The Temple, the Sepulchre, and the Martyrion of the Savior - Courses

The Temple, the Sepulchre, and the Martyrion of the SaviorAuthor(s): Robert OusterhoutReviewed work(s):Source: Gesta, Vol. 29, No. 1 (1990), pp. 44-53Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the International Center of Medieval ArtStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/767099 .Accessed: 28/02/2013 18:27Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org..The University of Chicago Press and International Center of Medieval Art are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Gesta.http://www.jstor.orgThis content downloaded on Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:27:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AWThe Temple, the Sepulchre,and the Martyrion of the Savior*ROBERT OUSTERHOUTUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignIn memory of Kathleen SheltonAbstractThis paper examines the ideological relationshipof the Holy Sepulchre and the Temple of Jerusalem,as manifest in writings, ceremonies, and architecture.A possible relationship between the form of the Tombaedicula at the Holy Sepulchre and early representationsof the Ark of the Covenant is explored. Relatedto this, the origin and significance of the term martyrionin reference to the site of the Holy Sepulchre isdiscussed. The term was apparently derived from theprophetic language of the Septuagint, and thus meantsomething different from simply a martyr's shrine.Finally, some comments are presented on the interpretationof the symbolic language of architecture.vW9wfjl?11111111iiiiii IIIWith the construction of the church of the HolySepulchre, begun by Constantine the Great in A.D. 326,the city of Jerusalem once again possessed a major religiousshrine. The Temple of Jerusalem had been destroyedin A.D. 70 during the Roman sack of the city, and it wasnever rebuilt. In describing Constantine's building program,the emperor's biographer, Eusebius, Bishop ofCaesarea, invited a comparison of the two: the HolySepulchre is the "New Jerusalem, facing the far-famedJerusalem of old time . . ." and the Tomb of Christ iscalled the "Holy of Holies," contrasting the new architecturalcreation on the western hill of the city with the ruinsof the Jewish Temple to the east of the Tyropoeon Valley,where the Dome of the Rock now stands (Fig. 1).1 Ineffect, the Holy Sepulchre became the New Temple.Such an ideological transformation, symbolizing thechange from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant,found several forms of expression in the Early Christiancenturies. I am not implying that the Holy Sepulchre wasconstructed as a "copy" of the Temple, and the comparisonof the two buildings can be taken only so far. Butfor the Christian visitor to Jerusalem, the symbolic contentwas enriched by the strength of the association. Moreover,because of resonance and richness of allusion at the HolySepulchre, the complex provides us with an instructiveexample for the study of the iconography of architecture.That is, if architectural form is to be the bearer of meaning,how is a specific or general interpretation attached toa given form? Krautheimer introduced the examination ofsuch questions more than forty years ago in a study thatfocused on the architectural copies of the Holy Sepulchre.201-..........FIGURE 1. Jerusalem, aerial view with the Holy Sepulchre in theforeground and the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount in thedistance (Time Magazine).However, in an architectural copy there is a repetition ofelements that provides something of a formal "hook" tohang our meaning on. The association between these twogreat Urbilder, the Holy Sepulchre and the Temple, ismore complex and more elusive.To be sure, the two buildings were lacking in mostformal similarities. The Temple had been rectangular inplan, preceded by a broad porch. It faced east onto acourt, where its altar was located. The interior was divided44 GESTA XXIX/1 ? The International Center of Medieval Art 1990This content downloaded on Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:27:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ofofRinsingChamberoFiGate of theOfferingsGate of theFlameCourt of the GentilesI I I -- IChamber ChamberILepers WoodDvr lHehcourt of WomenThe Beautiful GatelmNicanr'sAaIL&.VsGatr echal U Waam rGateLs ao W fhnT eethLKaverhe irofg0 50 100 0scale in feetFIGURE 2. Jerusalem, Temple of Herod. Hypothetical plan (after Comay).between the sanctuary and the Holy of Holies, which oncecontained the Ark of the Covenant (Fig. 2).3 In contrast,the Holy Sepulchre was a complex of