FIVE ANASTASIAE AND TWO FEBRONIAE: A GUIDED TOUR IN THE MAZE OF ANASTASIA LEGENDS. Part Two. The Roman Dossier. II. Anastasia Between Bassilla and Petronilla Текст научной статьи по специальности «Языкознание и литературоведение»

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu4.2023.6.10

UDC 25(37) LBC 86.313.3-574

Submitted: 04.05.2023 Accepted: 06.10.2023

FIVE ANASTASIAE AND TWO FEBRONIAE: A GUIDED TOUR IN THE MAZE OF ANASTASIA LEGENDS *

Part Two. The Roman Dossier. II. Anastasia Between Bassilla and Petronilla **

Basil Lourie

Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences,

Novosibirsk, Russian Federation

Abstract. The present article is a part of the study of the hagiographical dossier of St Anastasia, where the authors focus on three major problems: 1) the earliest Roman legends containing the name of Anastasia and other names occurring in her dossier; 2) the cult of the historical martyr in Sirmium that was lately transformed into the cult of St Anastasia; and 3) the place of the Anastasia church in the pre-Byzantine stational liturgy in Rome. The latter point involves a study of the original place, in the fifth-century stational liturgy of Rome, of the basilica Santa Maria Maggiore.

Key words: hagiography, St Anastasia, Christmas, Epiphany, pre-Byzantine Rome, Anastasia Church in Rome, Santa Maria Maggiore.

Citation. Lourie B. Five Anastasiae and Two Febroniae: A Guided Tour in the Maze of Anastasia Legends. Part Two. The Roman Dossier. II. Anastasia Between Bassilla and Petronilla. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 4. Istoriya. Regionovedenie. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [Science Journal of Volgograd State University. History. Area Studies. International Relations], 2023, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 104-150. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu4.2023.6.10

УДК 25(37) Дата поступления статьи: 04.05.2023

ПЯТЬ АНАСТАСИЙ И ДВЕ ФЕВРОНИИ: ЭКСКУРСИЯ ПО ЛАБИРИНТУ ЛЕГЕНД ОБ АНАСТАСИИ *

Часть вторая. Римское досье. II. Анастасия между Вассиллой и Петрониллой **

Вадим Миронович Лурье

Институт философии и права Сибирского отделения РАН, г. Новосибирск, Российская Федерация

Аннотация. Статья является частью исследования агиографического досье св. Анастасии и посвящена рассмотрению трех проблем: 1) древнейшие римские легенды, в которых встречается имя Анастасии и иные имена, появляющиеся в более поздних легендах об Анастасии; 2) культ той исторической мученицы в Сирмии, который позднее преобразовался в культ Анастасии; 3) значение церкви Анастасии в довизан-тийской стациональной литургии Рима. Последняя задача потребовала изучения также и первоначального места церкви Санта Мариа Маджоре в стациональной литургии Рима V века.

Ключевые слова: агиография, св. Анастасия, Рождество, Богоявление, довизантийский Рим, церковь Анастасии в Риме, Санта Мария Маджоре.

Цитирование. Лурье В. М. Пять Анастасий и две Февронии: экскурсия по лабиринту легенд об Анастаса сии. Часть вторая. Римское досье. II. Анастасия между Вассиллой и Петрониллой // Вестник Волгоградского

д государственного университета. Серия 4, История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. - 2023. -Т. 28, № 6. - С. 104-150. - (На англ. яз.) - DOI: https://doi.Org/10.15688/jvolsu4.2023.6.10

ББК 86.313.3-574

Дата принятия статьи: 06.10.2023

u o

©

Introduction

The article continues the study of the legends related to St Anastasia, especially the western legends. Namely, it is focused on three problems:

1) the Roman legends, where the name of St Anastasia and other names of her hagiographical dossier appear first;

2) the cult of the martyr of Sirmium that was lately transformed into the cult of St Anastasia, and

3) the place of the Roman Anastasia church in the pre-sixth-century stational liturgy of Rome.

The latter question turns out to be closely related to the question of the initial (also pre-sixth-century) place of the Santa Maria Maggiore church in the stational liturgy of Rome.

The present study still does not exhaust the Roman dossier of St Anastasia(e). The remaining legends and monuments will be considered in the next and final article of the series.

5. The Roman Hagiographical Substrate.

III: Towards the Historical Anastasia

The legend of Anastasia the Widow contains at least two elements of hagiographical traditions related to Julian the Apostate. They have, so far, gone unnoticed. Their examination will lead us to one of the historical prototypes of St Anastasia, namely, the woman who gave the saint her own name and some biographical features (especially the status of a Roman matron).

5.1. Apollonia: in the Roman Core of LLA and BHL 643

The name of the Christian matron that took Anastasia's body, Apollonia, is preserved in all recensions. It certainly was present in the Byzantine late fifth-century legend. This name (unlike the masculine name Apollonius) is relatively rare, while not foreign to Roman hagiography. Being rare, it was, therefore, remarkable and must have been meaningful for the hagiographer who introduced Apollonia in the hagiographical dossier of Anastasia.

The personal names in the Passions épiques are normally not chosen arbitrarily. The names of secondary characters are often taken from the hagiographical substrate, that is, from other legends. If a legend borrows the name of a positive secondary character, this name is normally that

of a saint from another legend. In the case of the legend of Anastasia the Widow, this norm is kept not only for Theodota, Irene, Agapia, and Chionia but also for Eutychianus. It is a priori unlikely that the name of Apollonia is unrelated to any saint of an earlier legend, especially taking into account that this name was rather unusual.

Apollonia in the Anastasia legend requires interpretation, and this interpretation must be based on a legend of St Apollonia relevant for the pre-Byzantine layer of the legend of Anastasia the Widow. That this layer must be pre-Byzantine (Roman or Sirmian) is clear from the fact that Apollonia is responsible for the first Anastasia's burial, which certainly was not in Constantinople, and also from the fact that, as far as we know, there was no St Apollonia in Byzantine hagiography.

5.1.1. The Passio of Apollonia and Her Father Apollonius, BHL 643

There was a historical martyr, Apollonia, in Alexandria under Philip the Arab (244-249). She is widely recognised in the west as a patron of dentists and those suffering from toothache, in remembrance of the most spectacular episode of her martyrdom (Apollonia's teeth and molars were knocked out). Despite her being mentioned by Eusebius in the Historia ecclesiastica (6.40.1), her cult was exclusively western. Her Latin martyrdoms BHL 638-642 are based on Eusebius's account [53, pp. 12, 126-127].

In the Roman hagiography, there is another Apollonia, together with her father, Senator Apollonius. In the martyrdom of this second Apollonia with her father, BHL 643, the episode with knocking out teeth and molars is repeated 1. Senator Apollonius, in this martyrdom, is a secondary character with a minimum of recognisable features, but his name with the status of a senator is certainly a reminiscence of the historical Roman martyr Apollonius under Commodus (180-192, martyrdom to be dated to 180-185) 2. In the Passio of Apollonia, with her father Apollonius, the persecutor is Julian the Apostate 3. According to the legend, the daughter was stabbed with Julian's own hand (propria manu crudeliter perforauit). This legend is understudied 4, and, therefore, it requires some commentary.

Passio BHL 643 has the following plot: the pagan senator Apollonius and his wife Dina had a daughter whose name was Dina, after

her mother. Then, Apollonius and Dina junior converted and were baptised, and, in the baptism, Dina changed her name to Apollonia after her father. Dina senior denounced them to Emperor Julian, asking for them to be punished. The end was exactly as one might expect.

There is a problem with what the original place of this legend in the liturgical calendar was. John Bollandus published it on February 9, on the feast day of the Alexandrian Apollonia, according to the late Latin martyrologia (no earlier than that of Adon, ca. 855) 5. However, I would recognise our saint in the martyr Apollonia of Rome commemorated in the Martyrologium Hieronymianum on December 18 (or 19) [56, pp. 651, 653-654]. As Delehaye noticed, the name Apollonia appears in the Hieronymianum within the list of the companions of the Roman martyrs Luceia and King Auceia (BHL 4980), replacing the masculine name Apollonius that contained the original Passio 6. Such a name change is best explainable as a result of the impact of the Roman cult of a certain martyr, Apollonia. The unique Roman martyr Apollonia known to us is the Apollonia from BHL 643.

This means that the cult of another Apollonia, not Alexandrian but Roman, dates to the first half of the fifth century. The contents of the legend corroborate such an early date.

5.1.2. Apollonia, Her Parents, and an Anastasia

Dina is a strange name for a Roman matron because it is not Roman and hardly biblical (Dinah), but many things become clearer once we recall that, in Greek, Dina is a relatively common short name of Constantina. We have no ancient attestation of this shortened name, but, at least, the shift of the voiceless plosives, including /t/, to voiced plosives after nasals, including the shift of vt to [nd], is attested to dating from the Hellenistic and Roman periods long before the fourth century [80, p. 170]. Therefore, it is quite possible that the name Dina is an abbreviated form of the name Constantina in Greek.

The name of Constantina would refer to the daughter of Constantine I and a sister of Constantius II, a woman with an unusually difficult character described by Ammianus Marcellinus as megaera quaedam mortalis; she died in 354, shortly before her husband Caesar

Constantius Gallus 7. Gallus was her second husband, from 351 to 354; he was a half-first cousin of both Emperor Constantius II (337-361) and his own wife Constantina. In 354, the order of Constantius II executed Gallus.

This conclusion by no means presupposes that our legend was translated from a Greek original. The names of the members of the bilingual imperial dynasty might have been pronounced in Greek, even in the Latin-speaking part of the empire.

The plot of the legend corroborates the identification of Dina with Constantina in placing Dina's death near the time of the death of her husband, immediately after Apollonius's arrest, which preceded his killing by a very short period 8.

The Arian historian Philostorgius (f ca 439), whose relevant text is preserved within the Arian Passio Artemii (BHG 170) 9 (the author's Arian viewpoint is barely concealed with later Byzantine editing), preserved an Arian version of the events. The historical dux Aegypti Artemius was not only an Arian, as was necessary for a Christian official under Constantius II, but a renowned persecutor of Athanasius of Alexandria and other Nicaeans. According to the Arian hagiographical version, Gallus himself was to blame for his fate, whereas Constantius II condemned him justly; Constantina did not appear in the story at all. The historical fact of the execution of Artemius by Julian is interpreted as the vengeance of Julian for Gallus. Thus, for an Arian author, Gallus belonged to Julian's company of religiously perverted people.

The history of murdering Gallus is identifiable in Chrysostom's catalogue of disasters within the imperial family 10: one of the sons of Constantine the Great - Chrysostom did not pronounce Constantine's name but called him "tyrant" - "killed himself after he was seized by a tyrant, while the other put to death his cousin [avsytog - not necessarily cousin sensu stricto] who jointly ruled with him the empire that he himself had entrusted to him"; the first son is obviously Crispus, whereas the second is Constantius and his half-first cousin (one of the possible meanings of avsytog) Gallus 11.

Chrysostom showed sympathy towards Gallus as an innocent victim but did not go so far as to represent him as a martyr. Obviously, he knew that Gallus was an Arian, even a friend and a patron of Aetius. Hagiography, however,

does not stop at such obstacles, as we see in the Nicaean hagiography of Constantine the Great or martyr Artemius.

Constantina and Gallus had a daughter born between 352 and 354 (her parents were married on March 15, 351, and her mother died in the middle of 354). Julian the Apostate witnessed her existence, but without calling her by any name 12. Her name, however, was restored with great probability as Anastasia. This hypothesis, first put forward by Angelo Silvagni in 1929 on the basis of some inscriptions preserved in the Old St Peter's Basilica, especially ICUR 4122 and 4097 [143], has been substantiated in an analysis of name use in the Constantinian dynasty by François Chausson in 2002 13.

Several inscriptions in the Old St Peter's Basilica mention different Anastasiae who lived in different times from the late fourth to the middle of the sixth century. A pair of these inscriptions, ICUR 4122 and 4097, both from the second half of the fourth century, match the lifetime of the daughter of Constantina and Gallus, thus helping to identify her by this name. This task was facilitated because, during the fourth century, the name Anastasia remained rare.

One of the two inscriptions, ICUR 4097, is made in the recognisable style of Filocalus, the master who created memorial inscriptions for Pope Damasus. However, only a fragment is preserved. The first line contained the name of Anastasia's husband, but this part is lost. The remaining part of this line is [—] et Anastasia c(larissima) f(oemina) eius "[husband's lost name] and Anastasia, the highly regarded (i.e., senatorial) wife of him". From the fragments of the subsequent lines, it becomes clear that they made something in basilicae apostoli Petri in collaboration with Damasus vir sanctus, and this object was decorated with marble. A popular hypothesis is that they erected the baptismal font, which could be attractive but is unprovable [29, p. 85].

Especially remarkable is the inscription ICUR 4122, also from Saint Peter's. Its author, Gallus, presented himself as a son of his mother, Anastasia, without mentioning his father at all: Gallus Anastasiae natus decus addidit aulae... ("Gallus born by Anastasia added a decoration to the portico..."). "...[I]l est notable, - Chausson wrote, - que l'onomastique impériale y fut perpétuée: Gallus

fils d'Anastasia portait le nom de son malheureux grand-père maternel qui avait été César de Constance II..." (ed. by Chausson [39, p. 147]).

Silvagni's and Chausson's identification of the daughter of Constantina and Gallus as the Anastasia of these inscriptions from Saint Peter's allows us to figure out the personality of this Anastasia as a pious lady - and certainly Nicaean, not Arian - who had a special attraction to the shrine of Apostle Peter, whose husband, however, was probably not of an equally blessed memory. Anastasia's son did not consider it opportune to mention him as his father. Anastasia's special attraction to Saint Peter's will become important for the configuration of the Roman St Anastasia cult (see below, sections 6, 7, and 9).

If our interpretation of the Roman legend of Apollonia is correct, there was a correspondence between, on the one hand, Constantina, Gallus, and Anastasia, and, on the other hand, Dina, Apollonius, and Apollonia, respectively. The Roman legend of Apollonia, however, was composed in either the lifetime of Anastasia or shortly thereafter, which would have prevented calling Anastasia by her actual name or some easily recognisable name analogous to Dina for Constantina. Of course, the hagiographer would have had many other reasons for avoiding the actual names of the real prototypes of his characters.

It is of special importance that our Anastasia was a Roman matron, having at least one son, and, thus, she was not a virgin. She was a suitable prototype for theAnastasia thatArnobius epitomised in the legend, but not for the Anastasia of LLA.

There is a difference between BHL 663 and the Roman pre-Aquileian Anastasia legend in the treatment of the parents of, respectively, Apollonia and Anastasia. Apollonia's father is Orthodox, whereas, in the case of Anastasia, both parents are pagan. I would explain this as a difference between two attitudes of the Nicaeans towards the Arians, a mild one and a strict one. The former allowed an Arian Gallus to be represented as a Christian martyr, similarly to St Artemius. The latter implied the complete rejection of the Arians as pagans.

Our analysis of the Roman legend of Apollonia (BHL 643) is still unfinished, but it is sufficient for demonstrating that, in the first half of the fifth century, the names Anastasia and Apollonia were indeed connected.

5.1.3. Provisional Conclusion: Who Gave Her Name to St Anastasia

At this point, we have a basis to formulate our working hypothesis about one of the main prototypes of St Anastasia. This prototype, unlike another of the main prototypes of the saint, was not a martyr but gave St Anastasia her own name. This historical Anastasia is, in our opinion, the daughter of Constantina and Gallus.

This hypothesis will be further substantiated below, but even at this point, it looks highly plausible due to the cumulative argument informally developed in the previous section. In this section, I summarise it in a more formal way, with an explanation of how the cumulative argument works. The basic idea of the cumulative argument consists in a claim that we have observed a combination of data that would be extremely unlikely unless there is some logical affinity behind them.

In this case, we have the following five propositions, which are mostly or even highly plausible but not certain (although one of the five is nevertheless certain):

The name of the daughter of Constantina and Gallus was Anastasia.

This daughter, whose real name was Anastasia, is present under the name Apollonia in the legend BHL 643.

A certain Apollonia, also a high-ranked Roman matron, is present in the legend of Anastasia in the role of the possessor of her body (this proposition is not only plausible but certain).

The name of Apollonia in the Anastasia legend must have been taken from an earlier Roman legend (this proposition is close to certain because it is an application of a rather strict rule).

There is only one fitting Roman legend of Apollonia that was available to the author of BHL 643 for borrowing the name of Apollonia (this proposition is less certain only to the extent that we might be unaware of another suitable legend of Apollonia, now lost).

The cumulative argument says that the following proposition is plausible:

Anastasia, the daughter of Constantina and Gallus, is the historical person who gave her name to St Anastasia.

Were all propositions from (1) to (5) certain and not simply plausible, the conclusion (6) would be rigorous. However, this is not the case. An often-occurring logical mistake (especially in the humanities) is a refusal to draw conclusions from less than certain premises under the assumption that the plausibility of the conclusion will be even less, and much less, than that of the premises. This is a mistake because it would only be so in the case that all premises are mutually independent and that the conclusion requires that all premises are true; then, the likelihood of the conclusion is equal to the product of the likelihoods of all premises, that is, a very small value. If we are working with mutually dependent premises, as is normally the case, their likelihoods become conditional (Bayesian) probabilities, whose behaviour is quite different. In this case, the likelihood of a premise under the condition that another premise is true might be much higher, and the likelihood of the final conclusion might be even closer to one. The logic that allows us to draw conclusions from uncertain premises using conditional probabilities is called inductive. In fact, the majority of propositions used in scientific reasoning are less than certain, and, therefore, they are treated with the procedures of inductive logic, either explicitly or implicitly 14

For instance, the likelihood of proposition (2), that the prototype of Apollonia in BHL 643 was called Anastasia, would have been extremely low without proposition (1), but, under the condition that (1) is true, its likelihood becomes very high. Propositions from (3) to (5) are already either certain or close to certain. They together form a syllogism (almost strict), demonstrating that Apollonia in the Anastasia legend arrived from BHL 643 15. We can now substitute propositions from (3) to (5) with proposition (3*), which is highly plausible and almost certain:

The name of the daughter of Constantina and Gallus was Anastasia.

This daughter, whose real name was Anastasia, is present under the name Apollonia in the legend BHL 643.

(3*) Apollonia came into the Anastasia legend from BHL 643.

Perhaps there is a need to comment on (3*): why, that is, we can assert that the borrowing of the name Apollonia took place in a certain direction, from BHL 643 into the Anastasia legend, and not

vice versa. This is due to rule (4): the borrowing of characters goes in the direction from a legend where this character is (one of) the main(s) one(s) to a legend where he or she becomes secondary, and not vice versa. The secondary characters could be borrowed as well, but their status as secondary characters is never changed; they could form a "bank" of secondary characters serving different hagiographers of a given cultural milieu. Several names of the Anastasia legend, as Delehaye has already pointed out, were loaned from such a bank.

This formulation of Delehaye is worth quoting in full; it deals with names so common that he refused to identify them as borrowings from specific hagiographic texts: "Toute la nomenclature de ces figurants: Prétextat, Publius, Rufinus (this name is not from LLA. - B. L. ), Lucius [Delehaye meant the manuscript of LLA where the name of Lucillius was changed to Lucius] est d'une rare banalité. La plupart one été choisis, on peut le dire, au petit bonheur, et n'apellent aucune observation..." [52, p. 165]. However, we can disagree with Delehaye's harsh words: these names are not arbitrary ("choisis... au petit bonheur") and void of any meaning, as it is now generally acknowledged in the case of Praetextatus, and I hope to demonstrate this also for Publius and Lucillius (s. below, 5.3.1). Nevertheless, Delehaye was certainly right in pointing out the existence of a set of names used by hagiographers without referring, ipso facto, to a specific legend.

Under the condition that (1) is true, let us repeat, (2) becomes very plausible. Then, (2) and (3*) form a syllogism (once again, almost strict): Apollonia is the name of the historical Anastasia (major premise), and this Apollonia appeared in the Anastasia legend (minor premise); therefore, the historical Anastasia is present in the Anastasia legend (by modusponens). Q.E.D., even though not strictly.

The hypothesis that, under the guise of Apollonia, Anastasia reappeared in her own legend is additionally corroborated by Apollonia's role as the possessor of Anastasia's body. Of course, the hagiographer's purpose, in his choice of the name Apollonia, was not to make Anastasia reappear in disguise. He simply wished to use the name of a saint who had already been closely connected to Anastasia.

5.1.4. Julian the Apostate and the Sitz im Leben of BHL 643

We have dated the cult of Apollonia the Roman to the first half of the fifth century on the basis of our identification of the martyr Apollonia in Rome as commemorated in the Martyrologium Hieronymianum with the Apollonia of BHL 643. Regardless of whether BHL 643 is the first legend of this martyr or not, it is the only one that affected the legend of Anastasia.

The date of BHL 643 must be later than the reign of Julian the Apostate (361-363). For the hagiographer's milieu, Julian's image had already become the symbol of a ferocious monster persecuting Christians. Such transformations of the past in memory, however, do not require much time. Therefore, the terminus post quem is the late 360s. Julian thus "absorbed" Constantius II, who was the historical murderer of Gallus.

The terminus ante quem could be provided by the Byzantine legend of Anastasia datable to 468-470, which is corroborated with the Martyrologium Hieronymianum, which gives evidence of the cult of a Roman martyr, Apollonia, by the mid-fifth century.

Julian the Apostate, for the author of BHL 643, is an allegory of some other ruler inimical toward Nicaean Orthodoxy and contemporaneous to the hagiographer. It is difficult to find a suitable historical situation outside the reign of Valens (364-378), the only non-Orthodox (Arian) ruler within the period between 363 and 470.

Valens was an Arian, and one of his two daughters was called Anastasia. About her, almost nothing is known. Her mother, Albia Dominica (whom Valens married at an unknown date), was also an Arian [101, p. 53]. The daughters of Valens and Dominica were certainly educated as Arians, whereas we do not know about their lives after Valens's death. François Chausson supposes that Dominica might have been a member of the Constantinian family, married to Valens after his ascension to the throne, and they used the name Anastasia as a continuation of Constantinian traditions 16. In any case, regardless of Chausson's supposition, such a name would have hardly been used by Valens other than as a mark of the imperial dignity of his family.

Valens, as an Arian and a persecutor of the Nicaeans, was similar to Constantius II and

would have been easily caricaturized as a new Julian the Apostate. Moreover, it is possible that the author of BHL 643 had in mind Valens's daughter Anastasia, thus establishing some connexion between her and the daughter of Constantia and Gallus. Unfortunately, we know too little about this Arian-born Anastasia to make further guesses.

We are unable to trace possible links between BHL 643 and the family of Emperor Valens. It is sufficient to notice that the reign of Valens is not only suitable for dating this legend because of the fact that Valens was, like Constantius II, an Arian and a persecutor of the Nicaeans, but also because his daughter Anastasia would have been, in this legend, implicitly juxtaposed to the daughter of Constantia and Gallus.

