert, ‘The Classification of Medieval Papal Legates in the “Liber Extra”’, Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 21 (1983), 211–28. Fredriksen, Paula, Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism (New York, 2008). Freiberg, Jack, The Lateran in 1600: Christian Concord in Counter-Reformation Rome (Cambridge, 1995). Galland, Bruno, Les Authentiques de reliques du Sancta Sanctorum, Studi e testi 421 (Vatican City, 2004). Gardner, Julian, ‘L’architettura del Sancta Sanctorum’, in Sancta Sanctorum, ed. C. Pietrangeli (Milan, 1995), pp. 19–37. Garrison, Edward B., ‘Three Manuscripts for Lucchese Canons of S. Frediano in Rome’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 36 (1975), 1–52. Geary, Patrick, Furta sacra: Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages, 2nd edn (Princeton, 1990). Gehrt, Wolf, Die Verbände der Regularkanonikerstifte S. Frediano in Lucca, S. Maria in Reno bei Bologna, S. Maria in Porto bei Ravenna und die cura animarum im 12. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt-am-Main and New York, 1984). Gil, Moshe, ‘The Political History of Jerusalem During the Early Muslim Period’, in The History of Jerusalem: The Early Muslim Period (638–1009), ed. J. Prawer and H. Ben-Shammai (New York, 1996), pp. 1–37. Giusti, Martino, ‘The Vatican Secret Archives’, Archivaria 7 (1978), 16–27. Gleber, Helmut, Papst Eugen III (Jena, 1936).

244

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Goetghebuer, Dom., ‘Catalogus Veterum librorum Msc. Monasterii Elnonensis’, in Bibliotheca Belgica manuscripta, ed. A. Sanderus (Lille, 1641). Goez, Werner, Translatio imperii. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Geschichtsdenkens und der politischen Theorien im Mittelalter und in der früheren Neuzeit (Tübingen, 1958). Graves, Michael, ‘“Judaizing” Christian Interpretations of the Prophets as Seen by Saint Jerome’, Vigiliae Christianae 61 (2007), 142–56. Grégoire, Réginald, O.S.B., Bruno de Segni. Exégète médiéval et théologien monastique (Spoleto, 1965). Grisar, Hartmann, Die römische Kapelle Sancta sanctorum und ihr Schatz (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1908). Grundmann, Herbert, ‘Sacerdotium – Regnum – Studium: zur Wertung der Wissenschaft im 13. Jahrhundert’, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 34 (1952), 5–21. Guscin, Mark, The Image of Edessa (Leiden and Boston, 2009). Gy, Pierre-Marie, ‘L’influence des chanoines de Lucques sur la liturgie du Latran’, Revue des Sciences Religieuses 58 (1984), 31–41. Halphen, Louis, ‘Le manuscrit latin 712 du fonds de la reine Christine au Vatican’, Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’École Française de Rome 25 (1905), 107–26. Hamilton, Bernard, ‘The Impact of Crusader Jerusalem on Western Christendom’, Catholic Historical Review 80.4 (1994), 695–713. ——, The Latin Church in the Crusader States: The Secular Church (London, 1980). ——, ‘Rebuilding Zion: The Holy Places of Jerusalem in the Twelfth Century’, in Renaissance and Renewal in Christian History, ed. D. Baker (Oxford, 1977), pp. 105–16. Hamilton, Louis I., ‘A Liturgy of Reform: Bruno of Segni’s De Sacramentis Ecclesiae and the Gregorian Reform’, Essays in History 39 (1996), http:// www.essaysinhistory.com/a-liturgy-of-reform-bruno-segris-de-sacramentisecclesial-and-the-gregorian-reform/ (accessed 24 September 2018). ——, A Sacred City: Consecrating Churches and Reforming Society in EleventhCentury Italy (Manchester, 2010). ——, ‘To Consecrate the Church: Ecclesiastical Reform and the Dedication of Churches’, in Reforming the Church before Modernity: Patterns, Problems, and Approaches, ed. C. M. Bellito and L. I. Hamilton (Aldershot, 2005), pp. 105–37. Harper, John, The Forms and Orders of Western Liturgy from the Tenth to the Eighteenth Century (Oxford, 1991). Harris, Julia A., ‘Redating the Arca Santa of Oviedo’, Art Bulletin 77.1 (1995), 83–94. Hasson, Izhac, ‘The Muslim View of Jerusalem’, in The History of Jerusalem: The Early Muslim Period (683–1099), ed. J. Prawer and H. Ben-Shammai (New York, 1996), pp. 349–85. Herklotz, Ingo, ‘Der mittelalterliche Fassadenportikus der Lateranbasilika und seine Mosaiken: Kunst und Propaganda am Ende des 12. Jahrhunderts’, Römisches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 25 (1989), 25–95.

bibliography

245

Hiestand, Rudolf, ‘Gaufridus abbas Templi Domini: An Underestimated Figure in the Early History of the Kingdom of Jerusalem’, in The Experience of Crusading, 2: Defining the Crusader Kingdom, ed. P. Edbury and J. Phillips (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 48–59. Horn, Michael, Studien zur Geschichte Papst Eugens III (1145–1153) (Frankfurt-amMain, 1992). Huot, Sylvia, The Romance of the Rose and Its Medieval Readers (Cambridge, 1993). Hyslop, Francis E., Jr, ‘A Byzantine Reliquary of the True Cross from the Sancta Sanctorum’, Art Bulletin 16.4 (1934), 333–40. Johrendt, Jochen, Die Diener des Apostelfürsten. Das Kapitel von St. Peter im Vatikan, 11.–13. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 2011). Jounel, Pierre, Le Culte des saints dans les basiliques du Latran et du Vatican au douzième siècle (Rome, 1977). Jungmann, Joseph A., S.J., The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development (Missarum Sollemnia), trans. F. A. Brunner, 2 vols (Westminster, 1992). Katzir, Yael, ‘The Patriarch of Jerusalem, Primate of the Latin Kingdom’, in Crusade and Settlement: Papers Read at the First Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East and Presented to R. C. Smail, ed. P. Edbury (Cardiff, 1985), pp. 169–75. Kehr, Paul F., Italia Pontificia, 10 vols (Berlin, 1906–1976). Kempf, Damien, ‘Der mittelalterliche Text zwischen Theorie und Praxis’, in Theorie in der Geschichtswissenchaft, ed. J. Hacke and M. Pohlig (Frankfurt-amMain and New York, 2008), pp. 53–66. Kessler, Herbert L., and Johanna Zacharias, ROME 1300: On the Path of the Pilgrim (New Haven and London, 2000). Kinney, Dale, ‘Fact and Fiction in the Mirabilia Urbis Romae’, in Roma Felix: Formations and Reflections of Medieval Rome, eds É. Ó Carragain and C. Neuman de Vegvar (Aldershot, 2007), pp. 235–52. ——, ‘Spolia’, in St. Peter’s in the Vatican, ed. W. Tronzo (Cambridge, 2005), pp. 16–47. Kleiner, Diana E. E., Roman Sculpture (New Haven, 1992). Klewitz, Hans-Walter, ‘Das Ende des Reformpapsttums’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 3 (1939), 372–412. Krautheimer, Richard, ROME: Profile of a City, 312–1308 (Princeton, 2000; first published 1980). ——, Spencer Corbett and Wolfgang Frankl, eds, Corpus Basilicarum Christianarum Romae, 5 vols, Vatican City (Rome, 1937–1977). Kristeller, Paul Oskar, Iter italicum. Accedunt Alia Itinera: A Finding List of Uncatalogued or Incompletely Catalogued Humanistic Manuscripts of the Renaissance in Italian and other Libraries, III (London, 1983). Kühnel, Bianca, Galit Noga-Banai and Hanna Vorholt, eds, Visual Constructs of Jerusalem, Cultural Encounters in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages 18 (Turnhout, 2014). Lapina, Elizabeth, ‘Anti-Jewish Rhetoric in Guibert of Nogent’s Dei gesta per Francos’, Journal of Medieval History 3 (2009), 239–53.