buildings with anatrium, a five-aisled basilica, an inner court with thechapel of Calvary in the southeast corner, and the AnastasisRotunda to the west, containing the aedicula of theTomb of Christ (Fig. 3).4Nevertheless, there are a few similarities. For example,the orientation of the two buildings was the same, that is,with the entrance to the east, and, according to the latefourth-century pilgrim Egeria, the dedications were alsorelated. She wrote:The date when the church on Golgotha (called Martyrium)was consecrated to God is called Encaenia, andon the same day the holy church of the Anastasis wasalso consecrated.. . the day of Encaenia was when theHouse of God was consecrated, and Solomon stood inprayer before God's altar, as we read in the Books ofChronicles.5An association seems to have been made primarily onthe basis of function, and the timing and organization ofindividual celebrations, as well as the ordering of theliturgical calendar, reflected Jewish worship. Wilkinsonhas suggested that parts of the early liturgical celebrationat the Holy Sepulchre were structured following the modelof the ceremonies at the Temple.6 The synagogue servicemay have provided a liturgical intermediary, but manyelements would seem to relate directly to the Temple. Forexample, the timing of the Morning Whole-Offering at theTemple is paralleled in the Weekday Morning Hymns atthe Holy Sepulchre. Both began at cockcrow with theopening of the doors; morning prayers or hymns werebegun at daylight. Subsequently, in the Temple service,the High Priest and other priests entered the Temple andprostrated themselves; whereas at the Holy Sepulchre, theBishop and clergy entered the Tomb Aedicula for prayersand blessings. Then, in both ceremonies, the officiantsemerged from the entrance of the Temple or Tomb tobless the people.In other celebrations described by Egeria, if the comparisonwith Temple service holds, the Tomb of Christtakes the place of the Temple or, perhaps more specifically,the Holy of Holies. The ever-burning lamp in the Tombmay be likened to the menorah in the Temple (or perhaps45This content downloaded on Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:27:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1. Patriarchate2. Anastasis Rotunda3. Tomb Aedicula4. Courtyard5. Calvary6. Basilica7. Atrium-90. g.. g E-2IT::.-0,S4 i 6 75.,FIGURE 3. Jerusalem, Holy Sepulchre. Reconstructed plan offourth-century complex (redrawn after Corbo with author's modifications).to similar lamps in synagogues); and the Rock of theCrucifixion assumes the role of the altar of sacrifice onMount Moriah. In addition, the "Stone of the Angel" infront of the Tomb of Christ-the stone rolled from theoriginal rock-cut tomb-is described not as round, but asa "cube," which would liken it to the Altar of Incense atthe Temple.7Such a liturgical reflection of the Temple would accordwith the exegetical emphasis of fourth-century Christianwriters; that is, it mirrors the desire of writers likeEusebius to ground the recently accepted faith on the signsand prophesy of the Old Testament. In fact, the symbolicassociation of the Temple and the Sepulchre may havebeen initiated by Eusebius himself. In his sermon on thededication of the church at Tyre of 317, for example,Eusebius modeled his description of that church on Ezekiel'svision of the Temple, and Josephus's description ofthe Temple as rebuilt by Herod.8 His purpose was todemonstrate the continuity from Temple to church, and toshow the fulfillment of Haggai's prophecy about the JewishTemple that "the latter glory of this House shall be greaterthan the former" (Hag. 2:9).Moreover, the language used by Eusebius to describethe discovery of the site of the Tomb of Christ and thesubsequent Constantinian building project at the HolySepulchre follows the same pattern. From the beginning,he refers to the site as the martyrion of the Savior'sResurrection.9 By the end of the fourth century-and inmodern scholarship-the term martyrion is used in asomewhat different sense, but Eusebius must have intendedit in the same way St. Cyril explains a few decades later,namely, in reference to the prophecy of Zephaniah: "Therefore,says the Lord, wait for me at the martyrion on theday of my resurrection."' 