5.2. Praetextatus

The name ofAnastasia's father, Praetextatus, is already recognised as referring to Vettius Agorius Praetextatus (314/319-384), who occupied several of the highest positions in the Roman Empire and the city of Rome (including Praefectus Urbi in 367-368, praetorian prefect of Italy, Illyricum, and Africa in 384), an object of admiration for the pagans as well as an object of the greatest irritation for many Christians 17. It is especially significant to our legend of Anastasia that the historical Praetextatus was one of the co-workers of Julian the Apostate: as Maijastina Kahlos noticed, "Praetextatus had been living in retirement when Julian brought him back to public life" (in 361 or 362) [89, p. 32]. Moreover, in 367, Praetextatus turned out to be, as the urban prefect, the key figure in the resolution of the conflict between two Popes of Rome, Damasus and Ursinus. He was not impartial (pace Ammianus Marcellinus) but supported Damasus a priori, simply due to Damasus's better connections with the imperial bureaucracy.

Maijastina Kahlos argued for a kind of friendship or, at least, close collaboration between Praetextatus and Damasus, including an episode in 384 when Damasus supported him as a witness in favour of Praetextatus's friend Quintus Aurelius Symmachus, who had been accused of persecution of Christians 18; nevertheless, a deep antipathy towards Praetextatus was widespread within the Damasian party as well, as one can judge from Hieronymus's mention of his death 19.

Together with the Roman martyr Apollonia, who was allegedly stabbed by Julian's own hand, Praetextatus might point to a certain value of Julian's reign for the hagiographical substrate of the legend of Anastasia. Such an impression is reinforced by the figure of Anastasia's husband, Publius.

5.3. Publius and Julian the Apostate

5.3.1. Publius and Lucillius: Historical Names

We have seen that the name of Praetextatus in the Anastasia legend refers to a historical person from the hagiographer's recent past. The names of Anastasia's husband, Publius, and the urban prefect of Rome, Lucillius, are historical too, but refer to a more remote period. Both Publius and Lucillius are the names of the urban prefects of Rome during periods of severe persecution.

The name of Publius seems to be an echo of the name of Publius Cornelius Saecularis, Praefectus Urbi in 258-260, including when the Persians captured Emperor Valerian (spring 260). "Il était donc présent à Rome au moment où y sévissait la persécution, Valérien et Gallien étant retenus sur les fronts d'Orient et d'Occident." M. Christol [42, pp. 188-189, esp. p. 188]. He thus certainly deserved a place in the collective memory of Roman Christians. Moreover, the legend of Anastasia could have taken into account that his career developed against the background of the catastrophe of the Roman army in Valerian's war with Persia. We will elaborate on this point in the next section.

The name of the legendary Lucillius seems to be an echo of the name of Lucius Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus (indeed, Lucillus is not Lucillius, but hagiography does not respect every iota), Praefectus Urbi, and Electus ad cognoscendas vice Caesaris cognitionis (the Emperor's personal representative in judicial matters) sometime between 241 and 254. He was also one of the Fratres Arvales (the twelve-person priestly collegium elected for life from the highest nobility, normally including the emperor, responsible for the cults related to agriculture) [119, pp. 58-60, 92, cf. p. 56, n. 20]. In these positions, he was certainly involved in the cruellest persecutions of Christians that took place in his time.

The fact that the names of Publius and Lu-cillius were preserved in the common "bank of names" used by hagiographers could be understandable, supposing that both had such prototypes. For our study, Lucillius is of little interest, whereas Publius is important.

5.3.2. Publius and Emperor Julian's Reburial in Constantinople

According to the text preserved by LLA, Publius's career fits between two lines. In ch. 6, it is said that ...Publius in senatu sedens legationem accepit invitus ad Persidis provinciam profecturus ("...Publius, sitting in the Senate, unwillingly undertook a legation and was to set out for the land of Persia") 20. In ch. 7, his biography is ended thus: Interea transactis tribus mensibus corpus Publii revocatum est navi ("when three months had passed, the body of Publius was brought back by ship") 21. Publius was never introduced to the reader other than as the cruel pagan husband of Anastasia, with whom she refused marital relations. What we know about his life unrelated to Anastasia is limited to these two narratives.

These two narratives are not in perfect accord with each other. Legatio would mean a peaceful embassy, whereas the final return of the corpse of Publius would be more fitting with a military expedition.

If we are in the timespan of the reign of Valens or shortly after (our previous analysis of the figure of Apollonia would suggest such a date), many things become clearer. Under Valens, no military operation in Persia took place, but there was a very important embassy to Persia in 376 under the magister equitum Victor and the dux of Mesopotamia Urbicius [101, p. 182]. Of these two, only Victor was a person renowned in social life at the scale of the whole state, but he was a zealous Nicaean Christian - loyal to Valens up to the very end in the battle of Adrianople (August 9, 378, when he unsuccessfully tried to rescue Valens), but, according to some accounts, protesting against the persecution of the Nicaeans 22.

A three-month military expedition to Persia, which resulted in defeat and the death of the military leader, is a unique event in Roman history. The circumstances of Julian's Persian war are strikingly recognisable. Julian departed (from Antioch) on March 5, 363, and perished in the battle on June 26 or 27 of the same year,

about three months later. The memory of this expedition must have been actualized in the late fourth century in relation to the translation of Julian's body from Tarsus to Constantinople, the New Rome (and, therefore, still "Rome").

Julian was buried in the mausoleum near Tarsus, but, after some years, his body was translated to Constantinople. Byzantine chroniclers from the tenth and eleventh centuries have conflicting accounts regarding the precise date of this event 23. Some authors considered a possible date of about 457 or shortly after 24 or even a seventh-century one (e.g., M. di Maio [58]). To those authors, one can answer with Philip Grierson that "...it is difficult to imagine any emperor later than Theodosius I interesting himself in the matter" [74, p. 40]. In the fifth and especially sixth centuries, Julian's name became highly repulsive for the majority of the population, and the voice of his pagan admirers could have had very little chance to be heard by the emperors 25.

Mark J. Johnson substantiated the relatively early date of the translation (without, however, claiming to demonstrate that the translation actually took place at all [87, p. 260]), especially on the basis of architecture. Julian was reportedly buried near Valens's predecessor Jovian in the so-called North Stoa, where perhaps only they two were buried, and the North Stoa was not, according to Johnson, a part of the church of Apostles (where it would have been difficult to bury a pagan) but simply an adjacent imperial mausoleum. On this ground, Johnson supposed that if Julian was reburied in Constantinople at all, it would have been Emperor Valens, the same who buried Jovian, who performed the burial, and it would be similarlyto Jovian 26. Johnson, however, did not discuss the evidence of Libanius (379) and Ammianus Marcellinus (389 or 390) testifying that the body of Julian was still in Tarsus. Libanius, addressing the new emperor Theodosius, praised the co-emperor brothers Valens and Valentinian for having rebuilt and decorated the mausoleum near Tarsus 27, whereas Ammianus proposed to translate Julian's remains to the Old Rome 28. No wonder that, in his later study, Johnson changed his mind. Now he considers the North Stoa to have been built by Theodosius I, "...thereby procuring for himself an honoured position in Constantine's monument (church of the Apostles. - B. L.) 29.

Therefore, Julian's burial near Jovian must have been early, but not as early as the reign of Valens. Gierson's date between 390 and 395 (under Theodosius the Great but certainly after 390) [74, pp. 40-41] remains the best fitting one. Further, this date is still not too distant from Valens.

In its own way, the Passio Anastasiae corroborates the historicity of the reburial of Julian in Constantinople.

The most striking and important detail is that the corpse of Publius was brought from Persia, but by ship. The route between Constantinople and Persia was, of course, overland (except for the short segment between Constantinople and the eastern seashore of Marmara, the beginning of the routes through Asia Minor). The route was maritime between Constantinople and Tarsus. This mention of the transportation of the corpse by ship, while allegedly from Persia, together with the exact number of whole months of the duration of the military campaign, form a striking reference to Julian and his reburial in Constantinople, the New Rome.

If the reburial is to be dated from 390 to 395, this would fit with the timing of the possible widowhood of the daughter of Gallus and Constantina, born between 352 and 354, a historical prototype of St Anastasia.

I would not exclude the fact that even the name Publius was deliberately chosen by the hagiographer as a reference to the catastrophic Persian campaign of Valerian. The Christian understanding of the death of Julian was to a large extent patterned after the previous Christian narrative of Valerian, another persecutor (as noticed by C.H. Caldwell III [31, pp. 345-349]). Nevertheless, Julian himself, who proclaimed the goal of his campaign ut medeamur praeteritis 30 ("for the healing of the past", especially previous defeats of the Romans), counterpoised himself to Valerian without, however, even mentioning his name as covered with infamy [31, pp. 344-345].

To sum up, the legend of Anastasia, with its character Publius, corroborates both the historicity of the reburial of Julian in Constantinople and its late fourth-century date.

5.4. Provisional Conclusion on the Historical Anastasia, Still Not a Saint

Our working hypothesis about the identity of the Anastasia who gave her name to our

saint as the daughter of Constantina and Gallus (formulated in Section 5.1.3) is corroborated by other details pointing to the late fourth century, such as the reminiscences of Vettius Agorius Praetextatus and especially of the reburial of Julian the Apostate.

Moreover, the implicit references to persecutions under Julian both in the character of Publius and the name of Apollonia demonstrate that the hagiographer placed the symbolic figure of Julian in the background of the scene deliberately. The hagiographer's Anastasia was portrayed in opposition to the pagan and "neo-pagan" (viz., Arian) society. Such was, in the eyes of the Nicaeans, the Roman society under Emperor Valens. If the main prototype of St Anastasia was the daughter of Constantina and Gallus (who was certainly a Nicaean Christian), such a biography of her legendary avatar is perfectly fitting.

All this said, however, I would not say that the daughter of Gallus was the only prototype of St Anastasia. We will see below that the situation was indeed much more complicated.

6. The Church of St Anastasia in Rome and the Early Roman Stational Liturgy

This section will be dedicated to the liturgical meaning of the Roman church of St Anastasia. It has to be studied in two contexts: that of the Anastasia legends and that of the stational liturgy of the capital.

No historian of the Roman cult of Anastasia has skipped a discussion of the Anastasia church at the foot of the Palatine Hill. Nevertheless, given that this church was always one of the most important in Rome, it is impossible to discuss it outside the context of the Roman stational liturgy. However, the easily accessible (for modern scholars) data related to the Roman stational liturgy are not earlier than the late sixth century; they are therefore almost irrelevant to the early Anastasia cult. The only way to the fifth-century cult of St Anastasia passes through an unexplored field of the Roman stational liturgy before the sixth century.

6.1. The titulus Anastasiae Church

The parish (titulus) church called titulus Anastasiae at the foot of the Palatine Hill was constructed at an unknown but very early date, certainly before the pontificate of Damasus

(366-384) 31. Damasus decorated the church with frescoes and perhaps partially rebuilt the previously existing church that was already important for Christian Rome 32.

The terminus post quem is difficult to define. The church of Anastasia seems to be the first Christian shrine in the central part of Rome, whereas all the Christian cultic constructions attributable to Constantine the Great were built, if not outside the Aurelian Walls, then, at least, outside the pomoerium (from post moerium "beyond the wall"), the religious boundary of the city marked by the old Severian Wall. As Krautheimer noticed, Constantine avoided "blatantly insult[ing] conservative pagan feelings", and this was one of his main reasons for removing the capital from Rome [95, pp. 7-40, esp. pp. 28-29].

The location ofthe Anastasia church evidently contradicts this policy of Constantine. Therefore, it is most likely that the church is posterior to Constantine; that is, it was erected after 337.

Therefore, the earliest (pre-Damasian) church of Anastasia can be dated to the interval between 337 and 366, with an increasing likelihood towards the end of this period.

6.2. The Church of Anastasia and Christmas

The possible connections between the Anastasia church in Rome and the Christmas holiday have been discussed from the late nineteenth century until now, but unresolved problems in the history of the Roman stational liturgy have severely limited the fruitfulness of this discussion. In this section, we will reopen the question of the early Christmas stational liturgy in Rome to make possible a fresh discussion of the role of the Anastasia church in this liturgy.

6.2.1. The Problematic Mass of Leo the Great

The original dedication of the Anastasia church is a more complicated problem than its date. The earliest evidence of the dedication to St Anastasia is the title of the homily of Pope Leo the Great on Christmas Day in 457 (the most likely date; the other acceptable dates are the years from 458 to 460) 33. Despite the opinion of earlier scholars, there are no textological reasons to consider this mention to be a later insertion 34

We do not know a priori how many Christmas masses Pope Leo celebrated during the night and the morning of December 25 (I hope

to demonstrate below that it was only one, but a priori we also have to suppose two or three). In any case, however, the long festal sermon of the Pope must have been delivered at the most solemn of the papal masses. Thus, the fact is that, between 457 and 460, the church of Anastasia was the place of the most solemn (and perhaps only) papal mass of Christmas.

Antoine Chavasse considered the papal choice of the church for the Christmas mass as occasional, made "en cette année-là"35. Such a supposition is by no means self-evident (pace Chavasse) and even a priori unlikely, for if it were true, it would require either the nonexistence of the stational liturgy in Leo the Great's Rome (because the stational liturgy defined a specific place for every papal festal service) or a sudden departure from it by Leo.

The latter is extremely unlikely without some pressing circumstances, which seem to be absent at this point. The former is hardly possible because the stational liturgy of Rome lost its flexibility under Leo himself 36 at the latest. For the most important feasts, including, of course, Christmas and Epiphany, the stational liturgy must have become strictly regular earlier 37. Finally, the history of the Roman stational liturgy provides arguments for considering the Anastasia church to be a very early statio for the Christmas celebration.

6.2.2. The Pre-Sixth-Century Christmas

Stations in Rome An Outline by the Late Sixth Century

When Antoine Chavasse wrote that "[l]'histoire romaine des formulaires de la vigile et de la fête de Noël est très claire" [40, p. 209], he meant in fact only the situation from the mid-sixth century on. The earlier stational liturgy remains little known even in our time. John F. Baldovin was perhaps too optimistic, thinking that "[t]he organisation of a stational system, employing the same churches or shrines year after year on the same feast can be traced only to the mid- or late fifth-century" [18, p. 166], and not to the sixth. More pessimistic but soberer was Cyrille Vogel, who wrote on the documents of the Roman liturgy in general: "...aucune œuvre n'a été conservée qui appartienne aux cinq premiers siècles. L'activité liturgique, sans doute aucun, fut grande; nous n'avons cependant plus les moyens d'en apprécier ni l'ampleur ni les résultats"38.

For the stational liturgy in particular, however, I hope for some help from comparative data.

As to the papal Christmas mass in the Anastasia church, Baldovin repeated an earlier opinion that the yearly papal Christmas mass in the church of Anastasia was a sixth-century addition 39. Antoine Chavasse has especially argued this opinion, but I would disagree with it.

The late sixth-century papal celebrations of the Nativity included one mass in the evening (December 24) and three masses on December 25: one in the night, the second one in the early morning, and the third one, the most solemn, later in the morning. By the late sixth century, the three masses of December 25 were distributed as follows: the first in Santa Maria Maggiore, the second in Saint Anastasia, and the third in Saint Peter's [40, p. 209]. Chavasse concluded, from comparative data, that, in the original rite, the papal mass on December 25 was unique [40, p. 211].

Below, we will comment on each of the three sixth-century Christmas stations.

Santa Maria Maggiore: A Sixth-Century Development

Pope Sixtus III dedicated the church Santa Maria Maggiore on August 5, 434, but its construction took several years and started before his pontificate (432-440) and, evidently, before the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus (431). Anyway, the construction of this church has had nothing to do with this council and its Christological discussions 40. The situation changed before the seventh century, apparently in the sixth century, when this church became the veneration place of the relics of Bethlehem, Jesus's crib (praesepe). After this, the church was often called Sancta Maria adPraesepem [137, pp. 65, 67-70]. Only then did its inclusion in the stational liturgy of Christmas become natural and likely 41. Indeed, this church, after having become the Bethlehem of Rome, became the place of the first papal mass on Christmas night. This is, however, certainly a sixth-century development.

Nevertheless, Santa Maria Maggiore was erected, as is obvious, to produce some radical changes in the stational liturgy in Rome. We will have to discuss this problem below (section 7.5.3). For the time being, however, it is sufficient to know that, before the Byzantine period, it was not involved in the stational liturgy of Christmas on December 25.

The Anastasia Church: An Ancient Station

Chavasse, operating with seventh-century and later Latin comparative data, convincingly concluded that "[l]a célébration à Sainte-Anastasie concernait la liturgie papale"; originally, it was not a part of the stational liturgy that would have been adapted for the presbyteral liturgies outside Rome [40, p. 210]. By the early seventh century, if not earlier, the second papal mass in the church of Anastasia seemed to be a specific addition to the liturgy by the Pope. Scholars have not been especially creative in explaining the need for such an innovation 42

The most natural explanation of the mass in the Anastasia church should consider the second law of Baumstark (that is, the preservation of the most ancient elements of the liturgy for the most solemn occasions) 43. It is to be applied here twice: first, because of the solemnity of the feast itself, and second, because of the renowned conservatism of the papal liturgy, which has kept for centuries archaic elements 44. Robert Taft once noticed that the Byzantine pontifical rite, being a case where this law is to be applied, "...has kept so many usages once found in the ordinary eucharist that it is a veritable museum piece" [147, p. 207]. The Roman pontifical liturgy was no less a veritable "museum piece". One has to presume that it was very conservative in its stational structure as well, even though this structure indeed underwent some changes.

Looking now at two facts, the traceability of the regular Christmas mass in Saint Anastasia back to the sixth century, on the one hand, and the celebration of a papal mass there already in ca. 457, on the other, we have to conclude, on the basis of the second law of Baumstark, that both facts are links in a unique tradition. In other words, the custom of a papal mass in the Anastasia church on Christmas is ancient, dating no later than the mid-fifth century.

The seventh Christmas sermon of Leo the Great, delivered in 451, provides indirect evidence that, already then, the Pope celebrated his most solemn mass not in Saint Peter's but in another location. In the often discussed passage about the Christians who apparently worshipped the sun 45, Saint Peter's basilica is mentioned as a place different from the place of the current celebration; were this sermon delivered at the same basilica,

the preacher would have hardly avoided such words as "this" or "here", which Leo normally used where appropriate 46. This passage, having no specific connection with Christmas, reveals a difficulty that some people experienced with Saint Peter's, which was oriented to the west, whereas they were accustomed to prayer being oriented towards the east 47. Thus, I think, they seem to have performed twice the normal ritual of entering the church: first, while still outdoors, they bowed "to the sun" (in fact, simply to the east), and then, inside the basilica, they had to make the appropriate bows to the altar in the western direction. In Saint Anastasia, let us recall, such problems would have never arisen because its altar was located to the east.

Saint Peter's: Another Ancient Station

There are two pre-sixth-century mentions of the papal Christmas celebration in Saint Peter's. It is now normally taken for granted that both of them indicate the most solemn papal mass of the day. However, one of them is not so definitive.

The earliest absolutely definitive evidence is the letter of Pope Celestine to Emperor Theodosius II from March 15, 432, where the Pope expressed his gratitude for having received the documents of the Council of Ephesus (431) 48. The two papal messengers, the Pope wrote (Ep. 23, 5), had returned to Rome during the Christmas vigil (December 25, 431: ad eum diem quo celebrabamus Christi Dei nostri natalem secundum carnem), and, therefore, the confession of the council was immediately read "before the whole congregation of Christian people in (the church of) the most blessed Apostle Peter" (...lectis in totius congregatione Christianae plebis apud beatissimum apostolum Petrum) [83, col. 546].

The earlier indication belongs to Ambrosius of Milan, who recollected, in 378, an event ofthe early 350s 49, when Pope Liberius consecrated as a virgin Ambrosius's sister Marcellina. The event took place in Saint Peter's in the presence of other virgins, but nothing is said about the presence of the faithful 50. Outside the context of liturgical tradition, this indication would not exclude other interpretations than the most solemn papal Christmas Eucharist 51.

Eamonn O Carragain goes so far as to suppose: "It would be possible to argue that the clergy at Saint Peter's invented Christmas, at least

in the sense that they helped ensure that Christmas would be celebrated as a major liturgical event in the Christian year" [33, p. 178]. This is, of course, an unverifiable idea.

Intermediate Conclusions

Before the sixth-century developments, there was no Christmas station at Santa Maria Maggiore, but there was already a station in the Anastasia church.

What do we know so far about the pre-sixth-century Christmas stational liturgy in Rome?

There were certainly two stations: Saint Peter's and the Anastasia church. It is unlikely that there was any other station. First, we have to expect (on the basis ofthe second law of Baumstark) that, had such a station existed, some traces of the Christmas celebration would have been preserved there. However, nothing similar is known in Rome. Second, we will see that the structure of the stational liturgy of Christmas was originally (in Jerusalem) bipartite, with the principal stations only in Bethlehem and Jerusalem. There was no need for the third station.

The two Christmas pontifical masses were distributed as follows: the first, less solemn, on the eve of Christmas (December 24 in the evening), and the second, the most solemn, in the morning of December 25.

Our present knowledge of the sites of these two masses is contradictory: Leo the Great celebrated, between 457 and 460, the most solemn mass at the Anastasia church, whereas, at least, Celestine, in 431 (and perhaps Liberius in 352-354), celebrated it at Saint Peter's. To put these data in order, we need more comparative material, and it must be looked for in the stational liturgy of Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

The original site of the papal mass in the evening (hora nona, that is, about 3 p.m.) of December 24 remains unclear because, in available documents, it is the church Santa Maria Maggiore, already transformed into Sancta Maria ad praesepem; the site of the first, midnight liturgy of the feast itself, on December 25, was the same [40, pp. 209, 211]. Let us notice, however, that, in the post-sixth-century stational liturgy, both the mass on the eve of the feast and the nocturnal festal mass shared the same station explicitly related to Bethlehem. This station was then new, but the symbolic siting of the respective

masses at Bethlehem was certainly old, going back to the commemoration of the night when Christ was born in Bethlehem.

Therefore, we have to ask which of the two early stations, the Saint Peter's basilica or the Anastasia church, would have been chosen for a liturgical representation of Bethlehem. The choice of the suburban Saint Peter's suggests itself, but we have to substantiate this reconstruction with comparative data.

6.2.3. From Jerusalem/Bethlehem to Rome: St Anastasia as the Roman Martyrion

The feast of Christ's Nativity in Jerusalem was celebrated before the 540s (with an interruption for several years after 454) on January 6 52. No commemoration of Christ's baptism took place on this day 53. We will see below (sections 7.5.2 and 7.5.3) that, in Rome, the Epiphany did not include any commemoration of the baptism in Jordan either; moreover, the early Roman stational liturgies of the two feasts, Christmas and Epiphany, must have been identical. Therefore, the difference between the two Christmas dates, December 25 and January 6, between Rome and Jerusalem, does not create any difficulty for comparing the respective stational liturgies.

The most detailed description of the Jerusalem stational liturgy of the Nativity in the late fourth and early fifth centuries is now available from the Armenian Jerusalem lectionary, partially matching the data provided by Egeria between 381 and 384. All three manuscripts of the earliest recension of the Armenian lectionary are damaged at the part related to the Nativity of Christ, and mention of the Constantinian basilica in Bethlehem as the site of the most important vigil service is absent. However, the lacunae are recoverable using later Armenian recensions; thus, the mention of Bethlehem can be restored, and the fourth-century description of Egeria confirms it [129].

The stational liturgy of the Nativity ran as follows 54:

An evening (10th hour = 4 p.m.) service in a suburban place on the road to Bethlehem (about 1 km from Jerusalem) called "Shepherds" ф ^пЦшЬпдЬ "with the Shepherds" = noi^viov, noi^avstov, noi^sviov), allegedly the place of the apparition of angels to the shepherds 55; no Eucharist.