246

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Laudage, Johannes, ‘Ad exemplar primitivae ecclesiae. Kurie, Reich und Klerusreform von Urban II. bis Calixt II’, in Reformidee und Reformpolitik im spätsalisch-frühstaufischen Reich, ed. S. Weinfurter and H. Seibert (Mainz, 1992), pp. 47–73. ——, Priesterbild und Reformpapsttum im 11. Jahrhundert (Cologne, 1984). Lauer, Philip, Bibliothèque Nationale, Catalogue général des manuscrits Latins (Paris, 1940). ——, Le Palais de Latran (Paris, 1911). Le Goff, Jacques, La Civilisation de l’occident médiéval (Paris, 1977). ——, Medieval Civilization, trans. J. Barrow (Oxford, 1988). Levy-Rubin, Milka, ‘The Rediscovery of the Uppsala Map of Crusader Jerusalem’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 111 (1995), 162–7. Lièvre, Auguste-François, and Auguste Molinier, Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France, Départements, XXV (Paris, 1894). Limor, Ora, ‘Christian Sacred Space and the Jew’, in From Witness to Witchcraft: Jews and Judaism in Medieval Christian Thought, ed. J. Cohen (Wiesbaden, 1996), pp. 55–78. Linder, Amnon, ‘Jews and Judaism in the Eyes of Christian Thinkers of the Middle Ages: The Destruction of Jerusalem in Medieval Christian Liturgy’, in From Witness to Witchcraft: Jews and Judaism in Medieval Christian Thought, ed. J. Cohen (Wiesbaden 1996), pp. 113–23. Longo, Umberto, ‘Da Gerusalemme a Roma: il papato e l’eredità tra XI e XII secolo’, in La presenza ebraica a Roma e nel Lazio: dalle origini al ghetto, ed. R. Padovano (Padua, 2009), pp. 143–85. Loriquet, Henri, Catalogue général des mss. des bibl. publiques de France, Départements, XXXVIII (Paris, 1904). Maccarrone, Michele, ‘I papi del secolo XII e la vita comune e regolare del clero’, in La vita comune del clero nei secoli XI e XII, ed. Cinzio Violante and Cosimo D. Fonsega (Milan, 1962), pp. 349–411. ——, Vicarius Christi. Storia del titolo papale (Rome, 1953). Mayer, Hans Eberhard, Bistümer, Klöster und Stifte im Königreich Jerusalem, MGH 26 (Stuttgart, 1977). McCurdy, J. Frederic, and Louis Ginzberg, ‘Aaron’s Rod’, in Jewish Encyclopedia, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5-aaron-s-rod (accessed 12 June 2017). McGinn, Bernard, ‘The Human Person as Image of God II: Western Christianity’, in World Spirituality: An Encyclopedic History of the Religious Quest, XVI: Christian Spirituality: Origins to the Twelfth Century, ed. B. McGinn and J. Meyendorff (London, 1985), pp. 312–30. ——, ‘Iter Sancti Sepulchri: The Piety of the First Crusaders’, in Essays on Medieval Civilization: The Walter Prescott Webb Memorial Lectures, ed. B. K. Lackner and K. R. Philp (Austin, 1978), pp. 33–71. Meyer, Ann R., Medieval Allegory and the Building of the New Jerusalem (Cambridge, 2003). Miedema, Nine Robijntje, Die ‘Mirabilia Romae’. Untersuchungen zu ihrer Überlieferung mit Edition der deutschen und niederländische Texte (Tübingen, 1996).