0Eusebius also preached at the dedication of the basilicaat the Holy Sepulchre in 336. The sermon has notsurvived, although he noted in the Life of Constantinethat he "endeavored to gather from the prophetic visionsapt illustrations of the symbols it displayed."" In considerationof this and his references elsewhere, Wilkinsonis probably correct in suggesting that Eusebius interpretedthe "martyrion of the Savior" as the New Temple ofJerusalem in the dedicatory sermon.12The connection of the Holy Sepulchre with the Temple,then, seems to have existed from its inception, and it isseen most clearly in the shaping of the liturgy and in thelanguage of Eusebius. Neither seems to have had a clear,architectural manifestation. Nevertheless, the associationwas developed in the folklore of the Early Christianperiod. One result was a blatant literalism: "holy sites"and relics previously associated with the Temple weregradually incorporated into the Holy Sepulchre complex.For example, in the fourth century the Pilgrim of Bordeauxsaw on the Temple Mount "an altar which has on itthe blood of Zacharias-you would think it had only beenshed today," as well as the footprints of the soldiers thatkilled him.13 By the sixth century, the site had migrated,and the author of the Breviarius saw the "altar where holyZacharias was killed, and his blood dried there," in frontof the Tomb of Christ.14 Sometime before the seventh46This content downloaded on Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:27:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The term martyrion appears about 250 times in theSeptuagint, normally in a legal sense, meaning the proofof something, the evidence. When applied to a specifictime or place, the term is usually expanded to he skene toumartyriou. God himself could be the martyrion, in anaccusing sense and in executing judgment. Although theidea of martyrdom-that is, suffering and death for thefaith-was prevalent in later Jewish thought, the martyrsof the Old Testament, strictly speaking, were those whobore witness with a message for others.42 This usage wasadopted in the New Testament, in which the Apostles werewitnesses in a legal sense, and the term martyrion usuallyreferred to witness against false belief rather than theevangelistic witness of missionary preaching.43In accordance with its objective connotations, martyrionlater became used to refer to a martyr's tomb.Again, the development of this usage is problematic. Asfar as I have been able to determine, the first recorded useof the word martyrion to refer to a venerated Christiansite seems to have been by Eusebius in the Life of Constantine,written around A.D. 337, in his description of thediscovery of the Tomb of Christ, which he called "thevenerable and most holy martyrion of the Savior's resurrection."44As noted above, his terminology clearly camefrom Zephaniah 3.8: "Therefore says the Lord, wait forme at the martyrion on the day of my resurrection. InGreek, the verse ends, " . . . eis hemeran anastase6s moueis martyrion." This might also be translated as, " . . . untilthe day of my resurrection for a testimony"; or "..against the day when I arise as an accuser." Both appearin modern usage, the first in the English version of theSeptuagint, and the second in the St. Joseph's CatholicBible.45 In the Septuagint version the words martyrion andanastasis were used, and both were to become toponymsat the Holy Sepulchre. About 350, St. Cyril refers to thesame passage in his Catecheses:Now for what reason is this place of Golgotha and ofthe Resurrection called not a church like the rest of thechurches, but a martyrion? It was perhaps because ofthe prophet who said: "in the day of my resurrection atthe martyrion."46What may appear to us as a rather obscure referenceconcurs with the aim of contemporaneous scriptural exegeses:to validate the newly accepted religion with theprophecy of the Old Testament. But in both Eusebius andCyril, the meaning of Zephaniah has been altered. InZephaniah, the Lord will execute judgment. And the placeof judgment will be His holy mountain, where the Templeis located. In Eusebius, there may be a hint of the NewTestament meaning of witness against false belief, becausethe term martyrion is first introduced immediately followingan account of the destruction of the shrine of Aphroditeon the site, "defiled as it was by devil-worship."47 TheTomb of Christ thus became a testimony both for theResurrection and against false gods. Eusebius did notmean simply "tomb of the martyr," although Cyril's explanationmay be headed in that direction: he clearly interpretsthe term as a special name for a building. Thus, inthe writings of both Eusebius and Cyril, martyrion had aspecific meaning in relationship to the site.By the end of the fourth century, Eusebius's complexmeaning had been lost. The pilgrim Egeria (ca. 385)associated the term martyrium with the Constantinianbasilica, explaining that it was known as such "because itis on Golgotha behind the Cross, where the