Procession from there to Bethlehem 56 (the distance between Jerusalem and Bethlehem is about 7 km; therefore, this procession had to cover about 6 km, which would have required about 1.5 hours); a service in the crypt of the Constantinian basilica before the crib of Christ (h bbpgnj wjphb wn Jupn4b [130, pp. 63-64] "within the cave, before the crib"); no Eucharist. The lavishly decorated crib of Christ was venerated there, dating from the epoch of Constantine the Great.

The most solemn vigil in the Constantinian basilica is the nocturnal Eucharist (bL h Jtg qh2bphb dswbt b^hu^n^nu jb^bQbghb [130, p. 65, n. 1] "And at midnight, the bishop enters into the church"). One can calculate that the beginning of this vigil was about 9 or, most probably, 10 p.m. 57, and the vigil thus continued after midnight.

Morning: a Eucharistic liturgy in Jerusalem, in the Martyrion ([UnwLWLsnLb dnqnhb h] UnLpp Uwspwbb h gwqwg; "[In the morning, (the people) gather in] the Martyrion in the city"58).

Let us compare this format with the Roman data. It is striking that, in Rome, the beginning of the celebration was appointed at almost the same time (the ninth hour in Rome, while the tenth hour in Jerusalem). Then, it is no less striking that only two Eucharistic liturgies were provided. Third, the solemn morning Eucharist was celebrated within the city, both in Jerusalem and in Rome.

In Rome, however, the long service on the route to Bethlehem and in Bethlehem became simplified. Instead of a long vigil from about 4 p.m. to, say, 2 or 3 a.m. culminating with the nocturnal Eucharistic liturgy, in Rome, there were, by the late sixth century, two different masses: one on the eve of the feast at 3 p.m. and another one at midnight, both at the church Santa Maria ad praesepem. It is obviously a result of the dissociation of a long service patterned after the services at "Shepherds" and in Bethlehem.

The morning liturgy in Jerusalem, in the Martyrion, has a parallel to the Roman morning mass in the Anastasia church. This parallel provides a key to the church's name, Anastasia. In Jerusalem, the round church called Martyrion was part of an ensemble of two churches that also included the Constantinian basilica called Anastasis. The morning Christmas celebration was thus located in the memorial to Christ's

resurrection. Taking into account this parallel, it becomes impossible not to recognise, in the Roman church of Anastasia, a memorial to the Resurrection. In the same way, the Anastasia church of Gregory of Nazianzus in Constantinople was dedicated to the Resurrection.

6.2.4. The Origin of the Name "Anastasia":

Evaluation of Previous Hypotheses

We have thus just partially confirmed the hypothesis by Hartmann Grisar that the Roman church of Anastasia was initially dedicated to the Resurrection 59. However, we cannot follow Grisar in his supposition that this church was one of the Constantinian buildings. Unlike Grisar, we do not attempt to inscribe the Anastasia church into the Constantinian programme of establishing Christian cultic places in Rome. Moreover, we do not need to follow him in the supposition that the feminine "Anastasia" was a distortion of "Anastasis". The parallel with the fourth-century Anastasia church in Constantinople would suggest that it was rather a deliberate change than a distortion.

So far, we have said no word about Philip B. Whitehead's hypothesis that Saint Anastasia received her name from the first Anastasia known to us as a historical figure, a sister of Constantine the Great [164] (she was one of the first Anastasiae in history 60). We do not need this hypothesis to explain the name of the church. Whitehead followed Duchesne, suggesting that the church was named after its private owner, whose name was Anastasia [64]. Duchesne himself was unable to point out a suitable candidate, but Whitehead, who allowed a pre-Damasian date for the first construction of the church, pointed to Anastasia, a sister of Constantine. Now we can confirm that her lifespan is compatible with the date of the erection of the church: she was born between ca. 270 and

300 and died after 316, possibly after the death of Constantine (337) [39, p. 143]. Nevertheless, Duchesne's very idea that the church was named after its owner could hardly be true, given that the church played the role of the Roman Martyrion, a monument dedicated to Christ's resurrection. All this said, however, we cannot exclude that some reminiscences going back to this sister of Constantine were actualized in the Roman cult of St Anastasia. At least, such a possibility should be kept in mind, because our present data on the Roman Christian cults in the fourth century is far from exhaustive.

6.2.5. Fourth- and Fifth-Century Christmas Stational Liturgy in Rome

Thus, the fourth- and early fifth-century Roman stational liturgy of Christmas could be reconstructed, presuming that, then, Saint Peter's was interpreted as the Roman equivalent of the Bethlehem shrines (Table 1).

This reconstruction of the Roman stational liturgy of Christmas belongs to the early (probably earliest) epoch of Christmas in Rome, but certainly not to the pontificate of Leo the Great, when the morning mass became the most solemn instead of the nocturnal one.

A very long vigil with the nocturnal Eucharist in Saint Peter's as the most solemn papal mass is confirmed by a letter of Pope Celestine and would have been a good occasion for the veiling of virgins under Pope Liberius.

The timespan when Christmas on December 25 might have been established in Rome (after 325 and before 360; a date before 336 is possible but far from certain 61) overlaps with the timespan when the Anastasia church was built (337-366). Therefore, it cannot be excluded that the church of Anastasia was initially built for the Christmas

Jerusalem Rome

Beginning of the first service Tenth hour Ninth hour

Place of the first station (no Eucharist) "Shepherds" Saint Peter's

Place of the second station (no Eucharist) Bethlehem, "the cave" (Probably, no specific equivalent of the "cave")

Place of the third (nocturnal) station (Eucharist) Bethlehem, basilica Saint Peter's

Place of the morning station Jerusalem, Martyrion Rome, Anastasia

Table 1. The stational liturgies of the Nativity in the fourth- and fifth-century Jerusalem and Rome

stational liturgy. Even if it was not so, the church must have been soon reconsidered as the Roman equivalent of the Jerusalem Martyrion and thus fit for the Christmas morning Eucharistic liturgy.

The question arises whether the Anastasia church had an exceptional status in Rome comparable with that of the Martyrium in Jerusalem and not comparable with that of any other Roman titulus church (especially the church of St Chrysogonus). Indeed, it did. It was located on the road from the port to the Domus Augustana, the only imperial palace on the Palatine Hill that continued to be in use throughout the late Roman, Gothic, and Byzantine (second Roman) periods of the history of Rome. In the list of urban churches of the city of Rome (within the De locis sanctis martyrum quae sunt foris civitatis Romae. Ecclesiae quae intus Romae habentur, between 635 and 645) 62, basilica quae appellatur sancta Anastasia occupies the third place, after the basilica in Lateran (basilica Constantiniana quae et Salvatoris; ipsa quoque et sancti Ioannis dicitur) and the basilica Santa Maria Maggiore (basilica quae appellatur sancta Maria maior), before the basilica Santa Maria Antiqua (basilica quae appellatur sancta Maria antiqua), which is the fourth. In this list, the suburban Saint Peter's is absent, the Lateran basilica occupies its original place as the main Roman cathedral, and Santa Maria Maggiore is enumerated before the Anastasia according to its status ad praesepem. This list shows quite high status for Anastasia's church even in the seventh century, when it was overshadowed by Santa Maria Maggiore. Before the date when Santa Maria Maggiore became Sancta Maria ad praesepem and especially before it was built, the Anastasia church would have been the second among the urban churches, exactly as the Martyrion in Jerusalem (after the basilica of the Resurrection).

6.2.6. Under Leo the Great:

From the Anastasia Church to the Church of St Anastasia

In light of our reconstruction of the early Roman stational liturgy of Christmas, the shift of the most solemn mass to the morning performed by Leo the Great looks like a radical change. Something important must have happened to Saint Peter's after 432 (the date of Celestine's letter

quoted above) and before Leo's mass in the church of St Anastasia on Christmas of 457/460. Indeed, under Leo the Great (440-461), even before the sack of Rome by the Vandals of Gaiseric (455), the role of Saint Peter's changed.

Under Pope Leo, the basilica underwent reconstruction, with a new symbolic purpose showcased through the great new façade mosaic and its inscriptions. According to the analysis recently performed by Paolo Liverani [107] and continued by myself [109, pp. 196-202], Saint Peter's was at that time transformed into a site for the commemoration of the baptism of Constantine the Great, similar to the Lateran basilica, along the lines of the hagiographical legend Actus Sylvestri. In this way, Leo made a considerable step in the same direction as Pope Symmachus (498-514), who would reshape Saint Peter's into the new ecclesiastical centre of Rome instead of the Lateran 63. However, Leo's Saint Peter's was an eschatological shrine. The central mosaic on its façade illustrated the Apocalypse of John: a clipeated bust of Christ against a sky-blue background with the four winged "living beings" (Ezekiel 1:5-28; Rev 4:6-8) above and the twenty-four elders (Rev 4:4) below; the figures of Constantine and Apostle Peter were also present. We know very little about this period of Saint Peter's and the immediate purpose of Leo's symbolism. It did not survive Pope Symmachus.

Leo the Great's Saint Peter's ceased to be the principal shrine for the commemoration of Christ's birth, whereas the formerly secondary shrine, Saint Anastasia, assumed its function. The removal of the most solemn pontifical mass from the night at Saint Peter's to the morning at Saint Anastasia is datable to Christmas of 443, as we will demonstrate below (section 7.5.4).

By the end of Leo the Great's pontificate at the latest (the terminus ante quem is provided by Leo's tractatus 96 dated to 457-460), the Anastasia church was considered to be dedicated to a certain martyr, St Anastasia. This was the period when St Anastasia of Rome, initially commemorated on September 7, acquired the date of December 25 as her principal commemoration day (cf. above, section 4.5).

A similar connection between a church called Anastasis and St Anastasia took place in Ravenna, where its bishop Ursus (ca. 405-431)

erected the cathedral (then called after him Ursiana) dedicated to Christ's Resurrection and officially called Anastasis, but in this cathedral, there was an altar dedicated to St Anastasia 64. There was, in Ravenna, the Gothic Arian church of St Anastasia (attested under this name in a papyrus dated to 551), which was possibly the Arian cathedral initially dedicated to Anastasis (the resurrection) 65.

In the sixth century, as we remember, a full-scale Roman Bethlehem was created in Santa Maria Maggiore that became the principal shrine of Christmas by the late sixth century.

Meanwhile, most probably under Leo the Great as well, the long vigil in St Peter's was reduced to a single papal mass on the evening of December 24.

When, under Pope Symmachus, St Peter's was transformed into the main cathedral of the city, the most solemn Christmas Eucharist, preserving its morning time, was relocated from St Anastasia to St Peter's, whereas the papal mass in St Anastasia was pushed to earlier in the morning.

The most recent among the three sixth-century masses on December 25 is, in my opinion, the midnight mass in Santa Maria Maggiore that might have been introduced when the praesepe (crib) of Christ was established in this church.

6.2.7. The Pre-Seventh-Century Evolution of the Christmas Stational Liturgy in Rome

The four stages of the development of the Christmas stational liturgy are presented in Table 2. The early stage (before Leo the Great) is presented as a single event, whereas, in fact, the development might have been more complicated in the case that the Roman Christmas feast existed

before the construction of the Anastasia church. This stage corresponds to the liturgy represented in Table 1. The second stage corresponds to the reform of Leo the Great. The third and fourth stages are roughly contemporaneous (sixth century), and the respective developments would have been parallel.

6.3. St Anastasia, Christmas and the Path to Sirmium

Now we have to take a short break for recapitulation of the data that we must retain for continuing our path to the origins of the cult of Anastasia. The most important are the following conclusions:

The Anastasia church was either originally built (between 337 and 366) for the Christmas stational liturgy as an equivalent of the Jerusalem Martyrion or was redesignated for this purpose shortly after having been erected. Its name, Anastasia, referred to the Anastasis basilica in Jerusalem.

No later than under the pontificate of Leo the Great (440-461), the Anastasia church was reconsidered as dedicated to some St Anastasia.

It was only at this time that St Anastasia became commemorated on December 25 (cf. above, section 4.5).

The legend of this St Anastasia was approximately identical to the Passio ipsius Anastasiae (BHL 401), whereas some differences took place (this Anastasia was born to pagan parents and, while being a Roman matron, was not a virgin).

This Roman St Anastasia had a historical prototype in Anastasia (born between 352 and 354 and died no earlier than in the very late

Table 2. Main stages of development of the Roman stational liturgy of Christmas (tentative reconstruction)

Stage Date Evening Midnight Early Morning Later in the Morning

I Before Leo the Great A long vigil in Saint Peter's - Mass in Anastasia

II Leo the Great (since 443) Mass in Saint Peter's - - Most solemn mass in Anastasia

III Since Symmachus Mass in Saint Peter's - Mass in Anastasia Most solemn mass in Saint Peter's

IV By the late 6th cent. Mass in S. Maria ad praesepem Mass in S. Maria ad praesepem Mass in Anastasia Most solemn mass in Saint Peter's

fourth century), the daughter of Caesar Gallus and Constantina, a daughter of Constantine the Great.

Now one has to ask where, in this scheme, Sirmium is. Indeed, in this scheme, Sirmium is absent. Sirmium, however, is nearby, but, looking for Sirmium, we have to trace St Anastasia's connections with other saints venerated in Rome under the pontificate of Leo the Great.

We are already not too far from Sirmium. The story ofthe daughter of Gallus and Constantina refers to the reign of the Arian persecutor Constantius II, when Sirmium was the main residence of the emperor from 351 to 359. Gallus was proclaimed Caesar on March 15, 351, at Sirmium. The marriage between Gallus and Constantina was concluded there, even though the couple immediately left Sirmium for Antioch, where their daughter was born [19, pp. 221223]. Such facts demonstrate that Sirmium would not have been completely unconnected to the biography of the daughter of Gallus and Constantina. We cannot help but wonder whether, in some hagiographical legends, we meet the Roman saint Anastasia accompanying some saint of Sirmium.

7. St Anastasia and St Bassilla: The Earliest Roman Cult

The name Anastasia was incompatible with the name of a pre-Constantinian martyr at Sirmium. Nevertheless, St Anastasia is mentioned as a martyr at Sirmium in the Martyrologium Hieronymianum, and her relics were translated from there to Constantinople between 468 and 470. This means that, no later than in the first half of the fifth century, the Roman martyr Anastasia became associated with Sirmium. One can imagine a number of ways that this would have been done. We need, however, to keep to sources. The sources point to a close connection between St Anastasia and a martyr of Sirmium, Bassilla. Bassilla's hagiographical dossier survived in a severely fragmented state, but it is somewhat recoverable. It provides a strong link between Rome and Sirmium. At some stage, it became interwoven with the dossier of St Anastasia.

In the following subsections, we will trace the mutual connection between the cults of the two martyrs, St Bassilla and St Anastasia, and discuss the fate of the historical martyr St Bassilla of Sirmium in Rome.

The main theses that I hope to demonstrate below are the following:

- The cult of the historical martyr Bassilla, also known as Basilissa, already existed in Sirmium before the middle of the fourth century.

- In Rome, Bassilla of Sirmium became amalgamated with the martyr Bassilla of Rome (it is difficult to decide whether she was originally identical or not with Bassilla of Sirmium).

- In early fifth-century Rome, it became connected to the cult of St Anastasia. In the pair of martyrs, Bassilla and Anastasia, the leading figure was Bassilla. This cult of the two saints was rather short-lived, but some traces of it survived.

- The cult of the pair of Bassilla and Anastasia was destroyed under Leo the Great when St Anastasia's main commemoration day became Christmas. Then, the ways of the two saints parted. The importance of Anastasia increased, whereas that of Bassilla decreased.

- Bassilla produced new avatars, but always those of secondary characters in the hagiographical legends of other saints. Among them, the most known are those of a companion of St Eugenia and of a companion of St Julian (in both cases, under the name Basilissa, which appeared as a variant of Bassilla).

7.1. The Historical Bassilla of Sirmium and Her Oriental Name, Basilissa

The name Bassilla (spelled in Latin as either Bassilla or Basilla) 66 is seldom preserved intact in the languages of the Christian East. Most often, it is rendered with the Greek name with quite different etymology but a similar sound, Basilissa. This is already the case in our earliest historical document, the Syriac martyrologium of 411, which, in turn, is a translation of the lost Greek document dated to ca. 362. Here, we read, on August 29 (ed. by F. Nau [125, p. 20]):

^«vrt

"And on the twenty-ninth (of August): in Sirmium, Basilissa (bsylys)"67.

This entry is echoed in the Martyrologium Hieronymianum on August 29 as well: In Sirmia Basillae virginis 68. Thus, the Hieronymianum provides a decisive proof that bsylys is, indeed, Bassilla of Sirmium.

The Hieronymianum is the latest document where this martyr of Sirmium appears - at least, under her original name, Bas(s)illa. Now we know,

however, that, in the Oriental documents, Bassilla is to be looked for under the name Basilissa.

7.2. Basilissa and Anastasia

There is a legend where Anastasia appears as a companion of some Basilissa. It is preserved as a short entry in the Synaxarium of Constantinople on April 15, 16 or 17 69 and goes back to the notice of the Typikon of the Great Church on April 15: Kai ^v^n ayiag BaaiMaani Kai Avaaxaaiag (J. Mateos [115, p. 266]) ("And the commemoration of Saint Basilissa and Anastasia"). This commemoration is lacking from the Armenian and Arabic versions of the Synaxarium but is present in the Slavonic (on April 15, with a translation of the epitome of the lost Passio) 70 and in the Georgian (also on April 15, but without the epitome), where the name of Basilissa is replaced with Basilia (^5 ¿bgBg&5Q

bibo^oinbo ¿Bib^iboinbo (^o^o b3oB53bi6o [168, 53. 221]) "and the commemoration of the holy women martyrs Basilia and Anastasia"). There is no trace of this pair in the mediaeval Roman sources 71.

The legend runs as follows: Basilissa and Anastasia were noble and rich Roman women who became disciples of apostles (no names of apostles are provided). After the deaths of these apostles, they buried their bodies secretly. Because of this, they were summoned to Emperor Nero. After having refused to apostatize, they were tortured and truncated by the sword. One can remark that the unnamed apostles, in plural, who died in Rome are certainly Peter and Paul.

In the Byzantine liturgical calendar ca. 900, where we find this commemoration for the first time (in the Typikon of the Great Church), Basilissa and Anastasia's commemoration day is already certainly not in situ, that is, not at its original place in the liturgical year. The Byzantine commemoration oscillated between April 15, 16, and 17, while on April 16 came the commemoration of Irene, Agape, and Chionia, companions of Anastasia, according to the Byzantine legend. The commemoration of Basilissa and Anastasia, which did not imply any specific liturgy at all (at least, by ca. 900), was put near a place in the calendar that was already related to the cult of Anastasia, no matter which of her avatars.

Basilissa and Anastasia are, in this legend, the companions of the apostles of Rome. Such a legend, similarly to the legend of Anastasia and Petronilla, the daughter of Apostle Peter (see below, section 9), must have been the final result of an evolution wherein the status of the respective saints greatly increased. Let us recall that the meaning of the absolute chronology in the Passions épiques is a symbolical reference to the status of the cult: the further from the present of the hagiographer and the closer to the Christian past, viz., the apostles and Emperor Nero, the higher the status of the cult of a martyr is 72

The cult of the pair of Basilissa and Anastasia belonged to pre-Byzantine Rome at the turn of the fifth and sixth centuries and, therefore, existed during the Byzantine epoch of Rome (from the mid-sixth to the mid-eighth centuries) and was inherited by the calendar of Constantinople without, however, prescribing any significant services. This is why, far from Rome, in Constantinople, a trace of this Roman cult (a commemoration with a short epitome of the legend) was preserved, while in Rome, any trace of this cult disappeared.

Let us notice that, in the pair of Basilissa and Anastasia, Anastasia is the second. Normally, paired saints form ordered pairs, where the order of the paired names is unchangeable. Unlike the pair of Anastasia and Petronilla (to be discussed below), the pair of Basilissa and Anastasia implied a leading role for Basilissa.

The next step of our inquiry is to understand whether this Basilissa has any relation to the Bassilla of Sirmium.

7.3. Bassilla/Basilissa Commemorated on Christmas

Our search must be focused on the hagiographical coordinates. The characters wandering from one legend to another, most often, have become acquainted as neighbours - in either the calendar (coordinates of time) or sacred topography (coordinates of place) or both.

We immediately meet one Basilissa in a Roman legend who shares with Anastasia her most important coordinate of time, her commemoration date in Rome on December 25. According to the Martyrologium Hieronymianum, on December 25, beside St Anastasia, St Eugenia and those with her are commemorated. In the Byzantine calendar,

their commemoration is displaced to December 24 due to the same principle that caused Anastasia's commemoration to be displaced from December 25 to December 22: no saints' commemorations on the day of the greatest feasts.

The Roman legend of St Eugenia (the earliest recension of which is BHL 2267) 73 was composed in late fifth-century Rome in order to unite, within the single plot of a legend (that certainly served as pilgrims' guides), the Catacombs of Apronianus on the Via Latina (southeast of Rome), where was deposed St Eugenia, with the Catacombs of Bassilla (also called Hermes) on the Via Salaria Vetere (north of Rome), where were deposed Bassilla, Protus and Hyacinthus.

In the second part of the legend of Eugenia, where the place of action is Rome, the hagiographer was inspired by the Passio of Nereus and Achilleus. It is in this part that there appears a virgin from the Roman nobility called Basilla. The Basilla of the legend, being modelled after Domitilla from the Passio of Nereus and Achilleus, is also the niece of an emperor, but this time of Gallienus 74. As Cécile Lanéry noticed, there would have been no reason to make Basilla the niece of an emperor unless the hagiographer was imitating the model of Domitilla, a niece of Emperor Domitian, from the Passio of Nereus and Achilleus [99, p. 135]. The motif of two companions of Eugenia, her two Christian eunuch slaves, Protus and Hyacinthus, whom she commissioned to Basilla, and who were martyrized together with Basilla, is also borrowed from the Passio of Nereus and Achilleus 75. Just like Nereus and Achilleus, Protus and Hyacinthus were historical martyrs preserving their actual names; their relics were deposed in the catacombs of Bassilla. Most probably, the hagiographer made them eunuchs expressly for accompanying a noble dame in the hagiographical narrative. We know nothing about their actual biographies. In many respects, the Passio of Eugenia is not pure fantasy. E. Gordon Whatley, after having deeply investigated its historical background, disagreed with Delehaye's evaluation 76; he concluded that the Passio is "...not the accidental product of ignorance or garbled oral traditions, as Delehaye's critique implies, but results rather from a studied and deliberate blending of historical truth and fiction" [163, p. 92].

The name of Ba(s)silla was difficult for nonLatin speakers, even though it was preserved in the Greek (BaoiAAa) 77, Syriac (rl.mn) 78, and Melkite Arabic (^V^) 79 translations of Latin recensions (the Greek was translated from Latin but the two others were translated from Greek). However, in Oriental recensions, Bassilla, most often, became Basilia: thus in the Armenian (Pwu^Lhw) 80 and the Georgian (bibo^oi) (3. [169, 53. 79-85]) and, as an alternative form, in the Syriac (r.\.mn) 81 too. Nevertheless, in the Synaxarium of Constantinople, she became Basilissa 82. This name occurs as an alternative form also in the Syriac (rm.\.mn) (ed. by P. Bedjan [21, pp. 499, 500, 504]).