bibliography

247

Mois, Jakob, Das Stift Rottenbuch in der Kirchenreform des XI.–XII. Jahrhunderts (Munich, 1953). Molinier, Auguste, Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France, Départements, XVII (Paris, 1891). Morris, Colin, ‘Memorials of the Holy Places and Blessings from the East: Devotion to Jerusalem before the Crusades’, in The Holy Land, Holy Lands, and Christian History, ed. R. N. Swanson (Woodbridge, 2000), pp. 90–109. ——, The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250 (Oxford, 1989). ——, The Sepulchre of Christ and the Medieval West (Oxford, 2005). Mourad, Suleiman Ali, ‘The Symbolism of Jerusalem in Early Islam’, in Jerusalem: Idea and Reality, ed. T. Mayer and S. Ali Mourad (New York, 2008), pp. 86–102. Munro, Dana Carleton, ‘A Crusader’, Speculum 7.3 (1932), 321–35. Nichols, Stephen G., and Siegfried Wenzel, eds, The Whole Book: Cultural Perspectives on the Medieval Miscellany (Ann Arbor, 1997). Oettinger, Ayelet, ‘Making the Myth Real: The Genre of Hebrew Itineraries to the Holy Land in the 12th–13th Century’, Folklore: Electronic Journal of Folklore 36 (2007) https://www.folklore.ee/folklore/vol36/oettinger.pdf (accessed 12 December 2017). Oftestad, Eivor A., ‘The House of God: The Translation of the Temple and the Interpretation of the Lateran Cathedral in the Twelfth Century’, PhD thesis, University of Oslo (2010). O’Loughlin, Thomas, Adomnán and the Holy Places: The Perceptions of an Insular Monk on the Locations of the Biblical Drama (London, 2007). Ousterhout, Robert G., ‘The Church of Santo Stefano: A “Jerusalem” in Bologna’, Gesta 20 (1981), 311–21. Palumbo, Pier F., Lo Scisma del MCXXX. I precedenti, la vicenda Romana e le ripercussioni Europee della lotta tra Anelecto e Innocenzo II, Miscellanea della R. Deputazione Romana de Storia Patria (Roma, 1942). Peri, Vittorio, ‘Nicola Maniacutia: un testimone della filologia romana del XII secolo’, Aevum 41 (1967), 67–90. Pertz, Georg Heinrich, Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde (Hanover, 1858). Peters, Edward, ed., The First Crusade: The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and Other Source Materials (Philadelphia, 1998; first published 1971). Poncelet, Albertus, S.J., Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum latinorum bibliothecarum Romanarum praeter quam Vaticanae (Brussels, 1909). Powell, James M., ‘Honorius III’s “Sermo in Dedicatione Ecclesie Lateranensis” and the Historical-Liturgical Traditions of the Lateran’, Archivium Historiae Pontificiae 21 (1983), 195–209. Prawer, Joshua, The History of the Jews in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Oxford, 1988). —— and Haggai Ben-Shammai, eds, The History of Jerusalem: The Early Muslim Period (638–1099) (New York, 1996). Pringle, Denys, Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus, III: The City of Jerusalem (Cambridge, 2007).

248

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Purkis, William J., Crusading Spirituality in the Holy Land and Iberia (Woodbridge, 2008). Rachman-Schrire, Yamit, ‘Evagatorium in Terrae Sanctae: Stones Telling the Story of Jerusalem’, in Jerusalem as Narrative Space, ed. A. Hoffmann and G. Wolf (Leiden, 2012), pp. 353–66. ——, ‘The Rock of Golgotha in Jerusalem and Western Imagination’, in Räume der Passion. Raumvisionen, Erinnerungsorte und Topographien des Leidens Christi in Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit, ed. H. Aurenhammer and D. Bohde. Vestigia Bibliae – Jahrbuch des Deutschen Bibel-Archivs 32–3 (Bern, 2015), pp. 29–48. Raedts, Peter, ‘Jerusalem: Purpose of History or Gateway to Heaven? Apocalyptism in the First Crusade’, in Church, Change and Revolution, ed. J. van den Berg and P. G. Hoftijzer, Publications of the Sir Thomas Browne Institute, n.s. 1 (Leiden, 1991), pp. 31–40. ——, ‘St Bernard of Clairvaux and Jerusalem’, in Prophecy and Eschatology, ed. M. Wilks (Oxford, 1994), pp. 169–82. Reindel, Kurt, ‘Studien zur Überlieferung der Werke des Petrus Damiani’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 15 (1959), 23–102. Reiner, Jacob, ‘The Original Hebrew Yosippon in the Chronicle of Jerahmeel’, Jewish Quarterly Review 60.2 (1969), 128–46. Richard, Jean, ‘Travel Literature’, in Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide, ed. F. A. C. Mantello and A. G. Rigg (Washington, DC, 1996), pp. 682–7. Richardson, Peter, Building Jewish in the Roman East (Waco, TX, 2004). Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ‘Crusading as Act of Love’, in Medieval Religion: New Approaches, ed. C. H. Bermann (New York and London, 2005), pp. 49–67. ——, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading (London, 1986). Robinson, Ian S., The Papacy 1073–1198: Continuity and Innovation (Cambridge, 1996; first published 1990). ——, ‘Reform of the Church, 1073–1122’, in The New Cambridge Medieval History IV c. 1024–1198, Part I, ed. D. Luscombe and J. Riley-Smith (Cambridge, 2004), pp. 268–334. Rubin, Miri, Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture (Cambridge, 1991). Rüther, Andreas, ‘Tonsur’, in Lexikon des Mittelalters (Munich and Zürich, 1996), cols 861–2. Sahner, Christian C., ‘Hierusalem in Laterano: The Translation of Sacred Space in Fifth Century Rome’, in New Jerusalems: Hierotopy and Iconography of Sacred Spaces, ed. A. Lidov (Moscow, 2009), pp. 103–30. Schein, Sylvia, ‘Between Mount Moriah and the Holy Sepulchre: The Changing Traditions of the Temple Mount in the Central Middle Ages’, Traditio 60 (1985), 175–95. ——, Gateway to the Heavenly City: Crusader Jerusalem and the Catholic West (1099–1187) (Aldershot, 2005). Schmale, Franz-Josef, Studien zum Schisma des Jahres 1130 (Cologne, 1961). Schmidt, Tillmann, Alexander II (1061–1073) und die römische Reformgruppe seiner Zeit (Stuttgart, 1977).

bibliography

249

——, ‘Die Kanonikerreform in Rom und Papst Alexander II’, Studi Gregoriani per la Storia della Libertas Ecclesiae 9 (1972), 201–21. Schoenig, Steven A., S.J., Bonds of Wool: The Pallium and Papal Power in the Middle Ages (Washington, DC, 2016). Schreckenberg, Heinz, Rezeptionsgeschichtliche und textkritische Untersuchungen zu Flavius Josephus, Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistichen Judentums 10 (Leiden, 1977). Schück, Henrik, ‘En medeltida balladstrof ’, Samlaren: Tidskrift för svensk litteraturvetenskaplig forskning 29 (1908), 57–63. Signer, Michael A., ‘Polemic and Exegesis: The Varieties of Twelfth-Century Hebraism’, in Hebraica Veritas? Christian Hebraists and the Study of Judaism in Early Modern Europe, ed. A. Coudert and J. S. Shoulson (Philadelphia, 2004), pp. 21–31. Simeray, Françoise, ‘La constitution d’une bibliothèque monastique au XIIe siècle: l’exemple de l’abbaye de Saint-Amand-les-Eaux (Nord)’, Historiens et Géographes 343.3 (1994), 145–55. Smalley, Beryl, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1952). Smallwood, Mary, The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian, a Study in Political Relations, Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 20 (Leiden, 1976). Spargo, John Webster, Virgil the Necromancer: Studies in Virgilian Legends (Cambridge, 1934). Speciale, Lucinia, ‘Una cellula e i suoi libri: i SS. Vincenzo ed Anastasio alle Tre Fontane e Casamari’, Arte Medievale 2 (1994), 47–76. Stinger, Charles L., The Renaissance in Rome (Bloomington, 1985). Stroll, Mary, The Jewish Pope: Ideology and Politics in the Papal Schism of 1130, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History 8 (Leiden, 1987). Thomas, Hans, ‘Translatio Imperii’, in Lexicon des Mittelalters (Munich, 1997), VIII, cols 944–946. Thunø, Erik, Image and Relic: Mediating the Sacred in Early Medieval Rome (Rome, 2002). —— and Søren Kaspersen, eds, Decorating the Lord’s Table: On the Dynamics between Image and Altar in the Middle Ages (Copenhagen, 2006). Tierney, Brian, ed., The Middle Ages, I: Sources of Medieval History, 4th edn (New York, 1983). Tischler, Matthias M., Einharts ‘Vita Karoli’. Studien zur Entstehung, Überlieferung und Rezeption, MGH Schriften 48 (Hanover, 2001). Twyman, Susan, ‘Papal Adventus at Rome in the Twelft Century’, Historical Research 69 (1996), 233–53. ——, Papal Ceremonial at Rome in the Twelfth Century (London, 2002). ——, ‘Summus Pontifex: The Ritual and Ceremonial of the Papal Court,’ in Adrian IV, The English Pope (1154–1159): Studies and Texts, ed. B. Bolton and A. J. Duggan (Aldershot, 2003). Ullmann, Walter, The Papacy and Political Ideas in the Middle Ages (London, 1976). ——, A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages (London and New York, 2003; first published 1972).

