Cyril’s letter to Constantius ii on the Jerusalem cross-apparition of 351 has usually been read as a declaration of Cyril’s loyalty during Constantius’ war with Magnentius. However, the letter also includes a discussion that links the cross to the eschatological “sign of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24:30). Modern interpreters have either ignored this eschatological section or assumed that it is aimed at a non-imperial audience. This paper advances a unified reading of the letter that shows how Cyril uses explicit verbal cues and his description of the cross’s appearance and position over the sacred landscape of Jerusalem to prepare his imperial reader for the switch from politics to eschatology. Cyril thus reinforces his portrayal of Constantius as a devout Christian emperor and assures Constantius not just of military success but of the truth of the Christian faith, while still maintaining his own episcopal authority.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
The date is established by H. Chantraine, “Die Kreuzesvision von 351 – Fakten und Probleme,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 86-87 (1993-1994) 430-441.
Eusebius, Vita Constantini 1,28-32; the commentary by Averil Cameron and S.G. Hall, Eusebius: Life of Constantine (Oxford 1999) 204-213 provides a succinct overview of other ancient accounts and of the modern scholarly debate concerning Eusebius’ report. For two recent discussions of Constantine’s vision, the first on its biographical context, the second on the religious and political concerns that shaped the main ancient accounts, see H.A. Drake, “Solar Power in Late Antiquity,” in A. Cain and N. Lenski (eds.), The Power of Religion in Late Antiquity (Farnham 2009) 215-226, and J. Long, “How to Read a Halo: Three (or More) Versions of Constantine’s Vision,” in Cain and Lenski, Power of Religion 227-235. Both Drake and Long assume, following Weiss, “The Vision of Constantine,” that Constantine had a single vision, which underlies not only Eusebius’ report but also the dream described in Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum 44,5 (csel 27,223), and the pagan theophany of Panegyrici Latini 6(7),21,3-7. Constantine, however, experienced visions frequently (Eusebius, Vita Constantini 1,47,3), which puts the validity of this assumption in doubt (cf. O. Nicholson, “Constantine’s Vision of the Cross,” Vigiliae Christianae 54 (2000) 309, 311 n. 9 (309-323)).
Irshai, “Jerusalem Bishopric,” 212; cf. id., “Cyril of Jerusalem,” 98, 104, and Drijvers, “Power of the Cross,” 241-245, who incorporates elements of Irshai’s argument into an interpretation focused on imperial politics.
Cf. Chantraine, “Kreuzesvision,” 441; Philostorgius, Historia Ecclesiastica 3,26.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 706 | 335 | 16 |
Full Text Views | 229 | 2 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 68 | 5 | 0 |
Cyril’s letter to Constantius ii on the Jerusalem cross-apparition of 351 has usually been read as a declaration of Cyril’s loyalty during Constantius’ war with Magnentius. However, the letter also includes a discussion that links the cross to the eschatological “sign of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24:30). Modern interpreters have either ignored this eschatological section or assumed that it is aimed at a non-imperial audience. This paper advances a unified reading of the letter that shows how Cyril uses explicit verbal cues and his description of the cross’s appearance and position over the sacred landscape of Jerusalem to prepare his imperial reader for the switch from politics to eschatology. Cyril thus reinforces his portrayal of Constantius as a devout Christian emperor and assures Constantius not just of military success but of the truth of the Christian faith, while still maintaining his own episcopal authority.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 706 | 335 | 16 |
Full Text Views | 229 | 2 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 68 | 5 | 0 |