This name change goes back to Rome, and it had already taken place in Latin (not to mention that, in the Greek martyrologium of ca. 362 available in the Syriac version of 411, Bas(s) illa had already become Basilissa (see above, section 7.1)). In two seventh-century pilgrims' guides describing Byzantine Rome in Latin, Basilla is Basilissa: Bassilissa uirgo et martir ("Basilissa, the virgin and martyr") in the Notitia ecclesiarum urbis Romae (between 625 and 649, preserved in a single eighth-century manuscript) 83 and sancta Basilessa in the De locis sanctis martyrum quae sunt foris civitatis Romae (between 635 and 645, preserved in three manuscripts, the eldest of which is the same as that of the Notitia; in this manuscript, a later hand corrected Basilessa to Basilissa) (ed. by F. Glorie [72, p. 321]).

Now, we can formulate a working hypothesis that will be proved below (section 7.5). Previously, Bassilla/Basilissa and Anastasia were commemorated on December 25 as a pair, and only later were they separated into different hagiographical novels: Anastasia became the main character of the old Roman legend of Anastasia (the Latin prototype of BHL 401), whereas Bassilla became "encapsulated" in the legend of St Eugenia. Such a separation became required under Leo the Great, who made the titulus church of Anastasia the main church of the Roman Christmas stational liturgy. In this new situation, the status of St Anastasia as the second character in a pair became intolerable. A new legend, where St Anastasia was the main character, was then composed. This is the legend described above (section 4.6) as the early Roman legend of St Anastasia.

7.4. The Roman Bassilla/Basilissa and Sirmium

Basilla of the Passio of St Eugenia was a niece of Emperor Gallienus. This feature contains something more than a mere imitation of Domitilla from the Passio of Nereus and Achilleus. Gallienus was a member of the famous Roman family gens Licinia. Therefore, Basilla is introduced as a member of the same family. This fact could serve to substantiate a hypothesis that I think is worthy of being put forward, even though I am unable to verify it: the two Bassillae, of Sirmium and of Rome, are the same.

Sirmium was the capital of Emperor Licinius (r. 308-324) from 308 to 316, after which it became the de facto capital of Constantine the Great (from 317 to 321). M. Mirkovic [121, pp. 86-88]. Had Licinius himself belonged to gens Licinia, there would be no doubt that Basilissa's relationship with the Licinii refers to her location in Sirmium. In fact, however, Licinius's parents were peasants with no relation to the Roman aristocracy. The Historia Augusta (Gordiani tres, 34.5), unfavourable to Licinius, mentioned that he claimed to trace his origins to an emperor, but an emperor unrelated to the Licinii, Philip the Arab 84. To become emperor, Licinius was adopted into the family created by Diocletian for himself, the Jovii. H. Chantraine [37]. There is no source, however, claiming any relation between Licinius and gens Licinia. Due to a lack of evidence, it is impossible to insist that Basilissa was made one of the Licinii to establish her relationship with the homonymous emperor. Nevertheless, this homonymity itself provides a basis for such a supposition. A relationship to Licinius would make sense for a martyr in Licinius's capital, Sirmium. The Passio of Eugenia, however, attributes this relationship to the Roman Bassilla. Therefore, one can put forward the hypothesis that the two Bassillae are one.

Let us check whether the data available from Rome would contradict this hypothesis.

The historical data related to the Roman martyr Bas(s)illa are limited to a single document, the Depositio martyrum, dated to 354:

X kal. Octob. Bassillae [variant reading Basillae], Salaria vetere, Diocletiano IX et Maximiano VIII consul(ibus).

[22 September] Bassilla, on the Via Salaria Vecchia, in the ninth consulship of Diocletian and the eighth of Maximian [= AD 304] 85.

Despite the commonly accepted view, this text does not guarantee that Bassilla was martyred in Rome or in 304. The Depositio martyrum enumerates non-Roman martyrs as well, including those who were martyred in other places but deposed in Rome 86; the absolute dates provided by the Depositio are rare (only three) and always problematic 87. What we have to retain for sure from the Depositio is only the fact that, by AD 354, some St Bassilla was venerated (obviously in relics) in the homonymous catacombs on the Via Salaria Vecchia. This conclusion is compatible with the identification of the two Bassillae, those of Rome and of Sirmium. It does not contradict the possibility of the presence of Bassilla's relics in both Sirmium and Rome. This would have been possible in both cases, regardless of whether the two Bassillae were identical or not. If they were identical, we have to recall that only seldom, after the translation of relics, these relics (or objects considered to be them) disappeared at the place where they were preserved earlier. Normally, translations of relics result in their multiplication.

To some extent, the hypothesis that the two Bassillae are identical is corroborated by the fact that the commemoration day of Bassilla of Sirmium, August 29 (as in the Martyrologium Hieronymianum and in the Greek document of ca. 362 available in Syriac), follows the commemoration day of the most famous martyr of the Catacombs of Bassilla, St Hermes, August 28 (thus in both Depositio martyrum and Martyrologium Hieronymianum) 88.

How this Bassilla and the namesake of the respective catacombs are related to each other is an open question 89 that I do not pretend to answer.

7.5. Bassilla and Anastasia Commemorated

on the Epiphany Feast (January 6)

The Roman legend of St Eugenia helped us to put forward a working hypothesis that, on December 25, the original commemoration of the pair of Bassilla/Basilissa and Anastasia became replaced by a separate commemoration of Anastasia with the relocation (with, of course, subsequent reshaping) of the legend of Bassilla into the hagiographical narrative of St Eugenia. This hypothesis can be proved with a similar

observation concerning the Epiphany feast on January 6. Here, we have, in the Martyrologium Hieronymianum, the same separation between Anastasia and Bassilla/Basilissa, but, in this case, the relocation and reshaping of the legend of Bassilla/Basilissa took place in the legend of St Julian, representing an Oriental hagiographic tradition related to the baptismal waters. The early Roman Epiphany was more of a duplication of Christmas than a different feast. If, on both Christmas and Epiphany, the commemorations of Anastasia and Bassilla/Basilissa became separated in a similar way, this is certainly not a coincidence. There must have been a cult of the pair of Bassilla and Anastasia incorporated into the Roman double feast of Christmas and Epiphany.

7.5.1. Commemoration of St Anastasia on the Epiphany

In the Martyrologium Hieronymianum, there are three commemoration days of St Anastasia. Without counting the restored commemoration on September 7, two dates remain: not only December 25, Christmas, but also January 6, Epiphany. The former date is also indicated by the liturgical tradition of Rome and the later Latin calendars, whereas the latter is presently unknown elsewhere.

In several manuscripts, the latter date oscillates between January 5, January 6, and January 8, but it is clear that the readings with January 5 and 8 are accidental and posterior to January 6 90

January 6 poses a problem. The readings of the most important manuscripts and of the majority of the others are unanimous in Apud Sirmium Anastasiae (putting aside the differences in spelling and grammar) 91. Quentin and Delehaye resolved it in a way that could be somewhat convincing only under the condition that, as Quentin and Delehaye indeed supposed, we already know that the date of January 6 for Anastasia's commemoration does not correspond to any historical reality. Namely, Delehaye wrote (following Duchesne 92): Pristinam lectionem servaverunt codices qui habent Anastasi. Huius enim nominis martyr est inter socios S. Iuliani. Anastasiam intellexit qui locum passionis, Sirmium proprio marte ascripsit, et emendandum censuit: apud Sirmium Anastasiae quanquam nec Sirmii nec alibi 6 ianuarii festum S. Anastasiae agitur, sed

25 decembris 93. The reading "Anastasi" has, among the three most important manuscripts, manuscript E (aput sirmiam anastasi) (ed. by I.B. de Rossi, L. Duchesne [50, p. 6]).

Indeed, the manuscripts of martyrologia have numerous errors, but such an error with respect to one of the most venerated saints is hardly imaginable. Explanations via error should be used as a last resort. First of all, such an apparent anomaly in the Martyrologium Hieronymianum should be studied in the larger context ofthe Roman calendar, especially the feast of Epiphany and the hagiographical dossier of St Julian (occasionally mentioned by Duchesne and Delehaye). I would say in advance that such an association of the commemoration of St Anastasia with the Epiphany in the Martyrologium Hieronymianum but not in the later liturgical documents must be explained as a hallmark of the period, in the mid-fifth century, when the Anastasia church was the principal station of the Epiphany.

7.5.2. The Early Roman Epiphany Feast: A Duplication of Christmas

The history of the Epiphany feast on January 6 is extremely complicated, beginning in Second Temple Judaism 94. The Christian Church in different regions adapted it in different ways. Rome perhaps followed the African Church. Unlike the other western (and, of course, eastern) Churches, these two Churches limited the contents of the festal commemorations to the adoration of the Magi. It is likely that Pope Damasus introduced the feast in Rome 95. If so, it was, in Rome, roughly contemporaneous with Christmas, perhaps slightly later. This hypothesis is plausible but unproven. The earliest date of the Epiphany in Rome that we can know for sure is the pontificate of Innocent I (401-417) 96.

The main theme of this festival in Rome, even by the late sixth century, was the adoration of the Magi and the apparition of the star of Bethlehem (ed. by A. Chavasse [40, p. 213]). The theme of baptismal waters was added to this feast in Rome no earlier than the pontificate of Gregory the Great (590-604) 97, when Rome became Byzantine. Paul F. Bradshaw and Maxwell E. Johnson seem to contradict this chronology, but if they actually had such an intention, their argument failed 98. Until the very late sixth century, the feast was focused on Bethlehem

and not on the Jordan River, thus becoming the second commemoration of Christ's birth.

The history of the Epiphany in Rome is still understudied 99. For the time being, however, I consider Thomas J. Talley's conclusion about the nature of the early Roman Epiphany feast to be the most exact: "...just as the Roman nativity festival was adopted in the East, so the eastern nativity festival was adopted in the West. In the latter case, however, it is significant that the January festival was taken over not as celebration of Christ's baptism in the Jordan, as it remained in the eastern solution, but as an alternative date for the nativity <...>. As such a doublet for the nativity festival in December, the Epiphany required a distinction, which led to the division of the nativity story and the assignment of the adoration of the Magi to the January date" [148, pp. 145-146].

7.5.3. Santa Maria Maggiore in the Stational Liturgy: The Roman Sion?

In order to introduce a significant change in the stational liturgy in Rome, Pope Celestine I (r. 422-432) started the erection of a new papal basilica. Oddly enough, there is no, so far, specific study dedicated to the original liturgical meaning of the building. The available studies are either focused on much later periods when this church became S. Maria ad praesepem or ignore liturgy entirely. However, we have to pay some attention to this problem because important mosaics of this church, finished by the 430s, point unambiguously to the Roman feast of the Epiphany; I mean the scenes of the adorations of the Magi on the triumphal arch (the altar arch in the original construction). We need to know whether Santa Maria Maggiore became a part of the Epiphany stational liturgy.

The Triumphal Arch of Santa Maria Maggiore as a Liturgical Problem

The iconographic programme of the triumphal arch of the church is as follows (Table 3 and figs. 1-5).

It is beyond doubt - and, therefore, outside the scope of the present discussion - that the iconographic programme of Santa Maria Maggiore was intended to reveal this church as dedicated to the Virgin Mary. We have to pose a very natural but, so far, never-posed question about the initial place of this church in the stational liturgy of Rome. Its place since the late sixth century is known to us, but we are interested in the original setting. One can be sure that the answer may be read in the mosaics of the triumphal arch dated to the time when the church was built (projected and even performed before Sixtus III 99a). We have to factor out the compositions that point to the eschatological dimension of the Roman See (represented by the pair of apostles Peter and Paul on both sides of the eschatological vision of God's throne, the Etimasia) and the respective feast 100. We are looking now only for the very literal meaning and the calendar date. Thus, only eight compositions need to be taken into account (they are numbered in Table 3) 101. One of them (Nr. 7, fig. 5), however, has no satisfying interpretation 102.

Among the seven remaining compositions, two (Nrs. 5 and 8, fig. 1) are directly and one (Nr. 6) is indirectly connected to the adoration of the Magi. In the stational liturgy of pre-Byzantine Rome, this is an indication of the Epiphany, which becomes especially clear after having been contrasted with the lack of any specific marks of Christmas (e.g., the shepherds, a scene

Table 3. Iconographic Programme of the Triumphal Arch of Santa Maria Maggiore

(1) Annunciation (2) Doubts of Joseph Four Animal Beings (3) Presentation of Jesus (Lk 2:22-38) (4) Escape to Egypt

Apostle Etimasia (Cross Apostle Peter on the throne) Paul

(5) Adoration of the Magi In the apsis (destroyed): possibly an icon of Maria sitting with the child (7) Unidentified

(6) Massacre of the Innocents (8) Magi and scribes with Herodes

Jerusalem Bethlehem

of parturition, etc.). Such a selectivity reveals a separation between the two feasts, Christmas and Epiphany, in the Roman calendar. Thus, we have to look for a Marian feast interconnected with the Epiphany. So far, only Maria Raffaella Menna has come close to realising the connection of these mosaics with the Epiphany, but even she did not break the habit of anachronistically interpreting them within the context of Christmas 103. Most often, attempts to establish a direct link between the iconography of the basilica and certain texts, such as the Scriptures (canonical or uncanonical) or the documents ofthe Council of Ephesus (431), have resulted in a major methodological flaw. The flaw is ignoring the only real mediator between iconography and theology, together with exegesis. This medium is liturgy 104. Church iconography belongs to the liturgical space, thus being something different from the illumination of the book.

The Jerusalem Marian Feast

on the Fourth Day of the Epiphany

The feast we are looking for appeared in Jerusalem before 428 and after 394, most probably in the first quarter of the fifth century. It was celebrated on the fourth day of the Epiphany (January 9). Its liturgy is described in the Armenian lectionary of Jerusalem, where it is celebrated at Sion, that is, in the Sion basilica (h UnLfip Uhn4b "in Saint Sion") [129, p. 80/81 (txt/tr.)]. From the Armenian lectionary, we know that the main topic of the feast was the annunciation to the Virgin Mary (Gospel reading: Lk 1: 26-38; Epistle reading, Gal 4:1-7, also mentions "a woman" in 4 : 4) - the topic of the mosaic scene Nr. 1 in Santa Maria Maggiore, located in a privileged place on the altar arch of the church. The next composition (Nr. 2, Doubts of Josephus) refers to the annunciation as well. Only two or three compositions (Nrs. 3 and 4, but perhaps also Nr. 7) do not fit the Jerusalem feast of January 9.

Thus, out of eight compositions under consideration, five point to the feast known to us from contemporary Jerusalem: a commemoration of the annunciation in the octave of the Epiphany.

However, the Roman Epiphany, being a commemoration of the adoration of the Magi, preserved its difference from the Jerusalemite, which was simply identical to Christmas.

One can suppose, without having support from data from Jerusalem, that other events represented on the arch (compositions Nrs. 3, 4, and 7) were also commemorated in Rome during the octave of the Epiphany.

The Jerusalem Marian feast was earlier than, but roughly contemporaneous with, Santa Maria Maggiore. Its terminus ante quem provides a homily of Hesychius of Jerusalem; it is dated to the period before the Nestorian quarrels, that is, before 428 105. We do not know when Hesychius began to preach, but certainly before 412. Thus, the date of this homily could be even before 412. Nevertheless, for the terminus ante quem, we have only one certain date, 428.

The homily of Hesychius begins with an annunciation scene containing a long dialogue between the Virgin and Gabriel and continues with the adoration of the Magi (then finishing with a heated anti-Jewish polemic).

The terminus post quem for the feast must be established using the date of the homily of John II of Jerusalem for the dedication of the Sion Basilica, preserved in Armenian 106. In this homily, the liturgical cycle related to Sion still lacked any Marian overtones. Michel van Esbroeck dated this homily to 394, and I follow him in this. Nevertheless, Stéphane Verhelst is more sceptical: he considers 415, the date of the discovery of the relics of St Stephanus, the only certain terminus ante quem for the dedication of the basilica and the homily [159, pp. 200-203]. Be that as it may, the homily of Hesychius was certainly not much later than the establishment ofthe respective feast. The latter is broadly dated to the first quarter of the fifth century.

Having been borrowed from Jerusalem, the new Marian feast must have been sufficiently solemn. We have, at least, two indications that it indeed was so. The first one is the very existence of a homily by Hesychius: if he delivered a specific homily, then the occasion must have been worthy of it. He said, in the opening passage of the homily: ^ Se napoùoa vùv ^цера rrçç éopx^ç ûnspevSoSpç napBsvou yàp nsptsxst nav^yupw (Aubineau [16, p. 194]) ("...the festal day that is present now is the most glorious, because it contains the celebration of the Virgin..."). The second one is the subsequent history of the feast in Jerusalem. In the Georgian Jerusalem lectionary that gives evidence of the Jerusalem

liturgy as it was in the eighth century, a Marian feast on the fourth day of the Epiphany is still present (§§ 124-126) (M. Tarchnischvili [149, vol. I, [pt. 1], p. 24 (txt); vol. I, [pt 2], p. 26 (tr.)]). It is worth noting that while this feast continued to exist, its context drastically changed (in Jerusalem, the Epiphany became the commemoration of Christ's baptism and ceased to be Christmas; the Annunciation became a different feast on a different date). Nevertheless, the feast preserved its Marian character 107, thus proving (according to the second law of Baumstark) its originally high status.

Santa Maria Maggiore: The Roman Sion?

There could be little doubt that Santa Maria Maggiore was erected in order to establish, in the Roman stational liturgy, the station for the new Marian feast on the fourth day of the Epiphany. The main festal commemorations were, as in Jerusalem, the annunciation and the adoration of the Magi. Perhaps two other themes, such as the presentation of Christ in the Temple and the escape to Egypt, were commemorated on either this day or the following days of the octave of the Epiphany.

This feast has certainly not survived the sixth century, when the crib of Christ was installed in the church and the church itself became a station of the liturgy of Christmas. These processes can be dated to the Byzantine period, when the Roman Epiphany was reshaped after the Byzantine pattern - in the way that the adoration of the Magi was replaced among the commemorations of Christmas. Before this, Santa Maria Maggiore continued to be a station of the Epiphany, but only on the fourth day of the feast. It was not a station on the first day of the Epiphany.

Despite the radical changes in the respective liturgies, a meagre trace of the feast in question is preserved in the Martyrologium Hieronymianum: the commemoration of the return of Jesus from Egypt on either January 7 or 6 108. I think that those commemorations echoed the escape to Egypt once commemorated on January 9, the only one among the earlier Roman commemorations of the fourth day of the Epiphany that was not shifted to another day (as were the annunciation, the presentation of Christ, and the adoration of the Magi). Hardly any other explanation could be given for the so-far unexplained presence of the escape to Egypt

those days. Those commemorations might have been removed from their original place, feria IIII, because, by 645, that day was occupied with an additional solemn commemoration of Christ's Baptism 109.

The Marian feast on the fourth day of the Epiphany was established in Jerusalem and borrowed from there in Rome without any connection to the polemics against Nestorius. It was rather Nestorius who reacted against the rising cult of the Theotokos.

It would be interesting - but not within the scope of the present study - to check whether Santa Maria Maggiore was projected as the Roman Sion basilica patterned after the contemporary Sion basilica in Jerusalem. The latter had already been reinterpreted as the major Marian shrine.

In Jerusalem, the development of a Marian cult at Saint Sion was expressed, besides the new feast, in the florilegium of prophecies on the Holy Virgin. The florilegium was partially apocryphal and was put in the mouth of St Stephanus in early recensions of his Passio (preserved in some rare Greek manuscripts and in the Slavonic and Georgian versions); the ultimate origin of this florilegium is unknown 110. These prophecies became especially widespread during the wave of popularity of the cult of St Stephanus after the discovery of his relics near Jerusalem in 415. Among these prophecies on the Virgin who would give birth to the Messiah, there were two that did not mention any female at all, suggesting that the equation "Sion = Virgin Mary" had already been firmly established. Those were Ps 131:8 LXX ("Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy holiness") and the apocryphal Baruch: "And Baruch the prophet says: A rock (петра) will appear from the eternal mountains (фаглаетаг ало opsrav airavirav) and will smite (nma^si) the abominations of desolation (Р5е^Ьуцата/ рЗе^куца т^д ерпцюаеюд)" (quoted according to BHG 1649d and 1649h). That prophecy of Baruch on the "rock" was traceable to the apocryphal messianic prophecy, equally on the "rock" (ivx У^О "Rock of Zion"), ascribed to Joshua bar Nun in Qumran (4Q522, fr. 9, col. ii).

Another channel of influence of this Marian theology of Sion was one version of the cult of the Dormition represented in the Transitus type "Sion and the Tree of Life". This version of the Transitus texts is datable to the late fourth

century, but nothing is known about its possible contribution to the Jerusalem liturgy as early as the first quarter of the fifth century m.

Anyway, Santa Maria Maggiore originated from the new form ofthe Marian cult that appeared in Jerusalem in the first quarter of the fifth century. The new basilica must have been immediately installed in the stational liturgy of Rome, but its original location in the calendar was January 9, the fourth day of the Epiphany, without affecting the liturgy of the first day, January 6.

7.5.4. The Early Roman Stationes of the Epiphany

The stark absence of any discussion of the Epiphany stational liturgy in Rome in the monograph by John Baldovin 112 makes us feel how unexplored the field on which we have entered. Victor Saxer, in turn, did not discuss the stational liturgy of the Epiphany before the seventh century, when the Roman feast was already reshaped [136, pp. 949 and 1000]. Several facts related to an earlier period have already been known, but they appeared as random tesserae of a scattered mosaic. To put them together, we need to prefigure a general outline of the lost drawing. This becomes possible given that both Christmas and Epiphany were, in pre-seventh-century Rome, focused on Bethlehem. Thus, their stational liturgies must have been similar, i.e., structurally identical.

This means that, before Leo the Great, the place of the most solemn papal Epiphany mass was Saint Peter's. Were the Epiphany one of the most important feasts but unrelated to Bethlehem, this mass would have been celebrated within the city, perhaps in the basilica of the Saviour in the Lateran, but certainly not outside the walls. Let us recall that Saint Peter's then was far from its future status as the main papal cathedral. Therefore, our first question is whether, before the mid-fifth century, the Epiphany vigil was celebrated in Saint Peter's.

We have to answer positively even if we reject the evidence of St Ambrose related to ca. AD 353, without being able to decide definitively whether it is related to December 25 or January 6 (see above, section 6.2.2).

The next indication is the letter of the prefect of Rome, Symmachus, to Emperor Honorius, dated January 8, 419, and related to the situation

when two Popes, Eulalius and Boniface I, were consecrated almost simultaneously on December 29, 419. For the Epiphany feast, Eulalius, then backed by the prefect, celebrated in Saint Peter's in the Vatican (eo die paene cum omni multitudine ad sancti apostoli Petri basilicam solemnia celebrabat "on that day, almost with the whole multitude [of people] celebrated the feast at Saint Apostle Peter"). Boniface, who then was residing in Saint Paul's Outside the Walls, made an unsuccessful attempt to break into the city by force, despite having been previously forbidden by the prefect. The prefect anticipated this intention of Boniface's party and constrained him not to make a "procession" (processio) into the city 113. It is clear from this story that Saint Peter's was considered the proper place for the pontifical mass on the Epiphany; an important detail is that Honorius's decision to recognise Eulalius as the pope was read to the people at the same mass at Saint Peter's. It is no less clear that even the prefect, who was a pagan, understood that Saint Paul's Outside the Walls was an absolutely unsuitable place and, therefore, expected an attempt by Boniface to seize an important church within the city.