250

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Valentini, Roberto, and Giuseppe Zucchetti, eds, Codice topografico della città di Roma, 4 vols (Rome, 1946). Van den Gheyn, Joseph, ed., Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque royale de Belgique, I (Brussels, 1901). ——, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque royale de Belgique, II (Brussels, 1902). ——, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque royale de Belgique, X (Brussels, 1919). ——, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque royale de Belgique, XI (Brussels, 1927). Van Engen, John, ‘Ralph of Flaix: The Book of Leviticus Interpreted as Christian Community’, in Jews and Christians in Twelfth-Century Europe, ed. M. A. Signer and J. Van Engen (Notre Dame, 2001), pp. 150–70. Vogel, Cyrille, ‘La Descriptio Ecclesiae Lateranensis du Diacre Jean’, in Mélanges en l’Honneur de Monseigneur Michel Andrieu (Strasbourg, 1956), pp. 457–76. Waquet, Henri, Vie de Louis VI le Gros, Les Classiques de l’historie de France au moyen âge 11 (Paris, 1929). Webb, Diana M., ‘The Holy Face of Lucca’, in Anglo-Norman Studies IX: Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1986, ed. R. A. Brown (Woodbridge, 1987), pp. 227–37. White, Hayden V., ‘Pontius of Cluny, the “Curia Romana” and the End of Gregorianism in Rome’, Church History 27.3 (1958), 195–219. Wilkinson, John, Egeria’s Travels to the Holy Land (Jerusalem and Warminster, 1981). ——, Jerusalem Pilgrims Before the Crusades (Warminster, 1977). ——, Joyce Hill and W. F. Ryan, eds, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185 (London, 1988). Williams, George H., The Norman Anonymous of 1100 a.d. (Cambridge, 1951). Wolf, Gerhard, ‘“Laetare filia Sion. Ecce ego venio et habitabo in medio tui”: Images of Christ Transferred to Rome from Jerusalem’, in The Real and Ideal Jerusalem in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Art: Studies in Honor of Bezalel Narkiss on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. B. Kühnel (Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 418–29. ——, Salus Populi Romani. Die Geschichte römischer Kultbilder im Mittelalter (Weinheim, 1990). Worstbrock, Franz Josef, ‘Translatio artium: über die Herkunft und Entwicklung einer kulturhistorischen Theorie’, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 47 (1965), 1–22. Yuval, Israel Jacob, Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2006). Zumthor, Paul, Essai de poétique médiévale (Paris, 1972).

Index

Aaron, biblical priest  17, 125, 131, 135–6, 139–40 burial place of  103 rod of  xiii–xv, 29, 92, 99, 101, 106–7, 115, 174, 178, 187, 211, 228 statue of  188 ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan  87–8 Abgar, king of Edessa  152 Absalom, abbot of St Amand  58 Acard of Arrouaise  112, 118–19 Super templo Salomonis  18, 85, 113–17 Actus Silvestri (Acts of Sylvester)  24, 42, 52, 146 Adomnan, saint  62 Adrian IV, pope  51 n. 67 Agnes, saint  28 al-Ramli 86–7 Alberic, bishop of Ostia  126 Albert of Aachen  84–5, 93, 103–4 Alexander II, pope (Anselm I, bishop of Lucca)  46–7, 51 n. 67, 139–40 Alexander III, pope  5, 7, 17, 39, 50, 146, 173 and antipopes  174 burial of  51 n. 67 and crusades  126 sacerdotal authority of  17, 54–5 Alexander Severus, Roman emperor  185 Amalar of Metz, Institutio Canonicorum 133–40 Amalric, king of Jerusalem  198 Ambrose, saint  56, 108–9, 182, 199, 213 De officiis  33, 231 Anaclet II, antipope (Peter Pierleone)  51, 59, 122–4 Anastasius IV, pope  49, 51 n. 67, 138–40 Andrew of Crete  152 Angenendt, Arnold  143 Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, abbot of Bec, saint  56 Anselm I, bishop of Lucca see Alexander II, pope

Anselm II, bishop of Lucca  47 Anselm of Havelberg  124 Arculf 62 Ark of the Covenant  175, 177–8 allegorical significance of  69, 115 in Arabia  102 on Arch of Titus  33–4, 107–8, 179, 213, 231 after Babylonian captivity, loss of  96–7, 163 Bonizo of Sutri on  68–70 Bruno of Segni on  66 description of  xiii, 29 in Dome of the Rock (Templum Domini) 92, 95, 97–106, 109, 115 and Jeremiah, prophet  33, 98, 102, 107–9, 163, 175, 182–3, 213 and Levites  133–40 and pilgrimage guides  98–99 in San Giovanni in Laterano  1, 12–13, 29, 43, 162–3, 168, 173–5, 178–84, 211, 227–8 authenticity of  33–4, 40–1, 107, 212, 231 as fake  187 first mention of  xii–xiv and God, presence of  147 and Jewish sources  184–6 as legitimization strategy  2, 7–9, 11–13, 20, 104, 181, 184, 187–8, 190 and Maundy Thursday ritual  128–30, 132, 138 removal from  xiii, xv, 187 veritatis, as symbol of  132, 138 and Titus and Vespasian  25, 33–4, 96, 107–8, 175, 178–82, 188, 213, 231 Arnulf of Cocques, patriarch of Jerusalem 118–19 Assmann, Aleida  11, 13, 15, 18–19 Athanasius, saint  153 Augustine, saint, bishop of Hippo  17, 56, 65, 148–50, 178, 194

