International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

Anastasia Sirotenko
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany; 
[e-mail]
The Restoration of the Holy Cross by Heraclius 
in the Eastern and Western Medieval Traditions
The Emperor Heraclius (610–641) won a long and exhausting war with the Persians, returned 
the True Cross, which was previously captured by the enemy, and restored it in Jerusalem in March 
630/631.
That event has found different interpretations in different Medieval cultures. The Greek textual 
tradition, beginning with the seventh-century panegyrists and ending with the last Byzantine 
chronicles, didn’t pay much attention to that event, usually mentioning only the fact itself and 
praising the Emperor by means of bombastic language and images.
The Western Medieval tradition however has developed a legend about the miraculous 
Restoration of the Cross by Heraclius. The legend can be found in various sources, including the 
seventh-century anonymous homily called Exaltatio seu Reversio S. Crucis (BHL 4178) and the 
later Medieval novels about Heraclius, written by Gautier d’Arras and Otto. Summarizing, the 
legend says: 
Heraclius was returning home from his victorious campaign against Persia, bringing the Holy 
Cross with him and surrounded by his guard. He was going to enter Jerusalem riding his horse 
and wearing the imperial robes, a golden crown on his head and purple shoes on his feet. A huge 
crowd was waiting for him at the gates. Suddenly a certain obstacle appeared, so that Heraclius 
could not move forward. While he was perplexed, an angel appeared to him above the Golden 
Gates saying: “How dare you enter the City so solemnly, the City, where Our Lord bore his Cross 
and suffered for us in flesh?” Heraclius dismounted from his horse immediately, took off his golden 
crown, purple shoes, imperial robes, and barefooted, wearing only a chiton, came up to the gates. 
The obstacle disappeared at once, and the Emperor, having entered Jerusalem, restored the Holy 
Cross on Golgotha.
Most of the modern scholars have not asked themselves one question: why such a well-
developed legend, which is clearly using some original Oriental material, is present only in the 
Western tradition and not at all present in the Greek one?
I believe that it is not the discordance between the legend and historical reality that made the 
Greek authors avoid it constantly: the rule of depicting the events wie sie eigentlich gewesen sind 
was not usually followed even by the chroniclers.

---

689
The total unfamiliarity of the Greek authors with that legend could be explained if we take into 
account the religious policy of Heraclius and his successors. In the 620-630s Heraclius adopted the 
new policy of Monothelitism, designed to unite different Christian groups into one imperial Church. 
The policy didn’t face any resistance at first and was considered to be truly Orthodox. That is why all 
the Greek authors praised, in verse or prose, the political and religious activities of the Emperor. Such 
a position does not make it possible for them to include in their works the legend which contains some 
criticism: it denounces the Emperor’s pride and contrasts it to his coerced humility.
Monothelitism remained state policy of the Byzantine emperors till 681, when it was 
condemned as a heresy at the VI Ecumenical Council. Since then, Heraclius began to be considered 
a heretic by the Byzantine chroniclers, and depictions of him showing Christian humility became 
rather inappropriate.
The Western authors were never affected by the Monothelitic controversy; therefore Heraclius 
was thought to have been totally pious both by the seventh-century authors and by the later ones. 
That is why the Western tradition could so easily adopt and develop the original Eastern legend 
about the miracle at the gates of Jerusalem.