The next indication comes from Leo the Great and, so far, has never been discussed in the context of the history of liturgy 114. In his first sermon on the Epiphany delivered in 441, Pope Leo quoted 1 Pet 2:11 (Abstinite vos a carnalibus desideriis, quae militant adversus animam) and continued: quemadmodum nos praesens beatus Apostolus suis, ut legimus, uerbis hortatur 115. Unlike some other translators, Réné Dolle renders this phrase verbatim: "...comme nous y exhorte, dans les paroles que nous avons lues, le saint Apôtre présent au milieu de nous." He has commented on the words nos praesens ("présent au milieu de nous") as the following: "Les mots de saint Léon «praesens suis verbis hortatur» sembleraient indiquer que ce sermon a été prononcé dans la basilique vaticane, au milieu de laquelle reposent les restent mortels de l'Apôtre"116. Dolle hesitated in his interpretation, but his interpretation is confirmed by the evidence from 419.

We have to conclude that, by the beginning of the pontificate of Leo the Great, Saint Peter's in the Vatican continued to be the main location of the celebration of the Epiphany.

It seems that the situation changed in 444. In the fourth homily on the Epiphany (444), Leo the Great proposed an unusual parallel to the Magi:

Et haec quidem, quantum ad inlumina-tionem fidei pertinebat, potuerunt illis credita et intellecta sufficere, ut corporali intuitu non inquirerent quod ple-nissimo uisu mentis inspexerant. Sed diligentia sagacis officii usque ad uidendum puerum perseverans, futuri temporis populis et nostri saeculi homin-ibus seruiebat, ut sicut omnibus nobis profuit, quod post resurrec-tionem Domini ues-tigia uulnerum in carne eius Thomae apostoli exploravit manus, ita ad nostram utilitatem proficeret, quod infan-tiam ipsius magorum probauit aspectus 117.

These things, certainly, in being believed and understood (to the extent that they pertained to the enlightenment of faith) were able to suffice for them. They did not search out with physical vision that which they had seen in the fullest sight of mind. Yet their diligence in this service to wisdom persevered until they saw the child, and this diligence thereby benefited the people of a future age and those of our own time. Just as it benefited us for Thomas the apostle to feel with his hand the marks left by wounds on the Lord's body after his Resurrection, so also it profits us that the wise men (theMagi. - B. L.) gave proof of his Infancy in beholding him. St Leo the Great [102, p. 146].

This association between the Magi and Apostle Thomas could not have been derived from the standard homiletical or exegetical traditions. It is quite unexpected. It must have been something unfamiliar to Leo himself that provoked it. What? We can give an answer based on our previous conclusion that, in Rome, the stational liturgy of the Epiphany repeated the liturgy of Christmas. If so, it must have been celebrated in Saint Peter's (long vigil) and Saint Anastasia's (morning mass). Under Leo the Great, however, the most solemn papal mass must have been shifted from the night at Saint Peter to the morning at Saint Anastasia, while Saint Anastasia was considered the Roman equivalent of the Jerusalem Martyrion and/or the Anastasis. In this new environment, a topic related to the Resurrection would have come to the mind of the preacher quite naturally.

The fourth homily on the Epiphany thus is evidence of both the shifting of the most solemn pontifical mass from the night at Saint Peter's to the morning at Saint Anastasia and of the date of this change, presuming that Leo was not yet accustomed to preaching on the Epiphany at

a church dedicated to the Resurrection. If the stational liturgy of the Epiphany was changed on January 6, 444, then the stational liturgy of Christmas might have been changed on December 25, 443.

I would refrain from making guesses about the reasons behind this reform of the stational liturgy 118. Instead, I would evaluate its likelihood in a more formal way, using the principles of inductive logic.

The conclusion that Leo the Great shifted the highest moment of celebration from the vigil at Saint Peter's to the morning mass at Saint Anastasia is based on three main arguments corroborating each other:

The parallelism between the feasts of Christmas and Epiphany - the a priori likelihood of a parallel change of the stational liturgies of both feasts by the same pope - is great.

St Anastasia's commemoration on the Epiphany: an important fact increasing the a posteriori likelihood that the Anastasia church was, in the mid-fifth century, the principal station of the Epiphany stational liturgy.

Leo's parallel between the Magi and Apostle Thomas was expressed in the sermon on the Epiphany in 444: another fact increasing the a posteriori likelihood of the reform.

These three circumstances occur together, which would be extremely unlikely were they not mutually dependent, that is, were they not consequences of a single fact, namely, that, by the middle of the fifth century, St Anastasia became the main station of the liturgy of the Epiphany.

This period was not too long. When Pope Symmachus made Saint Peter's the principal cathedral of Rome, the main pontifical mass of the Epiphany must have returned there (however, not during the night vigil but as a morning mass). It evidenced this situation in later documents but is traceable back to the sixth century 119. The Epiphany liturgy at St Anastasia seems to have been abandoned entirely, either under Symmachus or, at the latest, in the Byzantine period, when the Roman Epiphany lost its twinship with Christmas. These developments are represented in Table 4.

7.5.5. St Basilissa Commemorated on the Epiphany

If the original cult of Sts Bassilla/Basilissa and Anastasia was a cult of paired saints, one

has to expect some traces of commemoration of each of them not only on Christmas but also on the Epiphany. Indeed, such traces exist. The commemoration of Bassilla/Basilissa joined the cult of St Eugenia on Christmas, and on the Epiphany, she was transferred to the cult of St Julian 120.

The cult of the historical martyr Julian emerged in Cilicia no later than in the mid-fourth century. Then, it was rapidly propagated throughout the Christian world, with many ramifications, many avatars having quite different biographies, and many relics. The legend of the Julian venerated in Rome goes back to his Egyptian avatar, Julian of Antinoopolis, martyrized under Diocletian (it remains unknown whether this Julian has had any local historical prototype). His Passio was composed in Greek (approximately but not exactly identical to BHG 971 121). His relics were venerated in the cathedral of Antinoopolis, where the baptismal font was reputed to be miraculous, and where his commemoration day was the Epiphany, January 6 - apparently because of an implied connection between the Baptism of Jesus and the miraculous baptismal font of St Julian. This cult of the Egyptian Julian was accepted in Rome on the same day of commemoration, the Epiphany 122

In Rome, however, the Latin translation of the Passio was preserved with the addition of the document (often called Vita), where St Julian became the husband of St Basilissa. The resulting composite legend is BHL 4529 123; the Greek Vita et Passio (BHG 971b = BHG 971 + BHG 970) is the same legend as BHL 4529. According to this new legend, the couple preserved their virginity, and both spouses became monastic leaders. Then, when Diocletian's persecution began, Basilissa and her thousand nuns peacefully

passed away, whereas Julian and his companions underwent martyrdom.

Anne P. Alwis has demonstrated, in a very strict way (based on linguistic observations), that, in the part corresponding to the Vita, it is the Greek text that is a translation of the Latin, whereas, in the part corresponding to the Passio, the Latin is a translation of the Greek 124. The entire plot line of Basilissa is, therefore, a local addition made in a Latin-speaking milieu.

Alwis made another important observation that we can now interpret as proving that this story of Basilissa was a product of Roman hagiography (or, at least, inspired by it). This story was patterned after the model of the Passio Caeciliae, following its model even in rather minor details 125. Alwis was unaware of the then-recent study by Lanery proving that the Passio Caeciliae is a work of Arnobius the Younger 126 (see above, section 4.4).

These philological considerations still leave open the possibility that the Vita of Basilissa and Julian was composed somewhere in a Latin-speaking milieu outside Rome, but this possibility must be excluded by hagiographical considerations: there was an important cult of Bassilla/Basilissa in Rome, and this cult underwent transformations in the time of the literary activity of Arnobius the Younger, who was working in Rome. Therefore, the Rome of Arnobius the Younger and Leo the Great would have been the right place for creating the Latin legend of Basilissa, making her a virginal spouse and a companion of St Julian of Antinoopolis. A substantially later hagiographer would have hardly shared the hagiographical fashion then in vogue, used in the early Roman legend of St Anastasia as well, even though the legend of Anastasia did not include a virginal marriage 127 (see above, section 4.4).

Table 4. Main Stages of Development of the Roman Stational Liturgy of the Epiphany (Tentative Reconstruction)

Stage Date Evening Midnight Early Morning Later in the Morning

I Before Leo the Great A long vigil in Saint Peter's - Mass in Saint Anastasia

II Leo the Great (since 444) Mass in Saint Peter's - - Most solemn mass in Anastasia

III Since Symmachus Mass in Saint Peter's - - Most solemn mass in Saint Peter's

7.5.6. Bassilla/Basilissa and Anastasia

between Christmas and Epiphany

The influence of the Passio Caeciliae (or. at least, similarity with it) is an argument for a common Sitz im Leben of both the early Roman Passio Anastasiae (the Roman predecessor of BHL 401) and the Vita of Julian and Basilissa. It was likely Rome if the second quarter of the fifth century, in circles close to Arnobius the Younger. The third legend, "encapsulated" in the Passio of St Eugenia, where Bassilla/Basilissa is patterned after Domitilla - like Anastasia in her early Roman legend - does not show any particular affinity with Arnobius but, otherwise, reveals a similar provenance.

St Julian was commemorated in Rome, also on December 26, near Christmas. Delehaye and Quentin have treated this commemoration as an error 128, like the commemoration of St Anastasia on the Epiphany. Rizos rightly considers both commemorations as genuine [132, p. 120]. Rizos seems to be right in his supposition that even St Juliana of Nicomedia, commemorated on December 21, is an avatar of St Julian 129; a senatorial lady named Sophia translated the relics of St Juliana from Nicomedia to Rome 130, thus making her one of the Roman saints.

One can see that the commemoration of St Julian, like that of St Anastasia, oscillated between Christmas and the Epiphany. However, when, in the Byzantine period, Christmas and the Epiphany were no longer twins, the former stopped at the Epiphany, whereas the latter stopped at Christmas. St Julian's dossier, by its eastern roots, was attached to the baptismal waters, whereas the cult of St Anastasia developed in connection with the Christmas stational liturgy. The destiny of St Bassilla/ Basilissa was the most difficult. She split into two avatars: one for Christmas, attached to St Eugenia, and another for the Epiphany, attached to St Julian (see Fig. 6).

On fig. 6, the early Roman Anastasia legend is marked with an asterisk because it is accessible only indirectly through the late recension BHL 401, which I consider to have already been translated from Greek within the composite Byzantine legend created in Constantinople in 468-470. The legends of Anastasia and Petronilla will be dealt with below (Section 9).

7.6. The Early Roman Legend of St Anastasia: Predecessors and Posteriority

Even before analysing our final legend, that of Anastasia and Petronilla (see Section 9), we are authorised to outline a stem (Fig. 7) summarising the data on the predecessors and the posteriority of the early Roman legend of Anastasia (that could be called, with a simplification, "proto-BHL 401").

Fig. 7 encompasses the entire Oriental dossier, with the exception of the Passio of Anastasia the Virgin and its derivatives, which incorporate elements from the early Byzantine Anastasia legend. Fig. 7 does not contain the details of the transformation of the historical Anastasia as the daughter of Gallus and Constantina into a companion of Bassilla and, then, into the standalone martyr buried by Apollonia; these details will be discussed in the next section, focused on the burial of St Anastasia in Rome (see Fig. 8).

Conclusions

The name Anastasia as the name of a Roman saint goes back to fourth-century Roman legends related to the Imperial family, when the name Anastasia itself pointed to descendants of emperors. These legends were relatively shortlived because they belonged to the Nicaean milieux and were directed against the ruling Arian dynasty, which made them unfitting with the later cult of Constantine the Great in the non-Arian state church.

The original name of the historical martyr in Sirmium was certainly not Anastasia, and it is very likely that it was Bassilla. The cult of St Bassilla was also important for pre-Byzantine Rome.

The church that was later called St Anastasia was built in the fourth century as the Roman equivalent of the Jerusalem Martyrion (whereas St Peter's was the Roman equivalent of the Jerusalem Bethlehem basilica) in the Roman stational liturgy of Christmas, because this stational liturgy was patterned after the respective stational liturgy of Jerusalem. This church was dedicated to the resurrection (anastasis) of Christ.

The role of this church (and its dedication) changed during the sixth century, when it was mostly replaced in the Roman stational liturgy with the Santa Maria Maggiore church. However,

I have argued that the original purpose of the Santa Maria Maggiore church (constructed in the fifth century) was to adopt in Rome the new Jerusalem Marian feast on the fourth day of Epiphany. In this way, Santa Maria Maggiore was initially the Roman equivalent of the Jerusalem Sion basilica.

To be continued...

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author expresses his gratitude to André Binggeli, Elizabeth Castelli, Megan Dixon, Alexandra Elbakyan, Habib Ibrahim, Kai Juntunen, Maria Lidova, Fiodar Litvinau, Nicolai Markovich, Ugo Mondini, Oscar Santillino, Peter Shuvalov, Alexander Simonov, Pavel Turkin, Antonello Vilella, Andrey Vinogradov, and Nataliya Yanchevskaya.

NOTES

* This work was accomplished with the financial support of RFBR grant No. 21-012-41005, "Jerusalem and Understudied Apocrypha in Slavonic Translations: Textology, History, and Doctrines".

** The beginning see: Lourié B. Five Anastasiae and Two Febroniae: A Guided Tour in the Maze of Anastasia Legends. Part One. The Oriental Dossier. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 4. Istoriya. Regionovedenie. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [Science Journal of Volgograd State University. History. Area Studies. International Relations], 2021, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 252-289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu4.202L6.20

1 Ed. Bollandus, Henschenius [25, pp. 280-281]; no Greek version is known.

2 His legend BHG 149 (ed. Musurillo [124, pp. xxiii-xxv, 90-105]) is best preserved in the Armenian version BHO 79 in a fifth-century manuscript; the Armenian text is not taken into account by Musurillo. For parallel Russian translations of both the Greek (by A.G. Dunaev) and Armenian (by VA. Arutyunova-Fidanyan) texts, with a discussion of the status quaestionis, see [4, pp. 374-416].

3 As Hans Teitler noticed, "Rome was seldom visited by the emperors in late antiquity. However, the prestige of the Eternal City remained as great as ever. It does not come as a surprise, therefore, that many stories about Julian's supposed persecution are situated in Rome, although the Apostate never went to the city" [150, p. 129].

4 No mention is made in Lanéry [99] and Lapidge [100]. Cf., however, Teitler [150, pp. 129-130, 192], on earlier Apollonia and Apollonius, from whom this pair is derived.

5 Ed. J. Dubois, G. Renaud [62, pp. 82-83]; repeated on February 20, at the earlier day of St Apollonia of Alexandria [63, p. 90]. Cf. [62, p. 36] (Apollonia of Alexandria, on February 20, appears in the first recension of Florus, shortly before 837).

6 From the Greek version of this Passio is preserved only an entry in the Synaxarium of Constantinople on July 6. The plot is the following: the barbarian king Auceia captured the Roman Christian virgin Luceia, who made him an admirer of Christianity while still not a Christian. After twenty years, Luceia received a vision that she must return to Rome for martyrdom; Auceia left his kingdom with her for participating in martyrdom and thus became a Christian through the baptism with his own blood. Eventually, both were martyrized, along with twenty other martyrs. The list of the latter is provided by the Latin legend and repeated in the Greek entry, but in the Hieronymianum, it is repeated twice (on December 18 and 19) with several deviations, including the name change from the masculine Apollonius to the feminine Apollonia. The legend seems not to have been studied after 1931, according to the commentary of Delehaye to the Hieronymianum.

7 See [114, p. 222] (Constantina 2) and especially Julia Hillner [78].

8 Ed. Bollandus, Henschenius [25, col. 280]: Recedente autem Dina, & domum suam intrante, venit diabolus in modum canis, gutturique eius insiluit, ceciditque ad terram, & fracto collo eius exspirauit ("When Dina returned home and entered his house, the devil in the appearance of a dog went and sprang at her throat, and she fell on the ground, and, having her neck broken, she died").

9 Edition: Kotter [93, pp. 183-245]; tr. (near to complete) by Marc Vermes with detailed commentaries by Samuel Lieu [68, pp. 210-262].

10 Homiliae in Epistulam ad Philippenses, 16 (P. Allen [8, p. 314/315 (txt/tr)]; in the older numeration, homily 15: Ioannes Chrysostomus [82, cols. 287-298]; for the place and time of preaching (unclear), see esp. P. Allen, W. Mayer [9].

11 Constantius II, with his second wife Eusebia, and the wife of Julian, the future Apostate, are quite recognizable in the continuation of this passage: "...and the latter also saw his wife destroyed by pessaries. You see, because she couldn't give birth, a wretched and miserable sort of woman (I mean, she was wretched and miserable because she hoped to provide God's gift through her own cleverness) administered pessaries and destroyed the empress and herself as well". The whole passage is the following: Trav naiSrav оштоС о ^ev eaurov aveilev, тао Tupavvou KaTal^Qeic, о 5e tov aveyidv tov абтои KoivravowTa т^с PaciXeiac аитф, "v auTOc ¿vexeipiae^ Kai t^v yovaiKa eiSev тао neccrav 5laф0apeícav. '^c Y&P оик gTiKTe, yuv^ Tic

àBXia Kai xalaircœpoç àBXia yàp Kai xalaircœpoç, q xà xoù 0eoù Sœpov qXrcice Si' oiKeiaç rcapé^eiv co^iœ^ neccoùç Soùca, Sié^Beipe xqv PaaiXiSa, Kai cwSie^Bâpq Kai aùxq. Eusebia died in 360 precisely because of the unfortunate treatment of her sterility; Helena (the daughter of Constantine I and Fausta and the paternal first cousin of her husband) died in the same year. The mutual relations of the two women were intensive and provoked many rumors; both had severe problems with reproductive health. Historically, however, it was more Eusebia who tried to help Helena than vice versa. For Chrysostom's passage on Eusebia and Helena in the context of the other sources, see esp. N. Ajoulat [7, pp. 444-445 et passim].

12 Julian wrote (in his Letter to the Athenians) about Constantius II as the murderer of Gallus, calling the latter, among others, Constantius's "niece's father" (xàv àSeX^iSqç rcaxépa) [23, p. 218].

13 See [39, pp. 146-148]. Mostly (but not entirely) repeated in Chausson's monograph [38].

14 For the procedures of inductive logic, one can recommend an especially useful textbook by Lolita Makeeva [111].

15 Minor premise is (3), major premise is (4), from which (5) follows by modus ponens.

16 "Le nom de l'une des filles, Anastasia, intrigue: dans les années 360 il n'est pas encore répandu dans l'aristocratie, mais il est celui d'une sœur de Constantin et sans doute de la fille de Gallus et de Constantina (si l'on suit la plausible reconstitution d'A. Silvagni). Dès lors, on en vient à se demander si Valens n'épousa pas une parente des Constantinides"; Chausson [38, p. 167].

17 Praetextatus 1 in [114, pp. 722-724]; for Christian reactions, see Lapidge [100, pp. 64-65, fn. 48]. In the brith's date of Praetextatus, I follow M. Kahlos [89, p. 17]. On Praetextatus, most recently, see M.S. Petrova [3].

18 Cf. Kahlos [89] and Kahlos [90]. For a convenient presentation of the sources with long quotations in the original languages, cf. U. Reutter [131, pp. 31-56]. Nevertheless, even Damasus's attitude toward Praetextatus would not have been without ambiguity, as was shown by Lellia Cracco Ruggini [47].

19 Hieronymus, Contra Ioannem Hierosolymitanum Episcopum ad Pammachium, 8: Miserabilis Praetextatus, qui designatus consul est mortuus. Homo sacrilegus, et idolorum cultor... (ed. J.L. Feiertag [67, p. 15]).

20 Ed. Moretti [123, p. 114]; tr.: Lapidge [100, p. 67].

21 Ed. Moretti [123, p. 118]; tr. Lapidge [100, p. 68].

22 See [114, pp. 957-958 (Victor 4) and p. 983 (Vrbicius)].

23 Including even the radical viewpoint of David Woods that there was no translation from Tarsus at all [165]. Woods's arguments are addressed and convincingly refuted by Mark J. Johnson in his study, important also in other respects: M.J. Johnson [86]. However, Johnson cautiously and correctly does not conclude, from the untenability of Woods's arguments, that the event actually took place.

24 J. Arce [15, p. 184], referring to the edict of Leo I from August 13, 457 (Codex Iustinianus, 1.5.9), as a possible reason for the reburial; in this reference, the author follows Raissa Calza [32, p. 366, n. 7]. However, this edict by Leo I (preserved in Greek only) is dedicated to the burial of heretics but not pagans: "Since we have considered it to be human and holy, we order heretics to be buried with the customary burial rites (0arcxea0ai xaic vevo^ia^evaic xa^aic)"; ed. P. Krueger [96, p. 79]; tr.: P. R. Coleman-Norton [44, p. 861] (with a note on the actual context of the edict: Leo I's dependence on the Arians). This edict has nothing to do with Julian. Alternatively, however, Arce allows Grierson's dating of the reburial to the early 390s [15, p. 190].

25 For the reburial of any emperor, an order of the acting emperor would have been necessary; see, for the relevant legislation, Johnson [86].

26 Johnson [87, pp. 259-260]. Cf.: "This linkage suggests that the burials occurred within a common time frame, perhaps during the reign of Jovian's successor, Valens..." [87, p. 260].

27 On his Oratio 24, Upon Avenging Julian, see P.-L. Malosse [112]. The relevant place is Or. 24.10 [68]. It is remarkable that Libanius mentioned that the Emperors had sent inspectors (Kai xouc aKgyo^evouc ene^nov) for rebuilding the mausoleum; this fact points to a remote place and, therefore, excludes an interpretation that a mausoleum in the capital is meant.

28 In his Historia, 25.10.5: "But his remains and ashes, if anyone then showed sound judgement, ought not to be looked on by the Cydnus [the river in Tarsus. -B.L. ], although it is a beautiful and clear stream, but to perpetuate the glory of his noble deeds they should be laved by the Tiber, which cuts through the eternal city and flows by the memorials of the deified emperors of old (...sed adperpetuandam gloriam recte factorum praeterlambere Tiberis, intersecans urbem aeternam divorumque veterum monumentapraestringens)" [14, pp. 558/557, 559 (txt/tr.)].

29 M.J. Johnson [88, p. 122]. Here he mentions confidently the reburial of Julian, but without trying to date it: "At some later, unknown time the remains of Julian were transferred to this 'stoa' from his tomb in Tarsus". Moreover, Johnson admits here the possibility that the sarcophagus of Valentinian, "the location of which is not specified in any of the sources", was also removed to the North Stoa.

30 Julian's speech to his army in Ammianus Marcellinus, Historia, 23.5.18 [14, p. 344].

31 The existence of a pre-Damasian church follows from the literal sense of the inscription by Pope Hilarius (461-468), ICL 901 (Nr 81 among the Damasian epigrams). Hilarius replaced the Damasian frescoes in the Anastasia church with mosaics and made a versified inscription, where the former work of Damasus is summarised as follows: Antistes Damasus picturae ornarathonore/ tecta... ("Bishop Damasus honourably adorned the roofs with paintings..."). Decorating roofs does not imply constructing the church itself, whereas it does imply the existence of a pre-Damasian church with undecorated roofs. The inscription has been read in this way by the archaeologist Philip B. Whitehead [164, p. 412] and a number of others, but not by Richard Krautheimer, who concluded from the same text of Hilarius: "Questo [the pontificate years of Damasus] dovrebbe essere stato percio il periodo nel quale fu eretta la chiesa..." [94, p. 62].