252

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Baldric of Dol  71 Baldwin I, king of Jerusalem  113–14 Baldwin II, king of Jerusalem  91, 113–14 Baldwin III, king of Jerusalem  198 Bede, saint  56, 62, 103, 179–81 De monumento Domini  196, 198–200 De tabernaculo  65, 99, 129 De templo 65 Beirut  150–1, 153–6, 158 Belisarius, Byzantine general  96 Benedict, canon, Liber Polypticus 57 Benedict XIV, pope  xiii–xv, 187 Benjamin of Tudela  70, 184–5 Berengar of Tours  12 Bernard, prior, Ordo Officiorum Ecclesiae Lateranensis  3, 44, 121, 125–30, 132–3, 138, 140–2, 144, 147–8, 150 Bernard of Clairvaux  79–80, 123–4 De Consideratione 125 and Second Crusade  126 Bernard of Pisa see Eugene III, pope Bethlehem  118, 227 Bologna, University of  53 Boniface VIII, pope  49 Bonizo of Sutri  7–8, 109, 155 Liber de vita Christiana (Book on the Christian Life)  68–70, 170 Bordeaux Pilgrim  89 Bruno of Segni  65, 131 Expositio in Pentateuchum  66, 68 Libri Sententiarum  66–8, 131–2 Bynum, Caroline Walker  12–13, 127 Calixtus II, pope  48, 51 n. 67 candelabra, seven-branch (Menorah)  xiv, 29, 33, 99, 105, 107, 189–90, 211, 228, 231 Carthage 185 Celestine II, pope  51 n. 67 Celestine III, pope  51 n. 67 Champagne, M. T.  159 Chartres 59 Christ see Jesus Christ Clairvaux 59 Clement III, pope  51 n. 67 Clement VIII, pope  xv Cluny  59, 74 Conon, bishop of Palestrina  112 Conrad III, Holy Roman Emperor  126 Constantine the Great, Roman emperor  14, 23, 63, 224 Arch of  37 conversion of  24–6, 30, 53–4, 155, 225–6, 228 San Giovanni in Laterno, foundation of  1, 26, 32, 144–5, 169, 188, 212 See also Constitutum Constantini; Donation of Constantine

Constantinople  9, 14, 19, 25, 54, 60, 80, 96, 151, 154, 192, 202, 226 Constitutum Constantini  15, 26, 44, 52–5, 146, 162, 169, 212 Contra Lateranenses 7 Cowdrey, H. E. J.  8–9, 72–4 crusades  12, 47, 188 First  4–5, 9, 20, 60–2, 64–5, 73–9, 84, 119, 123, 192, 196–8 Second  80, 126 Cura Sanitas Tiberii (The Cure of Tiberius) 162 da Monte, Piero  189 Damasus I, pope, saint  198, 202, 226 Damian, Peter  12, 52, 66, 90, 95, 129, 132 Contra Intemperantes Clericos (Against the Immoderate Clerics) 136–8 Daniel, Russian abbot  99 Daria, saint  40 David, biblical king  97, 101, 114, 116, 147, 149 de Blaauw, Sible  7–8, 42–3 Dendl, Jörg  92, 95 Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae (Description of the Vatican Basilica)  7, 50–1, 90, 183 Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae (Description of the Lateran Church) and Ark of the Covenant  xiii, xiv, 13, 29, 33–4, 106–9, 162, 175, 227–8, 231 date of  4–6, 9–10, 69, 119–20, 192 and Donation of Constantine  15, 212 edition and translation of  216–31 Herman of Tournai as copyist  57–8 imitation, concept of  76–7 interpretation of  4–10 John the Deacon’s redaction of  5, 7, 17, 19, 21, 38–41, 46–7, 55, 109, 122, 155, 160, 169–82, 184, 193, 214, 216 and Il Mallone (ACL A 70)  38–42 Maniacutius, compared to  182–4 manuscripts of  2–5, 20, 21–22 contexts of  59–61 groupings of  204–15 transmission of  10–11, 20, 22, 39, 49, 56–61, 73, 87, 193–203 and papacy legitimization of  54–5 reform  9, 20, 43–44, 51–2, 55–6 on pilgrims  142, 224 place of composition  22 prologue 22–3 Roman context  20, 36–46, 55 and San Giovanni in Laterano  34–5, 126

index altar, high  29–32, 34, 43, 68–9, 100, 143, 155, 166, 168, 211, 213, 226–9 chapter at  42–9 dedication of  144–5, 169, 171–2 as heavenly Jerusalem  34–5, 213 holiness, presence of  142–4 images, holy  155, 169–71 as new temple  2, 30, 51–2, 61, 160, 171–3 and San Lorenzo  26–9 as source  110–11 sources for  19 Descriptio Locorum  109–11, 195 Dickinson, J. C.  44 Dictatus Papae 52 Dinzelbacher, Peter  143 Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem foundation stone of  88–95, 100 Muslim dome  4, 86–7, 191 plundering of  84–5 Templum Domini, conversion to  4, 61, 71–2, 86–8, 90–5, 114–15, 125 Donation of Constantine  15, 24, 26, 42, 44, 53–5, 212 Dondi, Cristina  118 Edessa  126, 152–3 Ekkehard of Aura  87 Eleizer ben Jose  97 Eliab, biblical figure  174, 188 Eliav, Yaron Z.  89 Elm, Kaspar  117, 138 Eufemia, saint  28, 227 Eugene III, pope (Bernard of Pisa)  51, 124–5, 159 burial of  51 n. 67 Quantum praedecessores 126 and Second Crusade  126 Eusebius/Rufinus  162, 195 Ezekiel, biblical prophet  158, 165 Frederick I Barbarossa, Holy Roman Emperor  53, 174 Fulcher, patriarch of Jerusalem  198 Fulcher of Chartres  118 Historia Hierosolymitana (History of Jerusalem)  4, 6, 74–9, 90–2, 94, 97, 100–5, 107–8, 119, 176, 196, 198–9 Gehrt, Wolf  48 Gelasius I, pope  41 Gelasius II, pope  48 Geoffrey, abbot of Templum Domini 113 Gerald of Wales  156 Germain, M.  216