Lord wasput to death."48 Notably it was the basilica, not the rotundawith its signative shape, that was to be called themartyrium.By the second half of the fourth century, it seems, theterm was in use to refer to martyrs' shrines and places ofmartyrdom. Egeria's misunderstanding removed any specificityfrom the term martyrion as it applied to the holiestsite in Christendom, and the rich associations of the termwere subsequently forgotten. With the meaning introducedby Eusebius, as a part of an extended metaphor, the HolySepulchre could be regarded as a martyrion in a veryspecial sense: it could become the New Temple of Jerusalemby supplanting the "place of judgment" of OldTestament prophecy. And even though Eusebius's literarymetaphor was forgotten, the association of the two sitespersisted in Early Christian thought.* * *Buildings to commemorate the saints and buildings tohonor the events in Christ's life may have borrowed fromthe same architectural language of glorification, but itwould seem that they were viewed differently. The termmartyrium did not originally refer to a specific buildingtype-nor for that matter did the term basilica. In thetwentieth century, such typological associations, as well asthe belief that form must reflect function, have imposed afalse sense of order on the study of Early Christianarchitecture. Frequently form could act as a signifier ofgeneral symbolic meanings, but our interpretations mustbe tempered with a careful reading of the available textualevidence.This, I should note, is the warning given by Krautheimerin his "Introduction to an 'Iconography of MedievalArchitecture.'"49 But does the architectural imagenecessarily carry the same level of meaning as the literarymetaphor? In his paper, Krautheimer considered why themajority of Early Christian baptisteries were centrallyplanned and normally were octagonal. Looking at theceremony of baptism, as well as numerous Early Christianwriters' interpretations of the ceremony, he stressed thatthe rite of Christian initiation ceremonially reenacted theburial and resurrection of Christ. Going one step further,he suggested that the same meaning was manifest in thearchitecture, that is, that the baptistery as a building type51This content downloaded on Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:27:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

was modeled after the form of the Anastasis Rotunda atthe Holy Sepulchre.But whereas the meaning of the ceremony is madeexplicit through its language, no surviving text states thatan Early Christian baptistery was a copy of a specificbuilding. Moreover, there is nothing explicit in the architecturalform of any of these buildings to establish a linkwith the Holy Sepulchre. On the other hand, there wouldseem to have been a general, typological association of theoctagonal baptistery with a common form of late Romanimperial mausoleum, and this would have emphasized theassociation between baptism and death.5 The relationshipwith the death of Christ is established in only the mostgeneral terms through the architecture, whereas the symbolismof the baptismal ceremony is much more specific.Thus, architecture may comment on or interact withthe rituals it houses, but I think it is a mistake to expecta direct symbolic correspondence. In the architecturalsetting, there was perhaps by necessity only a generalassociation of form and meaning. It was the function-theliturgy-that added texture, nuance, and specificity.On the basis of the above discussion, I think we cansee a similar relationship between form and function emergingat the Holy Sepulchre. The associations with theTemple were developed only in a general way with respectto the architecture, but they became more specific in theliturgy, as well as in the writings of Eusebius and St. Cyril.Whereas a comparison seems invited, nowhere are we toldthat the Holy Sepulchre was a "copy" of the Temple. Sucha blatant equation would have proved limiting and wouldnot have resonated with the other, equally important,messages of the building, such as the victory of the church,the active involvement of the imperial family, and theorder and harmony of the Christian cosmos. The architecturalsetting had to provide a symbolic framework inwhich many associations could be evoked and could existsimultaneously. Clearly, the understanding of the liturgicalservice and of the literary metaphor can aid in the interpretationof architectural form, but in the final analysis,words and images, ceremonies and settings, communicatein different ways.NOTES* The following study owes much to John Wilkinson, whom I gratefullyacknowledge