32 The existence of the pre-Damasian Anastasia church is now rather a common opinion, not rejected even by the sceptical Margherita Cecchelli: "Anche se la chiesa, in ogni modo, si dovesse considerare predamasiana, un fatto e detto fin da principio: Damaso rivolse ad essa una sua significativa attenzione..." [35, p. 47].

33 Tractatus beati Leonis papae contra haerisim Eutychis dictus ad populum in basilica sanctae Anastasiae [41, vol. 2, p. 593] (Tractatus 96; with variant readings, which, in some manuscripts, add virginis or marthyris [sic!], but never omit sanctae; Chavasse argued [41, vol. 2, p. 591], that the addition virginis is not authentic: it belongs to a later branch of the manuscript tradition and would have been influenced by the cult of Anastasia the Virgin). For the date of the homily, see Chavasse's introduction [41, vol. 2, pp. 591-592].

34 See Chavasse's introduction [41, vol. 2, p. 591]. Cf. Diefenbach [59, pp. 351-352].

35 Chavasse's introduction [41, vol. 2, p. 592].

36 Michele Renee Salzman substantiated this view [134].

37 John Baldovin has concluded that "...although stational practice was very familiar by the mid-fifth century, for the most part stations continued to be flexible, i.e., they were announced when the need arose" [18, p. 147]. However, the most solemn celebrations, including Christmas, must have been an exception to this rule of flexibility, as the available sources confirm (see below). There are some errors in Baldovin's description of the Roman liturgy, including facts relating to the Anastasia cult; thus, he writes that December 25 was her commemoration day in Constantinople [18, p. 159], and even enumerates the tituli of Anastasia and Chrysogonus among the

churches that "appear to have been in use prior to the fourth century" [18, p. 112]. For the Roman stational liturgy, see especially V. Saxer [136].

38 C. Vogel [160, p. 29-30] (Vogel's italics).

39 "At some point in the sixth century" [18, p. 157].

40 V. Saxer [137, pp. 53-58]. Per Olav Folgera's counterargumentation is purely speculative because there is no evidence of historical links between the cited theological passages and the construction of the church at issue [69]. The same could be repeated about Eileen Rubery's study [133, pp. 299-308]. Despite having noticed the lack of the Nativity (parturition) scene in what she considers to be a Nativity cycle [133, pp. 290-291], the author does not try to explain this striking feature (for my explanation, see below, section 7.5.3); the author's attempt to reinterpret the Egyptian town on the shore of Nile (depicted on the triumphal arch of the church) as Alexandria, the city of St Cyril [133, pp. 305-306] remains unfounded in any texts whatsoever.

41 Baldovin [18, p. 157] put forward a guess that the mass at Santa Maria Maggiore was inspired by the Council of Ephesus (431) already in the fifth century, anachronistically considering this church to have become the Roman replica of Bethlehem by this time.

42 "This addition may well have been a bow to the Byzantine imperial administration of the city, located on the Palatine, quite near Sta. Anastasia" (Baldovin [18, p. 157]). Hansjörg Auf der Maur wrote even earlier: "Es ist nicht bekannt, wann der Papst dort zum ersten mal auf dem Zug von St Maria Maggiore nach St Peter - möglicherweise aus Freundlichkeit gegenüber den byzantinischen Beamten auf dem Palatin?" [17, p. 170]. Auf der Maur's opinion is repeated by Michael Kunzler [97], accessible to me in the Italian translation [98, p. 563]. In fact, there is no source referring to any kind of "courtier" status of this church or the rituals within it. Such an explanation is quite an arbitrary hypothesis that became popular faute de mieux.

43 A. Baumstark [20]. Baumstark considered the first two of Baumstark's laws (the Law of Organic Development and Das Gesetz der Erhaltung des Alten in liturgisch hochwertiger Zeit) as different from the other regularities and rules of liturgical development (sometimes called "Baumstark's laws" as well); only these two laws are described in the chapter "Les lois de l'évolution liturgique" [20, pp. 17-34]. These two laws are fundamental in the way that they regulate the very principles of, respectively, change and continuity in the liturgy, or, in other words, "growth and conservation", whereas other "laws" pertain to details; cf. very helpful observations by Fritz (Frederick) S. West in his unpublished dissertation [161, p. 290] and also in [162, p. 28]. Robert Taft enumerated as

many as ten "laws" of Baumstark, providing for the original first and second laws numbers 8 and 9 [147]. In this classification, which is very useful otherwise, the exceptional nature of the two fundamental laws (without quotes) is somewhat obscured; cf. Taft's own explanation of his break with Baumstark's original classification [147, p. 197].

44 Such as, e.g., fermentum, a custom implying that the priests, unlike the bishops, are not allowed to celebrate Eucharist; it was still in force in fifth-century Rome. See, for details, Saxer [136, pp. 924-930]. However, the priests were authorised to celebrate the Eucharist in the Roman suburbs.

45 Tractatus 27.4: Quodnonnulli etiam christiani adeo se religiose facere putant, utpriusquam ad beati Petri apostoli basilicam, quae uni Deo uiuo et uero est dedicata, perueniant, superatis gradibus quibus ad suggestum areae superioris ascenditur, conuerso corpore ad nascentem se solem reflectant, et curuatis ceruicibus in honorem se splendidi orbis inclinent ([41, vol. 1, p. 135]; tr.: "Even some Christians think that they behave devoutly when, before arriving at the basilica of the blessed Apostle Peter (which has been dedicated to the one living and true God), they climb the steps which go up to the platform on the upper level, turn themselves around towards the rising sun, and bow down to honor its shining disk" [102, p. 113].

46 Oddly enough, Salzman quotes this passage among the places where Leo himself "explicitly" attested to Saint Peter's as the location of the papal mass [134, p. 216 and Table I on p. 219].

47 As was already explained at length by Franz Dolger [61, pp. 3-4 and 19-20].

48 Epistula 23 [83, cols. 544-547].

49 For the date of this event, from 352 to 354, see a summary of the discussion in Sant' Ambrogio [12, p. 206, n. 1]. A seemingly outdated opinion that Ambrose described here as a scene that took place on January 6 (Epiphany) and not on December 25 has been revisited by Martin F. Connell [45; 46, pp. 164-168]. If Connell's hypothesis is true, it would corroborate my opinion that the feasts of Christmas and Epiphany were, in fourth-century Rome, twins whose stational liturgies were identical (see below, section 7.5.2).

50 De virginibus, 3.1: Namque is, cum Salvatoris natali ad apostolum Petrum virginitatis professionem vestis quoque mutatione signares, (quo enim melius die, quam quo virgo posteritatem acquisivit?) astantibus etiam puellis Dei compluribus quae certarent invicem de tua societate... [34, p. 57]; tr.: "...when on the Nativity of the Saviour in the Church of St Peter you signified your profession of virginity by your change of attire (and what day could be better than that on which the Virgin received her child?) whilst many virgins were standing round and vying with each other for your companionship..." [13, p. 381].

51 Therefore, H. Auf der Maur cautiously wrote: "Die Statio in St Peter ist vielleicht schon durch Ambrosius (De virginibus 3,1) sicher jedoch durch Coelestin I. um 432 bezeugt (Ep. 23,4) <should be 23,5>" [17, p. 169-170]. Cp. too categorical statements by recent authors: "Ambrose tells us that Liberius celebrated Christmas at Saint Peter's in the presence of a large group of nuns..." (A. Thacker [152, p. 140]); "since the middle of the fourth century: probably, ever since the Constantinian basilica was completed"; "the day Mass on Christmas Day was celebrated at Saint Peter's" (E.O. Can-again [33, p. 178]).

52 On the history of Christmas in Jerusalem, see, esp. M. van Esbroeck [156].

53 Cf. Renoux's note [129, pp. 44, 76, n. 4, 77,

n. 2].

54 See Renoux [129, pp. 72/73-76/77 (txt/tr.)].

55 On this place, see Renoux [129, pp. 64-65].

56 The direction of movements after the station at the Shepherds is not indicated, but implied, in the earliest recension of the Lectionary, but is recoverable on the basis of later recensions.

57 The liturgy at the first station was certainly no shorter than one hour but hardly longer than two hours. The most plausible approximate schedule would have been the following: "Shepherds" from 4 to 5.30 p.m.; a procession from about 6 p.m. to about 7.30 p.m.; "the cave" from about 8 p.m. to about 11 p.m.; and the beginning of the vigil in the basilica was after that, close to midnight. The vigil could hardly have been shorter than five hours, and most probably it was longer.

58 Renoux [129, p. 76]; the lacunae (in square brackets) are filled according to Renoux [130, p. 66, n. 1].

59 H. Grisar [75, pp. 595-618]. To this hypothesis, e.g., C. Cerrito still refers with sympathy [36, p. 353, n. 33].

60 The first Anastasia known to me is the one buried in the Catacombs of Priscilla, marked by the inscription ICUR 23082 (on the marble tablet, now lost) Anastasia / vivas in / aeternitatem ("Anastasia, may you live in eternity"), dated to the period from 275 to 325. Of course, nothing is known about her, while it looks a priori unlikely that she was a relative of Constantine the Great. The entire corpus of the Roman Christian Inscriptions, previously published in the series established by G. B. de Rossi in 1857 and continued until presently, ICUR (Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae), is now available as the database EDB [66]. Here and below, I quote this database.

61 See, at the latest for the former consensus date (336 as the terminus ante quem), Th. J. Talley [148, p. 85]; for the recent scholarship and criticisms of the former consensus, see C.P.E. Nothaft [127] and [126].

62 Ed. F. Glorie [72, p. 321]. The basilica of St Chrysogonus occupies the thirteenth place in this list [72, p. 322].

63 Salzman argues that actually Leo and not Symmachus had already made this step [134]. I am not sure that this is not an oversimplification.

64 Ed. D. Mauskopf Deliyannis [117, p. 169-170]; tr.: [6, pp. 118-120].

65 See, for a discussion, F. W. Deichmann [51, pp. 300-303]; D. Mauskopf Deliyannis [116, pp. 174177 and 367, n. 189]. Mauskopf Deliyannis argues, against Deichmann, for a possible confusion in the dedication of the church mentioned in the 551 papyrus (Tjäder P34), between Anastasis and St Anastasia. Her arguments seem to me not especially convincing, and one of them is wrong: "It is also significant that on the papyrus the church is always Anastasie, not Anastasiae, although other genitives are given in -ae" [116, p. 367, n. 189]. This is true only for the subscriptions under the document; however, there is a mention of this church in the beginning of the papyrus as follows: n]ostr[a]e sanctae A[n]astasiae; cf. edition in: P. Scardigli [138, S. 275].

66 Etymologically correct is the spelling Bassilla, from the name Bassus; see F. Savio [135].

67 Unlike Nau, I do not think that bsylys should be read as an otherwise unknown name, "Basilis", because it is one of the possible correct renderings of the popular name "Basilissa".

68 Rossi, Delehaye [50, col. 112]; Quentin, Delehaye [56, pp. 474-475].

69 Delehaye [54, pp. 603-605] and (with a short epitome of their legend) [54, pp. 609-610].

70 Prolog [5, ff. 239r-239v]. No critical edition of the respective half-year exists.

71 The mention of this pair was included in 1586 by Caesar Baronius in the Martyrologium Romanum, but the Bollandists have commented that these saints Romae plane ignotae sunt ("Obviously are unknown in Rome"); Delehaye, Peeters, Coens, de Gaiffier, Grosjean, Halkin [55, p. 139].

72 M. van Esbroeck [155]; В.М. Лурье [2].

73 See M. Lapidge [100, pp. 228-249]fortextological problems and an English translation based on the text of the earliest recension established by E. Gordon Whatley for his so far unpublished critical edition.

74 The martyrdom of Eugenia, Basilla, and all those with them, according to this Passio, took place under persecutions by Gallienus (reigned in 260-268), the son of Emperor Valerian (reigned in 253-260). In fact, Gallienus halted the persecution that his father had started and issued a series of edicts in favour of the Christians. The acting time of the Passio begins, however, under Commodus (reigned in 180-192) and ends under Gallienus. During all this time, Eugenia and others, of course, remain young.

75 Cf. Lapidge [48, p. 36]. Nevertheless, one has to keep in mind that the motif was quite widespread, e.g., B. de Gaiffier [49].

76 See Delehaye [52, pp. 171-186].

77 The pre-Metaphrastic recensions BHG 607w-607z are unpublished. The only published one is the Metaphrastic recension BHG 608: PG 116 [120, cols. 609-652].

78 BHO 282 = BHS 143: P. Bedjan [21, pp. 469514]; the earliest manuscript is published by A. Smith Lewis [144, vol. 1, pp. 1-48 (txt), vol. 2, pp. 1-35 (tr.)].

79 According to the 11th-century Menologium Sinaiticus ar. 398, ff. 244r sqq., I am very grateful to Habib Ibrahim for having sent me his transcription of the relevant pages of the manuscript. Cf. Ibrahim [81, p. 74].

80 BHO 281 [167, pp. 371-389].

81 Smith Lewis [144, vol. 1, p. 33]; also "Basilina" (K-^.rnn): Bedjan [21, pp. 499, 508].

82 Delehaye [54, p. 341]: BaciXicca cu^apxuprçcaca xfl áyia Eùyevia ^<Í9£i> x<eXeioùxai>. Not mentioned in St Eugenia's entry on December 24, because the entries for this pre-Christmas day are very short. In the Ethiopian version (BHO 283 and 284), the part related to Basilla is lacking entirely: J. Goodspeed [73]. Perhaps the Ethiopic version goes back to an earlier recension of the Passio of Eugenia, still unconnected to the plot line of Bassilla.

83 Ed. by F. Glorie [72, p. 305]. The manuscript is Codex Vindobonensis 795.

84 ScriptoresHistoriaeAugustae [79, p. 56]. Otto Seeck ranged this mention among the inventions (eine der vielen Erfindungen) of the author of the Historia Augusta [139, col. 222].

85 Critical edition: Das Kalenderhandbuch von 354. Der Chronograph des Filocalus [60, p. 501]; the text survived in three manuscripts from the early 16th to the 17th century. The most popular earlier (uncritical) edition is: Chronica minora saec. IV. V. VI. VII. [122, p. 72]; tr.: Lapidge [100, p. 636].

86 Cf., on September 9, Gorgonii in Lavicana ("Gorgonius in Via Labicana"), one of the pair of Dorotheus and Gorgonius martyrized in Nicomedia under Diocletian, whose relics were translated to Rome; cf. commentary in Das Kalenderhandbuch von 354 [60, p. 511].

87 The same date, AD 304 (the ninth consulship of Diocletian and the eighth of Maximian), is indicated for Parthenius and Calogerus on May 18, but some other sources, including the Martyrologium Hieronymianum, place them under Decius; Das Kalenderhandbuch von 354 [60, p. 503]. The most enigmatic is the date of AD 258 for Peter and Paul under June 29: Petri in Catacumbas et Pauli Ostense Tusco et Basso cons. (cf. commentaries in: Das Kalenderhandbuch von

354 [60, p. 504], and, especially, in P. Testini [151, pp. 224-230]; the most popular approach consists in interpreting AD 258 as the date of one translation of the relics, perhaps only the heads). Beside these three cases, there is no absolute dating in the Depositio martyrum. Hans Lietzmann supposed that the 304 dates for Parthenius and Calogerus and for Bassilla are also those of translations [106, pp. 84-88].

88 Das Kalenderhandbuch von 354 [60, p. 501] (Hermetis in Basillae Salaria vetere) and commentary [60, p. 510]; de Rossi, Duchesne [50, p. 112]; Quentin, Delehaye [56, pp. 472-473], where the restored reading is Romae via Salaria vetere in cimiterio Basillae Hermetis.

89 Cf., among others: L. Spera [146, pp. 211-212]; Lapidge [100, p. 231].

90 I.B. de Rossi, L. Duchesne [50, pp. 1, 5-6], and Delehaye, Quentin [56, pp. 27, 31-32].

91 I.B. de Rossi, L. Duchesne [50, p. 6]; cf. Delehaye, Quentin [56, pp. 27-28].

92 Duchesne [65, p. 403, n. 2]: "...j'ai de graves raisons de penser qu'il y ici une retouche et qu'au lieu de sainte Anastasie de Sirmium, le text primitif mentionnait un saint Anastase d'Antioche." This Anastasius is the resurrected dead person, then a martyr, in the legend of St Julian; he appeared in the legend without any name but is called Anastasius after having been resurrected.

93 Delehaye, Quentin [56, p. 28]; translation: "The genuine reading is preserved in the codices that have Anastasi. A martyr with this name is among the companions of St Julian. It was understood as Anastasia by someone who added the place of the martyrdom, Sirmium, off the top of his head and proposed an emendation: apud Sirmium Anastasiae, whereas the feast of Anastasia has been celebrated in neither Sirmium nor elsewhere on January 6, but on December 25." This supposition is in Duchesne [65].

94 In [108], I focused on the period of transition between the Jewish background of this feast and the historical Christian calendars. The feast goes back to the Judaism of the Second Temple period and resulted, in Christianity, in the commemorations of the Nativity, Baptism, and Transfiguration of Christ.

95 M.H. Shepherd Jr. [140, p. 854], followed by Talley [148, p. 145].

96 Here, I agree with C. Coebergh [43].

97 Cf. esp. O. Klesser [92]; the author noticed that in the series of Epiphany homilies of Leo the Great, the only topic is the adoration of the Magi and Bethlehem. On Leo the Great's Epiphany homilies, cf. also the same conclusion by Hans Förster [70, pp. 259-260].

98 They wrote: "Even at Rome, however, according to the earliest lectionary evidence, the Johannine version of Jesus' 'baptism' (John 1.29-34) is assigned to the third day after 'Theophany' (Feria

III post theophania) <...>. Scholars have traditionally either ignored or not noticed this reference to the Johannine account of Jesus' baptism so close to January 6 in the Roman liturgy and have instead focused on the relative uniqueness of Rome in limiting Epiphany to the adoration of the Magi. Hence, the question has often been raised as to why Rome receives an Epiphany that is focused on the Magi rather than on the baptism of Jesus, but the lectionary evidence suggests that, while the adoration of the Magi is the focus for 6 January itself, the baptism of Jesus is clearly not that far behind"; P. F. Bradshaw, M. E. Johnson [28, p. 154]. They quoted their source with a typo: Feria III instead of Feria IIII; Th. Klauser [91, p. 14]. The main problem with their argument, however, is that the quoted lectionary tradition (Typus n) is dated to ca. 645, substantially later than the pontificate of Gregory the Great [91, p. 1]. By 645, the Epiphany feast in Rome did certainly include, in one or another form, a commemoration of Jordan.

99 Maxwell Johnson's words, which date to the (Gregorian) Epiphany feast of 2000, preserve their actuality: "...how Rome came to celebrate the Magi on January 6, instead of Jesus' baptism, has still not been demonstrated with clarity and the need for detailed studies and monographs on Epiphany in the West remains of paramount importance" [86, p. xxii]. The post-2000 publications on the Epiphany in the West did not change the situation; cf.: M.F. Connell [46, pp. 164-174]; Förster [70, pp. 219-296]; P.F. Bradshaw, M.E. Johnson [28, pp. 152-157]; see, at the latest, P.F. Bradshaw [27, pp. 5-7].

100 As concluded by Saxer [137, p. 57], followed by others.

101 Beside the Etimasia, the pair of Jerusalem and Bethlehem (Rev 21: 10-21) and the Four Animal Beings near the throne of God also have an eschatological meaning; the latter are not simply the symbols of the four Evangelists but a part of the eschatological vision in Rev 4: 6-9 that refers, in turn, to Ez 10: 8-14.

102 For a general discussion of the most debatable points, with further bibliography, see M. Lidova [104] and [105].

103 According to the prevailing opinion (first formulated by N. P. Kondakov in 1876 [1, p. 76]), this composition depicts a scene from the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, 22:2-24:1 (ed. by Jan Gijsel [71, pp. 472-481]; cf. Libellus de Nativitate Sanctae Mariae [22]), viz. the otherwise unknown source of the respective scene (the Gospel of Ps.-Matthew is hardly earlier than the seventh century): the Holy Family is met by the governor of the Egyptian town Sotinen or Sohennen (there are thirty-three variant spellings of this toponym [71, p. 472]). This explanation, even in its most recent and sophisticated form by Juan Antonio Älvarez-Pedrosa, remains unsatisfactory;

cf. J. A. Alvarez-Pedrosa [10]; for the earlier scholarship, see R. M. Jensen [85, pp. 298, 302-303]. Unlike Ps.-Matthew, in the mosaic scene, there are no crushed idols, no pagan temple, and the scene takes place outdoors; the figure of an ascetic accompanying the alleged governor, being a key figure of the whole composition, has certainly no basis in Ps.-Matthew. An alternative explanation provided by Suzanne Spain (the alleged governor is King David and the accompanying figure is the prophet Isaiah, both prophesying on the Virgin; Alvarez-Pedrosa agrees that the ascetic is Isaiah) is somewhat reasonable but not satisfactory either (for instance, the army led by the alleged figure of David would create a problem for understanding); cf. S. Spain [145]. I would add that the figure of the ascetic fits even better with Jeremiah, who even died in Egypt, and to whom was ascribed an apocryphal prophecy basically the same as Is 19:1; cf. J. Poucet [128]. Probably the best available explanation is given by Maria Vittoria Marini Clarelli [113, pp. 338-339]: the alleged governor is the imperial vicar of Emperor Augustus, who made Egypt a part of the Roman Empire, but not the emperor in person (the emperor should have a nimbus, like Herod on mosaic Nr. 8), and the ascetic is Isaiah. For the time being, however, it is more persuasive to consider this scene as illustrating an otherwise unknown source related to the escape to Egypt. A location in Egypt is indicated not only by the closeness of composition Nr. 4 but, especially, by the blue ribbon and tops of masts behind the town, which point to the Nile river.

104 On the one hand, she notices that "[i]l rilievo che viene attributo all'Adorazione dei Magi e da leggere anche in arelazione all'importanza che la liturgia dell'Epifania acquista a Roma nel V secolo..."; on the other hand, however, she formulates an expression containing a heortological contradictio in adjecto: "Nell'arco sistino la scena dell'Adorazione dei Magi riassume dunque in se anche il significato della Nativita e si giustifica cosi l'inusuale assenza di questa scena nelle Storie dell'Infanzia di Cristo"; M. R. Menna [118, p. 337]. The absence of a scene of the Nativity is, of course, inusuale for Christmas but hardly for the Epiphany.

105 In the case of the triumphal arch of Santa Maria Maggiore, scholars have been confronted with the problem of the liturgical medium, especially in situations where they need to explain the lack of Nativity scenes. If they ignore the actual Roman liturgical calendar, they are forced to immerse themselves in speculation. Cf., beside Menna [118] and Rubery [133], e.g., Beat Brenk, who ignores completely, in his analysis, the liturgy: "Es harrt außerdem die merkwürdige Tatsache der Erklärung, daß am Triumphbogen die Geburt Jesu nicht dargestellt ist. Wir können jedoch nur Vermutungen anstellen.