253

Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium (The Deeds of the Franks who Attacked Jerusalem)  100, 102–3, 105, 107 Gesta Romanorum 57 Giorgi, D.  216 Glossa ordinaria 17 Goez, Werner  16–18, 54–5 Graphia aureae urbis Romae 111–12 Gratian, Concordantia disconcordantium canonum (Decretum Gratiani) 53 Gregory, cardinal of St Angelo see Innocent II, pope Gregory I the Great, pope  56 Gregory VII, pope (Archdeacon Hildebrand)  45, 53, 80–1 Gregory VIII, pope (Alberto di Morra) 126 Gregory VIII, antipope (Mauritius Burdinus) 48 Grisans, saint  40 Guibert of Nogent  81 Hamilton, Bernard  117 Hamilton, Louis  146 Hebraica Veritas 160 Hegesippus 176–7 Helena, saint  24–5, 34, 63, 181–2, 212–13, 224–6, 231 Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor  53 Heraclius, Byzantine emperor  28, 226 Herklotz, Ingo  8 Herman of Tournai  37, 56–9, 201 Herod, biblical king  88 Hildebrand, archdeacon see Gregory VII, pope Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem  62–3, 72–3, 85, 87, 90–1, 95, 117–18 Honorius II, pope  51 n. 67 Hugh of Saint-Victor  14 Eruditio Didascalia 11 Ibn al-Athir  93 Imago Salvatoris see Luke the Evangelist, saint, and Imago Salvatoris; Maniacutius, Nikolaus, Historia Imaginis Salvatoris imitatio Christi  76, 80 Innocent II, pope (Gregory, cardinal of St Angelo)  51, 58–9, 122–4, 185 investiture conflict  53, 122 Isaac, biblical patriarch  86 Isidore of Seville, saint  56, 133–4 Ivo, bishop of Chartres  118 Jacob, biblical patriarch  95 James, saint, apostle  81, 117

254

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Jeremiah, biblical prophet  33, 98, 102, 107–9, 163, 175, 182–3, 213 Jerome, saint  17, 43, 56, 178–9, 182–3, 195, 198, 202 Jerusalem  4–5, 15, 60 allegorical interpretation of  63–79 and the Church  62–5 destruction of  12, 70, 96, 162, 167 heavenly  34–5, 63–6, 71, 79–81 Islamic view of  86–7 Latin Kingdom, foundation of  61–2, 70 on maps  61–2, 87, 196, 200 primacy of  117 and relics  24–6, 34, 37, 40, 44, 55, 62–3 Rome, as challenge to  79–83 and true cross  24 See also crusades; Dome of the Rock; Holy Sepulchre; Temple Mount; temple of Solomon; Templum Domini; translatio templi Jesus Christ  14, 62, 75, 95, 130, 180, 224 images of  28, 131, 145, 150–6, 157–8, 160–70, 227–8 relics of  xiv, 62–3, 166, 227–8 blood  xiv, 30, 111, 153–4, 156, 228 clothing  30, 34, 213, 228, 231 foreskin  27, 111, 226 of passion  28 sandals  28, 111 sindon 152 sudarium  30, 110–11, 228 temple, presentation at  126 Jews/Judaism  114, 116 apocryphal literature  100, 102–3 and Babylonian captivity  96–8 and Dome of the Rock stone  88–9, 100–5 hostility towards  123, 149 and Jerusalem Torah  108, 185–6, 189 Levites  132–41, 189 and Maniacutius, Nikolaus  160–2 Nazirites 134–5 priesthood  15, 17, 127, 132–41, 181, 1894 salvation history, role in  65, 75, 167 Talmud  89, 101 and translatio  16–17, 19 violation of Christian objects  150–4, 156 See also temple of Solomon John of Würzburg  82 John the Baptist, saint  142, 144–6, 177, 230 image of  155–6, 228 relics of  29–30, 144, 226 John the Deacon, redaction of Descriptio  5, 7, 17, 19, 21, 38–41,

46–7, 55, 109, 122, 155, 160, 169–82, 184, 193, 214, 216 prologue 172–5 and remission of sins  170–2 and temple objects  175–82 John the Evangelist, saint  144–6, 161, 230 images of  31, 228 relics of  29–30, 228 Johrendt, Jochen  50 Josephus  96, 108, 176, 185 Josiah, biblical king  97, 100–3 Julius II, pope  189 Justinian, Byzantine emperor  96 Klewitz, Hans-Walter  122–3 Kozbi, biblical character  136–7 Lanfranc of Bec  118 Last Supper  227 table of  xiii–xv Lateran Council, Second  123 Laudage, Johannes  141 Lauer, Philippe  2, 57, 214, 216 Lawrence, saint  28, 227, 230 Le Goff, Jacques  16 Leo I the Great, pope  179–81 Leo III, pope  27 Leo IX, pope  51 n. 67 Libellus de diversis ordinibus (On the Diverse Orders) 132–3 Liber Pontificalis  57, 213 The Lives of the Prophets 103 Louis VII, king of France  126 Lucca 154; see also San Frediano Lucius II, pope  51 n. 67 Luke the Evangelist, saint, and Imago Salvatoris  28, 155, 160–1, 227 Luther, Martin   18 Lydda  152–4, 156 Mabillon, Jean  216 Maccarone, Michele  49 Maimonides 97–8 Il Mallone (ACL A 70)  38–42 Maniacutius, Nikolaus career of  159–60 Historia Imaginis Salvatoris  3, 13, 121–2, 126, 145, 157–8, 170–2, 181, 186 Descriptio, compared to  182–4 God, presence of  168–9 Jerusalem, vengeance on  161–2 Jewish heritage  160 origin of image  160–1 transfer of image to Rome  162–5 translatio templi 160, 163, 167–8, 184 vision of God’s throne  165–7