for his continued friendship and encouragement.Earlier versions were presented at the 1988 Annual Meeting of theSociety of Architectural Historians in Chicago and at the Universityof Chicago Colloquium on Art, Liturgy, and Music in 1989.1. Eusebius, Vita Constantini, 3.28, trans. J. Wilkinson, Egeria's Travelsto the Holy Land (Warminster, 1981), 164-71. Note also thediscussion by J. Z. Smith, To Take Place. Toward Theory in Ritual(Chicago, 1987), 74-95: "Eusebius has here invited us to comparethe Constantinian foundation with the temple in Jerusalem . . . Weshould accept the invitation" (p. 83).2. R. Krautheimer, "Introduction to an 'Iconography of MedievalArchitecture,"' JWCI, V (1942), 1-33, reprinted in R. Krautheimer,Studies in Early Christian, Medieval, and Renaissance Art (NewYork, 1969), 115-50. More recently, see my comments in R. Ousterhout,"The Church of S. Stefano: A 'Jerusalem' in Bologna," Gesta,XX (1981), 311-21; idem, "Meaning and Architecture: A MedievalView," Reflections, 2 (1984), 34-46; and idem, "Loca Sancta andthe Architectural Response to Pilgrimage," The Blessings of Pilgrimage,ed. R. Ousterhout (Urbana-Chicago, 1990), 108-24.3. The literature on the Temple is voluminous: see B. Narkiss,"Temple," Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971, XV, cols. 942-88, for aconvenient summary with extensive bibliography. For a popularsurvey, see J. Comay, The Temple of Jerusalem (New York, 1975);for the influence of the Temple in the visual arts, H. Rosenau,Vision of the Temple. The Image of the Temple of Jerusalem inJudaism and Christianity (London, 1979).4. V. Corbo, II Santo Sepolcro di Gerusalemme (Jerusalem, 1981);also L. H. Vincent and F.-M. Abel, Jfrusalem Nouvelle, II (Paris,1914). For the state of scholarship, see R. Ousterhout, "Rebuildingthe Temple: Constantine Monomachus and the Holy Sepulchre,"JSAH, XLVIII (1989), 66-78, esp. 66-67 and notes 1-6.5. Egeria, 48.1 (Wilkinson, Egeria's Travels, 146).6. J. Wilkinson, "Jewish Influences on the Early Christian Rite ofJerusalem," Le Musion, XCII (1979), 347-59; idem, Egeria's Travels,298-310.7. Idem, "Jewish Influences," 357; see the accounts of Theodosius, deSitu Terrae Sanctae, 28, and Sophronius, Anacreonticon, 20.12:J. Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades (Warminster,1977), 70-71 and 91.8. J. Wilkinson, "Paulinus' Temple at Tyre," Jahrbuch der OsterreichischenByzantinistik, XXXII/4 [Akten 11/4, XVI. InternationalerByzantinistenkongress], 553-61. For the relationship of thewritings of Eusebius to Constantine, see T. Barnes, Constantine andEusebius (Cambridge, Mass., 1981).9. V. Const., 3.28 (Wilkinson, Egeria's Travels, 165).10. See Wilkinson, Egeria's Travels, 324, note to p. 165.11. V. Const., 4.45 (Wilkinson, Egeria's Travels, 302).12. Wilkinson, "Jewish Influences," 351-52.13. Pilgrim of Bordeaux, 591 (Wilkinson, Egeria's Travels, 157).14. Breviarius, 3 (Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims, 60).15. Adomnan, de Locis sanctis, 1.11.4; Bernard the Monk, 12 (Wilkinson,Jerusalem Pilgrims, 99 and 144).16. Breviarius, 3 (Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims, 60).17. Egeria, 37.3 (Wilkinson, Egeria's Travels, 137).18. See G. Vikan, Byzantine Pilgrimage Art (Washington, 1982), 35 andfig. 27; C. C. McCown, The Testament of Solomon (Leipzig, 1927),10.19. Breviarius, 2 (Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims, 59).20. Ibid., 60.21. Piacenza Pilgrim, 19; and Adomnan, 6.2 (Wilkinson, JerusalemPilgrims, 83 and 97). For the plans, see Wilkinson, JerusalemPilgrims, 195-97 and pls. 5-6.22. O. Grabar, The Formation of Islamic Art (New Haven, 1973), 64-65. The Arabic word qubba means tomb or domed tomb, butGrabar translates it as martyrium.23. A. Reifenberg, Ancient Jewish Coins (Jerusalem, 1973), 36; but seeY. Meshorer, Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period (Tel Aviv,52This content downloaded on Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:27:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1967), 93-94, who notes the special importance of the Templeduring the Bar Kochba revolt.24. C. H. Kraeling, et al., The Excavations at Dura Europos, FinalReport, VIII, i. The Synagogue (New Haven, 1956), 390ff.25. H. Rosenau, Vision of the Temple, 20-21.26. Ibid., 22-23, and figs. 13-14.27. A Grabar, Ampoules de Terre Sainte (Paris, 1958): Monza 13 and14; Bobbio 3 and 15. M. C. Ross, Catalogue of the Byzantine andEarly Mediaeval Antiquities in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection, I.Metalwork, Ceramics, Glass, Glyptics, Painting (Washington, 1962),no. 