Wir haben ober schon darauf hingewiesen, daß die Geburt nicht unter den Szenen des Triumphbogens figuriert, weil der Akzent der obersten Zone auf der vom hl. Geist aufgrund der Verheißungen gewirkten Menschwerdung liegt. Man könnte eben hierin eine Antwort auf das Ephesinum erblicken: die menschliche Geburt braucht keines Beweises, es muß vielmehr gegenüber Nestorius betont warden, daß Jesus als Gott verheißen, geboren und von den Vertreten des Juden- und Heidentums anerkannt wurde" [30, p. 49]. This theological interpretation looks so radical that, I think, it would not have been applicable even if we were dealing with the Second Council of Ephesus (449) instead of the First (431).

106 Homelia VI, De S.Maria Deipara, BHG 1133; M. Aubineau [16, pp. 170-205, esp. pp. 181-183 (date) and 194/195-204/205 (txt/tr.)].

107 Edited and studied by Michel van Esbroeck [158; 154], a detailed liturgical analysis is provided by me, B. Lourie [108].

108 The traditionally Marian "psalm", i.e., prokeimenon, Ps 131:8 LXX (ö^^g^ «335^« ^öBböb^gBg&g^ Surge domine in requiem [tuam, tu et archa sanctificationis tue]), and, what is most important, the place: ¿ftg&öQ 80A008 ^öo^öbö "Synaxis at Saint Maria," that is, the Justinianic basilica Nea.

109 On January 7, codex B has: eductio ihu de aegypto; this reading is followed by S2 (codex Senonensis, 10th cent., second hand): et relatio pueri Iesu ex egipto (de Rossi, Duchesne [50, p. 6]; Quentin, Delehaye [56, p. 29]). On January 8, the 11th-century copy of the martyrologium in the breviarium of Cambridge (Cambr.) has: et eductio Christi exEgypto (Quentin, Delehaye [56, p. 31]).

110 See B. Lourie [110, figs. 1-4].

111 For the respective theology, see ultimately M. van Esbroeck [157]. For the Transitus texts, see especially M. van Esbroeck [153] and S.J. Shoemaker [141].

112 Baldovin [18, pp. 157-158] (the section dedicated to "Advent and Christmas" ends abruptly without a mention of the Epiphany).

113 Collectio Avellana, Nr. 16; Epistulae imperatorum, pontificum, aliorum inde ab a. CCCLXVII usque ad a. DLIII datae Avellana quae dicitur collection [76, pp. 62-63]. For the detailed chronology, see Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum MCXCVIII [84, p. 141]. Carolus Coebergh was the first to notice the value of this document for the history of liturgy [43].

114 Joanne Deane Sieger interpreted the mosaics in Santa Maria Maggiore in light of the sermons of Leo the Great, but her analysis is limited to theological speculations without precise historical data and, moreover, suffers from anachronism by

attributing to the epoch of Leo the situation of the late sixth century ("It was the 'Ecclesia Bethlehemae' of Rome, the Station Church for the first Mass of the Nativity..." [142, p. 84]). Before her, Beat Brenk made a number of comparisons between these mosaics and the sermons of Leo the Great, also limited to theological speculations [30, pp. 37-39].

115 Leonis Magni [41, vol. 1, pp. 163-164 (Tractatus XXXI, 3)].

116 Léon le Grand [103, pp. 216-217 and n. 3]. The translation by Srs. Jane Patricia Freeland and Agnes Josephine Conway is less literal: "...the apostle here present" (St. Leo the Great [102, p. 134]). Salzman mentions neither this observation by Dolle nor Leo's passage itself [134].

117 Leonis Magni [41, vol. 1, pp. 182-183 (Tractatus XXXIV, 3)]. This sermon is preserved in two recensions (the second one belongs to the author himself but is later) that coincide with this passage, except for a single word apostoli added in the second recension.

118 We know that, since the autumn of 443, Leo was especially preoccupied with the Manichaeans, and even his Christmas homily of this year - the first among those delivered, as I think, in Saint Anastasia - was focused on them (Tractatus XXIV; Leonis Magni [41, vol. 1, pp. 109-116]). It is difficult to judge whether the change in the stational liturgy would have been provoked by these circumstances.

119 J. Deshusses [57, p. 113]. Cf. Saxer [136, p. 1000] (for the 18th century).

120 The entire hagiographical dossier of St Julian has been recently studied by Efthymios Rizos, whose conclusions I summarise below [132].

121 Actually, in the preserved manuscripts, both BHG 971 (Passio) and BHG 970 (Vita) are detached parts of BHG 971b (Vita et Passio). See the critical edition by F. Halkin [77]. However, the Passio existed earlier, separately. It corresponds to chapters 1-16 (according to Halkin's edition) of the composite text Vita et Passio. The text published by Halkin is reprinted and translated into English by Anne P. Alwis [11, pp. 157-186 and 186-212, respectively].

122 In some documents, both in Latin and Greek and including the Martyrologium Hieronymianum, the name of Antinoopolis was mistakenly changed to Antioch, thus explicitly making Antioch an Egyptian city. On the Latin origin of this error, see Rizos [132, pp. 124-126].

123 The only edition of the full text is that of Bollandus and Henschenius in the Acta Sanctorum, Ianuarius [24, pp. 575-587]. The earliest manuscript (containing lacunae) is the Lectionary of Luxeuil, datable to ca. 700.

124 Alwis [11, pp. 28-31], cf. also [11, pp. 3334]. Neither Alwis nor Rizos discuss the problem of whether the Greek text published by Halkin was translated from Latin as a whole (thus, in the part of the Passio, it would be a Greek translation of a Latin translation of a Greek original) or only in the part corresponding to the Vita. For our purposes, however, this question is not important. Alwis considers Basilissa to be a product of pure fantasy [11, pp. 3334], because she does not know Basilissa's proper hagiographical dossier.

125 I discuss the Vita of Julian and Basilissa as modelled after the Passio of Cecilia and not vice versa, for the sake of brevity only. In fact, we are so far unable to logically exclude the opposite hypothesis - that it was the Passio Caeciliae that was modelled after the Vita of Julian and Basilissa.

126 Alwis [11, pp. 32-33]; cf. [11, p. 33]: "... frustratingly, Cecilia's origins are veiled. <...> If my conjectures are correct, then Cecilia too was created in Latin and inspired the composition of the VJB's vita." Now this hypothesis must be taken as proven.

127 Even in the recensions where Anastasia remains virgin, her pagan and cruel husband (Publius) is the exact opposite of the saint husbands of Cecilia (Valerian) and Basilissa (Julian).

128 All manuscripts mention Julian as the first of two or three martyrs of Antioch (de Rossi, Delehaye [50, p. 1]), but Quentin and Delehaye have restored this commemoration as referring to the church of Julian in Antioch: Antiochiae, <in ecclesia Sancti> Iuliani, Marini (Quentin, Delehaye [56, p. 11]).

129 Rizos [132, pp. 129-130]. An important fact is that both saints, Juliana and Julian, have an additional commemoration day in common, February 13.

130 The Passio of Juliana BHG 962z is published critically by Christine Angelidi [166], but there is no critical edition of the Latin recensions (BHL 45224526; the most important ones, BHL 4522-4523, remain unpublished except for BHL 4523m). Corinna Bottiglieri, the author of the most recent study of Juliana's dossier, inclines to identifying the Greek text as the original of the Latin, whereas she cannot exclude the possibility of the contrary case [26, p. 656]. The name of the senatorial lady Sophia would suggest, for these texts, a date belonging to the Byzantine period (no earlier than the 560s), but they might have been derived from earlier legends.

ABBREVIATIONS

ICUR - Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae.

CCSL - Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina.

APPENDIX

Fig. 1. (Table 3, Nrs. 1, 2, 5, 6). Annunciation, Doubts of Joseph, Adoration of the Magi, Massacre of the Innocents, and Jerusalem. Photo by Maria Lidova

Fig. 2. (Table 3, Nrs. 1 and 5). Annunciation and Adoration of the Magi. Photo by Maria Lidova

Fig. 3. (Table 3, Nrs. 3, 4, and 7). Presentation of Jesus, escape to Egypt, and unidentified scene.

Photo by Maria Lidova

Fig. 4. (Table 3, Nrs. 7 and 8). Unidentified scene and Magi and scribes with Herodes. Photo by Maria Lidova

Fig. 5. (Table 3, Nr. 7). Unidentified scene. Photo by Maria Lidova

Fig. 6. The Filiation of the Roman Legends of Bassilla/Basilissa and Anastasia

Fig. 7. The Filiation of the Legends Related to St Anastasia

Fig. 8. Filiation of the Earliest Legends Related to St Anastasia

REFERENCES

1. Kondakov N.P. Istoriya vizantiyskogo iskusstva i ikonografii po miniatyuram grecheskikh rukopisey. Podgotovili k pechati po avtorskomu ekzemplyaru pervogo izdaniya 1876 goda G.R. Parpulov i A.L. Saminskiy [History of Byzantine Art and Iconography According to the Illuminations of Greek Manuscripts. Published According to the Author's Copy of the First Edition of 1876 by G.R. Parpulov and A.L. Saminsky]. Plovdiv, s.n., 2012. XII, 301 p.

2. Lourié B. Vvedenie v kriticheskuyu agiografiyu [An Introduction to Critical Hagiography]. Saint Petersburg, Axioma Publ., 2009. 238 p.

3. Petrova M.S. Pretekstat i Paulina. K voprosu o chastnoy zhizni i povedencheskikh traditsiyakh Pozdney Antichnosti [Pretextatus and Pauline: Toward the Question of Private Life and Traditions of Behaviour in the Late Antiquity]. Intellektualnyye traditsii v proshlom i nastoyashchem [Intellectual Traditions in Past and Present], 2014, iss. 2, pp. 192-220.

4. Dunaev A.G., ed. Preobrazhenskiy P. Sochineniya drevnikh khristianskikh apologetov [Writings of Early Christian Apologists]. Saint Petersburg, Aletheia Publ., 1999. VII, 945 p. (Antichnoye khristianstvo. Istochniki [Christianity in Antiquity. Sources]).

5. Prolog. T. 2. Ch. 1. Mart - May [Prologue. Vol. 2. Pt. 1. March - May]. Moscow, s.n., 1643. 462 ff.

6. Deliyannis Mauskopf D., ed. Agnellus of Ravenna. The Book of Pontiffs of the Church of Ravenna. Washington, DC, The Catholic University of America Press, 2004. XIII, 369 p. (Medieval Texts in Translation).

7. Ajoulat N. Eusébie, Hélène et Julien. Byzantion, 1983, vol. 53, pp. 78-103, 421-452.

8. Allen P. John Chrysostom. Homilies on Paul 's Letter to the Philippians Introduced, Translated, and Annotated. Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. XXXIV, 345 p. (Writing from the Greco-Roman World; 36).

9. Allen P., Mayer W. Chrysostom and the Preaching of Homilies in Series: A Re-Examination of the Fifteen Homilies in Epistulam ad Philippenses (CPG 4432). Vigiliae Christianae, 1995, iss. 49, pp. 270-289.

10. Álvarez-Pedrosa J.A. La representación de Maria Regina en los mosaicos del arco triunfal de Santa María la Mayor de Roma: un diálogo necesario entre iconografía y filología. López Salvá M., Sanz Extremeño I., Paz Amérigo P. de, eds. Los orígenes del cristianismo en la filosofía, la literatura y el arte. Vol. 1. Madrid, Dykinson, 2016, pp. 323-335.

11. Alwis A.P. Celibate Marriages in Late Antique and Byzantine Hagiography: The Lives of Saints Julian and Basilissa, Andronikos and Athanasia,

and Galaktion and Episteme. London, New York, Continuum, 2011. XII, 340 p.

12. Ambrogio, Sant'. Opere morali. Vol. II/I. Verginità e vedovanza. Milan, Bibliotheca Ambrosiana, Rome, Città Nuova Editore, 1989. 322 p. (Sancti Ambrosii episcopi Mediolanensis Opera; Vol. 14/1).

13. Romestin E. de, ed. Ambrose, St Select Works and Letters. New York, The Christian Literature Co., 1896. XXIII, 473 p. (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ser. 2, vol. 10).

14. Rolfe J.C., ed. Ammianus Marcellinus. History: Books 20-26. Vol. II. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1940. VII, 683 p. (Loeb Classical Library; 315).

15. Arce J. La tumba del Emperador Juliano. Lucentum, 1984, 3, pp. 181-191.

16. Aubineau M. Les homéliesfestales d'Hésychius de Jérusalem. In 2 Vols. Vol. 1. Brussels, Société des Bollandistes, 1978-1980. LXXVI, 596 p. (Subsidia hagiographica; 59/1).

17. Auf der Maur H. Feiern im Rhythmus der Zeit I. Herrenfeste in Woche und Jahr. Regensburg, Pustet, 1983. 230 p. (Gottesdienst der Kirche. Handbuch der Liturgiewissenschaft; 5).

18. Baldovin J.F. The Urban Character of Christian Worship: The Origins, Development, and Meaning of Stational Liturgy. Rome, PIO, 1987. 319 p. (Orientalia Christiana Analecta; 228).

19. Barnes T.D. Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1993. XVIII, [2], 343 p.

20. Botte B., ed. Baumstark A. Liturgie comparée. Principes et Méthodes pour l'étude historique des liturgies chrétiennes. Chevetogne, Éditions de Chevetogne, 1953. XVI, 291 p. (Collection Irénikon).

21. Bedjan P. Acta martyrum et sanctorum. Vol. 5. Paris, Leipzig, Harrassowitz, 1890. XIII, 704 p.

22. Beyers R., ed. Libri de Nativitate Mariae. Libellus de Nativitate Sanctae Mariae. Turnhout, Brepols, 1997. 456 p. (Corpus Christianorum. Series Apocryphorum; 10).

23. Bidez J., ed. L'Empereur Julien. Œuvres complètes. T. I. Partie 2. 2e éd. Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1960. 445 p.

24. Bollandus I., Henschenius G., eds. Acta Sanctorum lanuarii. T. II. Antverpiae, Ioannes Meursius, 1643. [26], 1160, [75] p.; digital edition: Acta Sanctorum: The Full Text Database, lanuarii II. Cambridge, Chadwyck-Healey, 1999.

25. Bollandus I., Henschenius G., eds. Acta Sanctorum Februarii. T. II. Antverpiae, Iacobus Meursius, 1658. xvi, [20], 901, [39] p.; digital edition: Acta Sanctorum: The Full Text Database, Februarii II. Cambridge, Chadwyck-Healey, 1999.

26. Bottiglieri C. Passio Iulianae (BHL 4523m). Goullet M., ed. Le légendier de Turin. Ms. D.V.3 de la Bibliothèque Nationale Universitaire. Florence, Sismel, Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2014, pp. 641-669. (Millennio medievale, 103; Testi, 22).

27. Bradshaw P.F. The Dating of Christmas in the Early Church. Larsen T., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Christmas. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2020, pp. 3-14.

28. Bradshaw P. F., Johnson M. E. The Origins of Feasts, Fasts and Seasons in Early Christianity. London, SPCK; Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2011. XVI, 222 p. (Alcuin Club Collections; 86).

29. Brandt O. The Early ChristianBaptistery of Saint Peter's. McKitterick R., Osborne J., Richardson C.M., Story J., eds. Old Saint Peter's, Rome. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 81-94.

30. Brenk B. Die frühchristlichen Masaiken in S. Maria Maggiore zu Rom. Wiesbaden, F. Steiner Verl., 1975. 188 p.

31. Caldwell III C.H. The Roman Emperor as Persian Prisoner of War: Remembering Shapur's Capture of Valerian. Clark J.H., Turner B., eds. Brill's Companion to Military Defeat in Ancient Mediterranean Society. Leiden - Boston, Brill, 2018, pp. 336-358. (Warfare in the Ancient Mediterranean World; 2).

32. Calza R. Iconografia romana imperiale da Carausio a Giuliano (287-363 D.C.). Rome, L'Erma di Bretschneider, 1973. 434, [2] p. (Quaderni e Guide di Archeologia; 3).

33. Carragain É.O. Interactions between Liturgy and Politics in Old Saint Peter's, 670-741. McKitterick R., Osborne J., Richardson C. M., Story J., eds. Old Saint Peter's, Rome. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 177-189.

34. Cazzaniga E., ed. S. Ambrosii Mediolanensis episcopi. De virginibus libri tres. Torino, In aedibus Paraviae, 1948. XXXII, 94 p. (Corpus Scriptorum Latinorum Paravianum).

35. Cecchelli M. "Divagazioni" sulla chiesa di S. Anastasia al Palatino. Romanobarbarica, 20062009, 19, pp. 33-48.

36. Cerrito C. Contributo allo studio del "titulus Anastasiae". Brandt O., Pergola P., eds. Marmoribus vestita: miscellanea in onore di Federico Guidobaldi. In 2 Vols. Città del Vaticano, Pontificio Istituto di archeologia cristiana, 2011, pp. 345-371. (Studi di antichità Cristiana; 63).

37. Chantraine H. Die Erhebung des Licinius zum Augustus. Hermes, 1982, 110, pp. 477-487.

38. Chausson F. Stemmata aurea. Constantin, Justine, Théodose. Revendications généalogiques et idéologie impériale au IV s. ap. J.C. Roma, L'Erma di Bretschneider, 2007. 304 p. (Centro ricerche e documentazione sull'antichità classica. Monografie; 26).

39. Chausson F. Une sœur de Constantin: Anastasia. Carrié J.-M., Lizzi Testa R., eds. Humana sapit. Études d'Antiquité tardive offertes à Lellia Cracco Ruggini. Turnhout, Brepols, 2002, pp. 131-155. (Bibliothèque de l'Antiquité tardive; 3).

40. Chavasse A. Le Sacramentaire gélasien (Vaticanus Regiensis 216). Sacramentaire presbytéral en usage dans les titres romains au VIIe siècle. Paris, Desclée & Cie, 1958. XXXIX, 816 p. (Bibliothèque de théologie, série IV, vol. 1).

41. Chavasse A., ed. Leonis Magni. Tractatus septem et nonaginta. In 2 Vols. Vol. 1. Turnhout, Brepols, 1973, pp. I-CCXVIII, 1-208; vol. 2, pp. 209640, [3] (CCSL; 138, 138A).

42. Christol M. Essai sur l'évolution des carrières sénatoriales dans la seconde moitié du IIIe siècle ap. J.C. Paris, Nouvelles Éditions Latines, 1986. 354 p. (Études prosopographiques; 6).

43. Coebergh C. L'Épiphanie à Rome avant Saint Léon. Un indice pour l'année 419. Revue bénédictine, 1965, 75, pp. 304-307.

44. Coleman-Norton P.R. Roman State and Christian Church. A Collection of Legal Documents to A.D. 535. In 3 vols. Vol. 3. London, SPCK, 1966, pp. 845-1358.

45. Connell M.F. Did Ambrose's Sister Become a Virgin on December 25 or January 6? The Earliest Western Evidence for Christmas and Epiphany outside Rome. Studia liturgica, 1999, 29, pp. 145-158.

46. Connell M.F. Eternity Today: On the Liturgical Year. In 2 Vols. Vol. 1. New York, London, Continuum, 2006. XVI, 238 p.

47. Cracco Ruggini L. En marge d'une "mésalliance": Prétextat, Damase et le Carmen contra Paganos. Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, 1998, 142, pp. 493-516.

48. De Blaauw S. Cultus et decor. Liturgia e architettura nella Roma tardoantica e medievale. Basilica Salvatoris, Sanctae Mariae, Sancti Petri. In 2 vols. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1994. 921 p. (continuing pagination), 16 figs. (Studi e testi; 355-356).

49. De Gaiffier B. Palatins et eunuques dans quelques documents hagiographiques. Analecta Bollandiana, 1957, 75, pp. 17-46.

50. De Rossi G. B., Duchesne L. Martyrologium Hieronymianum. de Smedt C., de Backer J., van Otroy F., van den Gheyn J., Delehaye H., Poncelet A., eds. Acta Sanctorum Novembris. Tomi II pars prior. Bruxellis, Socii Bollandiani, 1894, pp. II-LXXXII, 1-195; digital edition: Acta Sanctorum: The Full Text Database. Nov. II. Pars I. Cambridge, Chadwyck-Healey, 2002.

51. Deichmann F.W. Ravenna. Hauptstadt des spätantiken Abendlandes. Vol. 2. Kommentar. Wiesbaden, F. Steiner Verl., 1976. XII, 380 p., ill.

52. Delehaye H. Étude sur le légendier romain: les Saints de novembre et de décembre. Bruxelles, Société des Bollandistes, 1936. 273 p. (Subsidia hagiographica; 23).

53. Delehaye H. Les martyrs d'Égypte. Analecta Bollandiana, 1922, iss. 40, pp. 5-154, 299-364.

54. Delehaye H. Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, e codice Sirmondiano, nunc Berolinensi, adiectis synaxariis selectis. Acta Sanctorum, Propylaeum Novembris. Bruxellis, Socii Bollandiani, 1902, [3], LXXVI, 1181 p.; digital edition: Acta Sanctorum: The Full Text Database, Nov. Propylaeum. Cambridge, Chadwyck-Healey, 2002.

55. Delehaye H., Peeters P., Coens M., de Gaiffier B., Grosjean P., Halkin F. Martyrologium Romanus ad formam editionis typicae scholiis historicis instructum. Acta Sanctorum. Propylaeum Decembris. Bruxellis, Société des Bollandistes, 1940, [XXIII], 660 p.; digital edition: Acta Sanctorum: The Full Text Database, Dec. Propylaeum. Cambridge, Chadwyck-Healey, 2002.

56. Delehaye H., Quentin H. Commentarius Perpetuus in Martyrologium Hieronymianum. Acta Sanctorum, Novembris. Tomi II pars posterior. Bruxellis, Société des Bollandistes, 1931. [3], IX-XXIII, 721 p.; digital edition: Acta Sanctorum: The Full Text Database. Nov. II. Pars II. Cambridge, Chadwyck-Healey, 2002.

57. Deshusses J. Le sacramentaire grégorien. Ses principales formes d'après les plus anciens manuscrits. Édition comparative. T. I. Troisième édition, revue et corrigée. Fribourg, Éditions universitaires, 1992. 461 p. (Spicilegium Friburgense; 16).

58. Di Maio M. The Transfer of the Remains of the Emperor Julian from Tarsus to Constantinople. Byzantion, 1978, vol. 48, pp. 43-50.

59. Diefenbach S. Römische Erinnerungsräume. Heiligenmemoria und kollective Identitäten im Rom des 3. bis 5. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Berlin, New York, W. de Gruyter, 2007. XI, 635 p. (Millennium Studies; i i).

60. Divjak J., Wischmeyer W., ed. Das Kalenderhandbuch von 354. Der Chronograph des Filocalus. In 2 Vols. Vienna, Holzhausen, 2014. XII, 637 p. (continuous pagination).

61. Dölger F.J. Sol Salutis. Gebet und Gesang im christlichen Altertum. Mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Ostung in Gebet und Liturgie. 2. Aufl. Münster/West., Verlag der Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1925. IX, 445 p.

62. Dubois J., Renaud G. Édition pratique des martyrologes de Bede, de l'Anonyme Lyonnais et de Florus. Paris, Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1976. VII, 307 p. (Institut de recherche et d'histoire des textes. Bibliographies -Colloques - Travaux préparatoires).