index Marcus Aurelius  37 Mary, Virgin  30, 92, 161, 213 images of  31, 152, 155–6, 228 relics of  43, 227–8 tomb of  152, 227 Matthew the Evangelist, saint  43 Mauritius Burdinus see Gregory VIII, antipope McGinn, Bernhard  72 Melchizedek, biblical priest  17, 125 Menorah see candelabra, seven-branch Mirabilia Urbis Roma (Marvels of the City of Rome) 57 Morris, Colin  44–5, 52–3, 55, 124 Moses, biblical patriarch  66, 98, 100, 125, 132, 135–6, 174, 180, 184 burial place of  103 rod of  xiii–xv, 29, 106–7, 187, 211, 228 statue of  188 Mourad, Suleiman Ali  86–7 Nardini, Famiano, Roma antica xv Nebuchadnezzar, Babylonian king  96 Nicetas Seides  9 Nicholas V, pope  189 Norman Anonymous, Apologia Archiepiscopi Rotomagensis (Apology for the Archbishop of Rouen)  80–3, 117 Odo of Cluny  43 Ordo Albinus 155 Orosius  8, 16 Otto of Freising  11, 17 Chronica sive historia de duabus civitatibus (Chronicle or History of the Two Cities) 13–14 Ottobonian Guide  86, 98–9 Oviedo 192 Panvinio, Onofrio  47 papacy legitimization of  52–5 and reform  9, 20, 43–44, 51–2, 55–6 as Vicarius Christi  51–2, 124 as Vicarius Petri 50–2 See also individual popes Paschal II, pope  37, 46–8, 51, 65, 79, 118 Passio Ymaginis Domini feast  150–1, 154–6, 158 Paul, saint  23, 29–30, 106–7, 175, 211, 224, 228 and Constantine, conversion of  24–5 images of  31, 155–6, 228 relics of  28, 227 Peter, archpriest of Lateran canons  136–7 Peter, saint  23, 30, 80, 165, 168, 224

255

and Constantine, conversion of  24–5 images of  31, 155–6, 228 as pope  xiv, 50–1, 60, 124–5 relics of  28, 43, 227 tomb of  13, 43, 50–1 Peter Pierleone see Anaclet II, pope Peter the Deacon, Liber de locis Sanctis 110–11 Philo, De Vita Moysi (About the Life of Moses) 189–90 Phineas, biblical priest  136–7 Pietro Mallio see Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae Pius II, pope  193 Pseudo-Isidore  36, 52–3, 62 Purkis, William J.  76, 79–80 Qualiter  86, 92–3, 98–9 Raedts, Peter  71, 79 Ralph of Flaix  76 Raphael, Expulsion of Heliodorus 189 Raymond of Aguilers  61, 79 Reims, councils of  59 relics  24–30, 34, 37, 43–4, 227 of Christ  xiv, 27–8, 30, 34, 62–3, 110–11, 152–4, 156, 166, 213, 226–8, 231 cross, true  24–5, 62–3, 225–7 and holiness, presence of  142–5 of John the Baptist, saint  29–30, 144, 226 of John the Evangelist, saint  29–30, 228 manna  30, 92, 99, 101, 115, 178, 228 of Mary, Virgin  43, 227–8 of Paul, saint  28, 227 of Peter, saint  28, 43, 227 See also Aaron, rod of; Moses, rod of; San Lorenzo, oratorio, relic collection of Riley-Smith, Jonathan  72 Robert II Curthose, duke of Normandy 118 Robert the Monk, Historia Iherosolimitana (The History of Jerusalem)  4, 73–9, 191, 196–201 Robinson, I. S.  126 Rome 15 Jerusalem, as challenge to  79–83 and pilgrimage  8–9 primacy of  8–9 sacred topography of  6 See also San Giovanni in Laterano; San Lorenzo, oratorio; San Paolo fuori la mura; San Pietro in Vaticano; San Silvestro in Capite; Santa Maria in Maggiore Rottenbuch 45–6

256

the lateran church and the ark of the covenant

Rudolfus Glaber, Historia 64 Rufina, saint  40 Saewulf, pilgrim  85–6, 93, 98–9 St Amand and Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae 10, 56–9, 209 library of  56, 59 St Martin of Tournai  57, 59 St Peter’s basilica see San Pietro in Vaticano St Victor  59 Saladin, Muslim sultan  191 Sampson, archbishop of Reims  58 San Frediano, Lucca  46–9 San Giovanni in Laterano (St John Lateran) Aaron, rod of  xiii–xv, 29, 106–7, 174, 211 altar, high  xiv, 7–8, 12–13, 25–6, 29–32, 69, 90, 100, 105, 128; see also under Ark of the Covenant, in San Giovanni in Laterano as hierarchical and topographical centre 31–2 and St Peter  68 and Benedict XIV  xiii–xiv, 187 burial of popes at  51, 143, 230 canons, regular  132–8, 140–1, 143 chapter at  42–9 Christ, relics of  111 dedication (and feast of)  1–3, 144–50, 156, 167, 169, 171–2, 181 fire at  xiv foundation legend  1, 23–6, 54, 144–5, 210, 213 God, presence of  121, 141–4 images, holy  155–6, 169–71 Last Supper, table of  xiii–xv and Levites, imitation of  132–41 liturgy at  122, 125, 231 Agnus Dei 34–5 Maundy Thursday ritual  3, 7, 13, 30, 121, 127–30, 132–3, 138, 141, 171 papal installation rite at  51 Passio Ymaginis Domini 151 Moses, rod of  xiii–xv, 29, 106–7, 211 as new temple (successor to Jerusalem temple)  2, 11–13, 16, 20, 30, 51–2, 61, 68–70, 77, 125–6, 130, 141–2, 147–8, 170–2, 181, 184, 190–2, 210 priesthood of  121, 126–38, 169 promotion of  6–7, 36, 39, 50–1, 76–7, 119 and remission of sins  171–2 San Giovanni Battista oratory  32 and San Lorenzo, procession from  27, 226 San Pancrazio chapel  128–9, 140

and San Pietro in Vaticano, conflict with  6–7, 50–1, 183 San Silvestro chapel  155–6 San Tommaso oratory  xiv–xv, 32 Santa Croce oratory  32 See also under Ark of the Covenant San Lorenzo, oratorio, Rome  192 and God, presence of  121, 144, 168–9 and Imago Salvatoris  28, 157–8, 163–4 liturgy 121 relic collection of  26–9, 202, 226–7 San Giovanni in Laterano, procession to 27, 226 San Paolo fuori la mura (St Paul outside the walls)  145, 171 San Pietro in Vaticano (St Peter’s)  36, 90, 111, 117, 145, 171, 188–90, 210, 213 burial of popes  51 chapter at  43 papal enthronement and consecration 51 promotion of  6–7, 50–1, 125, 189 and San Giovanni in Laterano, conflict with  6–7, 50–1, 183 and St Peter’s tomb  13, 43, 50–1 San Silvestro in Capite, Rome  153 Santa Maria in Maggiore, Rome  35, 43, 157, 198–200, 202, 210, 212 Schein, Sylvia  72, 79, 111 Schmale, Franz-Joseph  123 Schmidt, Tillmann  48 Secunda, saint  40 Sefer Yosippon  98, 109 Sergius III, pope  70, 214, 230 Sixtus IV, pope  189 Solomon, biblical king see temple of Solomon Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History  19, 225 Stinger, Charles L.  188–9 Stroll, Mary  123 Suger, abbot of St Denis  185 Sylvester, saint  24, 30, 69, 225, 228, 230 tablets of the testament (Covenant)  xiv, 99–100, 162, 178, 211 Tancred of Hauteville, prince of Galilee 84, 113 Temple Mount, Jerusalem  61, 64–5, 71, 113, 188 temple of Solomon, Jerusalem (Templum Salomonis)  4, 8, 13, 19–20, 27, 61, 64–5, 71, 87, 92, 94, 115, 120, 135, 170 allegorical explanation of  65–70 destruction of  12, 96–7, 108, 114, 177–8 and Jerusalem Torah  108, 185–6, 189 See also San Giovanni in Laterano, as new temple; translatio templi

