In the description of the Viola by Pliny,' several circumstances are quite inapplicable to the Violet, but agree exactly with the Iris. 1. He mentions Violæ luteæ, amongst other sorts. Now there are no Violets of this colour; but, although the common Iris is dark blue, several of its species are yellow, such as the Iris lutescens, and the Iris lurida, which grows naturally in the south of Europe. 2. Sponte, apricis et macris locis proveniunt. This is true of the Iris, which I observed in Sicily commonly growing wild on the rocky hills, exposed to the sun; but this is not true of the Violet, which is proverbial for loving the shade. 3. Statim ab radice carnoso exeunt. The Iris has a bulbous root, appearing out of the ground, so that the adverb statim is peculiarly true of this plant, as distinguished from the tulip, crocus, &c. The root of the Violet is fibrous. A passage in Ovid 2 seems to me still more decisive: "Ut si quis violas, riguove papaver in horto, Liliaque infringat, fulvis hærentia virgis, Any one must observe how completely inapplicable this description is to the Violet, whose flower all but touches the ground, and cannot therefore, if broken, exhibit the demittant caput ・・・ spectentque cacumine terram. The Iris, on the contrary, is of nearly the same height as lilies and poppies, and having, like these, a 1 Hist. Nat. lib. xxi., c. 6. 2 Met. lib. x., v. 190. G tall and naked stem, displays, when broken, the same appearance that they do, and justifies the poet in classing them together. I should add, that amongst the country people of Sicily the Iris still bears the name of Viola. History of the Relic called the Holy Cross. A.D. 328-1575. [Read February 10, 1831, and now abridged.] THE supposed discovery of a religious relic, and the miracles attending it, are frequent topics of narrative with Roman Catholic, and of attack with Protestant, writers. It is not now my intention to enter that debateable land. But the historic changes and vicissitudes of one of these relics, for twelve centuries after its discovery, real or feigned, may perhaps excite some interest on other than controversial grounds, more especially as its singular adventures, very distant in time, and recorded by different writers, have never yet been brought together, and formed into one connected narrative. In the reign of the Emperor Constantine the Great, his mother Helena, when almost an octogenarian, undertook a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Her pious zeal was particularly directed to the search of the Holy Sepulchre, and of the Cross on which our Lord had suffered; and, according to her own judgment at least, she was successful in both. A vision, or perhaps a dream, disclosed the place of the Holy Sepulchre (A.D. 328); the three Crosses were found buried near it, and that of the Saviour is said to have been distinguished from the others by its healing powers on the sick, and even restoring a corpse to life. This discovery caused great and general rejoicing throughout Christendom,' and the spot was immediately consecrated by a church, called the New Jerusalem, and of such magnificence that Eusebius was strongly inclined to look upon its building as the fulfilment of the prophecies in the Scriptures for a city of that name.2 The relic so providentially, as was believed, brought to light, was divided into two portions. The one was left at Jerusalem, set in a case of silver; the other was sent to Constantine, for the adornment of his newbuilt capital. Of the portion of the Cross which remained near the place of its discovery, we have accounts for two centuries and more. The pilgrims who thronged to Jerusalem year after year were always eager, and often successful, in obtaining a small sample of the relic for themselves; so that at length, according to the strong expression of St. Cyril, the whole earth was filled with this sacred wood. Even at the present day such small samples may be observed as very frequently recurring in the collection of relics preserved in Roman Catholic churches and shrines. To account for this extraordinary diffusion of so limited a quantity, it was 1 For the discovery of the Cross, | Socrates, lib. i., c. 17; and Sozocompare Theodoret, lib. i., c. 18; men, lib. ii., c. 1, &c. 2 De Vita Constant., lib. iii., c. 33. found requisite to assert its supernatural growth and vegetation, which the writer already quoted, St. Cyril, compares to the miracle of the Loaves and Fishes.1 Of the Jerusalem fragment, however, I shall not here in any detail pursue the history. Suffice it to say that when, in the year 614 of our era, the Holy City was besieged and taken by the Persians, this relic was carried away. It remained in Persia fourteen years, being then restored, in a treaty of peace, to the Emperor Heraclius, who with his own hands replaced it on Mount Calvary. But only eight years afterwards Jerusalem had again to yield to hostile arms. It became the spoil of the Moslem, and the relic in question appears to have been destroyed by orders of the Caliph Omar.2 At Constantinople, on the other hand, the remaining moiety was preserved with the utmost veneration in the metropolitan church of St. Sophia, and the honours paid to it are attested and described by the father of English historians—the Venerable Bede.3 Never, but on the three most solemn festivals of the year, was its costly case unclosed. On the first day it received the adoration of the Emperor and principal officers of state; on the next, the Empress and chief ladies repeated the same ceremony; and the bishops and clergy were admitted on the third. While exposed to view on the altar, a grateful odour pervaded the whole 1 St. Cyril ap. Baronium, Annal. Eccles. A.D. 326, No. 50. One whole epistle also of St. Paulinus of Nola (the eleventh) is devoted to this subject. 2 Baronius, Annal. Eccles. A.D. 643. No. 1-4. Bede, Op. vol. iii., p. 370. Ed. Colon. Agripp. 1688. church, and a fluid resembling oil distilled from the knots in the wood, of which the least drop was thought sufficient to cure the most inveterate disease. This precious fluid is also mentioned by Pope Gregory the Great in one of his letters. "I have received your present," writes the Pope to Leontius, "some oil of the Holy Cross, which can confer a blessing by its very touch.”1 In a period of several centuries, during which this relic remained at Constantinople, we find it occasionally mentioned in the annals of the time. It was on the Holy Cross that Heracleonas swore to cherish and defend his nephews;2 it was to the same fragment that the son of Justinian the Second clung for protection, in the revolution which hurled his father from the throne; and we might entertain more respect for the devout ardour of the Greeks, if the supposed sanctity of this relic had produced either the observance of the oath or the safety of the suppliant. At length, in the year 1078, the object of my narrative recommenced its travels. A wealthy citizen of Amalfi, whose name is not recorded, had long felt a wish to exchange active life for the cloister, and had selected the monastery of Monte Casino as the place of his future retirement. Being present in the Eastern capital during the tumultuous deposition of Michael the Seventh, he perceived in the general confusion a favourable opportunity for appropriating this precious fragment to himself. Nor did he forget at the same time to secure the golden 1 Epist. lib. vii., indict. i., ep. 34. 2 Nicephor. Constantinopolit. p. 20. 3 Theophanes, Chronograph. p. 318. |