63. Dubois J., Renaud G. Le Martyrologe d'Adon. Ses deux familles, ses trois recensions. Texte et

commentaire. Paris, Éditions du CNRS, 1984. XXXII, 485 p. (Sources d'histoire médiévale).

64. Duchesne L. Notes sur la topographie de Rome au Moyen-Âge. III. Sainte-Anastasie. Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire, 1887, tome 7, pp. 387-413.

65. Duchesne L. Scripta minora. Études de topographie romaine et de géographie ecclésiastique. Rome, École française de Rome, 1973. L, 468 p., 1 pl. (Collection de l'École française de Rome, 13).

66. EDB: EpigraphicDatabase Bari. Inscriptions by Christians of Rome (3rd- 8th Cent. CE). URL: https:// www.edb.uniba.it/search/basic

67. Feiertag J.L. Hieronymus Contra Iohannem. Turnhout, Brepols, 1999. CLII, 104 p. (CCSL; 79A).

68. Foester R., ed. Libanius. Opera. Vol. 2. Leipzig, Teubner, 1904. [4], 572 p. (Bibliotheca scriptorium graecorum et romanorum Teubneriana).

69. Folgere P.O. The Sistine Mosaics of S. Maria Maggiore in Rome: Christology and Mariology in the Interlude between the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Acta ad Archaeologiam et Artium Historiam Pertinentia, 2017, vol. 21, pp. 33-64.

70. Förster H. Die Anfänge von Weihnachten und Epiphanias. EineAnfrage an die Entstehungshypothesen. Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2007. XII, 342 p. (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum; 46).

71. Gijsel J., Gijsel J., eds. Libri de Nativitate Mariae. Pseudo-Matthaei evangelium. Turnhout, Brepols, 1997. 520 p. (Corpus Christianorum. Series Apocryphorum; 9).

72. Glorie F., ed. Itineraria et alia geographica. Turnhout, Brepols, 1965. XIII, [5], 495 p. (CCSL; 175).

73. Goodspeed J. The Story of Eugenia and Philipp. The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, 1904, 21, pp. 38-50.

74. Grierson Ph. The Tombs and Obits of the Byzantine Emperors (337-1042). Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 1962, 16, pp. 3-60.

75. Grisar H. L'Anastasis e l'Apostoleion di Roma. Grisar H. Analecta Romana. Dissertazioni, testi, monumenti dell'arte rigurdanti principalmente la Storia di Roma e dei Papi nelMedio Evo. Vol. I. Roma, Libreria cattolica internazionale, 1899, pp. 595-626.

76. Guenther O., ed. Epistulae imperatorum, pontificum, aliorum inde ab a. CCCLXVII usque ad a. DLIII datae Avellana quae dicitur collectio. 2 partes. Pars I. Prague; Vienna, F. Tempsky; Leipzig, G. Freytag, 1895. XCIIII, 493 p. (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum; 35).

77. Halkin F. La Passion ancienne des saints Julien et Basilisse BHG 970-971. Analecta Bollandiana, 1980, 98, pp. 241-296.

78. Hillner J. Constantina, Daughter ofConstantine, Wife of Gallus Caesar, and Patron of St Agnes at Rome. Oxford Research Encyclopedias. URL: https://doi. org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.013.8066

79. Hohl E., ed. Scriptores Historiae Augustae. Editio stereotypa correctior addenda et corrigenda adiecerunt Ch. Samberger et W. Seyfarth. In 2 Vols. Vol. 2. Leipzig, Teubner, 1965. 308 p. (Bibliotheca scriptorium graecorum et romanorum Teubneriana).

80. Horrocks G. Greek: A History ofthe Language and Its Speakers. Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. XX, 502 p.

81. Ibrahim H. Liste des Vies de Saints et des homélies conservées dans les ms. Sinaï arabe 395-403, 405-407, 409 et 423. Chronos. Revue d'histoire de l'Université de Balamand, 2018, 38, pp. 47-114.

82. Monfaucon, B., ed. Ioannes Chrysostomus. Homiliae in Epistulam ad Philippenses. Joannis Chrysostomi Opera omnia quae extant vel quae ejus nomine circumferentur. Parisiis, J.-P. Migne, 1862, cols. 177-298 (Migne J.-P., ed. Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca; T. 62).

83. Monfaucon, B., ed. Joannis Chrysostomi Opera omnia quae extant vel quae ejus nomine circumferentur. Vol. II, pars I. Parisiis, J.-P. Migne, 1859. 852 cols. (Migne J.-P., ed. Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca; t. 50).

84. Jaffé Ph., ed. Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum MCXCVIII. Editionem tertiam emendatam et auctam iubente Academia Gottingensi sub auspiciis N. Herbers. T. I. Göttingen, Vandenhoeck et Ruprecht, 2016. XV, 584 p.

85. Jensen R.M. The Apocryphal Mary in Early Christian Art. Gregory A. and Tuckett Ch., eds. The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Apocrypha. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 289-305.

86. Johnson M.E. Introduction. Johnson M.E., ed. Between Memory and Hope: Readings on the Liturgical Year. Collegeville, MN, The Liturgical Press, 2000, pp. XI-XXV.

87. Johnson M.J. Observations of the Burial of the Emperor Julian in Constantinople. Byzantion, 2008, vol. 78, pp. 254-260.

88. Johnson M.J. The Roman Imperial Mausoleum in Late Antiquity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2014. XIX, 290 p.

89. Kahlos M. Vettius Agorius Praetextatus -A Senatorial Life in Between. Roma, Quasar, 2002. 280 p. (Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae; 26).

90. Kahlos M. Vettius Agorius Praetextatus and the Rivalry Between the Bishops in Rome in 366-367. Arctos. Acta philologica Fennica, 1997, no. 31, pp. 41-54.

91. Klauser Th. Das römische capitulare evangeliorum. I. Typen. Münster/Westf., Verlag der Aschendorffschen Buchhandlung, 1935 [2. Aufl., 1972]. CXX, 199 p. (Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen; 28).

92. Klesser O. De introductione argumenti baptismatis Christi in vigiliam et festum Epiphaniae in

ecclesia Romana celebratum. Ephemerides Liturgicae, 1959, 73, pp. 22-30.

93. Kotter B. Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos. V. Opera homiletica et hagiographica. Berlin; New York, W. de Gruyter, 1988. XX, 607 p. (Patristische Texte und Studien; 29).

94. Krautheimer R. Corpus Basilicarum Christianarum Romae. Le basiliche cristiane antiche di Roma (Sec. IV-IX). Vol. I. Città del Vaticano, Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, 1937. XIX, 326 p., XL tavv. (Monumenti di antichità cristiana, II ser.; II).

95. Krautheimer R. Three Cristian Capitals: Topography and Politics. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1983. XIV, 167 p.

96. Krueger P., ed. Codex Iustinianus. Berlin, Weidmann, 1877. LXXX, *84, 1103 p.

97. Kunzler M. Die Liturgie der Kirche. Paderborn, Bonifatius, 1995. 672 p. (Amateca: Lehrbücher zur katolischen Theologie; Bd. 10).

98. Kunzler M. La liturgia della Chiesa. Seconda edizione ampliata. Milano, Jaca Book, 2003. 621 p. (Amateca. Manuali di teologia cattolica; 10).

99. Lanéry C. Hagiographie d'Italie (300550). I. Les Passions latines composées en Italie. Philippart G., dir. Hagiographies. Histoire internationale de la littérature hagiographique latine et vernaculaire en Occident des origines à 1550. Vol. 5. Turnhout, Brepols, 2010, pp. 15-369. (Corpus Christianorum).

100. Lapidge M. The Roman Martyrs. Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2018. XVII, 733 p. (Oxford Early Christian Studies).

101. Lenski N. Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century A.D. Berkeley, University of California Press, 2003. XIX, 454 p.

102. Freeland J.P., Conway A.J., eds. Leo the Great. Sermons. Washington, D.C., The Catholic University of America Press, 1996. XII, 435 p. (The Fathers of the Church. A New Translation; 93).

103. Leclercq J., Dolle R., ed. Léon le Grand. Sermons. T. I. 2e édition. Paris, Cerf, 1964. 295 p. (Sources chrétiennes; 22 bis).

104. Lidova M. The Imperial Theotokos: Revealing the Concept of Early Christian Imagery in Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome. Convivium, 2015, II/2, pp. 60-81.

105. Lidova M. Virgin Mary and the Adoration of the Magi. From Iconic Space to Icon in Space. Bogdanovic J., ed. Icons ofSpace: Advances inHierotopy. London, New York, Routledge, 2021, pp. 214-238.

106. Lietzmann H. Petrus und Paulus in Rom. Liturgische und Archäologische Studien. Bonn, A. Marcus und E. Weber's Verl., 1915. XII, 787 p.

107. Liverani P. Saint Peter's, Leo the Great and the leprosy of Constantine. Papers of the British School at Rome, 2008, no. 76, pp. 155-172.

108. Lourié B. Afterlife of the 2 Enoch Calendar: Major Christian Feasts on the Sixth Day. Henoch, 2011, 33, pp. 102-107.

109. Lourié B. A Monothelete Syriac Compilation of Pseudo-Apostolic Acts Preserved in Slavonic Only and the Entrance of Constans II into Rome in 663. Cioatä M., Miltenova A., Timotin E., eds. Biblical Apocrypha in South-Eastern Europe and Related Areas. Proceedings of the session organised in the framework ofthe 12th International Congress of SouthEast European Studies (Bucharest, 2-6 September 2019). Bräila, Istros, 2021, pp. 125-217. (Bibliothèque de l'Institut d'Études Sud-Est Européennes; 16).

110. Lourié B. The Pseudepigraphical Prophesies on the Virginal Birth: From the Slavonic, Greek, and Georgian to the Second Temple Jewish Background. Scripta & e-Scripta, 2019, no. 19, pp. 87-108.

111. Makeeva L.B. An Introduction to Inductive Logic. Moscow, Idea-Press, 2014. 128 p.

112. Malosse P.-L. Proposition mystique pour arrêter les invasions barbares ou plaidoyer pour que les païens aient leur place dans l'empire chrétien? Le Discours XXIV de Libanios. Revue des études grecques, 2010, no. 123, pp. 113-135.

113. Marini Clarelli M.V. La controversia nestoriana e i mosaici dell'arco trionfale di S. Maria Maggiore. Barsanti C. et al., ed. Bisanzio e l'Occidente: arte, archeologia, storia. Studi in onore di Fernanda de ' Maffei. Rome, Viella, 1996, pp. 323-344.

114. Martindale J.R. et al. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. Vol. 1. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1971. XXII, 1152 p.

115. Mateos J. Le Typicon de la Grande Église. Ms. Saint-Croix no 40, Xe siècle. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes. T. I. Le cycle des douze mois. Roma, PIO, 1962. XXVI, 389 p. (Orientalia Christiana Analecta; 165).

116. Mauskopf Deliyannis D. Ravenna in Late Antiquity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2010. XIX, 444 p.

117. Mauskopf Deliyannis D., ed. Agnelli Ravennatis, Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiae Ravennatis. Turnhout, Brepols, 2006. 392 p. (Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis).

118. Menna M.R. I mosaici della basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore. Andaloro M., a cura di. L'orizzonte tardoantico e le nuove immagini: 312-468. Corpus della Pittura Medievale a Roma. Vol. I. Milano, Jaca Book, 2006, pp. 306-346.

119. Mennen I. Power and Status in the Roman Empire, AD 193-284. Leiden; Boston, Brill, 2011. XIII, 305 p. (Impact of Empire; 12).

120 Migne J.-P., ed. Symeonis Logothete, cognomeno Metaphrastae, Opera Omnia. T. III. Parisiis, J.-P. Migne, 1864. 1430 cols. (Migne J.-P., ed. Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca; t. 116).

121. Mirkovic M. Sirmium. Its History from the First Century AD to 582 AD. Sremska Mitrovica, Novi Sad, Faculty of Philosophy, Novi Sad; Historical Archive "Srem", 2017. 316 p. (University of Novi Sad. Faculty of Philosophy. Department of History. Center for Historical Research. Monographs, 1; Historical Archive "Srem". Sremska Mitrovica. Monographs; 13).

122. Mommsen Th., ed. Chronica minora saec. IV. V. VI. VII. Berlin, Weidmann, 1892. XII, 756 p. (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, 9; Auctores antiquissimi; t. 9).

123. Moretti P.F. La Passio Anastasiae: Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione. Roma, Herder, 2006. 238 p. (Studi e Testi TardoAntichi; 3).

124. Musurillo H. The Acts of the Christian Martyrs. Introduction, Texts and Translations. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1972. LXXIII, 378 p. (Oxford Early Christian Texts).

125. Nau F. Un martyrologe et douze ménologes syriaques. Édités et traduits. Paris, Firmin-Didot, 1912. 163 p. (Patrologia orientalis; t. 10, fasc. 1, Nr. 46) (repr. Turnhout, Brepols, 1993).

126. Nothaft C.P.E. Early Christian Chronology and the Origins of the Christmas Date: In Defence of the "Calculation Theory". Questions liturgiques, 2013, vol. 94, pp. 247-265.

127. Nothaft C.P.E. The Origins of the Christmas Date: Some Recent Trends in Historical Research. Church History, 2012, vol. 81, iss. 4, pp. 903-911.

128. Poucet J. La Chute des Idoles dans l'épisode égyptien des Enfances de Jésus. Le témoignage de la littérature médiévale. Folia Electronica Classica, 2014 (janvier-juin), 27. URL: http://bcs.fltr.ucl.ac.be/ FE/27/TM27.html

129. Renoux A. [Ch.]. Le codex arménien Jérusalem 121. II. Édition comparée du texte et de deux autres manuscripts. Introduction, texte, traduction et notes. Turnhout, Brepols, 1971. 250 p. (Patrologia orientalis; t. 36, fasc. 2, No. 168).

130. Renoux Ch. Le lectionnaire de Jérusalem en Arménie. Le Casoc'. II. Édition synoptique des plus anciens témoins. Turnhout, Brepols, 1999. 170 p. (Patrologia orientalis, t. 48, f. 2, Nr 214).

131. Reutter U. Damasus, Bischof von Rom (366-384). Leben und Werk. Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2009. XI, 567 p. (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum; 55).

132. Rizos E. Saint Julian of Cilicia: Cult and Hagiography. Including the Edition and English Translation of the Passio S. Iuliani Anazarbeni (BHG 966) and its Epitome (BHG 967d). Analecta Bollandiana, 2021, vol. 139, pp. 106-155.

133. Rubery E. The Early Iconography of Mary. The Mosaics of the Triumphal Arch at Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome in the Context of the Writings of Cyril of Alexandria and the Council of Ephesus of 431. Studia Patristica, 2014, vol. 72, pp. 279-325.

134. Salzman M.R. Leo's Liturgical Topography: Contestations for Space in Fifth-Century Rome. The Journal ofRoman Studies, 2013, vol. 103, pp. 208-232.

135. Savio F. Basilla o Bassilla? Nuovo bullettino di archeologia Cristiana, 1912, vol. 18, pp. 11-23.

136. Saxer V. L'utilisation par la liturgie de l'espace urbain et suburbain: l'exemple de Rome dans l'Antiquité et le Haut Moyen Age. Actes du XIe congrès international d'archéologie chrétienne. Lyon, Vienne, Grenoble, Genève, Aoste, 21-28 septembre 1986. Rome, École Française de Rome, 1989, pp. 917-1033. (Publications de l'École française de Rome; 123).

137. Saxer V Sainte-Marie-Majeure. Une basilique de Rome dans l'histoire de la ville et de son église (Ve-XIIIe siècle). Rome, École française de Rome, 2001. 720 p. (Collection de l'École française de Rome; 283).

138. Vollmann B.K., ed. Scardigli P. Die Gothen. Sprache und Kultur. 2. Aufl. München, C.H. Beck, 1973. VI, 399 p.

139. Seeck O.K. Licinius, römischer Kaiser 308-324. Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumwissenschaft. Neue Bearbeitung begonnen von G. Wissowa. Halbband 25. Stuttgart, J. B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1926, cols. 222-231.

140. Shepherd M.H.Jr. The Liturgical Reform of Damasus I. Granfield P., Jungmann J. A., eds. Kyriakon. Festschrift Johannes Quasten. In 2 Vols. Vol. 2. Münster/Westf., Aschendorff, 1970, pp. 847-863.

141. Shoemaker S.J. Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006. XVI, 460 p. (Oxford Early Christian Studies).

142. SiegerJ.D.VisualMetaphorasTheology: Leo the Great's Sermons on the Incarnation and theArch Mosaics at S. Maria Maggiore. Gesta, 1987, vol. 26, pp. 83-91.

143. Silvagni A. Intorno a un gruppo di iscrizioni del IV e V secolo appartenenti alla Basilica Vaticana. Bullettino della Commissione archeologica comunale di Roma, 1929, vol. 57, pp. 135-147.

144. Smith Lewis A. Select Narratives of Holy Women from the Syro-Antiochene or Sinai Palimpsest as Written above the Old Syriac Gospels by John the Stylite, of Beth-Mari-Qanun in A.D. 778. In 2 Vols. Vol. 1. London, C.J. Clay and Sons, 1900. 328 (Syriac pagination), 46, XXIV p.; Vol. 2. XXI, 210 p. (Studia Sinaitica; 9-10).

145. Spain S. 'The Promised Blessing': The Iconography of the Mosaics of S. Maria Maggiore. Art Bulletin, 1979, vol. 61, pp. 518-540.

146. Spera L. Basillae coemeterium. Fiocchi Nicolai V., Cecere M.G.G., Mari Z., ed. Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae. Suburbium. Vol. I. Roma, Quazar, 2001, pp. 211-214.

147. Taft R.F. Anton Baumstark's Comparative Liturgy Revisited. Comparative Liturgy: Fifty Years After Anton Baumstark (1872-1948). Acts of the

International Congress. Rome, 25-29 September 1998. Rome, PIO, 2001, pp. 191-232. (Orientalia Christiana Analecta; 265).

148. Talley Th.J. The Origins ofthe Liturgical Year. New York, Publo Publishing Co., 1986. XII, 254 p.

149. Tarchnischvili M. Le grand lectionnaire de l'Église de Jérusalem (Ve-VIIIe siècles). In 2 Vols., [4 pts.J. Vol. I, [pt. 1]. Louvain, Secrétairiat du CorpusSCO, 1959. XVI, 174 p.; Vol. 2, [pt. 2]. 1960. VII, 139 p. (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, vols. 188-189, 204-205; Scriptores iberici, tt. 9-10, 13-14).

150. Teitler H.C. The Last Pagan Emperor: Julian the Apostate and the War against Christianity. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2017. XXXII, 271 p.

151. Testini P. Archeologia Cristiana. Nozioni generali dale origini allafine del sec. VI. Propedeutica. Topografia cimiteriale. Seconda ed. Bari, Edipuglia, 1980. 774 p., 3 pl.

152. Thacker A. Popes, Emperors and Clergy at Old Saint Peter's from the Fourth to the Eighth Century. McKitterick R., Osborne J., Richardson C.M., Story J., eds. Old Saint Peter's, Rome. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 137-156.

153. van Esbroeck M. Aux origines de la Dormition de la Vierge. Études historiques sur les traditions orientales. Aldershot, Variorum, 1995. VIII, 325 p. (Variorum Collected Studies Series; CS 472).

154. van Esbroeck M. Jean II de Jérusalem et les cultes de S. Étienne, de la Sainte-Sion et de la Croix. Analecta Bollandiana, 1984, vol. 102, pp. 99-134.

155. van Esbroeck M. Le saint comme symbole. S. Hackel, ed. The Byzantine Saint. University of Birmingham 14th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies. London, Fellowship of Saint Alban and Saint Sergius, 1981, pp. 128-140. (Studies Supplementary to Sobornost, 5; special number of Sobornost and Eastern Church Review, Nr 3).

156. van Esbroeck M. La lettre de l'empereur Justinien sur l'Annonciation et la Noël. Analecta Bollandiana, 1968, vol. 86, pp. 352-371; 1969, vol. 87, pp. 442-444.

157. van Esbroeck M. The Virgin as the true Ark of the Covenant. Vassilaki M., ed. Images ofthe Mother of God. Aldershot, Variorum, 2005, pp. 63-68.

158. van Esbroeck M. Une homélie sur l'Église attribuée à Jean de Jérusalem. Le Muséon, 1973, iss. 86, pp. 283-304.

159. Verhelst S. Les traditions judéo-chrétiennes dans la liturgie de Jérusalem: spécialement la Liturgie de saint Jacques Frère de Dieu. Leuven, Peeters, 2003. 224 p. (Textes et études liturgiques; 18).

160. Botte B., ed. Vogel C. Introduction aux sources de l'histoire du culte chrétien au Moyen Age. Spoleto, Centro Italiano di Studi sull'Alto Medioevo, 1981. XXVI, 406 p.

161. West F.S. Anton Baumstark's Comparative Liturgy in Its Intellectual Context. PhD Thesis. Notre Dame, IN, University of Notre Dame, 1988. V, 425 p.

162. West F.S. The Comparative Liturgy of Anton Baumstark. Bramcote Nottingham, Grove Books Ltd, 1995. 43 p. (Joint Liturgical Studies; 31).

163. Whatley E.G. More than a Female Joseph: The Sources of the Late-Fifth-Century Passio Sanctae Eugeniae. McWilliams S., ed. Saints and Scholars: New Perspectives on Anglo-Saxon Literature and Culture in Honour of Hugh Magennis. Cambridge, D. S. Brewer, 2012, pp. 87-111.

164. Whitehead F.B. The Church of S. Anastasia in Rome. American Journal of Archaeology, 1927, no. 31, pp. 405-420.

165. Woods D. On the Alleged Reburial of Julian the Apostate in Constantinople. Byzantion, 2006, vol. 76, pp. 364-371.

166. Angelidi Ch. To Martyrion tis agias Ioulianis tis ek Nikomidias [The Martyrdom of Saint Juliania of Nicomedia]. Byzantina, 1977, vol. 9, pp. 141-166.

167. Vark'ew vkayabanowt'iwnk'srboc': hatentir k'agealk' i carentrac' [Lives and Martyrdoms of Saints: Collected Selections from Homeliaries], 2 vols. Vol. 1. Venice, Society of Mechitarists, 1874. [5], 723 p.

168. didi svnaksari giorgi mtats'mindeli. t'ekst'i gamosatsemad da sametsniero ap'arat'i daurtes manana dolakidzem da dali chit'unashvili [Great Synaxarion by George the Hagiorite. Text and Apparatus Prepared by Manana Dolakidze and Dali Chitunashvili]. Tbilisi, s.n., 2017. 045, 635 p.

169. k'ek'elidze k'. kartuli agiograpiuli dzeglebi. natsili p'irveli. k'imeni II. [Kekelidze K. Georgian Hagiographical Monuments. Part One. Keimena II]. Tbilisi, 1946. 239 p.

Information About the Author

Basil Lourié, Doctor of Sciences (Philosophy), Leading Researcher, Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Nikolaeva St, 8, 630090 Novosibirsk, Russian Federation, [email protected], https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6618-2829

Информация об авторе

Вадим Миронович Лурье, доктор философских наук, ведущий научный сотрудник, Институт философии и права Сибирского отделения РАН, ул. Николаева, 8, 630090 г. Новосибирск, Российская Федерация, [email protected], https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6618-2829