index Templum Domini  10, 20, 118–19 and Ark of the Covenant  92, 95, 97–106, 109, 115 canons of  112–17 and Christ, life of  95 as church prototype  95 Dome of the Rock, conversion from  4, 61, 71–2, 86–8, 90–5, 114–15, 125 foundation stone of  88–95, 100 and Holy of Holies  89–90, 92–3, 96, 99, 104, 115 on maps  87–8 and Muslim reconquest  190–1 origin stories of  85–6 and pilgrimage guides  86, 92–3, 96, 98–9, 103 reconsecration of  113, 125 See also Dome of the Rock; translatio templi Tiberius, Roman emperor  162 Tifernate, Lilio  189–90 Titus, Roman emperor  8, 25, 33–4, 65, 96, 107, 110–11, 116, 175, 178, 182, 185, 188–9, 231 Arch of  33–4, 37, 107–8, 179, 189–90, 213, 231 and Imago Salvatoris 162–3 translatio  54, 111, 116 imperii  11, 13–15, 18, 26, 52, 55 legis 17 religionis 18

257

sacerdotii 17–18 studii 11 templi  4–5, 11–19, 113, 120, 122, 160, 163, 167–8, 184, 188–90, 210 Ullmann, Walter  123–4 Uppsala map  87 Urban II, pope  9, 45–7, 51 n. 67, 60, 65, 74, 76, 78, 81, 126, 141 Valentini, Roberto  2, 5–7, 21, 35, 216 Veronica, saint  110, 162 Vespasian, Roman emperor  25, 33–4, 65, 96, 107, 110–11, 116, 175, 178, 182, 185, 188, 213, 231 Vindicta Domini (The Vengeance of the Lord) 162 vita apostolica  76, 127, 133, 141 Vogel, Cyrille  2, 5–7, 9–10, 35, 204–5, 207, 210, 214, 216 Walter, bishop of Maguelonne  131 Welf, duke of Bavaria  45 Wilkinson, John  64, 85 William of Tyre  118 Wolf, Gerhard  165 Worms, concordat of (1122)  53, 122–3 Zechariah, father of John the Baptist  177–8 Zimri, biblical character  136–7 Zuchetti, Giuseppe  2, 5–7, 21, 35, 216

Other volumes in Studies in the History of Medieval Religion Details of volumes I–XXIX can be found on our website

XXX: The Culture of Medieval English Monasticism Edited by James G. Clark XXXI: A History of the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds, 1182–1256: Samson of Tottington to Edmund of Walpole Antonia Gransden XXXII: Monastic Hospitality: The Benedictines in England, c.1070–c.1250 Julie Kerr XXXIII: Religious Life in Normandy, 1050–1300:Space, Gender and Social Pressure Leonie V. Hicks XXXIV: The Medieval Chantry Chapel: An Archaeology Simon Roffey XXXV: Monasteries and Society in the British Isles in the Later Middle Ages Edited by Janet Burton and Karen Stöber XXXVI: Jocelin of Wells: Bishop, Builder, Courtier Edited by Robert Dunning XXXVII: War and the Making of Medieval Monastic Culture Katherine Allen Smith XXXVIII: Cathedrals, Communities and Conflict in the Anglo-Norman World Edited by Paul Dalton, Charles Insley and Louise J. Wilkinson XXXIX: English Nuns and the Law in the Middle Ages: Cloistered Nuns and Their Lawyers, 1293–1540 Elizabeth Makowski

XL: The Nobility and Ecclesiastical Patronage in Thirteenth-Century England Elizabeth Gemmill XLI: Pope Gregory X and the Crusades Philip B. Baldwin XLII: A History of the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds, 1257–1301: Simon of Luton and John of Northwold Antonia Gransden XLIII: King John and Religion Paul Webster XLIV: The Church and Vale of Evesham, 700–1215: Lordship, Landscape and Prayer David Cox XLV: Medieval Anchorites in their Communities Edited by Cate Gunn and Liz Herbert McAvoy XLVI: The Friaries of Medieval London: From Foundation to Dissolution Nick Holder XLVII: ‘The Right Ordering of Souls’: The Parish of All Saints’ Bristol on the Eve of the Reformation Clive Burgess

eivor andersen oftestad holds a PhD in Church History and is Church historian at MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and Society. Cover image: Arch of Titus, Rome. Detail of inner relief showing spoils from the Siege of Jerusalem. Photo: Line Melballe Bonde.

Studies in the History of Medieval Religion

T H E L AT E R A N C H U R C H I N R O M E A N D T H E A R K O F T H E C O V E N A N T

The author explores the history of the Lateran Ark of the Covenant through a reading of the description of the Lateran Church (Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae), composed around 1100. She follows the transmission of the text both in the Lateran Archive and in monastic settings in northern France and Belgium, comparing the claim to the Ark with similar claims in texts from Jerusalem. The book also includes a new edition of the Descriptio and an English translation.

EIVOR ANDERSEN O F T E S TA D

W

hy did the twelfth-century canons at the Lateran church (San Giovanni in Laterano) in Rome claim the presence of the Ark of the Covenant inside their high altar? This book argues that the claim responded to new challenges in the aftermath of the First Crusade in 1099. The Christian possession of Jerusalem questioned the legitimation of the papal cathedral in Rome as the summit of sacerdotal representation. To meet this challenge, what may be described as translatio templi (the transfer of the temple) was used to strengthen the status of the Lateran. The Ark of the Covenant was central as part of the treasure from the Jerusalem temple, allegedly transported to Rome, and according to contemporary accounts depicted on the arch of Titus.

E I V O R A N D E R S E N O F T E S TA D

H O U S I N G T H E H O LY R E L I C S O F J E R U S A L E M