87.28. E. R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period(New York, 1953-65), I, 93; VIII, 95-104; see also D. F. Brown,"The Arcuated Lintel and Its Symbolic Interpretation," AmericanJournal of Archaeology, XLVI (1942), 389-99.29. S. Ferber, "The Pre-Constantinian Shrine of St. Peter: JewishSources and Christian Aftermath," Gesta, X (1971), 11-14.30. E. L. Sukenik, Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece (London,1934), 7-21; Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, I, 184. The chronologyof the Capharnaum synagogue is problematic; see mostrecently M. Fischer, "The Corinthian Capitals of the CapernaumSynagogue: A Revision," Levant, XVIII (1986), 131-42, with extensivebibliography, who argues for a date in the middle of the thirdcentury based on the style and materials of the architectural ornament.The excavators, V. Corbo, S. Loffreda, and A. Spijkerman,La sinagoga di Cafarnao dopo gli scavi del 1969 (Jerusalem, 1970),passim, had tentatively proposed a date after the beginning of thefifth century.31. J. B. Ward Perkins, "The Shrine of St. Peter and Its Twelve SpiralColumns," Journal of Roman Studies, XLII (1952), 21-33.32. Ferber, "Pre-Constantinian Shrine," 24-25 and fig. 31.33. J. Lauffray, "La Memorial Sancti Sepulcri du Musee de Narbonneet le Temple Rond de Baalbeck," MWlanges de l'Universite St.Joseph, XXXVIII (1962), 199-217; J. Wilkinson, "The Tomb ofChrist: An Outline of Its Structural History," Levant, IV (1972),91-96.34. This is normally interpreted as a moveable Torah shrine or Ark ofthe Law; see Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, I, 184.35. For Baalbek, see Lauffray, "La Memoria Sancti Sepulcri," andF. Ragette, Baalbek (Park Ridge, N.J., 1980), 55-61. For a work inthe minor arts, see the Syro-Palestinian mirror frame from thecollection of the University of Chicago Divinity School, E. D.Maguire, H. Maguire, and M. Duncan-Flowers, Art and HolyPowers in the Early Christian House (Champaign, 1989), 218. Acarved Abbasid mihrab in the Baghdad museum has similar details;see O. Grabar, Formation, 69.36. Haggai 2:9, cited by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 10.4.3; see Wilkinson,"Jewish Influences," 350-51.37. A. Grabar, Martyrium: Recherches sur le culte des reliques et l'artchritien antique (Paris, 1943-46), I, 29.38. R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, 4threv. ed. (Harmondsworth, 1986), 519.39. "Churches that were built in honor of certain martyrs were calledmartyria." F. W. Deichmann, "Mirtyrerbasilika, Martyrion, Memoriaund Altargrab," Rimische Mitteilungen, LXXVII (1970),144-69, esp. 149; Strabo, de reb. eccl., 6 (DuCange, V, 292).40. "Martyrium, place of the martyrs, of Greek derivation. Because itwas constructed in honor of martyrs or because the tombs ofmartyrs were there." Isidore, Etymologiae, xv.4: W. M. Lindsay,Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi (Oxford, 1911); H. Leclercq, "Martyrium,"Dictionnaire d'archeologie et de liturgie, X.2, cols. 2512-23, esp. 2515-17 for texts; see also G. W. Lampe, A Patristic GreekLexicon, 829-30.41. The only other fifth-century references appear in the problematicLife of St. Melanie the Younger (ca. 430): a martyrion at the site ofthe Ascension and the martyrion of H. Phokas in Sidon: Vita S.Melaniae lunioris in D. Baldi, Enchiridion Locorum Sanctorum(Jerusalem, 1982), 314, 391; A. D'Als, "Les deux vies de SainteMelanie la jeune," Analecta Bollandiana, XXV (1906), 401). Deichmann,"Mirtyrerbasilika," 146-55, discusses the problematic usageof the word elsewhere in the same Vita.42. H. Strathmann, "martus ktl." Theological Dictionary of the NewTestament, ed. G. Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI, 1967), IV, 474-508.43. Ibid., 486.44. V. Const., 3.28 (Wilkinson, Egeria's Travels, 165).45. This was understood slightly differently by Jerome, In Sophoniam,10.12.325-327: "In die resurrectionis meae in futurum... intestimonium."46. Catech., 14.10: L. P. McCauley and A. J. Stephenson, in Fathers ofthe Church (Washington, 1969).47. V. Const., 3.27 (Wilkinson, Egeria's Travels, 165).48. Egeria, 30.1 (Wilkinson, Egeria's Travels, 132); see Wilkinson,"Jewish Influences," 358-59, that Egeria did not understand Eusebius'smeaning of the term "martyrium," nor his association of theHoly Sepulchre with the Temple.49. As above, n. 2.50. See the comments by J. B. Ward-Perkins, "Imperial Mausolea andTheir Possible Influence on Early Christian Central-Plan Buildings,"JSAH, XXV (1966), 297-99.53This content downloaded on Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:27:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions