Irenaeus of Sirmium and His Story in the Medieval East and West: Remembering a Lesser Saint (Studies in Medieval Religions and Cultures) [1 ed.] 9780367192846, 9781032590417, 9780429201578, 0367192845

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title
Copyright
Dedication
Contents
Acknowledgments
1 Irenaeus of Sirmium: memory and forgetting
2 Manuscript geography and memory of a saint
Bavarian and Italian early traces
Eastern Bulgarian Suprasl Codex
Constantinopolitan and peripheral Byzantine manuscripts
A Georgian testimony of a lost Byzantine menologion?
Cultural contexts and memory
3 “Remember me on this day”: feast days, calendars, and hagiographical collections
Latin hagiographical collections and calendars
Byzantine and Slavonic hagiographical collections and calendars
Calendars and forgetting
4 Medieval attempts to revive the cult of Irenaeus
Late antique Sirmium
Medieval Zidine (Širingrad)
The locus, calendars, and hagiography
The place of discontinuity
5 “Numberless Ways to Tell a Story”: textual transformations of Irenaeus’s Martyrdom
Structure of the Greek narratives about Irenaeus
Interlingual connections
Intertextual links of the Greek narratives
Greek liturgical canons
A hybrid narrative in Georgian
Transformation, distortion, and loss of textual memory
6 Appropriation of the past: the Martyrdom of Irenaeus in Byzantine Imperial Menologia and canons
Emotions and victimization of a martyr
Relics revisited
Making a joint sainthood of three
Rewriting the identity of a Sirmian martyr
7 Epilogue: memory of Irenaeus in Sremska Mitrovica today
Irenaeus’s bridge in Sremska Mitrovica
Irenaeus’s street
The Church of the martyrs of Sirmium
Until next time
8 Afterword
Appendix: Selected textual versions of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium
Venice, Marcianus gr. 360, ff. 395r-398v (BHG 948)
Moscow, Syn. gr. 183, ff. 242r-244r (BHG 949e)
Vienna, Hist. gr. 45, ff. 247v-248r (BHG 950)
Jerusalem, Panagiou Taphou 17, ff. 204v-205v (BHG 950z)
Ambrosiana, B. 1. inf., ff. 70r-71v (BHG 951)
Canon 30 of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus
Munich, Clm 4554, ff. 89v-91r (BHL 4466)
Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, lat. 371, ff. 77r-78v (BHL 4466)
Suprasl Codex, the Martyrdom of Irenaeus (BHBS 508)
Kutaisi 1 (XVI) (translation)
Armenian Martyrdom of Saint Irenaeus the Bishop (BHO 537)
Bibliography
Latin manuscripts
Greek manuscripts
Old Slavonic Suprasl Codex
Georgian manuscript
Secondary literature
Index

Citation preview

Irenaeus of Sirmium and His Story in the Medieval East and West

The study of hagiographies has generally been focused on the more prominent saints of late antiquity and the Middle Ages who inspired significant and long-lasting veneration. However, this has caused many less-well-known saints to be pushed aside and forgotten. This book is a study into one such saint, Irenaeus, a martyr who was killed in 304 ce in Sirmium, Pannonia. His short-lived cult, his feast day, and the account of his martyrdom (which had been translated into Latin, Greek, Old Slavonic, Georgian, and Armenian) had all been forgotten during the Middle Ages. This book examines Irenaeus of Sirmium’s life, cult, sainthood, and eventual disappearance from the memory of medieval Christendom, in the context of a wider study on the memory of those less-well-known saints who, like Irenaeus, became neglected and eventually forgotten. Irenaeus of Sirmium and His Story in the Medieval East and West will be of interest to scholars and students alike interested in hagiography, medieval literature and history, as well as all those interested in the religious history of Byzantium, medieval Europe, and the Slavic world. Marijana Vuković is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Southern Denmark and a visiting researcher at the Centre for Medieval Literature (Odense). She holds two PhD degrees, one in Medieval Studies from the Central European University in Budapest (2015), and a second in Religious and Literary History of the Middle Ages from the Department of Philosophy, Classics, History of Art and Ideas of the University of Oslo (2018). Her previous postdoctoral positions include the University of Warsaw (2018).

Irenaeus of Sirmium and His Story in the Medieval East and West Remembering a Lesser Saint Marijana Vuković

First published 2024 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 Marijana Vuković The right of Marijana Vuković to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-0-367-19284-6 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-59041-7 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-20157-8 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9780429201578 Typeset in Sabon by Apex CoVantage, LLC

To Milica and Marianne, my mother and my supervisor, both cancer victims

Contents

Acknowledgments 1 Irenaeus of Sirmium: memory and forgetting 2 Manuscript geography and memory of a saint Bavarian and Italian early traces  22 Eastern Bulgarian Suprasl Codex  27 Constantinopolitan and peripheral Byzantine manuscripts 29 A Georgian testimony of a lost Byzantine menologion?  33 Cultural contexts and memory  35 3 “Remember me on this day”: feast days, calendars, and hagiographical collections Latin hagiographical collections and calendars  46 Byzantine and Slavonic hagiographical collections and calendars 50 Calendars and forgetting  54 4 Medieval attempts to revive the cult of Irenaeus Late antique Sirmium  62 Medieval Zidine (Širingrad)  65 The locus, calendars, and hagiography  68 The place of discontinuity  74

ix 1 20

44

60

5 “Numberless Ways to Tell a Story”: textual transformations of Irenaeus’s Martyrdom78 Structure of the Greek narratives about Irenaeus  79 Interlingual connections  92 Intertextual links of the Greek narratives  95 Greek liturgical canons  103

viii  Contents A hybrid narrative in Georgian  105 Transformation, distortion, and loss of textual memory  107 6 Appropriation of the past: the Martyrdom of Irenaeus in Byzantine Imperial Menologia and canons Emotions and victimization of a martyr  116 Relics revisited  122 Making a joint sainthood of three  125 Rewriting the identity of a Sirmian martyr  129

115

7 Epilogue: memory of Irenaeus in Sremska Mitrovica today Irenaeus’s bridge in Sremska Mitrovica  137 Irenaeus’s street  140 The Church of the martyrs of Sirmium  141 Until next time  144

135

8 Afterword

146

Appendix: Selected textual versions of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium  Venice, Marcianus gr. 360, ff. 395r-398v (BHG 948)  149 Moscow, Syn. gr. 183, ff. 242r-244r (BHG 949e)  150 Vienna, Hist. gr. 45, ff. 247v-248r (BHG 950)  152 Jerusalem, Panagiou Taphou 17, ff. 204v-205v (BHG 950z)  153 Ambrosiana, B. 1. inf., ff. 70r-71v (BHG 951)  154 Canon 30 of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus  155 Munich, Clm 4554, ff. 89v-91r (BHL 4466)  162 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, lat. 371, ff. 77r-78v (BHL 4466)  163 Suprasl Codex, the Martyrdom of Irenaeus (BHBS 508)  165 Kutaisi 1 (XVI) (translation)  166 Armenian Martyrdom of Saint Irenaeus the Bishop (BHO 537)  168 Bibliography Latin manuscripts  171 Greek manuscripts  171 Old Slavonic Suprasl Codex  172 Georgian manuscript  172 Secondary literature  172 Index

149

171

202

Acknowledgments

Nearly fifteen years have passed since I first thought about this book. In its present form, it provides a revised version of my PhD dissertation from the Central European University in Budapest (2008–2015). In the opening of the book, I wish to acknowledge those exceptional individuals who contributed to its elaboration. My long quest for the saint evolved into a life-changing journey. Flavored by countless relocations and travels, it diverted my life path in unforeseen directions. My project on Irenaeus was housed at the Department of Medieval Studies of the Central European University. Back then in Budapest, the department became our second home away from home. At first, an unfamiliar and challenging place, it was yet inspiring in myriad ways. During my years at CEU, I was supervised by the late Marianne Sághy. Her continual encouragement and trust in my contribution enabled me to get through. As someone who flared her optimistic vibes around her, she cannot but live eternal in my memory. Marianne is no longer with us, and CEU has relocated; we will, nevertheless, always cherish those momentous Budapest days. Volker Menze was another professor who committed himself to advise my work. I appreciated his meticulous, honest comments and his friendship. My colleague at CEU, András Németh, proposed comparing the Latin and Greek Martyrdoms of Irenaeus to the Old Slavonic version, the approach which opened so many opportunities for new knowledge. Gábor Klaniczay and Trpimir Vedriš were there to instruct me on all things hagiographical. My colleagues from CEU, Mihail Mitrea, Svetlana Tsonkova, Stanka Kuzmova, and Ottó Gecser, offered helpful suggestions in the pre-final stage of my dissertation, and Judith Rasson and Alice Choyke polished its English language. When I eventually landed in Ithaca, New York, to study at Cornell University and live in the Telluride House, with the generous financial support of the Reese Miller Scholarship from the Telluride Association, I encountered marvelous academic groups at the Medieval Studies Program and the departments of History, Near Eastern Studies, and Linguistics. I learned immensely from my professors, Wayles Browne, Kim Haines-Eitzen, and the late Paul Hyams, but I found it equally valuable to connect with all my colleagues in the Medieval Studies program at Cornell in 2010–2011.

x  Acknowledgments I further spent a lovely and adventurous year at the American Research Center in Sofia, Bulgaria (2011–2012), polishing the Old Slavonic unit of my work. The center funded and facilitated my year of research, and Denver Graninger and Emil Nankov led an inspiring academic group there. Furthermore, the Institut für Byzantinistik und Neogräzistik endorsed my three-month stay in Vienna in 2012, where Claudia Rapp and Maximilian Diesenberger offered their precious advice on Greek and Latin hagiography. I am further indebted to the following specialists for sharing their expertise. François Dolbeau, Milena Milin, and Péter Tóth provided helpful suggestions at the outset of my doctoral research. The late Francis J. Thomson informed my work in the Old Slavonic language. Anissava Miltenova, Diana Atanassova, and Margaret Dimitrova warmly welcomed me in Sofia with insightful conversations about the Suprasl Codex and the early South Slavic textual transmission from the Greek language. I  am grateful to Anissava Miltenova for participating in my doctoral defense as a committee member. Yavor Miltenov supplied me with a copy of a Bulgarian Academy of Sciences manuscript analyzed in this book. Guy Philippart was an incredible host in Brussels, where we discussed the early medieval Latin hagiographical transmission. The late Robert H. Jordan kindly corrected my Greek translations of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus from the Imperial Menologia. Dimosthenis Stratigopoulos generously shared his unpublished material with me. The late Enriko Gabidzashvili and Temo Jojua were essential in obtaining and transcribing the Georgian manuscript of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus. Arpine Asryan translated the Armenian Martyrdom of Irenaeus for my dissertation and this book, and Sandro Nikolaishvili translated the Georgian Martyrdom of Irenaeus. I also thank the following manuscript libraries for the courtesy of allowing me access to medieval manuscripts and other resources: Österreichische Nationalbibliothek (Vienna), Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana (Venice), Bibliotheca Ambrosiana (Milan), Hill Museum and Manuscript Library, State Historical Museum (Moscow), Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (Sofia), ­Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (Munich), Bibliothèque municipale (Rouen), Trinity College Library (Dublin), British Library (London), Bibliothèque r­oyale (Brussels), Bibliothèque municipale (Saint-Omer), Stadtbibliothek (Trier), State History Museum (Kutaisi), and the Bollandist Society (Société des Bollandistes). The Museum of Srem and the Archives of Srem in Sremska Mitrovica, specifically the former Museum Director Jasmina Davidović, allowed access to the materials of importance from their deposits. The following individuals and institutions provided permissions and allowed me to use or reprint their copyrighted material. The Museum of Srem permitted the use of some of the visual material from their documentation. Natalia Zhukova, on behalf of the Moscow State Historical Museum, found a way in these tumultuous times to provide permissions for the visual material preserved in their deposits. Chapter 7 was first published in OPREE

Acknowledgments xi (Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe). On behalf of the journal, the editor-in-chief Paul Mojzes allowed full rights to reprint the article here. Michael Greenwood and Louis Nicholson-Pallett from Routledge patiently waited for this volume to see the light of day and supported the entire publication process, for which I am immensely grateful. Some people were the source of exceptional inspiration. Having first encountered Christian Høgel’s book Symeon Metaphrastes: Rewriting and Canonization, I  learned an entirely novel way of looking at hagiography. Over the years, the book became a guiding volume to all the subsequent scholarship on textual variation in Byzantium. I owe much to Christian, not only for his method and invaluable advice before and during my doctoral defense but also for the years of subsequent collaboration during my postdoctoral research at the University of Southern Denmark (2020–2023). Concentrating on “lesser” saints would have remained something I dare not do had it not been for the sessions “Saints at the Margins” and “Greyzone saints” at IMC Leeds 2017, organized by Robert Wiśniewski. The occasion marked “lesser” and “marginal” saints as worthwhile subjects of scholarly inquiry. While working on the database of “The Cult of Saints from its origins to circa AD 700, across the entire Christian world” led by Bryan Ward-Perkins in 2018, we discussed the value of the term “lesser saints” for a while. This debate marked the commencement of my inspiration for an overarching approach to this book. My friends and family fostered this work over the years in multiple ways. Inge Decooman was my host whenever I  conducted research in Brussels. Roman Shliakhtin helped logistically and financially when obtaining the permissions for the use of the manuscript folios and illuminations of Syn. gr. 183 from the Moscow State Historical Museum. Over the years, my family in Serbia patiently awaited my visits, sometimes even after months of absence. The quest for the saint – I must say – deprived us of many moments together. My mother, Milica, had she lived, would still have rejoiced to see this volume finally published. In Odense, 2023

1 Irenaeus of Sirmium Memory and forgetting

The last “Great Persecution” of Christians in the early fourth century (303–311 ce) during the time of the Roman tetrarchs Diocletian, Galerius, Maximian, and Constantius marked a watershed in the history of Christianity, dividing as it did Christian history into two epochal phases. In 304 ce, amid this persecution, the first Christian bishop of Sirmium, Irenaeus, sacrificed his life for martyrdom. Situated in Roman Pannonia, Sirmium was one of the capitals and a densely inhabited city during the Tetrarchy. The expansion of the later Roman Empire inevitably brought to the fore but also spotlighted several new, strategically important places. Sirmium was also notable because many later Roman emperors were born and resided there. This late antique urban setting had a sizable Christian population, as attested to by considerable material evidence, including inscriptions and remains of early Christian basilicas. Since the body of Christian followers grew in number while Christianity was not officially recognized, many sacrificed their lives for the faith in defiance of the persecuting Roman authorities. Although the number of casualties and the scope of the persecutions are today subjected to debates, the very occurrence of the persecutions is not questioned.1 Specifically, after Diocletian’s fourth edict, the Christian community of Sirmium faced one of the most challenging periods. According to the written sources, many Christian followers were martyred in Sirmium besides Bishop Irenaeus.2 St. Anastasia, who happened to be in Sirmium during the persecution, was at least captured there, if not brutally murdered.3 Her cult experienced an impressive memory migration from Sirmium to Constantinople, Ravenna, Rome, and the Dalmatian coast.4 The cult of Sinerotes (Synerotes) or Serenus, a gardener from Sirmium, was attested to by an early basilica in Sirmium.5 Four Crowned Martyrs (Quattuor coronati) were the stonecutters who refused to create a pagan statue of Asclepius and consequently suffered in Sirmium.6 Demetrius, Irenaeus’s deacon, died a day after him. His cult may have transformed into the prominent cult of St. Demetrius of Thessaloniki.7 Montanus, a presbyter from Singidunum (Belgrade), visited Sirmium during the persecution and suffered there.8 Many others, whose records may not have been visible, also died for the faith in this same location.9 DOI: 10.4324/9780429201578-1

2  Irenaeus of Sirmium The first Christian bishop of Sirmium, Irenaeus, shared the same destiny. The emperor Diocletian issued the edict stating that all citizens must offer a sacrifice in a public space to express belief in the empire’s gods. Irenaeus was captured and put on trial because he was among those who refused to give an offering. A Roman official and a local governor, Probus, ran the trial where Irenaeus renounced his earthly life by declaring himself to be a Christian.10 The crowds attending the persecution scene, including his family and friends, tried to dissuade Irenaeus from renouncing his life for the faith. Not willing to give up his belief, Irenaeus was sentenced to death by beheading. After the martyrdom, the persecutors threw Irenaeus’s body from the bridge into the river Sava. It is what the story of his martyrdom says. The historical yet anonymous testimony to Irenaeus’s heroic death, The Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium, could have been written already in the fourth century ce.11 This paradigmatic martyrdom narrative complied with the rules of the genre, with which it shared the standard structure, form, and aims. The Bollandists Hippolyte Delehaye and René Aigrain surmised that the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium possibly belonged to a group of martyrdom narratives originating from the principal written documents of the Christian trials or was composed based on them. Irenaeus’s martyrdom was of solid historical value and remained very close to the direct testimony of the persecution or even the minutes of the trial, according to their views.12 Herbert Musurillo agreed with their perspective by stating that the text was close to the earliest acts from the fourth-century late Roman province of Pannonia.13 Recent contributors expressed more concern regarding the text’s authenticity. François Dolbeau emphasized Delehaye’s skepticism regarding the reputation of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus. He stated that some textual peculiarities suggested a relatively ancient tradition regarding Irenaeus of Sirmium; he dated it to the beginning of the fifth century.14 Finally, Timothy Barnes commented on the “problematic historicity and documentation” of this martyrdom narrative: My book (from 2010) deliberately avoided any discussion of Pannonian martyrs under Galerius because of their problematical documentation, even though the passion of Irenaeus, who was bishop of Sirmium, is included in standard modern collections of authentic early hagiographical documents.15 The debate about these matters remains open-ended; nevertheless, it is notable that Irenaeus’s late antique cult also existed in Sirmium from the fourth to the sixth centuries in addition to the potentially early text. The cult was attested to by archeological remains in two sites and an epigraphic inscription. It was swept away by the Avar intrusion in sixth-century Sirmium. There are no traces of cult continuity in the following period. Irenaeus’s physical remains – relics – never reappeared after his body was thrown into the river Sava. His cult did not spread elsewhere.

Irenaeus of Sirmium 3 After some centuries of silence, one of the cult places in Sirmium reputedly dedicated to Irenaeus returned to life. Building activity of a religious character appeared on the site from the tenth to the fourteenth centuries. In this period, Sirmium was controlled by different entities, one after another, namely, Bulgaria, Byzantium, and Hungary. The last construction at the site, dated approximately to the mid-thirteenth century, was dedicated to Irenaeus. This attestation led Vladislav Popović, a Serbian archeologist who excavated in Sirmium, to assume that the earlier buildings erected in the exact location had an equivalent consecration.16 In his view, the religious objects did not emerge due to the continuity of the cult. Their building was motivated by the proliferating literary and liturgical sources at the time.17 This book covers the period before the late thirteenth century when Sirmium was within the Kingdom of Hungary. The focus is placed on the literary and liturgical sources that emerged before this period and their links with the efforts to restore Irenaeus’s medieval cult in Sirmium. Although we are bereft of the information about the original language and the original textual version of Irenaeus’s martyrdom, we know that it was written, rewritten, and translated into five languages, namely, Latin, Greek, Old Slavonic, Georgian, and Armenian. The manuscripts containing this text appeared from the eighth century in the Latin West and the tenth century in Byzantium and Bulgaria. The saint’s name was present in the earliest and some later calendars in various medieval realms. The number of languages and various versions of this narrative do not allow us to disregard any of the phases of its textual afterlife. The question of the original language of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus is still a matter of ongoing debate. The majority of scholars trusted that the original language was Latin. Tillemont and Simonetti were the two scholars who argued for the Greek origin of this text. The seventeenth-century scholar Tillemont admitted that the Latin text appeared to be closer to the records of the trials, although he considered the original language Greek. In 1955, Simonetti concluded that the original version of this text was a lost Greek version.18 The Latin version, in his view, is a literal translation of the lost Greek version, which has indirect connections with the extant Greek version because it represents its somewhat earlier phase of metaphrasis. He argued that the extant Greek version was created based on a Greek source which was the direct source for the Latin text. In recent decades, Dolbeau revisited this question, expressing his skepticism about Simonetti’s arguments and reaffirming that the original language was Latin in most scholars’ view. Dolbeau left this issue open for future research.19 Placing aside the thorny question of the original language, this book aims to follow as many of the phases of the text’s afterlife as possible to allow a view of its multiple varieties. Perhaps more than the other medieval genres, hagiography has been known for its exposure to textual varieties. It allows one to spot the initial layers and the later additions to the text and link the specific additions to the given periods, places, and communities. The power

4  Irenaeus of Sirmium of interpolations becomes visible. The comprehension of these “living texts,” which changed through different media of their transmission in the Middle Ages, is possible through such analysis. Despite the various languages in which the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium was translated and the number of textual versions, its presence significantly declined after the eleventh century in Byzantium and the neighboring lands, judging by the number of manuscripts. It led to the disregard for and neglect of the saint. The decline became striking as it coincided with the time when one of the cult places in Sirmium revived. The manuscripts containing the text grew in number in the Latin West, but only until the fourteenth century when they decreased, too. Ultimately, Irenaeus did not become a prominent medieval saint, although he was an early martyr of the Great Persecution with a historical martyrdom narrative and a late antique cult. Irenaeus would have had all the credentials to ensure a glorious afterlife and a long-lasting cult. However, entire communities forgot about him. The forgetting occurred in some parts of Christendom faster than in others. This book covers the period from late antiquity until the high Middle Ages, encompassing a critical span from the text’s appearance until the first tangible signs of the saint being forgotten. I inquire into how Irenaeus was remembered before he came to be neglected and forgotten. While memory in history occupies close scholarly attention, the phenomenon of forgetting, although omnipresent, has been a random scholarly subject. The topic’s neglect seems undeserved, knowing that more is discarded and lost than recorded in history. Large are the deposits of what has stayed in the darkness. Infinitely more things are lost than have remained in memory. If one could recall all things once forgotten, the past as we know it would look very different. Forgetting “marginal” or “lesser” saints has undoubtedly been an unconventional topic thus far. The scholarship has focused mainly on “successful” saints and their cults. Among many studies written on memory in the Middle Ages,20 some are about saints and memory.21 In contrast, close to nothing is written on saints and forgetting. Nevertheless, hagiographical material about “lesser” saints has proved prone to substantial transformations. The transmission of such material offers much scope for exploring how different historical periods and cultural milieus remembered but also transformed and eventually neglected the shared Christian literature by (re-)appropriating, (re-)imagining, and (re-)interpreting it. The textual transformations of medieval hagiography are tightly linked to forgetting. Textual variations commonly present in the transmission of medieval literature possibly did not apply to all genres of literature in medieval manuscripts.22 In Jane Baun’s view, medieval copyists had completely different attitudes toward the writings of Plato, the Apostle Paul, or the Church Fathers. Their task “was to produce a faithful duplicate of the original.”23 The anonymous authors’ writings, among which are included the writings

Irenaeus of Sirmium 5 about “lesser” saints, were commonly exposed to textual variations. While the textual transformations of medieval literature have been studied thus far, very little was said about the connection of these transformations to forgetting.24 Forgetting, at its core, refers to dysfunction or “distortion of memory.”25 Paul Ricoeur refers to it as “an attack, a weakness, a lacuna on the reliability of memory.”26 Traditionally understood as memory impairment, forgetting has recently started being considered by cognitive psychologists as “inseparable from the study of memory” and an equally constitutive part of future remembering.27 Several aspects of remembering and forgetting are of interest in this book. First, we are not pursuing intentional, willful forgetting but unintentional, negligent, and passive forgetting that leads to disregard and loss. It is “forgetting as annulment,” according to Paul Connerton.28 “Forgetting as annulment” occurs where there is a surplus of information, and more critical memory suppresses irrelevant memories. The condition is different from collective amnesia, “where communities seemingly suppress public remembrance of historical episodes that do not correspond to present interests.”29 Another memory aspect of relevance for the present book is what Ricoeur calls “secondary remembrance, ‘forgetting that preserves,’ or recollection, which enables repetition or reiteration of the past.”30 Recollection “transposes the past moments into a quasi-present.”31 According to Ricoeur, “forgetting that preserves” is the “opposite to destructive forgetting,” the oblivion without further recall.32 Such oblivion refers to the past episodes that are erased for good and cannot be recovered; they are generally of limited interest to historians of memory.33 How do we recall and recover to memory things once forgotten? Ricoeur explains that in specific circumstances, entire sections of the reputedly forgotten past can return.34 He refers to Heidegger, who argues that “forgetting, which conditions remembering, is related to the past as having-been.”35 “Forgetting has a positive meaning insofar as having-been prevails over being-no-longer in the meaning attached to the idea of the past.” “Forgotten but preserved,” stories and events can reemerge in memory as a “usable past.” The concepts of “usable past” and recollection relate to manipulated memory. Manipulated memory is instructed or institutionalized memory that serves a specific cause or ideology. According to Ricoeur, the opportunities for manipulating memory lie in “everything that compounds the fragility of identity, mainly through ideology.”36 Manipulated memory operates when stories and events that support the collective identity promote and corroborate it in specific circumstances. The activities of manipulated memory spread through various media. They have been embodied in oral resources, manuscripts, or visual support in the Middle Ages, including manuscripts’ illuminations and monuments. The manipulated memory remained one of the leading resources for maintaining the coherence and integrity of groups and societies, mainly through ideology. This

6  Irenaeus of Sirmium book, therefore, does not consider people’s personal memories but collective or social forgetting related to groups and societies. Social forgetting is ordinarily not a “total oblivion,” a discarded memory that cannot be retrieved. It corresponds to the study of the “forgotten but preserved” past. The book focuses on three types of source material related to Irenaeus: material evidence, calendars, and hagiographical manuscripts containing the martyrdom narrative, aligned mainly by calendars. Archeological remnants, calendars, and hagiographies – media of medieval memory of the saint – had the potential to transfer and modulate memory, but they also had limitations in their interaction. The inner textual transformations omitted and added information that corroborated or distorted the saint’s memory. Irenaeus’s local, late antique cult in Sirmium ceased after the sixth century. The unstable feast day of Irenaeus in medieval calendars and the anonymous text about his martyrdom translated into five languages did not ensure him a place in long-lasting memory either. The study of calendars, material evidence, and textual versions is here a study of their nonsynchronicity. Besides exploring the nonsynchronized markers of the cult, including calendars, texts, and material evidence, the book examines the role of place in remembering and forgetting. The place is understood as a literal lieu de mémoire, according to Pierre Nora. Along with Connerton’s argument that the acts of remembering are site-specific, the place is considered crucial in remembering and forgetting Irenaeus.37 The place, Sirmium, was simultaneously a periphery and the crossroads. It witnessed the succession of people, cultures, languages, invaders, and different inhabitants. Their inherent and different cultural traits turned Sirmium into a place of forgetting because discontinuity prevailed over maintaining a single tradition, culture, and language. Much memory was tied to this place. However, memory vanished as the place speedily changed identity. Sirmium became the place subject to social forgetting, a lieu d’oubli. Archeological remains, mainly the remnants of Christian basilicas dedicated to saints, are clear signifiers of past remembering and commemoration. Monuments and shrines are often discussed in connection to memory. As some scholars argue, “archeology is well-suited to tackle the relationship between materiality and memory.”38 It should play a pivotal role in the reconstruction of memory work. While the continual remembering reflected in material evidence in places of memory is easily interpreted, more complex memory migration and resurgence of memory are of interest here. In memory migration, “carriers, media, contents, forms, and practices of memory travel and transform through time and space, across social, linguistic, and political borders.”39 The memory migration leaves the sites of memory unattended. In Beiner’s view, “an examination of a memorial that is disregarded can tell us more about forgetting than remembering.”40 With memory migration, places become the places of forgetting. Forgetting then gives rise to “new societies” in the places of memory, which have previously turned into places of memory absence. New

Irenaeus of Sirmium 7 societies further either appropriate the memory or allow its oblivion. Therefore, the physical disappearance of monumental objects in such cases creates a possibility for memory to be implanted in new places, while their vanishing allows the possibility of forgetting.41 Further, calendars and hagiographical manuscripts aligned by calendars are memory carriers within a society. Through calendars, Christians organized their liturgical year by associating each day with one or more saints by ascribing to them their feast days. Memorial dates and calendars relate to collective memory.42 Every society decides which saints to remember and forget. According to Zerubavel, calendars map societies’ basic temporal structures, enabling and constraining their abilities to remember different pasts.43 Calendars invoke “mnemonic synchronization”: everybody within a society or a group remembers the same person or event on the same day.44 These “temporal arrangements” are closely linked with group formation.45 By copying and preserving the collections that glorify saints according to dates, each community maintained its Christian identity, regardless of whether they produced the collections or borrowed them from another Christian group. Calendars shaped remembering of the society’s Christian past. Such a collective memory as the active past that formed their identity continued to be relevant for their present.46 In the words of Gabrielle Spiegel, “in liturgical commemoration,  .  .  .  the fundamental goal is to revivify the past and make it live in the present, to fuse past and present, . . . into a single collective entity.”47 The tremendous symbolic significance of the calendars lies in the fact that their reforms were frequently associated with significant social–political and cultural reforms.48 Calendars were not only lists of saints to be remembered by Christian societies. They were also part of what directed people’s liturgical behavior. Calendars imposed liturgical practices by recalling saints’ names on a particular day. They further promoted certain behaviors and virtues and triggered different feelings each day, considering that saints were described by different stories. The communities that remembered – mnemonic communities – were reminded almost daily of the different holy names, deeds, and the saints’ exemplary behavior. Finally, memory directly connects to narrativity.49 By copying, abridging, and revisiting records, liturgical texts, and literary documents, medieval people and communities actively created their past.50 Through the process of copying medieval manuscripts, texts were exposed to variety. Some scholars considered that “variation is what the medieval text is about”; it is possible to have as many versions of a text as we have manuscripts.51 In literary history, we say that such texts are rewritten or metaphrased. Liedeke Plate and Els Rose define rewriting as “the process and product of the act of writing again.”52 They further connected rewriting and memory. In their view, “rewriting is recognized as a transformative technology of memory, carrying and transmitting memories but not without change and adaptation.”53 Ricoeur sees such strategies in a slightly different manner. In his view,

8  Irenaeus of Sirmium forgetting strategies include “recounting differently, by eliminating, shifting the emphasis, recasting the protagonists of the action in a different light along with the outlines of the action.”54 Ricoeur’s statement is here taken as a starting point of my further argument. In rewriting, the structure transformations are the most apparent textual changes. They may cause differences in meaning. The texts eventually send different messages and have different aims. The examination of narrative structure here follows what Gérard Genette discusses within narratology as duration/speed.55 Speed is the relationship between the duration of real-life events and their telling in the narrative. The latter is the length of the text or its sections, also called pseudo-duration.56 The length of the different sections of the text is analyzed according to the topics they describe. Length measures the physical space (number of lines on paper and number of words) dedicated to each subtopic within a larger narrative.57 The pseudo-duration of the narrative sections juxtaposed to their topical choices is particularly interesting for this book. I employ several other terms within narratology. “Frequency” refers to the repetition or recurrence of the same events in the text.58 “Pause” presents the digressions without action, the other term for which is “non-narrative comments.”59 “Scene” shows the most dramatic moments of the narrative, such as dialogues.60 Within Genette’s category of “voice,” I analyze first- and third-person narratives. In first-person narratives or “homodiegetic” tales, the narrator is present as a character in the story he tells. The usage of the first person is also called a “personal language situation.” In “heterodiegetic” descriptions, the narrator is absent from the story he tells.61 Additionally, Genette’s theory of intertextuality establishes connections among the textual versions. It purports the actual presence of one text within the other. Every document is considered a mosaic and a combination of quotations and references from other books, genres, and discourses. Intertextuality reveals the dependence of a source on the other source. It specifies how much a text moves away from the original historical record and gets involved in rewriting. Hagiographies that do not rely on other sources about the same saint reveal that their purpose was not to save the story in an alternating manner but to twist the historical record and adapt its use to purposes other than preserving memory. Intertextuality helps us understand better the metaphrastic processes. Intertextuality pertains to overlapping sections in textual versions. The parts that differ allow the analysis of rewritings. Generally, metaphrasis was commonly exercised in texts written by anonymous authors, particularly in Byzantium. It may have been understood as a tool for reworking possibly dubious documents, where redactors were unsure of their contents but wished to keep their gist in the collections. For example, Ephrem Mtsire, an eleventh-century Georgian monk and theologian, confirms that a reason to redact the old hagiographical texts was the wish to purge them of heretical ideas.62 Intertextuality presupposes literal, word-for-word borrowings from one version to another at its most simplified level. Intertextuality additionally

Irenaeus of Sirmium 9 means drawing inspiration or imitating thematic models. It involves borrowing the same topic but not necessarily using the exact words. Intertextuality supports the study of length. In that sense, Genette discusses two types of transformation: text’s abridging (reduction) and extending (augmentation).63 Reductions and augmentations also introduce changes that quite evidently affect not only length but also structure and substance.64 Excision is a cutoff, the simplest version of reduction that comprises omitting or subtracting. Aside from the simple cutoff (amputation), excision also presupposes expurgation, reducing with a moralizing or edifying function.65 Concision presupposes not omitting any part of the text but narrating in a more concise style. The product is a new version, which does not necessarily preserve any word of the original text.66 Finally, condensation depends only indirectly on the original document. It is a sort of autonomous synthesis produced from memory upon the text’s body, where every detail of the composition may be forgotten, but the meaning is kept.67 Augmentation has several manifestations. The extension is augmentation by massive addition, the simplest form of enlargement.68 Expansion augments the text with many new additions and stylistic embellishments. Finally, amplification brings in a thematic power when enlarging the narrative. Narratology and intertextuality corroborate the study of memory and textual transformation. We are equipped to research how transformed texts preserve and distort the saint’s memory. A further contribution to the study of forgetting comes from quantitative manuscript analysis, or, to use a cutting-edge term, statistical codicology.69 The total number of hagiographical manuscripts and, specifically, in this case, the number of manuscripts with Irenaeus’s Martyrdom reveal how the saint and his narrative were eventually forgotten in the Middle Ages. Hagiographical collections were generally among the most widespread medieval readings in the East and the West. The existing evidence is probably only a part of the corpus once in circulation. Even as such, the number of preserved manuscripts containing hagiography has been the subject of scholarly study only in recent decades.70 The total number of extant manuscripts containing Latin and Greek hagiography is known today thanks to the efforts of several scholars. For years, a team led by Guy Philippart and Michel Trigalet conducted quantitative calculations of the total number of extant Latin hagiographical manuscripts.71 Some are hagiographical collections proper, while others are only libelli, booklets containing texts on single saints.72 They engaged in identifying and describing what was previously reported by the Bollandists as approximately 13,600 hagiographical texts.73 In 2001, Trigalet reported the description of three-quarters of the total of 7,463 manuscripts.74 Their latest publication reports some 10,000 hagiographical texts (they revised the initial Bollandist estimation) and around 7,000 preserved Latin hagiographical manuscripts from the Middle Ages (second to fifteenth centuries).75 They advanced their research by counting the number by century.76 Within the century range that pertains to this book, the peak of the Latin

10  Irenaeus of Sirmium hagiographical production was in the twelfth century (20.9%).77 Their sample was 3,326 manuscripts out of 3,813 (not a total of 7,000), recorded at the end of 1996.78 Philippart assumed that the trend in manuscript production would have stayed the same had they counted the total of 7,000.79 Philippart and Trigalet mainly examined hagiographical manuscripts arranged according to calendars, otherwise called legendaries, passionale, or vitae sanctorum, in the Latin West.80 These were the most common forms of manuscripts preserving Latin hagiography. Calendars used to align these manuscripts, containing short entries about saints, were called martyrologies. They briefly noted a saint’s birth, life, virtues, and death. Hagiographic production in the West did not decline after the twelfth century. Philippart worked solely on Latin manuscripts and did not overview the vernacular languages. The transmission and translation of hagiographical collections from Latin into vernaculars were also on the rise at the time.81 A complete overview of Western medieval hagiography would be manifested by complementing the number of collections in the vernacular languages compiled in the West. This feature would contribute to a more transparent view of the reputation of hagiography. To my knowledge, such calculations of the number of medieval manuscripts of vernacular hagiography have not been conducted thus far. When it comes to the preserved hagiographical manuscripts in Byzantium, the Institut de Recherché et d’Histoire des Textes (IRHT, Paris) provided the lists of manuscripts, based on which the preliminary numbers can be calculated. The institute recorded around 40,000 medieval Greek manuscripts dated up to the sixteenth century.82 This number presupposes the entire medieval Greek heritage, including all genres of writing. The IRHT records hagiographical manuscripts under several categories. Arranged according to calendars, these collections, containing lives of saints (vitae) and martyrdom narratives, were called menologia.83 The IRHT counts 296 collections of menologia.84 The highest number of them date to the eleventh century (99 manuscripts, 33.4%). The extant menologia from the ninth and tenth centuries comprise 10.8%, while this type of collection declines after the eleventh century (17.2% in the twelfth century, 10.8% in the thirteenth century). The IRHT distinguishes the abridged menologia, which peaked in the thirteenth century among preserved manuscripts (24.2% of the total of 116). When numbers of menologia and abridged menologia are added, the eleventh century is again the peak of production (30% out of 412 manuscripts). Besides menologia, hagiographical texts were listed in the collections of menaia. In these collections used in the Byzantine liturgy, hagiographical texts were usually adapted, abridged, and revised to suit the liturgy.85 They were mainly set in twelve liturgical books (one for each month) containing various readings for daily liturgies of the fixed cycle: the feasts that fall on a fixed date in the church calendar.86 The IRHT database counts 581 collections of menaia. Calendars, called synaxaria in Byzantium, were used to arrange menologia and menaia. The database enumerates 260 such collections.

Irenaeus of Sirmium 11 The number of manuscripts in the IRHT database is continuously updated. As hagiographical manuscripts are sorted into different categories, it is challenging to discern their total numbers. When Ehrhard examined Byzantine hagiographical manuscripts, he stated that he dealt with 2,750 Byzantine Greek manuscripts of this kind.87 However, Ehrhard added homiletic manuscripts to the list and thus blurred the total number of hagiographies. Christian Høgel confirmed that perhaps 2,000 to 3,000 Byzantine liturgical hagiographical manuscripts survive today, of which one-third are Metaphrastic collections.88 This approximate estimate is taken as the total number of preserved Byzantine Greek hagiographic manuscripts from the Middle Ages. The eleventh century was the peak of the production of menologia because of the Menologion by Symeon Metaphrastes. As soon as it came out, it proliferated to the extent of overshadowing all the other collections. Its popularity grew so much that most of the eleventh-century menologia were Metaphrastic menologia. However, the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium never entered the Metaphrastic Menologion. It commonly appeared in pre-metaphrastic collections (according to Ehrhard), which contain texts mainly absent in the collection of Symeon Metaphrastes. They were usually earlier than the Metaphrastic Menologion, but not always. In the eleventh century, both types of collections were in use (as well as mixed collections). Since Symeon’s Menologion contains many volumes for the winter part of the calendar year (September–January) and very few for the summer, the copies of the Metaphrastic Menologion are mainly menologia for the period from September to January. Symeon’s collection commonly comprised ten volumes, starting from 1 September, the beginning of the Byzantine calendar year. Two volumes were reserved for November, December, and January. One volume covered the months from February to May, and another volume covered the months from June to August.89 On the IRHT website, approximately 10% of menologia and abridged menologia contain the summer months.90 The pre-metaphrastic compilations were disadvantaged compared to the metaphrastic collections in the eleventh century. The summer part of the year was unprivileged compared to the winter part. The success of the Menologion of Symeon Metaphrastes left little room for the distribution of other hagiographical collections.91 The Typikon of Evergetis testifies that the Metaphrastic collection was used in liturgy in this monastery in the eleventh century.92 Besides metaphrasis, possibly the compiler’s authority, the collection, and the choice of saints whose stories became canonical caused a decline in the use of pre-metaphrastic collections. With the decline of pre-metaphrastic collections, the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium declined, too. The number of extant hagiographical collections and calendars in the south Slavic tradition has yet to be discovered. Hagiographical collections were otherwise called menaia, distinguished into “reading menaia” (Четиминей/čti-minej, equal to menologia in Byzantium) and “service menaia” (menaia in Byzantium, or liturgical books proper). Reading menaia contained texts for liturgical and nonliturgical readings, lives of saints, martyrdom narratives, and other writings organized according to the calendar.93

12  Irenaeus of Sirmium Their evidence is generally sparse before the fourteenth century. Within this evidence, the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium appears in only one Slavonic manuscript from the late tenth century. Synaxaria had a parallel in prologs in the Slavonic context.94 In this book, I have envisioned including the complete material referring to Irenaeus of Sirmium by the thirteenth century: all the known hagiographies, calendars, and archeological evidence of his cult. While I relied on secondary literature on the cult of Irenaeus, the study of calendars and hagiographies, which commonly means searching manuscript catalogs and visiting manuscript libraries, is mine. The material discussed in this book includes the collections of Byzantine menologia, Latin passionaries, vitae sanctorum, and a Slavonic reading menaion. Additionally, several Byzantine menaia – collections of canons – containing hymns used in the liturgy are discussed here. Most manuscripts containing the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium are collections aligned by different calendars. The Latin Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium appears in one BHL number, 4466.95 Dolbeau revealed thirty-seven known Latin manuscripts containing this text and four narrative adaptations.96 The manuscripts come from France, Belgium, Germany, and Switzerland. A few examples from Britain and Italy are Jervaux and Bobbio. The regions with the highest production of the manuscripts are the Rhine Basin, Flanders, and the River Seine area.97 Within his list, I have examined most of those dated from the eighth century until the thirteenth century, specifically focusing on the earliest ones. This corpus of manuscripts is listed in the bibliography. The earliest among them are the following: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibl., Clm 4554 (eighth to ninth century); Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibl., Aug. XXXII (ninth century); Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibl. (ÖNB) lat. 371 (tenth century); Turin, Bibl. naz. F. III. 16 (tenth century); Rouen, Bibl. mun. U 42 (tenth to eleventh century); and Saint-Omer, Bibl. mun. 715, t. 1 (eleventh century). The Latin Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium was published in several editions from the seventeenth-century Acta Sanctorum to Dolbeau’s edition in 2005.98 In this book, I  use the text from the manuscript Vienna, ÖNB 371, potentially the earliest manuscript and certainly among the earliest. This manuscript was available during my research, thanks to the library in Vienna. Although officially the earliest version, the text in Munich, Clm 4554, has several tricky sections, which will be commented on further in the book. They disqualify it from being the sample text in the analysis. Both texts are edited in the Appendix. The Greek Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium (948–951) is copied in at least ten medieval manuscripts.99 The majority are dated to the tenth and eleventh centuries; a few later ones exist, too. They contain different versions of the martyrdom narrative, appearing in several BHG numbers and under three different titles. Apart from the most common Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium, two other versions exist: the Martyrdom of the Two Irenaei and the Martyrdom of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus. In the version about the two

Irenaeus of Sirmium 13 Irenaei, the other is Irenaeus of Lyon. As to the third version, Or and Oropseus are otherwise unknown. In Halkin’s Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca from 1957, two distinct variants of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium exist: BHG 948 and 949.100 When Halkin published Novum Auctarium in 1984, he ascribed all the texts marked by the two BHG numbers under the denomination 948.101 Thus, BHG 948 and 949 are considered the same text. Five extant medieval manuscripts contain it: Venice, Marcianus gr. 360 (tenth–eleventh century);102 Paris, BnF gr. 1177 (eleventh century);103 Paris, BnF, Suppl. gr. 241 (tenth century);104 Paris, BnF gr. 548 (tenth–eleventh century);105 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibl., Hist. gr. 45 (eleventh century).106 The Greek version of the text in the Acta Sanctorum was reconstructed from four manuscripts (Vienna Hist. gr. 45, Paris 241, Paris 548, Paris 1177), while the manuscript Vienna, Hist. gr. 45 was edited by Lambeck–Collarius.107 In the Appendix, I include text of BHG 948 that I edited from the manuscript Venice, Marcianus gr. 360. Among the earliest dated manuscripts (although not necessarily the earliest one), the Venice manuscript was available thanks to the Marciana library during my research. It presents the basic BHG 948 text in this book. I compared its text with those of the manuscripts from Paris and Vienna mentioned above; the variations proved negligible, particularly in the case of the manuscripts from Paris. The BHG 949e version of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium is known from the manuscript Moscow, Syn. gr. 183 (eleventh century). The manuscript is menologion for February and March. V. V. Latyšev edited this text in Menologii Anonymi Byzantini.108 The BHG 950 version, the Martyrdom of the Two Irenaei, recognized only in Halkin’s publication from 1957, is present in two manuscripts: Vienna, Hist. gr. 45 (eleventh century) and Brussels, Boll. 193 (seventeenth–eighteenth century).109 This text was also edited in the Lambeck–Collarius collection. Version BHG 950z, the Martyrdom of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus, was marked as BHG 951b in Halkin’s publication from 1957; the denomination was changed to BHG 950z in 1984.110 Several manuscripts contain this text: Jerusalem Panagiou Taphou 17 (eleventh century), edited by Latyšev (previously referred to as St Sepulchri 17),111 Athos, Dionysiou 83 (dated to 1142),112 Athens, 1046 (fourteenth century), and Jerusalem, St Crucis No. 16 (sixteenth century).113 The BHG 951 version, the Martyrdom of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus, differs from BHG 950z as it does not have the emperor’s prayer.114 This text is contained in Ambrosiana, B. 1. inf. (thirteenth century, 1239/40), from a monastery in Calabria.115 There are two versions of the canon: the Canon of Irenaeus and the Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus.116 Four manuscripts contain the canons: Sinaiticus gr. 614 (eleventh century), containing the Canon of Irenaeus of Sirmium,117 Sinaiticus gr. 632 (eleventh–twelfth century), Cryptense Δ.α. XII (eleventh century), and Vaticanus gr. 2069 (seventeenth century), containing the Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus.118

14  Irenaeus of Sirmium The Old Slavonic Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium (BHBS 508) appears in the tenth-century Suprasl Codex.119 The manuscript is divided into three parts, deposited in three different European libraries. The part marked as RNL, Q.п.I.72, held nowadays in the National Library in St. Petersburg, Russia (16 ff), contains the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium. Two other parts are held in the National Library of Poland (Zamojski BOZ. 201, 151 ff.) and the University Library of Ljubljana (Cod. Kop. 2, 118 ff.).120 The text was edited several times, including the well-known edition by Zaimov and Kapaldo, who published the parallel Greek and Slavonic texts.121 I recovered the Greek and the Latin texts from manuscripts. As for the Slavonic text, I used the edition by Zaimov and Kapaldo. The Georgian version of Irenaeus’s Martyrdom, thus far unedited, is copied in a sixteenth-century Georgian manuscript, Kutaisi 1 (XVI), deposited in the Kutaisi State Historical Museum in Georgia.122 It is edited and translated into English for this book.123 My analysis of the Georgian and Armenian texts is based solely on the English translations. I also retrieved information about the context of the Georgian manuscript, although I had little information about an Armenian manuscript that contains the Martyrdom of Irenaeus. The Armenian text (BHO 537) was published in the Vitae et passiones sanctorum Armeniace in Venice in 1874.124 I analyze the Armenian text in Chapter 5. Beyond this chapter, the book contains seven other chapters. Chapter  2 discusses where the manuscripts containing the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium were kept and used. The utilization of this martyrdom narrative was generic for the most part. The monasteries did not specifically venerate Irenaeus. His story was among many hagiographies read at best on the saint’s feast day, in monastic settings, during meals, or in individual monastic cells. Chapter 3 describes how Irenaeus gradually lost his position in calendars and, consequently, in hagiographical manuscripts arranged by calendars. The period that concerns this book overlaps with calendar formation in both East and West. Many saints whose narratives entered hagiographic collections in the late antique period either managed to perpetuate memory by retaining their regular date in the calendar and, in this way, continued to be “remembered” or lost the date and were “forgotten.” Irenaeus’s Martyrdom’s abandonment sometimes resulted from broader historical, religious, and cultural processes. In Byzantium, the text was not included in the famous Metaphrastic Menologion, which eventually became the dominant hagiographical collection. Irenaeus was removed from his initial feast day to the other dates as time went by in calendars and hagiographical manuscripts organized by calendars until some other saints replaced him. The period from the eighth to the eleventh centuries was critical for martyrs and other saints to establish themselves in calendars and be remembered or to fade into oblivion for good. Irenaeus’s position in the calendar collections was influenced by changing trends.

Irenaeus of Sirmium 15 Chapter 4 describes the efforts to restore the cult of Irenaeus in the Middle Ages, translated from archaeological evidence, hagiographical material, and calendars, possibly simultaneously available within the same cultural realms as Irenaeus’s place of memory, Sirmium. The possible attempts to renew the cult of Irenaeus failed. The nonsynchronized cult, calendars, and texts about Irenaeus led to negligence and forgetting of the saint. Before the erasure occurred, the story about Irenaeus’s martyrdom narrative was translated and transformed. Most commonly, its transformations show different phases of metaphrasis. They sometimes contribute to enforcing specific ideas within contemporary political and religious contexts. Chapter 5 analyzes the textual transformations of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus in all the known variants: several Greek variants (BHG 948–951), two Greek liturgical canons, one Latin version in many manuscripts (BHL 4466), one Old Slavonic (BHBS 508), one Georgian, and one Armenian translation (BHO 537). The chapter seeks to determine how this martyrdom narrative’s transformations led to preserving and distorting Irenaeus’s memory. Chapter  6 discusses several Byzantine manuscripts and versions, where the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium was transformed to serve contemporary political and religious aims. In these examples, the martyrdom text was employed as a “usable past.” The chapter delves into what it looked like when medieval communities and individuals shaped the transformations of hagiographical texts. Sometimes, the general aim of the collections influenced the transformation of single texts. The Imperial Menologia, discussed in this chapter, were used by society’s highest echelons. They promoted the martyrdom past in the political and religious contexts of eleventh-century Byzantium. Other subplots of the narrative were developed at other times, such as when Irenaeus suffered martyrdom with two other saints or when his posthumous relics performed healing miracles. The book ends with the epilogue, describing the current uses of Irenaeus’s name in Sremska Mitrovica (ancient Sirmium) connected to its public monuments: a bridge named after Irenaeus, a street, and a church dedicated to the martyrs of Sirmium. These monuments relate to Serbia’s political context of the 1990s and the local community of Sremska Mitrovica; name-wise, they relate to Irenaeus.

****************** The neglect and consequent forgetting of Irenaeus of Sirmium occurred in the Middle Ages despite the considerable body of material mentioned above. The explanation may lie in Friedrich Nietzsche’s thought that memory depends on the “prehistory of pain.” According to this idea, only that which does not stop hurting perdures in memory.125 Medieval Christians, who were in touch with the stories about the deaths of ancient Christian martyrs, no longer took to heart all of them. They did not all leave an equal impression on the posterior medieval Christian communities. The feeling of association

16  Irenaeus of Sirmium and sympathy may have been enhanced by introducing the story elements directly related to the contemporary critical issues that affected medieval groups and societies. Otherwise, once the stories stopped hurting, they lost importance and were forgotten. Notes 1 For the debates, see Barnes, Early Christian Hagiography; Moss, The Myth of Persecution. 2 For further information about the martyrs of Sirmium, see Rizos, “Martyrs,” 195–214; Poznanović, Sirmium i na nebu i na zemlji; Lapidge, The Roman Martyrs; Popović, “Survey of Early Christianity,” 179–193; Tóth, “Sirmian Martyrs,” 145–170. 3 For the different locations of her martyrdom, see Tóth, “Sirmian Martyrs,” 157–159. 4 Vedriš, “Communities in Conflict,” 29–48; Popović, “Survey of Early Christianity,” 182–185; Popović and Ferjančić, “A New Inscription,” 101–114; Moretti, La Passio Anastasiae. 5 Popović, “Survey of Early Christianity,” 181; Hytrek, “Starokršansko grobište,” 1–6; Ljubić, “Bazilika sv. Synerotesa,” 19; Ljubić, “O groblju sv. Sinerota,” 97–105; Jeremić, “Kultne gradjevine,” 49–51; Tamaš, “The Hagiographic Dossier,” 83–116. 6 Lapidge, The Roman Martyrs; Vulić, “Fruškogorski mučenici,” 99–112; Mijović, “Sirmijumski skulptori,” 113–122. 7 Vickers, “Sirmium or Thessaloniki,” 337–350; Tóth, “Sirmian Martyrs,” 145–170; Popović, “Survey of Early Christianity,” 187. 8 The Latin Martyrdom of Pullio/Pollio of Cibalae (also known as the Passio Pollionis)  (BHL 6869) also mentions the martyrdoms of presbyter Montanus of Singidunum, Bishop Irenaeus of Sirmium, and Deacon Demetrius of Sirmium. See Tamaš, “Passio Pollionis,” 9–34. 9 See The Cult of Saints in Late Antiquity Database (http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/), which testifies to several other martyrs from Sirmium: Secundus, Basileios, Seven Virgins of Sirmium, and others. See also Prica, “Hrišćanski mučenici,” 27–29. 10 About Probus in this and several other martyrdom narratives, as well as historical Probus, see Rizos, “Martyrs,” 196–197, n. 10. 11 See Delehaye, The Legends, 113, 120–121; Dolbeau, “Le dossier hagiographique,” 150–151; Aigrain, L’hagiographie, 215–216; Musurillo, The Acts, xliii; Simonetti, “Qualche osservazione,” 151. 12 Delehaye, The Legends, 113, 120–121; Aigrain, L’hagiographie, 215–216. 13 Musurillo, The Acts, xliii. 14 Dolbeau, “Le dossier hagiographique,” 150–151. 15 Barnes, “Early Christian Hagiography,” 26. 16 Popović, “Blaženi Irinej,” 86. 17 Popović, “Blaženi Irinej,” 86. 18 Simonetti, Studi Agiografici, 65–70. 19 Dolbeau, “Le dossier,” 148–150. 20 Carruthers, The Book of Memory; Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance; Brenner, Cohen, and Franklin-Brown, Memory and Commemoration; Doležalová, The Making of Memory, and similar. 21 Bouchard, Rewriting Saints; Kuefler, The Making and Unmaking. 22 For the views arguing in favor of the pervasive and omnipresent rewriting activity performed on various genres, see Constantinou, “Metaphrasis,” 9–10; Forrai, “Rewriting,” 35.

Irenaeus of Sirmium 17 3 Baun, Tales from Another Byzantium, 35. 2 24 See, for example, the entire issue of Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies 65/1 (1990); see also Driscoll, “The Words on the Page,” 85–102. 25 Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting, 426. 26 Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting, 413. 27 See Beiner, Forgetful Remembrance, 22, for extensive bibliography. See also Borić, “Introduction,” 15. 28 Connerton, “Seven Types of Forgetting,” 64–66; Connerton, How Modernity Forgets. Cf. Connerton, How Societies Remember. 29 Beiner, Forgetful Remembrance, 17. 30 Borić, “Introduction,”13. 31 Borić, “Introduction,”13; Borić refers to Ricoeur, Time and Narrative 3, 31. 32 Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting, 442. 33 Beiner, Forgetful Remembrance, 27. 34 Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting, 445. 35 Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting, 442–443; see also Heidegger, Being and Time. 36 Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting, 448. 37 Connerton, How Modernity Forgets, 7–39. 38 Borić, “Introduction,” 3. 39 Törnquist-Plewa, Sindbæk Andersen, and Erll, “Introduction,” 16; Erll, “Travelling Memory,” 9. 40 Beiner, Forgetful Remembrance, 20. 41 Borić, “Introduction,” 15. 42 Funkenstein, Perceptions of Jewish History, 6; Klein, “On the Emergence,” 133. 43 Zerubavel, Hidden Rhythms, 70–100; see also Olick and Robbins, “Social Memory Studies,” 116. 44 Zerubavel, Time Maps, 4. 45 Zerubavel, Hidden Rhythms, 70. 46 Olick and Robbins, “Social Memory Studies,” 111. 47 Spiegel, “Memory and History,” 152. 48 Zerubavel, Hidden Rhythms, 82. 49 Borić, “Introduction,” 8. 50 Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance, 8. 51 Driscoll, “The Words on the Page;” Cerquiglini, Éloge de la variante; the English translation by Wing, In praise of the Variant. 52 Plate and Rose, “Rewriting,” 613. 53 Plate and Rose, “Rewriting,” 611. 54 Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting, 448. 55 Genette, Narrative Discourse, 86–160; Bal, Narratology, 77–111, 214–218. 56 Genette, Narrative Discourse, 87–88; Genette, Narrative Discourse Revisited, 33–35. 57 Genette, Narrative Discourse, 35, 87–88. 58 Here, we use the concepts of “singulative narrative,” that is, narrating once what happened once, “repeating narrative,” which describes an event several times, and “iterative narrative,” which tells once what happened many times. Genette, Narrative Discourse, 114–117. 59 Genette, Narrative Discourse, 99; Bal, Narratology, 31. 60 Genette, Narrative Discourse, 109. 61 Genette, Narrative Discourse, 243–245. 62 Høgel, Symeon Metaphrastes, 137. 63 Genette, Palimpsests, 228. 64 Genette, Palimpsests, 229. 65 Genette, Palimpsests, 234–235.

18  Irenaeus of Sirmium 66 Genette, Palimpsests, 235. 67 Genette, Palimpsests, 238. 68 Genette, Palimpsests, 254. 69 See, e.g., Maniaci, Trends in Statistical Codicology. 70 Phillippart and Trigalet, “Latin Hagiography,” 111–129. 71 Phillipart and Trigalet, “Latin Hagiography,” 111–129; Trigalet, “Compter les livres hagiographiques,” 1–13. The most recent contribution includes Trigalet, “Making a Count,” 87–100. 72 Phillipart and Trigalet, “Latin Hagiography,” 111. 73 Philippart, Hagiographies. 74 Trigalet, “Compter les livres hagiographiques,” 2. 75 Phillipart and Trigalet, “Latin Hagiography,” 111. 76 Philippart, Hagiographies. 77 The thirteenth century is represented by 13.5%, the eleventh century by 12.7%, and the tenth century by 6.64%. 78 Philippart, Hagiographies. 79 Personal communication, Brussels, April 2014. 80 Ross, Text, Image, Message, 87; Philippart, Les légendiers latins, 24–25, 30. 81 See, e.g., McCash, “The Role of Women,” 45. 82 Institut de Recherché et d’Histoire des Textes, “Pinakes: Textes and manuscrits grecs.” 83 Menologion was typically produced as a ten-volume collection. Jordan and Morris, Hypotyposis, 245, n. 7; Kazhdan, “Menologion,” 1341; Høgel, “Hagiography Under the Macedonians,” 224. 84 Institut de Recherché et d’Histoire des Textes, “Pinakes: Textes and manuscrits grecs.” 85 Menaion stems from the post-Iconoclastic period. N. Ševčenko, “Canon and Calendar,” I, 105. 86 Kazhdan, “Menaion,” 1338. 87 Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, xvii; Høgel, Symeon Metaphrastes, 16. 88 Høgel, Symeon Metaphrastes, 11. 89 Høgel, Symeon Metaphrastes, 11. 90 Institut de Recherché et d’Histoire des Textes, “Pinakes: Textes and manuscrits grecs.” 91 D’Aiuto, “Un ramo italogreco,” 150. 92 Paschalidis, “The Hagiography,” 144. 93 Petkanova, “Миней,” 301–302. 94 Spaasky, Полный мѣсяцесловъ Востока, 1, 5. 95 Société des Bollandistes, Bibliotheca hagiographica Latina, 662. 96 Dolbeau, “Le dossier,” 147–68. 97 Dolbeau, “Le dossier,” 155–156, 156, n. 28. 98 Bollandus, Acta Sanctorum, Martii Tomus III, 553–555; Ruinart, Acta primorum martyrum, 432–434; Farlati, Illyrici sacri tomus septimus, 488–489; von Gebhardt, Acta martyrum selecta, 162–165; Krüger and Ruhbach, Ausgewählte Märtyrerakten, 103–105; Musurillo, The Acts, 294–301. 99 Halkin, Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca 1–3, 41. 100 Halkin, Bibliotheca, 41. 101 Halkin, Novum Auctarium, 119. 102 Delehaye, “Catologus codicum,” 191. 103 Halkin, Manuscrits Grecs de Paris, 127–128; Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 432–437. 104 Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 676–678; Halkin, Manuscrits Grecs de Paris, 288–289. 105 Halkin, Manuscrits Grecs de Paris, 33–34; Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 679–682; Omont, Inventaire sommaire, 82–83. Omont dates it to the eleventh century in another publication. Omont, Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum Graecorum, 16–19.

Irenaeus of Sirmium 19 06 Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 682–686. 1 107 Helland, “The Slavonic Tradition,” 74, no. 39; Lambeck and Collarius, Commentatorium, 435–444. 108 Latyšev, Menologii anonymi Byzantini, 281–283. 109 Halkin, Bibliotheca, 41. 110 Halkin, Novum Auctarium, 119. 111 Latyšev, Menologii anonymi II, 310–311. 112 Ehrhard, Überlieferung III, 360. 113 Papadopoulos-Kerameus, ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛΥΜΙΤΙΚΗ ΒΙΒΛΙΟΘΗΚΗ III, 39–45. 114 According to Halkin, in both publications from 1957 and 1984. 115 Pasini, Inventario agiografico, 171. 116 I use the edition of Schirò for the Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus, formed based on the manuscripts Sinaiticus gr. 632 (eleventh to twelfth century) and Cryptense Δ.α. XII (eleventh century). The text of the Canon of Irenaeus is recovered from the manuscript Sinaiticus gr. 614. See Schirò, Analecta Hymnica Graeca. 117 Getov, “The Unedited Byzantine Liturgical Canons,” 82; Kamil, Catalogue of All Manuscripts. Petrova and Iovcheva mention two other manuscripts containing this canon; I  had not accessed them until I  completed this book: Athon. Lavrae D 37 from the thirteenth century, and Alexandr. Patr. 146, dated to 1353, where Irenaeus’s canon is placed on 8 April. Petrova and Iovcheva, “Светците от Супрасълския сборник,” 397–398. I  worked on this text from the manuscript Sinaiticus gr. 614 (a copy from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences), helped by the transcription by Demosthenis Stratigopoulos. The edition of this canon is awaited from Demosthenis Stratigopoulos, who borrowed his unpublished Canon transcription for my work. 118 Schirò, Analecta Hymnica Graeca, 522. 119 For the latest dating of the manuscript, see Krăstev and Bojadžiev, “On the Dating,” 17–23; Ivanova, Bibliotheca hagiographica, 508; Kuev, “История на Супрасълския Сборник,” 9–12. 120 The Suprasl Codex is one of the earliest and finest examples of uncial Cyrillic writing in Old Church Slavonic and possibly the largest extant Old Bulgarian manuscript from the Preslav Literary School. UNESCO inscribed it as an item in the Memory of the World Register. 121 Zaimov and Kapaldo, Супрасълски или Ретков сборник; Miklosich, Monumenta linguae Palaeoslovenicae; Sreznevskii, “Древние славянские памятники,” 27–36; Severjanov, Codex Suprasliensis. 122 Gabidzashvili, Dzveli kartuli, 243; Kekelidze, Xelnatserta agtseriloba I, 7. 123 I here needed help from other scholars, as I am unfamiliar with the Georgian and Armenian languages. I am grateful to Temo Jojua, Enriko Gabidzashvili, Sandro Nikolaishvili, Nikoloz Aleksidze, and Arpine Asryan for their help. 124 Peeters, Bibliotheca hagiographica orientalis, 120; see also Vitae et passiones sanctorum selectae ex Eclogariis I–II. Unfortunately, I had no way of learning about the manuscript tradition of this Armenian translation. 125 Nietzsche, On the Genealogy, 292–297; Borić, “Introduction,” 9.

2 Manuscript geography and memory of a saint

Medieval manuscripts were ordinarily produced in monastic scriptoria. Monasteries kept manuscripts for their use or distributed them elsewhere. The high demand for medieval books and the limited number of production places caused their widespread circulation. The places of “production” and “use” of manuscripts could sometimes have been different. For contemporary researchers, gathering information about both places is occasionally unfeasible. Regardless of the distinction, we consider that both the places of manuscripts’ production and places of use were interested in having, keeping, and utilizing hagiographical manuscripts. The primary, but not the only, concern of this chapter involves those places where the manuscripts containing the Martyrdom of Irenaeus were produced and used. I map the manuscripts into a network of their manuscript geography, which ties manuscripts to their specific communities of producers and consumers. One of the critical premises of this field of study is that “the history of the manuscript book cannot be told without a thick description of its geographies.”1 Books are connected to physical places and the literary communities behind them. Scholars have already concluded that hagiography was a genre in high demand, and this led to the production of many manuscripts. They considered the extent and the ways hagiography was used, read, or heard in the Middle Ages. The social aspects of hagiography’s use, its appeal to society’s different strata, its “popularity,” and its success were addressed thus far.2 More nuanced research related to the specific periods also ensued. Some scholars concluded that hagiography’s readership from late antiquity to the Middle Ages became focused on particular social groups of users and consumers; in late antiquity, its appeal was broader.3 The literature dedicated to saints became restricted in the Middle Ages to those who had access to it – monastic circles, higher strata of society, and royal and imperial entourages. Laypeople could have, at times, listened to hagiography. The different periods thus brought about diverse appeals and availability of hagiography in connection to different social groups. Uncovering the places of production and use reveals the users of hagiographical texts. Availability of hagiographical texts presupposes not only DOI: 10.4324/9780429201578-2

Manuscript geography and memory of a saint 21 the physical accessibility or the opportunity of the typical audience to come in contact with a text physically but also, for example, the linguistic comprehensibility of the text among the wider audience. Some specific questions regarding the manuscript geography can add to a more nuanced knowledge about hagiography’s readership. These questions presuppose not only a mere geographical place, that is, manuscript provenance. They also include the language spoken in a specific geographical place in connection to the language of the text, the complexity of a literary–religious text and the ways different social strata of its readers comprehend it, its availability, the religious group that its readers belong to, and the norms that the groups followed. Medieval monastic libraries functioned in contexts. The readership was tightly connected to an institution’s religious practices, daily life, and prescribed norms. The place is inextricably linked to time since geographical locations in different periods had different histories. These issues influenced the readership of hagiographical texts, their success, and an enduring afterlife. Hagiography’s readership also depended on the feast day(s) of saints in the calendar, saintly cults, and saints themselves. Saints had different stories, some of which were more impressive than others. Saints could have been mentioned in one or more stories within a library. Naturally, less-represented texts would likely not make the saints significantly prominent in the library where they were kept or among people who read these texts. The scholarly approaches that have estimated hagiography’s general attractiveness have proved cumbersome in this sense. A more rewarding strategy is to focus on the specific reputation of single hagiographical texts rather than talk about hagiography in general.4 None of the places containing the manuscripts with the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium expressed the manifest traces of his cult or any cult-like features. The monasteries kept the manuscripts with his martyrdom narrative among many other texts. The text’s use was mainly generic in the collections organized by calendars; it may have been read once a year on Irenaeus’s feast day. As a sole marker of the saint’s memory, the text alone could not enforce maintaining his memory or developing his cult. In this chapter, I look into the corpus that includes the versions of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium: Latin BHL 4466, Greek BHG 948 and 949e, Old Slavonic BHBS 508, the Georgian version, the Martyrdom of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus (BHG 950z and 951), and the liturgical canons. I focus on the historical context, language, textual comprehensibility, availability, social status of its readers, religious groups that the readers belonged to, and the norms that the groups followed. The premise is that, besides the places of copying and use, other factors also affected the unfavorable afterlife of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus: language, territory, rewriting methods, textual fixity, comprehensibility, and availability. Additionally, I trace some of the manuscripts’ paths, even if the entire network may not be fully reconstructed. A portion of the manuscripts was transmitted through the manuscript commission and gift-giving.

22  Manuscript geography and memory of a saint The information about manuscript provenance is commonly retrieved from colophons, marginal notes, and dedications written in manuscripts, if available. For the present study, I gathered information about manuscripts, specifically regarding their provenance, from various manuscript catalogs and my personal visits to the manuscript libraries. Bavarian and Italian early traces In the eighth century, the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium appeared in the manuscripts in early medieval Bavaria and northern Italy. Bavaria was, at the time, a peripheral land of the Frankish kingdom. Located at the intersection of the Frankish, Lombard, Slavic, and Avar worlds, Bavaria developed into an autonomous region during the Agilolfings, the noble Bavarian family who had their Merovingian suzerains.5 After Charlemagne’s victory over the Avars in 796 ce, Bavaria was about to be integrated into the Frankish world. It became “a front of Christianization towards Central Europe.”6 The Bavarian Christianizing missions were organized to the regions eastwards from Bavaria.7 The expansion and political unification of the large multiethnic territory were closely linked to the religious consolidation. The competition for the lead in missionary activity and political hegemony went hand in hand.8 The early manuscripts containing the Martyrdom of Irenaeus had a monastic provenance. The monasteries that kept them were in close contact with the world outside of the cloister, particularly kings and aristocrats, which was common in the Carolingian world.9 The monasteries had their political function.10 The specific monasteries that kept the manuscripts containing the Martyrdom of Irenaeus were established by Anglo-Saxon and Irish missionaries who came to the Continent. The Frankish and Lombard rulers invited the missionaries and supported the establishment of the monastic centers. These places eventually turned into Benedictine strongholds in the ninth century. The Rule of St. Benedict was introduced as the standard monastic rule in Frankish monasteries after the reform councils in 816–817. Nevertheless, the decision was put into practice gradually and unevenly.11 The first material evidence of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium in the Latin manuscript Munich Clm 4554 is dated to the third quarter of the eighth century. The manuscript originates from the Benediktbeuern monastery in Bavaria; nevertheless, it contains a colophon that points to a nearby monastery Kochel/Cochel. A  note on folio 164v (the last folio containing the text) says: The queen Kysila donated to the Monastery of St. Michael at Cochel in the eighth century.12 In one of the opening folios, another note mentions the donor: This was a gift of Kysila, in the eighth century.13 Queen Kysila/Gisila (Gisèle/Giselle) was the wife of Childeric III, the king of the Franks of the Merovingian dynasty (717–754 ce).14 She, a female member of the royal family, donated the manuscript to the Kochel monastery.15 The dating of the colophons is nevertheless not secure; they may well have originated from a later period.

Manuscript geography and memory of a saint 23 Kochel and Benediktbeuern were the Benedictine order’s sister monasteries, founded by Lantfrid from a Bavarian noble clan Huosi.16 Benediktbeuern was founded around 739 ce, and Kochel somewhat later.17 Benediktbeuern was linked to the royal Frankish family through its donors and a missionary in the Germanic lands named Boniface.18 Boniface enjoyed the support of the Frankish officials in his missionary work. He may have influenced the establishment of the Benediktbeuern by urging the local Bavarian noble clan to build a monastery.19 In his missionary work, Boniface struggled to institute monasteries and introduce them to the Rule of St. Benedict rather than relying on Iro-Frankish or Gallo-Roman traditions. The Anglo-Saxon monasticism which he promoted was mainly Benedictine. The monastery Benediktbeuern was dedicated to the saints James the Great, a son of Zebedee, and Benedict of Nursia. Later, Kochel and Benediktbeuern suffered during the Magyar raids in 955.20 Kochel never recovered from the devastation, while the Benediktbeuern Abbey continued until 1803. Kochel’s riches (including books) were transferred to Benediktbeuern, among them the manuscript Clm 4554. These circumstances explain a confusing double provenance of the manuscript Clm 4554. Scholars previously discussed the links of Munich Clm 4554 to Eastern traditions. Delehaye assumed that the Latin texts in this manuscript were the translations of Greek texts from “a Greek menologion” available at the time, in which the passions of the saints of Asia Minor, Egypt, and Moesia followed the calendar order.21 Philippart, however, suggested that the manuscript compiled various translations of scattered Greek passions made in Rome rather than translating an earlier menologion since no equivalent Greek collection had yet emerged at the time.22 Philippart’s opinion became more relevant, especially as Munich Clm 4554 did not align the texts according to the calendar.23 The “Greek passions,” as scholars call them, could have been understood as a universal Christian heritage translated from the East to the West. Through their arguments about the manuscript Clm 4554, Delehaye and Philippart indirectly implied that Irenaeus’s Martyrdom was first written in Greek and then translated into Latin.24 I have already summarized the debate about the original language in Chapter  1, emphasizing that most scholars considered Latin to be the original language of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus. Munich Clm 4554 is a sole example of a miscellany (entitled Passionale apostolorum et aliorum plurimorum martyrum) among the manuscripts containing the Martyrdom of Irenaeus.25 It contains apocryphal acts and martyrdom narratives, mainly dedicated to Eastern saints and martyrs from Asia Minor, Africa, and Moesia, where bishop–martyrs predominate.26 It opens with the Apostles Peter and Paul, Andrew, John, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, Jacob. The passions of the bishops follow (where Irenaeus’s Martyrdom comes in). The last part contains a significant number of female martyrs.27 Philippart assumed that Clm 4554 compiled the texts translated in some Eastern monastic settings in touch with the West, possibly the Greek

24  Manuscript geography and memory of a saint monasteries in Rome.28 The scriptoria in Rome during late antiquity translated early hagiographical works from Greek to Latin and vice versa; the Martyrdom of Irenaeus could have been translated from Greek there. At the time, the Greek population was present in Rome in significant numbers. Many Greek-speaking people lived in southern Italy at the end of the sixth century.29 In the seventh century, Greek-speaking refugees from Syria and Egypt came to Italy due to the Sassanid Persians’ and Arabs’ incursions.30 From southern Italy, they moved to Rome. These southern Italian émigrés became common in Rome at the time.31 Several monasteries of the eastern monks were established in Rome. Out of nine seventh-century monastic foundations in Rome, five were Greek.32 Since the scriptoria had prolific workshops, Rome could have played a crucial role in the transmission of these texts.33 Once the Latin version of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium was (possibly) transmitted from Rome to Bavaria, it further appeared in several other manuscripts. The ninth-century manuscript Karlsruhe Aug. XXXII, which contains this text, originates from the Benedictine Abbey of Reichenau.34 This Bavarian monastery was established by an Irish missionary, Pirmin, in 724 on an island in Lake Constance in southern Germany. It was supported by the Frankish rulers.35 The manuscripts were produced in this monastery from the eighth century.36 The abbey became Benedictine and influential during the Carolingian dynasty in the second half of the eighth century. The church founded by Pirmin was dedicated to Mary, Peter, and Paul. The cult of Mark the Evangelist was developed later.37 The Martyrdom of Irenaeus also appeared in the tenth-century manuscript Turin F. III. 16, originating from the Bobbio Abbey in northern Italy. A marginal note testifies that the manuscript once belonged to this abbey dedicated to St. Columbanus (liber Sancti Columbani de Bobbio).38 The cooperation of the Irish missionary Columbanus and the Lombard king Agilulf established Bobbio in 613 ce.39 Different hands wrote the manuscript. It is among the illuminated Bobbio manuscripts, which were inspired by the Carolingian exemplars that replaced the Irish influence from the previous period.40 Benedictine monasticism eventually replaced the insular influences dominating early Western monasticism. Boniface’s idea was to introduce the Rule of St. Benedict to the newly established monasteries. Although the Christian communities established by the Iro-Frankish missionaries in large parts of Bavaria and places like Bobbio were not organized into a single church, they were probably already Benedictine by the time the manuscripts with the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium appeared there.41 The idea behind it was the unification of monastic life. The centers like Reichenau and Bobbio had excellent communication with the rulers. They functioned under royal patronage and supervision.42 The Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium further appeared in the manuscript Vienna 371, broadly dated from the eighth to the tenth century and originating from Salzburg or Saint-Amand-les-Eaux (Nord).43 If the early

Manuscript geography and memory of a saint 25 dating of this manuscript is correct, it may be the earliest Latin manuscript containing Irenaeus’s Martyrdom. Perhthar, a monk in Salzburg, owned it in the tenth century.44 Before 990 ce, Perhthar gave the manuscript as a gift to Archbishop Friedrich von Chiemgau (archbishop of Salzburg, 958–991 ce). It stayed in Salzburg (Domkapitelbibliothek) from the tenth–eleventh century until 1806. The Franks possibly ordered the manuscript for Bavaria as part of the policy and reforms that strengthened the Frankish influence. It may have even been brought from France to Bavaria. Even if copied locally, it nevertheless presented an instrument of the Carolingians for the implementation of the reforms on a local level.45 Two other manuscripts containing the Martyrdom of Irenaeus appeared by the end of the eleventh century: tenth- to eleventh-century Rouen U 42,46 which belonged to the Abbey of Angers (dedicated to St. Sergius) in western France, and the eleventh-century St-Omer, 715, tomus I, originating from the Benedictine Abbey of St. Bertin in Saint-Omer, France (dedicated initially to St. Peter, and later to St. Bertin).47 The transmission of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus thus geographically moved westwards from the initial monastic settings in Bavaria and Italy to the monasteries of western France. Initially established by missionaries from different regions, the monasteries underwent monastic reforms to erase the local and original divergences. They were to adopt the Benedictine Rule and become the Benedictine centers. Scholars agree that the liturgical practices of the Western Church at the beginning of the eighth century were as diverse and “national” as the organizational and geographical structures of the church.48 The Merovingian liturgical practices may have allowed a certain level of variation. However, when Charlemagne received the Sacramentarium Gregorianum from Pope Hadrian I around 784 ce, it struck a fatal blow to the Merovingian liturgy, which was replaced by the Roman Rite as a part of Charlemagne’s liturgical reforms. Some scholars argue that the subsequent liturgical production in the Carolingian period did not witness the absolute abandonment of Merovingian Frankish rites. Some diversity in liturgical practices continued throughout the ninth century and beyond. Louis the Pious held councils in 816 and 817 and insisted on the consistent use of the Rule of St. Benedict to unify monastic liturgical customs. The reforms, which presupposed the insistence on the use of the Rule of St. Benedict, also demanded the correct Latin language.49 The proper Latin in the liturgy was successfully standardized and efficiently promoted.50 While the Latin of the liturgy stayed fossilized, everyday Latin was gradually abandoned. Scholars agree that the ordinary audience no longer understood the Latin language by the ninth century.51 While it is unclear whether the fossilization of liturgical Latin also influenced hagiography, it certainly happened to the Martyrdom of Irenaeus. This hagiographical text appeared in one BHL version (4466) and remained relatively stable throughout the Middle Ages. The textual stability (particularly language-wise) distanced the text from its audience in the centuries to come.

26  Manuscript geography and memory of a saint People may have listened to the text in the church services dedicated to celebrating the saints’ feast days when certain parts of hagiography were read aloud, and even illiterate believers could have had access to it. According to Uytfanghe, at least during the Merovingian period, the lives of saints were aimed at both the cultivated audience and ordinary people, and both groups could understand Latin hagiography at this time.52 Merovingian hagiographers indicated that their audience, even illiterate believers, understood them. A  change occurred from Merovingian to Carolingian hagiography; while the former had a practical pastoral aim, the latter served to edify the monks, nuns, and clerics.53 The audience was reduced not only due to the comprehensibility of the language but also the accessibility of texts. Germanic people, who inhabited the region where the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium first appeared in the Western world, did not use Latin as their native tongue. In Germanic areas, the audience of hagiography was probably restricted to the literate monks in the monasteries that kept the manuscripts. Even if hagiographical texts were read publicly to an audience other than the regular monastic dwellers during the liturgy, they might have needed help understanding Latin texts. Katrien Heene confirms that Latin was introduced in the Germanic-speaking territories during the evangelization period as the language of the Church and elite, who studied it as a foreign language.54 Inside German monasteries in the Carolingian period, hagiographical texts were used and read aloud as in Frankish cloisters, during meals, or the readings in morning services or vigils on the feast day of a saint.55 Her argument attests that texts such as the Martyrdom of Irenaeus could have been, at best, read once a year to an audience who may not have understood it well. The circumstances might have been different in the typically Latin/Romance regions, where an audience, including the listeners, may have better comprehended the Latin texts. The contexts in which the Martyrdom of Irenaeus was kept did not preserve the story about Irenaeus in stable memory. His Martyrdom was among many other similar readings for the monastic audience. The Martyrdom alone was insufficient to sustain the memory of the saint about whom most monastic and other audiences needed to learn more. The manuscripts containing it were collections of many saints’ lives and martyrdom narratives. Each saint had a feast day in a calendar; sometimes, two or more saints shared the same date. On the other hand, the monasteries had their holy protectors, who were usually more prominent saints and whose readings were owned and cherished to a much larger extent. The organization of the monastic institutions in the West changed during this time. The religious diversity was abandoned and replaced by the unified Benedictine monasticism. The everyday Latin language transformed, while multilingualism was an issue in some parts. At the same time, the language of Irenaeus’s Martyrdom experienced minimal transformation. Despite the growth in the number of manuscripts containing this text after the eleventh century, the memory of Irenaeus did not improve. The monastic

Manuscript geography and memory of a saint 27 manuscripts from France, Belgium, Germany, and Switzerland, particularly the Rhine Basin, Flanders, and the River Seine area, constituted their majority. These regions generally transmitted the highest number of collections of legends.56 The majority were arranged according to the calendar; however, several of them were the collections of passions, the so-called passionaries, which detach from the calendar structure.57 Passionaries were used for reading in a variety of medieval church and monastic contexts.58 In each of them, the Martyrdom of Irenaeus appeared among the plethora of other hagiographical accounts. Eastern Bulgarian Suprasl Codex The Old Slavonic Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium appeared in a single medieval manuscript, the Suprasl Codex, dated to the end of the tenth century.59 The Suprasl Codex is one of the earliest and most beautiful examples of uncial Cyrillic writing in Old Slavonic and possibly the most substantial extant Old Bulgarian manuscript from the Preslav Literary School.60 It is also the only preserved Old Slavonic manuscript containing the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium from the tenth to the sixteenth century. A lengthy scholarly discussion was held over the dating61 and the Surpasl Codex’s provenance.62 The current scholarly opinion is that the manuscript was produced in eastern Bulgaria, probably in Preslav,63 by the end of the tenth century.64 Preslav was the second capital of the First Bulgarian Empire and the new seat of the Christian ruler Symeon of Bulgaria (893–927 ce). Scholars agree that the Suprasl Codex was composed during the reign of Tsar Peter of Bulgaria (927–969), who succeeded Symeon. Some scriptoria existed in eastern Bulgaria, yet the Suprasl Codex most likely belongs to Preslav.65 The manuscript consisted of Greek translations, which testified to the close cultural exchange between Byzantium and the Slavs. The Preslav School (ninth to tenth centuries) was among several “schools of translation” in medieval Bulgaria, preceded by the Cyrillo-Methodian School (ninth century) and followed by the Tarnovo Literary School (thirteenth to fourteenth centuries).66 The disciples of Cyril and Methodius were engaged in the activities of the Preslav School. They found refuge in the First Bulgarian Empire after the Moravian mission of Cyril and Methodius failed when their disciples were exiled from Moravia. They eventually came to Preslav and started their literary activities there. Presumably, this text was used in some of the town monasteries related to the ruler’s court and in royal liturgical ceremonies or by monastic dwellers in monasteries outside the town. Preslav had a magnificent emperor’s palace, a patriarchal palace, a cathedral church, a palace chapel, and several monastic buildings.67 Approximately twenty-five monasteries existed around the town. Among the most famous was the monastery in Patleina near Preslav. Some of the monasteries were related to the Bulgarian ruling dynasty of the ninth century. Boris-Mihail founded the Ravna monastery in the ninth century, which

28  Manuscript geography and memory of a saint had strong ties to the royal family. The ninth–tenth century’s intellectual elite – Constantine of Preslav, John the Exarch, and Crnorizac (Chernorizets) Hrabar – were active in some of these monasteries, testifying to the affluent cultural period. The texts in Old Slavonic may have been likewise produced in the lavish royal complex of the palace monastery.68 Preslav, in general, had many churches and monasteries where the Suprasl Codex, among others, may have been copied and used. The Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium was thus copied in the Suprasl Codex in the Bulgarian capital’s setting. Presumably, it was used in some city monasteries related to the ruler’s court and royal liturgical ceremonies. Alternatively, the monks could have used the manuscript in monastic settings. It might have included a broader audience in Preslav if an opportunity existed to attend the readings during services. A reading menaion, the Suprasl Codex may have been an auxiliary liturgical book. If liturgical, reading menaia were read aloud at Orthros (morning monastic service) in the monastic context and for the laity.69 In a monastic context, they were read communally over meals or individually in monastic cells. Nevertheless, the translation and copying of this manuscript’s texts were by no means coherent and structured. The different texts in the Suprasl Codex were translated in different periods. The Codex is divided thematically into two parts: hagiographical and homiletic. The hagiographical texts were arranged according to a calendar from the 4th to the 31st of March. Apart from containing twenty-four hagiographical texts about Christian saints for March, this manuscript contains twenty-three homilies for the movable feasts of the calendar year: twenty by John Chrysostom, one by Patriarch Photius, one by Basil the Great, and one by Epiphanius of Cyprus. Scholars initially ascertained that the two layers of the manuscript were translated at different times.70 They recognized an older, archaic layer (Cyrillo-Methodian), which was predominantly homiletic, and a later, martyrological layer (Preslav translations), which includes the texts ascribed to Preslav scribes.71 Eventually, they changed the argument, saying that the different martyrdom narratives were translated before the Preslav School. Whether Irenaeus’s Martyrdom was translated into Old Slavonic during the Preslav school or earlier remains unclear. The Bulgarian scholar Dunkov contributed to this subject by separating three groups of the Suprasl texts according to their use of archaic “textological” doublets, contrasted to later “Preslav” doublets.72 By textological doublets, Dunkov understands pairs of words translated from Greek, where one of them is translated, and the other is transcribed, preserving the Greek word (i.e., въздоухъ – аеръ, for Greek ἀήρ). He counted the number of times each option was used in the Suprasl texts, concluding that they are heterogeneous in their use (some texts use innovative, translated Slavonic words while others use archaizing transcribed words). Dunkov placed the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium in the group between the Cyrillo-Methodian and Preslav traditions, dating the translation to a period earlier than the Preslav School. Dunkov’s theory discarded the

Manuscript geography and memory of a saint 29 previous common conviction that the Suprasl Codex had two strictly distinguished layers: homiletic and martyrological. He argued that there were both homilies and martyrdom narratives in both groups. In another article, Dunkov argued that a group of texts (lives of saints/ martyrdom narratives) from the Suprasl Codex had already been translated around 885 ce. Among these texts is the Martyrdom of Irenaeus.73 The texts were translated in Moravia during Methodius’s mission. With this argument, he placed the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium in the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition, the earliest tradition of the Slavonic translations. How comprehensible were the texts of the Suprasl Codex to their audience in the tenth century? Scholars agreed that scribes in the Preslav School worked on revising the texts before copying them into the Suprasl Codex. Natalia Samoilova argued that the fragments and quotes from the Gospels in the Suprasl Codex were redacted in Preslav and inserted in both the newly translated texts and the earlier ones.74 Mircheva argued that a demand for a higher literary style was one of the requirements of the “Preslav Literary School.”75 The old texts were embellished and corrected before they entered the Suprasl Codex. Dobrev argues that the Preslav translations in the Suprasl Codex were adapted so that the corresponding Slavonic words replaced the Greek expressions.76 Such conclusions show that the texts were meant to be read by more educated layers of society, who could understand such stylistic embellishments. The translation rather than a transcription of Greek words could point to making the texts more readable and accessible to the contemporary audience. Those texts that were not revised were probably understandable to their audience. We do not know whether Irenaeus’s Martyrdom was adjusted before being copied into the manuscript. As a sole sample of the text before the early modern period, it provided a tiny wedge to keep Irenaeus’s memory in the Slavic tradition. Constantinopolitan and peripheral Byzantine manuscripts The preserved Greek manuscripts containing the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium are not dated earlier than the tenth century. Most originate from the monasteries of Constantinople, established by the imperial families.77 A few manuscripts link to the imperial court in Constantinople, while the third group appears in the monasteries of St. Sabas in Palestine, Mount Athos, and the southern Italian monasteries. Besides, the liturgical canons dedicated to Irenaeus, as part of the liturgy, existed only in Greek. Their provenance was likewise monastic. Five medieval manuscripts from the tenth to the eleventh century, containing the BHG 948 version of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium, originate from Constantinople.78 The manuscript Venice Marcianus gr. 360, dated to the tenth or eleventh century,79 possibly belonged to the Church of the Virgin Mary of Blachernae in Constantinople, the second most important church

30  Manuscript geography and memory of a saint after Hagia Sophia.80 The manuscript’s first page, a printed page from a catalog glued into the manuscript, contains brief information about its contents and a note about its origin: The lives of the saints and eulogies of the months July and August in the deposits of the Church of St. Mary of Blachernae.81 Further, the manuscript BnF gr. 1177, dated to the eleventh century, possibly originates from the Monastery of St. George at Mangana in Constantinople.82 The scribe’s note on folio 9 reveals his name and the provenance: “Monk Methodios, cathegoumenos of the monastery of St. George.”83 Both manuscripts were two-month menologia containing saints’ lives. None contain significant decorations, not even the capital letters, and only a few marginal notes. The manuscript BnF gr. 1177 was transferred to Western Europe later in the Middle Ages (as Fonteblaudensis 87).84 The third codex that contains BHG 948 version, BnF Suppl. gr. 241, dated to the tenth century, was copied in Constantinople.85 Further, BnF gr. 548, dated from the tenth to the eleventh century,86 based on scholia, was possibly written for a monastery in Constantinople, but one other than the Studios monastery. Its layout does not contain decorations. The beginnings of the texts are decorated, along with the capital letters. The signature of a scribe, Stephanos, in folio 255 says: “Lord, protect your servant, Stephanos, who wrote this. Amen.”87 This manuscript was also transferred to the West, the abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, later in the Middle Ages. Another manuscript containing BHG 948 is the eleventh-century Vienna, Historicus gr. 45, entitled Vitae sanctorum mensis augusti on folio 1. Ehrhard assumed that the manuscript was copied in Constantinople because it was acquired from Constantinople.88 On folios 2r and 309v, the notes reveal: Busbecke purchased (it) in Constantinople.89 Vienna hist. gr. 45 is the only medieval manuscript that contains the Martyrdom of the Two Irenaei (BHG 950). Altogether, the Greek manuscripts containing BHG 948 and 950 originate from various monasteries of Constantinople. The physical features and the page layouts testify to their monastic use. On the other hand, the eleventh-century manuscript Moscow, Syn. gr. 183, containing BHG 949e, comes from the imperial court in Constantinople.90 It was produced and used at the court.91 The hand of its copyist/calligrapher Nicola is identified, who held the imperial office of an asecretis of Seleucia in 1040, during the reign of Michael IV.92 The manuscript is an Imperial Menologion; it was copied and illuminated for a court client in Constantinople. It remained there indefinitely, stored in an unknown area, possibly in a library building, a place of worship, or a monastery related to the court.93 Only the members of the imperial family and the court entourage could access the texts of this manuscript. D’Aiuto initially thought that the Byzantine Imperial Menologia could have had both monastic and courtly uses, as they seemed suitable for collective uses, either liturgical or general, for the daily community readings, especially in monastic contexts.94 However, Imperial Menologia were probably

Manuscript geography and memory of a saint 31 used only in the imperial monasteries in Constantinople.95 In the so-called “royal offices,” specifically in the imperial foundations of the Komnenoi dynasty, such menologia may have served as part of the liturgies.96 In several monastic foundations, the Theotokos Evergetis, the Theotokos Kecharitomene, and the Pantokrator, a particular short office was recited just before Orthros, where such menologia could have been used.97 The Martyrdom of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus (BHG 950z) appears in three medieval manuscripts and one early modern manuscript coming from the monastic settings of Palestine, Athos, and Jerusalem. The manuscript Jerusalem Panagiou Taphou 17,98 an Imperial Menologion, was initially the property of the lavra of St. Sabas in Palestine.99 This eleventh- to twelfthcentury100 manuscript may have been a gift for a woman.101 At the end of the codex, an iambic verse possibly implies that the manuscript was given to a woman for her educational exercise and study pursuits (μελετή). Although the manuscript is hailed as an Imperial Menologion, possibly it was not an original but a copy, judging by the lack of illuminations and the note to a woman. Three copies of BHG 950z later than the eleventh century come from Athos and Jerusalem.102 Finally, the manuscript Ambrosiana, B. 1. inf., dated to the thirteenth century (1239/40), contains BHG 951 of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus.103 Version BHG 951 is similar to BHG 950z, except that it omits the prayer for the emperor. By this time, the prayers for the past emperors probably lost relevance among the copies of the Imperial Menologia. Ambrosiana, B. 1. inf. originated from the southern Italian monastery of St. Nicola di Calamizzi. The manuscript may have been copied from the monastery St. Giovanni Calibita in Caloveto, close to Rossano in Calabria. A colophon states that Laurentius undertook writing the manuscript at the behest of Father Niphon, who arranged his sea trip to the area of Rossano and Caloveto; Laurentius went there twice because of his assignment.104 Several variants of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus, related to the monastic environments of Palestine, Mount Athos, Jerusalem, and southern Italy, were far from the versions of the imperial capital. Thus, the most common Greek version, BHG 948, arose in the Constantinopolitan monastic contexts: Theotokos Church of Blachernae, St. George at Mangana, and “a Constantinopolitan monastery, other than Studios monastery,” which had ties to the imperial families. The rare BHG 949e in Moscow Syn. 183 stayed at the imperial court in Constantinople. This Imperial Menologion was not available to a broader audience. The Martyrdom of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus in the variants BHG 950z and 951 appeared in the monasteries of St. Sabas in Palestine, Mount Athos, and southern Italy. Monastic communities were the users and readers of these manuscripts. The Greek exemplars dedicated to Irenaeus of Sirmium did not emerge only in hagiography. Three medieval manuscripts and one early modern manuscript contain two versions of the canon dedicated to Irenaeus: one

32  Manuscript geography and memory of a saint manuscript contains the Canon of Irenaeus, and three manuscripts have the Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus. They originate from the regions of Sinai and southern Italy, St. Catherine of Sinai, and Grottaferrata monastery. The Canon of Irenaeus of Sirmium appears in Sinaiticus gr. 614, the Menaion for April (on 6 April).105 It dates to the tenth or eleventh century and originates from St. Catherine’s monastery in Sinai.106 It contains the cryptograph: Θεοδώρου μοναχοῦ et preces pro Cosma monacho. A monk, Theodore, may have been the scribe. The manuscript is dedicated to a monk, Cosmas. The manuscript is Menaion for April, which contains the readings from 1 April (Mary of Egypt) to 1 May (Jeremiah prophet).107 The Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus appears in three manuscripts. One of them is Sinaiticus gr. 632, Menaion for August, dated to the eleventh– twelfth century, from the monastery of St. Catherine of Sinai.108 The other copy is preserved in the eleventh-century Cryptense Δ.α.XII from the Grottaferrata monastery in southern Italy.109 A copy of this canon is preserved in Vaticanus gr. 2069 from the seventeenth century. The canons emanated from Sinai and southern Italy’s typical monastic settings in the menaia used in the monastic liturgy. Joseph the Hymnographer, who lived in the ninth century, is the assumed author of these canons.110 They are the only literary forms dedicated to Irenaeus with ascribed but uncertain authorship. Joseph contributed to the canon’s development as a liturgical form, which replaced the kontakion after the seventh century.111 Joseph’s project was monastic, as the canon played no part in the cathedral service at the time.112 Joseph may have endeavored to write canons of saints inspired by the uncertain situation in the eastern parts of the Byzantine Empire. The devotional practice of producing canons of saints may have been a way to ensure protection, but some scholars see it differently. Krausmüller argues that Joseph’s endeavor uncovers an “encyclopedic” mindset, which also stood behind hymnography’s flowering in the ninth century.113 The manuscripts containing the Greek Martyrdom of Irenaeus were read mainly in monasteries. Due to the size of the texts, such collections could be read at length in monasteries.114 Individual sections of monastic liturgical service allowed timely hagiographical readings, including menologia. It was explicitly monastic morning service, Orthros, that allowed such readings, which fostered the honoring of individual saints.115 The audience of monastic morning services was not necessarily limited to monastic dwellers but also included temporary guests and lay audiences (visitors). Hagiographical texts could even have reached an illiterate audience, as menologia were read in churches and monasteries.116 In this way, hagiographical texts were available to a broader audience. Ševčenko wrote that a lay audience attended services in the Byzantine monasteries, “due to their democratic character.”117 Half-educated and uneducated people could listen to hagiography readings. However, possibly they did not fully understand the

Manuscript geography and memory of a saint 33 language, for example, of the Metaphrastic lives. A manuscript attests to a person who was about to read a saint’s life and warned the audience not to lie on the church floor and sleep during his reading.118 In late antiquity, hagiographical texts were not necessarily characterized by high style. However, the examples of low-style texts may have almost disappeared after the iconoclastic age.119 Metaphrasis lay at the heart of the Byzantine hagiographical tradition; it was among the tools for creating a high style and better comprehension. It made hagiography closer to the contemporary audience. However, possibly it meant the literary audience.120 The prestige of high style in hagiography increased throughout the history of Byzantine literature.121 Nonetheless, only some understood the heightened hagiography style. This feature resulted in a new, restricted audience of Byzantine hagiography in the Middle Ages. In such shaping of holy stories, their characters were exposed to stripping off their memory layers. It mainly refers to the saints who had several versions of the holy stories dedicated to them. These stories differed; this is why they had different BHG numbers. However, it was not only the different versions that caused stories to go down memory lane. Their availability was also part of remembering and forgetting. Who could hear these stories, at which places, and who was able to understand them? The imperial circles and the monastic dwellers were the primary audiences of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium in the Byzantine tradition. Like the other traditions, the story could be read either on the saint’s feast day, once a year, or in personal monastic cells. It was a minimal time for the maintenance of memory. A Georgian testimony of a lost Byzantine menologion? A single Georgian manuscript that contains the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium is deposited in Kutaisi, Georgia. The manuscript Kutaisi 1 (XVI) is dated to the sixteenth century.122 It is written on paper, arranged according to a calendar, and contains texts about saints commemorated in February and August. It is part of a five-volume collection that the catalog’s author marks as “Metaphrastic.”123 According to Korneli Kekelidze, this metaphrastic collection was copied in the Gelati Monastery in the sixteenth century for the commissioner Euthymios (Evdemon I Chetidze), a catholicos of Abkhazia.124 Euthymios commissioned the complete metaphrastic collection from an earlier manuscript in Gelati, the monastery founded in the twelfth century. Euthymios’s idea was to obtain a translation of the complete enterprise of Symeon Metaphrastes (September–January) and his continuator, John Xiphilinos the Younger (February–August). Only five volumes survive: 1) February and August, 2) March, 3) June and July, 4) September and October, and 5) December.125 The Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium is in the first volume (August).

34  Manuscript geography and memory of a saint The extant manuscript dates to the sixteenth century. The date of the translation of the Greek text into Georgian is a desirable yet unknown detail. The collection of the Metaphrastic summer part of the calendar year available here is not preserved in Greek but only in Georgian. Thus, this Georgian translation reveals everything we know about the lost Greek collection. It is still being determined how much this collection represents an original Greek text and how much of the Georgian interference was added to the text during translation. Regarding the context of the translation, from the tenth to the eleventh centuries, the loss of the Palestinian territories to the Arabs caused the Georgian kingdom to shift towards Byzantium as the primary source of political, religious, and cultural influences. The Georgian intellectuals leaned towards Byzantine culture. The Georgian king, David IV (1073–1125), established the Academy at Gelati between 1106 and 1110. This institution became an important cultural and educational center in twelfth- and thirteenth-century Georgia.126 David IV invited several educated Georgians who had studied in Byzantium and were exposed to the Byzantine culture to return to Georgia and engage in the activities of the Gelati Monastery. These were the literati of the time, trained in prominent Constantinopolitan educational institutions, who created the flourishing community in Gelati that produced the influential translations in the following period. Arsen of Iqalto and Ioane Petritsi were among those educated in Byzantium who were invited to the Gelati Monastery. Petritsi had been translating hagiographical works from Greek.127 Arsen of Iqalto was a theologian and the author of several dogmatic treatises, some of which were translations from Greek into Georgian. Moreover, he could have been a student of Michael Psellos and John Xiphilinos at Mangana in Byzantium. Kekelidze argued that a translator of Xiphilinos’s work into Georgian is unknown. Nevertheless, he may have been among the literati from the same circle or somebody from the succeeding generations in Gelati. Translator(s) of the summer part of the Metaphrastic Menologion found their place in this productive setting in the second half of the twelfth century.128 In Kekelidze’s view, John Xiphilinos the Younger did what Symeon Metaphrastes did not do – he metaphrased saints’ lives from February to August.129 Xiphilinos started composing a supplement to Metaphrastes at the encouragement of his uncle, Patriarch John VIII Xiphilinos (1064–1075).130 He may have reused already-extant Metaphrastic texts from September to January while composing afresh the texts for summer.131 The Metaphrastic Menologion preserved in the sixteenth-century Kutaisi manuscripts was translated in the Gelati Monastery’s massive project in the twelfth century. A note in the manuscript Kutaisi 3 (XVI), folio 341r, says: “In the particular case Xiphilinos, the author of these metaphrases, says . . .”132 A translator of the manuscript into Georgian probably translated this note from an earlier manuscript along with the main text. Kutaisi 3 (XVI) belongs to the same collection as the manuscript Kutaisi 1 (XVI); they are part of the five-volume Metaphrastic collection and attest to the same practice and method. At the

Manuscript geography and memory of a saint 35 end of the August volume (folios 579–581), we find another note written by Xiphilinos the Younger (translated from Greek).133 John Xiphilinos the Younger belonged to the circle of literati gathered around the school established by Constantine IX Monomachos, whose other prominent members were Michael Psellos, Patriarch John Xiphilinos, Nicetas Rhetor, and John Mavropous.134 Xiphilinos continued the summer part of the Menologion of Symeon Metaphrastes. A Georgian literatus translated his work into Georgian. It is likely that the Georgian students brought the summer part of the Menologion of Symeon Metaphrastes from Byzantium to Georgia and instigated its translation. The Metaphrastic collection of Xiphilinos, called ypomnistikon (ὑπομνηστικόν), is dedicated to Alexios I Komnenos. The dedication addressed to Alexios I is also translated and preserved in Georgian.135 It is written at the end of the collection for August.136 Such a consistent translation of the collection to the last detail, where the marginal notes and the dedication were not omitted but translated together with the rest of the text, indicates that the Georgian text probably differed little from the original Greek. The dedication of Xiphilinos’s work to Alexios I installs this collection in the long line of hagiographical manuscripts dedicated to the Byzantine emperors. This practice’s continuity starts from Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and Basil II to Alexios I, and it persisted for a few centuries. When translating from Greek, the literati produced translations relying heavily on Greek syntax, language structure, and the language’s imitation.137 How comprehensible were the translation method and the collection to their audience in the Gelati Monastery? They may have had a limited audience. Considering that translations of the Gelati Monastery were not widely available and that the language of the hagiographical translations was sophisticated and imitated the Greek models, such literary products may have been understood only by a narrow circle of the literati around Gelati, even if there was a possibility that a wider audience listened to the readings of the texts. These factors influenced the memory of the saint. Remembering was limited. As a sole sample in the Georgian tradition, this text could not preserve Irenaeus’s memory in the Georgian milieu. We know very little of the further textual history and the presence of this text in other Georgian manuscripts. Adding to this the introduction of the complex Greek syntax and the availability only to a limited audience, we conclude that the Martyrdom of Irenaeus had passed relatively unnoticed in the Georgian context, where it had a minimal audience. Cultural contexts and memory The Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium had an insufficient presence to maintain the saint’s memory in the monastic settings mentioned above; its use was primarily generic. His memory was exposed to “forgetting as annulment.” Had there been a trace of the cult or a more extensive hagiographical record (more than a text or two per library) in any of the settings, we would

36  Manuscript geography and memory of a saint rightfully suspect the potential for a walk down memory lane. However, we gather from the surviving evidence that Irenaeus was at best remembered once a year, on his feast day, when his Martyrdom could have been read or at least mentioned. Individual monks may have remembered him more often in the privacy of their monastic cells. Even when the text got to be read, multiple other issues impeded its understanding: language, territory, rewriting methods, textual fixity, comprehensibility, and availability. The Latin Martyrdom of Irenaeus emerged early in the Bavarian and Italian Latin manuscripts, while the text spread around the eleventh century towards medieval French and German territories. The Latin language was not equally read in all these places and among the population. In the Germanic-speaking areas, Latin was a foreign language; only a learned audience could understand it. The reforms, which intended to introduce the Rule of St. Benedict and insisted on using the correct Latin language, added another impediment. Scholars agree that such pertinacity was characteristic of the liturgy; it also may have applied to hagiography. The transitional period from the Merovingians to the Carolingians downsized hagiography’s audience. The texts became less accessible and comprehensible, especially given an almost-cemented form of Irenaeus’s Latin Martyrdom. The issue of comprehensibility occurred elsewhere as well. Scholars have pointed out that the eastern Bulgarian Suprasl Codex texts were rewritten before their inclusion in the codex, which could have elevated their style. As for Byzantium, although hagiography seems to have been available to a broader audience, the constant demand for metaphrasis, which elevated its literary style, probably restricted its comprehensibility. The translations in the Georgian Gelati Monastery were not widely available; their language was sophisticated and imitated the Greek models. Only a narrow circle of the literati around Gelati could use such translations. They probably would have been incomprehensible to ordinary people had there been an opportunity for a broader audience to listen to their readings. These constraints left little room for memory. One needed more presence, references, days, and texts in calendars and hagiographical collections for memory and the cult, or at least a more considerable appreciation in a particular setting. One needed communities that vividly remember. It has not been the case in any of the mentioned settings. Notes 1 Scase, Essays in Manuscript Geography, 1. 2 Patlagean argued that hagiography in the early Byzantine period was not merely “popular” literature, it was addressed to the whole of society. In her view, it is dangerous to suppose that hagiography was confined to ignorant authors, audiences, and lower layers of society. Ševčenko confirms that Byzantine hagiography as a whole was a popular genre. Høgel argues that “hagiography probably permeated late antique society more than any other written literature, except the Bible. If any written literature in this age may be labeled ‘popular,’ it is

Manuscript geography and memory of a saint 37 hagiography.” Harvey concludes that the success of hagiography was immediate. However, Uytfanghe preferred to speak about communitarian ecclesiastical literature, which developed spontaneously rather than qualifying hagiography as popular literature; the oral presentation of hagiographical pieces made them equally accessible to the illiterate public. Averil Cameron stated that the lives of saints and the Acts of the Apostles were the “stories people want.” See Patlagean, “Ancient Byzantine Hagiography,” 102–103; Ševčenko, “Levels of Style,” 303, n. 41; Høgel, Symeon Metaphrastes, 31; Harvey, “Martyr Passions,” 609; Uytfanghe, “L’hagiographie antique tardive,” 201–218; Cameron, Christianity and Rhetoric, 89–119. 3 Van Egmond argues that the audience for hagiographical readings was relatively restricted in the Carolingian period and tied to the clergy. In contrast, it spread to the laity as an intended audience in the Merovingian period. He noticed the extensive use of the words referring to “reading” (legere) in the Carolingian period compared to the Merovingian “audire.” Hayward acknowledged that, although there have been strenuous attempts to show that hagiography was aimed at a broad Christian audience, the evidence is quite ambiguous and tends to point the other way. Van Egmond, “The Audience,” 45; Hayward, “Demystifying the Role,” 127; Uytfanghe, “L’hagiographie antique tardive,” 201. 4 See Vuković, “On Reading and Non-Reading,” 41–57. 5 Geary, Before France and Germany, 208. 6 Diesenberger, “Hagiographie et réforme,” 68. 7 Diesenberger, “Hagiographie et réforme,” 68. 8 Geary, Before France and Germany, 208–209. 9 See more about this subject in de Jong, “Carolingian Monasticism,” 623. 10 De Jong, “Carolingian monasticism,” 623. 11 Rulkens, “ ‘Domus dei’ and ‘opus dei’,” 45; De Jong, “Carolingian monasticism,” 629–634. 12 Kysila Regina Monialis donavit Mon(aste)rio S. Michaelis Cochl. Saec. VIII. See Europeana, “Vitae et passiones sanctorum. Munich Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm 4554.” 13 Donum Kysila(e). Saec. VIII. Europeana, “Vitae et passiones sanctorum. Munich Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm 4554.” 14 Her generous donations of books to monasteries are described in the Chronicon Benedictoburanum. See Meichelbeck, Chronicon Benedictoburanum, 13–14. 15 McKitterick discusses a Christian context of the Germanic custom of gift exchange in The Carolingians and the Written Word, 77–78. 16 Some scholars hold that this noble family was pro-Frankish. Roper Pearson, Conflicting Loyalties, 59, 99. 17 Declercq, “The Scriptorium of Benediktbeuern,” 55–71. 18 Roper Pearson, Conflicting Loyalties, 99. “The founding legend, composed long after its establishment (of the monastery) . . ., credited Boniface with its consecration, and Carloman, Pippin, and Tassilo III as its royal sponsors. The actual founders were said to be the three brothers Lantfrid, Waldram, and Elyandus, who established a convent at Kochelsee.” The monasteries were founded amid the complex power struggles in early medieval Bavaria. Bavaria at the time was not fully controlled by the Franks and had local rulers who ruled under Frankish oversight. The monasteries were founded during the reign of Odilo, the duke of Bavaria and an Alemannic nobleman from the house of Agilolfings. During his rule, the bishoprics of Regensburg, Freising, Passau, and Salzburg were established in Bavaria in 739. This organization of the bishoprics was not in the hands of the Bavarian rulers but the Frankish men of power such as Charles Martel. Charles Martel ruled over Franks during the interregnum (737–743 ce) and held power in Bavaria. Martel also took care to enforce conversion in the Germanic lands.

38  Manuscript geography and memory of a saint 19 Roper Pearson, Conflicting Loyalties, 53–74. In the eighth century, Duke Odilo of Bavaria reformed the Bavarian Church as independent from Frankish control and closely allied with the papacy. Boniface became the metropolitan of Austrasia in 742 with the idea of establishing spiritual links between the Frankish and Bavarian churches. It was certainly not part of Odilo’s overall plan, as it raised the possibility that future clerical appointments in Bavaria could come under the control and influence of the Franks. Odilo requested suspension of Boniface’s authority in Bavaria in 742–743. No metropolitan of Bavaria was appointed until the time of Charlemagne. The Agilolfingi dynasty of Bavaria, to which Odilo and Tassilo belonged, was displaced in 788 by the superior military power of the Franks and their Bavarian magnates, who sought the more significant advantages of association with Charlemagne. After the deposition of Tassilo III, Bavaria became a subregnum of the Carolingian empire. 20 See de Jong, “Carolingian Monasticism,” 652. 21 Phillipart and Trigalet, “Latin Hagiography,” 125–126. 22 Phillipart and Trigalet, “Latin Hagiography,” 126. 23 Europeana, “Vitae et passiones sanctorum. Munich Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm 4554;” Halm, von Laubmann, and Meyer, Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis; Günter, Katalog der lateinischen Handschriften; Bierbrauer, Die vorkarolingischen und karolingischen Handschriften. 24 The arguments of Delehaye and Philippart regarding the manuscripts could stir the debate about the original language again. It is mainly because this issue has not been discussed from the angle of manuscripts. It is interesting to note here that the online catalog Mirabile: Archivio Digitale della Cultura Medievale, when describing the contents of the manuscript Karlsruhe Aug. XXXII (see further about this manuscript), refers to the Martyrdom of Irenaeus as a “translation from Greek.” See Mirabile: Archivio Digitale della Cultura Medievale. 25 Europeana, “Vitae et passiones sanctorum. Munich Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm 4554.” 26 Van der Straeten, “Catalogues de manuscrits latins,” 153–156; Halm, von Laubmann, and Meyer, Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis; Günter, Katalog der lateinischen Handschriften. 27 Høgel argued that such miscellany collections in Byzantium without calendar order, organized based on geography, types of saints, and similar features, typically preceded those with the calendar order. Høgel, “Sanctification of Hagiographers,” 278. 28 Philippart and Trigalet, “Latin Hagiography,” 126. 29 White, “The Byzantinization of Sicily,” 6. 30 White, “The Byzantinization of Sicily,” 7; Bischoff and Lapidge, Biblical Commentaries, 65–66. 31 Cubitt, “Unity and Diversity,” 55; Chavasse, Le Sacramentaire Gélasien, 342– 343; Mayr-Harting, The Coming of Christianity, 176–177. 32 Costambeys, “The Transmission of Tradition,” 82; Bischoff and Lapidge, Biblical Commentaries, 66. 33 Bischoff and Lapidge, Biblical Commentaries, 65–67; Borsari, “Le migrazioni dall’Oriente,” 133–138; Borsari, Il monachesimo bizantino; Bréhier, “Les colonies d’Orientaux,” 1–39; Lake, “The Greek Monasteries,” 517–542; White, “The Byzantinization of Sicily,” 1–21; Guillou, “Grecs d’Italie,” 79–110; Antonelli, “I primi monasteri,” 105–121; Sansterre, Les moines grecs; Ferrari, Early Roman Monasteries. 34 Holder’s catalog attests to the manuscript’s dating to the ninth century, while the online catalog Carolingian Culture at Reichenau and St. Gall confirms that the manuscript is dated before 846 ce. The heading of folio 1r in Karlsruhe Aug.

Manuscript geography and memory of a saint 39 XXXII, where it is written Liber monasterii augie maioris, directs to Reichenau. See Carolingian Culture at Reichenau and St. Gall, “Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek: Perg. Aug. 32;” Holder and Preisendanz, Die Reichenauer Handschriften. 35 Reichenau became one of the central monastic centers in the Alemannic area and flourished during the reigns of Charlemagne and Louis the Pious. It is among the most critical Carolingian monasteries that stood close to rulers and intellectuals. The ninth century was one of the more prosperous periods of the monastery regarding book production. Reichenau has the first lengthy and detailed medieval library catalog from 821/822. Pirmin (700–753), the monastery’s founder, enjoyed the favor of Charles Martel and Odilo of Bavaria. It would remain a question if Pirmin founded the cloister with the support of the duke of Bavaria, who strove to preserve the area from Frankish control, or with the support of Charles Martel. Nevertheless, he became an appointed abbot of the Mittelzell Abbey on Reichenau Island. Bischoff, Manuscripts and Libraries, 18, 96, n. 20; Rulkens, “ ‘Domus dei’ and ‘opus dei’,” 14–16, 45; Wells, “Reichenau,” 1070– 1071; Grondeux, “Le rôle de Reichenau,” 79. 36 Rulkens, “ ‘Domus dei’ and ‘opus dei’,” 50. 37 Rulkens, “ ‘Domus dei’ and ‘opus dei’,” 57–63. 38 The upper margin of the first folio testifies: Istud passionarium est monachorum Congregationis sancte Justine de observantia ordinis sancti benedicti residentium in monasterio sancti Columbani de bobio. Ottino, I codici Bobbiesi, 20–22. 39 Richter, Bobbio, 13. 40 Aebischer, La “Vita Sancti Marini”; Richter, Bobbio, 166. 41 Geary, Before France and Germany, 216. 42 Richter, Bobbio, 23; Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism, 49: The unique relationship between the monastery and its founding dynasty helps explain the success of St. Columbanus in promoting Irish monasticism. Columbanus also directed part of his mission to the Merovingian court. The ideals and usages of Celtic monasticism were widely diffused on the Continent and stimulated a wave of monastic foundations under the patronage of kings, queens, and the Frankish nobility. Initially, Bobbio was among the Irish communities on the Continent, which nourished Eastern Greek traditions in particular. Such traditions were sterner than the general Western monastic trends. Bobbio combated the Arian heresy dominant among the Lombards. Dogmatic works predominated in the library. At first, the monastery followed the Columban Rule. However, it introduced the Rule of St. Benedict in the seventh century and became a Benedictine monastery “as an alternative to the sterner Columban Rule.” The Irish liturgy was open to the influences of Ambrosian Milan, Mozarabic Spain, southern Gaul, and the East. The Columban Rule was completely abandoned in the tenth century. Lifshitz, The Name of the Saint, 26; Bischoff, Manuscripts and Libraries, 9; Silke, “Bobbio, Italy,” 156–157; Silke, “Liturgy: Celtic,” 781. 43 Dolbeau dated it to the tenth century. See Dolbeau, “Le dossier,” 153–155; Foltz, Geschichte der Salzburger Bibliotheken; Bischoff, Die südostdeutschen Schreibschulen; Gaillard, “Remarques sur les plus anciennes versions,” 402–403; Diesenberger, Predigt und Politik, 28; Holter, “Über einige salzburger Handschriften,” 208–216; Bischoff, Die südostdeutschen Schreibschulen, 121. 44 Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Katalog. 45 See Diesenberger, Predigt und Politik. 46 Poncelet, “Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum,” 187–191; Omont, Catalogue général des manuscrits, 345–349. 47 Lechat, “Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum latinorum,” 241–306; Catalogue général, 316–317.

40  Manuscript geography and memory of a saint 48 Reynolds, “The Organization,” 617–618; Hen, Culture and Religion, 59–60; McKitterick, The Frankish Church, 123–138; Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, 80–87; Vogel, “La réforme liturgique,” 217–232. 49 Bullough referred to this notion when writing about the reform undertaken in the Carolingian period, directed against the “colloquial language” in the liturgy. “One of the paradoxes of ‘Carolingian reform’ is that the more successful it was in training the clergy in ‘good Latin,’ with the traditional syntax and carefully articulated in ways that served clearly to distinguish it from the ‘Romance’ vernaculars in a direct line of descent from earlier spoken Latin . . . the less accessible the liturgy of mass and office became to the ordinary faithful in both Romance and Germanic regions.” Bullough, “The Carolingian Liturgical Experience,” 52. 50 “The development during which the Latin language changed gradually from Vulgar Latin into the Romance languages did not touch the language of the liturgy. Instead, liturgical Latin survived the developments within the colloquial language.” See Mohrmann, “Sakralsprache und Umgangssprache,” 344–354; Rose, “Liturgical Latin,” 77. 51 For the literature on the topic, see Hen, Culture and Religion, 21–23, 27; Hayward, “Demystifying the Role,” 128; Wright, Latin and the Romance; Wright, Late Latin and Early Romance; McKitterick, The Carolingians and the Written Word, 1–22. 52 Uytfanghe, “L’hagiographie et son public,” 54–62; Heene, “Merovingian and Carolingian Hagiography,” 418. 53 Heene, “Merovingian and Carolingian Hagiography,” 426. 54 Heene, “Merovingian and Carolingian Hagiography,” 416. 55 Heene, “Merovingian and Carolingian Hagiography,” 424. 56 Dolbeau, “Le dossier,” 156, n. 28. 57 The twelfth-century Brussels, Bibliotheque Royale 9289, the twelfth-century Charleville 254, and the thirteenth-century Charleville 200. Van den Gheyn, Catalogue des manuscrits; Coens, “Un légendier de Cysoing,” 17–20; Dolbeau, “Deux légendiers démembrés,” 117–136; Dolbeau, “Un légendier de la cathédrale d’Arras,” 128; Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques des départements V. 58 Philippart, Les légendiers latins, 114. 59 For the latest manuscript dating, see Krustev and Boyadjiev, “On the Dating,” 17–24. 60 For “Preslav Literary School,” see Georgiev, “Возникновение Преславской литературной школы,” 16–28; Curta, Southeastern Europe; Popkonstantinov and Kostova, “Скрипторият в Равненския манастир,” 719–726. 61 Oblak, “Zur Würdigung des Altslovenischen,” 338–348; Marguliés, Der altkirchenslavische Codex Suprasliensis; Krustev and Boyadjiev, “On the Dating,” 17–24. The  Martyrdom of 42 Martyrs of Amorion, one of the texts from the codex, describes the death of the martyrs who suffered in the Phrygian city of Amorion by Muslim Saracens in 848 ce. This text was translated for the newly made Slavonic compilation very soon after it was written in Greek. Ivanova explains that St. Aninas lived almost contemporaneously with the creation of the Suprasl Codex; a copyist took care to subsume contemporary saints into the collection. Also, the Cyrillic script was created only in the early tenth century. Ehrhard, Überlieferung III, 600; Ivanova, “Ново издание на Супрасълския Сборник,” 124; Dunkov, “Наблюдения върху състава,” 27; Pandurski, “Месецословът в Супрасълския Сборник,” 42. 62 Miklosich, Monumenta linguae Palaeoslovenicae; Oblak, “Zur Würdigung des Altslovenischen,” 338–348; Jagić, “Das Verhältnis der altkirchenslavischen

Manuscript geography and memory of a saint 41 Übersetzung,” 51–55; Barbulescu, “Jarăşj despre Savina kniga,” 59–75; Marguliés, Der altkirchenslavische Codex Suprasliensis; Dobrev, “Агиографската реформа,” 37. 63 Boeva, “Беллетристические Элементы,” 95. 64 Krustev and Boyadjiev, “On the Dating,” 17–24. 65 Velcheva, “Супрасълският сборник,” 13–16; Ivanova-Mavrodinova and Mavrodinova, “Украсата на старобългарските ръкописи,” 5–86. 66 Ivanova-Mircheva, “Супрасълският Сборник,” 82; Mircheva, “Търновският новоизводен превод,” 119. 67 On the architecture in Preslav, see Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 289–290; Kostova, “Patronage and Monastic Geography,” 192; Popkonstantinov and Kostova, “Скрипторият в Равненския манастир,” 720; Totev and Georgiev, “Novi danni,” 135. 68 Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 291. 69 Petkanova, “Миней,” 270–271. 70 Dobrev, “Гръцките думи в Супрасълския сборник,” 97. 71 Mircheva reports that different scholars during the twentieth century gave their lists of archaic texts within the Suprasl Codex, but they only sometimes correspond. However, homiletic texts prevail in the lists; only a few martyrological texts are mentioned. Mircheva, “Прояви,” 15, 16, 22; Wijk, “Был ли Климент переводчиком,” 178–184; Ivanova-Mircheva, “Архаичен препис,” 181; IvanovaMircheva, “Супрасълският Сборник,” 83–85; Dobrev, “Гръцките думи,” 97; Dobrev, “Агиографската реформа,” 16–38; Mechev, “Словото на Патриарх Фотий,” 36; Kapaldo, “За състава на Супрасълския сборник,” 210; Margulies, Der altkirchenslavische Codex Suprasliensis. 72 Dunkov, “Супрасълският сборник,” 14–19. 73 Together with the Life of Gregory the Great and the Martyrdom of Terentios, Africanos and Pompeos. Among the earliest translated texts are, in his view, also Epiphanius’s Homily, Basil’s Encomium for 40 martyrs, Chrysostom’s Homily for the Annunciation 2, Homily for Easter, Homily for Good Friday, Homily for St. Thomas the Apostle, the Life of Sabinos, and the Life of John Klimakos. Dunkov, “Наблюдения върху състава,” 25–34, 26. 74 Samoilova, “Преславская лексика,” 87–88. 75 Mircheva, “Прояви,” 21. 76 Dobrev, “Гръцките думи,” 97. 77 Cf. Høgel, “Hagiography Under the Macedonians,” 220; Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, n. 19. 78 The sixth manuscript containing BHG 948 is from Bibliotheca Bollandiana, Brussels, Boll. 193 (117r–118v). It is a seventeenth- or eighteenth-century copy of an unknown origin, cataloged by Vorst and Delehaye. This manuscript contains three versions of the text: BHG 948, BHG 950, and BHG 951. 79 This dating was according to an earlier catalog. Ehrhard corrected the dating to the eleventh century. Delehaye, “Catologus codicum hagiographicorum Graecorum bibliothecae D. Marci Venetiarum,” 12; Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 432. 80 Kazhdan, “Blachernai,” 293; Krausmüller, “Metaphrasis,” 49. 81 Vitae sanctorum et elogia mensium iulii et augusti in depositionem pretiosae Vestis S. Deiparae in Blachernis. Ehrhard was unaware of this information and reported that the manuscript’s origin was unknown. Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 432. See also Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. Z. 360. 82 Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 432. 83 It is the only marginal note in the manuscript (folio 9), containing several lines. Nevertheless, Ehrhard argued that the manuscripts Marcianus Venice 360 and BnF gr. 1177 were identical and probably copied at the same yet unknown place.

42  Manuscript geography and memory of a saint 84 Omont, Catalogus codicum, 75. 85 Ehrhard ascribed its origin to Constantinople as it contained a text dedicated to celebrating the victory over the Persians (626 ce) on 7 August. Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 676–678; Halkin, “Manuscrits Grecs de Paris,” 288–289; Omont, Catalogus codicum, 330. 86 Omont, Inventaire sommaire; Omont, Catalogus codicum, 16; Halkin, “Manuscrits Grecs de Paris,” 33–34; Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 679–682. 87 Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 679. 88 Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 682. 89 Augerius de Busbecke comparavit Constantinopoli. Vorst and Delehaye, Catalogus Codicum Hagiographicorum, 55; Vuković, “On Reading and Non-Reading,” 41–57. 90 Archimandrite Vladimir, Систематическое описаніе рукописей. The manuscript is digitized in the Historical Museum in Moscow. 91 D’Aiuto, “Note ai manoscritti,” 195. 92 D’Aiuto’s dating to the eleventh century contradicts another recent dating of this manuscript by Detorakis to the end of the tenth century. D’Aiuto, “Note ai manoscritti,” 196; Detorakis, “Ἡ χρονολόγηση,” 46–50. 93 D’Aiuto, “Note ai manoscritti,” 200; Vuković, “On Reading and Non-Reading,” 41–57. 94 D’Aiuto, “Un ramo italogreco,” 148–151. 95 Ševčenko, “The Walters ‘Imperial’ Menologion,” 43, 59. 96 Ševčenko, “The Walters ‘Imperial’ Menologion,” 59; Ševčenko, “The Imperial Menologia,” 27. 97 Ševčenko, “The Imperial Menologia,” II, 27–28. 98 N. Ševčenko, Detorakis, and D’Aiuto name the manuscript Jerusalem, Greek Patriarchate Taphou 17. The editor, Latyšev, and some Bollandist scholars used the name St. Sepulchri 17. The Greek Patriarchate in Jerusalem, which holds the manuscript, calls it Panagiou Taphou 17. See Halkin, “Le mois de Janvier,” 225–236. 99 Latyšev, Menologii anonymi, 2, I. 100 Latyšev dated it to the eleventh century. N. Ševčenko, Detorakis, D’Aiuto, and Ehrhard date it to the twelfth century. Ševčenko, “The Walters ‘Imperial’ Menologion,” 62, n. 20; Detorakis, “Ἡ χρονολόγηση,” 46; D’Aiuto, “Un ramo italogreco,” 164; Ehrhard, Überlieferung III, 355. 101 Papadopoulos-Kerameos, ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛΥΜΙΤΙΚΗ ΒΙΒΛΙΟΘΗΚΗ I, 69. 102 The manuscript Athon. Dionys. 83, dated to 1142, is a copy of Jerusalem Panagiou Taphou 17; their contents correspond entirely. Latyšev assumed it had contents similar to Panagiou Taphou 17 and Ambrosiana B. 1. inf. N. Ševčenko listed this manuscript among the Imperial Menologia. The second copy, Athens 1046, dated to the fourteenth century, contains all the same texts as Panagiou Taphou 17 except for one. The third copy is Jerusalem, St. Crucis No.16, a sixteenth-century manuscript. This manuscript differed from Panagiou Taphou 17 regarding the first seven texts. By this time, all the prayers for the emperor had been omitted; it was no longer the version BHG 950z but BHG 951. Lambros, Catalogue, 327; Papadopoulos-Kerameus, ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛΥΜΙΤΙΚΗ ΒΙΒΛΙΟΘΗΚΗ III, 39–45; Ehrhard, Überlieferung III, 360–362. 103 Halkin, “Le mois de janvier.” 104 D’Aiuto does not agree with Turyn that the copying occurred in two phases. Turyn, Dated Greek Manuscripts I, 13; D’Aiuto, “Un ramo italogreco,” 162. 105 Kamil, Catalogue of all Manuscripts; Gardhausen, Catalogus codicum graecorum; Harlfinger, Reinsch, and Sonderkamp, Specimina Sinaitica; Getov, “The Unedited Byzantine Liturgical Canons,” 82. This article gives further references for the description of the manuscript in Papailiopoulou-Fotopoulou, Ταμεῖον ἀνεκδότων βυζαντινῶν I, as M 561; see also Greek Manuscripts 614. Menaion April. 1000. Manuscript/Mixed Material.

Manuscript geography and memory of a saint 43 106 Nikiforova, “К вопросу о происхождении,” 380–389. However, Nikiforova wrongly identified the saint as Irinarh of Smyrna. 107 Gardhausen, Catalogus codicum graecorum sinaiticorum, 143. 108 Gardhausen, Catalogus codicum graecorum sinaiticorum, 146. 109 Neilos of Rossano founded the Grottaferrata monastery (St. Maria di Grottaferrata), a Greek monastery south of Rome, in 1004. Kazhdan, “Grottaferrata,” 883–884. 110 Szövérffy, A Guide to Byzantine Hymnography. 111 McGuckin, “Poetry and Hymnography (2),” 651. This replacement corresponded to the period when the empire shrank, and some cities were cut off due to Arab incursions. 112 Ševčenko, “Canon and Calendar,” I, 112. 113 Krausmüller, “Metaphrasis,” 63. 114 Høgel, “Hagiography Under the Macedonians,” 224: “Which other institution would have the hope of entertaining an audience just about every day with the full text of a saint’s life.” 115 Ševčenko, “The Evergetis Synaxarion,” 392. 116 Høgel, “Hagiography Under the Macedonians,” 218. 117 Ševčenko, “Levels of Style,” 302–303. 118 Ševčenko, “Levels of Style,” 302–303. 119 See Høgel, Symeon Metaphrastes, 23. 120 Some scholars argue that the tendency to rewrite did not affect all Byzantine literature. Historiography, e.g., does not demonstrate such an inclination. Ševčenko, “Levels of Style,” 301. 121 Ševčenko, “Levels of Style.” 122 Gabidzashvili, Dzveli kartuli I, 243. 123 Kekelidze, Xelnatserta agtseriloba, 1. 124 Kutaisi 1 (XVI), fol. 582r; Kekelidze, Xelnatserta agtseriloba, 1. 125 Kekelidze, “Иоанн Ксифилин,” 335. 126 David looked to Byzantium when he established the school at Gelati, inspired by the educational policy of Constantine IX Monomachos and his law school foundation at St. George of Mangana. The most popular educational centers, the twelfth century’s academies, where young Georgians were sent to finish their education were Gelati, Iqalto, Gremi, Petritzos, and Mangana. Toumanoff, “Caucasia and Byzantine Studies,” 420. 127 For Ioane Petritsi, see Gigineishvili, The Platonic Theology; Nutsubidze, Horn, and Lourié, Georgian Christian Thought. 128 Kekelidze, “Иоанн Ксифилин,” 340. 129 Kekelidze, “Иоанн Ксифилин,” 332. 130 Ševčenko, Illustrated Manuscripts, 6; Kekelidze, “Иоанн Ксифилин,” 335. 131 Høgel, Symeon Metaphrastes, 117. 132 Kekelidze, “Иоанн Ксифилин,” 332. 133 Van Esbroeck, Les plus anciens homeliaires georgiens, 9. 134 Kekelidze, “Иоанн Ксифилин,” 331; Kaldellis, Streams of Gold, 187–191. 135 Kazhdan, “Xiphilinos, John the Younger,” 2211. 136 Kekelidze, “Иоанн Ксифилин,” 334. 137 Toumanoff describes the translation method as a trend of submission to Byzantine models: “Each of the(se) . . . tended increasingly to depart from the freedom and individuality achieved by the Georgian language . . .; each endeavored increasingly to subordinate translation to the original, to the point of an almost slavish word-for-word rendering, forcing upon Georgian even Greek wordformations and idioms of speech. The richness of the language made these attempts not only possible but rather successful.” Toumanoff, “Caucasia and Byzantine Studies,” 420.

3 “Remember me on this day” Feast days, calendars, and hagiographical collections

Some early Christian hagiographies initially emerged as oral tales. They may have been written down in libelli and used in local Christian communities during late antiquity. Since no preserved hagiographical manuscripts date before the sixth century to give us more information about how these texts originally functioned, we mainly utilize secondary information to learn about their use in late antiquity.1 The survival and preservation of hagiography in the Middle Ages depended on writing it down in collections mostly aligned by calendars. If not placed in collections organized by calendars and similar manuscripts, texts went into oblivion along with the saints whose life and deeds they purported to describe. The critical issue for saints and martyrs in the survival of their hagiography was to have a feast day. Dozens of saints appeared along the way, from late antiquity, when people started caring about them and their cults, until the high Middle Ages. The number of recognized saints increased along the way to the point where every day of the year had at least one saint to commemorate. Some saints had long-lasting and significant cults that transcended cultures, languages, and continents. Others did not. As the number of saints grew, the need arose to organize them systematically into calendars. More prominent saints tended to replace lesser known saints. One of the ways to handle the rise in number was to move some saints to alternate days. Some saints had different feast days in different calendars and traditions. The saints’ feast days could be changed, months switched around, or they could even entirely lose their feast days and disappear from calendars. The preservation of saints on calendars or their disappearance enabled their remembering and forgetting. Remembering kept them on calendars; forgetting caused them to vanish. Besides the competition with other saints for the same feast day, their transfer to other dates, and merging in groups, saints could lose their feast days in hagiographical collections for another reason: the decisions of scribes and copyists not to choose them as the representatives for a particular feast day. It was especially the case where a demand was to choose a single saint among several who had their feast on a specific day. With firm support from authority figures and stable cults, saints preserved their commemoration by DOI: 10.4324/9780429201578-3

“Remember me on this day” 45 being kept in collections and calendars. Saints without such support lost their dates in the calendars and were forgotten. The succession of saints was also generational. New saints and prominent leaders of the local Christian communities replaced early Christian martyrs whose cults had fallen out of favor. Hagiographical collections that did not follow calendars also made their appearance. Such collections mainly gathered hagiographies and homilies of a single saint or several saints to be companions to the celebration of their cult. These could also be miscellanies without specific organizational order. These could also be miscellanies without specific organizational order. However, the saints in these collections were usually well-known, prominent saints whose memory was never in jeopardy. The majority of hagiographical texts were copied into manuscripts because of the feast day of the saint they referenced. If the saint did not have a date in the calendar, the opportunity to appear in a collection would be significantly reduced. Thus, hagiographical texts had to cope with the complex guidelines for forming hagiographical collections. Complying with such frameworks produced an enduring supply of hagiographical narratives. It was in the hands of copyists to turn collective memory into institutional remembering, written down in manuscript books, and to maintain a holy presence in this way. The processes of standardizing calendars were particularly intense during the early Middle Ages. In both East and West, calendars significantly changed from the eighth to the twelfth century. The appearance of diverse lists of saints characterized this period. To say that calendars were not stable means that saints’ feast days were not stable, which applies to some more than others. The feast days of different saints had different stability in calendars. The stability of calendars, which served in the alignment of menologia, menaia, passionaries, and lectionaries, directly influenced the presence and absence of hagiographical narratives in these collections. It was instrumental in the survival of hagiographical texts. Remembering the saints and their narratives was thus sealed through the complex processes of first turning the oral tales into written form and then positioning the texts within the collections. Remembering depended on a saint’s feast day, the position of the feast day in the calendars compared to the movable cycle, and the other saints celebrated on the same day. Finally, it depended on scribes and copyists, who sometimes did not choose particular saints and their hagiographies for the collections they produced. These trends affected Irenaeus of Sirmium. Most hagiographical manuscripts containing the Martyrdom of Irenaeus were aligned according to different calendars. His initial feast day changed several times until other saints replaced him. The gradual neglect and disappearance of Irenaeus from such collections led to the diminished memory and eventual forgetting of the saint. The quantitative method used in this chapter presupposes counting manuscripts, establishing their total number, and juxtaposing this number to the number of manuscripts containing the text. I calculated the textual presence by comparing the number of manuscripts in which the text appears to the

46  “Remember me on this day” total number of preserved manuscripts of this type. The method corresponds to mathematical proportions. The Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium appeared in six Latin manuscripts from the eighth to the eleventh century. This number increased to twentytwo manuscripts from the twelfth to the thirteenth centuries.2 The peak of copying Irenaeus’s text in Latin in the twelfth century corresponded to the general trends in the production of hagiographical manuscripts in the West. The Latin tradition displayed a growing interest in hagiographical and passionary collections in the twelfth century. From the fourteenth century to the early modern period, the Martyrdom of Irenaeus appeared in only eight manuscripts. While the number of manuscripts containing Irenaeus’s Martyrdom grew in the West after the eleventh century, it was the opposite in Byzantium. Seven Greek manuscripts containing the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium are extant from the tenth and eleventh centuries, while only four manuscripts with this text appear after the eleventh century. Regarding the south Slavic hagiographical collections arranged according to calendars, the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium appears in a single manuscript from the late tenth century. The manuscript appeared when the first collections were transmitted from Greek into the south Slavic world. The calendar development in this early period is difficult to reconstruct from a few preserved collections. Manuscript evidence from the south Slavic world was scarce before the fourteenth century when calendars became more standardized than in the ninth and tenth centuries. When the calendars got standardized among the South Slavs, Irenaeus no longer had his feast day. Latin hagiographical collections and calendars The gradual changes to Irenaeus’s feast day become evident when examining the six manuscripts dated from the eighth to the eleventh century and the twenty-two manuscripts dated from the twelfth and the thirteenth centuries. This number is modest compared to the total number of Latin hagiographical collections preserved today, which, according to Philippart, is 7,000 manuscripts from the second to the fifteenth centuries.3 Guessing that a proportionate number of Latin hagiographical manuscripts out of the total amount are hagiographical collections for March and April, one can imagine how many of them had other saints instead of Irenaeus on the same feast day.4 The decline in the number of manuscripts is visible from the fourteenth century and throughout the early modern period when only eight manuscripts survive. For example, some renowned texts, such as the Life of Benedict of Nursia, were present in hundreds of manuscripts. This particular saint has hagiographical texts in sixty-eight BHL versions.5 The earliest Latin hagiographical manuscripts containing the Martyrdom of Irenaeus aligned by calendars cover most of the calendar year, with wide gaps between saints’ feasts, sometimes comprising several days. The

“Remember me on this day” 47 ninth-century Karlsruhe XXXII covers eleven months (July to May) with, at times, a confusing order.6 The tenth-century Turin contains texts from January to October.7 The tenth-century Vienna 371 covers the entire year. The tenth–eleventh century Rouen U 42 has the texts intermittently organized throughout the year.8 The trend of copying manuscripts covering the entire year changed after the eleventh century when manuscripts commonly stretched to several months, while saintly feasts and texts more densely occupied the dates. The eleventh-century St-Omer 715 encompasses the months from January to the beginning of April.9 The twelve manuscripts dated to the twelfth and the thirteenth centuries cover a few months: Douai (January to April),10 Montpellier (February–March),11 BnF 16732 (February–March),12 Brussels 207–8 (January–June),13 Saint-Omer 716 (February–April),14 Avranches (March–June),15 BnF 17004 (February–March),16 BnF 5279 (March),17 BnF 5297 (February– March),18 BnF 5352 (February–March),19 Dublin (March–April),20 and Trier (February–April).21 In these manuscripts, Irenaeus has two feast days. The date of 6 April mainly appeared in the manuscripts from the ninth to the eleventh century. This feast day is likewise mentioned in the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of the earliest manuscript, Clm 4554, although the manuscript does not follow the calendar order. After the eleventh century, the feast day of Irenaeus was most commonly 25 March. Some thirteenth-century manuscripts again place Irenaeus’s martyrdom on 6 April. The date of 6 April overlaps with Irenaeus’s feast day in the earliest martyrologies. The Hieronymian Martyrology, the earliest Latin martyrology covering the entire year, dated to the sixth–seventh century, had Irenaeus’s feast day on 6 April.22 It relied on an earlier Syriac calendar, the Breviarium Syriacum, dated to 411 ce, which also kept Irenaeus on 6 April.23 The Breviarium originated from an earlier Greek archetype composed in Nicomedia around 360 and gathered all the martyrs’ names known at the time from the entire Roman Empire.24 This calendar is an excellent example of how the early Eastern calendar tradition was better preserved in the West, judging by the earliest Latin calendars which, by having Irenaeus’s feast day on 6 April, correspond date-wise to the earliest Syriac tradition.25 In the eighth and the ninth centuries, the medieval West witnessed numerous new martyrologies that had already changed Irenaeus’s feast day. The Northumbrian monk Venerable Bede produced a Martyrology at the beginning of the eighth century that was atypical among other late antique and early medieval martyrologies because many of its entries were considerably detailed, embellishing the conventional format of simply giving the date and place of martyrdom with brief “historical” narratives. It also failed to cover many saints’ records, including Irenaeus’s.26 Other Western martyrologies in the ninth century – Ado of Vienne, Notker, Usuard, and Florus of Lyon – mainly kept Irenaeus on 25 March; that is, all but Hrabanus Maurus, who kept him on 6 April. In the Irish Martyrology from 800 ce, Irenaeus also appeared on 6 April.27

48

“Remember me on this day”

Table 3.1 Saint Irenaeus’s feast days in seventeen Latin hagiographical collections 8th c.

9th c.

10th c.

Clm 4554

Karlsruhe Turin

10–11th c. 11th c. Vienna

25 Mar

6 Apr

U 42

Omer715 Douai

Passion of Hireneus

Passion Passion of Passion of Passion of of HireHireneus bishop Bishop neus bishop Hireneus Ireneus

12th c. Montp.

BnF16732

Passion of Passion of Passion of Hireneus Hireneus, Hireneus, Vita of Vita of Hermeland Hermeland Passion of Yreneus

Irenaeus has the same feast day in the eleventh-century Greek manuscript Sinaiticus gr. 614, containing liturgical canons, where the Canon of Irenaeus appears on 6 April. Considering that it comes from Sinai, this liturgical manuscript was possibly aligned with a calendar influenced by the Breviarium Syriacum. The date of 25 March was the posterior feast day of Irenaeus in the Latin tradition. In the official martyrology of the Roman Rite, the Roman Martyrology from the sixteenth century promulgated by Pope Gregory XIII, Irenaeus’s feast day remained 25 March.28 This date commonly overlaps with the crucial feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and because of this, Irenaeus has been relatively neglected. Irenaeus shared the same feast day from the twelfth century with another saint. In some manuscripts, Irenaeus appears on 25 March with Hermeland.29 Two BHL versions (3851–3852) dedicated to Hermeland, dated earliest to 720–750 ce, appear in sixteen manuscripts. Hermeland was the first abbot of Indre, a monastery founded in France in the eighth century. The saint was certainly a post-early Christian persecution saint. Generally speaking, it was a reason enough for a saint to lose his place in the calendar if another saint occupying the same feast day was satisfyingly prominent. The “successful” saints usually accumulated texts about them on their feast days; lesser-known saints shared a feast day with other saints. Irenaeus’s Martyrdom was present up to the late Middle Ages, albeit in a relatively small number of manuscripts. Many hagiographical collections for March and April did not place Irenaeus on 6 April or 25 March, but some other saints instead. The case of Irenaeus and Hermeland points to an impediment to memory when multiple saints have the same feast days. How else did some saints preserve their stable positions in hagiographical collections while others did not? The most common explanation is that some saints had their cults supported and promoted by important church authorities. Encomia were composed in their honor as early as the late antique period. The aggrandizement

“Remember me on this day” 49

13th c. Dublin

Omer716

Avr.

BnF17004

BnF5279

BnF5297

BnF5352

Passion of Yreneus

Passion of Hireneus, Vita of Hermeland

Passion of Hireneus, Vita of Hermeland

Passion of Hireneus, Vita of Hermeland

Passion of Hireneus, Vita of Hermeland

Passion of Hireneus, Vita of Hermeland

Passion of Yreneus

Trier

Passion of Hereneus

Table 3.2 Irenaeus’s feast day in the Latin calendars Breviarium Calendar Martyrologium Martyrology Martyrology Martyrologium Syriacum, of Hieronymianum, of Ado of of Hrabanus, Romanum 411 ce Carthage, 6th–7th c. Vienne, 9th c. 5th c. Notker, Usuard, Florus of Lyon, 9th c. Irenaeus 6 April of Sirmium

X

6 April

25 March

6 April

25 March

of saints by authority figures, bishops, archbishops, and the like enabled the presence and enduring afterlives of some saints and their saintly narratives. Prominent church fathers wrote many of these encomia. Basil the Great’s Encomium for 40 martyrs of Sebaste supported and enhanced belief in this group of saints and enforced their presence in calendars and hagiographical collections. Augustine wrote the Sermon about Perpetua and Felicitas, among other works, and John Chrysostom wrote the Homily on St. Ignatios. Venantius Fortunatus dedicated a poem to Agatha. Gregory of Tours was among the prominent promoters of saints.30 The advocacy of saints required a widespread belief in their saintly powers. The input of authority figures was just the start of the process. The relics of saints were powerful tools that played a crucial role in developing and promoting their cults. Much was written on the cult of relics in the Middle Ages, and for good reason, since they occupied the attention of medieval people. Some saints, such as Emeterius and Celedonius, did not remain in calendars, although Prudentius had promoted them through his poetry.31 In specific periods in the West, the advancement of a whole set of new saints ensued. Promoting the “Merovingian royal saints” from the sixth to

50  “Remember me on this day” the eighth centuries makes another layer in the Latin medieval hagiographical collections. In the Merovingian period, the use of saints traditionally associated with the royal family took a new turn.32 For example, Gertrude was Pippin’s saintly aunt and the abbess of Nivelles.33 The Frankish kingdoms built up a rich repertoire of saints from the fourth to the eighth centuries. In addition to the early Christian martyrs, both historical and invented, this repertoire consisted of confessor saints, aristocratic bishop–saints, and new female saints.34 All these “new” saints occupied the positions of some earlier, less-prominent holy figures. During the calendar formation, hagiographical writings had to survive their complex rules and the will of scribes as well as manuscript policies and other policies to achieve long afterlives in the hagiographical collections aligned by calendars. Byzantine and Slavonic hagiographical collections and calendars In the Byzantine world, mainly depending on a saint and his record, maintaining the feast days tended to be even more challenging. Saints lost their initial feast days and acquired new dates more frequently than in the West. Irenaeus of Sirmium was among these saints. Scholars already acknowledged that the dates were sometimes fabricated and ascribed to a saint only to fit the calendar.35 The feast day could have been a more stable saintly marker, especially for lesser saints. Forgetting occurred more frequently. Irenaeus’s feast day was different in various Greek hagiographical manuscripts. Several feast days of this saint were combined with different BHG versions. His martyrdom narrative appears in one Greek menologion and one Old Slavonic reading menaion (equaling menologion) for March and eight medieval Greek menologia and two early modern menologia for August. These numbers stand in contrast to the approximate total of 2,000 to 3,000 Byzantine Greek manuscripts of this kind mentioned in the introduction.36 It shows that we deal with a tiny sample of manuscripts in which the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium appears. Irenaeus’s Martyrdom appears on 26 March in two manuscripts. One is the eleventh-century Moscow Syn. 183, an Imperial Menologion for February–March, containing BHG 949e.37 The other is the tenth-century Old Slavonic Suprasl Codex, a pre-metaphrastic reading menaion for March.38 In light of the total number of preserved menologia in Byzantium, the sample consisting of one Greek and one Old Slavonic menologion for March is very small. When Ehrhard described 2,750 preserved Greek hagiographical manuscripts, he identified only three manuscripts as pre-metaphrastic March menologia, attesting that they were not as numerous as menologia for other months.39 Pre-metaphrastic March menologia are, besides the Slavic Suprasl Codex, the Greek manuscript Patmos 736 (fourteenth century) and Marcianus gr. 359 (tenth century), according to Ehrhard. However, these two manuscripts did not contain the Martyrdom of Irenaeus. Besides, Patmos 736 is significantly fragmented.40 It is a later type of March menologion, containing the texts

“Remember me on this day” 51 from 2 to 9 March (and a text on 25 March), probably being a fourteenthcentury copy of an earlier manuscript. Marcianus gr. 359 is a hagiographical collection for March and April.41 Ehrhard stressed that the Old Slavonic Suprasl Codex, as an essential source for better comprehension of the Byzantine Greek menologion tradition for March, was the sample manuscript belonging to the tradition earlier than Patmos 736.42 Patmos 736 is a copy of a later type of menologion for March, and it significantly corresponds with Marcianus gr. 359, while the Suprasl Codex is an indirect witness to an earlier type.43 Ehrhard’s explanation proved essential in connection to 26 March as Irenaeus’s feast day. The saint’s attachment to this date makes it part of an earlier tradition if Ehrhard is right on this issue. Marcianus gr. 359 has the Encomium of Archangel Gabriel on 26 March, and probably the exact text would have appeared in Patmos 736 had it covered this date. While they represent the later type of March menologion, the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium was present in the March menologion of an earlier type, as reflected in the Suprasl Codex. Archangel Gabriel cast out Irenaeus on 26 March, which may explain the later appearance of Irenaeus’s Martyrdom in August menologia. However, Ehrhard did not notice that the Imperial Menologion, Moscow Syn. 183, has striking content similarities with the other pre-metaphrastic manuscripts. Irenaeus’s feast day in Moscow Syn. 183 corresponds to the Suprasl Codex.44 Thus, Moscow Syn. 183 seems to belong either to an earlier calendar type or perhaps a transitional type. Scholars established earlier that Imperial Menologia commonly relied on the Metaphrastic Menologion of Symeon Metaphrastes; it mainly refers to textual features. Regarding calendars, both Imperial Menologia and the Metaphrastic Menologion followed the current calendar trends, along with their specific adjustments. More prominent hagiographical collections inevitably imposed their use of calendars on other collections. In the eleventh century, metaphrastic menologia were more available than other collections. Pre-metaphrastic collections were disadvantaged. Most hagiographical manuscripts produced in eleventh-century Byzantium were metaphrastic. The large enterprise of Symeon Metaphrastes has been preserved in around 700 manuscripts. They were distributed mainly in six months and the rest sporadically. Pre-metaphrastic texts, omitted in the work of Symeon Metaphrastes, were usually earlier than the Metaphrastic Table 3.3 Irenaeus’s feast day in March menologia

26 March

Suprasl Codex, 10th cent. OCS

Marc. gr. 359 10th cent. GR

Syn. gr. 183, 11th cent. GR

Patmiac. 736, 14th cent. GR

Martyrdom of Eirenaeus of Sirmium

Encomium for Archangel Gabriel

Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium

No text

52  “Remember me on this day” Menologion, but not always. In the eleventh century, both types of collections were in use. The Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium never entered the Metaphrastic Menologion. Its abandonment resulted from the broader historical, religious, and cultural processes in Byzantium. The text was neglected as it was absent in the Metaphrastic Menologion, which eventually became the dominant hagiographical collection. Another disadvantage of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus was that it belonged to the summer part of the calendar year (according to the feast dates in March and August). Since the Byzantine calendar begins in September, the period from March to August is the summer part. According to some theories, Symeon Metaphrastes did not finish his large project.45 Therefore, the saints’ lives which belonged to the summer part, may have never gotten their chance to be rewritten by Metaphrastes. Some saints with hagiographical texts in pre-metaphrastic March menologia held their regular dates in later calendars. Among them were forty martyrs of Sebaste, forty-two martyrs of Amorion, Kodratos, and others.46 Many authority figures promoted the martyrs of Sebaste in encomia; they also entered the Metaphrastic Menologion. They occupied the same feast days in later calendars appearing during the eleventh century, such as the Verse Calendar of Christopher of Mytilene.47 In contrast, some texts appear only sporadically and only in pre-metaphrastic manuscripts. Many of them appear only in the Suprasl Codex because this manuscript possibly displayed the fossilized earlier phase of the March menologia, as Ehrhard argued.48 The Suprasl Codex contains some unique texts (about the presbyter Alexander, Aninas, Terentios, Afrikanos, and his companions, Artemon and John Hesychast). They may have been isolated if the changes ensued after the Slavs had adopted the Byzantine calendar.49 The Greek calendar for March may have changed, adopted new saints, and replaced the earlier ones after this collection had appeared among Slavs. Otherwise, it would be difficult to explain the choice of saints, judging by the saints, which differ from the other March menologia, and are mostly unrelated to the contexts of medieval Bulgaria. The hagiographical manuscripts with the calendar type like the one in the Suprasl Codex did not appear in the Slavonic realm until the fifteenth century, at least according to the evidence we have.50 Therefore, the Martyrdom of Irenaeus appeared on 26 March in the earlier layer of the March menologia (in the Suprasl Codex and Moscow Syn. 183). The Encomium for the Archangel Gabriel replaced it. It may have overlapped with the time when the Martyrdom of Irenaeus appeared in August menologia. The earlier tradition still existed along with the later one, which accommodated Irenaeus in August. The saint appeared in both March and August menologia in the eleventh century. It is unclear how the transition between the two feast days of Irenaeus occurred. Irenaeus was not the only saint whose feast day changed. Some other saints also had their feast days moved from March to August menologia, such as Paul and Juliana, Dalmatos, and Dometios. The reasons for

“Remember me on this day” 53 Table 3.4 Irenaeus’s feast day in the Byzantine calendars Patmos 266, 9th–10th c.51

Jerusalem Synaxarion of Menologion Calendar of Metaphrastic St. Crucis Constantinople, of Basil II, Christopher Menologion, 40, 10th– 10th c. 11th c. of Mytilene, 10th–11th c. 11th c. 11th c.

22 August 22 August 23 August

X

23 August

X

Synaxarion of Theotokos Evergetis, 11th c.

Typikon of St. Salvatore in Messina, 12th c.

X

X

copying the martyrdom narratives previously written down in the March menologion tradition into August menologia still need to be clarified. Among the Greek calendars, none had Irenaeus’s feast day on 26 March. All accommodate Irenaeus on 22 and 23 August. The earliest surviving manuscript of the Constantinopolitan calendar, Patmos 266, and the earliest witness to the so-called Typikon of the Great Church, dating from the ninth to the tenth centuries, has Irenaeus’s feast day on 22 August.52 The exact date appears in another document of the early calendar tradition, the tenth- to eleventhcentury manuscript Jerusalem St. Crucis 40.53 The best-known synaxarion in the Byzantine tradition, the Synaxarion of Constantinople dated to the tenth century, commissioned by Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos, has Irenaeus’s feast day on 23 August.54 This date is at least according to the twelfth-century manuscript Sirmondianum, based on which the Bollandists published the edition of the Synaxarion. Otherwise, the Synaxarion has been preserved in many manuscripts; going into its possible variations surpasses the scope of this book.55 Scholars argued that Sirmondianum was copied for use in a church in Constantinople, or one in the immediate vicinity, probably the service in Hagia Sophia, which conformed to the Constantinopolitan type of religious service.56 The Menologion of Basil II, which covers only the winter part of the year from September to February, does not have Irenaeus’s feast day.57 In Christopher of Mytilene’s Verse Calendar, Irenaeus shares his feast day with several other saints.58 Irenaeus, however, vanished from other calendars. His Martyrdom never appeared in the Metaphrastic Menologion. The eleventh-century Typikon of the Evergetis monastery in Constantinople testified that the Metaphrastic Menologion was used in the monastery during the liturgy in the eleventh century.59 The Typikon of Evergetis was disseminated throughout the empire by the eleventh and twelfth centuries.60 The Metaphrastic Menologion and the Evergetis calendar forced Irenaeus out of the calendar for good. The Synaxarion of the Evergetis has no date dedicated to Irenaeus;61 neither does the Typikon of the monastery of St. Salvatore in Messina, restored from Codex Messinensis gr. 115, have his feast day.62 Among the August menologia, which probably relied on some of the mentioned calendars, eight medieval manuscripts and two early modern manuscripts incorporate Irenaeus’s martyrdom narrative. Irenaeus emerges on several dates

54  “Remember me on this day” in August. It combines with several BHG versions of his martyrdom narrative in different collections. Two menologia for July and August,63 Marcianus gr. 360 and BnF gr. 1177, of similar contents, contain BHG 948.64 Three other manuscripts containing BHG 948 – BnF 548, BnF Suppl. 241, and Vienna Hist. gr. 45 – are menologia for August.65 The first four are pre-metaphrastic August menologia, according to Ehrhard, who was unsure whether Vienna Hist. gr. 45 is a post-metaphrastic or a metaphrastic menologion.66 Ehrhard mentions six manuscripts and two fragments among August pre-metaphrastic menologia. Among them, three manuscripts incorporate the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium.67 The earliest, tenth-century Vat. gr. 1671, does not contain Irenaeus’s Martyrdom.68 Ehrhard suggested that this manuscript presented a menologion for August as it looked like in the ninth century.69 As this manuscript includes almost all the saints’ lives as BnF 548 and BnF 241, it may have omitted Irenaeus’s Martyrdom because it was in March then. Irenaeus changed feast days in the August menologia (as presented in Table 3.5). In the manuscripts Venice 360, BnF 1177, and BnF 241, Irenaeus appears on 21 August. In BnF 548, he moved to 22 August. Finally, in Vienna Hist. 45, he appeared on 23 August. The Martyrdom of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus (BHG 950z) appears in menologia for August, as in some manuscripts above: Jerusalem Taphou 17, an eleventh-century menologion for June, July, and August,70 and the three later copies.71 Version BHG 951 of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus appears only in the thirteenth-century manuscript Ambrosiana B. 1. inf., an August menologion.72 In both manuscripts, the narrative about Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus appears on 23 August. Therefore, when transferring from March to August menologia, Irenaeus’s feast first occupied 21 August, but eventually shifted towards the joint date with Or and Oropseus, 23 August. Interestingly, the Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus appeared in three August menaia only on 30 August. Irenaeus’s inclusion in the group of three saints is another example of the merging of saints in Byzantine menologia. This date was the saint’s temporary position before he vanished from the Byzantine calendar. Judging by the significantly decreased number of manuscripts, Irenaeus was almost abandoned in Byzantium and its Commonwealth after the eleventh century. Only four manuscripts appeared with some versions of Irenaeus’s Martyrdom, contrasted to the previous eleven manuscripts that emerged before this time. Calendars and forgetting Calendars and hagiographical manuscripts were the bearers of collective memory. They are tightly connected to the timely component through the use of dates. They announced commemorations within groups and societies, an aspect of collective memory. “If there is such a thing as social memory,”

Table 3.5 Irenaeus’s feast day in August menologia Vat. gr. 1671, 10th c. 21 August Martyrdom of Bassa and her sons

Venice 360 (and Paris 241, Paris 1177), 10th c. 10th–11th c. Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium

23 August Vita of Anthusa

Vienna Hist. 45, 11th c.

Jerusalem, Taphou 17, 11th–12th c.

Ambrosiana, 13th c.

Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium

Deeds of the apostle Martyrdom of Myron Martyrdom of Thadasios, Martyrdom Myron of Bases, Theognidos, Agapitos and Pistis Martyrdom of Martyrdom of Martyrdom of Agathonikos, Martyrdom of Martyrdom of Agathonikos Agathonikos, Encomium for Agathonikos Agathonicus and Martyrdom Agathonikos, companions of Irenaeus Martyrdom of Lukios Vita of Anthusa Martyrdom of Irenaeus, Martyrdom of Ireneus Martyrdom of Martyrdom of the Two of Sirmium, Or, Ireneus, Or, and Irenaei and Oropseus Oropseus

“Remember me on this day” 55

22 August Martyrdom of Encomium Agathonicos and of martyr companions Agathonicos

Paris 548, 10th–11th c.

56  “Remember me on this day” in the words of Connerton, “we are likely to find it in commemorative ceremonies.”73 The temporal component is closely linked with group formation. Remembering events and persons – in this case, saints – maintains the identity of groups and societies and their integrative and coherent structures. Calendars also directed the liturgical life and behavior of individuals within groups that remembered. They provided mnemonic synchronization of societies: each member remembered an event or a person on a particular day together with the tales of their life and death, from which they drew moral lessons and their sense of belonging. Thus, the negligence and disappearance of saints from calendars and hagiographical collections occurred when communities had a less intense need to remember the names of these saints and listen to and admire their stories. These “lesser” stories were of little or no importance in maintaining their communal identity. Irenaeus – certainly not alone in this situation – was among the saints for whom his fellow medieval Christians had no time anymore. Forgetting Irenaeus was not intentional in the Latin tradition; it occurred due to “forgetting as annulment.” The story of his martyrdom became a surplus among similar stories that dropped out of the calendar and hagiographical collections because other more inspiring and recent stories replaced it. The abandonment of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus was sometimes the consequence of broader historical, religious, and cultural processes, such as in the Byzantine tradition, where the text was not included in the famous Metaphrastic Menologion, which eventually became the dominant hagiographical collection. However, even if in such a way, this Martyrdom again suffered from “forgetting as annulment.” This notion is reflected in the south Slavic tradition, too. When we have sufficient manuscripts to estimate the calendar trends in the Slavic tradition, Irenaeus no longer had a date, and his Martyrdom was not copied. Notes 1 See Philippart, Hagiographies. 2 Dolbeau, “Le dossier,” 147–168. 3 Phillipart and Trigalet, “Latin Hagiography,” 111. 4 Unfortunately, Philippart and his team did not calculate the numbers of collections according to months. Personal communication, Brussels, April 2014. 5 Société des Bollandistes, Bibliotheca hagiographica Latina, 165–171; Société des Bollandistes, BHLms. 6 Holder, Die handschriften der badischen Landesbibliothek, 119–131; Holder, Die handschriften der Grossherzoglich badischen. 7 Poncelet, “Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum,” 417–478; Ottino, I codici Bobbiesi, 20–22. 8 Poncelet, “Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum,” 129–275. 9 Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina Manuscripta, “Liste des textes hagiographiques copiés en même temps que BHL 4466 dans le ms. Saint-Omer 715;” Dolbeau, “Le Légendier de l’abbaye,” 273–286; Dolbeau, “Le tome perdu du Légendier,” 363–375.

“Remember me on this day” 57 0 Poncelet, “Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum,” 361–470. 1 11 Moretus, “Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum,” 229–305. 12 Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina Manuscripta, “Liste des textes hagiographiques copiés en même temps que BHL 4466 dans le ms. Paris, BNF, lat. 16732;” see also Catalogus codicum. 13 Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina Manuscripta, “Liste des textes hagiographiques copiés en même temps que BHL 4466 dans le ms. Bruxelles 207–208;” Coens, “Un légendier de Cysoing,” 17–20; Dolbeau, “Deux légendiers démembrés,” 117–136; Dolbeau, “Un légendier,” 128. 14 Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina Manuscripta, “Liste des textes hagiographiques copiés en même temps que BHL 4466 dans le ms. Saint-Omer, 716;” Lechat, “Catalogus codicum hagiographorum,” 47, 241–306, 49, 102–116; Dolbeau, “Le Légendier,” 273–286; Dolbeau, “Le tome perdu du Légendier,” 363–375. 15 Van der Straeten, “Les manuscrits hagiographiques du Mont-Saint-Michel,” 104–134. 16 Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina Manuscripta, “Liste des textes hagiographiques copiés en même temps que BHL 4466 dans le ms. Paris, BNF, lat. 17004;” see also Catalogus codicum. 17 Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina Manuscripta, “Liste des textes hagiographiques copiés en même temps que BHL 4466 dans le ms. Paris, BNF, lat. 05279;” see also Catalogus codicum. 18 Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina Manuscripta, “Liste des textes hagiographiques copiés en même temps que BHL 4466 dans le ms. Paris, BNF, lat. 05297;” see also Catalogus codicum. 19 Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina Manuscripta, “Liste des textes hagiographiques copiés en même temps que BHL 4466 dans le ms. Paris, BNF, lat. 05352;” see also Catalogus codicum. 20 Colker, Descriptive Catalogue; Grosjean, “Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum,” 33–41. 21 Coens, “Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum,” 157–285. 22 Lifshitz, The Name of the Saint, 5. 23 Nau, “Un martyrologe,” 7–26; Lietzmann, Die drei ältesten Martyrologien; Mariani, Breviarium Syriacum. Nau dates the Breviarium between 362 and 411 CE. Nau, “Un martyrologe,” 7. 24 Poorthuis and Schwartz, Saints and Role Models in Judaism, 185, n. 10; Mariani, Breviarium Syriacum, 10–14. 25 The editor of the Breviarium Syriacum noted that this calendar had strong connections with Western calendars. At the same time, tracing its connections to the Eastern calendar was difficult, although it is an Eastern calendar. Nau, “Un martyrologe,” 7. 26 See Lifshitz, “Bede, Martyrology,” 169–198; Quentin, Les martyrologes historiques; Dubois and Renaud, Edition pratique. 27 The Irish Martyrology of Oengus de Culdee could testify to the transfer of the Eastern calendar sources to the far West. Such liturgical and calendar influences from Syria and the East to Anglo-Saxon England were discussed by Bischoff and Lapidge. See Bischoff and Lapidge, Biblical Commentaries, 172. 28 Gregory VIII, The Roman Martyrology. 29 The Vita of Hermeland (BHL 3851) appears on 25 March in the twelfth-century Montpellier, BnF 16732, the thirteenth-century Avranches, BnF 17004, BnF 5297, BnF 5279, and BnF 5352. 30 Van Dam, Gregory of Tours. 31 Bartlett, Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things? 508. 32 Geary, Before France and Germany, 188. 33 Fouracre, “The Long Shadow,” 15.

58  “Remember me on this day” 4 Bartlett, Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things? 38. 3 35 Høgel, Symeon Metaphrastes, 35, n. 50. 36 Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, xvii; Høgel, Symeon Metaphrastes, 11. 37 Latyšev, Menologii anonymi Byzantini, I–VII; D’Aiuto, “Note ai manoscritti,” 191. 38 This pre-metaphrastic reading menaion contains hagiographical texts ordered from 4 to 31 March. Marguliés, Der altkirchenslavische Codex Suprasliensis, 4; Zaimov and Kapaldo, Супрасълски или Ретков сборник; Vakareliyska, “Distinguishing Features,” 61–63; Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 594–598. 39 Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 587. 40 Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 587–588. 41 Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 589–593. 42 Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 593–603; Dobrev, “Агиографската реформа,” 33. 43 Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 599–600. 44 See Vuković, “Martyrdom of Irenaeus,” 60–73. 45 Fisher, “Encomium for Kyr Symeon Metaphrastes,” 194. 46 Walker, The Warrior Saints, 170–176. 47 Follieri, I calendari in metro innografico I, 135. 48 See also Vakareliyska, “Distinguishing Features,” 56. Vakareliyska argued that 13 saints’ lives which appear in the Suprasl Codex rarely appear in other similar collections. 49 Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 600; Ivanova ascribed freedom in selecting saints to a certain detachment and lukewarm dependence of the Slavonic church on Constantinople in the initial decades after the conversion. Ivanova, “Ново издание,” 124; Dobrev, “Агиографската реформа,” 36. 50 Two eastern Slavic manuscripts dating to the fifteenth and sixteenth century, St  Petersburg 596 and Kyiv 117, have similar contents as the Suprasl Codex. These manuscripts are the descendants of a pre-metaphrastic March menologion with pre-metaphrastic layers of texts. Petrov, Описанiе кіевскихъ рукописныхъ собраній, 213–218; Vakareliyska, “Distinguishing Features,” 61–63. 51 Dmitrievskij, Opisanie liturgitseskich rukopisej I, 1–151, 108. 52 Krausmüller, “Metaphrasis,” 50, n. 28; Mateos, Le typicon de la grande église, v; Wellesz, A History of Byzantine Music, 134; Luzzi, “Synaxaria,” 200–201. 53 Mateos, Le typicon de la grande église, iv, 241; Luzzi, “Synaxaria,” 202. 54 Rapp, “Byzantine Hagiographers as Antiquarians,” 32. Nersessian dated it to the reign of Leo the Wise (886–912). Nersessian, “Remarks on the Date of the Menologium,” 125. 55 Delehaye, Synaxarium; Luzzi, “Synaxaria,” 200. 56 Høgel, “Hagiography Under the Macedonians,” 220; Nersessian, “Remarks on the Date,” 106. 57 See Il Menologio di Basilio II; Efthymiadis, “Hagiography from the ‘Dark Age’,” 129. 58 Follieri, I calendari in metro innografico. See also Preradović, “The Passion of Saint Irenaeus of Sirmium,” 9. 59 Paschalidis, “The Hagiography,” 144. Ehrhard reconstructed the original content of the Metaphrastic Menologion mainly based on the information on readings contained in the Synaxarion of Evergetis. Ševčenko, “The Evergetis Synaxarion,” 386–399; Jordan, “Evergetis,” 454; Ehrhard, Überlieferung II, 306–709. 60 Wellesz, A History of Byzantine Music, 134. 61 Jordan, The Synaxarion; Dmitrievskij, Opisanie liturgitseskich rukopisej, 256–655. 62 Arranz, Le typicon, 173–185.

“Remember me on this day” 59 63 Ehrhard argues that this particular type of menologion in the two manuscripts was once part of the cycle of the entire calendar year. Regarding the dating, the two manuscripts are earlier than the other collections for July and August. Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 436. 64 Delehaye, “Catologus hagiographicum,” 191–193; Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 432–434. Ehrhard adds several other texts to the list of H. Delehaye (such as Encomia for Transfiguration and Dormition). The contents in the manuscript Marc. gr. 360 testify to the presence of these texts. 65 Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 676–681; Halkin, Manuscrits Grecs de Paris, 288–289. 66 Vorst and Delehaye, Catalogus Codicum, 55; Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 682–688. 67 Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 673. 68 Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 673–675; Afinogenov, “Новгородское переводное четье-минейное,” 261–294; Helland, “Some Remarks,” 27–28. 69 Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 676. 70 Ehrhard, Überlieferung III, 356–360; Papadopoulos-Kerameus, ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛΥΜΙΤΙΚΗ ΒΙΒΛΙΟΘΗΚΗ I, 69. 71 The contents of the twelfth-century manuscript Dionysiou 83 overlap with the contents of Jerusalem Taphou 17, as it contains the lives and martyria of saints and panegyrics from June to August. The second copy is the fourteenth-century Athens 1046, which contains the same texts as Jerusalem 17, except for one. The third copy is Jerusalem St. Crucis No.16, a sixteenth-century manuscript containing the same texts as Jerusalem 17, except for the first seven. However, all the prayers for the emperor are omitted. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛΥΜΙΤΙΚΗ ΒΙΒΛΙΟΘΗΚΗ III, 39–45; Ehrhard, Überlieferung III, 362; Lambros, Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts, 327. 72 Ehrhard, Überlieferung III, 367–368. 73 Connerton, How Societies Remember, 4–5.

4 Medieval attempts to revive the cult of Irenaeus

Delehaye stated that the three most common components of sainthood were historical source, martyrology, and shrine.1 He perceived hagiography as a historical source intended to engender, propagate, and strengthen the cult of saints.2 A hagiographical text appears because the cult exists, while the cult often depends on physical remnants of a saint and his shrine. In this way, Delehaye linked the literary to the material. His definition enduringly served as a manifesto for the studies of saints. However, scholars eventually challenged it in several ways. They first distinguished hagiography’s literary aspects from the study of cults. Claudia Rapp argued that Delehaye’s definition of hagiography “does not do full justice to the breadth and intention of hagiographical writing in late antiquity.”3 Felice Lifshitz and Stephanos Efthymiadis stated that many writings about saints seem to have never served any functioning cult.4 In Efthymiadis’s view, “we must first make a distinction between hagiography and the cult of saints on the one hand, and between hagiography as literature and as ancilla historiae on the other.”5 Lifshitz’s arguments detached calendars and the feasts of saints from the saintly relics. She disconnected the holy names from the relics and cults in her book on the Martyrologium Hieronymianum. She argued that this calendar filled every day of the year with the names of the saints whose relics no single institution could have possessed.6 It was not only the saintly body but also the name of the saint that was a bearer of sacred power. These conclusions showed that the three components of sainthood – cult places (with or without saintly relics), hagiographies, and calendars – were not necessarily and always linked and functional. They were sometimes nonsynchronized, even if all of them existed. The markers of sainthood had to ensure their existence and continuity in the same historical periods and at the same geographical places or at least within the same cultural realms to make the cult of the saint live and thrive. The place, locus, was probably the beginning of the cult. Some scholars point this out by ineluctably linking sanctity and place.7 The locus is defined as an identifiable burial place, accompanied or not by the physical remnants of a saint, or a site associated with a saint.8 The place could be a shrine or a DOI: 10.4324/9780429201578-4

Medieval attempts to revive the cult of Irenaeus 61 church, with or without relics, that is, the body parts or clothes of a saint. The presence of relics, especially “authentic” relics, was deemed the most valuable cult component. Relics, however, had to be deposited somewhere. They were transferable too. With the transfer of relics, the cult of a saint could be established in a new place. The cult of Irenaeus was connected to a sole geographical place, Sirmium. Being one of the Empire’s capitals and a populated late antique city, Sirmium naturally had a sizable Christian population, much of which suffered during the Great Persecution. Although the cults of these saints cohabited with various barbarian groups who lived in Sirmium from the fourth to the sixth century (Goths, Gepids), the Avar incursion drastically changed Sirmium’s sacred landscape. Some scholars argue that the barbarian incursions during late antiquity generally stirred the Middle Danube region.9 It was undoubtedly the Avar irruption in Sirmium that drove out the cults of the Christian martyrs to the risk-free places where their religious cults continued to be revered. Some cults were destroyed, along with their chances to be maintained in Sirmium. The transferred cults, especially those that persevered in new places, are good examples of memory migration.10 When the memory migrates or disappears, the places where it previously existed become the places of forgetting. In this way, forgetting gives rise to “new societies” in the places of memory, which have previously turned into places of oblivion. New societies further appropriate the memory to support their identity or allow its forgetting. Most of the cults of the martyrs of Sirmium were transferred to the far corners of the late Roman Empire, where they evolved further. Some permanently disappeared without leaving any traces of continuity in Sirmium. Quattuor Coronati had their early cult in Rome.11 The cult of Anastasia was initially fostered in Rome, Ravenna, and Constantinople, from where it passed on to the Dalmatian coast.12 Sinerotes/Serenus was initially venerated in Sirmium. His cult was transferred to France later. The early cult of Deacon Demetrius in Sirmium may have become the prominent cult of Demetrius in Thessaloniki. Scholarly debates on the origin of his cult in Sirmium and Thessaloniki as two hypothetical places of its provenance continue.13 Irenaeus was connected only to Sirmium. His memory could not be maintained in this place at the crossroads. His cult could not develop uninterruptedly. Sirmium was a place of clashing interests and the power struggles of Bavarians, Franks, Byzantium, Bulgarians, Hungarians, and possibly some other groups in the early and high Middle Ages. Irenaeus lost relevance with the arrival of new peoples and religions and their use of new languages. His relics were not extant and thus could not be transferred to continue the cult elsewhere. His memory, however, was revived in the Middle Ages. One of the late antique cult places presumably dedicated to Irenaeus in Sirmium revived during the tenth to the fourteenth century. The Serbian archeologist Vladislav

62  Medieval attempts to revive the cult of Irenaeus Popović assumed that the revival did not appear as a result of the continuity of the religious cult but due to the proliferating literary and liturgical sources at the time.14 By this statement, Popović had in mind the well-known saying of Delehaye that hagiography was intended primarily to engender, propagate, and strengthen the cult of saints. Late antique Sirmium The late antique cult of Irenaeus is attested to at one cult place in Sirmium, nowadays known as Sremska Mitrovica, and potentially at another cult place in Mačvanska Mitrovica (Serbia). In antiquity, the two locations were within the same settlement of Sirmium, divided by the river Sava. One of the sites is situated on the left bank of the Sava River, in the core settlement of ancient Sirmium.15 It is a northeastern necropolis surrounded by graves from the fourth century. The ground plan reveals a one-aisled basilica with an apse towards the East. Within the basilica, the most spectacular finding was a tombstone with an epigraphic inscription which refers to the name of Irenaeus.16 Vladislav Popović, who was in charge of the excavations in Sirmium, wrote: The archeologists were lucky. During the excavations of the northeastern cemetery of Sirmium, a small and highly damaged cult object was found. The object has one nave, with an apse oriented to the East. Inside and outside the church, many graves were found. In the close vicinity of the altar, an inscription was found, saying: in basilica domini nostri erenei. The problem of the grave of St. Irenaeus has been solved for good. The mention of the basilica was sufficient to conclude that this structure is considered a martyrium, i.e., the place where the saint last resided.17 The epigraphic inscription confirmed a fourth-century site on the left bank of the Sava River as the cult place dedicated to Irenaeus. The site on the right bank of the Sava in modern Mačvanska Mitrovica remained unattested. Scholars assume that it was dedicated to Irenaeus. Popović repeatedly stated that the two cult places were dedicated to the same saint: “One cult place could have been located in the northeastern necropolis of Sirmium. The other cult place could have been next to the pons Basentis, in the vicinity of the former place of his martyrdom.”18 The unattested site Zidine (Širingrad) is located 150 meters from the riverbank. It is a complex site with several archeological layers, a late antique necropolis with a martyrium, medieval dwellings, and three medieval churches, one on top of the other. Popović, who led the excavations of Zidine from 1966 to 1970, assumed that the late antique site was the cult place of some of the martyrs of Sirmium, possibly Irenaeus.19 The late antique site contained a Roman construction with an apse towards the East and

Medieval attempts to revive the cult of Irenaeus 63

Figure 4.1 Map of Sremska Mitrovica, indicating the two late antique cult places. Jeremić, “Kultne gradjevine,” 45.

sidewalls; only the southern wall was excavated. The building technique was typical for late antique structures; bronze items from the time of Valentinian I were found. Near the structure, several Roman graves were excavated. The Roman cemetery was concentrated mainly around the cult structure.20 The ancient martyrium and the three medieval churches were in the middle of the raised space, around the necropolae. The surrounding space was lower and quite often flooded, sometimes even underwater for extended periods. The Roman necropolis was divided into earlier and later levels of burials based on vertical stratigraphy, burying rituals, and archeological and numismatic findings. The two levels of the Roman necropolis are separate from the later medieval necropolis. The earlier level of the Roman necropolis contained a great deal of ceramics from the second and third centuries.21 The remnants of the cemetery belonged to the settlement of the Romanized population of Sirmium. The archeological material in the second level of the Roman necropolis dates from the fourth to the sixth century. The late antique graves sporadically contain Ostrogoth and Gepid elements.22 The highest concentration of graves was around the entrance to the martyrium.23

Figure 4.2 The epigraphic inscription mentioning the basilica Erenei. V. Popović, “Blaženi Irinej,” 85.

Figure 4.3 The site in Mačvanska Mitrovica. The card is deposited in the Museum of Srem. The photo of the site was taken during the excavations. The author took the photo of the card in April 2010.

Medieval attempts to revive the cult of Irenaeus 65

Figure 4.4 The site of Zidine in 2010. Photo by the author, April 2010.

The martyrium was the focal point of a well-used early Christian necropolis of the fourth century, which was in use at least until the mid-sixth century.24 It is unclear whether the populace of Sirmium buried their deceased at this place, as there were many other necropolae in the core settlement. The region along the Sava frequently flooded, and crossing the river was often complicated. Popović doubted that a significant settlement existed in Mačvanska Mitrovica in the Roman period but left open a possibility that an agrarian community had existed there that buried the deceased.25 The martyrium was destroyed at some point. There are thick layers of gravel between the level of the martyrium and the next level of the building. Popović supposed that the destruction of the later level of graves and late antique tombstones occurred at the time of the Avar invasion in the sixth century.26 The cult faded away after the period of activity from the fourth to the sixth century in both sites. From the sixth to the tenth century, Zidine and the site in the core settlement of Sirmium went entirely out of use.27 Medieval Zidine (Širingrad) The site of Zidine revived in the tenth century and thrived continuously until the fifteenth century.28 The excavations uncovered three subsequent churches on top of what Popović considered a late antique martyrium. In Popović’s opinion, all four churches were surrounded by cemeteries of deceased

66  Medieval attempts to revive the cult of Irenaeus believers.29 Other scholars agreed that this site was quite remarkable and unique, at least within the borders of Serbia.30 The discovery of this cult place represented a finding of extraordinary importance.31 Popović stressed that the cult continuity from the tenth to the fourteenth century was undeniable, and allowed the possibility that discovering the dedication of one of the churches would solve the dedications of the others.32 What were the three subsequent medieval structures on the site? The layer which lies on top of the late antique martyrium (the second layer of the site) is a one-apse church of small dimensions, with a rustic circular baptistery in the naos.33 The graves in this level are concentrated only around the church. The altar space was excavated, together with the southern sidewall. Building the following structure destroyed the other walls. This layer of habitation did not leave any traces of coins but, according to the Byzantine folles of anonymous emission from the eleventh century found in the subsequent church, Popović concluded that this church predated the eleventh century; he dated it to the tenth century.34 He assumed that this church belonged to a Frankish mission.35 It was destroyed by fire. Very soon, a new church was built on its ground plan. The third layer reveals a minor three-apse basilica, with the apse oriented to the East. This church was built immediately after the destruction of the previous one. It was possibly in use from the eleventh to the thirteenth century.

Figure 4.5 The four subsequent structures in the site Zidine. The plan of the structure of the cult buildings in the site Širingrad in Mačvanska Mitrovica: I) the remnants of the martyrium (fourth century), II) the church from the tenth century, III) the church from the eleventh century, IV) the church from the thirteenth century. Jeremić, “Kultne gradjevine,” 56.

Medieval attempts to revive the cult of Irenaeus 67 Popović concluded that this church was intentionally destroyed before the new church was built on top of it. Many graves were found around the third church.36 The graves were divided into earlier and later levels of burials – the earlier from the eleventh to the twelfth century and the later from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. People were continually buried around the church from the eleventh to the thirteenth century.37 Coins of John Tzimiskes (r. 969–976) were found in the central apse. In the later level of burying, Byzantine and Hungarian coins were found around and in graves.38 The Byzantine coins are from the period of Manuel Komnenos (r. 1143–1180), and Hungarian coins from the period of Coloman, Stephen II, Bela II, and Geza II (1095–1162). This church may have been connected to the Byzantine conquest of Sirmium at the time of Basil II (1018) and could even have been the episcopal church that Basil II built after his conquest of the region. Even if not from Basil’s time, this church was attested as being Byzantine.39 Popović noted that this church was mentioned in a papal letter from 1229 as a great episcopal church of the Greek order.40 The church from the fourth layer was a sizable multi-nave church. According to some charters from the thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries, this church was dedicated to Irenaeus.41 Popović confirmed that it was a Catholic church, where the Benedictine bishopric of Srem was placed.42 The altar space was not excavated. Popović hesitated about whether the altar belonged to the third or the fourth layer. He dated the building of the fourth church around 1230.43 This burial level has little accompanying archeological material.44 People were continually buried at this site from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century. Around the compact burials, churches, and sacred objects, local dwellings existed continuously from the tenth to the thirteenth century at the site of Zidine. The medieval dwelling site was located southwest of the necropolis. The first habitation level dates from the mid-tenth century to the beginning of the eleventh century.45 No coins were found at this level. The second level of the dwelling, which corresponds to the Byzantine church, is dated to the eleventh and twelfth centuries based on Byzantine and Hungarian coins and ceramics.46 The three Byzantine folles of anonymous emission were found here (976–1030), as well as a follis of Constantine X Ducas (r. 1059–1067) and a Hungarian coin of Solomon (r. 1063–1074).47 The second level was culturally quite precious. The next settlement level is dated to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the same level as the Byzantine church. The coins found in this level are connected to the period of the Komnenoi dynasty and several Hungarian kings. The last level of the dwelling, almost destroyed, belonged to the period from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century.48 Therefore, the earliest of the three subsequent medieval churches on the site of Zidine in Mačvanska Mitrovica might have belonged to a Frankish mission from the tenth century.49 The three-apse church was built on its foundations in the early decades of the eleventh century. It was Byzantine, although it remains unclear whether it belonged to the period of Samuel of

68  Medieval attempts to revive the cult of Irenaeus Bulgaria (r. 997–1014) or Basil II (r. 976–1025). It was mentioned in a papal letter in 1229 as a cathedral of the Greek rite. A Catholic Church was built perhaps before 1232 on its ruins. A Benedictine bishopric was placed there in the second half of the thirteenth century. According to the Latin charters from the thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries, the last church was dedicated to Irenaeus (ecclesia sancti Irenei Syrmiensis). There are no direct testimonies for the dedication of the two earlier medieval churches, nor of the late antique martyrium.50 However, Popović presumed that the consecration of the last church from the thirteenth century meant that the previous churches were devoted to Irenaeus as well: It seems probable that the dedication of one church would solve the dedication of the others. It was not the result of some cult and ethnic continuity but of the available literary and liturgical sources of the time.51

The locus, calendars, and hagiography The archeological remains of a missionary work orchestrated from the West are attested to at Sirmium in the structure that Popović identified as a tenth-century basilica of a Frankish mission. The area around Sirmium gave evidence of a hectic succession of people in the tenth century. The Slavic population has shown traces of presence.52 The Magyars arrived in the second half of the tenth century. Sometime earlier, during the mid-ninth century, the papacy, Byzantium, and the Bavarian bishops had already fought over the jurisdiction in the region.53 They argued over who would have the advantage in converting Slavs and Avars. The Byzantine Empire strove for supremacy in the Slavic and Avar missions. On the other hand, the Frankish Empire, which relied on the archbishopric of Salzburg and the patriarchate of Aquileia, had the same intention. The papacy grew in power at the time, developing its missionary policy. The local Slavic population was eventually Christianized with the help of the kings of Eastern Frankia and the archbishopric in Salzburg. Under Frankish patronage, Pannonia adopted the Latin Rite. Its ecclesiastical government was disputed, even after the arrival of the Hungarians, between the dioceses of Salzburg and Passau.54 Moravia, which stretched north from Pannonia, was another important entity in the region. The Moravian people were as yet unconverted. Their prince, Rastislav, tried to obtain missionaries for his population from Rome. When that failed, he turned to Byzantine Emperor Michael III, who appointed the missionaries Cyril and Methodius from Thessaloniki. After the conversion, Moravians sought an ecclesiastical organization independent of the Franks. The mission of Cyril and Methodius and their disciples in Moravia, as well as its failure and the consequent transition to Bulgaria, are well-known

Medieval attempts to revive the cult of Irenaeus 69 historical facts. Once the mission ended, the two missionaries kept in touch with the pope. When Cyril died in Rome, the missionaries’ position changed as Pope Adrian II sent Methodius to Pannonia, appointing him as an archbishop and a papal legate. Although scholars thought that Methodius became an archbishop of Sirmium at this time, this opinion is nowadays mainly refuted.55 Methodius never took this position because he was imprisoned. In addition, whether the seat of the archbishopric that he was appointed to was Sirmium remains unclear. Methodius had a conflict with the archbishop of Salzburg. They passed on his judgment, leading to his imprisonment and their prolonged jurisdiction over Srem. Magyars had conquered most of the Carpathian Basin by the tenth century after their migration from the Eurasian steppes.56 As newcomers, they were also to be converted to Christianity. Although the Eastern Franks lost their domination in the central Danubian basin over Magyars at the beginning of the tenth century, the religious missions from the West to this region commenced in the second part of the tenth century.57 The Franks had a plethora of opportunities for cultural contacts in this area. The church in Zidine may have possibly been built before the arrival of the Magyars or after their conversion, but it was undoubtedly Frankish. What are the exact connections of the hagiography and calendars mentioning Irenaeus to the historical place of Sirmium and the succession of people migrating to that area? In the tenth century, when the basilica in Sirmium (without a dedication to Irenaeus) was built in a Frankish mission, the Latin Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium (BHL 4466) already circulated in at least four manuscripts, originating from Bavaria and northern Italy.58 Hippolyte Delehaye argued that the earliest manuscript, Munich Clm 4554, contained the translations of Greek texts – the passions of saints of Asia Minor, Egypt, and Moesia.59 The name of Irenaeus further appeared in the early Western calendars before the basilica was built. The hagiographic text and the calendars, which provided information about Irenaeus in the West, may have inspired the church’s construction in Sirmium. It needs to be stressed, though, that the purpose of calendars in the West was broader than the promotion of individual saints. The Martyrologium Hieronymianum, the earliest extant Latin calendar that contained Irenaeus’s name, was produced in Gaul in the sixth or seventh century.60 The Martyrologium contains many holy names for the entire year, sometimes even a hundred per day, with the record of their martyrdom location and a few other details. From the ninth century, this martyrology was in everyday use in all communities of the Frankish realm.61 Several other martyrologies appeared in the West in the eighth and ninth centuries, such as those of Venerable Bede, Ado of Vienne, Notker, Florus of Lyon, and Hrabanus Maurus. Irenaeus of Sirmium appeared in a few of them on the same feast day as in the Martyrologium Hieronymianum. His feast day was mainly modified. In the others, he was not mentioned at all. These martyrologies predominantly worked to cultivate the Frankish identity within the Frankish realm as the continuators of the global Christian

70  Medieval attempts to revive the cult of Irenaeus identity. Their production places were monasteries patronized by the Frankish elite. These calendars were universal: they gathered as many holy names as possible from the Latin West, continental and insular, Africa, Near East, and the Greek world, less to promote the saints than to claim their ascendancy within Christianity through such lists. The interest in the martyrs outside of the Frankish realm showed the universal reach of these martyrologies and possibly the way they perceived their role in the global Christian world. The tenth-century church in Zidine, built in a Frankish mission which did not have the attested dedication to Irenaeus, was possibly inspired by the information calendars and hagiographies provided about Irenaeus. The church was destroyed by fire before the eleventh century. A  new church, possibly of Byzantine provenance, was soon built on the same grounds.62 By this, no continuity of the Frankish influence was displayed on the spot. The arrival of new people swept away the identity embodied in the monument. The disappearance of a monument in this place enabled the forgetting of the Frankish influence by the newcomers. The new church, built very soon after the destruction of the previous one and inspired by the Byzantine building style, has been dated broadly. In various, often reprinted articles, Popović dated the church to the last quarter of the tenth century and the first quarter of the eleventh century (976–1030/35), based on the coins and folles.63 At the time, the Bulgarian rule in the region interchanged with the Byzantine rule; the Bulgarian rulers Boris II, Roman, Samuel, Gavril Radomir, and Ivan Vladislav ruled the area before the Byzantines conquered it in 1018. Although Popović allowed the possibility that the dating of the church might be from the early eleventh century, possibly even after 1018, he reconsidered the dating after the infamous article by Imre Boba.64 Boba relied on Popović’s dating of the church to the eleventh and possibly further centuries, and further continued with his argument by connecting Sirmium with the Moravian bishopric of Methodius in the ninth and tenth centuries, and this church with Methodius’s seat.65 Popović argued that there were no archeological attestations of Boba’s claim.66 Finally, Popović’s dating leaned towards the time of Samuel’s rule, as the bishopric of Sirmium was possibly active in Samuel’s time (976–1014).67 Relying on Basil’s chrysobulls from 1019 and 1020, Popović assumed that this Byzantine church was the seat of a bishop noted among the bishoprics.68 The Sirmium bishopric may have been active already during the rule of Samuel, as Basil’s chrysobulls affirmed not only the newly achieved rights of the bishoprics but also the previous rights. Its rank among the bishoprics was not of high status. Sirmium was also mentioned among the episcopal sees after establishing the independent archbishopric of Ohrid in the eleventh century. Paul Stephenson relied on the publications of Popović, saying that the episcopal church in Mačvanska Mitrovica was built as part of Basil’s policy: “On the opposite bank of the river Sava, at modern Mačvanska Mitrovica,

Medieval attempts to revive the cult of Irenaeus 71 a new Episcopal church was built presumably in order to cater for the new Byzantine Christian garrison.”69 Popović noted that it was mentioned in a papal letter from 1229 ce as a cathedral of the Greek order.70 It was not known for its dedication to Irenaeus. This church remained in place until the thirteenth century. The Byzantines kept this region until the Hungarians took it over in 1071.71 The Hungarian predominance lasted until 1165 when Manuel I  recaptured the city.72 John Fine argues that, in fact, John Komnenos, Manuel’s father, had already returned to this area in 1126 when Hungarians were driven out from the region of Sirmium.73 In 1181, the Hungarian king Bela recovered Srem.74 In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the territory of Sirmium was quite multiethnic. Besides all the mentioned intruders, the city was surrounded by necropolae of the persevering Slavic population.75 Both Orthodox and Catholic Christians lived in this frontier land.76 The Greek Martyrdom of Irenaeus (BHG 948) had already appeared in Byzantium from at least the tenth century in hagiographical manuscripts. The calendars Patmos 266 from the ninth–tenth century, the tenth-century Jerusalem St. Crucis 40, and the tenth-century Synaxarion of Constantinople contained Irenaeus’s feast day. The last, imperially commissioned collection was soon used not only in Constantinople but throughout the Empire.77 Possibly, Irenaeus’s hagiography and the feast day in the calendars prompted the building of the church in Mačvanska Mitrovica. One thing is uncertain, in any case. A renewed cult of a saint in whose honor a church was built would be expected to cause the proliferation of his hagiography in the new hagiographical collections. The Greek Martyrdom of Irenaeus turned up almost exclusively in pre-metaphrastic hagiographical manuscripts, which encompassed texts that either stayed outside the massive project of Symeon Metaphrastes or those texts which were earlier than metaphrastic. As soon as the Menologion of Symeon Metaphrastes came out, it overshadowed all other collections. A large number of the eleventh-century menologia are Metaphrastic menologia. The eleventh century marked the high point of copying the Martyrdom of Irenaeus in Byzantium, amounting to seven manuscripts altogether. The number of manuscripts with the various BHG versions significantly declined afterward, with only four other manuscripts coming to light from the twelfth century until the end of the Middle Ages. Not part of the Metaphrastic Menologion, this text gradually disappeared from Byzantine menologia. The decline is difficult to explain, assuming the possible attempts to revive the cult of Irenaeus in the context of the Byzantine periphery. The same decline occurred regarding Irenaeus’s appearance in calendars. The Metaphrastic Menologion was in use in the Evergetis monastery in Constantinople at the time when the eleventh-century Typikon of the Evergetis was promulgated.78 In the Synaxarion of this monastery, there is no date dedicated to Irenaeus of Sirmium.79 The Metaphrastic Menologion and the Evergetis calendar thus cast Irenaeus out of the calendar for good.

72  Medieval attempts to revive the cult of Irenaeus The period of the succession of Byzantine and Bulgarian rule in Sirmium needs to be further discussed. It makes a difference because, approximately simultaneously, the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium emerged in the Old Slavonic Suprasl Codex (BHBS 508), the tenth-century collection of saints’ lives and martyrdom narratives from the Preslav Literary School. Some Bulgarian scholars linked the presence of Irenaeus in this collection to the locus, Sirmium, since it was included within the borders of the First Bulgarian Empire.80 The Bulgarian medievalist Teodosij Smjadovski calls Irenaeus a local saint.81 The feast of Irenaeus possibly served a local liturgical tradition of the Srem diocese. Also, Ivanova stresses that Slavonic copyists, when compiling the Suprasl Codex, paid attention to local saints, such as Irenaeus of Sirmium.82 Some Bulgarian scholars connected Sirmium to Methodius, relying on the conclusions of Imre Boba. They linked the promotion of Irenaeus to Methodius’s archbishopric in Sirmium. Popkonstantinov notes that Methodius revived the old martyrdom tradition and promoted Irenaeus as a saint when he became the bishop of Sirmium.83 Methodius aimed to emphasize the continuity of the archbishopric by promoting the first bishop martyr who held the same position.84 Some of these views go against the current scholarship, which mainly considers the idea of Methodius being the archbishop of Sirmium implausible. Another source of importance that appeared in the eleventh century in this area referred to Irenaeus’s cult: Historia martyrii XV martyrum (BHG 1199), written by Theophylact of Ohrid.85 The source is significant since the archbishopric of Ohrid, presided over by Theophylact, included the bishopric of Srem, located in Sirmium, in its domain. The Historia promoted the cult of the local saints, fifteen martyrs of Strumica (Tiberiopolis, North Macedonia).86 Their persecution occurred during the time of Julian the Apostate in the fourth century. When Bulgars accepted Christianity in the ninth century, and Boris I (r. 852–889) became the new Christian leader, the martyrs of Strumica were buried, and the miracles commenced. Boris I (Theophylact refers to him as Michael) heard rumors about them and appealed for the transfer of their relics to Bregalnica, where he built a church. Some were transferred to Bregalnica, while the others were kept in Strumica. Numerous miracles followed the transfer of relics. These relics cured people of evil spirits, leprosy, and voraciousness. At this point, Theophylact mentions Irenaeus. According to the text, Irenaeus had a miraculous power to heal people.87 A man was ill of voraciousness, a disease caused by a demon. He visited all the places famous for healing miracles, first Rome, where he prayed to the Apostle Peter. After Peter, he went to Irenaeus, as “Irenaeus was very famous for miracles.” Finally, the man visited the burial chamber of the martyrs of Strumica, which helped him heal. The period of Irenaeus’s active agency in healing miracles, in the words of Theophylact, occurred during the reign of Boris I (r. 852–889). Theophylact refers to Irenaeus exclusively in this short episode. It is challenging to

Medieval attempts to revive the cult of Irenaeus 73 understand Theophylact’s intention. It is likewise unclear which Irenaeus he refers to. Theophylact never says that he talks about Irenaeus of Sirmium. He does not reveal the cult location the sick man visited. The period from 852–889 predates the revival of the cult place in Zidine and the renewal of the cultic and other agencies in Mačvanska Mitrovica. Popović emphasized that Sirmium had no traces of habitation in the ninth century.88 It is challenging to comprehend Theophylact’s aim in ascribing the healing power to Irenaeus, especially taking into consideration the lack of archeological traces in Mačvanska Mitrovica. The analysis of the discrepancy of different sources would make sense only if Theophylact referred to Irenaeus of Sirmium. However, this information is not confirmed. Altogether, it would be desirable to know more precisely whether the church in this case was built at the time of the Bulgarian predominance in the region or later when Basil II conquered it. If the church was built during Bulgarian rule, its building would overlap with the time of creating the Suprasl Codex. The Bulgarian building activity at the site of a potential cult of Irenaeus would have constituted a link between the text and a cult place. However, even if commissioners of the church building at this spot were known, its dedication to Irenaeus is still absent. The Suprasl Codex, as a collection, was an early and rare bird. The manuscript with such an arrangement of saints’ feast days was not comparable to manuscripts from the later medieval Bulgarian context. The Bulgarian hagiographical manuscripts are preserved in more significant numbers only from the fourteenth century. However, hagiographical manuscripts were arranged by different calendars at that time. Another manuscript containing the Martyrdom of Irenaeus only appeared in the Slavic tradition in the sixteenth century. Similarly to the Byzantine tradition, Irenaeus lost his feast day in Slavic calendars after the tenth century. The text of his martyrdom narrative did not reappear in medieval hagiographical manuscripts in Bulgaria. The only confirmed consecration to Irenaeus is of the fourth church in Zidine in the late thirteenth century when Sirmium was already within Hungary. The rationale of this consecration is to be sought in the Catholic and Benedictine historical contexts. As Popović dated the building of the fourth church around 1230, it was in this one decade that the Byzantine realm was swept away by the Catholic predominance in the area.89 Popović’s assumption that the revived cult activity at the site of Zidine from the tenth to the fifteenth century may have been inspired by the available literary and liturgical sources of the time may be valid. Irenaeus would have been ensured such an afterlife as an early martyr of the Great Persecution and the subject of an authentic hagiography. However, he lost relevance with the repeated succession of new people. With every new arrival, different people in Sirmium were building up the memory of Irenaeus from their resources. Naturally, new people used new languages, making memory appropriation more challenging. The migrations in the area of his cult place enabled repeated forgetting rather than a chain of continual memory. The

74  Medieval attempts to revive the cult of Irenaeus revival of the cult of Irenaeus failed because too many groups with different identities inhabited the sole territory of his cult, which kept him from becoming part of an enduring memory in the same locus. And, without locus, there was no cult of the saint. The place of discontinuity Irenaeus’s early cult, which developed exclusively in Sirmium, disappeared with the detrimental Avar invasion towards the close of the late antique period. While the other martyrs of Sirmium experienced memory migration after the Avar arrival, such a fate did not happen to Irenaeus. His and the other cults of martyrs of Sirmium coexisted with the various groups that lived in Sirmium before the Avar invasion. The memory of these Christian martyrs was useless for the Avars, and forgetting ensued. It turned out to be, according to Paul Ricoeur, “forgetting that preserves.” The memory resurfaced in the same place some centuries later, thanks to different ethnic groups. The secondary remembrance occurred in the tenth century when Sirmium witnessed the succession of many invaders. Frankish missionaries built a church at the location of a late antique martyrium. The Franks and Bavarians directed the religious policy and conversions in Sirmium before and after the Magyar arrival. The church’s building may have been inspired by the previously circulating Latin hagiography that describes Irenaeus’s death. His name in the calendars may have likewise prompted it. Further research will show whether the missionary activities that consolidated hagiographies, calendars, and cult places to corroborate the cult of saints were orchestrated from the West or elsewhere. This church did not last. It was demolished towards the end of the tenth century because a different group decided to build another church. An abrupt imposition of forceful forgetting here made room for developing a “new society” in the former place of memory that now turned into a place of forgetting. In a few years, one realm passed in advance of the other. Later on, either Bulgarians or Byzantines built a church in a Byzantine style, which lasted for two centuries in the same location. The disappearance of the first church and the building of the second one epitomizes the models of manipulated memory. The memory was introduced into a realm of one ideology and ended with the imposition of another ideology. Whether the initiators of the new building activity had in mind the extant hagiography and calendar entries about Irenaeus that circulated in Byzantium remains a matter needing further research. We do not know if the church was indeed built in honor of Irenaeus. It was swept away around 1230 when the newcomers, Hungarians, took over the territory and built another church dedicated to Irenaeus in the Catholic and Benedictine contexts. Suppose the churches were indeed built in honor of Irenaeus. In that case, we have to conclude that Sirmium, a previous lieu d’memoire, the place which had memories of him, became a lieu d’oubli, which could reveal more

Medieval attempts to revive the cult of Irenaeus 75 about forgetting than remembering, as it was overwhelmed by disregarded and demolished memorial places.90 The migrations could not but give rise to discontinuity and forgetting rather than a solid, continual memory. Notes 1 “Apart from memory, we often possess something else related to the saints, e.g., their relics, shrines, and sometimes their writings.” Delehaye, The Legends, 59. 2 Lifshitz, Writing Normandy, 5; Delehaye, The Legends, 3–4. 3 Rapp, “The Origins of Hagiography,” 121. 4 Lifshitz, “Beyond Positivism and Genre,” 96–97, n. 7; Efthymiadis, “New Developments in Hagiography,” 167: “Hagiography as a method of promoting saints’ cult is not identical with the cult itself, and its literary value is not dependent upon its historical value.” 5 Efthymiadis, “New Developments in Hagiography,” 167. 6 Lifshitz, The Name of the Saint, 5. 7 Thacker, “Loca Sanctorum,” 1. 8 Thacker, “Loca Sanctorum,” 1. 9 Christie, “The Survival of Roman Settlement,” 318. 10 See Törnquist-Plewa, Sindbæk Andersen, and Erll, “Introduction,” 16; Erll, “Travelling Memory,” 9. 11 Špehar, “Sirmijumski mučenici,” 31. 12 Vedriš, “Communities in Conflict,” 29–48; Nikolajević, “Martyr Anastasia u Fuldi,” 123–132; Popović and Ferjančić, “A New Inscription,” 101–114; Špehar, “Sirmijumski mučenici,” 2014. 13 Špehar, “Sirmijumski mučenici,” 2014, 40; Vickers, “Sirmium or Thessaloniki?” 337–350; Tóth, “Sirmian Martyrs in Exile,” 145–170; Popović, “Kult svetog Dimitrija,” 87–98; Woods, “Thessalonica’s Patron,” 221–234. 14 Popović, “Blaženi Irinej,” 86. 15 Milošević, Topografija Sirmijuma, 44. 16 “In basilica domini nostri erenei as memoriam posuit Macedonius una cum matronam suam Aamet/Mamet.” (“Macedonius, together with his wife Ames/ Mamet, supported the building of this tombstone in the basilica of our Lord Irenaeus.”) The tombstone is deposited in the Museum of Srem, Sremska Mitrovica, Serbia. Popović, “Blaženi Irinej,” 84. 17 Popović, “Blaženi Irinej,” 84–85. 18 Popović, “Sremska Mitrovica je sveta zemlja . . .,” 11–12. 19 Popović, “Sirmium – Mitrovica, Sremska i Mačvanska,” 131–138; Popović, Sirmium. Grad careva i mučenika, 81–86. 20 Popović, “Mačvanska Mitrovica, Nekropole,” 61–62. 21 Popović, “Mačvanska Mitrovica, Nekropole,” 63. 22 Ercegović–Pavlović, “An Eastern Germanic Grave,” 19–23. 23 Popović, “Mačvanska Mitrovica, Nekropole,” 64. 24 Jeremić, “Kultne gradjevine,” 62. 25 Popović, “Mačvanska Mitrovica, Nekropole,” 63. 26 Popović, “Mačvanska Mitrovica, Nekropole,” 63. 27 Popović, “Mačvanska Mitrovica, Nekropole,” 66. 28 Both Popović and Minić confirmed the continuity of the site. See Popović, Sirmium. Grad careva i mučenika, 82; Minić, “Le site d’habitation,” 1–80. 29 Popović, Sirmium. Grad careva i mučenika, 83. 30 Popović, “Preface,” VI. 31 Popović, Sirmium. Grad careva i mučenika, 82. 32 Popović, Sirmium. Grad careva i mučenika, 83.

76  Medieval attempts to revive the cult of Irenaeus 3 Popović, Sirmium. Grad careva i mučenika, 82, 291. 3 34 Popović, “Mačvanska Mitrovica, Nekropole,” 64. 35 Popović, “Blaženi Irinej,” 85. 36 Popović, “Mačvanska Mitrovica, Nekropole,” 64. 37 Popović, “Mačvanska Mitrovica, Nekropole,” 65. 38 Popović, “Mačvanska Mitrovica, Nekropole,” 65. 39 Popović, “Blaženi Irinej,” 85. 40 Pope Gregory IX inquired about a “great church” (episcopal church) of the Greek order in a letter from 1229. Popović, Sirmium. Grad careva i mučenika, 84. 41 Popović, “Blaženi Irinej,” 85–86; Popović, “Sirmijska episkopija,” 293: “In a document from 1309, it is clear that a papal representative, an Archdeacon Cambio de Neutra first went to visit the church of St. Irenaeus (ad ecclesiam sancti Yrinei, ubi episcopus Sirmiensis consuevit immorari), and then, after crossing Sava, together with the bishop, he went to the town of St. Demetrius (ad villam Sancti Demetrii), therefore, to Sremska Mitrovica.” Popović argued that the Latin charters mention praepositus ecclesiae S. Irinei Syrmiensis as early as 1252, here referencing Bösendorfer, Crtice iz slavonske povijesti, 239. See also Györffy, “Das Güterverzeichnis,” 73; Ćirković, “Civitas sancti Demetrii,” 60, n. 6. 42 Popović, “Blaženi Irinej,” 85–86. 43 Popović, “Mačvanska Mitrovica, Nekropole,” 69. In “Sirmijska episkopija,” VII, Popović argued that the fourth church was probably built between 1229, when Pope Gregory XI inquired about the church of the Greek order, and 1252 when the Latin charters already mentioned the Catholic church at this site. It was probably built between 1229 and 1232. 44 Popović, “Mačvanska Mitrovica, Nekropole,” 65. 45 Minić, “Le site d’habitation,” 74. 46 Popović, “Mačvanska Mitrovica, Nekropole,” 68; Minić, “Le site d’habitation,” 75. 47 Minić, “Le site d’habitation,” 75. 48 Minić, “Le site d’habitation,” 75. 49 Popović, “Blaženi Irinej,” 85. 50 Popović, “Blaženi Irinej,” 86. 51 Popović, Sirmium. Grad careva i mučenika, 83. 52 Berend, Laszlovszky, and Szakács, “The Kingdom of Hungary,” 327. 53 Bowlus, Franks, Moravians, and Magyars, 153. 54 Engel, The Realm of St Stephen. 55 Boba, “The Cathedral Church in Sirmium,” 35–40; Betti, The Making of Christian Moravia, 192, 199. 56 Engel, The Realm of St Stephen, 12–13. 57 Bowlus, Franks, Moravians, and Magyars, 235; Berend, Laszlovszky, and Szakács, “The Kingdom of Hungary,” 328. 58 The eighth-century Munich Clm 4554 from the Benediktbeuern monastery, the ninth-century Karlsruhe Aug. XXXII from Reichenau, the tenth-century Turin F. III. 16 from Bobbio, and the tenth-century Vienna ÖNB 371 from Salzburg. 59 Phillipart and Trigalet, “Latin Hagiography,” 125–126. 60 Lifshitz, The Name of the Saint, 13–14. 61 Lifshitz, The Name of the Saint, 11. 62 Popović, “Mačvanska Mitrovica, Nekropole,” 64. 63 Popović, “Sirmijska episkopija,” 292, 295. 64 Boba, “The Cathedral Church in Sirmium,” 35–40. 65 Boba, “The Cathedral Church in Sirmium,” 35–40. 66 Boba, “The Cathedral Church in Sirmium,” 35–40; Popović, “Sirmijska episkopija,” 294–295, in which Popović refuted Boba’s ideas. See also Popović, “Mačvanska Mitrovica, Nekropole,” 67; Popović, “Metodijev grob,” 297, 301; Popović, “Sirmium – Mitrovica (Sremska and Mačvanska),” 86.

Medieval attempts to revive the cult of Irenaeus 77 7 Popović, “Sirmijska episkopija,” 294–295. 6 68 Popović, “Sirmijska episkopija,” 294–295. 69 Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier, 65. 70 Popović, Sirmium. Grad careva i mučenika, 84. Gregory IX inquired about a “great church” (episcopal church) of the Greek order in a letter from 1229. 71 Fine, Early Medieval Balkans, 211. 72 Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier, 189. 73 Fine, Early Medieval Balkans, 235. 74 Fine, Early Medieval Balkans, 245. 75 Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier, 190. 76 Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier, 191. 77 Nersessian, “Remarks on the Date,” 106; Høgel, Symeon Metaphrastes, 35; Høgel, “Hagiography Under the Macedonians,” 220. 78 Paschalidis, “The Hagiography,” 144; Ševčenko, “The Evergetis Synaxarion,” 386–399; Ehrhard, Überlieferung II, 306–709. 79 Jordan, The Synaxarion. 80 Some scholars claim that the Bulgarian Empire hardly reached Sirmium; its border was as far as Belgrade. Samuel’s deputy Sermon in Sirmium was there only in the eleventh century. Komatina and Komatina, “Vizantijski i Ugarski Srem od X do XIII veka,” 141–164. 81 Smjadovski, “Супрасълският Сборник,” 108. 82 Ivanova, “Ново издание,” 124–125. 83 Popkonstantinov and Smjadovski, “За почитането на Климент,” 86–92. 84 Smjadovski, “Супрасълският Сборник,” 114–115. 85 Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, series graeca, 126, 151–221. 86 The text is preserved in one manuscript, Oxford, Barocci 197 (f. 589r–621v). Obolensky, Six Byzantine Portraits, 71–76, n. 183, n. 184; Obolensky, “Theophylact of Ohrid,” 601–618; Gautier, Deux oeuvres hagiographiques; Pachalidis, “Hagiography,” 154, n. 51. 87 Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, series graeca 126, 220: Αἴσθησιν δὲ τοῦ πάθους λαβὼν ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ᾐσχύνετο μὲν, οὐκ ἔχων δὲ ὁ καὶ δράσοιε [φ. -σειε], τοὺς ἀνὰ πάντας τόπους ἐν ἁγίοις θαυματουργοὺς περιῄει, ὥστε καὶ τῆς 'Ρώμης [φ. τῇ 'Ρώμη] ἐπιφοιτῆσαι, τὴν τοῦ μεγάλου καὶ κορυφαίου Πέτρου τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐπικαλούμενος δύναμιν. Ἐπεζήτησε δὲ καὶ τὸν ἅγιον Εἰρηναῖον, πολὺν καὶ αὐτὸν ᾀδόμενον ἐν τοῖς θαύμασιν. 88 Popović, Sirmium. Grad careva i mučenika, 302. 89 Popović, “Mačvanska Mitrovica, Nekropole,” 69; Popović, “Sirmijska episkopija,” VII. 90 Beiner, Forgetful Remembrance, 20.

5 “Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” Textual transformations of Irenaeus’s Martyrdom

Before the story of Irenaeus’s martyrdom was neglected, the text was disseminated in five languages: Latin, Greek, Old Slavonic, Armenian, and Georgian. It was present in diverse Christian settings despite the less prominent and, consequently, a nonexisting cult of Irenaeus and the unstable feast day in calendars. It was exposed to rewriting and textual transformations. This chapter analyzes the intersection of the techniques of textual transformation with those of memory and forgetting. Plate and Rose define rewriting as “a transformative technology of memory, carrying and transmitting memories but not without change and adaptation.”1 Ricoeur likewise considered that the textual transformations impact memory and forgetting. He stated that strategies of forgetting included “recounting differently, eliminating, shifting the emphasis, recasting the protagonists of the action in a different light along with the outlines of the action.”2 These transformations omit and add information that corroborates or distorts the saint’s memory. The analysis of the narrative structure and intertextuality of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus targets these transformations and provides the chapter’s conclusions. The structure indicates priorities and omissions in a narrative. As is the case here, the same sequence of events can be told in many different ways and written down in various textual versions. One produces different textual descriptions by emphasizing different aspects of the text. The differing structures enforce the conclusion about the felt need of different scribes, copyists, and translators to emphasize different parts of the same story. The narrative structure could have relevance to the meaning of the narrative.3 Emphasizing different parts contributes to the different aims and provides conclusions on the strategies of meaning behind them. Further, intertextuality, which reveals the actual presence of one text within the other, is here used for establishing connections among the textual versions. Every text is a mosaic and a combination of quotations and references from other texts, genres, and discourses. The transformations refer to abridging the texts, reductions, and extending or augmentations.4 The reductions and augmentations introduce changes that affect structure and substance.5 The analysis of intertextuality eventually reveals deep textual connections among the versions. DOI: 10.4324/9780429201578-5

“Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” 79 The differences in the versions of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium sometimes reveal information about the communities that used the text. In some contexts, the text was used as a “usable past.” More often, they display only different phases of the textual metaphrasis. The most substantial variations exist among the Greek versions: five BHG forms (948, 949e, 950, 950z, 951) and two liturgical canons. Additionally, one Latin version (BHL 4466), one Old Slavonic (BHBS 508), one Armenian (BHO 537), and one Georgian version are differently related to the extant Greek text(s). The evolution of the Greek text(s) points out the change in its initial purpose. The martyr was presented as a paradigm to imitate in its primary textual form (BHG 948). He turned from an exemplary character into a victimized hero in the revised forms (BHG 949e, 950z). The Latin, Old Slavonic, and Armenian versions correspond to BHG 948 and express the different phases of the Greek textual metaphrasis. BHG 948 hardly contains any added features specifically meaningful in the environments where the text was copied. Its use was generic. It does not reveal details about the societies and groups which used it. Before the story of Irenaeus’s martyrdom was neglected, it was transformed to initiate a new meaning in some Christian settings. The versions appearing in the Imperial Menologia, BHG 949e and 950z, and the Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus were transformed to make a specific effect in some contemporary political and religious affairs. Besides the standard narrative about Irenaeus (BHG 948), which circulated in the center, Constantinople, and was transmitted to the Latin West, Bulgaria, and Armenia, an almost-unrelated narrative was disseminated in the areas of Jerusalem, southern Italy, Athos, and Sinai. The independent story about the three saints (Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus) surfaced in manuscripts as BHG 950z, BHG 951, and the Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus. It is conclusive that the author(s) of these texts were either unaware of the narrative circulating in Constantinople or deliberately did not use it. The comparison between the two textual streams below demonstrates that no unique textual connections exist between them. It means that multiple hagiographical narratives about the same saint could have appeared independently in different parts of the medieval world. The story of the three saints was probably constructed mainly based on their names in the calendar. Delehaye already confirmed that sometimes only the name of a martyr and the place of martyrdom were sufficient to construct a hagiographical narrative. This version is unrelated to the primary narrative. In terms of remembering and forgetting, such textual handling indicates memory distortion and distancing from the original historical record. The new story becomes a fabricated quasi-historical narrative. Structure of the Greek narratives about Irenaeus The different colors in the chart indicate the structural transformations of the three main BHG versions of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus: BHG 948, 949e,

BHG 948 Ὅτʼ ἂν τις τρόποις ἀγαθοῖς εὐσεβὴς, συνασκηθῆ τῶν κρειττόνων ἐφιέμενος. καὶ φόβο[ν] θ[εο]ῦ προσλάβηται. τότε πάντων ἀθρόως τῶν ἐν τῷδε τῷ βίῳ, καταφρονήσας. πρὸς τῶν ἐπηγγελμένων ἀγαθῶν τὴν ἀπόλαυσιν ἐπείγεται. καὶ ἄπερ διὰ τῆς ἀκοῆς παρόντα. πίστει βεβαίᾳ θεώμενος ἐπεθύμησε[ν]. ταῦτα θᾶττον διʼ αὐτῆς τῆς αὐτοψίας ὑπολαβὼν ἔχειν. δοξάζει τὸν κ[ύριο]ν.

BHG 949e

BHG 950z

Ἄρτι τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ κακίᾳ περιβοήτων. Τόν τῆς εἰρήνης ἐπώνυμον καὶ γενναιότατον διοκλητιανοῦ φημὶ καὶ μαξιμιανοῦ. τῆς μάρτυρα. Εἰρηναῖον τὸν μέγαν ἡ τοῦ Σιρμίου βασιλικῆς ἀρχῆς ἐπιλαβομένων. καὶ πόλις πρόεδρον ἔσχε καὶ πολιοῦχον. καλῶς κακῶς αὐτῇ κεχρημένων. διατάγματά τε τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ποιμαίνοντα. καὶ καλῶς προτιθεμένων κατὰ τῶν εὐρισκομένων Θεῷ τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν προσάγοντα. χριστιανῶν. ὁ μακάριος εἰρηναῖος. τῶν Διοκλητιανοῦ τοίνυν καὶ Μαξιμιανοῦ ἠπειλημένων ἐκείνων κολαστερίων τῶν τυράννων διωγμὸν ὅτι μέγιστον κατὰ καταφρονήσας καὶ τῆς σφοδροτάτης Χριστιανῶν κινησάντων. καὶ πλῆθος ὅτι ἀνάγκης. ἅτε ἱερεὺς τοῦ θ[εο]ῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου πολλὺ τούτων. ἢ μᾶλλον εἰπεῖν ἅπαντας τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας λόγον ἐδίδασκε καὶ πολλοὺς συλλαμβανομένων. καὶ τιμωρίαις ξέναις τῆς ἀθείας ἐπέστρεφε πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας εἰς ὑπερβολὴν κακίας καθυπαγόντων. Ὃ δὴ γέγονεν καὶ περὶ τὸν μακάριον ἐπίσκοπον ἐπίγνωσιν. τοῦτο μεν δι' ἐαυτῶν. τοῦτο δὲ καὶ διὰ εἰρηναῖον. τῆς τοῦ σιρμίου πόλεως. οὗτος τῶν ὑπηρετουμένων ὁμοφρόνων αὐτοῖς, γὰρ δι̕ ἐπιείκειαν ὑπερβάλλουσαν. καὶ μὴ θυμὸν ὑποπτήσσων ἀρχοντικὸν. μὴ κολάσεις διαβάλλεται τῷ τῆς χώρας παννονίας ἄρχοντι τὴν περὶ τὸ θεῖο[ν] εὐλάβειαν. τοῖς ἔργοις ποικίλας. μὴ ποταμοὺς. μὴ κρημνοὺς. οἷς οἱ πρόβῳ. καὶ ὁ καλλὸς οὗτος εἰρηναῖος ὁ κυρῶν τὴν προσηγορία[ν]. καὶ νέος τῆς διὰ χ[ριστό]ν ἀθλοῦντες ἐπερριπτοῦντο. μὴ πάνυ. καὶ συλληφθεὶς τῷ βήματι τούτου προεδρίας ἀξιωθεὶς. καταλαβόντος αὐτὸν τοῦ καταμαλακιζόμενος. οἷς εἰώθασιν ἄν[θρωπ] προσάγεται. διωγμοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐπὶ διοκλητιανοῦ καὶ οι καταμαλακίζεσθαι. προσπαθεία τεκόντων μαξιμιανοῦ καὶ κωνσταντίου τῶν βασιλέων. δηλαδὴ. παίδων ὀρφανία. δάκρυσι γυναικῶν. καὶ τὶ γίνεται; πρòς θυσίαν τῶν εἰδώλων οὐχ̓ ὥσπερ ἔνιοι τιμίῳ πράγματι μόνω ἡλικιωτῶν αὐτῶν συμβουλαῖς. φίλων καὶ καλεῖται. εἴπερ γὰρ ὦ ἄνθρωπε θῦσαι χρώμενος καὶ προστετηκὼς τοῖς τῆδε μᾶλλον συγγενῶν ὀδυρμοῖς. μὴδ҆ ἄλλοις τισὶ τοιύτοις τοῖς θεοῖς θελήσεις. ὁ πρόβος ἔφησε τῷ πράγμασιν. ὅλως ἡττώμενος ἢ καὶ πρός τι τούτων δικαίῳ. μέγιστον ἀναδείξω σε γράψας καταπληττόμενος. τὴν δεσποτικὴν πάντως τῷ βασιλεῖ. καὶ μεγάλων πραγμάτων λύπη τὴν παροῦσαν χαρᾶν ἠμαύρωσεν. ἀλλὰ φωνὴν ἐπὶ μνήμης ἔχων. καὶ τὰ ἐκεῖσε διοικήσεις ἐμπιστευθήσῃ. εἰ δ᾿ οὖν, ἀλλὰ ἀκάμπτω καὶ ἀνενδότω προθυμίᾳ χρώμενος. φρίττων δικαιωτήρια. ὅστις γὰρ ἀρνήσεταί τιμωρίαι σε διαδέξονται; μὴ δὲ λόγῳ καὶ τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν ἐπεκτεινόμενος ἔσπευδεν με φη[σίν] ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀν[θρώπ]ων. ῥηταὶ ἔφη. καὶ ὁ ἅγιος. ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲ ζῆν ἐπὶ τὸ βραβεῖον τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως. οὐκ ἀρνήσομαι τοῦτον κἀγὼ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ π[ατ] αἱροῦμαι σὺν ὑμῖν ἡγεμὼν εἷπεν. μή τι γε ἐξέλυσαν γοὖν αὐτοῦ τὴν στερρότητα ὕβρεις. ρ[ό]ς μου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐ[ρα]νοῖς. Ἔνθεν τοι συνδιάγειν καὶ συνδοξάζεσθαι. ταῦτα τοῦτον ποικίλα πάθη σεμαίνουσαι. οὐ ποταμοὶ καὶ πάντων καταφρονήσας. χαίρων ἐχώρει εἰπόντα. δεσμὰ λαμβάνουσιν εὐθὺς καὶ τὸ ἀπειλούμενοι. οὐ κρημνοὶ καὶ βασάνων εἴδη πρὸς τὸ μαρτύριον. δεσμωτήριον. Ἡμέραι παρῆλθον

80  “Numberless Ways to Tell a Story”

Table 5.1 Structural transformations of BHG 948, 949e, and 950z

Προσαχθεὶς οὖν τῷ τηνικαῦτα τῆς παννονίας ἡγεμόνι πρόβῳ. καὶ ἐπερωτηθεὶς εἰ βούλοιτο θῦσαι. ἀπεκρίνατο ὁ μακάριος εἰρηναῖος. ἀλλ' οὐδὲ ζῆν μεθ' ὑμῶν αἱροῦμαι. τότε ἀνελήφθη εἰς τὸ δεσμωτήριον ἐκ πλειόνων δὲ ἡμερῶν ἐν τῇ τῆς εἰρκτῆς φρουρᾷ παραδοθείς. μέσης νυκτὸς προκαθίσαντος τοῦ ἡγεμόνος. προσήχθη πάλιν ὁ μακάριος εἰρηναῖος καὶ ποικίλας βασάνους ὑπομείνας. καὶ ἐρωτώμενος διὰ τὶ οὐκ ἐπιθύει. ἀπεκρίθη ὅτι θ[εό]ν ἔχω, ὃν ἐκ παιδὸς ἡλικίας σέβειν δεδίδαγμαι. καὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις ὑφ̓ ὑμῶν

Συσχεθεὶς γὰρ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀσεβῶν. καὶ τῷ τοῦ πρόβου βήματι προσαχθεὶς. ἐν τῷ σηρμίῳ τότε διάγοντος. ὅλος ἄτρεπτος. ὅλος ἀκατάπληκτος ἔστη. διὸ καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ τῆς ἀνομίας υἱός. τίς καὶ πόθεν καὶ τίνα τὰ κατὰ σοῦ φημιζόμενα. λέγε τὸ τάχος ἔφη. καὶ τίς ἡ κλῆσις αὐτή. καὶ ἐπεὶ μάθοι τὰ περὶ τούτων ἠκριβωμένως. θῦσον εἰρηναῖε λέγει τοῖς ἀνικήτοις θεοῖς. ἵνα δὴ καὶ τῶν προεπταισμένων σοι τὴν συγχώρησιν λάβης. καὶ τῶν μενουσῶν σε βασάνων ἀπαλλαγῇς καὶ μείνης μεθ̓ ἡμῶν εὐφραινόμενος. καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν. τ῎Αλλ’ς οὐ θύσω ποτὲ πρόβε. φησὶ ἐκεῖνος. οὐδὲ γὰρ ζῆν μεθ̓ ὑμῶν αἱροῦμαι. οὔτε μὴν τὸν ἐμὸν χ[ριστό]ν ὅλως ἀρνήσομαι. Θ[εὸ]ν ἀληθῆ τυγχάνοντα. καὶ τῶν ἁπάντων ποιητὴν καὶ δεσπότην. Ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν οὕτως εἰπόντα τὸν μάρτυρα. τὸ δεσμωτήριον εἶχεν. ἡμερῶν δὲ παρελθουσῶν οὐκ ὀλίγων τὸ δικαστήριον αὐτὸν διεδέξατο. πρὸς ὃν ὁ ἡγεμὼν. δεινὸν ἀπιδὼν. καὶ τοῦτον θύειν ἀπαναγκάζων. ἐπεὶ μὴ πειθόμενον εἶχε. κολάσεσιν ὑπέβαλλε χαλεπαῖς καὶ ποικίλαις. ξεσμοῖς. μάστιξι. ταῖς ἐκ ῥάβδων πληγαῖς. καὶ πάσαις ἄλλης βασάνου κακουργίαις. ὡς δὲ πρὸς ταῦτα μηδαμῶς ἐνεδίδου. καὶ πυρὸς ὁ μάρτυς φεῦ καθυπέμεινε καῦσιν. καὶ καθ̓ ἑκάστην βάσανον. ἀρνήσαασθαι παρεβιάζετο τὸν χ[ριστό]ν. καὶ τοῖς κιβδήλοις λατρεῦσαι θεοῖς. καὶ ἐπεὶ μὴ ἐπείθετο. τρόποις ἀπατελοῖς ὁ πρόβος ὑπέρχεται τοῦτον. γυναῖκα

οὐχὶ συγχαί. καὶ μέσης νυκτὸς ὁ πρόβος. εἰς ἐξέτασιν προκαθίσας. ὅτε δὴ πάντως εἰς οὓς αὐτῷ λελάληκεν ὁ σατανᾶς, ἄγει τὸν μάρτυρα πρὸς ἐρώτησιν καὶ θῦσαι τοῦτον ἠνάγκαζε τοῖς βδελύγμασιν. Ὠς δὲ μὴ ἔπειθε, μαστίζει δεινῶς. ξέει πικρῶς. φλέγει φρικτῶς τῷ πυρί. γενναίως τοίνυν ὑπομεμενηκότος αὐτοῦ τὰς κολάσεις. ὁ δυσσεβὴς καὶ κατάρατος ἄρχων. αὖθις αὐτὸν πρὸς θυσίαν καλεῖ. Ἵνα τί λέγων μὴ θύεις τοῖς ἀθανάτοις θεοῖς; ἀσεβέστατε. ἀλλ᾿ ἔθου σκοπὸν κακῶς οὕτως ἀποθανεῖν καὶ πικρῶς. καὶ ὁ ἅγιος. Ὅτι μὴ θέμις δαιμόνων εἴδωλα τυγχάνοντα προσκυνεῖν. καὶ τότε τὸν χριστιανὸν ἐμὲ. ὃν ὁ Χριστὸς ἔθρεψεν ἐξ αὐτῆς μητρικῆς προόδου γαστρός. Χριστὸς ἤνδρωσε. Χριστὸς ἐμεγάλυνεν; καὶ τῷ τῆς θεογνωσίας κατεφώτισε φέγγει. δι᾿ ὃν καὶ πάντα ὑπομένειν ἔτοιμός εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἴδοις μέ ποτε θυσίαν ξοάνοις ἀπονεῖμαι κωφοῖς. ποίει τοιγαροῦν ὃ βούλει παρανομώτατε πυρί καῖε. ξίφει τέμνε. καὶ πᾶν εἴ τι ἂν ᾖ βουλομένῳ σοι πράττειν ἐπ᾿ ἐμοὶ ποίει. γνώσῃ γὰρ ἐντεῦθεν; ὡς οὐδὲν ἥγημαι τὸν διὰ Χριστὸν ἐπενηνεγμένον μοι θάνατον. Θυμοῦται ὁ ἄρχων τούτων ἀκούσας καὶ τούτου μὲν ξίφει κελεύει τὴν πάντιμον κεφαλὴν ἐκκοπῆναι. αὐτίκα δὲ παρίστησιν εἰς μέσον καὶ Ὢρ τὸν κλεινὸν. καὶ Ὀρόψεω τὸν σοφόν. οὓς καὶ αὐτοὺς θῦσαι μὴ βουληθέντας. πυρὶ παραδίδωσι. καὶ ἐπεὶ Θεός ὁ τὸ θέλημα ποιῶν τῶν φοβουμένων (Continued)

“Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” 81

διάφορα. οὐ τό γε πάντων ἀλγεινότερον. τέκνα μετὰ συγγενῶν. καὶ φίλων ὀλοφυρόμενα. οἷς εἰώθασι[ν] καταμαλάττεσθαι πατέρες ὀλιγόψυχοι. Ὅτʼ ἂν παῖδες τοῖς ποσὶ μετὰ δακρύων περιπλέκωνται. γυναικὸς ὀλοφυρομένης ὄψις κατηφής. γονέων πένθος ἐφ̓ υἱῶ τὴν ἡλικίαν ἀκμάζοντι. οἰκείων στεναγμὸς. καὶ θρῆνος φίλων. καὶ γνωρίμων. Ἔτι νεάζουσαν ἀκμὴν μετὰ δεήσεως οἰκτεῖραι προτρεπομένων. τούτοις πᾶσιν οἷς εἶπον οὐκ ἐκάμπτετο. Ἀλλὰ καθάπερ εἴπομεν τῷ τῶν κρειττόνων ἔρωτι κατεχόμενος. καὶ τὸν φόβον τῆς κρίσεως. πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ἔχων. δεδοικὼς δὲ τὴν φωνὴν ἐκεῖνη[ν] τοῦ κ[υρίο]υ τὴν λέγουσαν. Ἐάν τις ἀρνήσεταί με ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Ἀρνήσομαι αὐτὸν κἀγὼ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ π[ατ]ρ[ό]ς μου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐ[ρα]νοῖς. πάντων ὑπερφρονήσας τῶν χαλεπώτερων. Ἔσπευδεν ἐπὶ τὴν προκειμένην ἐλπίδα.

Table 5.1 (Continued)

ἔχεις εἰπὼν. υἱοὺς. καὶ λοιποὺς ἄλλους προσήκοντας. μηδὴ τούτων στερηθῆναι θελήσης. νέαν ἔτι καὶ αὐτὸς ἄγων τὴν ἡλικίαν. ἀλλὰ κἂν δι' αὐτοὺς ζῆν οὕτω καλῶς παρ' ἡμῖν ἐθέλησον. ἔσται σοι γὰρ καὶ πλοῦτος καὶ δόξα. καὶ τῶν ἄλλων καλῶν ἡ ἐπίδοσις. ταῦτα τούτου κομψῶς οὕτω καὶ περινενοημένως εἰπόντος. ὁ ἅγιος. τὰ μὲν ἀκόλουθα τῆς ἀποκρίσεως ἀφεὶς. πρὸς ἒν δὲ τοῦτο συγκεφαλαιώσας τὸν λόγον. ὁ φιλῶν εἶπε χ[ριστό]ς φησὶ. Π[ατέ]ρα ἢ μ[ητέ]ρα ἢ τέκνα. ἢ γυναῖκα. ἢ ἀδελφοὺς ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ, οὐκέτι μου ἄξιος. καὶ ταῦτα διδάξαντος. πῶς φησίν ἐγὼ τούτου προτιμήσομαι τούτους. ὃς καὶ αὐτοὺς δύναται σῶσαι. καὶ κληρονόμους ποιῆσαι τῆς αὐτοῦ βασιλείας. καὶ ὁ πρόβος. πρὸ τοῦ σε τὴν ἀπόφασιν δέξασθαι ταλαίπωρε. θῦσαι θέλησον τοῖς θεοῖς. ἵνα μὴ κακῶς ἀποθάνης. καὶ ὁ ἅγιος. οὐ θύσω παράνομε. οὐκ ἀρνήσομαι τὸν χ[ριστό]ν μου μὴ γένοιτο. οὐ μὰ τοὺς ὑπὲρ εὐσεβείας ἀγῶνας καὶ τὰ παλαίσματα. οὐκ ἂν εἴ τί μοι καὶ μεῖζον τῶν προλαβόντων καλῶν προσενέγκης. ἀρνεθείην ἐγώ ποτε τὸν ἐμὸν ποιητήν. Τότε δὴ τῷ θυμῷ σφαδάζων ὁ πρόβος. κατὰ τὸ πρόσταγμα φησὶ τῶν αὐτοκρατόρων. πρὸς τὸν ἅγιον ἔφη. τῇ φορᾷ δοθείση τοῦ ποταμοῦ. καὶ τί τοῦτο. φησὶν ὁ ἅγιος. καὶ ξίφει με πάντως εἴ γε καθυποβάλης. δέχομαι καὶ τοῦτο προθύμως. ναὶ δὴ καὶ ἀξιῶ

BHG 950z αὐτὸν. τῆς καμίνου διεσώσατο τούτους. ὑετὸς γὰρ ἄνωθεν κατενεχθεὶς ἐπέσβεσε τοῦτο; θυμομαχήσας ὁ Πρόβος θηρίοις τούτοις ἐκδίδωσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ τούτων παραδόξως σωθέντας ξύλῳ ἀναρτᾷ καὶ ξαίνει πικρῶς εἷτα καὶ ξίφει τὰς αὐτῶν κεφαλὰς ἐκτμηθῆναι κελεύει. ἄγονται τοίνυν καὶ οὗτοι σὺν τῷ ἱερομάρτυρι Εἰρηναίῳ; πρὸς τὸν τόπον τῆς τελειώσεως καὶ τὸ μακάριον δέχονται τέλος εἶτα καὶ τῷ ποταμῷ Σάῳ οὕτως ὠνομασμένῳ ῥιπτοῦνται. Καὶ νῦν ὧ πανθαύμαστοι μάρτυρες ἵνα πρὸς ὑμᾶς τὸν λόγον ποιήσω. τῷ δεσποτικῷ σὺν ἀγγέλοις παριστάμενοι θρόνῳ; νέμοιτε ταῖς εὐκτικαῖς ὑμῶν εἰς Θεὸν ἰκεσίαις βασιλεῖ ἡμῶν τῷ πράῳ καὶ τὰ πάντα καλῷ μακρὰν τὴν ζωὴν καὶ γαλήνιον. ἰλύος πάσης ἀπηλλαγμένην. χάριτος θείας πεπληρωμένην. πάντων ἀγαθῶν μεμεστωμένην καὶ τῆς ἐκεῖθεν βασιλείας τὴν χάριν ἐν αὐτῷ Χριστῷ τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν ᾧ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. ἀμήν.

“Numberless Ways to Tell a Story”

θεοῖς. προσκυνεῖν οὐ δύναμαι. πρόβος ἡγεμὼν εἶπεν. κέρδησον τὸν θάνατον ἀρκεσθεὶς αἷς ὑπομεμένηκας ὕβρεσιν. εἰρηναῖος εἶπεν. κερδαίνω μετ̓ οὐ πολὺ τὸν θανάτον. ὅτ̓ ἂν διὰ τοῦ παρὰ σοῦ θανάτου. τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θ[εο]ῦ ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἀπολάβω. πρόβος εἶπεν. Ὑιοὺς ἔχεις; ἀπεκρίνατο. οὐκ ἔχω. πρόβος εἶπεν. γονεῖς ἔχεις; ἀπεκρίθη. οὐκ ἔχω. ταῦτα δε ἔλεγεν ὁ μακάριος εἰρηναῖος. τὴν τοῦ κ[υρίο]υ ἐντολὴν ἔναυλον ἔχω[ν] τῆν λέγουσαν. Ὁ φιλῶν π[ατέ] ρα ἢ μ[ητέ]ρα ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ. Ἢ ἀδελφοὺς ἢ γυναῖκα ἢ τέκνα. οὐκ ἔστιν μου ἄξιος. πρὸς ὃν ἀτενίζων ὁ μακάριος ἐν τοῖς οὐ[ρα]νοῖς ὅλος ἦν τῷ φρονήματι διαιτώμενος. ἅπασαν τὴν ἀν[θρωπ]ίνη[ν] διάθεσιν καταλιπών. καὶ οὐδένα πλέον τοῦ κ[υρίο]υ εἰδέναι καὶ ἔχει[ν] ὡμολόγει. πάλιν οὖν εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ ἡγεμών. οἶδα σε υἱοὺς ἔχοντα. καὶ κᾀν δι' αὐτοὺς ἐπίθυσον ἵνα ζῆς. Ἀπεκρίνατο ὁ μακάριος εἰρηναῖος οἱ υἱοί μου θ[εὸ]ν ἔχουσιν ὡς κἀγώ. Ὃς δύναται αὐτοὺς σῶσαι. σὺ δὲ. τὸ κελευσθέν σοι ποίησον. Πρόβος ἡγεμὼν εἷπεν. συμβουλεύω σοι νεώτερε ἐπιθῦσαι. ἵνα μὴ διαφόροις σε αἰκισμοῖς ἀνέλω. Εἰρηναῖος εἶπεν. οὐκ ἐπιθύω. ποίει ὃ θέλεις. γνώση γὰρ. ὡς τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ χ[ριστο]ῦ γενναίως πάντα ὑπομενῶ. πρόβος ἡγεμὼν ἀπεφήνατο. ἐπειδὴ πειθαρχῆσαι οὐ βούλει τῇ βασιλικῇ κελεύσει. διὰ τοῦτο. κατὰ τὸ πρόσταγμα τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος. κατὰ τοῦ ποταμοῦ ῥιφίση.

BHG 949e

82

BHG 948

Εἰρηναῖος εἶπεν. ἐγώ σου τὴν διάφορον τῶν θανάτων ἀπειλὴν ἐννοῶν. προσεδεχόμην αὐτὴν μειζόνως. μέλλοντός σου καὶ ξίφει με ὑποβάλλειν. διὸ εἰ βούλει παρακέκλησο καὶ τοῦ τὸ πρᾶξαι. ἵνα μάθῃς. πῶς ἡμεῖς οἱ χριστιανοὶ. θανάτου καταφρονοῦμεν. διὰ τὴν εἰς τὸν θ[εό]ν ἡμῶν πίστιν τετελειωμένοι.

Ἐπράχθη δὲ ταῦτα μηνὶ αὐγούστω εἰκάδι πρώτη. ἐν σιρμίω. ἡγεμομένοντος πρόβου. κατὰ δὲ ἡμᾶς βασιλεύοντος τοῦ κ[υρίο]υ ἡμῶν ἰ[ησο]ῦ χ[ριστο]ῦ. μεθ’ οὗ τῷ π[ατ]ρί σὺν ἁγίῳ πν[εύματ]ι. δόξα τιμὴ καὶ κράτος νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰώνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν.

Ἀφικνοῦνται τοιγάρτοι μετὰ σοῦ πανάγαθε μάρτυς οἱ στρατιῶται. πρὸς τὴν οὕτω καλουμένην γέφυραν ἄρτεμιν. ἀποδύῃ πρόθυμος τὰ ἱμάτια. γυμνὸς ἵστασαι. δέχη τὴν τομήν καὶ τῷ ποταμῷ ἐπαφίῃ. καὶ νῦν σὺν ἀγγέλοις περὶ τὸν θρόνον ὡς ἀρχιερεὺς ὡς μάρτυς στρεφόμενος τὸν δεσποτικὸν. αἴτησαι δωρηθῆναι παρὰ θ[εο]ῦ. βασιλεῖ ἡμῶν τῷ δικαίῳ καὶ φιλαγάθω. καὶ πᾶσιν ἐνσεμνυνομένῳ τοῖς καλοῖς προτερήμασι. Μέθεξιν ζωῆς μακρᾶς καὶ ἀπήμονος. ἰλύος παθῶν ἀλλοτρίωσιν. χρεστῶν ἔργων τὴν καλὴν μετουσίαν. ἀριστευμάτων τὴν κατόρθωσιν πάντων. ἡμέρας ἀνεσπέρου τὸν καλὸν κλῆρον. λαμπρὰν δικαίων καὶ καλὴν ξυναυλίαν. Πάντων ἐφετῶν τὴν ἀκροτάτην δόσιν. καὶ βασιλείας θ[εο]ῦ τὴν κληρουχίαν. ὅτι αὐτῷ πρέπει ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος. νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ. καὶ εἰς τοῦς αἰώνας τῶν αἰώνων. ἀμήν.

“Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” 83

Ὀργισθεὶς οῦν ὁ ἡγεμὼν ἐπὶ τῇ παρρησίᾳ τοῦ μακαρίου μάρτυρος εἰρηναίου. ἐκέλευσε[ν] ξίφει αὐτὸν ἀναλωθῆναι. ὁ δὲ ἁγιώτατος μάρτυς. ὥσπερ δευτέρου βραβείου ἐγκρατὴς γενόμενος. εἷπεν. θ[ε]ῷ χάριν ὁμολογῷ. τῷ διὰ ποικίλης θανάτου ὑπομονῆς. λαμπρότερόν μοι στέφανον χαρισαμένω. καὶ μετὰ τὸ παραγενέσθαι εἰς τὴν γέφυραν ἥτις καλεῖται ἄρτεμις. ἀποδυθεὶς τὰ ἱμάτια. καὶ ἀνατείνας εἰς τὸν οὐ[ρα]νὸν τὰς χεῖρας. ηὔξατο οὕτως εἰπών. κ[ύρι]ε. ἀνοιχθήτωσαν οἱ οὐ[ρα]νοὶ καὶ ὑποδεξάσθωσαν τὸ πν[εῦμ] α τοῦ δούλου σου. ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ σου καὶ τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας. καὶ παντὸς τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτῆς. σοὶ πιστεύων κ[ύρι] ε. ταῦτα πάσχω. καὶ πληγεὶς τῷ ξίφει. Ἐπέμφθη εἰς τὸν σαὸν ποταμόν.

μείζονας γάρ μοι τοὺς στεφάνους πλέξεις καὶ τὰ βραβεῖα. καὶ τοῦτο προσθεὶς. ἤλπιζον γὰρ ἄλλας τινὰς δεινοτέρας κολάσεις. τῶν προεπενεχθεισῶν μοι διὰ χ[ριστό] ν ὑπομεῖναι. νῦν δὲ καὶ ταῦτα τρυφὰς μᾶλλον ἢ κολάσεις ἡγοῦμαι. τούτων οὕτω ῥηθέντων. ὀργῆς ὁ παράφορος πληρωθεὶς. τὸν τε διὰ ξίφους καταδικάζει θάνατον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν εἰς τὸν ποταμὸν. ὡς προέφην. κατάδυσιν.

84  “Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” and 950z. The same color points to the topics repeated by the various narratives; the unique sections are also visible through different colors. The BHG 948 version, preserved in six manuscripts (five medieval and one early modern), is here analyzed based on the manuscript Venice 360 (ff. 395r–398v), dated to the tenth or eleventh century.6 The narrative structure of BHG 948 is thematically divided into six parts. In part one, a prologue containing the moralizing message (marked red), readers are introduced to the prerequisites of piety and the path to a firm faith. This section brings in direct moral messages. It does not contain a word about Irenaeus and applies to any other martyrdom narrative. Its “nonnarrative comments” bear ideological statements (ideology of the text).7 The prologue does not appear in the other Greek hagiographies of Irenaeus.8 The omission of this passage in two other BHG versions explains the change in the narrative purpose. BHG 948 introduces the story about Irenaeus in part two, introduction (marked yellow).9 It is the only text that names the kings Diocletian, Maximian, and Constantius. The last one is not commonly mentioned in the other versions. In this way, BHG 948 more faithfully adheres to the historical record. Irenaeus is presented in the light of his piety, moral qualities, and firm faith. The whole passage contains solid moral propaganda. Version BHG 949e has no prologue and straightforwardly describes the setting and events. In this version, which appears in one eleventh-century manuscript and is thematically divided into seven sections, the introduction opens up with the first person singular (φημι), indicating that the audience is addressed directly. BHG 949e is the only version that uses first-person narration, giving a sense of a tale that recounts the recently occurring events. The narrator does not say that he participated in or witnessed the events; he only presents himself as the narrator. It qualifies the narrative as “heterodiegetic”: the narrator is absent from the story he recounts, although he starts with the “first person.”10 The use of the first-person pronoun could be called a “personal language situation.”11 If a narrator himself is a speaker and does not attempt to suggest to readers that anyone but himself is speaking, it is a form of a more distant narration.12 The narrator takes a stance from a particular point distant from the event he narrates. It implies that BHG 949e is a narrative written some time after the persecution. It describes a narrator’s attitude toward the past from a certain timely distance. The narrator talks about recent events (ἄρτι).13 This line highlights the question of “distance,” representing an event separated from the present moment by a specific time interval.14 BHG 949e has a more informal approach to narrating, more subjectively colored and emotional word choices, and a more dramatic manner as if the narrator were personally affected by the persecution. Diocletian and Maximian, introduced at the beginning of the first sentence, are stamped by diverse infamous epithets. The narrator stresses Irenaeus’s zealousness in converting nonbelievers and his disgust over the actions of the Roman authorities against Christians.

“Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” 85 The narrative structure of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus, BHG 950z, is thematically separated into four sections. This text appears in several manuscripts, starting from the eleventh–twelfth century. It is the shortest martyrdom narrative written about Irenaeus. BHG 950z immediately introduces the story and the setting.15 The introduction (marked yellow) stresses that the story relates to Irenaeus of Sirmium. Irenaeus’s identity would have been uncertain without the reference to Sirmium, as this version has two other characters (Or and Oropseus). Irenaeus is given the territorial identity in this text. The introduction gives a synopsis of the story and the setting. Irenaeus is given various embellishing attributes: he is named after peace. He is also the noble leader and protector of the city. These attributes, which indicate the increased encomiastic tendency, do not appear elsewhere but only in this version. The persecution is described in an emotional tone. Diocletian and Maximian were the “tyrants” during the most significant persecution against Christians. Thus, BHG 948 opens with the prologue and dedicates less space to the introduction. In contrast, BHG 950z lengthens the introduction, whereas the moralizing section gives way to the augmentation of the tale-like introduction into the narrative. The three versions represent the martyr differently.16 In BHG 948, Irenaeus is the subject of the passage. The emperors are mentioned only later, almost as side characters. Irenaeus pursues his plan while the emperors witness his endeavor. The martyr is a dynamic character who combats the authorities and adheres to his faith. In BHG 949e, Irenaeus is a subordinate object. In BHG 950z, although Irenaeus is mentioned immediately in the opening, he is presented as a victim. Turning the martyr into a victim is possibly a narratological feature, yet, this transformation means that the narrative loses its initial purpose, which is to inspire others to imitate him. It widens the distance between the martyr and the readers. It further aims to recall the martyrs as the past victims with whom a particular group associates. In part three of BHG 948, suffering of the family (marked green), Irenaeus did not succumb to the fear of punishment nor did he change his mind after seeing the grief of his children, wife, and relatives. His family’s suffering and pain in the face of his would-be persecution are described in detail. Children “with tears embraced his legs.” His wife, “mourning and humiliated, lamented on her knees.” In all these scenes, he stayed unaffected. It is a stark contrast, where the pain is described on one side and calmness on the other – all to show a profound piety, which brings a strong moral message. In section two of BHG 949e, the suffering of the family (marked green), Irenaeus is portrayed as a brave person; he does not succumb to earthly concerns. The narrator is verbose when talking about suffering, and shows that Irenaeus remains unmoved by it. Although Irenaeus does not take part in suffering (since he stayed unmoved), suffering still dominates this section. Part two in BHG 949e and part three in BHG 948 are comparable.17 The sections narrate the same event: Irenaeus’s detachment from the earthly life

86  “Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” and his family’s suffering. This part also describes the would-be tortures of the martyr. BHG 950z does not dedicate any space to this subtopic: the family’s suffering is wholly omitted. BHG 948 accords more space to this topic than BHG 949e. The suffering of the family and friends in BHG 948 is strikingly contrasted with the indifference of Irenaeus. His detachment from the people and society is elaborated. It makes one assume that the audience of BHG 948 was more prone to understanding such a detachment. In part four of BHG 948, which consists of trial, dialogue, and sentence (marked blue), Irenaeus is brought in front of Probus, the governor of Pannonia. There is a very linear chronological narration from this point: Irenaeus’s refusal to sacrifice to the pagan gods, his imprisonment, some days spent in prison, another round of persuasion to sacrifice, his refusal, and the sentence of death.18 This part narrates the events gradually, with the tension increasing as we move forward. Irenaeus stresses that he would reap the rewards because of his martyrdom: “I  receive death, but not for long because through the death from you, I will receive eternal life through God.”19 The attention is then turned to Probus’s interrogation about the family of Irenaeus. Irenaeus again stays neutral; no special dramatic overturn or emotional language is used. He is asked whether he has children and parents. Irenaeus quotes from Matthew 10:37 and renounces the family. Finally, he is sentenced to death. BHG 948 has a highly moralizing tone in each of Irenaeus’s answers, which are commonly Bible-related. He gives two moralizing answers in the dialogue with Probus: “Because I have God, whom I learned to respect from my childhood age, I cannot fall on my knees to your mentioned gods,” and “I receive death, but not for long, because through the death from you, I will receive the eternal life through God.” These “non-narrative comments” do not contribute to slowing down the narrative, but the opposite: they improve the dynamics, as they have an argumentative function.20 Further, another one of Irenaeus’s moralizing sentences follows: “Who loves a father or a mother above me, or brothers, wife, children, is not worthy of me.”21 There is no space to describe the pain and suffering that Irenaeus goes through. The only pain is that of the family, to which Irenaeus stays unmoved. The narrator emphasizes his faith and firmness to endure which surpasses his love for the family. The three rounds of persuasion are gradually introduced in the passage about the trial. Repetition and frequency are at work. Some scenes which occur once are mentioned several times. Probus tries to convince Irenaeus to sacrifice by provoking sympathy related to his children, his young age, and the punishments he is about to experience. The persuasion does not work. Irenaeus is sentenced and is about to be thrown into the river. At this point, he gives a speech: “So that you learn how we Christians look down upon death because we are filled with the faith in Christ.”22 This “non-narrative comment” provides another ideological statement.

“Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” 87 In BHG 948, Probus is represented as the least aggressive and hostile character. He practically begs Irenaeus to sacrifice so that he does not sentence him to death. There is neither threat nor anger in his tone. Irenaeus stays calm and firm in his beliefs, unmoved, consistently convincing Probus to conduct the persecution. It is all to the same end: representing the strength of faith and consistent moral messages. The emphasis is on Irenaeus and his deeds, actions, and decisions. Probus appears as a side character whose attitude is of lesser importance. Emphasizing the exemplary character of the martyr provides a conclusion that such a description inspires imitation. In the other two martyrdoms, these features change. In section three of BHG 949e, trial and negotiation (marked blue), the narrator describes Irenaeus’s joy (χαίρων) when turning to martyrdom, his detachment, and disregard. Probus is the “son of lawlessness,” who forces Irenaeus first to explain the nature of the teaching he preaches and later to sacrifice to the pagan, “unconquered gods,” which was the decision of the fourth edict of Diocletian against Christians. BHG 949e has the investigative part, which does not parallel the other texts: “Who and from where are you and what are the things said against you, say quickly,” he said, “and what is its actual name?”23 Moreover, when Probus learned in full the things about this, he said: “Sacrifice, Irenaeus.” Probus reminded Irenaeus that rewards proceeded from the act of sacrifice: he could stay cheerful among the living. Part three ends with Irenaeus being sent back to prison because of his adamant attitude. At this point, BHG 949e introduces section four, the suffering of Irenaeus (marked green), after which the narrator returns to the trial and negotiation (marked blue). Irenaeus stayed for some days in prison, after which he was retaken to court. The narrator employs repetition and frequency as Irenaeus is investigated for the second time.24 A  gradual escalation of the dynamic occurs in the narrative – not only is Irenaeus taken to court for the second time, but he also is exposed to more intense and more severe punishments: scrapings, whippings, beatings with sticks, and other terrible tortures. This part does not exist in the two other versions. In part five of BHG 949e, where the narrator returns to trial, a dramatic turn appears as a dialogue. Probus is deceitful, trying to unsettle Irenaeus’s faith by mentioning his family and young age. Although a wife and sons are mentioned, their presence is eclipsed. To the mention of the family, Irenaeus answers by quoting Matthew 10:37. The dialogue becomes tense, and they exchange offences. Irenaeus is called “miserable” (ταλαίπωρε), and Probus is called “lawless” (παράνομε). No agreement is achieved at the end of part five. Part two of BHG 950z, investigation and dialogue (marked blue), starts with a straightforward question, which improves the textual dynamic. Probus tries to convince Irenaeus to sacrifice and promises many beneficial rewards. In no other hagiography is Irenaeus offered such rewards if only he sacrifices. Irenaeus refuses, as he does not want to live among people and be glorified with them. He is then put into prison.

88  “Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” After some days, the scene is set in prison. In this text, the present tense is occasionally used in narrating the sections where past tenses are expected, as an example of a “personal language situation.”25 Probus repeatedly tries to convince Irenaeus to sacrifice. Frequency is apparent in the repetition of persuasion. As Probus fails, he exposes Irenaeus to torture. He whips him, painfully scrapes him, burns him with fire. Irenaeus stays calm and untouched. Another round of persuasion occurs, this time with harsher tortures. The offenses Irenaeus and Probus exchange are the most straightforward in this martyrdom narrative. Probus then announces that somebody from the crowd will be killed if Irenaeus does not sacrifice. It is a novel textual feature, the most intense in Probus’s persuasion and extortion. Irenaeus answers in a didactic manner.26 The trial, dialogue, and negotiations occupy the most significant space in the three versions. Dialogues present the most stirring sections, contributing to a greater dramatization.27 They are of different dynamics. BHG 948 emphasizes Irenaeus’s answers, which show his verbal domination or, at least, equality with the Roman authorities. Irenaeus gives exactly seven moralizing answers. Probus’s words are occasionally transferred into indirect speech, while everything Irenaeus says is in direct speech. Irenaeus’s answers are as follows: “But, I do not choose to live among you.” “Because I  have God, whom I  learned to respect from childhood, I cannot fall on my knees to your mentioned gods.” “I receive death, but not for long because through the death from you, I will receive eternal life through God.” “Who loves a father or a mother above me, or brothers, wife, children, is not worthy of me.” “My sons have God, like I have, who can save them. On the other hand, you do what is ordered you to do!” “I will not sacrifice. You do what you like. Keep in mind that by the strength of God, I will sustain everything fully.” “I  was taking into consideration your diverse threats of death; I waited to be thrown to the sword while you were becoming greater and better. On which account, if you want, order and do it, so that you learn how we Christians look down upon death because we are fulfilled with the faith in Christ.” In BHG 949e, Irenaeus’s answers are fewer but more extended, which slows down the dynamics. They are combined with approximately double the number of Probus’s investigative sentences. “Probus, I  will never sacrifice, for I  neither choose to live with you nor deny my Christ, who is the true God, the creator, and the Lord of everything.”

“Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” 89 “The one who loves, Christ says, a father, or children or a wife or brothers more than me is not worthy of me anymore. As he taught this, how will I honor those more than him, who can save them and make them heirs of his kingdom?” “I  will not sacrifice, you lawless man; I  will not deny my Christ. May it not happen! No, by the contests and struggles for piety, even if you offer to me something greater of the previous good things, I would never deny my creator.” Probus is the one who leads the dialogue and dominates. In BHG 948, answers are shorter, but they add to the textual dynamics. Their frequency is highlighted; consequently, they impress and convince readers better. They are equal to the number of Probus’s lines. In BHG 950z, the tendency to give longer but fewer answers increases. There are only two answers that Irenaeus provides; the second one is a small speech. Probus’s lines are even longer than in the other two versions. What Irenaeus says in his defense is: “But I do not want to live among you, governor, nor spend any time together and be glorified with you.” “Because it is not right to worship things that happen to be images of demons; and then as I am a Christian, whom Christ reared from my arrival from my mother’s womb, whom Christ made as a man, whom God exalted and enlightened with the light of the knowledge of God. I am ready to endure all things for His sake, and you would never see me sacrificing to mute statues. Therefore, do what you like, you most totally unlawful one. Burn me with fire, cut me with a sword, and do everything you want to do to me. From this, you will know that I think the death brought on me for Christ’s sake is nothing.” Irenaeus adequately responds to the opponents by defending his attitude only in BHG 948. He confronts Probus on an equal basis. Both sides reply in an equal manner throughout the conversation and take the same amount of space, but one also gets the impression of Irenaeus’s presence and strength. In BHG 949e, Irenaeus is compliant, while Probus roughly initiates the investigation. The tendency to slow down the dynamics is apparent in BHG 950z. While Probus tries to deceive Irenaeus, Irenaeus’s strength is not felt. In the section on the trial, BHG 949e contains a part devoted to the tortures inflicted upon Irenaeus. BHG 949e refers to it in several lines.28 In BHG 948, only part of a sentence gives space to it (various tortures withstanding); BHG 950z does not mention it. Also, BHG 948 and BHG 949e contain a conspicuous part of the negotiations when Probus cunningly tries to persuade Irenaeus to sacrifice by mentioning his family members. BHG 948 touches upon sons and parents, while BHG 949e alludes to a wife, the sons,

90  “Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” and the other descendants. BHG 950z does not contain this part of the narrative. Persuasion is an addition that opens up a range of interpretations.29 The insults contribute to the emotional and subjective tone of the narratives. BHG 948 lacks the offenses; Probus is never characterized by insulting words. On the contrary, he is represented as more than willing to let Irenaeus free if only he sacrifices. In BHG 949e, Irenaeus and Probus insult each other sharply. BHG 948 says: “I advise you, young guy, to sacrifice so that I do not have to expose you to different troubles.” In BHG 949e, the same line goes: “Before you receive the answer, you miserable man, be willing to sacrifice to the gods so that you do not die evilly.” In BHG 950z, Probus calls Irenaeus “the most sacrilegious one” (ἀσεβέστατε), while Irenaeus calls Probus “the wholly unlawful one” (παρανομώτατε). Therefore, BHG 949e and BHG 950z insist on hostility and widen the gap between the Roman authority and the martyr. Part five of BHG 948 describes the persecution (marked brown). Irenaeus is to be cut by a sword and thrown into the river afterward. He “joyfully expects” (χαρισαμένω) the beheading. The narrator names the bridge where the beheading occurs: the “bridge of Artemis.” Before the martyrdom, Irenaeus removes his garment and raises his hands towards the sky, praying for the people of Sirmium and the “Catholic Church.” He utters the prayer: “For your people and the Catholic Church and its complete fullness, believing in you, Lord, I  suffer everything.” Irenaeus is glorious and proud. No hint of suffering is anticipated; not surprisingly, the emphasis is placed on his strength of mind and endurance in faith. The monologue is introduced at this point. Part six in BHG 949e, the persecution (marked brown), reveals Probus’s immense anger because of the situation. Irenaeus is sentenced to death by throwing into the river. We know from the other textual versions that Irenaeus was not just thrown into the river but beheaded first. However, we here encounter only a mention of a sword and not a beheading or the head. Irenaeus says that death is a reward and a luxury for him. The persecutors kill him, and his body is thrown into the river. Section three of BHG 950z introduces Or and Oropseus (marked purple). Irenaeus alone is taken to the riverbank of the Sava, where the sword cuts his “honored head.” Furthermore, Probus takes two people from the crowd (although he said he would take one more), namely, “famous” (κλεινὸν) Or and “wise” (σοφόν) Oropseus, and forces them to sacrifice as well. They refuse and are exposed to torture; they are put in the fire but are saved by God, who sent the rain. They are thrown to the beasts, but they escape that, too. They are hanged on a tree, scraped painfully, and finally, the sword severs their heads. A  glimpse of the miraculous appears in this narrative. The two martyrs escape all the tortures except for the sword. There is a gradual escalation of the torture. They did not escape the last torture, perhaps because the narrator wanted to make them equal to Irenaeus by how they ended their lives.

“Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” 91 In the section on the persecution, Probus appears upset in all the texts; however, BHG 949e repeats the descriptions of his anger several times. Irenaeus’s answers to Probus’s rage are different. BHG 948 contains a brief response to Probus, while afterward, the martyr speaks directly to the Lord.30 In BHG 949e, the entire speech is directed to Probus; Irenaeus convinces him that his punishment is a reward.31 BHG 950z includes a completely new feature in this section, one not seen in the other versions, where two other persons from the crowd are persecuted (Or and Oropseus). The narrative introduces a gradual escalation of severe tortures, from which the two characters miraculously escape. This section cannot be compared to the other two martyrdom narratives, and its sources should be sought elsewhere. The last section entirely diverges in the three texts. Part six of BHG 948, which looks like an entry from a synaxarion (marked grey), is relatively brief. It contains the event’s details, time, place, and ruler. It mentions that the martyrdom occurred on 21 August in Sirmium, during the governorship of Probus. This part ends with the formula, including the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Part seven of BHG 949e is the prayer for the emperor (marked grey). This prayer does not take the entire section seven; in the opening, the narrator addresses the martyr and describes the details of the persecution. Further, the narrator asks the martyr to pray for the emperor and his earthly benefits. The narrator lists his good wishes for the emperor. This part is a critical section of the texts of the Imperial Menologion. Although martyrs exchanged earthly life for eternal life, paradoxically, the prayers for the emperors contained hopes related mainly to “this” world.32 The Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium ends with the prayer for the worldly well-being of the emperor while previously describing the suffering of the martyr who gave up his worldly life altogether. This textual feature attests significant detachment from the age of martyrs.33 Part four of BHG 950z is also a prayer for the emperor (marked grey). The saints are addressed directly. Martyrs are asked to benefit the emperor, which is another formula of Imperial Menologion. Several innovative features are introduced in BHG 950z. First, the identity of Irenaeus is confirmed as being the Irenaeus of Sirmium, although he appears with the two other characters in the narrative. The opening of the martyrdom narrative includes details about Irenaeus, his imprisonment, and his investigation. Or and Oropseus enter the narrative. This text introduces escalating narrative dramatization. Highly descriptive and picturesque adjectives are used in describing the suffering and offenses. The text contains miraculous moments, which no other versions of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium have. The three versions targeted different audiences and had different purposes. The differences among them appeared since they allowed space for different textual features. BHG 948 bestows space on moralizing messages, rhetoric,

92  “Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” and biblical maxims. These “non-narrative comments” have no relation to the narration of the events; they approve and testify to a specific opinion. These messages were directed to a specific body of the audience. The character of Irenaeus is an exemplary model apt for emulation. On the other hand, BHG 949e gives more space to suffering, torture, and emotions, particularly negative emotions. A  similar description applies to BHG 950z. The last two versions use the “personal language situation” by employing the first-person singular, direct speech, historical present, emotional expressions (φεῦ), and constructions using the optative mood.34 These two texts remind us of the victims and their suffering. They are no longer compositions that urge readers to imitate specific paradigmatic behavior. BHG 948 served as a reading in monastic contexts. BHG 949e and BHG 950z are intended for use outside the religious context as court artifacts. They were intended to inspire combat of a different kind. Interlingual connections Six manuscripts dated from the eighth to the eleventh century contain the Latin version of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus, BHL 4466.35 The differences in the Martyrdom of Irenaeus among them come down to different words, phrases, and sentences.36 The Martyrdom displays more notable textual deviations only in the earliest dated Latin manuscript, Munich, Clm 4554, compared to the variants in the other five manuscripts. The most common divergences of Clm 4554 are misspellings, inversions of word order, word confusion, grammatical mistakes, unintentional omissions, and additions to the text. The Martyrdom of Irenaeus in Clm 4554 abounded in errors of a different kind, expurged in the later manuscripts. Some augmented sections of the Martyrdom in Clm 4554 were purged in all other manuscripts. Once the dubious sections were cleared, the text was copied faithfully (at least according to the extant manuscript evidence) until the twelfth century. Version BHL 4466 corresponds to BHG 948. Yet, they are far from identical. Nevertheless, the existence of this Latin version in the early-dated manuscript undoubtedly points to version BHG 948 as the earliest version among the Greek narratives. The sole tenth-century version of the Old Slavonic Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium also corresponds to BHG 948. Scholars have already suggested four Greek manuscripts as the sources of the south Slavic Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium, all containing BHG 948: manuscripts Paris 548, Paris 1177, Paris 241, and Vienna hist. 45.37 While BHG 948 is the closest to the Slavic version, they are also far from identical. Where they have corresponding texts, the Slavic text is a literal, word-for-word translation of BHG 948. The Slavic Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium is significantly shorter than BHG 948. It excises one particular paragraph of the Greek text. The paragraph, previously called “suffering of the family,” describes (among other matters) the public display of emotions of the people who were close

“Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” 93 to Irenaeus and who were standing in front of him, begging him to reject Christianity and sacrifice to the pagan gods, which he refused. The paragraph abounds with pain and suffering. In what follows, I  will address why this Slavic version could have possibly omitted this part. The Armenian Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium is also a translation of BHG 948. This version contains minimal additions to the text. Part one of BHG 948 (prologue), characteristic of the Greek version, repeats in the Armenian translation. Diocletian is the only emperor mentioned in the introduction. In the same section, his dealings are referred to as “the dark dealings of the king” (Diocletian), which does not appear in BHG 948. The part about the family’s suffering is excised in the Armenian version. Some descriptions of pain are cut off. The section on the trial follows BHG 948 quite literally, except that some of Irenaeus’s answers are shorter than in BHG 948. The section on persecution follows the Greek text carefully. Finally, the section, which resembles the entry from a synaxarion, refers to the Armenian calendar and does not mention Probus’s governorship in Sirmium.38 Comparing the Greek version in the manuscript Venice 360, Zaimov and Kapaldo Old Slavonic edition, and the Latin version from Vienna 371, it is noticeable that the opening prologue demonstrates the direct translational connections of the Slavonic and Greek versions.39 They exhibit a more sophisticated introduction of a general and didactic character, focusing on the story’s morals. Unlike them, the Latin text has a straightforward introduction, which opens up the story directly. Manlio Simonetti previously argued that the Latin text has a typical introduction, characteristic of many Latin hagiographical texts.40 The preface of the Latin text is commonplace. Generally, the openings (introductions) of Latin hagiographical texts were inserted later, as these hagiographies imitated court protocols from the early church. Their introductions have stereotypical repetitive expressions. Compared to Latin, the Greek opening is more extended, elaborate, and focused on the concept of its general character.41 Simonetti’s arguments seem likely.42 The moralizing introduction was removed in the Latin text and replaced by another opening, which amplified the narrative. The new preface, generic and similar to other Latin hagiographies, directly introduced the story. The paragraphs which correspond in the three languages, such as the one which comes in after the introduction discussed above, display the similarities and differences of the three versions in the best way.43 In the Latin text, readers are addressed more personally, in the first-person singular. The immediacy in the author–reader relationship is enabled. On the other hand, as we argued earlier, such notions presuppose that a certain amount of time has passed from when the events occurred to when people read about them. The Latin version also contains an addition after the first sentence: “I will demonstrate and show even now his fight and victory to you.” In the same paragraph, the Greek and Slavic versions do not textually correspond in all the examples. Some details testify to the opposite. For example, the word Кротост/

94  “Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” meekness in the Slavic text and modestia/moderation in Latin are turned into ἐπιείκεια/reasonableness in the Greek text. Also, timor divinus in the Latin text and божии доброговѣнии in the Old Slavonic text, which both mean fear of God, are turned into εὐλάβεια/piety in the Greek text. In the same paragraph, the word ingenita/inborn in the Latin text does not exist in the other two texts. Instead, there is an adjective лихыѧ/ὑπερβάλλουσαν/exceeding in the Greek and the Old Slavonic texts. The Old Slavonic text, nevertheless, most commonly follows the Greek text, even where it is challenging to pursue its structure due to the differences in syntax.44 In the example from the footnote, genitive absolute in Greek (καταλαβόντος αὐτὸν τοῦ διωγμοῦ), which is possible to extend to several nouns and verbs within the construction, cannot easily be translated into Old Slavonic. Instead, the construction is translated only partially into the corresponding dative absolute in the Old Slavonic text; a translator had to switch to the relative clause in the middle of the construction. This example shows the efforts made by translators to follow the text they translate literally. Further, the Greek version contains an augmentation, which does not take the same position within the narrative structure as in the Latin version. The augmentation is placed somewhat later within the Latin narrative. In the Slavonic version, this augmentation was excised, cut off – or, better say, amputated. Alternatively, the paragraph did not exist in the Greek version from which the Old Slavonic version was translated. This narrative section is previously called the “suffering of the family.” The example shows that paragraphs in the narrative structure were rearranged during rewriting. The Latin version may have preserved the structure of an earlier Greek version, which was later rearranged in the extant Greek text. Even in the examples where all three versions seem to have been translated in a word-for-word style,45 we nevertheless notice, as Simonetti argued, that the Latin version has the symptomatic language and the common phrases recognizable in the other hagiographical works.46 Simonetti sees the Latin version as occasionally artificial and objects to the excessive use of direct speech, arguing that the dialogues were the later interpolations of the text that have nothing to do with the court protocols.47 There are several examples in this text where the Latin text utilizes direct speech while the other two do not.48 Altogether, the Old Slavonic translation from Greek is, for the most part, a literal, word-for-word translation, where this text demonstrates the attempts of translators to follow the Greek constructions. The Latin text, probably a translation from Greek, differs from the extant Greek text in several places, which Simonetti previously defined as commonplaces. The most likely explanation is that the Latin translation was produced after an underlying Greek text, preserved in the Old Slavonic translation, experienced a metaphrasis. In other words, all three languages preserve different versions of the Greek text from different periods. The earliest version is the one kept in the Old Slavonic translation. Then follows the version sustained in the Latin translation, and the latest version is held in the extant Greek manuscripts.

“Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” 95 This argument explains the absence of a paragraph related to the family’s suffering in the Old Slavonic text. When translating a Greek text into Old Slavonic, this paragraph did not exist. Otherwise, it would be challenging to explain why a translator/copyist of the Old Slavonic text omitted the most dramatic but also the most elaborate section of the text, the suffering of the family, and, by this, distorted the memory of the pain that Irenaeus’s family faced because of his martyrdom. In the case of the Greek and Latin versions, this text’s augmentation does not come at the same place in the narrative structure, which reveals that the rearrangement of paragraphs occurred during the rewriting. The Old Slavonic version does not echo a particular agenda of the south Slavic Christian community. This text was a literal translation of a Greek text. Its appearance manifests no more than the general inclination of the Slavonic community to adopt the literary texts from Byzantium once this population was converted to Christianity. The Latin text testifies to the tendency to generate the form, making it a typical Latin hagiography, which was more a literary device than a general strategy. The Latin version kept sufficient layers to conclude that it preserved a Greek version in a period earlier than the extant Greek text. Altogether, the Old Slavonic and Latin texts, by their form and structure, display only different phases of the Greek textual metaphrasis and do not say more about the societies and groups that copied and used these texts. The links between the Latin and Greek versions of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus with the Old Slavonic version of this text have never been established, let alone the Georgian and Armenian versions. Thus, the analysis above not only contributes to the knowledge about this text, it also provides the direction to take in the study of similar texts with complicated textual history. Intertextual links of the Greek narratives Intertextuality presupposes the investigation of parts and sections of one text within the other. Besides the portions that are identical in two versions, which are the clear indicators of intertextuality, this section’s focus is also the transformations, which do not presuppose only changes of form, amputations, and extensions, but also more sophisticated changes of structure and substance.49 Reduction and augmentation of a text may also mean production of another text, briefer or longer, which derives from it, but not without its alteration in various ways.50 BHG 948 and 949e contain many intertextual connections. One text was used as the basis for rewriting the other. The most dominant types of textual transformation are expansion and concision, which prompt narrating in a more expanded or concise way with stylistic embellishments. Such innovations were introduced due to the changing aims of the rewritten texts. BHG 949e gives space to Probus’s speech, the martyr’s suffering, relatives, and friends. BHG 948 elaborates on Irenaeus’s answers, where the martyr explains his point of view.

96  “Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” If we look at the structure of the two texts through the intertextual perspective, we conclude that the introductory, moralizing part of BHG 948 (prologue) is amputated from BHG 949e. The keywords repeat in the parallel sections of BHG 949e and BHG 948 (part 1–part 2). They include mentioning the names of the narrative characters, namely, Irenaeus, Diocletian, and Maximian, and use the common adjective for the martyr Irenaeus (μακάριος). The paragraphs in Table 5.2 otherwise focus on different themes. While BHG 948 describes the firmness of the martyr’s faith, using the encomiastic epithets, his bishop’s title, and the locus (Sirmium), the focus of BHG 949e is on the severity of the persecutions, punishments, and the educational side of Irenaeus’s conversion activities. The two paragraphs have different topical choices, reflecting the different functions of the texts. Further, many words and phrases overlap in the section describing the family’s suffering. BHG 948 is expanded by various stylistic embellishments, containing two particularly lengthy augmentations that describe the same subject matter in more detail. BHG 949e is concise. There is no topical divergence between the two paragraphs at this point. The changing strategies of the two textual versions are visible in the replacement of one word for another; what is “hope” in BHG 948 (as seen through the eyes of the martyr) is turned into “martyrdom” in BHG 949e (see the very last words in Table 5.3). This word replacement is an example of distancing the text from the historical event and its adjustment to the contemporary audience. The change occurred when the audience could no longer understand it in the initial context. What the audience initially understood as “hope” is later turned into a more descriptive term, “martyrdom.” In BHG 948, interrogation continues immediately (Table 5.4). Irenaeus’s answer (οὐδὲ ζῆν μεθ' ὑμῶν αἱροῦμαι) in the trial is not positioned at the same place in the two versions. The reason is that BHG 949e contains a Table 5.2 Comparison of the parallel sections of BHG 948 and 949e BHG 948

BHG 949e

Ὃ δὴ γέγονεν καὶ περὶ τὸν μακάριον ἐπίσκοπον εἰρηναῖον. τῆς τοῦ σιρμίου πόλεως. οὗτος γὰρ δι̕ ἐπιείκειαν ὑπερβάλλουσαν. καὶ τὴν περὶ τὸ θεῖο[ν] εὐλάβειαν. τοῖς ἔργοις κυρῶν τὴν προσηγορία[ν]. καὶ νέος τῆς προεδρίας ἀξιωθεὶς. καταλαβόντος αὐτὸν τοῦ διωγμοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐπὶ διοκλητιανοῦ καὶ μαξιμιανοῦ καὶ κωνσταντίου τῶν βασιλέων. οὐχ̓ ὥσπερ ἔνιοι τιμίῳ πράγματι μόνω χρώμενος καὶ προστετηκὼς τοῖς τῆδε μᾶλλον πράγμασιν.

Ἄρτι τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ κακίᾳ περιβοήτων. διοκλητιανοῦ φημὶ καὶ μαξιμιανοῦ. τῆς βασιλικῆς ἀρχῆς ἐπιλαβομένων. καὶ κακῶς αὐτῇ κεχρημένων. διατάγματά τε προτιθεμένων κατὰ τῶν εὐρισκομένων χριστιανῶν. ὁ μακάριος εἰρηναῖος. τῶν ἠπειλημένων ἐκείνων κολαστερίων καταφρονήσας καὶ τῆς σφοδροτάτης ἀνάγκης. ἅτε ἱερεὺς τοῦ θ[εο]ῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας λόγον ἐδίδασκε καὶ πολλοὺς τῆς ἀθείας ἐπέστρεφε πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας ἐπίγνωσιν.

“Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” 97 Table 5.3 Comparison of the parallel sections of BHG 948 and 949e BHG 948

BHG 949e

λύπη τὴν παροῦσαν χαρᾶν ἠμαύρωσεν. ἀλλὰ ἀκάμπτω καὶ ἀνενδότω προθυμίᾳ χρώμενος. καὶ τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν ἐπεκτεινόμενος ἔσπευδεν ἐπὶ τὸ βραβεῖον τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως. οὐκ ἐξέλυσαν γοὖν αὐτοῦ τὴν στερρότητα ὕβρεις. ποικίλα πάθη σεμαίνουσαι. οὐ ποταμοὶ ἀπειλούμενοι. οὐ κρημνοὶ καὶ βασάνων εἴδη διάφορα. οὐ τό γε πάντων ἀλγεινότερον. τέκνα μετὰ συγγενῶν. καὶ φίλων ὀλοφυρόμενα. οἷς εἰώθασι[ν] καταμαλάττεσθαι πατέρες ὀλιγόψυχοι. Ὅτ' ἂν παῖδες τοῖς ποσὶ μετὰ δακρύων περιπλέκωνται. γυναικὸς ὀλοφυρομένης ὄψις κατηφής. γονέων πένθος ἐφ̓ υἱῶ τὴν ἡλικίαν ἀκμάζοντι. οἰκείων στεναγμὸς. καὶ θρῆνος φίλων. καὶ γνωρίμων. Ἔτι νεάζουσαν ἀκμὴν μετὰ δεήσεως οἰκτεῖραι προτρεπομένων. τούτοις πᾶσιν οἷς εἶπον οὐκ ἐκάμπτετο. Ἀλλὰ καθάπερ εἴπομεν τῷ τῶν κρειττόνων ἔρωτι κατεχόμενος. καὶ τὸν φόβον τῆς κρίσεως. πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ἔχων. δεδοικὼς δὲ τὴν φωνὴν ἐκεῖνη[ν] τοῦ κ[υρίο]υ τὴν λέγουσαν. Ἐάν τις ἀρνήσεταί με ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Ἀρνήσομαι αὐτὸν κἀγὼ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ π[ατ]ρ[ό]ς μου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐ[ρα]νοῖς. πάντων ὑπερφρονήσας τῶν χαλεπώτερων. Ἔσπευδεν ἐπὶ τὴν προκειμένην ἐλπίδα.

μὴ θυμὸν ὑποπτήσσων ἀρχοντικὸν. μὴ κολάσεις ποικίλας. μὴ ποταμοὺς. μὴ κρημνοὺς. οἷς οἱ διὰ χ[ριστό]ν ἀθλοῦντες ἐπερριπτοῦντο. μὴ καταμαλακιζόμενος. οἷς εἰώθασιν ἄν[θρωπ]οι καταμαλακίζεσθαι. προσπαθεία τεκόντων δηλαδὴ. παίδων ὀρφανία. δάκρυσι γυναικῶν. ἡλικιωτῶν αὐτῶν συμβουλαῖς. φίλων καὶ συγγενῶν ὀδυρμοῖς. μὴδ҆ ἄλλοις τισὶ τοιύτοις ὅλως ἡττώμενος ἢ καὶ πρός τι τούτων καταπληττόμενος. τὴν δεσποτικὴν πάντως φωνὴν ἐπὶ μνήμης ἔχων. καὶ τὰ ἐκεῖσε φρίττων δικαιωτήρια. ὅστις γὰρ ἀρνήσεταί με φη[σίν] ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀν[θρώπ]ων. ἀρνήσομαι τοῦτον κἀγὼ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ π[ατ]ρ[ό] ς μου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐ[ρα]νοῖς. Ἔνθεν τοι καὶ πάντων καταφρονήσας. χαίρων ἐχώρει πρὸς τὸ μαρτύριον.

long augmentation describing the circumstances of Probus’s interrogation. The stylistic additions and embellishments expand this section of BHG 949e. Another augmentation of BHG 949e illustrates the torture that Irenaeus goes through, to which BHG 948 dedicates only a few words. BHG 949e amplifies the narrative with a novel thematic subject, which does not exist in the other version. Before the next intertextually congruent section, BHG 948 augments the narrative by extending the dialogue and negotiation between Irenaeus and Probus. It is the opportunity for a narrator to place words into the martyr’s mouth, which would inspire those who listen to the narrative. The next session, in which the two versions correspond intertextually, is the interrogation regarding the family members. Although Probus mentions different family members in the two versions, these sections correspond topically. BHG 949e has an extension, where Probus explains why it is advisable for Irenaeus to sacrifice to the pagan gods. Towards the end of the passage,

98

“Numberless Ways to Tell a Story”

Table 5.4 Comparison of the parallel sections of BHG 948 and 949e BHG 948

BHG 949e

Προσαχθεὶς οὖν τῷ τηνικαῦτα τῆς παννονίας ἡγεμόνι πρόβῳ. καὶ ἐπερωτηθεὶς εἰ βούλοιτο θῦσαι. ἀπεκρίνατο ὁ μακάριος εἰρηναῖος. ἀλλ' οὐδὲ ζῆν μεθ' ὑμῶν αἱροῦμαι. τότε ἀνελήφθη εἰς τὸ δεσμωτήριον ἐκ πλειόνων δὲ ἡμερῶν ἐν τῇ τῆς εἰρκτῆς φρουρᾷ παραδοθείς. μέσης νυκτὸς προκαθίσαντος τοῦ ἡγεμόνος. προσήχθη πάλιν ὁ μακάριος εἰρηναῖος καὶ ποικίλας βασάνους ὑπομείνας. καὶ ἐρωτώμενος διὰ τὶ οὐκ ἐπιθύει. ἀπεκρίθη ὅτι θ[εό]ν ἔχω, ὃν ἐκ παιδὸς ἡλικίας σέβειν δεδίδαγμαι. καὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις ὑφ̓ ὑμῶν θεοῖς. προσκυνεῖν οὐ δύναμαι. πρόβος ἡγεμὼν εἶπεν. κέρδησον τὸν θάνατον ἀρκεσθεὶς αἷς ὑπομεμένηκας ὕβρεσιν. εἰρηναῖος εἶπεν. κερδαίνω μετ̓ οὐ πολὺ τὸν θανάτον. ὅτ̓ ἂν διὰ τοῦ παρὰ σοῦ θανάτου. τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θ[εο]ῦ ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἀπολάβω. πρόβος εἶπεν. Ὑιοὺς ἔχεις; ἀπεκρίνατο. οὐκ ἔχω. πρόβος εἶπεν. γονεῖς ἔχεις; ἀπεκρίθη. οὐκ ἔχω. ταῦτα δε ἔλεγεν ὁ μακάριος εἰρηναῖος. τὴν τοῦ κ[υρίο]υ ἐντολὴν ἔναυλον ἔχω[ν] τῆν λέγουσαν. Ὁ φιλῶν π[ατέ] ρα ἢ μ[ητέ]ρα ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ. Ἢ ἀδελφοὺς ἢ γυναῖκα ἢ τέκνα. οὐκ ἔστιν μου ἄξιος. πρὸς ὃν ἀτενίζων ὁ μακάριος ἐν τοῖς οὐ[ρα]νοῖς ὅλος ἦν τῷ φρονήματι διαιτώμενος. ἅπασαν τὴν ἀν[θρωπ]ίνη[ν] διάθεσιν καταλιπών. καὶ οὐδένα πλέον τοῦ κ[υρίο]υ εἰδέναι καὶ ἔχει[ν] ὡμολόγει. πάλιν οὖν εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ ἡγεμών. οἶδα σε υἱοὺς ἔχοντα. καὶ κᾀν δι' αὐτοὺς ἐπίθυσον ἵνα ζῆς. Ἀπεκρίνατο ὁ μακάριος εἰρηναῖος οἱ υἱοί μου θ[εὸ]ν ἔχουσιν ὡς κἀγώ. Ὃς δύναται αὐτοὺς σῶσαι. σὺ δὲ. τὸ κελευσθέν σοι ποίησον. Πρόβος ἡγεμὼν εἷπεν. συμβουλεύω σοι νεώτερε ἐπιθῦσαι. ἵνα μὴ διαφόροις σε αἰκισμοῖς ἀνέλω. Εἰρηναῖος εἶπεν. οὐκ ἐπιθύω. ποίει ὃ θέλεις. γνώση γὰρ. ὡς τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ χ[ριστο]ῦ γενναίως πάντα ὑπομενῶ.

Συσχεθεὶς γὰρ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀσεβῶν. καὶ τῷ τοῦ πρόβου βήματι προσαχθεὶς. ἐν τῷ σηρμίῳ τότε διάγοντος. ὅλος ἄτρεπτος. ὅλος ἀκατάπληκτος ἔστη. διὸ καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ τῆς ἀνομίας υἱός. τίς καὶ πόθεν καὶ τίνα τὰ κατὰ σοῦ φημιζόμενα. λέγε τὸ τάχος ἔφη. καὶ τίς ἡ κλῆσις αὐτή. καὶ ἐπεὶ μάθοι τὰ περὶ τούτων ἠκριβωμένως. θῦσον εἰρηναῖε λέγει τοῖς ἀνικήτοις θεοῖς. ἵνα δὴ καὶ τῶν προεπταισμένων σοι τὴν συγχώρησιν λάβης. καὶ τῶν μενουσῶν σε βασάνων ἀπαλλαγῇς καὶ μείνης μεθ̓ ἡμῶν εὐφραινόμενος. καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν. Ἄλλ̓ οὐ θύσω ποτὲ πρόβε. φησὶ ἐκεῖνος. οὐδὲ γὰρ ζῆν μεθ̓ ὑμῶν αἱροῦμαι. οὔτε μὴν τὸν ἐμὸν χ[ριστό]ν ὅλως ἀρνήσομαι. Θ[εὸ]ν ἀληθῆ τυγχάνοντα. καὶ τῶν ἁπάντων ποιητὴν καὶ δεσπότην. Ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν οὕτως εἰπόντα τὸν μάρτυρα. τὸ δεσμωτήριον εἶχεν. ἡμερῶν δὲ παρελθουσῶν οὐκ ὀλίγων τὸ δικαστήριον αὐτὸν διεδέξατο. πρὸς ὃν ὁ ἡγεμὼν. δεινὸν ἀπιδὼν. καὶ τοῦτον θύειν ἀπαναγκάζων. ἐπεὶ μὴ πειθόμενον εἶχε. κολάσεσιν ὑπέβαλλε χαλεπαῖς καὶ ποικίλαις. ξεσμοῖς. μάστιξι. ταῖς ἐκ ῥάβδων πληγαῖς. καὶ πάσαις ἄλλης βασάνου κακουργίαις. ὡς δὲ πρὸς ταῦτα μηδαμῶς ἐνεδίδου. καὶ πυρὸς ὁ μάρτυς φεῦ καθυπέμεινε καῦσιν. καὶ καθ̓ ἑκάστην βάσανον. ἀρνήσαασθαι παρεβιάζετο τὸν χ[ριστό]ν. καὶ τοῖς κιβδήλοις λατρεῦσαι θεοῖς. καὶ ἐπεὶ μὴ ἐπείθετο. τρόποις ἀπατελοῖς ὁ πρόβος ὑπέρχεται τοῦτον. γυναῖκα ἔχεις εἰπὼν. υἱοὺς. καὶ λοιποὺς ἄλλους προσήκοντας. μηδὴ τούτων στερηθῆναι θελήσης. νέαν ἔτι καὶ αὐτὸς ἄγων τὴν ἡλικίαν. ἀλλὰ κἂν δι' αὐτοὺς ζῆν οὕτω καλῶς παρ' ἡμῖν ἐθέλησον. ἔσται σοι γὰρ καὶ πλοῦτος καὶ δόξα. καὶ τῶν ἄλλων καλῶν ἡ ἐπίδοσις. ταῦτα τούτου κομψῶς οὕτω καὶ περινενοημένως εἰπόντος. ὁ ἅγιος. τὰ μὲν ἀκόλουθα τῆς ἀποκρίσεως ἀφεὶς. πρὸς ἒν δὲ τοῦτο συγκεφαλαιώσας τὸν λόγον. ὁ φιλῶν εἶπε χ[ριστό]ς φησὶ. Π[ατέ]ρα ἢ μ[ητέ]ρα ἢ τέκνα. ἢ γυναῖκα. ἢ ἀδελφοὺς ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ, οὐκέτι μου ἄξιος. καὶ ταῦτα διδάξαντος. πῶς φησίν ἐγὼ τούτου προτιμήσομαι τούτους. ὃς καὶ αὐτοὺς δύναται σῶσαι. καὶ κληρονόμους ποιῆσαι τῆς αὐτοῦ βασιλείας. καὶ ὁ πρόβος. πρὸ τοῦ σε τὴν ἀπόφασιν δέξασθαι ταλαίπωρε. θῦσαι θέλησον τοῖς θεοῖς. ἵνα μὴ κακῶς ἀποθάνης. καὶ ὁ ἅγιος. οὐ θύσω παράνομε. οὐκ ἀρνήσομαι τὸν χ[ριστό] ν μου μὴ γένοιτο. οὐ μὰ τοὺς ὑπὲρ εὐσεβείας ἀγῶνας καὶ τὰ παλαίσματα. οὐκ ἂν εἴ τί μοι καὶ μεῖζον τῶν προλαβόντων καλῶν προσενέγκης. ἀρνεθείην ἐγώ ποτε τὸν ἐμὸν ποιητήν.

“Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” 99 a few more parts of the sentences overlap. Otherwise, BHG 948 extends the narrative by the answers of Irenaeus, whereas BHG 949e gives equal space to the lines uttered by Irenaeus and Probus at this point. In the following section (Table 5.5), a part of the sentence and several words overlap in the paragraphs (κατὰ τὸ πρόσταγμα τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος, ποταμοῦ). BHG 948 augments Irenaeus’s speeches. The inserted lines in the form of his remarks extended this section. Irenaeus has three expositions: one before, one after receiving the verdict, and one on the bridge before the beheading. His speech and performance are excised in the section of BHG 949e that describes Irenaeus on the bridge. BHG 949e nevertheless contains some of Irenaeus’s speeches. Topically, the two sections agree as they both contain dialogues. However, Irenaeus does not address Probus in the same way in the two versions. BHG 948 presents both characters as relatively respectful of each other. Irenaeus encourages Probus to expose him to sacrifice and emphasizes that Probus is kind in this conversation. In BHG 949e, the dialogue between the characters is hostile. Even the use of the same word, μειζόνως, does not bring in the same Table 5.5 Comparison of the parallel sections of BHG 948 and 949e BHG 948

BHG 949e

πρόβος ἡγεμὼν ἀπεφήνατο. ἐπειδὴ πειθαρχῆσαι οὐ βούλει τῇ βασιλικῇ κελεύσει. διὰ τοῦτο. κατὰ τὸ πρόσταγμα τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος. κατὰ τοῦ ποταμοῦ ῥιφίση. Εἰρηναῖος εἶπεν. ἐγώ σου τὴν διάφορον τῶν θανάτων ἀπειλὴν ἐννοῶν. προσεδεχόμην αὐτὴν μειζόνως. μέλλοντός σου καὶ ξίφει με ὑποβάλλειν. διὸ εἰ βούλει παρακέκλησο καὶ τοῦ τὸ πρᾶξαι. ἵνα μάθῃς. πῶς ἡμεῖς οἱ χριστιανοὶ. θανάτου καταφρονοῦμεν. διὰ τὴν εἰς τὸν θ[εό]ν ἡμῶν πίστιν τετελειωμένοι. Ὀργισθεὶς οῦν ὁ ἡγεμὼν ἐπὶ τῇ παρρησίᾳ τοῦ μακαρίου μάρτυρος εἰρηναίου. ἐκέλευσε[ν] ξίφει αὐτὸν ἀναλωθῆναι. ὁ δὲ ἁγιώτατος μάρτυς. ὥσπερ δευτέρου βραβείου ἐγκρατὴς γενόμενος. εἷπεν. θ[ε]ῷ χάριν ὁμολογῷ. τῷ διὰ ποικίλης θανάτου ὑπομονῆς. λαμπρότερόν μοι στέφανον χαρισαμένω. καὶ μετὰ τὸ παραγενέσθαι εἰς τὴν γέφυραν ἥτις καλεῖται ἄρτεμις. ἀποδυθεὶς τὰ ἱμάτια. καὶ ἀνατείνας εἰς τὸν οὐ[ρα]νὸν τὰς χεῖρας. ηὔξατο οὕτως εἰπών. κ[ύρι]ε. ἀνοιχθήτωσαν οἱ οὐ[ρα]νοὶ καὶ ὑποδεξάσθωσαν τὸ πν[εῦμ] α τοῦ δούλου σου. ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ σου καὶ τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας. καὶ παντὸς τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτῆς. σοὶ πιστεύων κ[ύρι]ε. ταῦτα πάσχω. καὶ πληγεὶς τῷ ξίφει. Ἐπέμφθη εἰς τὸν σαὸν ποταμόν.

Τότε δὴ τῷ θυμῷ σφαδάζων ὁ πρόβος. κατὰ τὸ πρόσταγμα φησὶ τῶν αὐτοκρατόρων. πρὸς τὸν ἅγιον ἔφη. τῇ φορᾷ δοθείση τοῦ ποταμοῦ. καὶ τί τοῦτο. φησὶν ὁ ἅγιος. καὶ ξίφει με πάντως εἴ γε καθυποβάλης. δέχομαι καὶ τοῦτο προθύμως. ναὶ δὴ καὶ ἀξιῶ μείζονας γάρ μοι τοὺς στεφάνους πλέξεις καὶ τὰ βραβεῖα. καὶ τοῦτο προσθεὶς. ἤλπιζον γὰρ ἄλλας τινὰς δεινοτέρας κολάσεις. τῶν προεπενεχθεισῶν μοι διὰ χ[ριστό]ν ὑπομεῖναι. νῦν δὲ καὶ ταῦτα τρυφὰς μᾶλλον ἢ κολάσεις ἡγοῦμαι. τούτων οὕτω ῥηθέντων. ὀργῆς ὁ παράφορος πληρωθεὶς. τὸν τε διὰ ξίφους καταδικάζει θάνατον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν εἰς τὸν ποταμὸν. ὡς προέφην. κατάδυσιν.

100  “Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” meaning. Finally, BHG 948 names the locus, the river Sava, while BHG 949e disregards it. We will see further in the text that the name of the river Sava was crucial in establishing the intertextual connections among these texts and their sources. BHG 949e and BHG 950z also have intertextual connections. However, BHG 948 has only a few lines in common with BHG 950z and only those that appear elsewhere. Since BHG 948 is the principal Greek version, translated into Latin, Old Slavonic, and Armenian, we conclude that BHG 950z, as a text unrelated to it, must have been composed in a different context. Textually, BHG 950z, compared to the other texts, mainly applies extension and excision, which are simple additions and cutoffs. This premise corroborates the conclusion that BHG 950z was not written based on other BHG versions. The only secure connections of BHG 950z are with the entries of the Synaxarion of Constantinople (on Irenaeus, and Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus), based on which BHG 950z could have been created. The intertextual connections of BHG 950z to BHG 949e are explainable only if the latter appeared later than BHG 950z. In that sense, BHG 949e was created based on the sources (BHG 948 and 950z), which had no common points earlier. BHG 950z contains the section of the narrative introducing Or and Oropseus, which does not appear in BHG 948 and 949e. Its intertextual links are to be sought in other sources. The introduction of BHG 950z, longer than in the other two versions, is an outcome of rewriting (extension). It describes the severity of the persecution, Irenaeus’s role in it, and his victimization. Some common words and phrases are the same as in BHG 948 and 949e.51 Irenaeus is described as a victim, while his sacrifice is placed in the broader context of the violent persecution. This change of tone alludes to the new function of the text. The section about the suffering of Irenaeus’s family, which appears in BHG 948 and 949e, is entirely missing from BHG 950z. The beginning of part two on the trial is in BHG 950z extended by Probus’s novel way of persuasion directed to Irenaeus. In this part, BHG 950z intertextually overlaps on two occasions with both BHG 949e and 948.52 The following sentence appears in both BHG 948 and 949e: “But, I do not want to live among you” (ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲ ζῆν αἱροῦμαι σὺν ὑμῖν). It appears in BHG 950z as well. The complete phrase does not overlap with either one of the other two versions, as they use the phrase μεθ' ὑμῶν. Further, in the section on the trial, several overlaps appear between BHG 950z and 949e (Table 5.6). The secure intertextual connections are visible between the two versions not only in the same word choice but also in the use of constructions (accusative absolute, genitive absolute, ἀναγκάζω + infinitive). The section that describes the tortures in BHG 950z again intertextually corresponds to BHG 949e (Table 5.7). Version BHG 950z makes it concise, limiting the section to only one sentence, but this sentence has the exact words as BHG 949e, which has a more extended section. Although in different grammatical forms, specific keywords are repeated in BHG 950z and 949e in Table 5.7. There is a solid intertextual analogy

“Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” 101 Table 5.6 Comparison of the parallel sections of BHG 950z and 949e BHG 950z

BHG 949e

ταῦτα τοῦτον εἰπόντα. δεσμὰ λαμβάνουσιν εὐθὺς καὶ τὸ δεσμωτήριον. Ἡμέραι παρῆλθον οὐχὶ συγχαί. καὶ μέσης νυκτὸς ὁ πρόβος. εἰς ἐξέτασιν προκαθίσας. ὅτε δὴ πάντως εἰς οὓς αὐτῷ λελάληκεν ὁ σατανᾶς, ἄγει τὸν μάρτυρα πρὸς ἐρώτησιν καὶ θῦσαι τοῦτον ἠνάγκαζε τοῖς βδελύγμασιν.

Ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν οὕτως εἰπόντα τὸν μάρτυρα. τὸ δεσμωτήριον εἶχεν. ἡμερῶν δὲ παρελθουσῶν οὐκ ὀλίγων τὸ δικαστήριον αὐτὸν διεδέξατο. πρὸς ὃν ὁ ἡγεμὼν. δεινὸν ἀπιδὼν. καὶ τοῦτον θύειν ἀπαναγκάζων.

Table 5.7 Comparison of the parallel sections of BHG 950z and 949e BHG 950z

BHG 949e

Ὠς δὲ μὴ ἔπειθε, μαστίζει δεινῶς. ξέει πικρῶς. φλέγει φρικτῶς τῷ πυρί. γενναίως τοίνυν ὑπομεμενηκότος αὐτοῦ τὰς κολάσεις. ὁ δυσσεβὴς καὶ κατάρατος ἄρχων. αὖθις αὐτὸν πρὸς θυσίαν καλεῖ.

ἐπεὶ μὴ πειθόμενον εἶχε. κολάσεσιν ὑπέβαλλε χαλεπαῖς καὶ ποικίλαις. ξεσμοῖς. μάστιξι. ταῖς ἐκ ῥάβδων πληγαῖς. καὶ πάσαις ἄλλης βασάνου κακουργίαις. ὡς δὲ πρὸς ταῦτα μηδαμῶς ἐνεδίδου. καὶ πυρὸς ὁ μάρτυς φεῦ καθυπέμεινε καῦσιν. καὶ καθ̓ ἑκάστην βάσανον. ἀρνήσαασθαι παρεβιάζετο τὸν χ[ριστό]ν.

between the two texts in this section. Generally, BHG 950z is intertextually connected with 949e, while it overlaps with 948, mostly in cases when BHG 949e has the same word choice. However, the phrase τὸν σαὸν ποταμόν in BHG 948 appears in BHG 950z as well – τῷ ποταμῷ Σάῳ – but not in 949e.53 The river Sava is also mentioned in the Synaxarion of Constantinople, the entry on Irenaeus. Likely, a narrator of BHG 950z used this entry from the Synaxarion as a source.54 Both entries of the Synaxarion influenced the section of BHG 950z about Or and Oropseus. This part of BHG 950z begins with the fury of Probus, who decides that the sword will cut off the “all-honorable head” (of Irenaeus). Two other characters appear, Or and Oropseus. Probus randomly takes them from the crowd gathered around the persecution place. They also refuse to sacrifice to the pagan gods and are to be persecuted. BHG 950z contains the sentence “immediately (Probus) placed in the middle also famous Or and wise Oropseus,” which repeats the same verb as both entries in the Synaxarion.55 In the description of the saints being thrown into the fire, BHG 950z uses the expression “he threw them in a fire” (πυρὶ παραδίδωσι). In contrast, the Synaxarion version of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus uses the phrase πυρὶ ἀπορρίπτεται. The following sentence in BHG 950z has several words in common with the entry on Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus in the Synaxarion: “Rain poured

102  “Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” down from above and extinguished the fire.”56 When describing the saints being thrown to the beasts, BHG 950z uses the line: “Probus, fighting in his soul, threw them to wild beasts” (θυμομαχήσας ὁ Πρόβος θηρίοις τούτοις ἐκδίδωσιν). This sentence is repeated in the Synaxarion of Constantinople (entry on Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus) in the following way: εἰθ' οὕτως θηρίοις ἐβλήθησαν βρῶμα. Only one word overlaps in this example, yet, it is interesting that BHG 950z uses the verb “to give” instead of “to throw,” emphasizing that the martyrs were not thrown but given to the beasts. It possibly reflects the wish of the narrator to choose a more moderate verb to express the martyr’s punishment. Such a feature reveals the narrator’s emotional stance in rewriting the martyrdom narrative. In the scene where the martyrs are hanged on the tree, BHG 950z has this line: “He hanged them on a tree” (ξύλῳ ἀναρτᾷ). In the Synaxarion (entry on Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus), it is ἐπὶ ξύλου ἀναρτῶνται. In the scene of scraping, the Synaxarion (Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus) uses the verb ξέω, while BHG 950z uses the verb ξαίνω. BHG 950z contains the sentence at this point with which the Synaxarion (entry on Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus) ends: “Then he ordered that their heads be cut off with a sword.”57 The underlined sections in the footnote demonstrate the words that repeat in both entries of the Synaxarion. Overall, the section about Or and Oropseus in BHG 950z was formed based on these Synaxarion entries. Besides the three main Greek versions, several other derived versions point to their mutual intertextual connections. Version BHG 951 of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus is almost identical to BHG 950z, except for omitting the emperor’s prayer. This version is preserved in two manuscripts, one of which, Ambrosiana, B. 1. inf., was dated to the thirteenth century. The omission of the prayer for the emperor occurred at this time, probably because the prayer lost its relevance, at least in some settings. The next version, BHG 950, entitled the Martyrdom of the Two Irenaei, appears in two manuscripts, one medieval (Vienna Hist. gr. 45) and one early modern. It presents two synaxarion entries merged – the entry of Irenaeus of Sirmium and Irenaeus of Lyon from the Synaxarion of Constantinople. The Irenaeus-of-Sirmium part of BHG 950 intertextually recalls the entry from the Synaxarion of Constantinople, as in Table 5.8. The scene where Irenaeus is already on the bridge over the river Sava, holding his hands up towards the sky, uttering a speech, is present only in BHG 948. The Table 5.9 shows the intertextual parallels of this part of BHG 950 with BHG 948. Therefore, BHG 950 intertextually corresponds to the Synaxarion of Constantinople (entry on Irenaeus) and BHG 948. This artificial hagiography includes two sources, with a few words outside them. Altogether, without aiming to create a precise stemma, the analysis of narratology and intertextuality of the various versions of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus demonstrates deep textual connections among them. Since dating plays a crucial role in making a stemma, we leave it aside and instead focus on

“Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” 103 Table 5.8 Comparison of the parallel sections of BHG 950 and the Synaxarion of Constantinople BHG 950

Entry on Irenaeus in the Synaxarion of Constantinople

Ὅυτος ὁ ἅγιος ἱερομάρτυς εἰρηναῖος. Ἐπίσκοπος ἦν τοῦ σιρμίου. ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας διοκλητιανοῦ. καὶ κρατηθεὶς ἤχθη εἰς παννονίαν. καὶ παρέστη πρόβῳ τῷ ἡγεμόνι. ὁμολογῶν καὶ κηρύττων τὴν εἰς χ[ριστό]ν τὸν ἀληθινὸν θ[εό]ν πίστιν. Διὸ κατακλείεται φρουρᾷ. καὶ πάλιν μαστίζεται. καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα λαβὼν τὴν ἀπόφασιν. ἔστη εἰς τὸν τόπον τῆς γεφύρας. τοῦ ποταμοῦ σάου. καὶ ἐκτείνας τὰς χεῖρας εἰς τὸν οὐ[ρα]νόν. ηὔξατο οὕτως. κ[ύρι]ε ὑπόδεξαι τὸ πν[εῦμ]ά μου. καὶ στῆσον τὸν πόλεμον. τὸν κατὰ τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας σου γινόμενον. καὶ ταῦτα εἰπὼν. κρουσθεὶς τῷ ξίφει ἐρρίφη εἰς τὸν ποταμόν.

Οὗτος ὁ ἅγιος ἦν ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας Διοκλητιανοῦ. καὶ κρατηθεὶς ἀπὸ τοῦ Σιρμίου ἤχθη εἰς Παννονίαν καὶ παρέστη Πρόβῳ τῷ ἡγεμόνι, ὁμολογῶν καὶ κηρύττων τὴν εἰς Χριστόν τὸν ἀληθινὸν Θεὸν πίστιν. Διὸ κατακλείεται φρουρᾷ. καὶ ἐξαχθεὶς μαστίζεται, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα λαβών τὴν ἀπόφασιν ξίφει τὴν κεφαλὴν τμηθεὶς ἐν τῷ ποταμῷ ῥίπτεται Σάῳ. καὶ οὕτως ἐτελειώθη αὐτοῦ ἡ μαρτυρία.

Table 5.9 Comparison of the parallel sections of BHG 948 and 950 BHG 948

BHG 950

παραγενέσθαι εἰς τὴν γέφυραν ἥτις καλεῖται ἄρτεμις. ἀποδυθεὶς τὰ ἱμάτια. καὶ ἀνατείνας εἰς τὸν οὐ[ρα]νὸν τὰς χεῖρας. ηὔξατο οὕτως εἰπών. κ[ύρι]ε. ἀνοιχθήτωσαν οἱ οὐ[ρα]νοὶ καὶ ὑποδεξάσθωσαν τὸ πν[εῦμ]α τοῦ δούλου σου. ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ σου καὶ τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας. καὶ παντὸς τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτῆς. σοὶ πιστεύων κ[ύρι]ε. ταῦτα πάσχω. καὶ πληγεὶς τῷ ξίφει. Ἐπέμφθη εἰς τὸν σαὸν ποταμόν.

ἔστη εἰς τὸν τόπον τῆς γεφύρας. τοῦ ποταμοῦ σάου. καὶ ἐκτείνας τὰς χεῖρας εἰς τὸν οὐ[ρα]νόν. ηὔξατο οὕτως. κ[ύρι]ε ὑπόδεξαι τὸ πν[εῦμ] ά μου. καὶ στῆσον τὸν πόλεμον. τὸν κατὰ τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας σου γινόμενον. καὶ ταῦτα εἰπὼν. κρουσθεὶς τῷ ξίφει ἐρρίφη εἰς τὸν ποταμόν.

the differences between the various versions, particularly in connection to the places where they were copied and used. Their links to the Greek liturgical canons and the Georgian Martyrdom of Irenaeus are explained in what follows. Greek liturgical canons Two liturgical canons, dedicated to Irenaeus and Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus, are preserved in several manuscripts, originating from the eleventh century.58 Canons present a specific poetic form, consisting of several odes, which consist of several lines within the fixed form of the stanza. They have repetitive common phrases, which occasionally appear due to the rules of the genre. One such feature is the alternate line addressing the martyrs, which follows after addressing Theotokos.

104  “Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” The author of the canons is presumably Joseph the Hymnographer, who lived in the ninth century and extensively wrote canons to saints.59 If authored by Joseph, these two canons are the only texts about Irenaeus which have their author known. However, Joseph may have been only the author of the Canon of Irenaeus. The Greek scholar Tomadakes argued that canons containing the name Joseph in the acrostic of the last ode are those most likely written by Joseph.60 The Canon of Irenaeus indeed has such an acrostic. The editor of the Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus, J. Schirò, suggests that this canon was written by an author other than Joseph.61 While the debate continues, I  take that the Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus was also authored by Joseph, based on the reference of Szövérffy.62 The canons are unique texts of this hagiographical corpus. They have intertextual connections only to some texts about Irenaeus. They also abound with phrases uncommon for the rest of the corpus. They introduce new topoi, unknown to the other versions. The Canon of Irenaeus intertextually resembles BHG 949e, BHG 950z, and the entry on Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus of the Synaxarion of Constantinople. The resemblances to BHG 950z include the phrases Εἰρήνης ἐπώνυμος and ἐναπερρίφης ποταμοῦ, which appear in this canon as well. While Irenaeus is called μάρτυς καὶ ποιμὴν in this canon, BHG 950z uses the expression of a similar meaning: τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ποιμαίνοντα. The phrase ἔσβεσας πυρὰν is used in both BHG 950z and the Synaxarion’s entry on Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus. Some lines resemble BHG 949e as well. The lines Οὐ κατέκαμψεν προσπάθειά σε συζύγου, οῦ τῶν γονέων φίλτρον, οῦ τῶν τέκνων ὁ πόθος recall several words from BHG 949e and have the subject resemblance: μὴ καταμαλακιζόμενος. οἷς εἰώθασιν ἄν[θρωπ]οι καταμαλακίζεσθαι. προσπαθεία τεκόντων δηλαδὴ. παίδων ὀρφανία. The words βραβεῖα, ταῖς μάστιξι, and στεφάνοις appear in BHG 949e as well. The Canon of Irenaeus does not have any common points with BHG 948. Ιts sources are the same as in the Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus. The Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus recalls the lines and words from BHG 949e, BHG 950z, and the entry on Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus of the Synaxarion. This Canon mentions τυράννου, the word that also appears in BHG 950z. The line Ὠμοτάτοις παρεδίδου θηρσὶν εἰς βρῶσιν from this Canon strikingly resembles the line in the entry on Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus in the Synaxarion of Constantinople: εἰθ' οὕτως θηρίοις ἐβλήθησαν βρῶμα. However, this line from the canon uses the same verb as BHG 950z: δίδωμι. The syntagm ποικίλαις βασάνοις mentioned in the canon also appears in BHG 949e. The word εἰδώλων appears in BHG 950z. The intertextual resemblance of the Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus to BHG 950z, BHG 949e, and the entry on Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus from the Synaxarion of Constantinople further prompts the conclusion that the narratives about Irenaeus developed two textual paths. One line was related to the narrative about the three saints, with the texts appearing in Jerusalem, Athos, Sinai, and southern Italy. In contrast, the other line, related to BHG 948, was later translated into Latin, Old Slavonic, and Armenian.

“Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” 105 The Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus dedicates ample space to the physical remnants of Irenaeus. It is the only text that discusses the saint’s material remains. The corporal relics of Irenaeus were never mentioned elsewhere. According to the martyrdom narrative, the body of Irenaeus was thrown into the river after his beheading. Besides, in the canon, Irenaeus is called Levite on a few occasions, such as εἰρηνεπώνυμε λευῖτα and Ἱερώτατον λευΐτην σε τοῦ κυρίου. Irenaeus is identified in the same way in the entry on Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus of the Synaxarion: Εἰρηναῖος λευΐτης. It leads us to the assumption that Irenaeus from the story about Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus was initially not Irenaeus of Sirmium. It may have initially been a saint unrelated to him who eventually attained a new identity as Irenaeus of Sirmium. The entry on the three saints in the Synaxarion does not mention the locus, Sirmium. The same applies to the Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus. Only in BHG 950z does the mention of Sirmium seal the identity of Irenaeus as the martyr of Sirmium. A hybrid narrative in Georgian The Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium was eventually translated from Greek into Georgian at an unspecified date. The Georgian manuscript containing this text, Kutaisi I (XVI), is a sixteenth-century copy of an earlier manuscript from the Gelati monastery in Georgia. The language of the Georgian text resembles the linguistic features of the twelfth century. The syntax of the Georgian translation strongly resembles the Greek syntax. This version of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus has thus far been unedited. The manuscript belongs to the five-volume collection of metaphrastic texts translated from Greek. Scholars have already assumed that the five volumes deposited in Kutaisi may be the remnants of the Georgian translation of the two prominent Byzantine collections: the Menologion of Symeon Metaphrastes and the Menologion of John Xiphilinos the Younger. The latter collection has been sporadically mentioned in scholarship but has yet to be extensively studied. John Xiphilinos the Younger wrote the collection in the late eleventh century, persuaded by his uncle, the patriarch, and dedicated it to the emperor Alexios I Komnenos. Xiphilinos’s idea was to continue the enterprise of Symeon Metaphrastes and create a hagiographical collection for the summer part of the calendar year. The Georgian Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium is a unique text when compared to the other textual versions. The first line of the introduction contains an important message: “God will not forgive if the virtue of marvelous St. Irenaeus is not revealed.”63 The line warns and reminds us that forgetting this martyr must not happen. The martyr is presented as a mediator between God and the people and a shepherd of the “speaking flock.” Some Greek texts of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus likewise describe the martyr as a mediator who sits on the Lord’s throne with angels. These are, for example, the texts in the Imperial Menologia, where the martyr is asked to pray for the emperor. In no other text is Irenaeus identified as equal to St. Peter the

106  “Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” Apostle, seen as such in the eyes of God, as in this Georgian translation. The introduction appears to be general and applicable to any saint. Nevertheless, the name of the martyr Irenaeus is clearly uttered. The emperor Diocletian is described as “the evil servant.” This phrasing is symptomatic of some Greek texts, such as BHG 949e and BHG 950z. There follows a long list of Irenaeus’s virtues, his worship activity, good bishopric leadership, shepherding, and particularly his educational role. Some lines thematically align with BHG 949e.64 Unlike in the other versions, more space is dedicated to his educational role. Word of mouth spread about Irenaeus and mentioned in the text may be a topos.65 This text has greater dramatization in comparison to the other versions. Namely, the “Hellenes” appear as denunciators who report to Probus about Irenaeus’s activities. They repeatedly accuse the martyr, which leads to Probus’s fury. After they capture Irenaeus, the trial begins. Some parts of the Georgian version resemble BHG 950z. The “idols” in this text are named only in BHG 950z. The phrase “Irenaeus, whose name means peace,” appears only in BHG 950z and the Canon on Irenaeus. The passage in which Irenaeus answers to Probus resembles BHG 950z by alluding to his childhood age and his long and enduring belief in God.66 The line “I  do not consider anything more right and desirable than this teaching” resembles a line from BHG 950z in its meaning. Also, the sentence “those who are thrown in the fire will not burn, and those who are thrown in the sea will not drown, and those wounded by the sword will not pass away” is, in a way, present in BHG 950z, where Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus are thrown into the fire, hung on a tree, and finally beheaded by the sword. The section of Irenaeus’s speech about “(bodily) remnants and dry bones that will make miracles and cure incurable diseases” is unusual. Further, in his speech, Irenaeus talks about resurrection and the Eucharist. The Georgian translation is the only text which mentions resurrection, relics, miraculous deeds produced by relics, and the Eucharist. Some parts of the text resemble BHG 948.67 The sentence “who loves mother, father, wife, children, and brothers more than me, is not worthy of me” appears in BHG 948. The line where Irenaeus recounts that he rejected his parents’ property is a well-known topos in the Life of Antony, for example. After being convicted, Irenaeus reacted similarly as in BHG 948, raising his hands to the sky and uttering the prayer. The tribute to “your people and the Catholic Church” comes from BHG 948, as no other version contains this line. The allusion to the literal imitatio Christi, present here, was usually purged and replaced in metaphrased texts.68 The end of the text says that his “honorable head” was cut off, which is the line present in BHG 950z. This text has some sections in common with all the known Greek versions: BHG 948, BHG 949e, canons, and, most of all, BHG 950z. It contains some additional features which no other texts have. The text was composed with the help of the different excerpts from the lives of saints, a feature unusual,

“Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” 107 at least for this corpus, but probably common for hagiography in general.69 This text presents a hybrid narrative influenced by other versions of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus. This version is the Georgian translation of the latest written Greek narrative about Irenaeus. The translation was based on a Greek version, which is lost today. It could have been produced based on a range of sources. There is no way of knowing how much this text corresponds to a lost Greek version and how much of the embellishments in Georgian were added during its translation. Xiphilinos’s oeuvre relates to the turn of the twelfth century, while his work is dedicated to Alexios I (1081–1118). This Georgian version of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus, whose Greek original is ascribed to Xiphilinos, mostly resembles BHG 950z, the narrative about Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus. Xiphilinos’s work is later than BHG 949e and 950z. It attests that Xiphilinos consulted these Imperial Menologia while composing his work. He may have considered the other related source(s), nowadays lost, associated with the Imperial Menologia. Xiphilinos also took BHG 948 into consideration several times. Regardless of its authorship, the text appears as a hybrid narrative about Irenaeus, where many previous versions had their say in the writing process; it is because the Georgian translation has common points with all the narratives mentioned above. Transformation, distortion, and loss of textual memory Hagiography was known for its extensive transformations in the Middle Ages. Such a feature was in scholarship on literary history thus far interpreted in connection to rewriting processes. However, according to Els Rose, rewriting is linked to memory. Rewriting could be a beneficial tool in the preservation of memory. However, the records of saints could also be distorted in the attempt to rewrite them. The distortion concerns the gist of information of the primary text compared to what the later, rewritten narratives contain about the same saints. The lost textual details do not necessarily pertain to the core information about saints but to the texts’ aims and messages. The story of the martyrdom of Irenaeus was transformed in some medieval settings. According to the evidence from the eleventh century, Irenaeus’s role changed in some textual versions from an active, exemplary character, a model to follow, to a subordinate object and a victimized hero. The suffering of the latter was to be remembered and never forgotten. The narrative thus lost its initial purpose – to inspire other Christians to imitate him. It widened the distance between the martyr and the readers. It obtained a new aim: to recall the martyrs as the past victims. The memory of Irenaeus was manipulated to serve a specific ideology. Before this time, the textual versions of the Martyrdom mainly displayed the different phases of the Greek textual metaphrasis. They did not provide information about the societies and groups that copied and used these texts. The absence of personal or communal input

108  “Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” in the narratives about Irenaeus shows their generic use and depersonalization of the saint. Probably from the ninth century and certainly in the eleventh century, the story of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus appeared in several versions in the manuscripts from Jerusalem, Athos, Sinai, and southern Italy. The narrative was probably constructed based on the entries of the Synaxarion of Constantinople and unrelated to the narrative circulating in Constantinople, the Latin West, Bulgaria, and later, Armenia. The Irenaeus from the story about the three saints was initially probably different from Irenaeus of Sirmium. In some of these narratives, it is demonstrated by the absence and presence of the locus, Sirmium. In the entry on the three saints in the Synaxarion, Sirmium is not mentioned. The same applies to the Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus. Irenaeus the Levite may have been an unrelated saint. A new identity was eventually ascribed to him when the hagiography of the three saints was composed (BHG 950z). Only the mention of Sirmium in BHG 950z confirms the identity of the saint as Irenaeus of Sirmium. The story of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus distorts the historical record. The whole story was constructed with the introduction of two imaginary characters. The memory of Irenaeus was obscured in this way. The vagueness mainly refers to the manuscripts which kept only the story of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus, placed, for example, on 23 August, such as in the manuscripts Jerusalem Taphou 17 and Ambrosiana. Their readers could no longer say who was the saint Irenaeus, what had happened to him, with whom, and where. Notes 1 Plate and Rose, “Rewriting, a Literary Concept,” 611. 2 Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting, 448. 3 Bal, Narratology, 13. 4 Genette, Palimpsests, 228. 5 Genette, Palimpsests, 229. 6 Delehaye, “Catologus codicum hagiographicorum Graecorum bibliothecae D. Marci Venetiarum,” 12; Ehrhard, Überlieferung I, 432. 7 Bal, Narratology, 31. Genette uses the term “pause” (descriptions and digressions) for such sections. 8 “Whenever a pious person has been instructed in good ways, desiring of the better (things) and has adopted the fear of God, (then) he hastens to the benefit of the good news, having despised altogether the earthly things and the things he has heard, he desires to see the true faith and celebrates the Lord because of having adopted what he saw.” Marcianus gr. 360, f. 395r: Ὅτ' ἂν τις τρόποις ἀγαθοῖς εὐσεβὴς, συνασκηθῆ τῶν κρειττόνων ἐφιέμενος. καὶ φόβο[ν] θ[εο]ῦ προσλάβηται. τότε πάντων ἀθρόως τῶν ἐν τῷδε τῷ βίῳ, καταφρονήσας. πρὸς τῶν ἐπηγγελμένων ἀγαθῶν τὴν ἀπόλαυσιν ἐπείγεται. καὶ ἄπερ διὰ τῆς ἀκοῆς παρόντα. πίστει βεβαίᾳ θεώμενος ἐπεθύμησε[ν]. ταῦτα θᾶττον δι' αὐτῆς τῆς αὐτοψίας ὑπολαβὼν ἔχειν. δοξάζει τὸν κ[ύριο]ν. The translations of this text are mine. 9 “It is what happened with blessed Irenaeus, the bishop of the city of Sirmium. He hoped to benefit from the invitation to the high court through surpassing

“Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” 109 goodness and piety for God and the name of the deeds of authorities, young and worthy being a pioneer of the front line, having seized the persecution, which happened during the time of the kings Diocletian and Maximian and Constantius, using the inflexible and unyielding eagerness, and clinging to the more valuable things.” Marcianus gr. 360, ff. 395r–v: Ὃ δὴ γέγονεν καὶ περὶ τὸν μακάριον ἐπίσκοπον εἰρηναῖον. τῆς τοῦ σιρμίου πόλεως. οὗτος γὰρ δι̕ ἐπιείκειαν ὑπερβάλλουσαν. καὶ τὴν περὶ τὸ θεῖο[ν] εὐλάβειαν. τοῖς ἔργοις κυρῶν τὴν προσηγορία[ν]. καὶ νέος τῆς προεδρίας ἀξιωθεὶς. καταλαβόντος αὐτὸν τοῦ διωγμοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐπὶ διοκλητιανοῦ καὶ μαξιμιανοῦ καὶ κωνσταντίου τῶν βασιλέων. οὐχ̓ ὥσπερ ἔνιοι τιμίῳ πράγματι μόνω χρώμενος καὶ προστετηκὼς τοῖς τῆδε μᾶλλον πράγμασιν. 10 Genette, Narrative Discourse, 244–245. 11 Bal, Narratology, 47. 12 Genette, Narrative Discourse, 162–163. 13 The opening of BHG 949e goes as follows: “I tell of those recently famed for evil, Diocletian and Maximian, who, after they had taken over the imperial rule and badly abused it, were proposing edicts against those found (to be) Christians. Blessed Irenaeus, having despised their threatened punishments and very violent torture, like a priest of the highest God, taught the word of truth and converted many from unbelief to knowledge of the truth.” See Moscow Syn. gr. 183, f. 242r: Ἄρτι τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ κακίᾳ περιβοήτων. διοκλητιανοῦ φημὶ καὶ μαξιμιανοῦ. τῆς βασιλικῆς ἀρχῆς ἐπιλαβομένων. καὶ κακῶς αὐτῇ κεχρημένων. διατάγματά τε προτιθεμένων κατὰ τῶν εὐρισκομένων χριστιανῶν. ὁ μακάριος εἰρηναῖος. τῶν ἠπειλημένων ἐκείνων κολαστερίων καταφρονήσας καὶ τῆς σφοδροτάτης ἀνάγκης. ἅτε ἱερεὺς τοῦ θ[εο]ῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας λόγον ἐδίδασκε καὶ πολλοὺς τῆς ἀθείας ἐπέστρεφε πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας ἐπίγνωσιν. The translations of this text are mine, with the corrections and stylistic improvements by Robert Jordan. 14 Genette, Narrative Discourse, 162–163. 15 Jerusalem, Panagiou Taphou 17, f. 204v: Τόν τῆς εἰρήνης ἐπώνυμον καὶ γενναιότατον μάρτυρα. Εἰρηναῖον τὸν μέγαν ἡ τοῦ Σιρμίου πόλις πρόεδρον ἔσχε καὶ πολιοῦχον. καλῶς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ποιμαίνοντα. καὶ καλῶς Θεῷ τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν προσάγοντα. Διοκλητιανοῦ τοίνυν καὶ Μαξιμιανοῦ τῶν τυράννων διωγμὸν ὅτι μέγιστον κατὰ Χριστιανῶν κινησάντων. καὶ πλῆθος ὅτι πολλὺ τούτων. ἢ μᾶλλον εἰπεῖν ἅπαντας συλλαμβανομένων. καὶ τιμωρίαις ξέναις εἰς ὑπερβολὴν κακίας καθυπαγόντων. τοῦτο μεν δι' ἐαυτῶν. τοῦτο δὲ καὶ διὰ τῶν ὑπηρετουμένων ὁμοφρόνων αὐτοῖς, διαβάλλεται τῷ τῆς χώρας παννονίας ἄρχοντι πρόβῳ. καὶ ὁ καλλὸς οὗτος εἰρηναῖος ὁ πάνυ. καὶ συλληφθεὶς τῷ βήματι τούτου προσάγεται. The translations of this text are mine, with the corrections and stylistic improvements by Robert Jordan. 16 BHG 948: “It is what happened with blessed Irenaeus, the bishop of the city of Sirmium. He hoped to benefit from the invitation to the high court through surpassing goodness and piety for God, and the name of the deeds of authorities, young and worthy being a pioneer of the front line, having seized the persecution, which happened during the time of the kings Diocletian and Maximian and Constantius, using the inflexible and unyielding eagerness, and clinging to the more valuable things”; BHG 949e: “I tell of those recently famed for evil, Diocletian and Maximian, who, after they had taken over the imperial rule and badly abused it, were proposing edicts against those found (to be) Christians. Blessed Irenaeus, having despised their threatened punishments and very violent torture, like a priest of the highest God, taught the word of truth and converted many from unbelief to knowledge of the truth”; BHG 950z: “The city of Sirmium had the great martyr Irenaeus, who was very noble and named after peace, as the leader and protector of the city, shepherding the church well and offering well the spiritual service to God. Thus, after the tyrants Diocletian and Maximian had set in motion the most extensive persecution against Christians, most of them (or

110  “Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” we better say all of them) were arrested and subjected by novel punishments to excessive evil. This [occurred], on the one hand, because of themselves, and on the other hand, because of those in agreement with them being questioned. The utterly good Irenaeus was slandered to Probus, the governor of the land of Pannonia, and after being arrested, was brought before his judgment seat.” 17 BHG 948: “He rendered the present pain into pleasure, using the unbent and unyielding eagerness. And, being searched from those mentioned above, he hoped for the benefit from the call above. He did not set himself free from the intensity of the violence by withstanding considerable pains. He stayed unmoved by the threatening rivers, steep riverbanks, and tortures. He stayed unmoved by children, grievously suffering more than anybody, who mourned among relatives and friends. Even the fathers, who were faint-hearted and accustomed to this, effeminate to this scene. So, when children with tears embraced his legs (and made the Saint hostile), the humiliated appearance of the wife, who mourned, the grief of parents over the son, being in the prime time of life, the groan of the family and lament of the friends and familiar ones (persecution), impelled to pity still a young man in his prime, in the middle of prayer. To all of them, whom he talked to, he did not bend, but as we said, having taken the passion of those better than him, and having a fear of judgment in front of his eyes, fearing the uttered words of God, ‘If somebody denies me in front of people, I will deny him myself in front of my Father who is in the heavens.’ Understanding that he received the punishment more difficult of all, he hoped for a future hope.” See Venice, Marcianus gr. 360, ff. 395v–396r; BHG 949e: “Not bowing to the ruler’s anger, nor various punishments, not rivers, nor cliffs where those who contend for Christ were thrown. He did not soften to the things people tend to soften, to a passionate attachment to parents, the orphanage of children, tears of women, fellows and their advice, laments of friends and relatives. He did not weaken by some other things of this kind or become panic-stricken in the face of any of these things. He always had the Lord’s voice in mind, shivering at the judgments in the other world: ‘Whoever will deny me,’ he says, in front of people, ‘I will also deny him in front of my Father, who is in the heavens.’ Then, having despised everything, he joyfully proceeded towards martyrdom.” See Moscow, Syn. gr. 183, ff. 242r–v. 18 “Then he was put in prison for very many days, given over to the prison guard. In the middle of the night, the governor sat before him. The blessed Irenaeus was brought upon him again, and various tortures withstanding.” See Marcianus gr. 360, f. 396v: τότε ἀνελήφθη εἰς τὸ δεσμωτήριον ἐκ πλειόνων δὲ ἡμερῶν ἐν τῇ τῆς εἰρκτῆς φρουρᾷ παραδοθείς μέσης νυκτὸς προκαθίσαντος τοῦ ἡγεμόνος. προσήχθη πάλιν ὁ μακάριος εἰρηναῖος καὶ ποικίλας βασάνους ὑπομείνας. 19 Venice, Marcianus gr. 360, f. 396v: κερδαίνω μετ̓ οὐ πολὺ τὸν θανάτον. ὅτ̓ ἂν διὰ τοῦ παρὰ σοῦ θανάτου. τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θ[εο]ῦ ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἀπολάβω. 20 Genette, Narrative Discourse, 99. 21 Marcianus gr. 360, f. 397r: Ὁ φιλῶν π[ατέ]ρα ἢ μ[ητέ]ρα ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ. Ἢ ἀδελφοὺς ἢ γυναῖκα ἢ τέκνα. οὐκ ἔστιν μου ἄξιος. 22 Marcianus gr. 360, f. 397v: ἵνα μάθῃς. πῶς ἡμεῖς οἱ χριστιανοὶ. θανάτου καταφρονοῦμεν. διὰ τὴν εἰς τὸν θ[εό]ν ἡμῶν πίστιν τετελειωμένοι. 23 Moscow, Syn. gr. 183, f. 242v: τίς καὶ πόθεν καὶ τίνα τὰ κατὰ σοῦ φημιζόμενα. λέγε τὸ τάχος ἔφη. καὶ τίς ἡ κλῆσις αὐτή. 24 His prison stay is described in more detail: “The governor looked grimly towards him and was forcing him to sacrifice, but when he did not have him complying, he began to suggest various harsh punishments, scrapings, whippings, beatings from sticks and all other vicious acts of torture. As Irenaeus did not concede to these things in any way, the martyr, alas, endured a burning of fire and torture each day, [and] was forced to deny Christ and worship false gods.” Moscow Syn. gr. 183, f. 243r: πρὸς ὃν ὁ ἡγεμὼν. δεινὸν ἀπιδὼν. καὶ τοῦτον θύειν ἀπαναγκάζων. ἐπεὶ

“Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” 111 μὴ πειθόμενον εἶχε. κολάσεσιν ὑπέβαλλε χαλεπαῖς καὶ ποικίλαις. ξεσμοῖς. μάστιξι. ταῖς ἐκ ῥάβδων πληγαῖς. καὶ πάσαις ἄλλης βασάνου κακουργίαις. ὡς δὲ πρὸς ταῦτα μηδαμῶς ἐνεδίδου. καὶ πυρὸς ὁ μάρτυς φεῦ καθυπέμεινε καῦσιν. καὶ καθ̓ ἑκάστην βάσανον. ἀρνήσαασθαι παρεβιάζετο τὸν χ[ριστό]ν. καὶ τοῖς κιβδήλοις λατρεῦσαι θεοῖς. 25 Bal, Narratology, 47–48. 26 Jerusalem, Panagiou Taphou 17, f. 205r: Ὅτι μὴ θέμις δαιμόνων εἴδωλα τυγχάνοντα προσκυνεῖν. καὶ τότε τὸν χριστιανὸν ἐμὲ. ὃν ὁ Χριστὸς ἔθρεψεν ἐξ αὐτῆς μητρικῆς προόδου γαστρός. Χριστὸς ἤνδρωσε. Χριστὸς ἐμεγάλυνεν; καὶ τῷ τῆς θεογνωσίας κατεφώτισε φέγγει. δι᾿ ὃν καὶ πάντα ὑπομένειν ἔτοιμός εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἴδοις μέ ποτε θυσίαν ξοάνοις ἀπονεῖμαι κωφοῖς. ποίει τοιγαροῦν ὃ βούλει παρανομώτατε πυρί καῖε. ξίφει τέμνε. καὶ πᾶν εἴ τι ἂν ᾖ βουλομένῳ σοι πράττειν ἐπ᾿ ἐμοὶ ποίει. γνώσῃ γὰρ ἐντεῦθεν; ὡς οὐδὲν ἥγημαι τὸν διὰ Χριστὸν ἐπενηνεγμένον μοι θάνατον. “Because it is not right to worship things that happen to be images of demons; and then as I am a Christian, whom Christ reared from my coming forth from my very mother’s womb, whom Christ made as a man, whom God exalted and enlightened with the light of the knowledge of God. For His sake I am ready to endure all things and you would never see me sacrificing to mute statues. Therefore, do what you like, you most totally unlawful one. Burn me with fire, cut me with a sword and do everything you want to do to me. For from this you will know that I think the death brought on me for Christ’s sake is nothing.” 27 Genette, Narrative Discourse, 109. 28 “The governor looked grimly towards him and was forcing him to sacrifice, but when he did not have him complying, he began to suggest various harsh punishments, scrapings, whippings, beatings from sticks, and all other vicious acts of torture. As Irenaeus did not concede to these things in any way, the martyr, alas, endured a burning of fire and torture each day, [and] was being forced to deny Christ and worship false gods.” Moscow Syn. gr. 183, f. 243r: πρὸς ὃν ὁ ἡγεμὼν. δεινὸν ἀπιδὼν. καὶ τοῦτον θύειν ἀπαναγκάζων. ἐπεὶ μὴ πειθόμενον εἶχε. κολάσεσιν ὑπέβαλλε χαλεπαῖς καὶ ποικίλαις. ξεσμοῖς. μάστιξι. ταῖς ἐκ ῥάβδων πληγαῖς. καὶ πάσαις ἄλλης βασάνου κακουργίαις. ὡς δὲ πρὸς ταῦτα μηδαμῶς ἐνεδίδου. καὶ πυρὸς ὁ μάρτυς φεῦ καθυπέμεινε καῦσιν. καὶ καθ̓ ἑκάστην βάσανον. ἀρνήσαασθαι παρεβιάζετο τὸν χ[ριστό]ν. καὶ τοῖς κιβδήλοις λατρεῦσαι θεοῖς. 29 Høgel reveals that much was retold in indirect speech in rewriting the old hagiographical texts. The narrator gives more information about the protagonists’ reactions, mode of speech, state of mind, and similar facts. These details are explanations and interpretations of what is going on. The result is an interpretation that was not the only possible one when reading the old life, e.g., when the narrator tells that the persecutor who is speaking is lying and only trying to trap the martyr. See Høgel, “The Redaction of Symeon Metaphrastes,” 15. 30 “I  understand God’s grace; because of the manifold expectance of death, the brighter crown I am joyfully expecting!” “Lord, let the heavens open up and accept the soul of your slave. For your people and the Catholic Church and its complete fullness, believing in you, Lord, I suffer everything.” And smitten by sword, he was thrown to the river Sava. 31 “Even if you, by all means, subject me to the sword, I accept that also eagerly. Yes, indeed, I consider myself worthy of it, for you will plait bigger crowns and rewards for me by imposing it. I was hoping for some other more terrible punishments to withstand for Christ than those brought upon me. Now I consider these more like luxuries than punishments.” 32 Peter Brown wrote about this contradictory phenomenon on the example of the Liber sacramentorum: “On the one hand, the prayers evoked the unparalleled sufferings of the bodies of the martyrs insistently. These sufferings marked the saints as unique and utterly otherworldly beings. On the other hand, the prayers called upon the saints to answer every prayer for safety and success in this life.” See Brown, “Enjoying the Saints,” 15.

112  “Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” 33 Brown states that anybody who wishes to understand how and why saints came to be enjoyed in late antiquity must grapple with this paradox. Brown, “Enjoying the Saints,” 16. 34 Bal, Narratology, 47–48. 35 Munich, Clm 4554 (eighth century), Karlsruhe XXXII (ninth century), Turin (tenth century), Vienna 371 (tenth century), U 42 (tenth to the eleventh century), St-Omer 715 (eleventh century). 36 Vuković, Martyr Memories, 189–196; Vuković, “The Role of Apocrypha and Saints’ Lives,” 45–52. 37 Zaimov and Kapaldo, Супрасълски или Ретков сборник, 11. 38 This analysis must be taken provisionally, as it is based solely on the English translation. The translation in the Appendix is made by Arpine Asryan. The fluency in Armenian would enable a more thorough analysis; it, however, remains a subject for other researchers. 39 The versions in these manuscripts are selected for comparison due to their early dating. The translations of the textual versions are mine. Greek: “Whenever a pious person has been instructed in good ways, desiring of the better (things) and has adopted the fear of God, (then) he hastens to the benefit of the good news, having despised altogether the earthly things and the things he has heard, he desires to see the true faith and celebrates the Lord because of having adopted what he saw”; Slavonic: “When a clement custom grows with devotion, a person, striving to the better ones, adopts the fear of God. Then, having despised everything in this life, he strives to the acceptance of the clement promises in order that, by being that obedient and knowing by firm faith, he wishes to glorify the Lord again by being absorbed by the glory of God”; Latin: “When there was persecution under the Emperors Diocletian and Maximian, when Christians resisted various fights, they accepted the punishments given to them by tyrants with minds devoted to God. Therefore, they made themselves the partakers of the eternal rewards.” 40 Simonetti, Studi Agiografici, 61–63. 41 Simonetti, Studi Agiografici, 55. 42 Another text confirms Simonetti’s ideas, although it was not used in his study. It is the Passio Floriani (BHL 3054–3061), whose corresponding sections with the Martyrdom of Irenaeus follow: “In illis diebus sub Diocletiano et Maximiano imperatoribus cum esset persecutio christianorum, quando diversis agonibus concertantes christiani a tyrannis inlata supplicia devota Deo mente suscipiebant et promissionis Christi participes efficiebantur, tunc quidam in montibus se abscondebant, quidam autem in cavernis petrarum et sic malis poenis de hac vita liberabantur.” See Sepp, Die passio S. Floriani. 43 Greek: “It is what happened with blessed Irenaeus, the bishop of the city of Sirmium. He hoped to benefit from the invitation to the high court through surpassing goodness and piety for God and the name of the deeds of authorities”; Slavonic: “It also happened with the blessed Irenaeus, the bishop of the city of Sirmium. Because of the excessive meekness and the fear of God, he strengthened his denomination by deeds”; Latin: “It is what happened to the servant of God, Irenaeus, the bishop of the town of Sirmium. I will demonstrate and show even now to you his fight and victory. Because of his inborn moderation and fear of God that he was devoted to by rightful deeds, he became dignified of his name.” The translations of the Latin and Old Slavonic texts are mine. 44 Greek: “Young and worthy being the pioneer of the front line, having seized the persecution, which happened during the time of kings Diocletian and Maximian and Constantius”: καὶ νέος τῆς προεδρίας ἀξιωθεὶς. καταλαβόντος αὐτὸν τοῦ διωγμοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐπὶ διοκλητιανοῦ καὶ μαξιμιανοῦ καὶ κωνσταντίου τῶν βασιλέων; Slavonic: “Thus, as the persecution has arrived, which occurred during the emperors Diocletian and Maximian”: Постигъшоу бо гонению. Ѥже быстъ при диоклитиѩнѣ и маѯимиѩнѣ цри.

“Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” 113 45 Greek: “Having been brought then to the governor of Pannonia, Probus” (Προσαχθεὶς οὖν τῷ τηνικαῦτα τῆς παννονίας ἡγεμόνι πρόβῳ); Slavonic: “Thus, saint Irenaeus was induced to the governor Probus” (Приведенъ оубо быстъ свѧтыи иринеи къ кнѧзоу провоу); Latin: “Therefore, he was caught and brought to Probus, the governor of Pannonia” (Conp[re]hensus itaq[ue] oblatus probo praeside pannoniae). 46 The expression comprehensus . . . oblatus est is typical for many hagiographical texts, such as the Passion of Agape, Irene and Chione (translated from Greek to Latin), the Passion of Pollion, the Passion of Peter and Andrea, the Passion of Carpus, Papylus and Agathonice, and similar texts. See Lequeux, “Latin Hagiographical Literature,” 385–400; Simonetti, Studi Agiografici, 61. 47 Simonetti, Studi Agiografici, 57. Timothy Barnes discussed the protocol style, arguing that it did not guarantee authenticity, historicity, or derivation from an official documentary record because authors of hagiography “quickly learned how to use it to lend the bogus air of authenticity to accounts of the trial.” Barnes, Early Christian Hagiography, 58. 48 Greek: “And asked if he wanted to sacrifice, blessed Irenaeus answered: ‘But, I do not choose to live among you’” (καὶ ἐπερωτηθεὶς εἰ βούλοιτο θῦσαι. ἀπεκρίνατο ὁ μακάριος εἰρηναῖος. ἀλλ' οὐδὲ ζῆν μεθ' ὑμῶν αἱροῦμαι); Slavonic: “Having been interrogated whether he wanted to sacrifice to the gods, blessed Irenaeus answered with these words: ‘But, I do not want to live among you’” (И въпрошенъ бывъ аште хоштетъ пожръти богомъ. отъвѣшта блаженыи иринеи глаголѧ. нъ и жити же съ вами не хоштѫ); Latin: “Governor Probus told him: ‘Conforming to the divine orders, sacrifice to gods.’ Irenaeus replied: ‘The one, who sacrifices to gods, and not to God, will be exterminated.’ Probus governor said . . .” (Probus preses dixit ad eum; Obtemperans praeceptis divinis sacrifica diis; hireneus resp[ondit] qui diis et non d[e]o sacrificat exterminabitur, probus praeses dixit). 49 Genette, Palimpsests, 229. 50 Genette, Palimpsests, 229. 51 μάρτυρα Εἰρηναῖον, ἡ τοῦ Σιρμίου πόλις, Διοκλητιανοῦ τοίνυν καὶ Μαξιμιανοῦ. 52 The part of the sentence of BHG 949e, καὶ τῷ τοῦ πρόβου βήματι προσαχθεὶς. ἐν τῷ σηρμίῳ goes as follows in BHG 950z: καὶ συλληφθεὶς τῷ βήματι τούτου προσάγεται. BHG 948 uses only the verb Προσαχθεὶς. 53 The section in BHG 950z concludes: “So then, they too were taken along with the holy martyr Irenaeus to the place of consummation, and they received their blessed death. Then they were also thrown into the river Sava, so named.” I  already stressed that the river Sava appears in BHG 950z, probably as this text was intertextually influenced by the entry on Irenaeus in the Synaxarium of Constantinople. 54 The Bollandists edited the Synaxarion of Constantinople in Delehaye,  Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, based on a twelfth-century manuscript. Generally, the copies of synaxaria in different manuscripts had variations and different readings. 55 αὐτίκα δὲ παρίστησιν εἰς μέσον καὶ Ὢρ τὸν κλεινὸν. καὶ Ὀρόψεω τὸν σοφόν. 56 ὑετὸς γὰρ ἄνωθεν κατενεχθεὶς ἐπέσβεσε τοῦτο. In the synaxarial version, it goes as follows: Παραυτὰ δὲ ὑετοῦ καταρραγέντος ἄνωθεν καὶ τοῦ πυρὸς σβεσθέντος. 57 εἷτα καὶ ξίφει τὰς αὐτῶν κεφαλὰς ἐκτμηθῆναι κελεύει. 58 For an overview of Byzantine hagiography in verse, see Efthymiadis, “Greek Byzantine Hagiography in Verse,” 161–180; Giannouli, “Byzantine Hagiography and Hymnography,” 285–312. 59 It is known that Joseph “brought back to life” many saints. According to the number of written canons, he wrote at least one canon for each day of the calendar year. In the words of N. Ševčenko, many of these saints were famous, but dozens were obscure, shadowy figures with no more identity than a name and a date in the calendar. Ševčenko, “Canon and Calendar,” I, 106.

114  “Numberless Ways to Tell a Story” 0 Tomadakes, Ἰωσὴφ, 89–92. 6 61 Schirò, Analecta hymnica graeca, 523. 62 Szövérffy, A Guide to Byzantine Hymnography, 160. 63 This text is transcribed from the Old Georgian manuscript by Temo Jojua and translated from Old Georgian by Sandro Nikolaishvili. 64 The line “he freed many people in his flock from ignorance and impiety” resembles thematically the line from BHG 949e, which says: “He taught the word of truth and converted many from disbelief to knowledge of the truth,” where Irenaeus’s educational mission is emphasized. 65 A similar passage appears in the Martyrdom of Polycarp and the lives of saints, such as the Life of Antony, the Life of John of Rila, and comparable texts: “The word about Irenaeus spread outside of the nearby regions and became known to faraway places. This word [of mouth] also reached the rulers. And these rulers started looking for Irenaeus so that they would capture him and they would take revenge because of his daring lawlessness.” See the Appendix. 66 “All the humans, o ruler, live according to what they learned when they were children and what they considered good, acceptable, and what they grew up with. And they are faithful to all this until the end of their lives. From my childhood, I learned to be a good servant, and I grew up with the teaching of Christ and his disciples.” See the Appendix. 67 “When Probus heard this, he behaved differently and asked if Irenaeus had children, and Irenaeus replied, “no.” Then Probus asked if Irenaeus had parents; Irenaeus replied, “no.” See the Appendix. 68 “And now you awarded me a bigger honor that you will help me accomplish my service to you as a shepherd in your name with martyrdom. And here I sacrifice myself to you. And I will similarly sacrifice myself as you sacrificed yourself for us in front of your father.” See the Appendix. 69 Similarly, Høgel observed that the Metaphrastic redacted versions tended to enhance main themes such as love, loyalty, and asceticism compared to the old lives. “These themes are accorded a greater role in the redacted version.” This observation is essential if we think of the different thematic layers affixed to the hagiographical texts throughout time. Høgel, “The Redaction of Symeon Metaphrastes,” 14.

6 Appropriation of the past The Martyrdom of Irenaeus in Byzantine Imperial Menologia and canons

On several occasions, the story of Irenaeus’s martyrdom was transformed in the contexts considered below to meet the current political and religious necessities. From the perspective of memory studies, the story turned out to be neglected but preserved past. “Neglected but preserved” stories and events reappear as a “usable past.” Their memory is not instant, lasting, or continual. It is invoked, usually to corroborate specific needs at a given time. The concept of “usable past” relates to manipulated memory, instructed or institutionalized to serve a specific cause or ideology.1 This memory links to the social aspect, as social memory that refers to groups rather than individuals. According to Ricoeur, the opportunities for its manipulation lie in everything that compounds the fragility of identity, mainly through ideology.2 When the identity is under threat, the opportunities for manipulated memory grow. Such memory use includes the possibility of abuse.3 The final product, the modified remembering delivered to particular groups or societies, disregards the abuse as long as it achieves its aim, which usually means maintaining the ideology. Such use appears as a menace regarding the accuracy of historical records: memory’s aim of truthfulness is significantly disturbed. Memory, according to Ricoeur, means faithfulness to the past.4 The abuse, which involves negligence and forgetting, is a challenge put to memory’s aim for reliability.5 The distortion, but also the transformation of a hagiographical record, with the introduction of various new twists and turns, new characters, emotions, and attitudes can be understood as an abuse of memory. Irenaeus, a “lesser” saint in Byzantium, was reinvented because his name and his story helped achieve specific current goals.6 During the reign of Michael IV Paphlagonian, both the inner personal crisis of this emperor and the political reasons placed him in need of a collection of Imperial Menologion in which a cohort of martyrs and saints were asked to protect him in his endeavors. This Imperial Menologion, Moscow, Syn. gr. 183, included a new, revised BHG 949e version of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus. Besides this text, all the other texts were rewritten to end with a prayer for the emperor. They conveyed an emotional tone, turning the saints and martyrs into the victims of the past. DOI: 10.4324/9780429201578-6

116  Appropriation of the past Irenaeus’s name further reappeared in the Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus, written by Joseph the Hymnographer, a prominent iconodule supporter, who invoked him with two other saints by constructing the narrative where he mentions his relics and his holy intercession. Relics and icons were the cornerstones in the iconoclastic debate. By mentioning relics, Joseph aimed to contribute to the iconodule propaganda. The Byzantine liturgical Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus has remained the only text that mentions Irenaeus’s relics. Irenaeus also reemerged in another Imperial Menologion, and we have a copy in the manuscript Jerusalem Taphou 17, where many saints and martyrs were commemorated in the saintly groups. The Byzantine tradition was known for gathering saints from initially individual saints; some of them transformed into military saints whose purpose was to protect in times of uncertainty and turmoil. The mentioned versions of Irenaeus’s martyrdom, as “neglected, but preserved past,” rewrote the early Christian martyr’s identity and deflected his memory in these Byzantine contexts. Memory’s purpose of reliability and truthfulness was put at stake. Emotions and victimization of a martyr We have previously concluded that the BHG 949e version of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium, written down in Moscow, Syn. gr. 183, highlighted the martyr’s suffering, struggle, and torture. The painful emotions the martyr and his family go through are evident compared to accounts in his earlier martyrdom narratives. The text’s two most striking features are the emphasized sentiments and the martyr’s victimization. The initial purpose of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium was thus reshaped. The text eventually turned the martyr from a model to follow into a victimized hero. The transformed account of the martyr’s suffering, the enhancement of the emotional and victimization elements, and the shift in the meaning distance the martyr from the historical event and confuse his historical record. All the texts in the manuscript Syn. gr. 183 were rewritten/metaphrased to fit the structure and purpose of the manuscript.7 The texts end with an acrostic that highlights the same letters. It is a dedicatory note in the form of a prayer for the emperor, which ultimately designated these manuscripts as Imperial Menologia. The contents of the prayers are different, but the highlighted letters form the identical word.8 In the prayers, God is asked through the intercession of the saint/martyr to grant the emperor an array of benefits, such as victory over enemies, health and long life, a peaceful reign, remission of sins, physical health, spiritual salvation, prosperity, and peace in the empire.9 Saints and martyrs are depicted on the throne next to Christ, together with angels. The prayer for the emperor in the manuscript Moscow Syn. 183 goes as follows: And now, as an archpriest, as a martyr moving with the angels around the throne of the Lord: Beg that our righteous king who loves what is

Appropriation of the past 117 right and is honored by all noble privileges be given by God participation in a long life free from harm, separation from the impurity of the passions, noble participation in the valuable works, successful accomplishment of all the deeds of prowess, a good inheritance of day without evening, the bright and good dwelling of the righteous, the highest gift of all desired things and his portion of the kingdom of heaven, for to Him belong glory and power now and always and to the ages of ages. Amen.10 The acrostic forms the letters ΜΙΧΑΙΛΠ.11 In the ending prayer of Moscow Syn. 183, only the first and the last letters are written in majuscule, while the

Figure 6.1 The prayer for the emperor in Syn. gr. 183 (f. 241v, from a text preceding the Martyrdom of Irenaeus) with the red letters ΜιχαηλΠ.

118  Appropriation of the past other letters are written in minuscule (ΜιχαηλΠ). The initial letters are visible as they are colored with an intense red shade (see Figure 6.1). The name “Michael P” implies that the manuscript Moscow Syn. 183 has some connections with Byzantine Emperor Michael IV Paphlagonian (r. 1034–1041).12 Scholars previously debated the commission and dedication of the manuscript.13 Some assumed that Moscow Syn. 183 was commissioned for the emperor based on the prayers for his well-being.14 Other scholars argued that Michael’s brother John the Eunuch might have been responsible for commissioning the Imperial Menologion for his brother Michael, who was of weak health.15 Some scholars discussed whether Michael IV was a commissioner, a gift receiver, or a donor; possibly the acrostic relates to an author.16 The collection and the acrostic were linked in scholarship with another prominent person, Michael I Keroularios, the patriarch of Constantinople (1043–1059).17 Finally, scholars re-attested that the manuscript was dedicated to Michael IV Paphlagonian.18 D’Aiuto recently dated the manuscript to the second quarter of the eleventh century, by identifying a scribe Nicholas, whose hand is also attested to in a dated manuscript copied at the court of Michael IV.19 The texts in the manuscript are traditionally considered to be the abridged versions of the hagiographies composed by Symeon Metaphrastes.20 The narratives are written in a sophisticated style, which corresponds to the metaphrastic style.21 Where there was no metaphrastic text to copy, the version was either rewritten anew or freshly composed with the help of some other sources.22 However, the Martyrdom of Irenaeus never entered the Menologion of Symeon Metaphrastes, neither did it have a metaphrastic version that we know of. The author of BHG 949e in this Imperial Menologion remains to be discovered, although the textual style resembles the metaphrastic style. The unification of the texts in the manuscript by adding the prayers for the emperor, the rewritten language and style, the outlook of the manuscript folios, and the combination of text and image are its most prominent features. Another essential component of the outlook is the elaborate and costly decoration. Illuminations accompanied almost all the hagiographies in the manuscript Syn. gr. 183. The images are predominantly of high stylistic value, using different colors, including gold.23 Although the images are in varying conditions, some well preserved, others deteriorating, such high-style decoration, value, and investment in this manuscript reveal its importance. Generally, scholars think that Imperial Menologia present some of the most luxurious Byzantine manuscripts, hand-in-hand with the Menologion of Basil II.24 Manuscript Moscow Syn. 183 is one of a few illuminated manuscripts among Imperial Menologia.25 It contains fifty-seven illustrations along with the fifty-nine hagiographical texts.26 All but two texts are accompanied by an image of a saint or a martyr. The images are placed ahead of the text, taking a width of two columns. The textual layout within the manuscript folios and the combination of texts and images are carefully contrived. The illuminations relate to the most dramatic moments of the stories, such as martyrdom scenes or similar moments.

Appropriation of the past 119 Some scholars trust that this manuscript was part of a broader series of manuscripts, possibly for the entire year.27 It is connected with two other illuminated manuscripts among the Imperial Menologia: Walters Art Museum in Baltimore (W 521) and Benaki fragment (Athens, Mouseio Benaki, Προθηκη 34/6 (Mp. 71)) because of the illuminations.28 Anna Zakharova suggested that Baltimore and Moscow manuscripts were painted by the same hand.29 However, there is no evidence of a broader production. D’Aiuto argued that the Imperial Menologia had low preservation and low production rate; they were not produced for wide circulation.30 Out of the 730 texts from the Imperial Menologia estimated to have existed, only 200 survived.31 Their luxurious illuminated volumes and the high-ranking commissioners imply this. “They were secluded in the closed area of the Palace, among a few court officials, where the emperor, with the gift of these volumes of the Imperial Menologia, read and used the prayers daily.”32 The martyrdom of Irenaeus is depicted in folio 242r of the manuscript Moscow Syn. 183 in a mountainous landscape dominated by the wild mountain river. In the scene, Irenaeus’s beheaded body is thrown into the river. We are perplexed how the persecutor swiftly throws Irenaeus’s body into the river. Besides, the landscape of Sirmium is not depicted authentically as in the

Figure 6.2 The Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium in Moscow Syn. gr. 183, f. 242r, ­eleventh century. Courtesy of the State Historical Museum, Moscow.

120  Appropriation of the past story. Neither does it relate to the actual terrain of Sirmium. The mountainous wilderness replaces the flat and often flooded land of Sirmium to better portray the drama of the moment.33 Such a feature indicates a distancing from the past and the original setting of the historical event. The reasons that impelled Michael IV or somebody from his closest entourage to commission the manuscript are to be sought in the historical context of his time and reign. As the prayers say, the Imperial Menologia were likely devised to support the emperor’s endeavors in mundane combats. The collection gathered old and new martyrs and saints to uphold the emperor’s success in his worldly activities.34 Although Michael’s reign was not particularly lengthy, the emperor suffered the consequences of some of his deeds before he became emperor.35 He felt guilty because of the way his predecessor on the throne, Romanos III, ended his life. Romanos was probably killed by Michael and Zoe, Romanos’s wife, who later became Michael’s wife. It may be why Michael turned to religion, giving alms to the poor, building monasteries, and engaging in other public works involving lepers, prostitutes, and monks. Skylitzes, the Byzantine historian who disapproved of the regime of Michael IV, described his reign as a time of uncertainty, fear, natural disasters, and conflicts.36 The years he ruled had terrible harvests, famine, and plague. Byzantium had confrontations with Arabs, Georgians, Pechenegs, and Bulgarians in foreign politics.37 Internal revolts also disturbed Michael’s reign. Finally, the emperor himself was of quite fragile health. According to some Byzantine sources, Michael IV had epilepsy.38 Psellos testified that “in the final stages of Michael’s disease, he prayed and donated to charitable causes, churches, and monasteries to placate God.”39 He even invited ascetics from the desert to his palace, washing their feet and offering them the royal bed while he slept on the ground with a large stone as a pillow. When he overcame his fear of lepers, he bathed their ulcers and embraced and comforted them. Michael became hyper-religious and dependent on God.40 Yet, epileptic people at the time tended to hide their condition.41 The emperor’s health may not have been the sole reason why Michael or somebody from his close circle commissioned the manuscript, although it may, at least in part, have had something to do with it. It may apply to when his disease was moderate and later when he was much weaker and openly hyper-religious. Nancy Ševčenko referred to the Life of Zotikos in the Baltimore manuscript, which recalls the “holy disease,” meaning leprosy or epilepsy.42 St. Zotikos was among those who suffered martyrdom due to his help to the sick during the reign of Constantine. Emperor Constantius II reversed the policy of killing the lepers after the martyrdom of Zotikos and the establishment of the hospital. In the prayer for the emperor of this text, Michael IV is praised for caring for those suffering from epilepsy and leprosy.43 This detail reveals that the commission of this series of Imperial Menologia could have been connected with health, at least in part. The manuscripts may have been conceived as protective devices for Michael in his disease; they also praised him as the protector of the sick.

Appropriation of the past 121 The Imperial Menologion of Michael IV fits into a long trajectory of hagiographical collections commissioned by the Byzantine emperors. The trend of investing in hagiography intensifies in the tenth and the eleventh centuries. Michael IV’s commissioning of the Imperial Menologion as the calendar, possibly for the entire year, could be viewed in the light of his aspirations to imitate previous imperial collections commissioned by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and Basil II. The Imperial Menologion imitated the illuminations of Basil’s Menologion, even if it did not reach the same aesthetic quality.44 Halkin assumed that Michael Paphlagonian drafted the Menologion based on an earlier model with the same texts.45 Nevertheless, the manuscript Moscow Syn. 183 may have had another layer of meaning: it may have been related to the turmoil of the time during which it became essential to bring to mind past suffering and to admonish and remind people that such events should not be repeated in the future. We have previously assumed that the calendar used in aligning the manuscript Moscow Syn. 183 was either an older or a transitional type of calendar used in the eleventh century. The number of texts dedicated to martyrs in this manuscript exceeds that of other contemporary collections.46 The later versions of calendars replaced martyrs with other characters. The possible idea of a commissioner/composer was to gather as many stories as possible about martyrs in this martyr-laden collection. The stories employed an emotional tone, depicting martyrs as victims and turning them into legendary heroes and figures central to commemoration and remembering. In Ricoeur’s view, this “melancholic reminiscence” coincides with the “obsession with commemoration.”47 The increased need to remind people of past victims appeared due to uncertainty, fears, and threats from inside and outside the empire.48 Besides warning and reminding people, the martyrdom past here consolidated society’s identity. The particular features of martyrs and martyrdom narratives tied their recollection specifically to the crisis periods. A  special connection between instability and a need to invoke past martyrdom narratives was characteristic of such periods. The fears and expectations may have applied to the current period or they may have been a consequence of trauma from the recent past. Candida Moss argued that whenever Christians felt threatened, they returned to the martyrs of the early Church for consolation and inspiration.49 The new, living examples of good Christian behavior prevailed in times of peace. Ordinary Christians were taught to fast, pray, and admire Christian soldiers in peace, milites Christi – monks, ascetics, hermits, and holy men of various kinds. In times of turmoil, martyrs provided consolation. The historical situations evidencing victims’ existence called for martyrs as the erstwhile actors of embodied suffering. Monica White argued that even beyond the Macedonian dynasty, martyrs as the imperial military patrons did not lose their fame: “Perhaps not surprisingly, these martyrs, defenders of both the faith and the empire, did not lose their popularity even after the victories of

122  Appropriation of the past the Macedonian period had been reversed. Later emperors, inspired by their heroic deeds, continued to place their hopes in them as the empire’s steadfast protectors.”50 The attachment to martyrs did not reveal anything about the actual martyrs; it revealed more about people, their needs, and their longing to reappropriate the symbolic past. Martyrs became powerful tools in the hands of groups that reclaimed their victimized past. The commemoration of martyrs was a warning and a reminder that a group or a society should make sure that such victims should not reoccur in the future. Martyrdom narratives were the product of remembering. Memories, rather than the past itself, became more influential in societies that tended to revisit their past. This process transformed the original martyr stories, which became testimonies to a given moment rather than past events. Many layers of the past were left out. Instead, readers received lessons about their current affairs. Such mechanisms prompted forgetting because the blurring of history was also forgetting. The audience eventually did not know what had happened to the saint. Instead, they found out what the past could teach them at a given moment. Relics revisited The Byzantine liturgical Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus introduces the bodily remains, the relics of Irenaeus, otherwise a nonextant detail among this saint’s narratives. The Canon repeatedly points to the urn with the relics of Irenaeus.51 A few verses in ode A of the Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus go as follows: “You filled the lights of delight Of the living folks By the manifestation of your present Most sacred body, you, chosen by God.”52 Another stanza in the same ode A evokes the funerary urn of Irenaeus: “Reaping the joy of the wonders from God You saint, To those who resort by desire To the funerary urn Of your revered remnants You would feed the encouragement Of the soul and the body Abundantly You, the saintliest.”53

Appropriation of the past 123 Moreover, in verses 209–215, the text notes that a demon-possessed boy’s miraculous healing led to the discovery of the buried urn. The text explicitly references a temple consecrated to the saint, where the miracle took place: “You healed in the most expeditious way A suffering boy who attended your temple When a demon ousted him Because of this, wise Irenaeus, We now celebrate your hidden funerary urn That we discovered.”54 No other text about Irenaeus mentions the body, head, or his other corporeal parts. The saint was decapitated on the bridge over the river Sava in Sirmium. After this, his body sank to the river’s bottom. However, his relics reemerge in this Canon, possibly written in the ninth century by a prominent hymnographer and an iconodule supporter, Joseph the Hymnographer, who wrote canons about many saints and lived far away from Sirmium. Having divided his life between Sicily, Greece, Rome, and Constantinople, Joseph the Hymnographer was a prominent witness of his time. He became a refugee as a child after the Arab incursion in Sicily. He soon became a monk in Thessaloniki, after which he rose to prominence in the Constantinopolitan Studite circles. He witnessed the activities of the Studite monastery after the victory over Iconoclasm. Besides the rich life experience, Joseph was mainly known for writing liturgical canons; he allegedly wrote 466 canons for saints.55 Some scholars ascribe the production of this canon to Joseph.56 Canons were written mainly in the Studite circles by people involved in iconoclast combat. The other authors of canons, a generation earlier than Joseph, were the Studite hymnographers Joseph of Studios (Joseph of Thessaloniki), the brother of Theodore of Studios, and Theophanes Graptos, both involved in the iconodule struggles for the same cause as Joseph the Hymnographer.57 Unlike his predecessors, Joseph’s significant contribution seems to have been writing the canons addressed to saints. Joseph was probably the author of most of the canons on saints.58 Some scholars explain the tendency to write hymnography in Joseph’s time as “a spiritual answer of the monks to the time’s social cataclysm.”59 They were responding to the rise of Iconoclasm in Joseph’s time and the siege of Jerusalem by Persians and Arabs during the first wave of hymnography written by Andrew of Crete, John the Monk, and Cosmas of Jerusalem in the seventh and eighth centuries. How was hymnography writing, particularly promoting relics, related to Iconoclasm? Earlier scholars gathered that relics and icons were not viewed favorably during the iconoclastic crisis. Iconoclasts opposed the veneration of holy relics. Patricia Crone argued that “a spectacular attack on images, saints, relics, intercessors and whatever other

124  Appropriation of the past channels of grace that appeared beside the ecclesiastical sacraments occurred from the reign of Leo III onwards.”60 However, Leslie Brubaker and John Haldon maintain that there is no contemporary evidence that the iconoclast emperors opposed the intercession or destroyed relics.61 They stress that the iconodule inclination towards the promotion of relics resulted from a debate in which the iconoclasts did not allow the use of relics within the altar. In their quest for religious purity, iconoclasts disapproved of relics in altars because the presence of saints would pollute the Trinity’s sanctity.62 Consequently, the iconodules characterized the iconoclasts as opposing relics due to this attitude.63 It may be that the rhetoric related to relics in such propaganda persisted even after the iconodules’ final supremacy. In a way, the Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus contains the rhetoric anticipated at the time, one generation after the victory of Iconoclasm. Promoting relics may have remained a tool in the hands of iconodules. Following it, Joseph may have promoted Irenaeus’s holy relics, possibly as of other saints, too, as part of his continued iconodule position. Much of the wording in the canons seems to have been constructed and invented. Nancy Ševčenko argued that the focus and energy expended during Iconoclasm and the iconoclast struggle to find and authenticate texts relating to images were apparently expended to collecting the information about vast numbers of obscure saints.64 She further explained that “the paucity of concrete information in many a canon, which is usually attributed to encomiastic vagueness or the emptiness of the poetic genre, may in certain cases have had quite a simple explanation: no information on the saint was currently available.”65 Dozens of saints that were the subjects of canons were famous; however, dozens were “totally obscure, shadowy figures that at the time had no more identity than a date in the calendar and a name, . . . for each of these Joseph composed a canon to be sung at Orthros on the feast day of the saint.”66 The editor of the Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus, J. Schirò, revealed that it is devoid of references to the place and the time of the three saints’ martyrdom.67 The canon fails to enrich the information about their historical personality.68 It confirms that Irenaeus is a Levite, leaving the fellow martyrs Or and Oropseus as evanescent figures, celebrated only with convertible and generic expressions.69 We here see the example where the famous and historically framed figure of the saint, such as Irenaeus of Sirmium, came to cloud his lesser-known namesake, Irenaeus the Levite.70 We previously assumed that the Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus may not have referred to Irenaeus of Sirmium. Irenaeus is called the Levite in this canon, which intertextually links to BHG 950z, BHG 949e, and the entry on Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus from the Synaxarion of Constantinople. The canon, however, dates earlier than all these texts, which Schirò also stresses. Joseph probably composed the Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus based solely on the saints’ names. He did not consult the other texts about Irenaeus that already existed, such as BHG 948. The identity of Irenaeus as Irenaeus

Appropriation of the past 125 of Sirmium was confirmed only in BHG 950z; a compiler/rewriter of BHG 950z attributed this text to Irenaeus of Sirmium.71 Joseph the Hymnographer’s project, which consisted of writing canons for every day of the calendar year, might have been officially sponsored by Emperor Basil I.72 It is no surprise; the imperial interest in the divine intercession in earthly matters had had a long trajectory in Byzantium. The use of Joseph’s hymns was potentially extensive. They were recommended for inclusion daily in monastic Typika, such as the eleventh-century Evergetis monastery in Constantinople.73 In this way, their broad audience could hear about saints and relics at the midday of the iconodule victory. However, we do not know about the actual application of this recommendation. It is hard to believe that the Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus appears in only a few eleventh-century manuscripts, such as Sinaiticus gr. 632, dated to the eleventh–twelfth century, and Cryptense Δ.α. XII, dated to the eleventh century. These are two liturgical menaia from the St. Catherine Monastery in Sinai and Grottaferrata Monastery in Italy. The number of manuscripts may be more substantial, but the manuscripts could be unedited and unstudied. Schirò mentions another menaion for August: Sinaiticus gr. 631, dated to the tenth–eleventh century, which also contains a version of the Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus.74 These relatively unknown copies reveal that the canon about the three saints could have been present in a larger number of manuscripts. The Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus promoted the saints’ cult by referring to their relics and miraculous powers. As a medium, it may have pointed out the places that provide healing through saintly intercession or advertised relics in general. However, mentioning the nonextant relics distanced Irenaeus of Sirmium from his original story and the factuality of his corporeal postmortem whereabouts. The Canon confused his historical identity. It threatened and blurred his memory, which provoked further forgetting of the saint. Making a joint sainthood of three The merging of the three saints – Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus – into a single story occurred again in the Greek Martyrdom of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus (BHG 950z). The three saints had appeared in the Canon and the Synaxarion of Constantinople before BHG 950z if we consider the Canon’s dating to the ninth century and the Synaxarion’s to the tenth century. In the Canon, Irenaeus was possibly not Irenaeus of Sirmium but another saint named Irenaeus the Levite. The entry about the three saints in the Synaxarion did not link to Sirmium either. The territorial identity was ascribed to Irenaeus when version BHG 950z was composed and written down in the manuscripts (eleventh–twelfth century). It is when Irenaeus, as the companion of Or and Oropseus, got connected to Sirmium. Besides ascribing to Irenaeus the territorial identity, BHG 950z described him as a victim, using emotional language.

126  Appropriation of the past Such an inclination is present in both BHG 949e and 950z, and it generally characterizes the texts of Imperial Menologia. Version BHG 950z appears in the manuscript Jerusalem Panagiou Taphou 17, an eleventh- to twelfth-century Imperial Menologion (June–August), and several later manuscripts.75 One of them is Athos, Dionys. 83, dated to 1142, the contents of which correspond entirely to Jerusalem Panagiou Taphou 17.76 Nancy Ševčenko listed this manuscript among Imperial Menologia.77 A monk-scribe, Arsenios, left a note at the end of the manuscript about its copying during the reign of John Komnenos in 1137.78 The second copy is the fourteenth-century Athens 1046 which, except for one missing text, is identical to the manuscript Panagiou Taphou 17. The third copy is Jerusalem, St. Crucis No. 16, a sixteenth-century manuscript, which omitted the first seven texts from Panagiou Taphou 17.79 By that time, all the prayers for the emperor were omitted. Such a textual revision is also visible in the thirteenthcentury manuscript Ambrosiana, where the prayer for the emperor is absent. The omission of the prayer turns version BHG 950z into BHG 951. Changing the contents of Imperial Menologia by omitting texts and revising the text by omitting the prayers for the emperor were happening already in the thirteenth century. Geography-wise, the manuscripts containing BHG 950z and 951 appeared only in Palestine, Jerusalem, Athos, and southern Italy. The manuscript Jerusalem Taphou 17 retains the prayers for the emperor at the end of all texts. They differ from text to text, but all bear the same message: they plead to the saints and martyrs to grant an array of earthly benefits to the emperor. In the Martyrdom of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus, the prayer goes as follows: And now, O, wholly marvelous martyrs, that I might turn my speech to you who stand with angels beside the Lord’s throne, may you grant, through your prayerful supplications to God, to our king, gentle and good in every way, a long and calm life, delivered from all foulness, full of divine joy, filled with all good things, and the grace of the kingdom there in Christ our God himself, to whom be glory and power now and always and to the ages of the ages. Amen.80 The manuscript Jerusalem Taphou 17 did not retain the acrostic form at the text’s end. Also, the initial letters forming ΜιχαιλΠ were not highlighted in red.81 In addition, neither Jerusalem Taphou 17 nor the other copies had illuminations. These features imply that Jerusalem Taphou 17 may not have been the original Imperial Menologion but a copy. It was said earlier that the copies of Jerusalem Taphou 17 differed in their order of texts to an extent. It could indicate that copyists of the different manuscripts of Imperial Menologia made different choices of texts and saints, this way not holding tight to the faithful copying of the entire collections. The lack of images could be another argument to show that this manuscript was not the original Imperial Menologion; the same applies to the other Imperial Menologia without

Appropriation of the past 127 images. Additionally, at the end of Jerusalem Taphou 17, an iambic verse reveals that this codex was a gift to a woman for her educational exercises and study pursuits (μελετή).82 This note further supports the idea that the manuscript was not an original Imperial Menologion. Many issues revolving around this Imperial Menologion still need to be solved. The Imperial Menologia are generally considered to be those that have a dedication to Emperor Michael IV. One of the few original Imperial Menologia, Moscow Syn. gr. 183 was commissioned and copied in Constantinople. It is difficult to assume that the rest of the manuscripts forming the entire year of the Imperial Menologion would be produced elsewhere. However, the manuscripts containing BHG 950z originate only from the areas of Jerusalem, Athos, and southern Italy. It further opens the question of textual versions. In case Jerusalem Taphou 17 is not an original manuscript but a Jerusalem copy of an original from Constantinople, it is difficult to explain why BHG 950z has very few connections to BHG 948, provided that it is part of a series of Imperial Menologia for Michael IV, produced in Constantinople, where BHG 948 circulated. Returning to our main question: why was Irenaeus merged with Or and Oropseus in the Byzantine tradition? In other examples, such a grouping of saints from individual saints was generally attested to in Byzantium. Byzantines needed their saintly patrons during wars and turmoil. From the tenth century, an increasing interest in the sacred nature of warfare emerged in Byzantium.83 It inspired a series of emperors to seek their heavenly patrons. Some newly formed saintly groups were gathered to become military saints and offer protection in times of uncertainty. In the view of Arietta Papaconstantinou, ever since their rise during the Arab invasions, military saints were enforcing the integrity of the community, turning the saints into the principal heroes of the communal well-being.84 Their function was, therefore, not only to protect but also to keep coherence and integrity (in support of identity). The saints appealed to both emperors and the masses. They invoked trust and feelings of belonging and unity. Military saints, primarily grouped, were inspirational for the would-be martyrs. “Struggles against the enemies of the empire were to be equated with struggles against the enemies of God; the empire’s soldiers, by extension, with the fighters for Christ.”85 An increased interest in the role of religion in warfare in the Byzantine army, and the relationship of soldiers to martyrs emerging at this time, was notable. A life sacrificed in the army was rewarded in the heavens and crowned with a crown of martyrdom. According to Monica White, during the reign of Leo VI, some individual saints merged into groups to become imperial patrons.86 The corps of heavenly protectors attracted the great attention of the Macedonian emperors.87 The most notable examples were George, Demetrios, and Theodore, who appeared together as a group of military saints in many works of art in the middle and late Byzantine court.88 Constantine VII commissioned an ivory triptych in the Palazzo Venezia in Rome, which features one of the

128  Appropriation of the past earliest depictions of a group of more than two military saints.89 According to Zaharova, the “grouping” of saints could have started already in the ninth century, after the victory over Iconoclasm. The gradual process had several stages of development; the formation of a branched hierarchical system gathering individual images of saints ended only by the eleventh century.90 While the mentioned scholars mainly focused on the works of art where the groups of saints are visually represented, a similar notion may have appeared in calendars and manuscripts. For example, the Synaxarion of Constantinople did not limit the number of saints to commemorate on a specific day. In the Synaxarion, we see plenty of saints, both in groups and individually, commemorated on each day of the year. Unlike in the Synaxarion, the manuscript Jerusalem Taphou 17 contained only one text per day. Possibly, it was more efficient to place saints in groups so that they could deliver their saintly intercession together. Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus would then not be strictly taken as warrior saints who had a specific role in the events, wars, and turmoil but as more general protectors who offered their intercession more intensely in groups than as individuals. However, knowing that the grouping of saints already appeared in the Synaxarion, we can assume it occurred because they were minor saints. Their memory would otherwise have been lost. They could maintain it in groups with other secondary saints. The manuscript Jerusalem Taphou 17 targeted mainly the saintly groups. If we compare its contents with the Synaxarion of Constantinople, the manuscript compilers were, at times, taking the first saints in a row from the daily entry of the Synaxarion. This way, the already formed saintly groups were transferred from the Synaxarion to this manuscript. However, the Jerusalem manuscript sometimes contains hagiographies of saints who are not “the first offers” in the Synaxarion. Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus are commemorated in the Synaxarion on 22 August, while Irenaeus alone is recorded on 23 August. They are not the “first choices” on either of these days, yet they are the subject of a single text on 23 August in Jerusalem 17. Among further examples are the saints Straton, Phillipos and Eutychianos, who suffered in Nicomedia in 303 ce, the characters of the Martyrdom of Straton, Phillipos, and Eutychianos (BHG 1672). This text is copied in Jerusalem 17 on 17 August. In the Synaxarion, these saints are not the first in a row for the day but fourth in line on 17 August.91 St. Bassa and her children appear second on 21 August in the Synaxarion; their hagiography is copied in Jerusalem 17 on 20 August.92 Some further examples of merging saints appear in this manuscript. One of them is Isakios, an abbot in Constantinople during the reign of Valens. Isakios’s feast day is 30 May in the Greek calendar. He was sometimes merged in calendars with his successor, Dalmatos. The two saints were considered the founders of Constantinopolitan monasticism. The Life of Isakios, a monk in Constantinople (BHG 955–956), composed in 383 ce, appeared on 21 March in the Suprasl Codex, which followed the calendar of an earlier Byzantine tradition, possibly from the tenth century. Dalmatos, at times, appeared individually on 6 June. At times, Isakios appeared in calendars with

Appropriation of the past 129 Dalmatos and Faustos, specifically on 3 August in the Greek calendar. They were among those Byzantine saints who were transferred from March to the August calendar, similar to Irenaeus. The three saints are commemorated in the Verse Calendar of Christopher of Mytilene on 3 August and occupied the same date in Jerusalem Taphou 17. The Martyrdom of Anthusa and Athanasios, Harisimos, and Neophitos is another compelling case of merged saints. The Life of Anthusa (BHG 136– 137) appears on 23 August in the manuscripts Vat. gr. 1671 and Paris 241, the two August Menologia mentioned earlier. It moves to 24 August in the manuscripts Vienna, Jerusalem 17, and Ambrosiana. The two BHG versions are, according to this collection, attached to the feast day of 22 August. The Martyrdom of Athanasios (BHG 181–182) appears in the manuscripts Vat. gr. 1671, Paris 241, and Vienna (August Menologia) on 24 August. The Martyrdom of Charisemos and Neophytos (BHG 299) appears in Vat. gr. 1671, Paris 241, and Vienna on 24 August. In the manuscript Jerusalem 17, all four are merged in the Martyrdom of Anthusa and Athanasios, Harisimos, and Neophitos. In the Synaxarion, they appear together on 22 August. The commissioners/composers of the manuscript had their preferences. This menologion for June–August contained around one-third of the texts dedicated to saintly groups. Grouping was a desired model for the manuscript in case, be it military saints, some other general protectors, or simply lesser saints, gathered in groups. If we think of Jerusalem 17 as an Imperial Menologion, where each day covered only a single hagiography, we may think that the saints were merged in groups so that the prayer for the emperor could have had a “greater effect” if three or more saints prayed for the emperor, rather than one saint. Otherwise, the manuscript Jerusalem Taphou 17 could have employed the other versions of the martyrdom of Irenaeus – for example, those where he is alone, without two other saints – which were already composed and available. Interestingly, Or and Oropseus were two saints that merged with a leading saint whenever necessary. In the Slavonic fourteenth-century Stišnijat prolog, we find Or and Oropseus in another saintly group. The calendar commemorates Ilarios, Or, and Oropseus on 17 November.93 If we ponder the identity of Irenaeus of Sirmium in BHG 950z and what happened to him, particularly in light of his memory dissipation and loss, we may blame all the discussed sources for the corresponding consequences. They concern merging Irenaeus with two other saints, his role as a protective saint in a cohort of other saints, his role as a victim described in an emotional way in this text, and, most importantly, the transfer of his identity from the lesser-known Irenaeus the Levite to Irenaeus of Sirmium. Rewriting the identity of a Sirmian martyr The different representations of the late antique martyr Irenaeus distanced him from how he was genuinely described, particularly in connection to some aspects of his early Christian identity and the late antique setting of

130  Appropriation of the past Sirmium. In distancing the main character from his original setting and identity, he acquired new layers of personality and features related to his life and habits, which had relevance for the settings in which the new versions found their place. The various versions of the late antique story about Irenaeus of Sirmium contributed to different perspectives on who St. Irenaeus was. They left some details of his life and martyrdom uncertain. For example, it remained unclear whether the first Christian bishop of Sirmium suffered martyrdom alone or with some other people in a group. Further, they did not define the landscape in which Irenaeus faced his death. Was it a flatland or a mountainous landscape? They left unanswered the question of how much suffering he (and his family) bore during the martyrdom. Finally, the crucial question of the existence of his relics, the extant cult places, and his healing intercession remained open. These features contributed to the supplementary layers of his identity, which changed the original strands in the narrative. These versions distanced themselves from their historical reliability and authenticity – at least the one Hippolyte Delehaye had in mind. At the moment when the narrative acquired new twists and turns in the plot, new characters, and events otherwise unusual, deviating from a historical source, it became a “usable past.” It was used to support the ideas and causes relevant to the given moment, specifically in religious and political contexts. From the perspective of memory, these elements marked the commencement of forgetting. Despite the memory dissipation and loss, such revised texts usually supported the growth of some new collective identities or the consolidation of the old ones. Notes 1 Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting, 448. 2 Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting, 448. 3 Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting, 57. 4 Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting, 412. 5 Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting, 414. 6 See Brooks, “On Creating a Usable Past,” 337–341. 7 D’Aiuto, “Note ai manoscritti,” 191. 8 Ševčenko, “The Imperial Menologia,” 13. 9 Ševčenko, “The Walters ‘Imperial’ Menologion,” 44; D’Aiuto, “Note ai manoscritti,” 190; Ševčenko, “The Imperial Menologia,” 5. 10 Καὶ νῦν σὺν ἀγγέλοις περὶ τὸν θρόνον ὡς ἀρχιερεὺς ὡς μάρτυς στρεφόμενος τὸν δεσποτικὸν. αἴτησαι δωρηθῆναι παρὰ θ[εο]ῦ. βασιλεῖ ἡμῶν τῷ δικαίῳ καὶ φιλαγάθω. καὶ πᾶσιν ἐνσεμνυνομένῳ τοῖς καλοῖς προτερήμασι. Μέθεξιν ζωῆς μακρᾶς καὶ ἀπήμονος. ἰλύος παθῶν ἀλλοτρίωσιν. χρεστῶν ἔργων τὴν καλὴν μετουσίαν. ἀριστευμάτων τὴν κατόρθωσιν πάντων. ἡμέρας ἀνεσπέρου τὸν καλὸν κλῆρον. λαμπρὰν δικαίων καὶ καλὴν ξυναυλίαν. Πάντων ἐφετῶν τὴν ἀκροτάτην δόσιν. καὶ βασιλείας θ[εο]ῦ τὴν κληρουχίαν. ὅτι αὐτῷ πρέπει ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος. νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ. καὶ εἰς τοῦς αἰώνας τῶν αἰώνων. ἀμήν. 11 Not all the manuscripts display all the capital letters in the acrostic. In some, the acrostic is not readily apparent at first glance. Nersessian, “Московский Менологий,” 95.

Appropriation of the past 131 12 Ševčenko, “The Walters ‘Imperial’ Menologion,” 44; D’Aiuto, “Un ramo italogreco,” 145–174; D’Aiuto, “Note ai manoscritti,” 189–228; Detorakis, “Ἡ χρονολόγηση,” 46–50. 13 Halkin and Ehrhard attributed it to the reign of Michael IV. Halkin assumed that Michael Paphlagonian drafted the Menologion based on an earlier model with the same texts. Halkin, “Le mois de Janvier,” 230; Constantinides Hero, “An Anonymous Narrative,” 414–415. 14 Ševčenko, Illustrated Manuscripts, 190. 15 Ehrhard, Überlieferung III, 405. 16 After the publication of Detorakis’s article, Ševčenko expressed her concern that Michael IV was not commonly called Paphlagonian in the official documents. Ševčenko, “The Walters ‘Imperial’ Menologion,” 58; Ševčenko, “The Imperial Menologia,” 7–8. 17 Detorakis assumed that the acrostic did not refer to the Menologion’s imperial patron. He interpreted the acrostic as a clue to the anonymous author’s identity. Detorakis, “Ἡ χρονολόγηση,” 46–50; Constantinides Hero, “An Anonymous Narrative,” 415. For the argument about Keroularios, see Ševčenko, “The Imperial Menologia,” 8. 18 D’Aiuto based the argument on a monogram written repeatedly in Moscow Syn. 183 and in some other manuscripts of a later date, which did not signify the name of the original dedicatee or the commissioner (because such a monogram was identified in three other manuscripts), but the later possible owner of the manuscript, Manuel Angelos (λογαριαστής τῆς αὐλῆς), who lived around the end of the thirteenth century. In D’Aiuto’s view, Π should not be read as Paphlagonian. He suggested that this letter has some magical numerological significance. The collection, however, has some other strong ties to Michael IV, and it was dedicated to him. D’Aiuto, “Note ai manoscritti,” 194–213; D’Aiuto, “Un ramo italogreco,” 145–174; Ševčenko, “The Imperial Menologia,” II, 8–10. 19 D’Aiuto, “Nuovi elementi,” 715, 737–738; Ševčenko, “The Imperial Menologia,” 15. 20 Ševčenko, “The Walters ‘Imperial’ Menologion,” 44. 21 N. Ševčenko argues: “Where there was no Metaphrastian text to adapt, an author of the collection turned to other known hagiographical sources; in a couple of cases, he may have relied on originals that are now lost or have composed a life just for this collection. Høgel confirmed that Imperial Menologia depended on Metaphrastic Menologia. Ševčenko, “The Imperial Menologia,” 1–4; Høgel, “Hagiography under the Macedonians,” 227. 22 Ševčenko, “The Imperial Menologia,” 1–4. 23 Latyšev, Menologii anonymi, IV. 24 The illuminations of the Imperial Menologion Moscow Syn. 183 could reconstruct the illuminations of the nonextant summer part of Basil II’s Menologion (if a summer part existed), knowing that Basil’s Menologion contains only the winter part of the calendar year. N. Ševčenko had the same idea. D’Aiuto, “Note ai manoscritti,” 194; Ševčenko, “The Imperial Menologia,” 16; Høgel, Symeon Metaphrastes, 151. 25 Ševčenko, “The Walters ‘Imperial’ Menologion,” 44. 26 Latyšev, Menologii anonymi, IV; Nersessian, “Московский Менологий,” 94–111. 27 Ehrhard, Überlieferung III, 589–593; Ševčenko, “The Walters ‘Imperial’ Menologion,” 44–45; 62, n. 21; D’Aiuto, “Un ramo italogreco,” 148–149; D’Aiuto, “Note ai manoscritti,” 191–194. The complete list of manuscripts of Imperial Menologia is in Ševčenko, “The Imperial Menologia,” 4, n. 5; 5–6. 28 Zakharova, “Miniatures of the Imperial Menologia,” 131–153; Ševčenko, “The Imperial Menologia,” 10. 29 Zakharova, “Miniatures of the Imperial Menologia,” 30; Ševčenko, “The Imperial Menologia,” 15.

132  Appropriation of the past 30 Nine other manuscripts of this kind are known: Athos, Kutlumus 23, twelfth century (February–March, some of April–May), Athens, B. N. gr. 982, 1599 (February–May), Athos, Protaton 47, dated 1598 (February–May), Patmos 736, fourteenth century, (March), Athos, Dionisiou 83, 1142 (June–August), Athens, B. N. gr. 1046, fourteenth century (June–August), Jerusalem, Greek Patriarchate Stavrou 16, sixteenth century (June–August), Walters Menologion 521, Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, eleventh century (January), Benaki fragment (February, and one text from December). Ševčenko, “The Walters ‘Imperial’ Menologion,” 44; 62, n. 20; Ševčenko, Illustrated Manuscripts; Halkin, “Le mois de Janvier;” D’Aiuto, “Un ramo italogreco,” 145–174. 31 D’Aiuto, “Un ramo italogreco,” 148. 32 D’Aiuto, “Un ramo italogreco,” 152. 33 N. Ševčenko also noticed a large number of mountain peaks painted in the Imperial Menologia. Ševčenko, “The Imperial Menologia,” 19. 34 Similarly, Nancy Ševčenko attested that the images in the Imperial Menologia (she discussed the Walters Menologion) were not illustrations of the narrative texts but painted invocations. Ševčenko, “The Walters ‘Imperial’ Menologion,” 43. 35 Kaldellis, Streams of Gold, 165–167. 36 According to Skylitzes. See Kaldellis, Streams of Gold, 168. 37 Kaldellis, Streams of Gold, 168–175. 38 Lascaratos and Zis, “The Epilepsy of Emperor Michael IV,” 913–917. 39 Lascaratos and Zis, “The Epilepsy of Emperor Michael IV,” 913–914. 40 Lascaratos and Zis, “The Epilepsy of Emperor Michael IV,” 916. 41 Kaldellis, Streams of Gold, 166. 42 Ševčenko, “The Imperial Menologia,” 9. 43 Ševčenko, “The Imperial Menologia,” 9–10. 44 Ševčenko, “The Imperial Menologia,” 15. 45 See Halkin, “Le mois de Janvier,” 230. 46 Vuković, Martyr Memories, 106. 47 Borić, “Introduction,” 4; Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting, 71. 48 Detorakis argued that the word “Agarene,” used in the prayers for the emperor, points out to the emperor’s enemies, making sense in the context of the Arab campaigns in the tenth century. D’Aiuto demonstrated that “Agarene” are not exclusively the enemies of the empire, but they could be generic expressions to designate other peoples, such as Seljuks. Ševčenko, “The Imperial Menologia,” 8–9; D’Aiuto, Nuovi elementi, 722–725; Detorakis, “Ἡ χρονολόγηση,” 49–50. 49 Moss, The Myth of Persecution, 8. 50 White, Military Saints, 92. 51 Schirò, Analecta hymnica graeca, 522. 52 Λαμπρᾶς σὺ τῆς θυμηδίας ἔπλησας τῶν εὐσεβούντων λαοὺς τῇ τοῦ πανσέπτου σώματός σου νῦν φανερώσει, θεόληπτε, . . . . The translations of the Canon are mine. 53 Θαυμάτων παρὰ Θεοῦ δρεψάμενος τὴν χάριν, ἅγιε, τοῖς προσφοιτῶσι πόθῳ τῇ σορῷ τῶν τιμίων λειψάνων σου ῥῶσιν ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἀφθόνως νέμοις, ἱερώτατε. 54 Schirò, Analecta hymnica graeca, 522: Πάσχοντα τὸν παῖδα καὶ τῷ σῷ προσκαρτεροῦντα ναῷ ἰάσω τάχιστα

Appropriation of the past 133 τοῦ καταβάλλοντος δαίμονος, δι᾿ αὐτοῦ δέ, Εἰρηναῖε σοφέ, τὴν κεκρυμμένην σου σορὸν νῦν ἀνευράμενοι, μελῳδοῦμεν. 55 Ševčenko, “Canon and Calendar,” I, 104–105. 56 Tomadakes, Ἰωσὴφ, 83–88; Szövérffy, A Guide, 160. 57 Ševčenko, “Canon and Calendar,” 106. 58 See also Stiernon, “La vie et l’œuvre,” 244. 59 Nikiforova, “The Historical Development.” 60 Crone, “Islam, Judeo-Christianity and Byzantine Iconoclasm,” 63. 61 Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, 39. For the straightforward attitudes of the Byzantine iconoclast emperors towards relics, see Kodoñer, “Melkites and Icon Worship,” 171, n. 215. 62 Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, 40. 63 Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, 40. 64 Ševčenko, “Canon and Calendar,” 107. 65 Ševčenko, “Canon and Calendar,” 107. 66 Ševčenko, “Canon and Calendar,” 106. 67 Schirò, Analecta hymnica graeca, 521. 68 Schirò, Analecta hymnica graeca, 522. 69 Schirò, Analecta hymnica graeca, 523. 70 Schirò, Analecta hymnica graeca, 521–522. 71 Schirò, Analecta hymnica graeca, 521. 72 See Ševčenko, “Canon and Calendar,” I, 113–114. 73 Ševčenko, “Canon and Calendar,” 105. See note 10 for a more extensive bibliography. 74 Schirò, Analecta hymnica graeca, 523. 75 Ševčenko, “The Walters ‘Imperial’ Menologion,” 62, n. 20; Detorakis, “Ἡ χρονολογήση,” 46; D’Aiuto, “Un ramo italogreco’,” 164; Ehrhard, Überlieferung III, 355. 76 See Ehrhard, Überlieferung III, 360. 77 Eight other manuscripts of this kind are known to date, and the ninth manuscript is a fragment: Athos, Kutlumus 23, twelfth century (February–March, some of April–May), Athens, B. N. gr. 982, 1599 (February–May), Athos, Protaton 47, 1598 (February–May), Patmos 736, fourteenth century, (March), Athos, Dionisiou 83, 1142 (June–August), Athens, B. N. gr. 1046, fourteenth century (June–August), Jerusalem, Greek Patriarchate Stavrou 16, sixteenth century (June–August), Walters Menologion 521, Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, eleventh century (January), Benaki fragment (February, and one text from December). Ševčenko, “The Walters ‘Imperial’ Menologion,” 44; 62, n. 20; Ševčenko, Illustrated Manuscripts; Halkin, “Le mois de Janvier;” D’Aiuto, “Un ramo italogreco,” 145–174. 78 Lambros, Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts, 327. 79 Papadopoulos-Kerameus, ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛΥΜΙΤΙΚΗ ΒΙΒΛΙΟΘΗΚΗ III, 39–45. 80 Καὶ νῦν ὧ πανθαύμαστοι μάρτυρες ἵνα πρὸς ὑμᾶς τὸν λόγον ποιήσω. τῷ δεσποτικῷ σὺν ἀγγέλοις παριστάμενοι θρόνῳ; νέμοιτε ταῖς εὐκτικαῖς ὑμῶν εἰς Θεὸν ἰκεσίαις βασιλεῖ ἡμῶν τῷ πράῳ καὶ τὰ πάντα καλῷ μακρὰν τὴν ζωὴν καὶ γαλήνιον. ἰλύος πάσης ἀπηλλαγμένην. χάριτος θείας πεπληρωμένην. πάντων ἀγαθῶν μεμεστωμένην καὶ τῆς ἐκεῖθεν βασιλείας τὴν χάριν ἐν αὐτῷ Χριστῷ τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν ᾧ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. ἀμήν. 81 Panagios Taphos 17. Menaion June-Aug. 11th cent. 242 f. Pg. 47 ft. 11th Cent, 1000.

134  Appropriation of the past 2 Papadopoulos-Kerameos, ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛΥΜΙΤΙΚΗ ΒΙΒΛΙΟΘΗΚΗ I, 69. 8 83 White, Military Saints, 31. 84 Papaconstantinou, “Saints and Saracens,” 335–336. 85 White, Military Saints, 33. 86 White, Military Saints, 65. 87 White, Military Saints, 26. 88 White, Military Saints, 13. 89 White, Military Saints, 78; Oikonomidès, “The Concept of ‘Holy War’,” 75–77. 90 Zakharova, “Principles of Grouping the Images,” 114–115. 91 Delehaye, Synaxarion, 906. 92 Delehaye, Synaxarion, 911. 93 Petkov, Stišnijat prolog.

7 Epilogue Memory of Irenaeus in Sremska Mitrovica today

In the place of ancient Sirmium, one finds two towns today: Sremska Mitrovica and Mačvanska Mitrovica. Once among the most important cities of the later Roman Empire, Sirmium is now a medium-sized town: 37,586 citizens inhabit Sremska Mitrovica, and 3,873 citizens inhabit Mačvanska Mitrovica.1 The river Sava creates a natural dividing line between the two towns. Although it was a border many times in the past, Sava currently does not divide the two towns administratively. Mačvanska Mitrovica belongs to the municipality of Sremska Mitrovica and the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, which makes it the only inhabited place across the river Sava that belongs to Vojvodina (see Figure 7.1). I visited Sremska Mitrovica in 2010, anticipating that no community or group of people elsewhere in the world would remember Irenaeus more vividly than the community of this town, which is geographically located in the same place as ancient Sirmium. The assumption seems unreasonable when considering historical discontinuity, various layers of the past, many centuries in between, migrations, and wars. Despite what has transpired over time, forgetting, and historical and political changes, the memory of Irenaeus in Sremska Mitrovica has yet persevered. Several newly built objects honoring Irenaeus emerged in Sremska Mitrovica in the 1990s. Remembering was embodied through the public monuments: a bridge across the river Sava named after Irenaeus that connects Sremska and Mačvanska Mitrovica, a newly built church dedicated to the martyrs of Sirmium (Irenaeus among them), and a street of the town renamed after Irenaeus. Thinking of remembering in general, one presupposes a collective action, testifying to the will and wish of a community to choose and organize its representations of the past. Remembering usually contains many layers of intention: social, political, and institutional. They support and approve the introduction of the elements of the past into the public domain.2 Remembering is usually selective; groups select from the past and construct the past selectively. National identities are “imagined” through a combination of remembering and forgetting.3 Some details of the past are lost forever, while others are subjects of accurate reproduction and promotion. In the collective memory, the crucial question is who wants people to remember something DOI: 10.4324/9780429201578-7

136  Epilogue

Figure 7.1 Mačvanska Mitrovica (Vojvodina) and Mačva (Central Serbia). Source: PANNONIAN, Wikimedia Commons.

and why.4 Who directs remembering? Political institutions play a decisive role in choosing the elements of the past to be reproduced. State representatives instrumentalize, organize, and direct remembering. The memory of Irenaeus in this town is linked not to continuity but resurgence, “forgetting that preserves.” Memory is usually textually or orally mediated when not directly linked to the events in question. Reemerging of memory here occurs thanks to the mediators between the mediated memory (through texts) and the population. How does the collective memory influence ordinary people when connected to the bodies of power and reflecting the politics of memory? In Sremska Mitrovica, remembering emerged through several public monuments connected to Irenaeus. All of a sudden, people began recalling Irenaeus’s name again.

Epilogue 137 Irenaeus’s bridge in Sremska Mitrovica No buildings emerge by accident or disconnected from human society and the needs, wishes, and customs of the same society.5 Ivo Andrić, a Yugoslav novelist and Nobel Prize winner, once wrote that buildings and people are inextricably linked. We can say the same about the long and elegant bridge which connects the two Mitrovicas. The local community needed the bridge, which shortened the route from Mačvanska Mitrovica to the center of Sremska Mitrovica. The bridge’s construction resulted from endless petitions and protests. Even when the building commenced, the continuation of the work was unpredictable. Much political rhetoric was involved in the construction of the bridge. The state politicians promised to continue building the bridge every time financial problems appeared, especially when the building finalization was pending. Much mythology was tangled up around the bridge. The bridge was named after Irenaeus. People on the committee in charge were aware of the late antique story about Irenaeus’s martyrdom, recalling the bridge of Artemis from the Greek martyrdom and the pons Basentis from the Latin martyrdom. Who was the initiator of the idea? The bridge was built between 1990 and 1993, during years of turbulence and uncertainty. The disintegration of the former Yugoslavia took place at the time. The Yugoslav National Army (JNA) was involved in the military operations in the Republics of Bosnia and Croatia; a part of the civil population was also recruited. At the same time, many refugees (mainly of Serbian origin) from the Republics of Bosnia and Croatia were arriving in Serbia daily. Consequently, nationalism gained ground as the dominant ideology of the Serbian government. The triumph of Slobodan Milošević in the political scene and the rise of Serbian nationalism received strong support from the Serbian Orthodox Church.6 It was nationalism that acted upon the social reproduction of the collective memory. In a chaotic manner and imbued with uncertainty, the collective memory in Serbia was reconstructed through public monuments. This process was not unusual: contemporary nation–states commonly construct their sense of the past through various public rituals, monuments, and exhibits.7 Once the bridge was built, the church authorities consecrated and opened it on 28 June 1994, on Vidovdan (St. Vid’s Day). Vidovdan has been an important religious feast in the calendar of the Serbian Orthodox Church. It is the date of the Battle of Kosovo in 1389. Today, people remember the Battle of Kosovo mythologically and commemorate the date with grand celebrations – if not as a great victory, then at least as a date of great suffering. The symbolism of the date was confused with the religious connotation of the bridge’s name. Irenaeus was historically not related to the Serbs but only to the geographical place of Sremska Mitrovica, while the Battle of Kosovo took place far away from Sremska Mitrovica. However, the opening of the bridge named after Irenaeus on St. Vid’s day served as an apt metaphor to merge several episodes of past suffering and combine them with moments of glory.

138  Epilogue

Figure 7.2 The bridge of Irenaeus viewed from the Sremska Mitrovica side. Photo by the author, April 2010.

Epilogue 139 Who was in charge of naming the bridge? The collection of essays titled Bridge “Saint Irenaeus,” published in 2000, does not say anything about its name.8 The Official Bulletin published in 1993 (Službeni list opština Srema) registered the decision regarding the name of the bridge, signed by the president of the municipality, Slobodan Prodanović, a member of the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS).9 The SPS, whose president was Slobodan Milošević, was in power in the municipality of Sremska Mitrovica, as well as in most of the country in 1993. On one of the initial pages of Bridge “Saint Irenaeus,” a photo shows Slobodan Milošević on the Bridge of Irenaeus, with the caption: “Among the First Ones on the Bridge.”10 He gave the following speech on this occasion: “I am glad I am here today in the heart of Srem. Srem made a huge contribution to the unity of Serbia and was the first to break up with the politics of autonomy, which was dividing Serbia.”11 Milošević used the bridge metaphor to link the two administratively distinct regions. The bridge symbolized the connection between Sremska and Mačvanska Mitrovica, Srem and Mačva, and Vojvodina and Serbia. Milošević firmly stood against the politics of autonomy. He fought it for economic and political reasons but also due to the creeping threats from Kosovo regarding their demands for autonomy. Milošević stood against any autonomy within the Republic of Serbia and hoped to abolish Kosovo’s autonomy. In this sense, the bridge connecting the two regions divided by the river was a perfect metaphor for the abolishment. During the opening of the bridge, followed by the splendid celebration, Aleksa Jokić, the minister of transport in the government of Serbia at the time, confirmed the government’s convictions regarding the abolishment of autonomy, saying that “now there are no obstacles between Srem and Mačva, nor there will ever be again.”12 The bond established by the bridge symbolically annihilated any potential autonomy. Dimitrije Stojšić, a political candidate during the local elections campaign in 1990, wrote in the Bridge “Saint Irenaeus:” If we dive into the river Sava, we can see the remnants of ancient history and the traces of the first bridge, where the great martyr Irenaeus sacrificed his life for the faith and from where he went into sainthood and legend. We can see and be proud of the idea behind his sacrifice – the one who has faith will win. We carried out this idea with dignity by writing a new history of this young bridge while standing unarmed on it and many other bridges of this country, which American and NATO vultures bombed. We were ready to sacrifice ourselves to their bombs because of our faith, knowing that Irenaeus’s death overpowered his persecutors.13 During the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999, when bridges were among the most critical strategic targets, people used to “defend the bridges” by standing on them during air raids. This symbolic practice was widely spread. The parallels to the ancient martyr who died on the bridge were easy to draw in these potentially life-threatening situations. The metaphorical analogy was

140  Epilogue naturally not used immediately, but some time later and through novelistic and journalistic writings. The existence of the bridge, particularly the bridge bearing the name of the ancient martyr, provided a metaphor for the political elite. The bridge was a powerful symbol in the 1990s when Slobodan Milošević used the rhetoric of the abolition of autonomy during his visit to the bridge. It was even more significant in 1999 when people stood on the bridges all over Serbia during the air raids in the NATO bombing. People were exposing themselves in the act of sacrifice, ready to drop down together with bridges. It was the same with this bridge as with many other bridges in Serbia. The link to the ancient martyr, beheaded and thrown from the bridge into the river, was palpable; people commiserated with the martyr all over again. Irenaeus’s street At the end of 1992, the municipality officials of Sremska Mitrovica decided to change a number of street names. The Committee for Naming the Streets and Squares had to rename the streets. Slobodan Prodanović yet again put his signature and a stamp on this decision. The names of thirty-nine streets and squares were changed. Before 1992, Sremska Mitrovica had at least half of the streets bearing names related to the World War II partisan past. This decision was part of a more massive project. It was a way to break up with the Communist partisan past, to which the earlier names testified. In the eye of the beholder, the earlier names were no longer considered a suitable past fit for maintaining the coherent group identity.14 The collective memory had to go in a different direction. The streets named Maršal Tito, Sonja Marinković, Pinki, and Ivo Lola Ribar became streets named after Ćira Milekić, Vuk Karadžić, Nikola Pašić. The committee chose to name the streets after prominent individuals of the Serbian national early modern past, prominent local citizens, local toponyms, prominent Christian Roman emperors, but also Roman gods, like Jupiter. Irenaeus was one of the new names used for the streets. The attachment to the nation, locus, and the Serbian national past swept away the Communist Yugoslav past in this way. This change was a suitable way to implement new forms of grandeur in a growing national community with a heightened sensibility to its history and concern about its place in the world.15 The deliberate selectivity articulated through the specific figures was part of a general idea of convoking the heroes that “belong to us.” The Official Bulletin specified that the committee consisted of politicians, local citizens, and prominent cultural and public figures, that is, the literati of the contemporary community.16 The members of the committee were Petar Milošević, Radomir Prica, Dragan Popović, and Bora Čekerinac. The specialists handled the work while the official political bodies monitored the process. Expert knowledge was used as a critical resource for restructuring the changing present.17 Materializing the greatness and making history palpable by projecting its glory to everyday life occurred in Sremska Mitrovica through the renaming of the streets. The new names were linked to the current nationalistic ideas

Epilogue 141

Figure 7.3  The street of Irenaeus in Sremska Mitrovica. Photo by the author, April 2010.

and “our own” heroes. Irenaeus emerged yet again as part of the broader plan because someone realized that his name could also support such ideas. The memory of Irenaeus and many other figures would resurface after some time if a need arose. Resurfacing was usually politically fueled. The use of historical records was political. National histories generally provide a population with heroes, monuments, and other evidence for the existence of a national identity through the ages.18 Modern nations get involved in constructing national myths, which help maintain people’s sense of belonging to an “imagined community.”19 Here again, Irenaeus emerged as an “appropriated” hero in the new circumstances and contexts. The Church of the martyrs of Sirmium The church dedicated to the martyrs of Sirmium is built in a part of the town of Sremska Mitrovica which the archpriest Djordje Blagojević called “Small Bosnia.” People occasionally call the church by the same name. According to a church janitor, the name “Small Bosnia” appeared because people who migrated from Bosnia inhabited the area. They are the “colonizers” from the late 1940s after World War II and the refugees of the war in Bosnia in the 1990s.20 The church was built between 1994 and 1998. It encompasses Irenaeus among the other Sirmian martyrs: Serenus/Sinerotes, Demetrius, and Anastasia. Who was in charge of naming the church? The archpriest Blagojević and the church janitor agreed that a bishop gave the name to the church. The janitor mentioned that the citizens wished to have a church in this part of the town, closer to their homes; they then started an initiative for its building. The church in the town center dedicated to St. Demetrius was too distant from their homes.21 Continuing his story about “Small Bosnia,” the archpriest said that the church was named after the martyrs of Sirmium because people started associating the old martyrs with the “new martyrs,” the victims of the wars

142  Epilogue

Figure 7.4  The Church of the Sirmian martyrs. Photo by the author, April 2010.

during the 1990s, sympathizing, and identifying with them. The link was established mainly because many of these people were refugees. Therefore, the parallels with the earlier martyrs were easy to draw. The old martyrdoms explained the new martyrdoms. At the beginning of the 1990s, martyrdom and victimization became the dominant subjects of the Serbian nationalistic rhetoric in politics and the church discourse.22

Epilogue 143

Figure 7.5  The Icon of St. Irenaeus of Sirmium. Photo by the author, April 2010.

144  Epilogue According to the archpriest, there was a concentration camp in this part of the town during World War II. He was unsure whether this detail influenced the church’s building in this particular location, but he made the parallels, nevertheless. The concentration camps in this place, in fact, have a long trajectory. During World War II, Srem belonged to the Independent State of Croatia, collaborators with Nazi Germany. They had a concentration camp in Sremska Mitrovica for Serbs, Roma, and Jews. After the war, from 1945 to 1947, the new communist government organized the concentration camp “Svilara” in Sremska Mitrovica for the Danubian Germans who had lived in Vojvodina before the war. During the disintegration wars of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the camp in Sremska Mitrovica was used for the Croat prisoners imprisoned by the Serbian army.23 Despite the long martyrladen history of the place, its current inhabitants tend to associate, naturally, only with those past victims with whom they feel they belong together. Until next time Commemoration usually functions in a way that involves reconstructing pieces of information from the past rather than accurately recalling the events. People are usually good at summing up the gist of what happened. This process involves selectively using and often distorting or deleting pieces of information that do not contribute to the overall picture they reconstruct.24 When the memory of Irenaeus resurfaced in the local community of Sremska Mitrovica and the minds of ordinary people, inhabitants of the country tended to link many new martyrs to the old martyrs by the same idea: death for a cause. The “new martyrs” were the Serbian victims of the wars in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. The “new martyrs” was an easy metaphor for political rhetoric. The martyr became a tool apt to invoke new, nationalistic ideas and grandeur and help construct a new identity. Irenaeus and his commemoration became tools in a political context. An example of using the ancient martyr in contemporary (political) discourse occurred in the town of Sremska Mitrovica, Serbia. In the 1990s in Serbia, in circumstances connected to the changing and rebuilding of a new identity during turbulent times, an ancient martyr again served as a powerful tool in the hands of leaders to remind people of the old victims, the old martyrs, and link them to the new martyrs to whom the local community was attached. Recalling the victims was a warning and reminder that such victimization must not be repeated in the future. Several features appeared in the 1990s to support community remembering. But in the minds of ordinary people, these features were present only partially. People in Sremska Mitrovica remembered only a few general facts about Irenaeus. Besides his position in the church, the most prominent details were the bridge from which he was thrown into the river and his martyrdom by beheading on the bridge. These topoi were relevant for the current society. Indeed, those who live on Irenaeus’s street know his name. The parishioners

Epilogue 145 who celebrate the feast day of the martyrs of Sirmium know of Irenaeus. The decision to name the bridge and the street after the saint in 1992–1993 improved his memory. However, the more important question is how people remember Irenaeus in the local community. Locals genuinely do not perceive his origin as something different from their own background. His Christian beliefs and origin from Sirmium were the topoi to remember, while his Roman citizenship and Greek name were not acknowledged. In this way, he has gotten a new identity. Remembering always presupposes a distance, a separation that the group experiences between itself and the event from the past.25 Though well aware of the time distance, people still tend to embrace heroes and characters, if a situation requires, even if heroes themselves are not what they are taken for. Once the places of history are connected to the current state’s physical and political geography, the landmarks of national territory become holy, and the heroes once foreign become “our own.” Notes 1 The population estimate was according to the census in 2011. See Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, 2011 Census of Population, 29–30. 2 Byford, Potiskivanje i poricanje antisemitizma, 49. 3 Anderson, Imagined Communities, 187–206; Beiner, Forgetful Remembrance, 25. 4 Burke, “History as Social Memory,” 97–113, 107. 5 Andrić, Na Drini ćuprija, 19. 6 Byford, Potiskivanje i poricanje antisemitizma, 54. 7 Roudometof, Collective Memory, 7. 8 Milovanović and Terzić, Most “Sveti Irinej.” 9 Službeni list opština Srema 3 (XXIII), 81. 10 Milovanović and Terzić, Most “Sveti Irinej,” 3. 11 Milovanović and Terzić, Most “Sveti Irinej,” 3. 12 Milovanović and Terzić, Most “Sveti Irinej,” 166. 13 Milovanović and Terzić, Most “Sveti Irinej,” 71. 14 Wertsch, Voices of Collective Remembering, 31. 15 Valtchinova, “Reinventing the Past,” 159. 16 Službeni list opština Srema 4 (1993), 126–128; Službeni list opština Srema 7 (1993), 293. 17 Valtchinova, “Reinventing the Past,” 160. 18 Roudometof, Collective Memory, 9–10. 19 Roudometof, Collective Memory, 7. 20 The “colonization” and the agrarian reform were carried out in Yugoslavia after 1945 by the communist government. The population from Bosnia and Montenegro was relocated to Vojvodina, and they were given houses and land. 21 St. Demetrius is the major saint in Sremska Mitrovica. The town bears the name of this saint. See Vuković, “Using an Ancient Saint,” 16–24. 22 Byford, Potiskivanje i poricanje antisemitizma, 71–72. 23 Apro, “Homeland Frontline;” Stojanović, “Report Details Croatian War Captives’ Imprisonment.” 24 Wertsch, Voices of Collective Remembering, 8. 25 Wertsch, Voices of Collective Remembering, 46.

8 Afterword

I still clearly remember the early spring day and evening of 24 March 1999. I was a student in my senior year at the University of Belgrade. However, the semester did not begin well. For some time, through media and conversations with professors, other students, and people around me, I heard about a likely NATO intervention in the territory of what was then the Republic of Yugoslavia. The channels to supply reliable information about crucial issues were not readily accessible in those days. Because decades divide us from that moment, one may find it challenging to visualize the everyday life of ordinary people who do not have the internet, online news, googling, or social networks. The NATO alliance intended to launch the bombing of the Republic of Yugoslavia to stop a humanitarian catastrophe and the persecution of Albanians in Kosovo carried out by the Serbian police and the Yugoslav army. The rounds of dialogue with the government of Yugoslavia did not resolve in a meaningful solution either. On the evening of 23 March, the fear became almost palpable. The panic started spreading in Belgrade. People poured into stores to buy food and stock up on supplies, and they inquired where to evacuate during the possible air raids. Many left the capital searching for less targeted places with less strategic and military importance. In my student dormitory, the sole subject students talked about was war. However, the evening passed without bombing commencing. In the face of a realistic threat, I resolved to travel home on the morning of 24 March. Who would desire to remain in Belgrade anyway? I reasoned that, as the capital, it undoubtedly would be affected. Large city areas are the central targets of destruction and devastation in wars; disrupting the usual complex infrastructure of the cities commonly causes major ruptures in everyday living. I thought that the university would close in the case of the commencement of military operations. My family lived towards the country’s north, in an area that I expected would be less affected. In my conceivably last opportunity to catch a bus or another transport, I scurried home during the morning hours. However, my family and friends stared at me when I reached home. They wondered why I left the university in the middle of a semester. The bombing will start today, I said. No chance, they replied. The reader of these lines DOI: 10.4324/9780429201578-8

Afterword 147 may now better comprehend the exact level of cluelessness in 1999 Serbia. It seems almost inconceivable to picture the circumstances in which the sole source of information was the government’s media, controlled by the leading party, in the light of how the world functions today. The media’s defensive, pugnacious, and victimizing rhetoric did not quite correspond with the people’s growing fear and confusion. As I idled my day without a precise goal, waiting for the bombing that might not ensue, I arranged to visit my newly wedded cousin in the evening. We planned to watch our favorite TV show that would be released during the evening hours. While we sat and watched, the program abruptly got interrupted before it ended. A movie was released in the middle of the show. And it was not just any movie, but The Battle of Kosovo, the Serbian masterpiece. First released in 1989 (600 years after the actual battle), the movie covers the events around the well-known event, which occurred on 28 June 1389 at Kosovo Polje. An army of Serbian Prince Lazar fought the advancing Ottoman forces of Sultan Murad. Although weaker, the army of Prince Lazar took the challenge to fight against the advancing Sultan Murad’s forces, which intended to conquer Serbia on their way to Europe. The army gathered around several Serbian lords and recruited everyone fit for the brigade to join the battle. The Serbian lords met around the dinner table the evening before the battle in a biblical-like moment resembling the Last Supper. The movie treats the motives of unity, betrayal, courage, and sacrifice. Needless to say, the majority of the main characters in the movie suffered a martyr-like death in the battle. Not entirely relying upon the historical record, this event has remained in the social memory as the decisive moment when Serbia fell under Ottoman rule, where Serbia stayed for the next several centuries. We knew The Battle of Kosovo movie by heart. We watched it numerous times during childhood, not because it was our favorite film. Usually, there was nothing better to watch on the few existing channels on TV. However, as an acclaimed masterpiece, it reserved its right to be released on the state’s media every now and then. What was the reason behind broadcasting it at that point, in the middle of another program? It dawned on us at that moment: the bombing would begin. We were convinced, but how? Unfortunately, we were right: the first air-raid alarms started half an hour later. When I reflect today on that episode from the past, I realize that we were sent a metaphorical message in the form of a well-known narrative. We faced the bare truth without straightforward breaking news or further explanations. The account containing the statement of the past suffering and defeat was an apt medium for a quick explanation of the current situation. It may have raised people’s morale and even awakened the desire to defy the enemy. The potential to use these past moments of disaster packed in movie form was enormous in the given situation. The past suffering elaborated in the Battle of Kosovo found its way into the contemporary domain to meet the current needs and trigger specific feelings.

148  Afterword When reappropriated, the past experiences its renewed relevance. It is “forgetting that preserves.” The secondary remembrance evolves into a usable past. Transformed but preserved stories reemerge to revivify the past sentiments, bring cohesion, consolidate group identity, and reiterate the sense of belonging. They are influential instruments of the power structures that direct the collective memory. The tales about Christian martyrdom were an apt medium for such appeals among the Christians who followed. Based on their potential to specifically target their heroes’ sacrifice, their reappropriation was carried out throughout the Middle Ages. Candida Moss claimed that Christians returned to the early Church’s martyrs for consolation and inspiration whenever they felt threatened.1 Martyrs as characters in hagiographical stories were valued and sought after, especially in times of turmoil. This notion was even more indicative when an outside enemy, real or imagined, was involved. The turmoil caused by external foes could instigate the consolidation of inner strengths. This mechanism proved to work well in the Middle Ages and today. The martyrs, particularly the early ones, inevitably become the most compelling symbols of the worst of times in a country or a society. However, besides the stories that functioned as usable past, the surplus stories existed, too. Some martyrs and saints, along with their life and death tales, lost their initial appeal as their number multiplied from late antiquity to the Middle Ages. One story, among many others, about a martyr who suffered and sacrificed his life for faith did not necessarily add much to the wellknown early Christian narrative in specific medieval Christian communities. In its multiple versions, the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium complied with both ends: it served as a usable past when needed, and it ended as an excess when it was no longer considered usable. Many versions of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium did not reflect the features specific to the particular Christian communities in which they were stored. Their form and structure reflected different phases of the textual metaphrasis but did not inform about the groups and communities that used them. Their generic use led to their neglect and forgetting. Let us consider the premise of Nietzsche from the opening of this book: only that which does not stop hurting perdures in memory. Irenaeus’s martyrdom was analogously forgotten among medieval Christians once his story stopped hurting them. Note 1 Moss, The Myth of Persecution, 8.

Appendix Selected textual versions of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium

Venice, Marcianus gr. 360, ff. 395r-398v (BHG 948) ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΟΝ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΙΟΥ ΜΑΡΤΥΡΟΣ ΕΙΡΗΝΑΙΟΥ

Ὅτʼ ἂν τις τρόποις ἀγαθοῖς εὐσεβὴς, συνασκηθῆ τῶν κρειττόνων ἐφιέμενος.1 καὶ φόβο[ν] θ[εο]ῦ προσλάβηται. τότε πάντων ἀθρόως τῶν ἐν τῷδε τῷ βίῳ, καταφρονήσας. πρὸς τῶν ἐπηγγελμένων ἀγαθῶν τὴν ἀπόλαυσιν ἐπείγεται. καὶ ἄπερ διὰ τῆς ἀκοῆς παρόντα. πίστει βεβαίᾳ θεώμενος ἐπεθύμησε[ν]. ταῦτα θᾶττον διʼ αὐτῆς τῆς αὐτοψίας ὑπολαβὼν ἔχειν. δοξάζει τὸν κ[ύριο]ν. Ὃ δὴ γέγονεν καὶ περὶ τὸν μακάριον ἐπίσκοπον εἰρηναῖον. τῆς τοῦ σιρμίου πόλεως. οὗτος γὰρ δι̕ ἐπιείκειαν ὑπερβάλλουσαν. καὶ τὴν περὶ τὸ θεῖο[ν] εὐλάβειαν. τοῖς ἔργοις κυρῶν τὴν προσηγορία[ν]. καὶ νέος τῆς προεδρίας ἀξιωθεὶς. καταλαβόντος αὐτὸν τοῦ διωγμοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐπὶ διοκλητιανοῦ καὶ μαξιμιανοῦ καὶ κωνσταντίου τῶν βασιλέων. οὐχ̓ ὥσπερ ἔνιοι τιμίῳ πράγματι μόνω χρώμενος καὶ προστετηκὼς τοῖς τῆδε μᾶλλον πράγμασιν. λύπη τὴν παροῦσαν χαρᾶν ἠμαύρωσεν. ἀλλὰ ἀκάμπτω καὶ ἀνενδότω προθυμίᾳ χρώμενος. καὶ τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν ἐπεκτεινόμενος ἔσπευδεν ἐπὶ τὸ βραβεῖον τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως. οὐκ ἐξέλυσαν γοὖν αὐτοῦ τὴν στερρότητα ὕβρεις. ποικίλα πάθη σεμαίνουσαι. οὐ ποταμοὶ ἀπειλούμενοι. οὐ κρημνοὶ καὶ βασάνων εἴδη διάφορα. οὐ τό γε πάντων ἀλγεινότερον. τέκνα μετὰ συγγενῶν. καὶ φίλων ὀλοφυρόμενα. οἷς εἰώθασι[ν] καταμαλάττεσθαι πατέρες ὀλιγόψυχοι. Ὅτ' ἂν παῖδες τοῖς ποσὶ μετὰ δακρύων περιπλέκωνται. γυναικὸς ὀλοφυρομένης ὄψις κατηφής. γονέων πένθος ἐφ̓ υἱῶ τὴν ἡλικίαν ἀκμάζοντι. οἰκείων στεναγμὸς. καὶ θρῆνος φίλων. καὶ γνωρίμων. Ἔτι νεάζουσαν ἀκμὴν μετὰ δεήσεως οἰκτεῖραι προτρεπομένων. τούτοις πᾶσιν οἷς εἶπον οὐκ ἐκάμπτετο. Ἀλλὰ καθάπερ εἴπομεν τῷ τῶν κρειττόνων ἔρωτι κατεχόμενος. καὶ τὸν φόβον τῆς κρίσεως. πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ἔχων. δεδοικὼς δὲ τὴν φωνὴν ἐκεῖνη[ν] τοῦ κ[υρίο]υ τὴν λέγουσαν. Ἐάν τις ἀρνήσεταί με ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Ἀρνήσομαι αὐτὸν κἀγὼ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ π[ατ]ρ[ό]ς μου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐ[ρα]νοῖς. πάντων ὑπερφρονήσας τῶν χαλεπώτερων. Ἔσπευδεν ἐπὶ τὴν προκειμένην ἐλπίδα. Προσαχθεὶς οὖν τῷ τηνικαῦτα τῆς παννονίας ἡγεμόνι πρόβῳ. καὶ ἐπερωτηθεὶς εἰ βούλοιτο θῦσαι. ἀπεκρίνατο ὁ μακάριος εἰρηναῖος. ἀλλ' οὐδὲ ζῆν μεθ' ὑμῶν αἱροῦμαι. τότε ἀνελήφθη εἰς τὸ δεσμωτήριον ἐκ πλειόνων δὲ ἡμερῶν ἐν τῇ

150  Appendix τῆς εἰρκτῆς φρουρᾷ παραδοθείς. μέσης νυκτὸς προκαθίσαντος τοῦ ἡγεμόνος. προσήχθη πάλιν ὁ μακάριος εἰρηναῖος καὶ ποικίλας βασάνους ὑπομείνας. καὶ ἐρωτώμενος διὰ τὶ οὐκ ἐπιθύει. ἀπεκρίθη ὅτι θ[εό]ν ἔχω, ὃν ἐκ παιδὸς ἡλικίας σέβειν δεδίδαγμαι. καὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις ὑφ̓ ὑμῶν θεοῖς. προσκυνεῖν οὐ δύναμαι. πρόβος ἡγεμὼν εἶπεν. κέρδησον τὸν θάνατον ἀρκεσθεὶς αἷς ὑπομεμένηκας ὕβρεσιν. εἰρηναῖος εἶπεν. κερδαίνω μετ̓ οὐ πολὺ τὸν θανάτον. ὅτ̓ ἂν διὰ τοῦ παρὰ σοῦ θανάτου. τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θ[εο]ῦ ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἀπολάβω. πρόβος εἶπεν. Ὑιοὺς ἔχεις; ἀπεκρίνατο. οὐκ ἔχω. πρόβος εἶπεν. γονεῖς ἔχεις; ἀπεκρίθη. οὐκ ἔχω. ταῦτα δε ἔλεγεν ὁ μακάριος εἰρηναῖος. τὴν τοῦ κ[υρίο]υ ἐντολὴν ἔναυλον ἔχω[ν] τῆν λέγουσαν. Ὁ φιλῶν π[ατέ]ρα ἢ μ[ητέ]ρα ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ. Ἢ ἀδελφοὺς ἢ γυναῖκα ἢ τέκνα. οὐκ ἔστιν μου ἄξιος. πρὸς ὃν ἀτενίζων ὁ μακάριος ἐν τοῖς οὐ[ρα]νοῖς ὅλος ἦν τῷ φρονήματι διαιτώμενος. ἅπασαν τὴν ἀν[θρωπ]ίνη[ν] διάθεσιν καταλιπών. καὶ οὐδένα πλέον τοῦ κ[υρίο]υ εἰδέναι καὶ ἔχει[ν] ὡμολόγει. πάλιν οὖν εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ ἡγεμών. οἶδα σε υἱοὺς ἔχοντα. καὶ κᾀν δι' αὐτοὺς ἐπίθυσον ἵνα ζῆς. Ἀπεκρίνατο ὁ μακάριος εἰρηναῖος οἱ υἱοί μου θ[εὸ]ν ἔχουσιν ὡς κἀγώ. Ὃς δύναται αὐτοὺς σῶσαι. σὺ δὲ. τὸ κελευσθέν σοι ποίησον. Πρόβος ἡγεμὼν εἷπεν. συμβουλεύω σοι νεώτερε ἐπιθῦσαι. ἵνα μὴ διαφόροις σε αἰκισμοῖς ἀνέλω. Εἰρηναῖος εἶπεν. οὐκ ἐπιθύω. ποίει ὃ θέλεις. γνώση γὰρ. ὡς τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ χ[ριστο]ῦ γενναίως πάντα ὑπομενῶ. πρόβος ἡγεμὼν ἀπεφήνατο. ἐπειδὴ πειθαρχῆσαι οὐ βούλει τῇ βασιλικῇ κελεύσει. διὰ τοῦτο. κατὰ τὸ πρόσταγμα τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος. κατὰ τοῦ ποταμοῦ ῥιφίση. Εἰρηναῖος εἶπεν. ἐγώ σου τὴν διάφορον τῶν θανάτων ἀπειλὴν ἐννοῶν. προσεδεχόμην αὐτὴν μειζόνως. μέλλοντός σου καὶ ξίφει με ὑποβάλλειν. διὸ εἰ βούλει παρακέκλησο καὶ τοῦ τὸ πρᾶξαι. ἵνα μάθῃς. πῶς ἡμεῖς οἱ χριστιανοὶ. θανάτου καταφρονοῦμεν. διὰ τὴν εἰς τὸν θ[εό]ν ἡμῶν πίστιν τετελειωμένοι. Ὀργισθεὶς οῦν ὁ ἡγεμὼν ἐπὶ τῇ παρρησίᾳ τοῦ μακαρίου μάρτυρος εἰρηναίου. ἐκέλευσε[ν] ξίφει αὐτὸν ἀναλωθῆναι. ὁ δὲ ἁγιώτατος μάρτυς. ὥσπερ δευτέρου βραβείου ἐγκρατὴς γενόμενος. εἷπεν. θ[ε]ῷ χάριν ὁμολογῷ. τῷ διὰ ποικίλης θανάτου ὑπομονῆς. λαμπρότερόν μοι στέφανον χαρισαμένω. καὶ μετὰ τὸ παραγενέσθαι εἰς τὴν γέφυραν ἥτις καλεῖται ἄρτεμις. ἀποδυθεὶς τὰ ἱμάτια. καὶ ἀνατείνας εἰς τὸν οὐ[ρα]νὸν τὰς χεῖρας. ηὔξατο οὕτως εἰπών. κ[ύρι]ε. ἀνοιχθήτωσαν οἱ οὐ[ρα]νοὶ καὶ ὑποδεξάσθωσαν τὸ πν[εῦμ]α τοῦ δούλου σου. ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ σου καὶ τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας. καὶ παντὸς τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτῆς. σοὶ πιστεύων κ[ύρι]ε. ταῦτα πάσχω. καὶ πληγεὶς τῷ ξίφει. Ἐπέμφθη εἰς τὸν σαὸν ποταμόν. Ἐπράχθη δὲ ταῦτα μηνὶ αὐγούστω εἰκάδι πρώτη. ἐν σιρμίω. ἡγεμομένοντος πρόβου. κατὰ δὲ ἡμᾶς βασιλεύοντος τοῦ κ[υρίο]υ ἡμῶν ἰ[ησο]ῦ χ[ριστο]ῦ. μεθ’ οὗ τῷ π[ατ]ρί σὺν ἁγίῳ πν[εύματ]ι. δόξα τιμὴ καὶ κράτος νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰώνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν. Moscow, Syn. gr. 183, ff. 242r-244r (BHG 949e) ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΟΝ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΙΟΥ ΕΙΡΗΝΑΙΟΥ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΥ ΣΗΡΜΙΟΥ

Ἄρτι τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ κακίᾳ περιβοήτων. διοκλητιανοῦ φημὶ καὶ μαξιμιανοῦ.2 τῆς βασιλικῆς ἀρχῆς ἐπιλαβομένων. καὶ κακῶς αὐτῇ κεχρημένων. διατάγματά τε

Appendix 151 προτιθεμένων κατὰ τῶν εὐρισκομένων χριστιανῶν. ὁ μακάριος εἰρηναῖος. τῶν ἠπειλημένων ἐκείνων κολαστερίων καταφρονήσας καὶ τῆς σφοδροτάτης ἀνάγκης. ἅτε ἱερεὺς τοῦ θ[εο]ῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας λόγον ἐδίδασκε καὶ πολλοὺς τῆς ἀθείας ἐπέστρεφε πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας ἐπίγνωσιν. μὴ θυμὸν ὑποπτήσσων ἀρχοντικὸν. μὴ κολάσεις ποικίλας. μὴ ποταμοὺς. μὴ κρημνοὺς. οἷς οἱ διὰ χ[ριστό]ν ἀθλοῦντες ἐπερριπτοῦντο. μὴ καταμαλακιζόμενος. οἷς εἰώθασιν ἄν[θρωπ]οι καταμαλακίζεσθαι. προσπαθεία τεκόντων δηλαδὴ. παίδων ὀρφανία. δάκρυσι γυναικῶν. ἡλικιωτῶν αὐτῶν συμβουλαῖς. φίλων καὶ συγγενῶν ὀδυρμοῖς. μὴδ҆ ἄλλοις τισὶ τοιύτοις ὅλως ἡττώμενος ἢ καὶ πρός τι τούτων καταπληττόμενος. τὴν δεσποτικὴν πάντως φωνὴν ἐπὶ μνήμης ἔχων. καὶ τὰ ἐκεῖσε φρίττων δικαιωτήρια. ὅστις γὰρ ἀρνήσεταί με φη[σίν] ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀν[θρώπ] ων. ἀρνήσομαι τοῦτον κἀγὼ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ π[ατ]ρ[ό]ς μου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐ[ρα]νοῖς. Ἔνθεν τοι καὶ πάντων καταφρονήσας. χαίρων ἐχώρει πρὸς τὸ μαρτύριον. Συσχεθεὶς γὰρ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀσεβῶν. καὶ τῷ τοῦ πρόβου βήματι προσαχθεὶς. ἐν τῷ σηρμίῳ τότε διάγοντος. ὅλος ἄτρεπτος. ὅλος ἀκατάπληκτος ἔστη. διὸ καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ τῆς ἀνομίας υἱός. τίς καὶ πόθεν καὶ τίνα τὰ κατὰ σοῦ φημιζόμενα. λέγε τὸ τάχος ἔφη. καὶ τίς ἡ κλῆσις αὐτή. καὶ ἐπεὶ μάθοι τὰ περὶ τούτων ἠκριβωμένως. θῦσον εἰρηναῖε λέγει τοῖς ἀνικήτοις θεοῖς. ἵνα δὴ καὶ τῶν προεπταισμένων σοι τὴν συγχώρησιν λάβης. καὶ τῶν μενουσῶν σε βασάνων ἀπαλλαγῇς καὶ μείνης μεθ̓ ἡμῶν εὐφραινόμενος. καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν. Ἄλλ̓ οὐ θύσω ποτὲ πρόβε. φησὶ ἐκεῖνος. οὐδὲ γὰρ ζῆν μεθ̓ ὑμῶν αἱροῦμαι. οὔτε μὴν τὸν ἐμὸν χ[ριστό]ν ὅλως ἀρνήσομαι. Θ[εὸ]ν ἀληθῆ τυγχάνοντα. καὶ τῶν ἁπάντων ποιητὴν καὶ δεσπότην. Ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν οὕτως εἰπόντα τὸν μάρτυρα. τὸ δεσμωτήριον εἶχεν. ἡμερῶν δὲ παρελθουσῶν οὐκ ὀλίγων τὸ δικαστήριον αὐτὸν διεδέξατο. πρὸς ὃν ὁ ἡγεμὼν. δεινὸν ἀπιδὼν. καὶ τοῦτον θύειν ἀπαναγκάζων. ἐπεὶ μὴ πειθόμενον εἶχε. κολάσεσιν ὑπέβαλλε χαλεπαῖς καὶ ποικίλαις. ξεσμοῖς. μάστιξι. ταῖς ἐκ ῥάβδων πληγαῖς. καὶ πάσαις ἄλλης βασάνου κακουργίαις. ὡς δὲ πρὸς ταῦτα μηδαμῶς ἐνεδίδου. καὶ πυρὸς ὁ μάρτυς φεῦ καθυπέμεινε καῦσιν. καὶ καθ̓ ἑκάστην βάσανον. ἀρνήσασθαι παρεβιάζετο τὸν χ[ριστό]ν. καὶ τοῖς κιβδήλοις λατρεῦσαι θεοῖς. καὶ ἐπεὶ μὴ ἐπείθετο. τρόποις ἀπατελοῖς ὁ πρόβος ὑπέρχεται τοῦτον. γυναῖκα ἔχεις εἰπὼν. υἱοὺς. καὶ λοιποὺς ἄλλους προσήκοντας. μηδὴ τούτων στερηθῆναι θελήσης. νέαν ἔτι καὶ αὐτὸς ἄγων τὴν ἡλικίαν. ἀλλὰ κἂν δι' αὐτοὺς ζῆν οὕτω καλῶς παρ' ἡμῖν ἐθέλησον. ἔσται σοι γὰρ καὶ πλοῦτος καὶ δόξα. καὶ τῶν ἄλλων καλῶν ἡ ἐπίδοσις. ταῦτα τούτου κομψῶς οὕτω καὶ περινενοημένως εἰπόντος. ὁ ἅγιος. τὰ μὲν ἀκόλουθα τῆς ἀποκρίσεως ἀφεὶς. πρὸς ἒν δὲ τοῦτο συγκεφαλαιώσας τὸν λόγον. ὁ φιλῶν εἶπε χ[ριστό]ς φησὶ. Π[ατέ]ρα ἢ μ[ητέ]ρα ἢ τέκνα. ἢ γυναῖκα. ἢ ἀδελφοὺς ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ, οὐκέτι μου ἄξιος. καὶ ταῦτα διδάξαντος. πῶς φησίν ἐγὼ τούτου προτιμήσομαι τούτους. ὃς καὶ αὐτοὺς δύναται σῶσαι. καὶ κληρονόμους ποιῆσαι τῆς αὐτοῦ βασιλείας. καὶ ὁ πρόβος. πρὸ τοῦ σε τὴν ἀπόφασιν δέξασθαι ταλαίπωρε. θῦσαι θέλησον τοῖς θεοῖς. ἵνα μὴ κακῶς ἀποθάνης. καὶ ὁ ἅγιος. οὐ θύσω παράνομε. οὐκ ἀρνήσομαι τὸν χ[ριστό]ν μου μὴ γένοιτο. οὐ μὰ τοὺς ὑπὲρ εὐσεβείας ἀγῶνας καὶ τὰ παλαίσματα. οὐκ ἂν εἴ τί μοι καὶ μεῖζον τῶν προλαβόντων καλῶν προσενέγκης. ἀρνεθείην ἐγώ ποτε τὸν ἐμὸν ποιητήν.

152  Appendix Τότε δὴ τῷ θυμῷ σφαδάζων ὁ πρόβος. κατὰ τὸ πρόσταγμα φησὶ τῶν αὐτοκρατόρων. πρὸς τὸν ἅγιον ἔφη. τῇ φορᾷ δοθείση τοῦ ποταμοῦ. καὶ τί τοῦτο. φησὶν ὁ ἅγιος. καὶ ξίφει με πάντως εἴ γε καθυποβάλης. δέχομαι καὶ τοῦτο προθύμως. ναὶ δὴ καὶ ἀξιῶ μείζονας γάρ μοι τοὺς στεφάνους πλέξεις καὶ τὰ βραβεῖα. καὶ τοῦτο προσθεὶς. ἤλπιζον γὰρ ἄλλας τινὰς δεινοτέρας κολάσεις. τῶν προεπενεχθεισῶν μοι διὰ χ[ριστό]ν ὑπομεῖναι. νῦν δὲ καὶ ταῦτα τρυφὰς μᾶλλον ἢ κολάσεις ἡγοῦμαι. τούτων οὕτω ῥηθέντων. ὀργῆς ὁ παράφορος πληρωθεὶς. τὸν τε διὰ ξίφους καταδικάζει θάνατον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν εἰς τὸν ποταμὸν. ὡς προέφην. κατάδυσιν. Ἀφικνοῦνται τοιγάρτοι μετὰ σοῦ πανάγαθε μάρτυς οἱ στρατιῶται. πρὸς τὴν οὕτω καλουμένην γέφυραν ἄρτεμιν. ἀποδύῃ πρόθυμος τὰ ἱμάτια. γυμνὸς ἵστασαι. δέχη τὴν τομήν καὶ τῷ ποταμῷ ἐπαφίῃ. καὶ νῦν σὺν ἀγγέλοις περὶ τὸν θρόνον ὡς ἀρχιερεὺς ὡς μάρτυς στρεφόμενος τὸν δεσποτικὸν. αἴτησαι δωρηθῆναι παρὰ θ[εο]ῦ. βασιλεῖ ἡμῶν τῷ δικαίῳ καὶ φιλαγάθω. καὶ πᾶσιν ἐνσεμνυνομένῳ τοῖς καλοῖς προτερήμασι. Μέθεξιν ζωῆς μακρᾶς καὶ ἀπήμονος. ἰλύος παθῶν ἀλλοτρίωσιν. χρεστῶν ἔργων τὴν καλὴν μετουσίαν. ἀριστευμάτων τὴν κατόρθωσιν πάντων. ἡμέρας ἀνεσπέρου τὸν καλὸν κλῆρον. λαμπρὰν δικαίων καὶ καλὴν ξυναυλίαν. Πάντων ἐφετῶν τὴν ἀκροτάτην δόσιν. καὶ βασιλείας θ[εο]ῦ τὴν κληρουχίαν. ὅτι αὐτῷ πρέπει ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος. νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ. καὶ εἰς τοῦς αἰώνας τῶν αἰώνων. ἀμήν. Vienna, Hist. gr. 45, ff. 247v-248r (BHG 950) Μαρτύριον τῶν δύο ἁγίων μαρτύρων εἰρηναίων3

Ὅυτος ὁ ἅγιος ἱερομάρτυς εἰρηναῖος. Ἐπίσκοπος ἦν τοῦ σιρμίου. ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας διοκλητιανοῦ. καὶ κρατηθεὶς ἤχθη εἰς παννονίαν. καὶ παρέστη πρόβῳ τῷ ἡγεμόνι. ὁμολογῶν καὶ κηρύττων τὴν εἰς χ[ριστό]ν τὸν ἀληθινὸν θ[εό]ν πίστιν. Διὸ κατακλείεται φρουρᾷ. καὶ πάλιν μαστίζεται. καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα λαβὼν τὴν ἀπόφασιν. ἔστη εἰς τὸν τόπον τῆς γεφύρας. τοῦ ποταμοῦ σάου. καὶ ἐκτείνας τὰς χεῖρας εἰς τὸν οὐ[ρα]νόν. ηὔξατο οὕτως. κ[ύρι]ε ὑπόδεξαι τὸ πν[εῦμ]ά μου. καὶ στῆσον τὸν πόλεμον. τὸν κατὰ τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας σου γινόμενον. καὶ ταῦτα εἰπὼν. κρουσθεὶς τῷ ξίφει ἐρρίφη εἰς τὸν ποταμόν. Γέγονε δὲ καὶ ἕτερός τις Εἰρηναῖος. ἀρχαῖος ἀνὴρ. ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις Μάρκου Ἀντωνίνου τοῦ βασιλέως. διάδοχος τῶν αὐτοπῶν τῶν μακαρίων ἀποστόλων γενόμενος. ἐν λουγδούνῳ πόλει τῆς γαλλίας ἐπισκοπήσας ὅστις φησὶ. πολύκαρπον τὸν μαθητὴν ἰωάννου τοῦ θεολόγου. ἐωρακέναι νήπιος ὤν. οὗτος πολλὰ μνήμης ἄξια βιβλία καταλέλοιπε. τῆς καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς πίστεως. ἐξ ὧν οἱ μεταγενέστεροι. τὰς ἀφορμὰς τῆς ἐρμηνεῖας τῶν θείων γραφῶν ἔλαβον. μετὰ ποθεινὸν οὖν ἐπίσκοπον τῆς εἰρημένης πόλεως μαρτυρήσαντα. τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοὺς οἴακας λαβόμενος. καὶ πολλοὺς. λόγοις καὶ παραινέσεσιν ἀφαρπάσας ἐκ τῆς πλάνης τῶν δαιμόνων. καὶ τῷ Χ[ρίστ]ῳ μάρτυρας προσαγαγὼν. τελευταῖον. καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπὸ τῶν διωκτῶν ξίφει τελειωθείς. στεφανοῦται παρὰ τῆς θείας χειρὸς. Χ[ρίστο]υ τοῦ θ[εο]ῦ ἡμῶν. ταῖς πρεσβείαις αὐτῶν Κ[ύρι]ε ἐν εἰρήνην βέρνησον τὴν ζωὴν ἡμῶν. καὶ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς. ἁπὸ πάσης μηχανῆς τοῦ ἀντικειμένου.

Appendix 153 Jerusalem, Panagiou Taphou 17, ff. 204v-205v (BHG 950z) ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΟΝ ΤΩΝ ΑΓΙΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΕΝΔΟΞΩΝ ΜΑΡΤΥΡΩΝ ΕΙΡΗΝΑΙΟΥ ΩΡ ΚΑΙ ΟΡΟΨΕΩ

Τόν τῆς εἰρήνης ἐπώνυμον καὶ γενναιότατον μάρτυρα. Εἰρηναῖον τὸν μέγαν ἡ τοῦ Σιρμίου πόλις πρόεδρον ἔσχε καὶ πολιοῦχον. καλῶς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ποιμαίνοντα. καὶ καλῶς Θεῷ τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν προσάγοντα.4 Διοκλητιανοῦ τοίνυν καὶ Μαξιμιανοῦ τῶν τυράννων διωγμὸν ὅτι μέγιστον κατὰ Χριστιανῶν κινησάντων. καὶ πλῆθος ὅτι πολλὺ τούτων. ἢ μᾶλλον εἰπεῖν ἅπαντας συλλαμβανομένων. καὶ τιμωρίαις ξέναις εἰς ὑπερβολὴν κακίας καθυπαγόντων. τοῦτο μεν δι' ἐαυτῶν. τοῦτο δὲ καὶ διὰ τῶν ὑπηρετουμένων ὁμοφρόνων αὐτοῖς, διαβάλλεται τῷ τῆς χώρας παννονίας ἄρχοντι πρόβῳ. καὶ ὁ καλλὸς οὗτος εἰρηναῖος ὁ πάνυ. καὶ συλληφθεὶς τῷ βήματι τούτου προσάγεται. καὶ τὶ γίνεται; πρòς θυσίαν τῶν εἰδώλων καλεῖται. εἴπερ γὰρ ὦ ἄνθρωπε θῦσαι τοῖς θεοῖς θελήσεις. ὁ πρόβος ἔφησε τῷ δικαίῳ. μέγιστον ἀναδείξω σε γράψας τῷ βασιλεῖ. καὶ μεγάλων πραγμάτων διοικήσεις ἐμπιστευθήσῃ. εἰ δ᾿ οὖν, ἀλλὰ τιμωρίαι σε διαδέξονται; μὴ δὲ λόγῳ ῥηταὶ ἔφη. καὶ ὁ ἅγιος. ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲ ζῆν αἱροῦμαι σὺν ὑμῖν ἡγεμὼν εἷπεν. μή τι γε συνδιάγειν καὶ συνδοξάζεσθαι. ταῦτα τοῦτον εἰπόντα. δεσμὰ λαμβάνουσιν εὐθὺς καὶ τὸ δεσμωτήριον. Ἡμέραι παρῆλθον οὐχὶ συγχαί. καὶ μέσης νυκτὸς ὁ πρόβος. εἰς ἐξέτασιν προκαθίσας. ὅτε δὴ πάντως εἰς οὓς αὐτῷ λελάληκεν ὁ σατανᾶς, ἄγει τὸν μάρτυρα πρὸς ἐρώτησιν καὶ θῦσαι τοῦτον ἠνάγκαζε τοῖς βδελύγμασιν. Ὠς δὲ μὴ ἔπειθε, μαστίζει δεινῶς. ξέει πικρῶς. φλέγει φρικτῶς τῷ πυρί. γενναίως τοίνυν ὑπομεμενηκότος αὐτοῦ τὰς κολάσεις. ὁ δυσσεβὴς καὶ κατάρατος ἄρχων. αὖθις αὐτὸν πρὸς θυσίαν καλεῖ. Ἵνα τί λέγων μὴ θύεις τοῖς ἀθανάτοις θεοῖς; ἀσεβέστατε. ἀλλ᾿ ἔθου σκοπὸν κακῶς οὕτως ἀποθανεῖν καὶ πικρῶς. καὶ ὁ ἅγιος. Ὅτι μὴ θέμις δαιμόνων εἴδωλα τυγχάνοντα προσκυνεῖν. καὶ τότε τὸν χριστιανὸν ἐμὲ. ὃν ὁ Χριστὸς ἔθρεψεν ἐξ αὐτῆς μητρικῆς προόδου γαστρός. Χριστὸς ἤνδρωσε. Χριστὸς ἐμεγάλυνεν; καὶ τῷ τῆς θεογνωσίας κατεφώτισε φέγγει. δι᾿ ὃν καὶ πάντα ὑπομένειν ἔτοιμός εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἴδοις μέ ποτε θυσίαν ξοάνοις ἀπονεῖμαι κωφοῖς. ποίει τοιγαροῦν ὃ βούλει παρανομώτατε πυρί καῖε. ξίφει τέμνε. καὶ πᾶν εἴ τι ἂν ᾖ βουλομένῳ σοι πράττειν ἐπ᾿ ἐμοὶ ποίει. γνώσῃ γὰρ ἐντεῦθεν; ὡς οὐδὲν ἥγημαι τὸν διὰ Χριστὸν ἐπενηνεγμένον μοι θάνατον. Θυμοῦται ὁ ἄρχων τούτων ἀκούσας καὶ τούτου μὲν ξίφει κελεύει τὴν πάντιμον κεφαλὴν ἐκκοπῆναι. αὐτίκα δὲ παρίστησιν εἰς μέσον καὶ Ὢρ τὸν κλεινὸν. καὶ Ὀρόψεω τὸν σοφόν. οὓς καὶ αὐτοὺς θῦσαι μὴ βουληθέντας. πυρὶ παραδίδωσι. καὶ ἐπεὶ Θεός ὁ τὸ θέλημα ποιῶν τῶν φοβουμένων αὐτὸν. τῆς καμίνου διεσώσατο τούτους. ὑετὸς γὰρ ἄνωθεν κατενεχθεὶς ἐπέσβεσε τοῦτο; θυμομαχήσας ὁ Πρόβος θηρίοις τούτοις ἐκδίδωσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ τούτων παραδόξως σωθέντας ξύλῳ ἀναρτᾷ καὶ ξαίνει πικρῶς εἷτα καὶ ξίφει τὰς αὐτῶν κεφαλὰς ἐκτμηθῆναι κελεύει. ἄγονται τοίνυν καὶ οὗτοι σὺν τῷ ἱερομάρτυρι Εἰρηναίῳ; πρὸς τὸν τόπον τῆς τελειώσεως καὶ τὸ μακάριον δέχονται τέλος εἶτα καὶ τῷ ποταμῷ Σάῳ οὕτως ὠνομασμένῳ ῥιπτοῦνται.

154  Appendix Καὶ νῦν ὧ πανθαύμαστοι μάρτυρες ἵνα πρὸς ὑμᾶς τὸν λόγον ποιήσω. τῷ δεσποτικῷ σὺν ἀγγέλοις παριστάμενοι θρόνῳ; νέμοιτε ταῖς εὐκτικαῖς ὑμῶν εἰς Θεὸν ἰκεσίαις βασιλεῖ ἡμῶν τῷ πράῳ καὶ τὰ πάντα καλῷ μακρὰν τὴν ζωὴν καὶ γαλήνιον. ἰλύος πάσης ἀπηλλαγμένην. χάριτος θείας πεπληρωμένην. πάντων ἀγαθῶν μεμεστωμένην καὶ τῆς ἐκεῖθεν βασιλείας τὴν χάριν ἐν αὐτῷ Χριστῷ τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν ᾧ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. ἀμήν. Ambrosiana, B. 1. inf., ff. 70r-71v (BHG 951) ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΟΝ ΤΩΝ ΑΓΙΩΝ ΜΑΡΤΥΡΩΝ ΕΙΡΗΝΑΙΟΥ ΩΡ ΚΑΙ ΟΡΟΨΑΙΟΥ5

τόν τῆς εἰρήνης ἐπώνυμον καὶ γενναιότατον μάρτυρα εἰρηναῖον τὸν μέγαν ἡ τοῦ σιρμίου πόλις πρόεδρο[ν] ἔσχε καὶ πολιοῦχον. καλῶς τὴν ἐκκλησία[ν] ποιμαίνοντα καὶ καλῶς θ[ε]ῷ τὴν λογικὴ[ν] λατρείαν προσάγοντα. διοκλητιανοῦ τοίνυν καὶ μαξιμιανοῦ τῶν τυράνων διωγμὸν ὅτι μέγιστον κατὰ χριστιανῶν κινησάντων. καὶ πλῆθος ὅτι πολὺ τούτων ἢ μᾶλλον εἰπεῖν ἅπαντας συλλαμβανομένων καὶ τιμωρίαις ξέναις εἰς ὑπερβολὴν κακίας καθυπαγόντων τοῦτο μεν δι' ἐαυτῶν. τοῦτο δὲ καὶ διὰ τῶν ὑπηρέτου οἷς μένων ὁμοφρόνων αὐτοῖς. διαβάλλεται τῷ τῆς χώρας παννονίας ἄρχοντι πρόβῳ καὶ ὁ καλὸ[ς] οὗτος εἰρηναῖος ὁ πάνυ καὶ συλληφθεὶς τῷ βήματι τούτου προσάγεται. καὶ τὶ γίνεται; πρò[ς] θυσίαν τῶν εἰδώλων καλεῖται. εἴπερ γὰρ ὦ ἄν[θρωπ]ε θῦσαι τοῖς θεοῖς θελήσεις ὁ πρόβος ἔφη τῷ δικαίῳ. μέγιστον ἀναδείξω σε, γράψας τῷ βασιλεῖ. καὶ μεγάλων πραγμάτων διοικήσεις ἐμπιστευθήσῃ. εἰ δ᾿ οὖν. ἀλλὰ τιμωρίαι σε μὴ δὲ λόγῳ ῥηταὶ ἔφη ὅσον οὕτω διαδούξονται ἔφη καὶ ὁ ἅγιος. ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲ ζῆν αἱροῦμαι σὺν ὑμῖν, ἡγεμὼ[ν] εἷπε, μὴ τὶ γε συνδιάγειν καὶ συνδοξάζεσθαι. ταῦτα τοῦτον εἰπόντα δεσμὰ λαμβάνουσιν αὐθὶς καὶ τὸ δεσμωτήριον. ἡμέραι παρῆλθον συγχαί. καὶ μέσης νυκτὸ[ς] ὁ πρόβος εἰς ἐξέτασιν προκαθίσας. ὅτε δὴ παντῶς εἰς οὖς αὐτῷ λελάληκεν ὁ σατανᾶς. ἄγει τὸν μάρτυρα πρὸς ἐρώτησιν καὶ θῦσαι τοῦτον ἠνάγκαζε τοῖς βδελύγμασιν. ὡς δὲ μὴ ἔπειθε, μαστίζει δεινῶς, ξέει πικρῶς, φλέγει φρικτῶς τῷ πυρί. γενναίως τοίνυ[ν] ὑπομεμενηκότος αὐτοῦ τὰς κολάσεις ὁ δυσσεβὴς καὶ κατάρατος ἄρχων αὖθις αὐτὸν πρὸ[ς] θυσίαν καλεῖ, ἵνα τί, λέγων, μὴ θύσεις τοῖς ἀθανάτοις θεοῖς, ἀσεβέστατε. ἀλλ᾿ ἔθου σκοπὸν κακῶς οὕτως ἀποθανεῖν καὶ πικρῶς, καὶ ὁ ἅγιος. ὅτι μὴ θέμις δαιμόνων εἴδωλα τυγχάνοντα προσκυνεῖν. καὶ τότε τὸν χριστιανὸν ἐμὲ ὃν ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς ἐκ μητρικῆς γαστρός προόδου ὁ χ[ριστὸ]ς ἔθρεψεν. ὁ χριστός ἤνδρωσεν. ὁ χ[ριστὸ]ς ἐμεγάλυνε καὶ τῷ τῆς θεογνωσίας κατεφώτισε φέγγει. δι᾿ ὃν καὶ πάντα ὑπομένειν ἔτοιμός εἰμι, καὶ οὐκ ἴδοις μέ ποτέ ξοάνοις θυσίαν. ἀπονέμοντα κωφοῖς. ποίει τοιγαροῦν ὃ βούλει, παρανομώτατε. πυρί καῖε, ξίφει τέμνε καὶ πᾶν ὃτι ἂν ᾖ βουλομένῳ σοι πράττειν ἐπ᾿ ἐμοὶ. πράττε. γνώσῃ γὰρ ἐνταῦθεν, ὡς οὐδὲν ἥγημαι τὸν διὰ χριστὸν ἐπενηνεγμένον μοι θάνατον. θυμοῦται τούτων ἀκούσας ὁ ἄρχων καὶ τούτου μὲν ξὶφει κελεύσει τὴν πάντιμον κεφαλὴν ἐκκοπῆναι, αὐτίκα δὲ παρίστησιν εἰς μέσον καὶ ὤρ τὸν κλεινὸν καὶ ὀρὸψαιον τὸν σοφόν. οὕς καὶ αὐτοὺς θῦσαι μὴ βουληθέντας πυρὶ παραδίδωσι. καὶ

Appendix 155 ἐπεὶ θ[εό]ς ὁ τὸ θέλημα ποιῶ[ν] τῶν φοβουμένων αὐτὸ[ν] τῆς καμίνου διεσώσατο τούτους, ὑετὸς γὰρ ἄνωθεν κατενεχθεὶς ἀπέσβεσε ταύτην, θυμομαχήσας ὁ πρόβος θηρίοις τούτους ἐκδίδωσιν. ἀλλὰ καὶ τούτων παραδόξως σωθέντ[ας]. ξύλῳ ἀναρτᾷ καὶ ξέει πικρῶς. εἷτα καὶ ξίφει τὰς αὐτῶν κεφαλὰς ἐκτμηθῆναι κελεύει. ἄγονται τοίνυ[ν] καὶ οὗτοι σὺν τῷ ἱερομάρτυρι εἰρηναίῳ πρὸς τὸν τῆς τελειώσεως τόπον καὶ τὸ μακάριον δέχονται τέλος, εἶτα καὶ τῷ ποταμῷ σάῳ οὕτως ὠνομαζομένῳ ῥιπτοῦνται. καὶ νῦν τῷ θρόνῳ παριστάνται τοῦ πανβασιλέως θ[εο]ῦ ἡμῶν. ᾧ ἡ πρέπει ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος νῦν εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. ἀμήν. Canon 30 of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus Ἦχος δ̕ 6 ῷδὴ α̕. Θαλάσσης τὸ ἐρυθραῖον πέλαγος Ἀγγέλων σὺν τοῖς βροτοῖς τὰ τάγματα πανηγυρίζουσιν ἐπὶ τῇ μνήμῃ σήμερον φαιδρῶς Εἰρηναίου τοῦ μάρτυρος, μεθ' οὗ συνηγωνίσαντο Ὢρ ἐν τοῖς ἄθλοις καὶ Ὀρόψεος. Στρατείαν τὴν ἐπὶ γῆς οἱ ἅγιοι ἀπαρνησάμενοι καὶ οὐρανίου ἔρωτι ζωῆς τῷ Χριστῷ στρατευσάμενοι, ὑπέρ αὐτοῦ ἠνδρίσαντο μέχρι θανάτου προθυμότατα. Λαμπρᾶς σὺ τῆς θυμηδίας ἔπλησας τῶν εὐσεβούντων λαοὺς τῇ τοῦ πανσέπτου σώματός σου νῦν φανερώσει, θεόληπτε, ὃ καὶ περιπτυσσόμενοι, σέ, Εἰρηναῖε, μακαρίζομεν. Θαυμάτων παρὰ Θεοῦ δρεψάμενος τὴν χάριν, ἅγιε, τοῖς προσφοιτῶσι πόθῳ τῇ σορῷ τῶν τιμίων λειψάνων σου ῥῶσιν ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἀφθόνως νέμοις, ἱερώτατε. Θερμήν σε πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἀντίληψιν καὶ ὀχυρὰν βοηθὸν καὶ ἀρραγὲς προσφύγιον, ἁγνὴ

156  Appendix θεοτόκε, κεκτήμεθα ἐν πειρασμοῖς καὶ θλίψεσιν, ἐξ ὧν πρεσβείαις σου ῥυσθείημεν. ᾠδὴ β΄. Δῶμεν μεγαλωσύνην Φιλομάρτυρες, δεῦτε Εἰρηναῖον, Ὤρ, Ὀρόψεον ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ ἐγκωμίοις τοὺς ἀθλοφόρους τιμήσωμεν πιστῶς. Τῶν φθαρτῶν τὰ ἑστῶτα ἀντηλλάξαντο οἱ ἅγιοι, στρατολογίᾳ χριστεπωνύμῳ καταλεγέντες ὡς ὄντως ἀριστεῖς. Δόξα τῷ ἐν ἁγίοις θαυμαστῷ Θεῷ καὶ αἴνεσις. ἰδοὺ τὸ πρὶν γὰρ ἀγνοούμενον σῶμα τοῦ μάρτυρος δείκνυσιν ἡμῖν. Πλουσίως παροχεύει τῶν λειψάνων σου τὰ νάματα, ἱερομάρτυς ὦ Εἰρεναῖε, τοῖς ἀσθενοῦσιν ἰάσεων πηγάς. Ἐν σοί, θεωγεννῆτορ, πεποιθότες, οὐ δεδοίκαμεν ὑπεναντίων τὰς ἐπηρείας. καὶ γὰρ προφθάνεις καὶ σώζεις ἐν σπουδῇ. ᾠδὴ γ´. Εὐφραίνεται ἐπὶ σοὶ Ἀνόμῳ καὶ δυσμενεῖ τῷ ἡγεμόνι, θυμικὸν πνέοντι, γνώμῃ ἀτρέπτῳ, ἅγιοι τῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἀντετάξασθε. Ἑτοίμως διὰ Χριστὸν ὑπὲρ τὸ ζῆν θνῄσκειν στερρῶς εἵλαντο οἱ εὐκλεεῖς μάρτυρες Εἰρηναῖος, Ὢρ καὶ Ὀρόψεος. Παντοίας νόσου δεινῆς τοὺς καταφεύγοντας πιστῶς, ἅγιε, τῇ τῶν λειψάνων θήκῃ σου, Εἰρηναῖε, ῥῦσαι πρεσβείαις σου.

Appendix 157 Ὡς ἔμψυχος θησαυρὸς πρὶν κεκρυμμένος ἐν τῇ γῇ, ἔνδοξε, τοῖς ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἔφανας καὶ καταγλαΐζεις τοῖς θαύμασιν. Ὀλέθριον κατ̕ ἐχθρῶν, σωτηριώδη δὲ πιστῶν φύλακα σὲ τὴν ἁγνὴν ἔγνωμεν. ὅθεν ἐπὶ σοὶ ἐγκαυχώμεθα. ᾠδὴ δʹ. Ἐπαρθέντα σε ἰδοῦσα ἡ ἐκκλησία Ἡ τοῦ πνεύματος ἐκλάμψασα δᾳδουχία τοὺς ἀθλητὰς ἐνίσχυσε κατὰ τοῦ τυράννου, οὗ τὴν ἀθεότητα σοφῶς ἀπεκρούσαντο Εἰρηναῖος, Ὢρ καὶ Ὀρόψεος. Ὠμοτάτοις παρεδίδου θηρσὶν εἰς βρῶσιν ὁ δυσμενὴς τοὺς μάρτυρας, οἷς καὶ τὸ προσψαῦσαι ὅλως κατῃδέσθησαν, τρανῶς στηλιτεύοντες τὸ τῶν ἀνομούντων ἀτίθασον. Ἱερώτατον λευΐτην σε τοῦ κυρίου καὶ ὡς πιστὸν διάκονον φρικτῶν μυστηρίων, πάνσοφε, γενόμενον, τιμῶντες δεόμεθα, μέμνησο ἡμῶν σαῖς δεήσεσιν. Ὡς τὸ πρότερον ἐφ ὕδωρ Μωσῆς ὁ μέγας θήκῃ περιεχόμενος ἀθρόον ὡράθη, οὕτως ἐν τῇ λάρνακι καὐτὸς πεφανέρωσαι, Εἰρηναῖε, νῦν ὑποχθόνιος. Φῶς ἀνέσπερον ἐκλάμψαν τῆς σῆς νηδύος, Χριστός, ὁ μέγας ἥλιος τῆς δικαιοσύνης, ἤστραψε τὴν σύμπασαν γῆν, ἐν ᾧ φωταυγούμενοι, σέ, παρθενομῆτορ, δοξάζομεν.

158  Appendix ᾠδὴ ε᾿. Σύ, κύριέ μου, φῶς εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐλήλυθας Σὺ δέδωκας, Χριστέ, τοῖς ἁγίοις κραταίωσιν, σὲ εὕραντο στεφοδότην ἐν ποικίλαις βασάνοις τῷ ἐχθρῷ προσπαλαίσαντες. Πῦρ ἄυλον ὑμεῖς ταῖς φρεσὶν ἔνδον ἔχοντες, πῦρ ἔνυλον, ἀθλοφόροι, οὐκ ἐπτήξατε. θᾶττον εἰς δρόσον γὰρ μετήνεκται. Eἴδομεν ἀληθῶς οἱ ἐν κόσμῳ παράδοξα, σέ, ἅγιε Εἰρηναῖε, Ἁερμὼν ὡς ἐν δρόσῳ, ἐν τῇ λάρνακι κείμενον. Βρύεις μύρων πληθὺν ἐκ τῶν θείων λειψάνων σου, ὧν, πάνσεπτε, ἀπαντλοῦντες ἱερᾶς ὡς ἐκ κρήνης, τὰς ἰάσεις λαμβάνομεν. Ἄνοιξον, ἀγαθή, τοῦ ἐλέους σου θύραν ἡμῖν, ὦ δέσποινα θεοτόκε, ἡ οὐράνιος πύλη πρὸς Θεὸν παρεισάγουσα. ᾠδὴ ς´. Θύσω σοι μετὰ φωνῆς αἰνέσεως, κύριε, Ἄσμασιν Εἰρηναῖον καὶ Ὢρ καὶ Ὀρόψεον ἱερονίκοις τιμῶμεν. τῆς ἑλλήνων πλάνης γὰρ καθαιρέται, τῆς Χριστοῦ δὲ ἀνεδείχθησαν δόξης ὑπέρμαχοι. Πρόθυμοι τοῦ τυθῆναι κολάσει τὰ σώματα ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ τοῦ τυθέντος δι᾿ ἡμᾶς, σοφοί, ᾐρετίσασθε, ἱερεῖα καὶ δεκτὰ χρηματίσαντες θύματα.

Appendix 159 Δείκνυσι τὸ σπουδαῖον τῆς σῆς ἐπισκέψεως ἥνπερ ἀρτίως εἰργάσω, Εἰρηναῖε μάρτυς, θαυματουργίαν, ἀκαθάρτου ἀπαλλάξας τὸν παῖδα ἐκ πνεύματος. ῥώσεων ταμιεῖον τοῖς πᾶσιν ἀνέῳκται ἡ ἑκ πολλοῦ κεκρυμμένη τῶν λειψάνων θήκη σου, Εἰρηναῖε, ἑν ᾗ πίστει προσιόντες, παθῶν ἐξιώμεθα. Νεύσαντας ἕως γῆς χαλεποῖς ὀλισθήμασι καὶ ὡς ἑν σάλῳ θαλάσσης πειρασμοῖς καὶ θλίψεσι ποντουμένους, θεοτόκε, ἐξελοῦ νῦν ἡμᾶς καὶ διάσωσον. ᾠdὴ z᾿. Ἐν τῇ καμίνῳ Ἀβραμιαῖοι παῖδες τῇ περσικῇ Ἐν τῇ καμίνῳ ὥσπερ οἱ πάλαι παῖδες τῇ Δεηρᾷ οὕτως ἐμβληθέντες, ἅγιοι, τῷ πυρὶ σὺν αὐτοῖς τε δροσιζόμενοι, Θεῷ ἐμέλπετε. εὐλογητὸν τὸ κράτος σου, κύριε. Καθῃρηκότες τοῦ ἡγεμόνος ἅπαν τὸ δυσμενές, τούτου κολακείαις τε καὶ ταῖς προσβολαῖς τῶν βασάνων οὐχ ὑπήχθητε, ζήλῳ δέ, ἅγιοι, τῆς εὐσεβείας πλέον ἐρρώσθητε. Ὁ εὐδοκήσας ἠγνοημένην πρώην τοῦ ἀθλητοῦ, σῶτερ, Εἰρηναίου θήκην εἰς παμφανὲς προελθεῖν τῆς καταθέσεως, τοῖς δεομένοις σου δι᾿ αὐτοῦ τὰ ἐλέη σου δώρησαι. Τοῖς ἐν ἀνάγκαις πρὸς σὲ μολοῦσι πόθῳ εἰλικρινεῖ γίνου,

160  Appendix Εἰρηναῖε, τάχιστος ἀρωγὸς ἐκ κινδύνων τε καὶ θλίψεων καὶ περιστάσεων τοὺς τελοῦντας τὴν μνήμην σου λύτρωσαι. Ὃν ἐκ νηδύος τῆς σῆς, παρθένε, τίκτεις ὑπερφυῶς, τοῦτον ἱλεοῦ τοῖς δούλοις σου συμπαθῶς ὡς Θεὸν φύδει φιλάνθρωπον καὶ καταλλάττουσα εὐμενίζου μητρῴαις ἐντεύξεσιν. ῷδὴ η᾿. Χεῖρας ἐκπετάσας Δανιὴλ Δόξη καὶ στρατείᾳ γεηρᾷ ἐνδιαπρέψαντες, πρὸς τὴν οὐράνιον καὶ ἀστασίαστον στράτευσιν μετετάξαντο τῇ χάριτι σὺν Εἰρηναίῳ τῷ σεπτῷ Ὢρ καὶ Ὀρόψεος. εὐλογεῖτε πάντα τὰ ἔργα κυρίου τὸν κύριον. Ἥττηται ὑπέροφρυς ἐχθρὸς τῇ εὐανδρείᾳ ὑμῶν, μάτρυρες ἔνδοξοι, καὶ καταβέβληται τύραννος. τοῖς δεινοῖς γὰρ κραταιούμενοι, τὸ τῶν εἰδώλων ἀδρανὲς ἐθριαμβεύσατε ἐκβοῶντες. Πάντα τὰ ἔργα κυρίου τὸν κύριον. Πάσχοντα τὸν παῖδα καὶ τῷ σῷ προσκαρτεροῦντα ναῷ ἰάσω τάχιστα τοῦ καταβάλλοντος δαίμονος, δι᾿ αὐτοῦ δέ, Εἰρηναῖε σοφέ, τὴν κεκρυμμένην σου σορὸν νῦν ἀνευράμενοι, μελῳδοῦμεν. Πάντα τὰ ἔργα κυρίου τὸν κύριον. Δέχου τὰς λατρείας τῶν θερμῶς προσπελαζόντων σοι,

Appendix 161 ἱερομάρτυς Χριστοῦ, καὶ τὴν ἐκβλύζουσαν ἄπαυστα σῶν λειψάνων παραδόξως πηγὴν φυγαδευτήριον παθῶν καὶ καθαρμὸν τῶν ψυχῶν ἡμῖν δεῖξον, ὅπως σὲ ὕμνοις ἐνθέοις δοξάζωμεν. Ὕπερθεν κτισμάτων τῶν ἐν γῇ καὶ οὐρανίων πασῶν φρικτῶν δυνάμεων σύ ἀνηγόρευσαι, πάναγνε. τὸν γὰρ τούτοις ἀπερίληπτον ἐγκυμονεῖς καὶ γαλουχεῖς ἀγκάλαις φέρουσα καὶ τὸ θαῦμα νοῦς καταπλήττεται πᾶς καὶ ἐξίσταται. ᾠδὴ θ᾿. Λίθος ἀχειρότμητος ὄρους Δεῦτε, ὦ φιλέορτοι, πίστει τοὺς στρατιώτας καὶ ὁπλίτας τῆς πανυπερθέου τριάδος σὺν Εἰρηναίῳ, Ὢρ καὶ Ὀρόψεον ᾀσματικῶς γεραίροντες ὡς νικηφόρους μεγαλύνωμεν. Ξίφει τὸ μακάριον τέλος οἱ ἀθλοφόροι δεδεγμένοι ἐν φλογὶ καμίνου θηρσί τε καὶ πρὶν γενναίως προσομιλήσαντες νῦν ἐν ὑψίστοις γήθονται σὺν τοῖς ἀύλοις τῶν ἀγγέλων χοροῖς. Μάκαρ Εἰρηναῖε, μὴ λίπῃς ἐξ ἀναγκῶν καὶ ἀλγηδόνων καὶ ἐξ ἀμετρήτων πταισμάτων ἀεὶ λυτροῦσθαι τοὺς προσιόντας πόθῳ τῇ τῶν λειψάνων θήκῃ σου, ἣν σεβασμίως ἀσπαζόμεθα. Φάνηθι σπουδαῖος προστάτης, εἰρηνεπώνυμε λευῖτα, τοῖς ἐν πειρασμοῖς καὶ κινδύνοις τὴν κραταιάν σου προσκαλουμένοις σκέπην καὶ πρὸς Θεὸν δεήσεσι τὰ δυσχερῆ ἡμῖν εὐμάριζε.

162  Appendix Σὺ ταῖς πρὸς Θεὸν μεσιτείαις χριστιανῶν ὑπερασπίζεις, δέσποινα, τοῦ κόσμου τὸ κλέος, καὶ νῦν συνήθως δεινῶν ἐκλυτρουμένη ἀτρώτους περιφύλαττε τοὺς σὲ ἀπαύστως μεγαλύνοντας. Munich, Clm 4554, ff. 89v-91r (BHL 4466) Cum7 e[ss]et persecutio sub dioclesiano et maximiano imperatorib[us] quando diversis agonibus concertantes chri[sti]ani a tyrannis inlata supplicia devota d[e]o mente suscipientes premiis se perpetuis particepes faciebant quod et factum e[st] circa d[e]i famulum ireneum epis[copum] urbis syrmientium cuius iam nunc vob[is] certamen in chr[sto] nomine pandam victoriamque ostendam qui pro timore divino et modestia sibi a d[e]o donata qua rectis inserviebat operibus dignor nomine suo inventus e[st] conprehensus aque oblatus est p[ro] bo pannonie presidi qui dic[it] ad eu[m] obtemperans preceptis divinis sacrifica dis ireneus r[espondit] qui diis et non sacrificaverit eradicabitur probus pr[ese] s dic[it] clementissimi principes iusserunt aut sacrificare aut tormentis subcumbere ireneus s[a]c[e]r r[espondit] mihi enim a d[e]o preceptum est tormenta magis suscepere quam d[eu]m negando sacrificare demoniis probus pr[aese] s dic[it] aut sacrificia aut faciam te torqiri s[a]c[e]r irenus r[espondit] gaudio si feceris ut particeps passionibus d[omi]ni mei inveniar tunc p[ro]bus pr[ese] s iussit eum acerime vexaretur dic[it] ad eum quid dicis irene sacrificas ireneus r[espondit] sacrifico p[er] bonam confessione[m] d[e]o meo cui semper sacrificavi advenientes vero parentes eius et videntes eum torqueri precabantur eum hinc pueri pedes eius cum lacrimis amplectentes dicebant miserere tui et n[ost]ri pater inde uxores eorum lugentes aetatem vultus illius precabantur parentum vero omnium luctus et fletus erat super eum domesticorum gemitus vicinorum ululatus et lamentatio amicoru[m] qui omnes clamantes dicebant ad eum miserere tenere aduliscentie tue sed ut dictum e[st] meliore cupiditate detentus ante oculus habebat sententiam d[omi]ni qua dicit qui amat patrem aut matrem aut uxorem aut filios sup[er] me non est me dignus et qui non tollet crucem suam et sequitur me non potest meus esse discipulus Omnes ergo dispiciens nulli omnino respondit festinabat autem pervenire ad superne vocationis spem p[ro]bus pr[ese]s dic[it] quid dicis irenee flecterer horum lacrimis ab insania tua et consulens aduliscentie tue sacrificas ireneus r[espondit] in perpe[t]uo mihi consuleo si non sacrificavero p[ro]b[us] autem iussit eum recipi in custodia carceris plurimis vero diebus ibide[m] clausus penis affectus e[st] post hec vero procedente media nocte et redente pro tribunali p[re]sede probo introductus e[st] iterum beatissimus ireneus et probus ad eum dicit iam sacrifica irenee et lucrare penas ireneus r[espondit] fac quod vis hoc autem a me ne expectes prob[us] iterum fustibus eum cedi precepit ireneus r[espondit] d[eu] m habeo quem a prima etate mea colere dedici ipsu[m] adoro qui me confortat in ominib[us] cui etiam sacrificio deos vero manu factos adorare non possum

Appendix 163 probus dicit lucrare mortem tuum iam tibi sufficiant q[uae] pertulisti tormenta ireneus r[espondit] lucror continuo mortem quando per eas quas mihi putas inferre te penas quas ego non sentio propter d[eu]m accipere vitam eternam probus dic[it] filios habes ireneus r[espondit] non habeo probus dic[it] parentes haberis ireneus r[espondit] non habeo probus dic[it] et qui fuerunt illi qui flebant preterita sessione ireneus r[espondit] p[re]ceptum e[st] d[omi]ni mei ih[es] u chri[sti] dicentes qui diligit patrem aut matrem aut uxorem aut fr[atrem] aut parentes super me non e[st] me dignus atque ideo ad d[eu]m in celis aspiciens et ad eius promissiones intendens omnia que despiciens nullum absq[ue] eum me nosse et anime confiteor probus dic[it] scio te filios habere vel propter illos sacrifica ireneus r[espondit] filii mi habent d[omi]n[u]m quem et ego qui potens est mecum illis salvare tu autem fac quod tibi p[re]ceptum e[st] probus dic[it] consule tibi iuvenis immola ut non te variis cruciamentis inpendam ireneus r[espondit] fac quod vis iam nunc videbis quant(d)am mihi d[omi]n[u]s ih[esu] s chr[istu]s tolerantiam dabit adversus tuas insidias p[ro]b[us] dic[it] dabo in te sententiam ireneus r[espondit] gratulor si feceris tunc probus data sententia dic[it] ireneum inobidientem preceptis regulib[us] in fluvium precipitari precipio ireneus r[espondit] multiferas menas tuas et tormenta plurima exspectabam ut etiam post hec me ferro subiceris tu autem nihil horum inferre voluisti unde et facias oro ut cognoscas quemadmodum chri[sti]ani propter fidem que est in d[omi]no mortem contempnere consueverunt iratus itaq[ue] p[ro]bus sup[er] fiduciam beatissimi viri iussit eum gladio percuti s[an]c[tu]s vero d[e] i martyr tibi gratias ago d[omi]ne ih[es]u chr[ist]e qui mihi per varias penas atq[ue] tormenta tolerantia[m] dare dignatus es et efficere me glorie eternae particem cumq[ue] venisset ad pontem qui vocatur vasentis et expolians se vestimenta sua et extendens manus in caelum oravit dicens d[omi]ne ih[esu] chr[ist]e qui pro mundi salute pati dignatus es pateant caeli tui ut suscipiant angeli sp[iritu]m servi tui irenei qui propter nomen tuum et plebem productus de ecclesia tua catholica hec patior te peto tuam qui misericordia[m] dep[re] cor ut a me suscipere et istos in fide tua confirmare digneris sic itaque percussus gladio proiectus e[st] a ministris in fluvio ti savi passus e[st] autem beatissimus ireneus ep[iscopu]s syrmientium civitatis die octavum idus april[is] sub dioclesiano et maximiano imperatoribus agente probo preside regna d[omi]no n[ost]ro ih[es]u chr[ist]o cum patre et sp[irit]u s[an]c[t]o in secula seculorum amen expli[cit] Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, lat. 371, ff. 77r-78v (BHL 4466) PASSIO S[ANC]TI HERENEI EP[ISCOP]I QUOD EST VIII IDUS8

Cum esset persequutio sub diocliciano et maximiano imperatoribus. quando diversis agonibus concertantes chr[isti]ani a tyrannis inlata supplicia devota

164  Appendix d[e]o mente suscipientes. Praemiis se perpetuis participes efficiebant; Quod et factum e[st] circa famulum d[e]i hireneum ep[iscopu]m urbis serieniensium. cuius iam nunc vobis certamen pandam victoriamque ostendam, Qui pro modestia sua ingenita et timore divino cui operibus rectis inserviebat dignus nominis sui inventus e[st]; Conp[re]hensus itaq[ue] oblatus probo praeside pannoniae. probus preses dixit ad eum; Obtemperans praeceptis divinis sacrifica diis; hireneus resp[ondit] qui diis et non d[e]o sacrificat exterminabitur, probus praeses dixit, clementissimi principes iusserunt aut sacrificare aut tormentis succumbere debere, hireneus respondit; mihi enim praeceptu[m] e[st] tormenta magis suscipere quam d[eu]m denegans demoniis sacrificare, probus praes[es] dixit; Aut sacrifica aut faciam te torqueri. hireneus resp[o]nd[it]; gaudeo si feceris ut d[omi]ni mei passionib[us] particeps inveniar; prob[us] preses iussit eum vexari; Cumq[ue] acerrime vexaretur dixit ad eum; quid dicis hirenee sacrifica hireneus respond[it]; Sacrifico per bonam confessione[m] d[e]o meo cui semp[er] sacrificavi. Advenientes vero parentes eius videntes eum torqueri praecabantur eum; hinc pueri pedes eius amplectentes dicebant; miserere tui et n[ost]ri pater; Inde uxores lugentes vultus aetatem eius precabantur, parentum vero omnium luctus et fletus erat sup[er] eum domesticorum gemitus vicinorum ululatus et lamentatio amicorum qui om[ne]s clamantes ad eum dicebant; tenerae adulescentiae tuae miserere, Sed, ut dictu[m] e[st] meliore cupiditate detentus sententiam d[omi]ni ante oculos habens quae dicit si quis me negaverit coram hominibus ego negabo eum coram patre meo qui in caelis est, Omnes ergo despiciens nulli omnino respondit festinabat ad sup[er]nam spem vocationis pervenire. probus praeses dixit; quid dicis flectere horum lacrimis ab insania tua et consulens adulescentie tue sacrifica, hireneus respondit consulo mihi in p[er]petuo si non sacrificavero, probus iussit eum recipi in custodia carceris; plurimis vero dieb[us] ibidem clausus poenis e[st] affectus, Quodam autem tempore media nocte procedente p[ro] tribunali praesidi probo introductus e[st] iterum beatissimus martyr hireneus. probus dixit ad eum, Iam sacrifica hirenee lucrans paenis, hireneus resp[on]d[it]; fac quod iussum e[st] hoc a me ne expectes. probus iterum vexatum eum fustib[us] caedi praecepit, hireneus resp[on]d[it], D[eu]m habeo quem a prima aetate colere dedici ipsum adoro qui me confestat in omnibus cui etiam et sacrifico, Deos vero manu factis adorare non possum, prob[us] dixit, Lucrare mortem. Iam tibi sufficiant quae tolerasti tormenta. hireneus respo[ndit], Lucror continuo morte[m] quando per eas quas mihi putas inferre poenas, quas ego non sentio, propter d[eu]m accipere vitam aeternam. probus dixit. Uxorem habes hireneus resp[on]d[it] non habeo. probus dixit, filios habes. hireneus resp[on]d[it] non habeo. probus di[xit] parentes habes. hireneus respond[it] non habeo. probus dix[it] et qui fuerunt illi qui praeterita flebant sessione; hireneus respond[it] praeceptum e[st] d[omi]ni mei ih[es]u chri[sti] dicentis, Qui diligit p[atrem] aut matre[m] aut uxorem aut filios aut fratres. aut parentes sup[er] me, non e[st] me dignus, Itaq[ue] ad d[eu] m in caelum aspiciens et ad eius promissiones intendens omnia despiciens.

Appendix 165 nullum absque eum se nosse atq[ue] habere fatebatur, probus dixit; vel p[ro] pt[er] illos sacrifica. hireneus resp[on]d[it] Filii mei d[eu]m habent quem ego. qui potest illos salvare. Tu autem fac quod tibi praeceptum e[st]. probus dixit, Consulo tibi iuvenis immola ut non te cruciatib[us] inpendam, hireneus resp[o]nd[it], fac quod vis iam nunc videbis quantam mihi d[omi]n[u]s ih[esu]s chr[istu]s dabit tolerantia[m] adversus [tuus – superscript] insidias. probus dix[it]. Dabo in te sententia[m], hireneus resp[o]nd[it], gratulor si feceris, prob[us] data sententia dix[it] hireneu inoboediente. praeceptis regalibus in fluvium praecipitari iubeo. hireneus resp[on]d[it] multafarias minas tuas et tormenta plurima expectabam. ut etiam p[ro]pt[er] h[a]ec me ferro subicieris [subiceres – superscript], tu autem nihil horum intulisti unde hoc facias, oro ut cognoscas quemammodum chr[ist]iani propt[er] fidem quae est in d[e]o mortem contempnere consueverunt, Iratus itaq[ue] probus sup[er] fiducia[m] beatissimi viri iussit eum etiam gladio percuti, S[an]c[tu]s vero d[e]i martyr tamquam secundum enim palmam accipiens. d[e]o gratias agebat dicens, tibi gratias ago d[omi]ne ih[es]u chr[ist]e qui mihi per varias poenas et tormenta donas tolerantia[m] ut aeternae gloriae meae participem efficere dignatus es. Et cum venisset ad pontem qui vocatur basentis expolians se vestimenta. et extendens manus in caelu[m] oravit dicens, D[omi] ne ih[esu] chr[ist]e qui pro mundi salute pati dignatus es pateant caeli tui ut suscipiant angeli sp[iritu]m servi tui hirenei qui propt[er] nomen tuum et plebem tuam p[ro]ductus de ecclesia tua catholica sermiensium haec patior, te peto tuamq[ue] deprecor misericordiam ut et me suscipere et hos in fide tua confirmare digneris, Sic itaq[ue] percussus gladio a ministris proiectus e[st] in fluvium savi; martirizavit famulus d[e]i s[a]c[e]r hireneus ep[iscopu] s civitatis sermiensium die VIII id[us] april[is]. Sub diocliciano imperatore agente probo preside regnante d[omi]no n[ost]ro ih[es]u chr[ist]o cui est gloria in secula seculorum. amen; expli[cit] Suprasl Codex, the Martyrdom of Irenaeus (BHBS 508) Мѣсѧца марта кѕ. мѫчениѥ стааго иринеа.9 Егда нравъ благъ съ доброчьстиѥмъ въздрастъ. Большиихъ желаѧ страхъ божии прииметъ. Тъгда вьсе ѥже вь семь житии прѣовидѣвъ. Къ обѣштаныихъ благыихъ приѧтию подвизаѥтъ сѧ. Да ѩже послоушаниимъ акы сѫшта вѣроѭ твръдоѭ вида въждела. та же пакы божѥѭ славоѭ въсприим славитъ господа. Ѥже быстъ и о блаженѣмъ иринеи епискоупѣ еремиискааго града. Кротости ради лихыѧ. И ѥже о божии доброговѣнии. Дѣлы оутврьди нареченоѥ. Постигъшоу бо гонению. Ѥже быстъ при диоклитиѩнѣ и маѯимиѩнѣ цри. Приведенъ оубо быстъ свѧтыи иринеи къ кнѧзоу провоу. И въпрошенъ бывъ аште хоштетъ пожръти богомъ. отъвѣшта блаженыи иринеи глаголѧ. нъ и жити же съ вами не хоштѫ. Тъгда повелѣ затворити и вь тьмници. Многомъ же дьнемь минѫвъшемъ. Сѫштоу ѥмоу вь тьмници. Въ полоуношти пришъдъшоу кнѧзоу. Изведенъ быстъ пакы блаженыи иринеи. И различъны мѫкы сътрьпѣвъ. И въпрашаѥмъ почто не пожьреши. Отъвѣшта глаголѧ. Ѩко

166  Appendix бога имамъ ѥгоже из млады връсты чисти навыкохъ. И глаголемымь вами богомъ не поклонѫ сѧ. Провъ рече. приобрѧшти жизнь себѣ. Довьлѣѥтъ ти ѩже приѧ досаждениѩ. Свѧтыи иринеи рече. Не приобрѧштѫ сьмрьти. Жизни прѣдълежѧшти. Нъ да отъ бога жизнь приимѫ. Провъ рече имаши ли женѫ отъвѣшта не имамъ. Се же глаголааше блаженыи иринеи. Господьнѫ заповѣдь съконьчаваѧ глаголѫштѫѭ. Любѧи отьца и матере. Или братиѭ. Или женѫ. Или чада паче мене. Нѣстъ мене достоинъ. на нѫже заповѣдь вьзирлѧ блаженыи. на небо имѣаше оумъ. Видѣти желаѧ славѫ господьиѫ. И вьсе чловѣчьско житиѥ оставивъ. Нич’соже паче господа. Вѣдѣти же и имѣти исповѣдааше. Пакы оубо рече къ немоу кьнѧзь. Вѣдѣ тѧ сынъ имѫшта. Понѣ тѣхъ дѣльма пожьри. онъ же отъвѣштавааше. Сынове мои бога имѫтъ ѩкоже и азъ. Иже можетъ ѧ сънабьдѣти. Ты же повелѣноѥ ти сътвори. Провъ рече съвѣштаваѭ ти юноше пожръти. Да не различьныимъ мѫкамъ прѣдамъ тѧ. Свѧтыи мѫченикъ иринеи рече. Не жьрѫ. Твори ѥже хоштеши. Оувѣси бо ѩко силоѭ христосовоѭ добьѥ вьсе сътръпьѭ. Провъ рече. ѥльма же не хоштеши повинѫти сѧ цѣсароу. Вь рѣкѫ въвръженъ бѫдеши. иринеи рече. Ты различьныими мѫками прѣштааше оуморити мѧ. И азъ надѣахъ сѧ ѩко мечемъ отъсѣчеши ми главѫ. Зане молѫ тѧ повели и то сътворити. Да оувѣси како крьстиѩни сьмрьть прѣовидѣти навыкохомъ. Христосовы ради любьве разгиѣвавъ же сѧ кънѧзъ. О дръзости стаго мѫченика иринеа. Повелѣ мечемъ оусѣкиѫти и. Свѧтыи же мѫченикъ. Ѩко въторыи вѣньцъ полоучивъ рече. Благодѣть исповѣдаѭ богоу моѥмоу. Даръствовавъшоу оу моу ми различьныимъ мѫкамъ тръпѣнию вѣньць. И ѥгда прѣлѣзошѧ мостъ рекомыи артемись. Съвлѣкъ ризы своѧ. И вьзьрѣвъ на небо. Помоли сѧ глаголѧ сице. Господи да отвръзѫтъ сѧ небеса. И да приимѫтъ доушѫ раба твоѥго. Ѩкоже и людемъ твоимъ вьсѣчьскыѧ цръкъве. И вьсѣкого испльнениѩ ѥѧ. К тебѣ вѣроуѧ г[оспод]и їсоу хрьстесе вьсе страждѫ. И оусѣкиѫвъше и въвръгошѧ и вь рѣкѫ. Се же сѧ сътвори въ срѣмѣ. Старѣишинъствоуѭштоу провоу. цѣсаръствоуѭштоу же вь вѣкы исоу хръстоу господоу нашемоу. Ѥмоу же слава нынѣ и присно и вь вѣкы вѣкомъ амин. Kutaisi 1 (XVI) (translation) In the month of August 23rd Deeds of the saint martyr Irenaeus, bishop of Sirmium; Father, bless us!10 God will not forgive if the virtue of marvelous St. Irenaeus is not revealed. God did not want the deeds of this important person to be lost without reward and receiving the crown. God made this martyr a mediator between him and the people and appointed him a shepherd of the speaking flock. And when God saw that Irenaeus was equal to Peter, the head of the Apostles, he lit Irenaeus as a candle so that his light shines in front of people. After this, he introduced him to the stadium of martyrdom. And then, securely and without hindrance, God made him his martyr. Irenaeus, already wrapped in grand victory and crowned, was taken to heaven by God.

Appendix 167 And this man lived during the days when the evil servant Diocletian was ruling. He was active in divine worship and very skilled in virtuous deeds in the bishopric church of Sirmium. At a young age, he was elevated to bishop. He freed many people in his flock from ignorance and impiety through his ability to be a good shepherd and his virtues. His flock multiplied. He achieved all this by teaching his flock good things and things that would save their souls and increase their spirits through his firm and trustworthy faith. By his example, he was persuading his flock to abandon the tricks made by the devil and to refuse to worship the pagan cults (idols). The word about Irenaeus spread outside of the nearby regions and became known to faraway places. This word [of mouth] also reached the rulers. And these rulers started looking for Irenaeus so that they would capture him and they would take revenge because of his daring lawlessness. During the rule of Probus in Pannonia, the Hellenes came to Probus and denounced Irenaeus, who was, according to them, spitting the gods and resisting the kingdom’s laws. They claimed that Irenaeus was openly converting almost everybody to Christianity. They begged the ruler Probus not to close his eyes to the insults Irenaeus made in his office, as he was a pleb and did not show respect towards the authority. The offense came from the plebeian who did not hold office, who was condemned, and whose behavior was shameful. The Hellenes immediately persuaded the ruler Probus, and Probus became as angry as they were. He sent cavalry to bring the bishop to him. And when they got Irenaeus, Probus immediately asked him whether worshipping the gods with them was acceptable. And Irenaeus replied briefly: “I did not choose to live with you, who are unbelievers. But, as I live with you, I will not share your worship of the idols and your godless behavior.” After this, he was taken to prison by order of the ruler. After spending several days in jail under challenging conditions, he was called again in front of the ruler. He was placed before the ruler, and the trial started again. He was accused of not recognizing the gods; he did not worship them and did not make a sacrifice. Irenaeus behaved like this, but he encouraged others to do the same. Irenaeus, whose name means peace (he was peaceful), replied calmly: “All the humans, o ruler, live according to what they learned when they were children and what they considered as good, acceptable, and what they grew up with. And they are faithful to all this until the end of their lives. From my childhood, I  learned to be a good servant, and I grew up with the teaching of Christ and his disciples. At the same time, I distanced myself from everything horrible and evil. I have been persuading people that they must distance themselves from evil and believe in goodness all my life. And I do not consider anything more right and desirable than this teaching. I consider Christ’s teaching the only truth, and God’s grace and power are with those who defend these commandments. This power and grace allow people to do unbelievable deeds. For instance, those thrown in the fire will not burn, those thrown in the sea will not drown, and those wounded by the sword will not pass away. And when they die,

168  Appendix their honorable remnants and dry bones will cure and make miracles and cure incurable diseases. And they will make some people who are almost dead resurrected. And everything above-mentioned is fulfilled by the true God, Jesus Christ, the only mighty one who loves humankind and is merciful but condemned by you. And those who once recognize Jesus and who receive Eucharist will never have the wish to step away from him. Moreover, they will convert others to the same faith.” When Probus heard this, he behaved differently and asked if Irenaeus had children, and Irenaeus replied, “no.” Then Probus asked if Irenaeus had parents; Irenaeus replied, “no.” Probus told him: “I know that you have both, and if you care about them, you better believe in gods and show respect.” “O ruler, God teaches us in one of his commandments that God should be loved more than the parents, children, and wives. God says: ‘Who loves mother, father, wife, children, and brothers more than me is not worthy of me.’ And because of this, at present, I rejected my parents’ property because it is better to reject all this than to reject God, who himself is the one who can love us the most and can guarantee eternal life in heaven.” And then Probus, who was defeated in this examination, said to Irenaeus: “Because you stand on the position which is truthful, but harmful for you, and you insult the gods and are against the laws of the kingdom, then we will order the decapitation against you. And after the beheading, we will throw you in the river.” When Irenaeus heard this verdict, he uplifted his hands to heaven and said the prayer: “Thank you, the men-loving only-begotten son of God, for the honor that you awarded me within my lifetime. You made me, the unworthy man, be the servant of your holy imperishable remnants. And you would always listen to my prayers, which were directed towards your people and the Catholic Church. And now you awarded me a bigger honor that you will help me accomplish my service to you as a shepherd in your name with martyrdom. And here I sacrifice myself to you. And I will similarly sacrifice myself as you sacrificed yourself for us in front of your father. And here accept the highest sacrifice and let me in the camp of your flock, so that in this sheep-fold I hear your sweet and life-giving voice. I will be happy to enter the shepherd’s flock.” He prayed and surrendered himself to the officials. And they took him to the bridge of the river and cut his honorable head with the sword. Immediately his body with the head was thrown into the river. And God gave mercy to his lifted-up spirit. And God crowned him. God is adorned by all glory, respect, and worship from here to eternity. Amen. Armenian Martyrdom of Saint Irenaeus the Bishop (BHO 537) Those who were brought up in goodness and love for God, being educated and longing for the best, fear God and, at the same time, despise everything

Appendix 169 earthly.11 He strives to get nearer, longing to enjoy the promised goods after everything is heard and confirmed by faith. He will immediately be the eyewitness, and, accepting [it], he will praise the Lord. It happened at the time of Blessed Irenaeus, bishop of Sermia, who was worthy of the bishop’s seat from a very young age, thanks to his incomparable piousness and the fear of God. And, when persecutions began at the time of King Diocletian, he neither fell in despair from sadness about earthly problems, as others did, nor neglected joy, but went straight to his supreme vocation and goal, with courageous and invincible willingness, longing for future and forgetting the past, as dark dealings of the king were unable to overcome his firmness. Not diverse enmities, which led to tortures, rivers’ whirlpools, caverns’ landslips, or threats of various tortures, depressed him. He resisted those used to harm everybody, annoy men, make children cry, make women lament and have sad looks, and make acquaintances, relatives, and family mourn over the corpses of youngsters with heartrending screams leading to lamentation and crying. In other words, he was filled with willingness and the fear of judgment before his eyes. He was terrified by the voice of the Lord, who said: “If someone renounces me in front of men, I shall also renounce him before my Father who is in Heaven.” He despised everything, aspiring to the hope of the future. Irenaeus was brought before judge Probus who was then working in Pannonia. Probus asked: “Don’t you want to offer sacrifice [to idols]?” The Blessed Irenaeus answered: “I  do not want to live like you.” Then he was sent to prison, where he spent numerous days tied and tortured. Once the judge sent by night for the tortured blessed martyr and asked him: “Why don’t you want to offer sacrifice?” The saint answered: “Because I  have a God whom I used to adore from my young years, and I cannot venerate your so-called gods.” Judge Probus said: “Accept your death; you have suffered enough from torture.” Irenaeus said: “Soon I shall get my death from you; then I shall get the eternal life, which is God.” Probus said: “Do you have a wife or children?” The saint answered: “No.” He asked: “Do you have parents?” And he said: “No.” Saying so, the Blessed Irenaeus was thinking about the Lord’s command: “Those who love their father and mother, their brothers and children, more than they love me are not worthy of me.” And lifting his eyes to heaven, he honestly renounced all earthly things and adored the Lord more than anyone. Again the judge told him: “I know that you have children; if only for them, you could offer sacrifice.” The saint answered: “My children have God in them, and God can be as vivifying as I am for them. Do what you have the order to do.” Probus advised him: “O youngster, comply so that you do not die in various and numerous tortures.” Irenaeus said: “No, I shall not. Say everything you want and be aware that I can resist everything by the almightiness of Christ.” And the judge gave the verdict of death, saying: “As you do not want to submit to the royal orders, for this very reason and by the command of these rulers, you will be thrown

170  Appendix in the river.” And Irenaeus answered: “I hoped for more than these various tortures that you threaten with. If you want, you may kill me by the sword, and I beg you to do so that you know that Christians despise death in the name of the faith that we learned thanks to God.” So, angry with saint Irenaeus for his boldness, the judge ordered to kill him. And the saint, falling martyr of the second victory, said: “Thanks to God who gave me great patience and the brightest crown of death.” And when they arrived at the bridge Artemis, he took off his clothes and raised his arms to heaven. He prayed: “O Lord, let the heaven open and accept the soul of your unworthy servant who trusted in you in the name of your people and the Universal Church. My Lord Jesus, my sufferings are in the name of it.” And his cut head fell into the river. And this happened on the sixth day of Ahekan. Glory, praise, and mightiness to the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and in the eternity of times. Amen. Notes 1 The manuscript is available online at Last accessed: 22/12/2021. 2 I have consulted this manuscript in a digital form in the State Historical Museum in Moscow. 3 I edited this text from the manuscript kept in the Austrian National Library in Vienna. 4 The text is available online at https://www.loc.gov/resource/amedmonastery. 00279389372-jo/?sp=210 > Last accessed: 23/12/2021. 5 I edited this text from the Ambrosian Library, Milan. 6 Schirò, Analecta Hymnica Graeca, 393–403. 7 The manuscript is available online at Last accessed: 23/12/2021. 8 The manuscript was consulted by courtesy of the Austrian National Library in Vienna. 9 Zaimov and Kapaldo, Супрасълски или Ретков сборник, 252–254. 10 Translation by Sandro Nikolaishvili. 11 Translation by Arpine Asryan.

Bibliography

Latin manuscripts Auxerre, Bibl. mun. 127 (114), ff. 205v–206 Avranches, Bibl. mun. 167, ff. 114v–115 Brussels, Bibl. roy. 207–208, ff. 204v–205 Brussels, Bibl. roy. 9289, ff. 139v–140 Charleville, Bibl. mun. 200, ff. 112–113 Charleville, Bibl. mun. 254, t. I, ff. 142v–143v Douai, Bibl.mun. 840, ff. 152v–153r Dublin, Trin. Coll. Lib. B. 1.16. (cat. 171), ff. 106–108 Einsiedeln, Stiftsbibl. 247, ff. 201–205 Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibl. Aug. XXXII, ff. 132r–v London, Brit. Lib. Nero C VII, ff. 29r–v London, Brit. Lib. Harl. 2800, f. 138 Montpellier, Bibl. univ. méd. 1, t. V, ff. 179v–180 Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibl. Clm 4554, ff. 89v–91r Paris, BnF lat. 5279, f. 125v Paris, BnF lat. 5297, ff. 159v–160r Paris, BnF lat. 5352, ff. 219r–v Paris, BnF lat. 16732, f. 181r–v Paris, BnF lat. 17004, ff. 176r–v Rouen, Bibl. mun. U 42 (cat. 1379), ff. 211v–212v Saint-Omer, Bibl. mun. 715, t. 1, ff. 168v–169v Saint-Omer, Bibl. mun. 716, t. II, ff. 167v–168v Turin, Bibl. naz. F. III. 16, ff. 31–32v Trier, Stadtbibl. 1151, t. 1 (962), ff. 154–155 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibl. (ÖNB) 371, ff. 77–78v Greek manuscripts Venice, Marcianus gr. 360, ff. 395r–398v Paris, BnF gr. 1177 (Fontebl.-Reg. 2447), ff. 211v–213r

172  Bibliography Paris, BnF Suppl. gr. 241, ff. 215r–216v Paris, BnF gr. 548 (Reg. 2481), ff. 190–192r Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibl., Hist. gr. 45, ff. 246r–248r Brussels, Bibliotheca Bollandiana, Boll. 193, ff. 117r–118v Moscow, State Historical Museum, Syn. gr. 183, ff. 242r–244r Jerusalem, Panagiou Taphou 17, ff. 204v–205v Ambrosiana, B. 1. inf., ff. 70r–71v Sinaiticus gr. 614, ff. 21r–23v Sinaiticus gr. 632, ff. 151v–153v Old Slavonic Suprasl Codex The University Library of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, UL, Cod. Kop. 2, ff. 1–236 St. Petersburg, Russia, RNL, Q.п.I.72, ff. 237–268 The National Library of Warsaw (NLP, Zamojski BOZ. 201), ff. 269–570 Georgian manuscript Kutaisi 1 (XVI), ff. 526r–528v Secondary literature Aebischer, P. La “Vita Sancti Marini:” Texte du manuscrit F. III. 16 de la Bibliothèque nationale de Turin. San Marino: Biblioteca di San Marino, 1974. [Afinogenov, D. E.] Афиногенов Д. Е. “Новгородское переводное четье-минейное собрание” [Collection of Translated Čti-minei from Novgorod]. In Abhandlungen zu den Grossen Lesemenäen des Metropoliten Makarij. Kodikologische, miszellanologische und textologische Untersuchungen II, eds. E. Maier and E. Weiher, 261–283. Freiburg: Weiher, 2006. Aigrain, R. L’hagiographie, ses sources, ses méthodes, son histoire. Paris: Bloud and Gay, 1953. Alexoupulos, Rev. Dr. S. “Presanctified on March 25? Glimpses in the Liturgical Practice of Constantinople Before the Council of Trullo (691/2).” Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata III, No. 5 (2008): 7–25. Allen, G. Intertextuality. London: Routledge, 2000. Anderson, B. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 1991. Andrić, I. Na Drini ćuprija [Bridge on the Drina]. Zagreb: “Mladost”, 1967. Antonelli, F. “I primi monasteri di monaci orientali in Roma.” Rivista di archeologia cristiana 5 (1928): 105–121. Antonopoulou, T. “Homiletic Activity in Constantinople Around 900.” In Preacher and Audience: Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics, eds. M. Cunningham and P. Allen, 317–348. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ———. The Homilies of the Emperor Leo VI. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Apro, D. “Homeland Frontline: Inside Serbia’s Prison Camps for War Captives.” Last accessed: 08/10/2021.

Bibliography 173 [Archimandrite Vladimir] Владимир, Архимандрит. Систематическое описаніе рукописей Московской синодальной (патріаршей) библіотеки: Рукописи греческія [Systematic Description of the Manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Patriarchal Library: Greek Manuscripts]. Moscow, 1894. Arranz, M., ed. Le typicon du monastère du saint-Sauveur à Messine. Rome: Pontificum Institutum Orientalium Atudiorum, 1969. Ashley, K., and P. Sheingorn. Writing Faith: Text, Sign and History in the Miracles of Saint Foy. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1999. [Atanasova, D.] Атанасова, Д. Мъченици, текстове, контексти [Martyrs, Texts, Contexts]. Sofia: Stigmati, 2008. Bal, M. Narratology. Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1997. Barbulescu, J. “Jarăşj despre Savina kniga şi Codex Suprasliensis in Dacia Traiană” [Once Again on Sava’s Book and the Suprasl Codex in Roman Dacia]. Archiva Societăţii istorico-filologice din Jaşi 44 (1937): 59–75. Barišić, F. Čuda Dimitrija Slounskog kao istorijski izvori [The Miracles of Demetrius of Thessaloniki as Historical Sources]. Beograd: Srpska Akademija Nauka: Posebna izdanja, 1953. Barnes, T. D. “Early Christian Hagiography and the Roman Historian.” In Christian Martyrdom in Late Antiquity (300–450 AD): History and Discourse, Tradition and Religious Identity, eds. P. Gemeinhardt and J. Leemans, 15–34. New York: Walter De Gruyter, 2012. ———. Early Christian Hagiography and Roman History. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. ———. “Pre-Decian Acta Martyrum.” Journal of Theological Studies 19 (1968): 509–531. Bartlett, R. Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things? Saints and Worshippers from the Martyrs to the Reformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013. Bauer, D. R., and K. Herbers. Hagiographie im context. Wirkungsweisen und Moglichkeiten historischer Auswertung. Beitrage zur Hagiographie 1. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2000. Baun, J. Tales from Another Byzantium: Celestial Journey and Local Community in the Medieval Greek Apocrypha. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Beck, H.-G. Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich. Munich: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1959. Beiner, G. Forgetful Remembrance: Social Forgetting and Vernacular Historiography of a Rebellion in Ulster. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Berardino, A. D., ed. Encyclopedia of the Early Church, tr. A. Walford. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Berend, N., J. Laszlovszky, and B. Z. Szakács. “The Kingdom of Hungary.” In Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy: Scandinavia, Central Europe and Rus, c. 900–1200, ed. N. Berend, 319–368. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Betti, M. The Making of Christian Moravia (858–882): Papal Power and Political Reality. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina Manuscripta. “Dossier hagiographique de “Pionius presb. et soc. mm. Smyrnae.” Last accessed: 26/07/2022. ———. “Liste des textes hagiographiques copiés en même temps que BHL 4466 dans le ms. Bruxelles 207–208.” Last accessed: 25/03/2022. ———. “Liste des textes hagiographiques copiés en même temps que BHL 4466 dans le ms. Charleville, 200.” Last accessed: 25/07/2022. ———. “Liste des textes hagiographiques copiés en même temps que BHL 4466 dans le ms. Paris, BNF, lat. 05279.” Last accessed: 25/03/2022. ———. “Liste des textes hagiographiques copiés en même temps que BHL 4466 dans le ms. Paris, BNF, lat. 05297.” Last accessed: 25/03/2022. ———. “Liste des textes hagiographiques copiés en même temps que BHL 4466 dans le ms. Paris, BNF, lat. 05352.” Last accessed: 25/03/2022. ———. “Liste des textes hagiographiques copiés en meme temps que BHL 4466 dans le ms. Paris, BNF, lat. 16732.” Last accessed: 25/03/2022. ———. “Liste des textes hagiographiques copiés en même temps que BHL 4466 dans le ms. Paris, BNF, lat. 17004.” Last accessed: 25/03/2022. ———. “Liste des textes hagiographiques copiés en même temps que BHL 4466 dans le ms. Saint-Omer 715.” Last accessed: 25/03/2022. ———. “Liste des textes hagiographiques copiés en même temps que BHL 4466 dans le ms. Saint-Omer, 716.” Last accessed: 25/03/2022. Bierbrauer, K. Die vorkarolingischen und karolingischen Handschriften der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1990. Billett, J. D. “The Liturgy of the ‘Roman’ Office in England from the Conversion to the Conquest.” In Rome Across Time and Space: Cultural Transmission and Exchange of Ideas c. 500–1400, eds. C. Bolgia, R. McKitterick, and J. Osborne, 84–110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Bisbee, G. A. Pre-Decian Acts of Martyrs and Commentarii. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988. Bischoff, B. Die südostdeutschen Schreibschulen und Bibliotheken in der Karolingerzeit, I–II. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassovitz, 1960–1980. Bischoff, B., and M. Lapidge, eds. Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. ———. Manuscripts and Libraries in the Age of Charlemagne. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Boba, I. “The Cathedral Church in Sirmium and the Grave of St Methodius.” Die slawischen Sprachen 8 (1985): 35–40.

Bibliography 175 [Boeva, L.] Боева, Л. “Беллетристические Элементы в житиях Супрасльского сборника” [The Elements of Fiction in the Lives of the Suprasl Codex]. In Проучвания върху Супрасълския сборник, Старобългарски паметник от Х век [Studies of the Suprasl Codex, the Old Bulgarian Monument of the Tenth Century], ed. Й. Заимов, 95–102. София: Българската Академия на Науките, 1980. Bollandus, J. Acta Sanctorum, Martii Tomus III. Paris and Rome: Apud Victorem Palme, 1865. Booth, W. C. “Resurrection of the Implied Author: Why Bother?” In A Companion to Narrative Theory, eds. J. Phelan and P. Rabinowitz, 75–88. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Borić, D. “Introduction: Memory, Archaeology, and the Historical Condition.” In Archaeology and Memory, ed. D. Borić, 1–34. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2010. Borsari, S. “Il monachesimo bizantino nell’Italia meridionale e insulare.” Settimane 34 (1988): 675–695. ———. “Le migrazioni dall’Oriente in Italia nell VII secolo.” La Parola del Passato 6 (1951): 133–138. ———. Il monachesimo bizantino nella Sicilia e nell’Italia meridionale prenormanne. Naples: Nella sede dell’istituto, 1963. Borst, A. Der karolingische Reichskalender und seine Überlieferung bis ins 12. Jahrhundert. Hanover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 2001. ———. The Ordering of Time: From the Ancient Computus to the Modern Computer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993. Bösendorfer, J. Crtice iz slavonske povijesti [Notes from the Slavonic History]. Osijek: Tiskom J. Pfeiffera, 1910. Bouchard, C. B. Rewriting Saints and Ancestors: Memory and Forgetting in France, 500–1200. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015. Bowersock, G. W. Martyrdom and Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Bowlus, C. Franks, Moravians, and Magyars: The Struggle for the Middle Danube, 788–907. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995. Bradshaw, P. F. “Continuity and Change in Early Eucharistic Practice: Shifting Scholarly Perspectives.” In Continuity and Change in Christian Worship, ed. R. N. Swanson, 1–17. Rochester, NY: The Boydell Press, 1999. Bréhier, L. “Les colonies d’Orientaux en Occident au commencement du moyen-âge.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 12, No. 1 (1903): 1–39. Brenner, E., M. Cohen, and M. Franklin-Brown, eds. Memory and Commemoration in Medieval Culture. New York: Routledge, 2020. Brock, S. P. “Saints in Syriac: A Little-Tapped Resource.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 16, No. 2 (2008): 181–196. Brock, S. P., and S. A. Harvey. Holy Women of the Syrian Orient. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. Brooks, V. W. “On Creating a Usable Past.” The Dial: A Semi-Monthly Journal of Literary Criticism 64 (1918): 337–341. Brown, P. The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. ———. “Eastern and Western Christendom in Late Antiquity: A  Parting of the Ways.” In Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity, 166–195. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982. ———. “Enjoying the Saints in Late Antiquity.” Early Medieval Europe 9, No. 1 (2000): 1–24.

176  Bibliography Brubaker, L., and J. Haldon. Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, C. 680–850: A History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Bull, C. H., L. I. Lied, and J. D. Turner, eds. Mystery and Secrecy in the Nag Hammadi Collection and Other Ancient Literature: Ideas and Practices. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Bullough, D. “The Carolingian Liturgical Experience.” In Continuity and Change in Christian Worship, ed. R. N. Swanson, 29–64. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell, 1999. Burke, P. “History as Social Memory.” In Memory: History, Culture and the Mind, ed. T. Butler, 97–113. New York: Blackwell, 1989. Butler, R. D. The New Prophesy and ‘New Visions:’ Evidence of Montanism in The Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2006. Byford, J. Potiskivanje i poricanje antisemitizma [Suppressing and Denial of AntiSemitism]. Belgrade: Helsinški odbor za ljudska prava, 2005. Calendar of Carthage. Last accessed: 24/04/2022. Cameron, A. Christianity and Rhetoric of the Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. ———. “On Defining the Holy Man.” In The Cult of Saints in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Essays on the Contribution of Peter Brown, eds. P. A. Hayward, and J. D. Howard-Johnston, 27–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. ———. “The Theotokos in Sixth-Century Byzantium: A City Finds Its Symbol.” In Continuity and Change in Sixth-Century Byzantium, 96–102. London: Variorum Reprints, 1981. Carolingian Culture at Reichenau and St. Gall. “Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek: Perg. Aug. 32.” Last accessed: 24/02/2021. Carruthers, M. The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Castelli, E. A. “The Ambivalent Legacy of Violence and Victimhood: Using Early Christian Martyrs to Think With.” Spiritus 6 (2006): 1–24. ———. Martyrdom and Memory: Early Christian Culture Making. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques des départements III. Paris: Imprimerie impériale, 1861. Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques des départements V (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1879). Last accessed: 05/04/2022. Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum latinorum antiquiorum saeculo XVI qui asservantur in Bibliotheca nationali Parisiensi 1–4. Brussels, 1889–1893. Cerquiglini, B. Éloge de la variante: Histoire critique de la philologie. Paris: Seuil, 1989. Chavasse, A. Le Sacramentaire Gélasien (Vaticanus Reginensis 316). Tournai-Paris: Desclée et Cie, 1958. Christie, N. “The Survival of Roman Settlement Along the Middle Danube: Pannonia from the Fourth to the Tenth Century AD.” Oxford Journal of Archeology 11 (1992): 317–339. Ćirković, S. “Civitas sancti Demetrii.” In Sremska Mitrovica, ed. R. Prica, 59–71. Sremska Mitrovica: Skupština Opštine/Muzej Srema, 1969. Coens, M. “Catalogus Codicum Hagiographicorum Latinorum Bibliothecae Civitatis Treverensis.” Analecta Bollandiana 52 (1934): 157–285.

Bibliography 177 ———. “Un légendier de Cysoing.” Analecta Bollandiana 60 (1942): 17–20. Colker, M. L. Descriptive Catalogue of the Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin Manuscripts. Aldershot: Scolar Press for Trinity College Library Dublin, 1991. Connerton, P. How Modernity Forgets. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. ———. How Societies Remember. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989. ———. “Seven Types of Forgetting.” Memory Studies 1, No. 1 (2008): 64–66. Constantinides Hero, A. “An Anonymous Narrative of the Martyrdom of the Anchorites of Mount Sinai.” In Byzantine Religious Culture: Studies in Honor of AliceMary Talbot, eds. D. Sullivan, E. Fisher, and S. Papaioannou, 411–420. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Constantinou, S. “Metaphrasis: Mapping Premodern Rewriting.” In Metaphrasis: A Byzantine Concept of Rewriting and Its Hagiographical Products, eds. S. Constantinou and C. Høgel, 3–60. Leiden: Brill, 2020. Costambeys, M. “The Transmission of Tradition: Gregorian Influence and Innovation in Eighth-Century Italian Monasticism.” In The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages, eds. Y. Hen and M. Innes, 78–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Couser, J. “A Usable Past: Early Bavarian Hagiography in Context.” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 3, No. 4 (2007): 1–56. Crone, P. “Islam, Judeo-Christianity and Byzantine Iconoclasm.” In From Kavad to al-Ghazali: Religion, Law, and Political Thought in the Near East, c. 600–c. 1100, 59–96. New York: Routledge, 2004. Cross, F. L. “Early Western Liturgical Manuscripts.” Journal of Theological Studies 16 (1965): 63–64. Cubitt, C. “Memory and Narrative in the Cult of Early Anglo-Saxon Saints.” In The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages, eds. Y. Hen and M. Innes, 29–66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. ———. “Unity and Diversity in the Early Anglo-Saxon Liturgy.” In Unity and Diversity in the Church, ed. R. N. Swanson, 45–57. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1996. The Cult of Saints in Late Antiquity Database. Last accessed: 24/02/2023. Ćurčić, S. Architecture in the Balkans from Diocletian to Suleyman the Magnificent. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010. Curta, F. Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages 500–1250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. D’Aiuto, F. “Note ai manoscritti del Menologio Imperiale, 1. Un monogramma nel Menologio di Mosca.” Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici 39 (2002): 189–228. ———. “Un ramo italogreco nella tradizione manoscritta del ‘Menologio Imperiale.’ Riflessioni in margine a testimoni ambrosiani.” In Nuove ricerche sui manoscritti greci dell’Ambrosiana, eds. C. M. Mazzucchi and C. Pasini, 145–178. Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 2003. Declercq, G. “The Scriptorium of Benediktbeuern and the Palimpsest Codex Clm 6333.” Early Medieval Palimpsests 26 (2007): 55–71. Delehaye, H., ed. “Catologus codicum hagiographicorum Graecorum bibliothecae D. Marci Venetiarum.” Analecta Bollandiana 24 (1905): 169–256.

178  Bibliography ———. Cinq études sur la méthode hagiographique. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1934. ———. L’ancienne hagiographie byzantine: les sources, les premiers modèles, la formation des genres, eds. B. Joassard and X. Lequeux. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1991. ———. The Legends of the Saints: An Introduction to Hagiography. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1907. ———. Les légendes hagiographiques. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1906. ———. Les passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1966. ———. L’oeuvre des Bollandistes a travers trois siècles, 1615–1915. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1959. ———. Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e codice Sirmondiano. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1902. Deploige, J. “The Database ‘Narrative Sources from the Medieval Low Countries.’ A  Short Introduction Followed by the User’s Guide.” In Medieval Narrative Sources. A  Gateway into the Medieval Mind, eds. W. Verbeke, L. Milis, and J. Goossens, 271–298. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005. Detorakis, T. “Ἡ χρονολόγηση τοῦ αὐτοκρατορικοῦ μηνολογίου τοῦ B. Latyšev” [The Dating of the Imperial Menologion by Latyšev]. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 83, No. 1 (1990): 46–50. Diesenberger, M. “Hagiographie et réforme en Bavière à la charnière des viiie et ixe siècles.” Médiévales 62, No. 1 (2012): 67–81. ———. “How Collections Shape the Texts: Rewriting and Rearranging Passions in Carolingian Bavaria.” In Livrets, collections et textes. Études sur la tradition hagiographique latine, ed. M. Heinzelmann, 195–220. Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2006. ———. Predigt und Politik im frühmittelalterlichen Bayern. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016. Dmitrievskij, A. Opisanie liturgitseskich rukopisej I [The Description of Liturgical Manuscripts I]. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1965. [Dobrev, I.] Добрев, И. “Агиографската реформа на Симеон Метафраст и съставът на Супрасълския сборник” [Hagiographical Reform of Symeon Metaphrastes and the Composition of the Suprasl Codex]. Старобългарска литература 10 (1981): 16–38. ———. “Гръцките думи в Супрасълския сборник и втората редакция на старобългарските богослужебни книги” [Greek Words in the Suprasl Codex and the Second Redaction of the Old Bulgarian Liturgical Books]. Български език 28, No. 2 (1978): 89–98. Dolbeau, F. “Le dossier hagiographique d’Irénée, évêque de Sirmium.” In “Sanctorum societas.” Récits latins de sainteté (III e -XII e siècles), 147–168. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 2005. ———. “Le Légendier de l’abbaye cistercienne de Clairmarais.” Analecta Bollandiana 91, No. 3–4 (1973): 273–286. ———. “Le tome perdu du Légendier de Saint-Omer reconstitué grâce aux ‘Collectanea Bollandiana’.” Analecta Bollandiana 93 (1975): 363–375. ———. “Notes sur la genèse et sur la diffusion du Liber de natalitiis.” Revue d’Histoire des textes 6 (1976): 143–195. ———. “Un légendier de la cathédrale d’Arras (Bruxelles, B. R., II. 2310).” Analecta Bollandiana 107 (1989): 128.

Bibliography 179 ———. “Deux légendiers démembrés du diocèse de Liège.” Analecta Bollandiana 109 (1991): 117–136. Doležalová, L., ed. The Making of Memory in the Middle Ages. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Driscoll, M. J. “The Long and Winding Road: Manuscript Culture in Post-medieval Iceland.” In White Field, Black Seeds: Nordic Literacy Practices in the Long Nineteenth Century, eds. A. Kuismin and M. J. Driscoll, 50–63. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society, 2013. ———. “The Words on the Page: Thoughts on Philology, Old and New.” In Creating the Medieval Saga: Versions, Variability, and Editorial Interpretations of Old Norse Saga Literature, eds. J. Quinn and E. Lethbridge, 85–102. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 2010. Dubois, J. Les martyrologes du moyen âge latin. Turnhout: Brepols, 1978. Dubois, J., and G. Renaud. Edition pratique des martyrologes de Bède, de l’anonyme lyonnais et de Florus. Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1976. [Dunkov, D.] Дунков, Д. “Супрасълският сборник и етапите в развитието на Преславската редакция на старобългарските книги” [Suprasl Codex and the Stages of Development of the Preslav Redaction of the Old Bulgarian Books]. Език и литература 5 (1985): 11–20. ———. “Наблюдения върху състава на Супрасълския сборник” [Observations on the Composition of the Suprasl Codex]. Език и литература 45 (1990): 25–34. Dupont, A. “Augustine’s Homiletic Definition of Martyrdom. The Centrality of the Martyr’s Grace in His Anti-Donatist and Anti-Pelagian Sermones ad Populum.” In Christian Martyrdom in Late Antiquity (300–450 AD), eds. P. Gemeinhardt and J. Leemans, 155–178. Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2012. Duval, Y. Loca Sanctorum Africae: Le culte des martyrs en Afrique du IVe au VIIe siècle. Rome: École Francaise de Rome, 1982. Dvornik, F. Byzantine Missions Among the Slavs. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1970. ———. The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958. [Džunova, A.] Джурова, А. 1000 години българска ръкописна книга [Thousand Years of Bulgarian Manuscript Book]. Sofia: Septemvri, 1981. ———. “Към въпроса за графичната украса на ранните гръцки ръкописи от Охрид, Cod. Gr. 70 (Inv. 44)” [The Issue of the Graphic Decoration of the Early Greek Manuscripts of Ohrid, Cod. Gr. 70]. In Християнската култура в средновековна България [Christian Culture in the Medieval Bulgaria], ed. П. Георгиев, 234–257. В. Търново: Фабер, 2008. Efthymiadis, S., ed. The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography Volume I: Periods and Places. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011. ———, ed. The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography II: Genres and Contexts. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2014. ———. “Greek Byzantine Hagiography in Verse.” In The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography II: Genres and Contexts, ed. S. Efthymiadis, 161–180. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2014. ———. “Introduction.” In The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography II: Genres and Contexts, ed. S. Efthymiadis, 1–21. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2014.

180  Bibliography ———. “Hagiography from the ‘Dark Age’ to the Age of Symeon Metaphrastes (Eight–Tenth Centuries).” In The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography I: Periods and Places, ed. S. Efthymiadis, 95–142. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011. ———. “New Developments in Hagiography: The Rediscovery of Byzantine Hagiography.” In Hagiography in Byzantium: Literature, Social History and Cult, I, 157–171. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Variorum, 2011. Egmond, W. S. van. “The Audience of Early Medieval Hagiographical Texts: Some Questions Revisited.” In New Approaches to Medieval Communication, ed. M. Mostert, 41–67. Turnhout: Brepols, 1999. Ehrhard, A. Überlieferung und Bestand der hagiographischen und homiletischen Literatur der Griechischen Kirche von den Anfangen bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts I–III. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1937. Elliott, A. G. Roads to Paradise. Reading the Lives of the Early Saints. Hannover: University Press of New England, 1987. Enchev, T. “The Belief in Martyrs and Relics in the Light of Church Canons.” In Early Christian Martyrs and Relics and Their Veneration in East and West, eds. A. Minchev and Y. Votov, 43–48. Varna: Reghionalen istoričeski muzej, 2006. Engel, P. The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526. London: I. B. Tauris & Co Ltd., 2001. Ercegović-Pavlović, S. “An Eastern Germanic Grave from Mačvanska Mitrovica.” Sirmium 4 (1982): 19–23. Erll, A. “Travelling Memory.” Parallax 17, No. 4 (2011): 4–18. Esbroeck, M. V. Les plus anciens homeliaires georgiens. Louvain la neuve: Institut Orientaliste, 1975. Europeana. “Vitae et passiones sanctorum–BSB Clm 4554.” Last accessed: 21/02/2021. ———. “Vitae et passiones sanctorum. Munich Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm 4554.” Last accessed: 11/01/2022. Farlati, D. Illyrici Sacri Tomus Septimus, Ecclesia Diocletana, Antibarensis, Dyrrhachiensis, Et Sirmiensis, Cum Earum Suffraganeis. Venice: Apud Sebastianum Coleti, 1817. Farmer, S. Communities of St Martin: Legend and Ritual in Medieval Tours. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991. Ferrari, G. Early Roman Monasteries: Notes for the History of the Monasteries and Convents at Rome from the Fifth Through the Tenth Century. Vatican City: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, 1957. Fine, J. V. A. Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991. Fisher, E. A. “Encomium for Kyr Symeon Metaphrastes: Translated with Introduction and Notes.” In Michael Psellos on Literature and Art: A Byzantine Perspective on Aesthetics, eds. C. Barber and S. Papaioannou, 193–217. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2017. Fleischmann, S. “Philology, Linguistics, and the Discourse of the Medieval Text.” Speculum 65 (1990): 19–37. Flusin, B. “L’empereur hagiographe. Remarques sur le rôle des premiers empereurs macédoniens dans le culte des saints.” In L’empereur hagiographe: Culte des saints

Bibliography 181 et monarchie Byzantine et post-byzantine, eds. P. Guran and B. Flusin, 29–54. Bucharest: New Europe College, 2000. Follieri, E., ed. I calendari in metro innografico di Cristoforo Mitileneo. Introduzione, testo e traduzione, II. Commentario e indici. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1980. Foltz, K. Geschichte der Salzburger Bibliotheken. Vienna, 1877. Forrai, R. “Rewriting: A Modern Theory for a Premodern Practice.” Renæssanceforum. Tidsskrift for Renæssanceforskning 14 (2018): 25–49. Fouracre, P. “The Long Shadow of the Merovingians.” In Charlemagne: Empire and Society, ed. J. Story, 5–21. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005. Frend, W. C. “Martyrdom in East and West: The Saga of St George of Nobatia and England.” In Martyrs and Martyrologies, ed. D. Wood, 47–56. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1993. Funkenstein, A. Perceptions of Jewish History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Gabidzashvili, E. Dzveli kartuli mc’erlobis natargmni dzeglebi I [Translated Works of Ancient Georgian Literature I – Hagiography]. Tbilisi: Theological Seminary and Academy Publishing House, 2004. Gaiffier, B. de. “La lecture des Actes des martyrs dans la prière liturgique en Occident.” Analecta Bollandiana 72 (1954): 134–166. ———. “La lecture des passions des martyrs à Rome avant le IXe siècle.” Analecta Bollandiana 87 (1969): 63–78. ———. “L’hagiographie et son public au XIe siècle.” In Miscellanea Historica in honorem Leonis van der Essen Universitatis Catholicae in Oppido Lovanieni iam annos XXXV professoris I, 135–166. Brussels, 1947. Gaillard, M. “Remarques sur les plus anciennes versions de la Passio et de l’Inventio des saints Fuscien, Victoric et Gentien (manuscrits Paris, BnF, lat. 12598 et Wien, ÖnB, 371).” In Parva pro magnis munera: Études de littérature tardo-antique et médiévale offertes à François Dolbeau par ses élèves, ed. M. Goullet, 397–409. Turnhout: Brepols, 2009. Garbarino, C. “Augustine, Donatists and Martyrdom.” In An Age of Saints? Power, Conflict and Dissent in Early Medieval Christianity, eds. P. Sarris, M dal Santo, and P. Booth, 49–61. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Gardhausen, V. Catalogus codicum graecorum sinaiticorum. Oxford: Clarendon, 1886. Garitte, G., ed. Le calendrier palestino-georgien du Sinaiticus 34 (Xe siècle). Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1958. Gautier, P. Deux oeuvres hagiographiques de pseudo-Théophylacte. PhD dissertation. Paris: University of Paris, Sorbonne, 1968. Geary, P. J. Before France and Germany: The Creation and Transformation of the Merovingian World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. ———. Furta Sacra: Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990. ———. Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millenium. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. ———. “Saints, Scholars and Society: The Elusive Goal.” In Living with the Dead in the Middle Ages, 9–29. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994. Gebhardt, O. von. Acta martyrum selecta – Ausgewählte Märtyreracten. Berlin: A. Duncker, 1902. Genette, G. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980.

182  Bibliography ———. Narrative Discourse Revisited. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988. ———. Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree. London: University of Nebraska Press, 1997. [Georgiev, E.] Георгиев E. “Возникновение Преславской литературной школы” [The Emergence of Preslav Literary School]. Palaeobulgarica 6, No. 1 (1982): 16–28. Getov, D. “The Unedited Byzantine Liturgical Canons in the Library of Congress Microfilms of the Greek Manuscripts in St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai.” Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata III, No. 6 (2009): 67–118. Gheyn, J. Van den. Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique. Brussels: Henri Lamertin, 1901–1948. Giannouli, A. “Byzantine Hagiography and Hymnography: An Interrelationship.” In The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography II: Genres and Contexts, ed. S. Efthymiadis, 285–312. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2014. Gigineishvili, L. The Platonic Theology of Ioane Petritsi. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2007. Glauche, G. Katalog der lateinischen Handschriften der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1994. Godding, R. De Rosweyde aux Acta Sanctorum. La recherche hagiographique des Bollandistes à travers quatre siècles. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 2009. Goullet M., and Heinzelmann, M. Ecriture et reecriture hagiographiques. Essai sur les reecritures de Vies de saints dans l´Occident latin medieval (VIIIe-XIIIe s.). Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2005. ———, eds. La Réécriture hagiographique dans l’Occident mediéval: transformations formelles et idéologiques. Ostfildern: Jan Thornbecke Verlag, 2003. ———. “Parva pro magnis munera. Études de littérature tardo-antique et médiévale offertes à François Dolbeau par ses élèves.” Artistica et medievalia 51 (2009): 397–409. Greek Manuscripts 614. Menaion April. 1000. Manuscript/Mixed Material. Last accessed: 27/04/2022. Greenblatt, S. Marvelous Possessions: The Wonder of the New World. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1992. Gribomont, J. “Le mystérieux calendrier Latin du Sinai: Éditiis et commentaire.” Analecta Bollandiana 75 (1957): 105–134. Grig, L. Making Martyrs in Late Antiquity. London: Duckworth, 2004. Grondeux, A. “Le rôle de Reichenau dans la diffusion du Liber Glossarvm.” In Dossier HEL: L’activité lexicographique dans le haut Moyen Âge latin Rencontre autour du Liber Glossarum (suite), No. 8 (2015): 79–93. Grosjean, P. “Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum latinorum bibliothecarum Dubliniensium.” Analecta Bollandiana 46 (1928): 81–148; 62 (1944): 33–41. Grotowski, P. L. Arms and Armour of the Warrior Saints. Tradition and Innovation in Byzantine Iconography (843–1261). Leiden: Brill, 2010. Guillou, A. “Grecs d’Italie du Sud et de Sicile au Moyen Âge: Les moines.” Mélanges de l’ecole française de Rome 75 (1963): 79–110. Günter, G. Katalog der lateinischen Handschriften der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München. Die Pergamenthandschriften aus Benediktbeuern: Clm 4501–4663, neu beschrieben von Günter Glauche. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994. Györffy, G. “Das Güterverzeichnis des griechischen Klosters Szavaszentdemeter aus dem 12. Jahrhunderts.” Studia Slavica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 5 (1959): 9–74. Hainzelmann, M. “Neue Aspekte der biographischen und hagiographischen Literatur in der lateinischen Welt (1–6. Jahrhundert).” Francia I (1973): 27–44.

Bibliography 183 Hajduk, M. “Sanktuarium na Supra” [The Shrine at Supra]. Slavia Orientalis 38, No. 3–4 (1989): 511–536. Halkin, F. Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca, 1–3. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1957. ———. “Le mois de Janvier du ‘Ménologe Impérial’ byzantine.” Analecta Bollandiana 57 (1939): 225–236. ———. Manuscrits Grecs de Paris. Inventaire hagiographique. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1968. ———. Novum Auctarium Bibliothecae Hagiographicae Graecae. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1984. Halm, K., G. von Laubmann, and W. Meyer. Catalogus codicum Latinorum bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis. Monachii, 1894. Last accessed: 23/02/2021. Harlfinger, D., D. R. Reinsch, and J. A. M. Sonderkamp, eds. Specimina Sinaitica: Die datierten griechischen Handschriften des Katharinen-Klosters auf dem Berge Sinai 9. bis 12. Jahrhundert. Berlin: D. Reimer, 1983. Harvey, S. A. “Martyr Passions and Hagiography.” In The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies, eds. S. A. Harvey and D. G. Hunter, 603–627. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Hatlie, P. “The Encomium of St. Isakios and Dalmatos by Michael the Monk (BHG 956d): Text, Translation and Notes.” In ΕΥΚΟΣΜΙΑ. Studi miscellanei per il 75° di Vincenzo Poggi S. J., eds. V. Ruggieri and L. Pieralli, 275–311. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino Editore, 2003. Hayward, P. A. “Demystifying the Role of Sanctity in Western Christendom.” In The Cult of Saints in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages: Essays on the Contribution of Peter Brown, eds. P. A. Hayward and J. Howard-Johnston, 115–142. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Head, T. Hagiography and the Cult of Saints: The Diocese of Orleans, 800–1200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. ———. “Introduction.” In Medieval Hagiography. An Anthology, ed. T. Head, xiii– xlix. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 2000. Heene, K. “Merovingian and Carolingian Hagiography. Continuity or Change in Public and Aims?” Analecta Bollandiana 107, No. 3–4 (1989): 415–428. Heffernan, T. J. The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Heidegger, M. Being and Time (tr. J. Macquarrie, E. Robinson). New York: Harper and Row, 1962. Helland, T. “The Pre-Metaphrastic Byzantine Reading Menologion for July in the Slavonic Tradition.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 101, No. 2 (2008): 659–667. ———. “The Serbian Church Slavonic Text of the Martyrion of Dorotheos of Alexandria.” Poljarnyj Vestnik 9 (2006): 46–51. ———. “The Slavonic Tradition of Pre–Metaphrastic Reading Menologia for March – Codex Suprasliensis and Its Russian and Ukrainian Parallels.” Scando-Slavica 53, No. 1 (2007): 59–76. ———. “Some Remarks Regarding the Place and Date of the Translation of the Slavonic Reading Menologia and Their Transmission to Russia.” Palaeobulgarica 31, No. 1 (2007): 27–39. Hen, Y. Culture and Religion in Merovingian Gaul, AD 481–751. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

184  Bibliography ———. “The Romanisation of the Frankish Liturgy: Ideal, Reality and the Rhetoric of Reform.” In Rome Across Time and Space: Cultural Transmission and Exchange of Ideas c. 500–1400, eds. C. Bolgia, R. McKitterick, and J. Osborne, 111–124. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. ———. The Royal Patronage of Liturgy in Frankish Gaul. London: Henry Bradshaw Society, 2001. ———. “Unity in Diversity: The Liturgy of Frankish Gaul Before the Carolingians.” In Unity and Diversity in the Church, ed. R. N. Swanson, 19–30. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1996. Hinterberger, M. “The Byzantine Hagiographer and His Text.” In The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography II: Genres and Contexts, ed. S. Efthymiadis, 211–246. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2014. ———. “Byzantine Hagiography and Its Literary Genres. Some Critical Observations.” In The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography II: Genres and Contexts, ed. S. Efthymiadis, 25–60. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2014. Høgel, C. “Hagiography Under the Macedonians: The Two Recensions of the Metaphrastic Menologion.” In Byzantium in the Year 1000, ed. P. Magdalino, 217–232. Leiden: Brill, 2002. ———. “The Redaction of Symeon Metaphrastes: Literary Aspects of the Metaphrastic Martyria.” In Metaphrasis. Redactions and Audiences in Middle Byzantine Hagiography, ed. C. Høgel, 7–22. Oslo: The Research Council of Norway, 1996. ———. “Sanctification of Hagiographers in Byzantium: The Canonization of Symeon Metaphrastes.” In Metaphrasis: A  Byzantine Concept of Rewriting and Its Hagiographical Products, eds. S. Constantinou and C. Høgel, 270–281. Leiden: Brill, 2021. ———. Symeon Metaphrastes. Rewriting and Canonization. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2002. Holder, A. T. Die handschriften der Grossherzoglich badischen hof-und landesbibliothek in Karlsruhe V. Leipzig: Druck und Verlag von B. G. Treubner, 1906. Holder, A. T., and K. L. Preisendanz. Die handschriften der badischen Landesbibliothek in Karlsruhe 5: Die Reichenauer Handschriften 1. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassovitz, 1970. Last accessed: 25/03/2022. ———. Die Reichenauer Handschriften 1–3. Leipzig and Berlin: Druck und Verlag B. G. Teubner, 1918. Holter, K. “Über einige salzburger Handschriften des 9. Jahrhunderts in der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, Wien.” In Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte und Archäologie des Frühmittelalters: Akten zum VII. Internationalen Kongress für Frühmittelalterforschung, 21–28 September  1958, ed. H. Fillitz, 208–216. GrazColonge: Verlag Hermann Böhlaus Nachf, 1962. Hytrek, A. “Starokršansko grobište sv. Sinerota u Sriemu [The Old Christian Cemetery of St. Synerotes in Srem].” In Ephemeris Salonitana: qua monumenta sacra praecipue Salonitana in honorem I. Congressus Christianae Antiquitatis Cultorum, 1–6. Zadar: L. Vitaliani, 1894. Institut de recherché et d’histoire des textes. “Pinakes: Textes and manuscrits grecs.” Last accessed: 19/01/2021. [Ivanov, S. A.] Иванов, С. А. “К историко – культурной интерпретации старославянских переводов c греческого” [Towards the Historical – Cultural Interpretation of the Old Church Slavonic Translations from Greek]. Советское славяноведение 1 (1988): 55–60. [Ivanova, A.] Ивановa, A. “Ново издание на Супрасълския Сборник” [The New Publication of The Suprasl Codex]. Palaeobulgarica 8, No. 1 (1984): 121–125.

Bibliography 185 [Ivanova, K.] Ивановa, K., ed. Bibliotheca hagiographica Balcano-Slavica. Sofia: Akademichno izdatelstvo “Prof. Marin Drinov,” 2008. [Ivanova-Mavrodinova, V., and L. Mavrodinova] Иванова-Мавродинова, В., Мавродинова, Л. “За украсата на Супрасълския сборник” [About the Decoration of the Suprasl Codex]. In Литературознание и фолклористика. В чест на 70-годишнината на акад. Петър Динеков [Literature and Folklore. In Honor of the 70th Anniversary of Acad. Peter Dinekov], 165–174. София: БАН, 1983. ———. “Украсата на старобългарските ръкописи до края на XI в” [Decoration of the Old Bulgarian Manuscripts Until the End of the Eleventh Century]. КирилоМетодиевски студии 12 (1999): 5–86. [Ivanova-Mircheva, D.] Иванова-Мирчева, Д. “Архаичен препис на слово № 21 от Супрасълския сборник” [The Archaic Transcription of the Text No. 21 of the Suprasl Codex]. Изследвания върху историята и диалектите на българския език [Research on the History and the Dialects of Bulgarian Language]. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1979. ———. “Супрасълският Сборник и Старобългарските преводачески школи” [Suprasl Codex and the Old Bulgarian Schools of Translation]. In Проучвания върху Супрасълския сборник, Старобългарски паметник от Х век [Studies of the Suprasl Codex, the Old Bulgarian Monument of the Tenth Century], ed. Й. Заимов, 80–86. София: Българската Академия на Науките, 1980. ———. “Непознат вариант от старобългарския превод на Μαρτύριον των αγίων καί ενδόξων τεσσαράκοντα μαρτύρων των εν Σεβαστεία μαρτυρησάντων” [Unknown Version of the Old Bulgarian Translation of the 40 Martyrs of Sebaste]. Известия на Института за български език 17 (1969): 51–103. Jagić, V. “Das Verhältnis der altkirchenslavischen Übersetzung zu diesem Texte.” Archiv für slavische Philologie 35 (1914): 51–55. Janes, D., and A. Houen, eds. Martyrdom and Terrorism: Pre-Modern to Contemporary Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Jeremić, M. “Kultne gradjevine hrišćanskog Sirmijuma” [The Cult Buildings of the Christian Sirmium]. In Sirmium i na nebu i na zemlji [Sirmium in the Heavens and on Earth], ed. D. Poznanović, 43–74. Sremska Mitrovica: Blago Sirmiuma, 2004. Johnson, S. F. The Life and Miracles of Thecla: Literary Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006. Jong, M. de. “Carolingian Monasticism: The Power of Prayer.” In New Cambridge Medieval History Volume 2: c.700-c.900, ed. R. McKitterick, 622–653. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. ———. “The Empire as Ecclesia: Hrabanus Maurus and Biblical Historia for Rulers.” In The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages, eds. Y. Hen and M. Innes, 191–226. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Jordan, R. H., and R. Morris. “Evergetis: Typikon of Timothy for the Monastery of the Mother of God Evergetis.” In Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments, eds. J. P. Thomas and A. C. Hero, 454–506. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2000. ———. The Hypotyposis of the Monastery of the Theotokos Evergetis, Constantinople (11th-12th Centuries): Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012. ———, tr. The Synaxarion of the Monastery of the Theotokos Evergetis, I–III. Belfast: The Queen’s University, 2000. Kaldellis, A. Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood: The Rise and Fall of Byzantium, 955 A.D. to the First Crusade. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.

186  Bibliography Kamil, M. Catalogue of All Manuscripts in the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1970. [Kapaldo, M.] Капалдо, М. “За състава на Супрасълският Сборник” [About the Composition of the Suprasl Codex]. In Проучвания върху Супрасълския сборник, Старобългарски паметник от Х век [Studies of the Suprasl Codex, the Old Bulgarian Monument of the Tenth Century], ed. Й. Заимов, 208–216. София: Българската Академия на Науките, 1980. Kazhdan, A. “Blachernai, Church and Palace of.” In The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 1, ed. A. Kazhdan, 293. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. ———. “Catherine, Monastery of Saint.” In The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 1, ed. A. Kazhdan, 392. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. ———. “Grottaferrata.” In The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 2, ed. A. Kazhdan, 883–884. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. ———. “Kastamonitou Monastery.” In Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 2, ed. A. Kazhdan, 1110. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. ———. “Menaion.” In The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 2, ed. A. Kazhdan, 1338. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. ———. “Menologion.” In The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 2, ed. A. Kazhdan, 1341. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. ———, ed. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 1–3. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. ———. “Xiphilinos, John the Younger.” In The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 3, ed. A. Kazhdan, 2211. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Kekelidze, K., ed. “Симеон Метафраст по грузинским источникам” [Symeon Metaphrastes in Georgian Sources]. Труды Киевской академии, No. 2 (1910): 2–20. ———. “Иоанн Ксифилин, продолжатель Симеона Метафраста” [John Xiphilinos, the Continuator of Symeon Metaphrastes]. Христианский Восток I (1912): 325–347. ———. Xelnatserta agtseriloba 1. Kutaisis Saxelamcipo Istoriuli Muzeumi [Description of Manuscripts: Historical Museum of Kutaisi]. Tbilisi: Georgian SSR Academy of Sciences, 1953. Kindt, T., and H.-H. Muller. The Implied Author: Concept and Controversy. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006. Klein, K. L. “On the Emergence of Memory in Historical Discourse.” Representations 69 (2000): 127–150. Knopf, R. Ausgewählte Märtyrerakten. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1913. Kodoñer, J. S. “Melkites and Icon Worship During the Iconoclastic Period.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 67 (2013): 135–187. Komatina, I., and P. Komatina. “Vizantijski i Ugarski Srem od X do XIII veka [Byzantine and Hungarian Srem from the Tenth to the Thirteenth Centuries].” Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog instituta 55 (2018): 141–164. Kostova, R. “Patronage and Monastic Geography in Bulgaria in the Late Ninth and Tenth Centuries.” In State and Church: Studies in Medieval Bulgaria and Byzantium, eds. V. Gjuzelev and K. Petkov, 189–209. Sofia: American Research Center in Sofia, 2011. Krausmüller, D. “Metaphrasis After the Second Iconoclasm: Nicephorus Skeuophylax and His Encomia on Theophanes Confessor (BHG 1790), Theodore of Sykeon (BHG 1749), and George the Martyr (BHG 682).” Symbolae Osloensis 78 (2003): 45–70. Krueger, D. “Hagiography as an Ascetic Practice in the Early Christian East.” The Journal of Religion 79, No. 2 (1999): 216–232.

Bibliography 187 Krüger, G., and G. Ruhbach. Ausgewählte Märtyrerakten. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1965. Krustev, G., and A. Boyadjiev. “On the Dating of Codex Suprasliensis.” In Rediscovery: Bulgarian Codex Suprasliensis of 10th Century, ed. A. Miltenova, 17–23. Sofia: East-West Publishers, 2012. Kuefler, M. The Making and Unmaking of a Saint: Hagiography and Memory in the Cult of Gerald of Aurillac. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014. [Kuev, K.] Куев, К. “История на Супрасълския Сборник” [History of the Suprasl Codex]. In Проучвания върху Супрасълския сборник, Старобългарски паметник от X век [Studies of the Suprasl Codex, the Old Bulgarian Monument of the Tenth Century], ed. Й. Заимов, 9–12. София: Българската Академия на Науките, 1980. Lake, K. “The Greek Monasteries in South Italy II.” Journal of Theological Studies 4, No. 16 (1903): 517–542. Lambeck (Lambecius), P., and A. F. Collarius. Commentatorium de Augustissima Bibliotheca Caesarea Vindobonensi VIII. Vienna, 1780. Lambros, S. Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts on Mount Athos I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1895. Reprint Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1966. Lanata, G. Gli atti dei martyri come documenti processuali mentarii. Milan: Giuffré, 1973. Lapidge, M. The Roman Martyrs: Introduction, Translations, and Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Lascaratos, J., and P. V. Zis. “The Epilepsy of Emperor Michael IV, Paphlagon (1034– 1041 A.D.): Accounts of Byzantine Historians and Physicians.” Epilepsia 41, No. 7 (2000): 913–917. Latyšev, V. V. Menologii anonymi Byzantini, saeculi X qui supersunt. Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat, 1911. Reprint 1970. Lawrence, C. H. Medieval Monasticism. Forms of Religious Life in Western Europe in the Middle Ages. London: Longman, 1984. Lechat, R. “Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum latinorum bibliothecae publicae Audomaropolitanae.” Analecta Bollandiana 47 (1929): 241–306. Leclercq, H. “Actes des martyrs.” In Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie I, eds. F. Cabrol and H. Leclercq. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1907. Lehmann, P. Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Deutschlands und der Schweiz I. Munich: Beck, 1918. Lequeux, X. “Latin Hagiographical Literature Translated into Greek.” In The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography I: Periods and Places, ed. S. Efthymiadis, 385–400. Burlington, US: Ashgate, 2011. Lietzmann, H. Die drei ältesten Martyrologien. Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Weber, 1911. Lifshitz, F., tr. “Bede, Martyrology.” In Medieval Hagiography. An Anthology, ed. T. Head, 169–198. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 2000. ———. “Beyond Positivism and Genre: ‘Hagiographical’ Texts as Historical Narrative.” Viator 25 (1994): 95–113. ———. The Name of the Saint. The Martyrology of Jerome and Access to the Sacred in Francia, 627–827. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006. ———. The Norman Conquest of Pious Neustria: Historiographic Discourse and Saintly Relics, 684–1090. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1995. ———. Writing Normandy: Stories of Saints and Rulers. New York: Routledge, 2021. Ljubić, Š. “Bazilika sv. Synerotesa u Mitrovici [The Basilica of St. Synerotes in Mitrovica].” Viestnik hrvatskoga Arheologičkoga družtva 5, No. 1 (1883): 19.

188  Bibliography ———. “O groblju sv. Sinerota u Mitrovici [About the Cemetery of St. Synerotes in Mitrovica].” Viestnik hrvatskoga Arheologičkoga družtva 8, No. 4 (1886): 97–105. Loades, D. “Introduction.” In Martyrs and Martyrologies, ed. D. Wood. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1993. Lot, F. The End of the Ancient World and the Beginning of the Middle Ages. London: Kegan Paul, 1931. Louth, A. “Unity and Diversity in the Church of the Fourth Century.” In Unity and Diversity in the Church, ed. R. N. Swanson. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers LTD, 1996. Lowe, E. A. “An Unknown Latin Psalter Is Mount Sinai.” Scriptorium 9 (1955): 177–199. Lunt, H. G. “One OCS Translation or Two? On the Suprasliensis and Related Sborniki.” Welt der Slaven 28 (1983): 225–249. Luzzi, A. “L’ideologia constantiniana nella liturgia dell’eta do Constantino VII Porfirogenito.” Rivista di studi byzantini e neoellenici, No. 28 (1991): 113–124. ———. “Synaxaria and the Synaxarion of Constantinople.” In The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography II: Genres and Contexts, ed. S. Efthymiadis, 197–210. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishers, 2014. Magdalino, P. “The Byzantine Holy Man in the Twelfth Century.” In The Byzantine Saint, ed. S. Hackel, 51–66. London: Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 1981. ———. “Évaluation de dons et donation de livres dans la diplomatie byzantine.” In Geschenke erhaltendie Freundschaft: Gabentausch und Netzwerkpflege im europäischen Mittelalter. Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums Münster, 19–20 November 2009, ed. M. Grünbart, 103–116. Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2011. Maniaci, M., ed. Trends in Statistical Codicology. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2022. Marguliés, A. Der altkirchenslavische Codex Suprasliensis. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1927. Mariani, B. Breviarium Syriacum. Rome: Herder, 1956. Martimort, A. G. Les lectures liturgiques et leurs livres. Turnhout: Brepols, 1992. Mateos, J., ed. Le typicon de la grande église. Rome: Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1962. Matthews, S. Perfect Martyr: The Stoning of Stephen and the Construction of Christian Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Mayr-Harting, H. The Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991. McCash, J. H. “The Role of Women in the Rise of the Vernacular.” Comparative Literature 60, No. 1 (2008): 45–57. McCulloh, J. M. “Historical Martyrologies in the Benedictine Cultural Tradition.” In Benedictine Culture 750–1050, eds. W. Lourdaux and D. Verhelst, 114–131. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1983. McGuckin, J. A. “Poetry and Hymnography (2): The Greek World.” In The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies, eds. S. A. Harvey and D. Hunter, 641–656. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. McKitterick, R. The Carolingians and the Written Word. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. ———. The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, 789–895. London: Royal Historical Society, 1977. ———. “Unity and Diversity in the Carolingian Church.” In Unity and Diversity in the Church, ed. R. N. Swanson, 59–82. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1996.

Bibliography 189 McLaughlin, M. Consorting with Saints: Prayer for the Dead in Early Medieval France. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994. [Mechev, K.] Мечев, К. “Словото на Патриарх Фотий за връбница и четверодневния Лазар в Супрасълския сборник” [The Encomion of Patriarch Photius for Palm Sunday in the Suprasl Codex]. In Проучвания върху Супрасълския сборник, Старобългарски паметник от Х век [Studies of the Suprasl Codex, the Old Bulgarian Monument of the Tenth Century], ed. Й. Заимов, 36–38. София: Българската Академия на Науките, 1980. Meichelbeck, P. C. Chronicon Benedictoburanum, in quo ex incunabulis, vicissitudinibus, decrementis, incrementis monasterii, actis abbatum, et aliorum virorum celebrium Historia Germaniae. Monasterii Benedictoburani, 1752. Meredith, H., ed. Objects in Motion: The Circulation of Religion and Sacred Objects in the Late Antique and Byzantine World. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2011. Michel, A. “Die griechischen Klostersiedlungen zu Rom bis zur Mitte des 11. Jahrhunderts.” Ostkirchliche Studien 1 (1952): 32–45. Migne, J.-P., ed. Patrologiae cursus completus, series graeca, 126. Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1857. Mijović, P. “Sirmijumski skulptori i kamenoresci – Quattuor coronati.” In Sirmium i na nebu i na zemlji [Sirmium in the Heavens and on Earth], ed. D. Poznanović, 113–122. Sremska Mitrovica: Blago Sirmiuma, 2004. Miklosich, F. Monumenta linguae Palaeoslovenicae e codice Suprasliensi. Vienna: Braumüller, 1851. Milošević, P. Topografija Sirmijuma [The Topography of Sirmium]. Novi Sad: Srpska Akademija nauka i umetnosti, 1994. Milovanović, M., and N. Terzić. Most “Sveti Irinej” [The Bridge “Saint Irenaeus”]. Sremska Mitrovica: Sirmiumart, 2000. Miltenova, A., ed. Rediscovery: Bulgarian Codex Suprasliensis of 10th century. Sofia: East-West Publishers, 2012. Minić, D. “Le site d’habitation medieval de Mačvanska Mitrovica.” Sirmium 11 (1980): 1–80. Mirabile: Archivio Digitale della Cultura Medievale. Last accessed: 01/03/2021. [Mircheva, E.] Мирчева, Е. “Още веднъж по въпроса за старобългарските преводи на Словото за четиридесетте мъченици от Севастия” [Once Again About the Question of the Old Bulgarian Translations of the Encomium of the 40 Martyrs of Sebaste]. Palaeobulgarica 16, No. 4 (1992): 17–26. ———. “Прояви на Преславската преводаческа и редакторска школа в слово No. 21 от Супрасълския Сборник” [Features of the Translation and the Editorial School of Preslav in the Encomion No. 21 in the Suprasl Codex]. Palaeobulgarica 21, No. 2 (1997): 12–22. ———. “Търновският новоизводен превод на Мъчението на св. 40 мъченици от Севастия” [A New Translation from Turnovo of the Martyrdom of 40 martyrs of Sebaste]. Старобългарска литература 43–44 (2010–2011): 118–159. Mohrmann, C. “Sakralsprache und Umgangssprache.” Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 10 (1968): 344–354. Moretti, P. F. La Passio Anastasiae: Introduzione, Testo Critico, Traduzione. Rome: Herder, 2006.

190  Bibliography Moretus, H. “Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum latinorum bibliothecae scholae medicinae in universitate Montepessulanensi.” Analecta Bollandiana 34–35 (1915– 1916): 229–305. Moss, C. R. Ancient Christian Martyrdom: Diverse Practices, Theologies, and Traditions. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012. ———. The Other Christs: Imitating Jesus in Ancient Christian Ideologies of Martyrdom. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. ———. The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2013. Musurillo, H. The Acts of the Christian Martyrs. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1972. Nau, F., ed. “Un martyrologe et douze ménologes syriaques.” Patrologia Orientalis 10 (1915): 7–26. Nelson, J. L. “The Franks, the Martyrology of Usuard, and the Martyrs of Cordoba.” In Martyrs and Martyrologies, ed. D. Wood, 67–80. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1993. [Nersessian, S. Der] Нерсесян, С. Дер. “Московский Менологий” [Moscow Menologion]. In Византия, Южные Cлавяне и Древняя Русь, Западная Европа. Искусство и культура. Сборник статей в честь В.Н. Лазарева [Byzantium, Southern Slavs, Ancient Rus, and Western Europe. Art and Culture. The Collection of Articles in Honor of V. N. Lazarev], eds. В. Н. Гращенков, О. И. Подобедова, and Т. Б. Князевская, 94–111. Москва: Наука, 1973. ———. “Remarks on the Date of the Menologium and the Psalter Written for Basil II.” Byzantion 15 (1940/41): 104–125. Nietzsche, F. W. On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo, tr. W. Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale. New York: Vintage Books, 1969. Nikiforova, A. “К вопросу о происхождении служебной Минеи: о структуре, составе и месяцеслове служебных Миней IX–XII вв. из библиотеки монастыря вмц. Екатерины на Синае” [On the Origin of the Office Menaion: The Structure, Composition and the Calendar of the Office Menaia of the Ninth-Twelfth Centuries from the Library of St. Catherine at Sinai]. Москва, 2008. Last accessed: 12/01/2022. ———. “The Historical Development of Liturgical Menaion in the Ninth-Twelfth Century.” Last accessed: 12/03/2022. Nikolaishvili, S. “Construction of Power and Kingship Ideology Under King David IV the Builder (r. 1089–1125): With Special Attention to the Byzantine Model.” MA Thesis. Budapest: Central European University, 2011. Nikolajević, I. “Martyr Anastasia u Fuldi” [Martyr Anastasia in Fulda]. In Zbornik radova, Sirmium i na nebu i na zemlji, ed. D. Poznanović, 123–132. Sremska Mitrovica: Blago Sirmiuma, 2004. Nilles, N. Kalendarium Manuale utriusque ecclesiae orientalis et occidentalis, I–II. England: Gregg International Publishers Limited England, 1971. Nutsubidze, T., C. B. Horn, and B. Lourié, eds. Georgian Christian Thought and Its Cultural Context. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Obolensky, D. Six Byzantine Portraits. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. ———. “Theophylact of Ohrid and the Authorship of the Vita Clementis.” In Byzantium: Tribute to Andreas N. Stratos II, ed. N. A. Stratos. Athens: N. A. Stratos, 1986. Oblak, V. “Zur Würdigung des Altslovenischen. 1. Codex Suprasliensis.” Archiv für slavische Philologie 15 (1893): 338–348.

Bibliography 191 Odorico, P. “Ideologie politique, production litteraire et patronage au Xe siècle: l’empereur Constantin VII et le synaxariste Evariste.” Medioevo Greco 1 (2001): 199–219. Oikonomidès, N. “The Concept of ‘Holy War’ and Two Tenth-Century Byzantine Ivories.” In Peace and War in Byzantium: Essays in Honor of George T. Dennis, S.J., eds. T. S. Miller and J. Nesbitt. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1995. Olick, J. K., and J. Robbins. “Social Memory Studies: From ‘Collective Memory’ to the Historical Sociology of Mnemonic Practices.” Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1998): 105–140. Omont, H. Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France. Rouen I. Paris: Librairie Plon, 1886. ———. Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum Graecorum Bibliothecae Nationalis Parisiensis. Paris: E. Leroux, 1896. ———, ed. Inventaire sommaire des manuscripts grecs de la bibliothèque nationale. Paris: Alphonse Picard Libraire, 1886. Orthodox Eastern Church. Il Menologio di Basilio II: Cod. Vaticano Greco 1613, 1–2. Torino: Bocca, 1907. Osborne, J. “Politics, Diplomacy and the Cult of Relics in Venice and the Northern Adriatic in the First Half of the Ninth Century.” Early Medieval Europe 8, No. 3 (1999): 369–386. Österreichische Nationalbibliothek. Katalog. Last accessed: 04/04/2022. Ottino, G. I codici Bobbiesi nella Bibliotheca Nazionale di Torino. Torino and Palermo: Carlo Clausen, 1890. Last accessed: 25/03/2022. Panagios Taphos 17. Menaion June-Aug. 11th cent. 242 f. Pg. 47 ft. 11th Cent, 1000. Manuscript/Mixed Material. Last accessed: 27/04/2022. [Panajotov, V.] Панайотов, B. “Бележката в Супрасълския сборник” [Note in the Suprasl Codex]. Преславска книжовна школа 6 (2002): 210–219. [Pandurski, V.] Пандурски, В. “Месецословът в Супрасълския Сборник” [Synaxarion in the Suprasl Codex]. In Проучвания върху Супрасълския сборник, Старобългарски паметник от Х век [Studies of the Suprasl Codex, the Old Bulgarian Monument of the Tenth Century], ed. Й. Заимов, 39–42. София: Българската Академия на Науките, 1980. Pantskhava, I. D. Petritsi. Moscow: Mysi, 1982. Papadopoulos-Kerameos, A. ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛΥΜΙΤΙΚΗ ΒΙΒΛΙΟΘΗΚΗ I [Jerusalem Library I]. Brussels: Culture et Civilisation, 1963. ———. ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛΥΜΙΤΙΚΗ ΒΙΒΛΙΟΘΗΚΗ III. Brussels: Culture and Civilisation, 1963. Papaconstantinou, A. “Saints and Saracens: On Some Miracle Accounts of the Early Arab Period.” In Byzantine Religious Culture: Studies in Honor of Alice-Mary Talbot, eds. D. Sullivan, E. Fisher, and S. Papaioannou, 323–338. Leiden: Brill, 2012. [Papailiopoulou-Fotopoulou, E.] Παπαηλιοπούλου-Φωτοπούλου, E. Ταμεῖον ἀνεκδότων βυζαντινῶν ᾀσματικῶν κανόνων I [Treasury of the Unedited Byzantine Sung Canons I]. Athens: Σύλλογος προς Διάδοσιν Ωφελίμων Βιβλίων, 1996.

192  Bibliography Parker, D. C. Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Paschalidis, S. A. “The Hagiography of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries.” In The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography I: Periods and Places, ed. S. Efthymiadis, 143–171. Burlington: Ashgate, 2011. ———. ΝΙΚΗΤΑΣ ΔΑΒΙΔ ΠΑΦΛΑΓΩΝ: ΤΟ ΠΡΟΣΩΠΟ ΚΑΙ ΤΟ ΕΡΓΟ ΤΟΥ [Nicetas David Paphlagon: Person and his Work]. Thessaloniki: ΚΕΝΤΡΟ ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΩΝ ΕΡΕΥΝΩΝ, 1999. Pasini, C. Inventario agiografico dei manoscritti greci dell’Ambrosiana. Brussels: Société des Bolandistes, 2003. Patlagean, E. “Ancient Byzantine Hagiography and Social History.” In Saints and Their Cults: Studies in Religious Sociology, Folklore and History, ed. S. Wilson, 101–121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Peeters, P. Bibliotheca hagiographica orientalis. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1910. [Petkanova, D.] Петканова, Д. ed. “Миней” [Menaion]. In Старо-Българска литература. Енциклопедичен речник [Old-Bulgarian Literature. Encyclopaedic Dictionary], 270–271. София: Издателство “Петър Берон,” 1992. [Petkov, G.] Stišnijat prolog v starata bulgarska, srbska i ruska literatura. Arheografija, tekstologija i izdanie na proložni stihove [Stišnijat Prologue in the Old Bulgarian, Serbian and Russian Literature. Archeography, Textology, and the Edition of the Prologue Verses]. Plovdiv: Plovdivsko universitetsko izd-vo, 2000. [Petrov, N. I.] Петров, Н. И. Описанiе кіевскихъ рукописныхъ собраній [The Description of the Kiev Manuscript Collections]. Москва: Университетская типография, 1896. [Petrova, M.] Петрова, М. “Бележки върху Преславските керамични “етикети” към мощи на светци (Св. Мария/Св. Марина Антиохийска)” [The Notes on the Preslav Ceramic “Labels” in Relation to the Relics of the Saints (St. Maria/St. Marina of Antioch)]. Старобългарска литература 35–36 (2006): 75–96. [Petrova, M., and M. Iovcheva] Петрова, М., and M. Йовчева. “Светците от Супрасълския сборник: имена, дати, източници” [Saints in the Suprasl Codex: Names, Dates, Sources]. In Rediscovery: Bulgarian Codex Suprasliensis of 10th Century, ed. A. Miltenova, 377–434. Sofia: East-West Publishers, 2012. Philippart, G. Hagiographies: Histoire internationale de la littérature hagiographique latine et vernaculaire en Occident des origines à 1550, I–V. Turnhout: Brepols, 1994–2010. ———. Les légendiers latins et autres manuscrits hagiographiques. Turnhout: Brepols, 1977. Philippart, G., and M. Trigalet. Hagiographies: Chronologie de l’hagiographie latine. Last accessed: 25/07/2021. ———. “Latin Hagiography Before the Ninth Century: A  Synoptic View.” In The Long Morning of Medieval Europe. New Directions in Early Medieval Studies, eds. J. R. Davis and M. McCormick, 111–130. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 2008. Plate, L., and E. Rose. “Rewriting, a Literary Concept for the Study of Cultural Memory: Towards a Transhistorical Approach to Cultural Remembrance.” Neophilologus 97 (2013): 611–625.

Bibliography 193 Poncelet, A. “Catalogue codicum hagiographicorum latinorum bibliothecae publicae Rotomagensis.” Analecta Bollandiana 23 (1904): 129–275. ———. “Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum latinorum bibliothecae publicae Duacensis.” Analecta Bollandiana 20 (1901): 361–470. ———. “Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum latinorum bibliothecae nationalis Taurinensis.” Analecta Bollandiana 28 (1909): 417–478. Poorthuis, M., and J. Schwartz, eds. Saints and Role Models in Judaism and Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Pope Gregory VII. The Roman Martyrology. Baltimore: John Murphy Company Publishers, 1916. [Popkonstantinov, K., and R. Kostova]. “Скрипторият в Равненския манастир: Още веднъж за украсата на старобългарските ръкописи от IX-X в” [The Scriptorium of the Ravna Monastery: Once Again on the Decoration of the Old Bulgarian Manuscripts of the Ninth to Tenth Centuries]. In Medieval Christian Europe: East and West. Traditions, Values, Communications, eds. V. Gjuzelev and A. Miltenova, 719–726. Sofia: Gutenberg Publishing House, 2002. [Popkonstantinov, K., and T. Smjadovski]. “За почитането на Климент, папа Римски в средновековна България” [About Honoring of Clement the Pope in Medieval Bulgaria]. Palaeobulgarica 7, No. 4 (1983): 86–92. Popović, I. “Survey of Early Christianity in Sirmium/Sremska Mitrovica (Fourth to Fifth c. AD).” In GrenzÜbergänge. Late Roman, Early Christian, Early Byzantine as Categories in Historical-Archaeological Research on the Middle Danube, eds. I. Bugarski, O. Heinrich-Tamáska, V. Ivanišević, and D. Syrbe, 179–193. Remshalden: Verlag Bernhard Albert Greiner, 2016. Popović, I., and S. Ferjančić. “A New Inscription from Sirmium and the Basilica of St. Anastasia.” Starinar 63 (2013): 101–114. Popović, V. “Blaženi Irinej, prvi episkop Sirmijuma” [The Blessed Irenaeus, the First Bishop of Sirmium]. In Sirmium – grad careva i mučenika [Sirmium. The City of the Emperors and Martyrs], ed. V. Popović, 259–264. Sremska Mitrovica: Blago Sirmiuma, 2003. ———. “Kult svetog Dimitrija Solunskog u Sirmijumu i u Raveni” [The Cult of Saint Demetrius of Thessaloniki in Sirmium and Ravenna]. In Sirmium i na nebu i na zemlji, ed. D. Poznanović, 87–98. Sremska Mitrovica: Blago Sirmiuma, 2004. ———. “Mačvanska Mitrovica, Nekropole” [Mačvanska Mitrovica, Nekropolae]. Sirmium 12 (1980): 61–69. ———. “Metodijev grob i episkopska crkva u Mačvanskoj Mitrovici.” In Sirmium – grad careva i mučenika [Sirmium. The City of the Emperors and Martyrs], ed. V. Popović, 297–302. Sremska Mitrovica: Blago Sirmiuma, 2003. ———. “Preface.” In “Le site d’habitation medieval de Mačvanska Mitrovica,” D. Minić. Sirmium 11 (1980): I–IX. ———. “Sirmijska episkopija i srednjevekovna crkva na Balkanu” [Sirmian Bishopric and the Medieval Church in the Balkans]. Sirmium 11 (1980): I–IX. Reprint in Sirmium. Grad careva i mučenika [Sirmium. The City of the Emperors and Martyrs], ed. V. Popović, 291–296. Sremska Mitrovica: Blago Sirmijuma, 2003. ———, ed. Sirmium. Grad careva i mučenika [Sirmium. The City of the Emperors and Martyrs]. Sremska Mitrovica: Blago Sirmijuma, 2003. ———. “Sirmium – Mitrovica, Sremska i Mačvanska” [Sirmium – Mitrovica, Sremska and Mačvanska]. Arheološki pregled 9 (1967): 131–138.

194  Bibliography ———. “Sremska Mitrovica je sveta zemlja . . .” [Sremska Mitrovica Is the Holy Land . . .]. In Sirmium i na nebu i na zemlji [Sirmium in the Heavens and on Earth], ed. D. Poznanović, 11–12. Sremska Mitrovica: Blago Sirmiuma, 2004. Poznanović, D., ed. Sirmium i na nebu i na zemlji [Sirmium in the Heavens and on Earth]. Sremska Mitrovica: Blago Sirmiuma, 2004. Praet, D. “ ‘Meliore cupiditate detentus:’ Christian Self-definition and the Rejection of Marriage in the Early Acts of the Martyrs.” Euphrosyne 31 (2003): 457–473. Preradović, D. M. “The Passion of Saint Irenaeus of Sirmium – A New Scene in the Dečani Menologion: A Contribution to the Study of the Veneration and Iconography of the Holy Martyr Irenaeus of Sirmium in the Byzantine Empire and Medieval Serbia” (in Serbian). Recueil du Kosovo et Metohija 7 (2017): 1–17. Prica, R. “Hrišćanski mučenici u Sirmijumu [Christian Martyrs in Sirmium].” In Sirmium i na nebu i na zemlji, ed. D. Poznanović, 27–29. Sremska Mitrovica: Blago Sirmiuma, 2004. Quentin, H. Les martyrologes historiques du moyen age: étude sur la formation du martyrologe romain. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1908. Rapp, C. “Byzantine Hagiographers as Antiquarians: Seventh to Tenth Centuries.” In Bosphorus: Essays in Honour of Cyril Mango, eds. C. Rapp, S. Efthymiadis, and D. Tsougarakis, 31–44. Amsterdam: Adolf Μ. Hakkert, 1995. ———. “The Origins of Hagiography and the Literature of Early Monasticism: Purpose and Genre Between Tradition and Innovation.” In Unclassical Traditions I: Alternatives to the Classical Past in Late Antiquity, eds. C. Kelly, R. Flower, and M. S. Williams, 119–130. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 2010. Restall, M. The Black Middle: Africans, Mayas, and Spaniards in Colonial Yucatan. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009. ———. “A History of the New Philology and the New Philology in History.” Latin American Research Review 38, No. 1 (2003): 113–134. ———. Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Restall, M., and A. Solari. 2012 and the End of the World: The Western Roots of the Maya Apocalypse. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2011. Reynolds, R. E. “The Organization, Law and Liturgy of the Western Church, 700– 900.” In The New Cambridge Medieval History 2, c. 700–900, ed. R. McKitterick, 587–621. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Richter, D. H. “Genre, Repetition, Temporal Order: Some Aspects of Biblical Narratology.” In A Companion to Narrative Theory, eds. J. Phelan and P. J. Rabinowitz, 285–298. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Richter, M. Bobbio in the Early Middle Ages: The Abiding Legacy of Columbanus. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2008. Ricoeur, P. Memory, History, Forgetting. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2004. ———. Time and Narrative 3, tr. K. Blamey and D. Pellauer. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1988. Rizos, E. “Martyrs from the North-Western Balkans in the Byzantine Ecclesiastical Tradition: Patterns and Mechanisms of Cult Transfer.” In GrenzÜbergänge. Late Roman, Early Christian, Early Byzantine as Categories in Historical-Archaeological Research on the Middle Danube, eds. I. Bugarski, O. Heinrich-Tamáska, V. Ivanišević, and D. Syrbe, 195–214. Remshalden: Verlag Bernhard Albert Greiner, 2016.

Bibliography 195 Robert, L., G. W. Bowersock, and C. P. Jones, eds. Le martyre de Pionios, prêtre de Smyrne. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1994. Roper Pearson, K. L. Conflicting Loyalties in Early Medieval Bavaria: A  View of Socio-Political Interaction, 680–900. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999. Rose, E. “Liturgical Latin in the Bobbio Missal.” In The Bobbio Missal: Liturgy and Religious Culture in Merovingian Gaul, eds. Y. Hen and R. Means, 67–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Ross, L. Text, Image, Message: Saints in Medieval Manuscript Illustrations. London: Greenwood Press, 1994. Rossi, J. B. de, and L. Duchesne, eds. Acta Sanctorum 65: Novembris II.1. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1894. Roudometof, V. Collective Memory, National Identity, and Ethnic Conflict: Greece, Bulgaria, and the Macedonian Question. London: Praeger Publishers, 2002. Ruinart, T. Acta primorum martyrum sincera et selecta. Regensburg: Manz, 1859. Rulkens, A. “ ‘Domus dei’ and ‘opus dei:’ The Reichenau Monastery in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries.” MA Thesis. Utrecht: University of Utrecht, 2004. [Samoilova, N.] “Преславская лексика в евангельских цитатах Супрасльского Сборника” [The Vocabulary of Preslav in the Biblical Quotations in the Suprasl Codex]. Palaeobulgarica 21, No. 1 (1997): 87–88. Sansterre, J.-M. “Le monachisme byzantin à Rome.” Settimane 34 (1988): 701–746. ———. Les moines grecs et orientaux à Rome aux époques byzantine et carolingienne. Brussels: Palais des Académies, 1983. Saxer, V. Morts, martyrs, reliques en Afrique chrétienne aux premiers siècles. Les témoignages de Tertullien, Cyprien et Augustin à la lumière de l’archéologie africaine. Paris: Editions Beauchesne, 1980. Scappaticci, L. “Codici Musicali palinsesti del monastero di san Colombano di Bobbio.” Last accessed: 24/04/2022. Scase, W., ed. Essays in Manuscript Geography: Vernacular Manuscripts of the English West Midlands from the Conquest to the Sixteenth Century. Turnout: Brepols, 2007. Schirò, J., ed. Analecta Hymnica Graeca e codicibus eruta Italiae inferioris XII, Cannones augusti. Rome: Instituto di studi bizantini e neoellenici, 1980. Sepp, B. Die passio s. Floriani, Eine Erwiderung auf die neueste Publikation von Bruno Krusch: Der hl. Florian und sein Stift. Ein Beitrag zur Passauer Bistumsgeschichte N.A. XXVIII. Regensburg, 1903. Ševčenko, I. “Levels of Style in Byzantine Prose.” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 31, No. 1–2 (1981): 289–312. Ševčenko, N. P. “Canon and Calendar: The Role of a Ninth-century Hymnographer in Shaping the Celebration of the Saints.” In The Celebration of the Saints in Byzantine Art and Liturgy, 101–114. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2013. ———. “The Evergetis Synaxarion and the Celebration of a Saint in Twelfth-Century Art and Liturgy.” In Work and Worship at the Theotokos Evergetis 1050–1200, eds. M. Mullett and A. Kirby, 386–399. Belfast: Belfast Byzantine Enterprises 6.2, 1997. ———. Illustrated Manuscripts of the Metaphrastian Menologion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. ———. “The Imperial Menologia and the ‘Menologion’ of Basil II.” In The Celebration of the Saints in Byzantine Art and Liturgy, 231–259. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2013.

196  Bibliography ———. “The Walters ‘Imperial’ Menologion.” The Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 51 (1993): 43–64. Severjanov, S., ed. Codex Suprasliensis. Graz: Akademische Druck, U. Verlagsanstalt, 1956. ———. “Супрасльская рукопись” [Suprasl Codex]. Памятники старославянского языка 2 (1904). [Shavinskaya, L. L.] Щавинская, Л. Л. Литературная культура белорусов Подляшья XV–XIX вв: Книжные собрания Супрасльского Благовещенского монастыря [Literary Culture of Belorus in the Fifteenth to Sixteenth Centuries: The Book Collections of the Suprasl Monastery]. Минск: Национальная бибиотека Беларуси, 1998. Shaw, B. D. Sacred Violence: African Christians and Sectarian Hatred in the Age of Augustine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Sheppard, L. C. The Liturgical Books. London and New York: Hawthorn Books, 1962. Silke, J. J. “Bobbio, Italy.” In Encyclopedia of Monasticism I, ed. W. M. Johnston, 156–157. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 2000. ———. “Liturgy: Celtic.” In Encyclopedia of Monasticism I, ed. W. M. Johnston, 781. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 2000. Simonetti, M. “Qualche osservazione sui luoghi comuni negli Atti dei martiri.” Giornale Italiano di filologia 10 (1957): 147–155. ———. Studi Agiografici. Rome: Angelo Signorelli, 1955. Službeni list opština Srema [The Official Bulletin of the Municipalities of Srem] 3–7 (XXIII). Sremska Mitrovica: Historical Archives, 1993. [Smjadovski, T.] Смядовски, Т. “Супрасълският Сборник и Богослужебното многообразие през ранното средновековие” [Suprasl Codex and the Liturgical Diversity in the Early Middle Ages]. In Проучвания върху Супрасълския сборник, Старобългарски паметник от Х век [Studies of the Suprasl Codex, the Old Bulgarian Monument of the Tenth Century], ed. Й. Заимов, 107–116. София: Българската Академия на Науките, 1980. ———. “The Latin Missions in Bulgaria in 866–870 (chapter I).” Palaeobulgarica 2, No. 1 (1978): 39–55. ———. “The Latin Mission in Bulgaria in 866–870 (chapter II).” Palaeobulgarica 2, No. 2 (1978): 39–51. [Sobolevskii, A. I.] Соболевский, А. И. “Жития святых по древне-русским спискам” [The Lives of Saints in the Ancient Russian Lists]. Памятники древней письменности и искусства CXLIX (1903). Société des Bollandistes. BHLms. Last accessed: 25/03/2022. ———. Bibliotheca hagiographica Latina. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1898–1899. [Spaasky, S.] Спасский, Архиепископ Сергий. Полный мѣсяцесловъ Востока 1–2 [The Complete Calendar of the East]. Москва: Типография современных известий, Типо-Литография В. А. Паркова, во Владимире, 1875–1901. Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies 65, No. 1 (1990). Špehar, O. “Sirmijumski mučenici i kreiranje identiteta ranohrišćanskog grada” [The Martyrs of Sirmium and the Identity Formation of the Early Christian City]. Zbornik Narodnog Muzeja XXI (2014): 25–52. Spiegel, G. “Memory and History: Liturgical Time and Historical Time.” History and Theory 41 (2002): 149–162.

Bibliography 197 [Sreznevskii, I. I.] Срезневский, И. И. “Древние славянские памятники юсового письма.” [Ancient Slavonic Monuments with the Ius-Letters] Сборник Отделения русского языка и словесности Императорской академии наук 3. No. 1 (1868): 27–36. Starostine, D. “. . .in die festivitatis: Gift-giving, Power and the Calendar in the Carolingian Kingdoms.” Early Medieval Europe 14, No. 4 (2006): 465–486. Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia [Republički zavod za statistiku]. 2011 Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in the Republic of Serbia: First Results [Popis stanovništva, domaćinstava i stanova u Republici Srbiji 2011: Prvi rezultati]. Belgrade: Republički zavod za statistiku, 2011. Stephenson, P. Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier. A Political Study of the Northern Balkans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Stiernon, D. “La vie et l’œuvre de S. Joseph l’Hymnographe. À propos d’une publication récente.” Revue des études byzantines 31 (1973): 243–266. Stojanović, M. “Report Details Croatian War Captives’ Imprisonment in Serbian Camps.” Last accessed: 08/10/2021. Stokes, W. Martyrology of Oengus the Culdee. London: Henry Bradshaw Society, 1905. Straeten, J. Van der. “Catalogues de manuscrits latins. Inventaire hagiographique. Vingtième série.” Analecta Bollandiana 114, No. 1–2 (1996): 139–174. ———. “Les manuscrits hagiographiques du Mont-Saint-Michel conservés à Avranches.” Analecta Bollandiana 86 (1968): 104–134. Sumbadze, D. Deda-upʻlisatʻvis anu Gelatʻis akademia da berdżnuli pʻilosopʻiis dasasruli [In the Name of Theotokos, Gelati School and the End of Greek Philosophy]. Tbilisi: Tʻbilisis universitetis gamomcʻemloba, 1997. Szövérffy, J. A Guide to Byzantine Hymnography. Brookline, MA: Classical Folia Editions, 1979. Tamaš, H. “The Hagiographic Dossier of Syneros (Serenus) of Sirmium, Gardener and Martyr (BHL7595–7596).” Sacris Erudiri 59 (2020): 83–116. ———. “Passio Pollionis (BHL 6869): Introduction, Critical Text and Notes.” Sacris Erudiri 51 (2012): 9–34. Taylor, A. “Hagiography and Early Medieval History.” Religion Compass 7, No. 1 (2013): 1–14. [Temchin, S. Yu.] Темчин, С. Ю. “О бытовании древнеболгарского Супрасльского сборника в Великом княжестве Литовском в XV–XVI веках” [On the Existence of the Ancient Bulgarian Suprasl Codex in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Fifteenth to Sixteenth Centuries]. In Этнокультурные и этноязыковые контакты на территории Великого княжества Литовского: Материалы международной научной конференции. [Ethno-Cultural and Ethno-Linguistic Contacts in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: Proceedings of the International Conference], 175–189. Москва: Новое изд-во: Дом Юргиса Балтрушайтиса, 2006. Thacker, A. “Loca Sanctorum: The Significance of Place in the Study of the Saints.” In Local Saints and Local Churches in the Early Medieval West, eds. A. Thacker and R. Sharpe, 1–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Tillemont, L. Le Nain de. Mémoires pour server à l’histoire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles 5. Paris, 1698. Tomadakes, E. I. Ἰωσὴφ ὁ Ὑμνογράφος. Βίος καὶ ἔργον. Ἀθηνά, σύγγραμμα περιοδικὸν τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἐπιστημονικῆς Ἐταιρεῖας, Σειρά διατριβῶν καὶ μελετημάτων [Joseph Hymnographer. Life and Deeds]. Athens: Academy of Athens, 1971.

198  Bibliography Törnquist-Plewa, B., T. Sindbæk Andersen, and A. Erll. “Introduction: On Transcultural Memory and Reception.” In The Twentieth Century in European Memory – Transcultural Mediation and Reception, eds. B. Törnquist-Plewa and T. Sindbæk Andersen, 1–23. Amsterdam: Brill, 2017. [Totev, T., and P. Georgiev]. “Novi danni za oblika na njakoi manastiri v Pliska i Preslav” [New Data on the Appearance of Some Monasteries in Pliska and Preslav]. In Bulgarsko srednovekovie [Bulgarian Middle Ages]. Sofia: Nauka i iskustvo, 1980. Tóth, P. “Sirmian Martyrs in Exile. Pannonian Case-studies and a Re-evaluation of the St. Demetrius Problem.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 103 (2010): 145–170. Tougher, S. The Reign of Leo VI (886–912): Politics and People. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Toumanoff, C. “Caucasia and Byzantine Studies.” Traditio: Studies in Ancient and Medieval History, Thought and Religion 12 (1956): 409–425. Tréneff, D. K., ed. Miniatures du ménologe grec du XI-me siècle No. 183 de la bibliothèque synodale à Moscou. Moscow, 1911. Trigalet, M. “Compter les livres hagiographiques: Aspects quantitatifs de la création et de la diffusion de la littérature hagiographique latine (IIe-XVe siècle).” Gazette du livre médiéval 38 (2001): 1–13. ———. “Making a Count of Hagiographic Books. Quantitative Aspects of the Production and Dissemination of Latin Hagiographic Literature (2nd–15th Centuries).” In Trends in Statistical Codicology, ed. M. Maniaci, 87–100. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2022. Turyn, A. Dated Greek Manuscripts of the 13th and 14th Centuries in the Libraries of Italy I. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1972. Uytfanghe, M. Van. “Le latin des hagiographes mérovingiens et la protohistoire du français. Etat de la question.” Romanica Gandensia 16 (1976): 5–89. ———. “L’hagiographie antique tardive: une littérature populaire?” Antiquite Tardive 9 (2001): 201–218. ———. “L’hagiographie et son public à l’époque mérovingienne.” Studia patristica 16 (1985): 54–62. ———. “L’hagiographie: Un genre Chrétien ou antique tardif?” Analecta Bollandiana 111 (1993): 135–188. Vakareliyska, C. “Distinguishing Features of the Calendar in the Codex Suprasliensis.” In Rediscovery: Bulgarian Codex Suprasliensis of 10th century, ed. A. Miltenova, 51–74. Sofia: East-West Publishers, 2012. Valentinelli, G. Bibliotheca manuscripta ad S. Marci Venetiarum. Codices mss. lat. VI. Venice, 1873. Valtchinova, G. “Reinventing the Past, Re-enchanting the Future.” In The “Vision Thing”: Studying Divine Intervention, eds. W. A. Christian Jr. and G. Klaniczay, 157–194. Budapest: Collegium Budapest, 2009. Van Dam, R, tr. Gregory of Tours: Glory of the Martyrs. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1988. ———. Saints and their Miracles in Late Antique Gaul. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993. Van Ommeslaeghe, F. “The Acta Sanctorum and Bollandist Methodology.” In The Byzantine Saint, ed. S. Hackel, 155–163. Crestwood and New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary’s Press, 2001. Vedriš, T. “Communities in Conflict. The Rivalry Between the Cults of Sts. Anastasia and Chrysogonus in Medieval Zadar.” Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 11 (2005): 29–48.

Bibliography 199 [Velcheva, B.] Велчева, Б. “Супрасълският сборник и времето на цар Петър” [Suprasl Codex and the Time of Tsar Peter]. In Rediscovery: Bulgarian Codex Suprasliensis of 10th century, ed. A. Miltenova, 13–16. Sofia: East-West Publishers, 2012. Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. Z. 360 Last accessed: 06/04/2022. Veyrard-Cosme, C. “Alcuin et la reecriture hagiographique: d’un programme avoue d’emendatio a son actualisation.” In La réécriture hagiographique dans l’Occident médiéval. Transformations formelles et idéologiques, eds. M. Goullet and M. Heinzelmann, 71–86. Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2003. Vickers, M. “Sirmium or Thessaloniki? A Critical Examination of the St. Demetrius Legend.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 67 (1974): 337–350. Vitae et passiones sanctorum selectae ex Eclogariis I–II. Venice, 1874. Vogel, C. “La réforme liturgique sous Charlemagne.” In Karl der Grosse: Lebenswerk und Nachleben II, eds. W. Braunfels and H. Beumann, 217–232. Düsseldorf: L. Schwann, 1965. ———. Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources, tr. W. G. Storey and N. K. Rasmussen. Washington, DC: Pastoral Press, 1986. Vorst, C. Van de. “Note sur S. Joseph l’Hymnographe.” Analecta Bollandiana 38 (1920): 148–154. Vorst, C. Van de., and H. Delehaye. Catalogus Codicum Hagiographicorum Graecorum Germaniae Belgii Angliae. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1913. Vuković, M. Martyr Memories. The Afterlife of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium Between East and West in Medieval Hagiographical Collections (Eighth– Eleventh Centuries). Ph.D. Dissertation. Budapest: Central European University, 2015. ———. “Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium in the 10th-century Codex Suprasliensis.” Старобългарска литература 47 (2013): 60–73. ———. “On Reading and Non-Reading of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium in Two Versions of Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca (BHG 948 and BHG 949e) in the Eleventh-Century Byzantium.” In Sanctity as a Story: Narrative (In)Variants of the Saint, ed. Halszka Leleń, 41–57. Berlin: Peter Lang Publishing, 2020. ———. “The Role of Apocrypha and Saints’ Lives, Their Transmission and Readership in the History of Childhood and Family: Methodological Challenges and State-of-the-Art.” Bulletin for the Study of Religion 48, No. 3/4 (2019): 45–52. ———. “Using an Ancient Saint for Contemporary Political Purposes: The Case of Irenaeus of Sirmium in Sremska Mitrovica Today.” Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe 30, No. 3 (2010): 16–24. Vulić, N. “Fruškogorski mučenici” [Martyrs of Fruška Gora]. In Sirmium i na nebu i na zemlji [Sirmium in the Heavens and on Earth], ed. D. Poznanović, 99–112. Sremska Mitrovica: Blago Sirmiuma, 2004. Walker, C. The Warrior Saints in Byzantine Art and Tradition. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003. Walsh, C. The Cult of St Katherine of Alexandria in Early Medieval Europe. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007. Weiher, E., ed. Die Grossen Lesemenäen des Metropoliten Makarij, Uspenskij spisok 1–11. März. Freiburg: Weiher Verlag, 1997. Wellesz, E. A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961.

200  Bibliography Wells, S. “Reichenau.” In Encyclopedia of Monasticism II, ed. W. M. Johnston, 1070–1071. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 2000. Wenzel, S. “Reflections on (New) Philology.” Speculum 65 (1990): 11–18. Wertsch, J. V. Voices of Collective Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Whatley, G. “More Than a Female Joseph? The Sources of the Late-Fifth-Century Passio Sanctae Eugeniae.” In Saints and Scholars: New Perspectives on AngloSaxon Literature and Culture in Honour of Hugh Magennis, ed. S. McWilliams, 87–111. Cambridge: Boydell and Brewer, 2012. White, L. T. “The Byzantinization of Sicily.” The American Historical Review 42, No. 1 (1936): 1–21. White, M. Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Wijk, N. V. Н. “Был ли Климент переводчиком No. 21 Супрасльской рукописи” [Was Clement the Translator of the Text n. 21 in the Suprasl Codex]. In Юбілейний збірник на пошану акад. M. С. Грушевського [The Annual Collection in Honor of Acad. M. S. Grushevsky], 178–184. Kyiv: Українська Академія Наук, 1928. Williams, M. S. Authorized Lives in Early Christian Biography: Between Eusebius and Augustine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Williams-Krapp, W. “Late Medieval German Manuscript Culture and Vernacular Hagiography.” In “Scribere sanctorum gesta.” Recueil d’études d’hagiographie médiévale offert a Guy Philippart, eds. É. Renard, M. Trigalet, X. Hermand, and P. Bertrand, 343–355. Turnhout: Brepols, 2005. Wing, B. In praise of the Variant: A Critical History of Philology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999. Wood, P. “Excluded from Power? The Boundaries of Orthodoxy in the Works of Athanasius and John of Ephesus.” In An Age of Saints? Power, Conflict and Dissent in Early Medieval Christianity, ed. P. Sarris, M. Dal Santo, and P. Booth, 62–76. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Woods, D. “Thessalonica’s Patron: Saint Demetrius or Emeterius?” Harvard Theological Review 93 (2000): 221–234. Worthley, J. “St. Sabas, 439–532.” In Encyclopedia of Monasticism II, ed. W. M. Johnston, 1109. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 2000. Wright, R. Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France. Liverpool: Francis Cairns, 1982. ———, ed. Latin and the Romance Languages in the Early Middle Ages. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995. [Zaimov, I.] Заимов, Й. Ed. Проучвания върху Супрасълския сборник, Старобългарски паметник от Х век [Studies of the Suprasl Codex, the Old Bulgarian Monument of the Tenth Century]. София: Българската Академия на Науките, 1980. [Zaimov, I., and M. Kapaldo] Заимов, Й., and M. Капалдо. Супрасълски или Ретков сборник 1–2 [Suprasl or Retko’s Collection 1–2]. София: Българската академия на науките, 1982. Zakharova, A. “Miniatures of the Imperial Menologia.” In Nea Rhome. Rivista di ricerche bisantinistiche 7 (2011): 131–153. ———. “Principles of Grouping the Images of Saints in Byzantine Monumental Painting Before and After Iconoclasm (in Russian).” Actual Problems of Theory and History of Art IV (2014): 109–122.

Bibliography 201 Zerubavel, E. Hidden Rhythms: Schedules and Calendars in Social Life. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981. ———. Time Maps: Collective Memory and the Social Shape of the Past. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. [Zlatarski, V. N.] История на българската държава през средните векове [History of the Bulgarian State in the Middle Ages]. София: Наука и изкуство, 1972.

Index

abridged menologia 10, 11 Academy at Gelati 33 – 36, 105 Acta Sanctorum 12, 13 Agilolfings 22 Agilulf 24 Alexios I 35, 105, 107 Ambrosiana B. 1. inf. 13, 31, 54, 102, 108, 126, 129, 154 amplification 9, 93, 97 amputation 9, 94 – 96 Andrić, I. 137 archaeology 3, 6, 15, 62, 63, 67, 70, 73; see also excavations Armenian translation of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium 3, 14, 15, 79, 93, 95, 100, 104, 168, 169 Arsen of Iqalto 34 Arsenios 126 Athos, Dionys. 83 42, 126 audience: hagiographical texts 25 – 26, 32 – 33, 35 – 36, 96; The Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium 26, 29, 36, 91 – 92 augmentation 9, 78, 94, 97 August menologia 30, 50 – 54 Augustine 49 authenticity, The Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium 2 Avar incursion in Sirmium 2, 61, 65, 68, 74 Barnes, T. 2 Basil I 125 Basil II 35, 53, 67, 68, 70, 73, 118, 121; Menologion 53, 131

Basil the Great 28; Encomium for 40 martyrs of Sebaste 41, 49 Battle of Kosovo 137, 147 Battle of Kosovo, The 147 Baun, J. 4 Bavaria 22 – 25, 37 – 39, 74; Benediktbeuern monastery 22 – 23; Kochel monastery 22 – 23, 37 Beiner, G. 6 Benedictine monasticism 24–26   Benediktbeuern monastery 22 – 23 BHG 948 and 949 13, 29 – 31, 54, 79, 84 – 93, 95 – 103, 106; augmentation 94 – 97, 99; dialogue 86 – 89, 97, 99; intertextual connections with BHG 949e 95 – 97, 100; narrative structure 84 – 92; non-narrative comments 84, 86, 91 – 92; persecution 90; prologue 84; suffering of the family 85 – 86; trial 86 – 88, 89 – 90, 93, 96 BHG 949e 13, 30 – 31, 79, 84, 85 – 92, 95–101, 104, 106, 107, 116, 118, 124 – 126; dialogue 87 – 89; intertextual connections with BHG 948 95 – 97, 100; intertextual connections with BHG 950z 100 – 102; narrative structure 84 – 92; persecution 90, 91; prayer for the emperor 91; suffering of the family 85 – 86; trial and negotiation 87, 89 – 90

Index  203 BHG 950z 13, 31, 54, 79, 85 – 87, 89 – 92, 100 – 102, 104–108, 125 – 127, 129; intertextual connections with BHG 949e 100 – 102; introduction 85; investigation and dialogue 87 – 88; narrative structure 85 – 92; persecution of Or and Oropseus 91; personal language situation 92; prayer for the emperor 13, 31, 91, 102, 126 BHG 951 13, 31, 54, 102, 126 BHL 4466 12, 21, 25, 69, 92 Boba, I. 70, 72 Bobbio Abbey 12, 24 Bollandists 2, 9, 53 Boniface 23 – 24 Breviarium Syriacum 47 – 49 Bridge of Irenaeus 15, 135, 137 – 140 Brubaker, L. 124 Bulgaria/n 27, 28, 70; hagiographical manuscripts 72 – 73; scriptoria 27 Byzantine/Byzantium 10 – 15, 29, 30, 32 – 36, 50 – 54, 56, 61, 66 – 68, 70 – 74, 95, 115 – 130; church 67 – 68, 70 – 71, 74; collections 10 – 12, 29 – 36, 50 – 54, 105, 115 – 130; hagiography 10, 11, 32 – 33; menologia 12, 30 – 36, 50 – 52, 71, 115 – 122; military saints 116, 127 – 129 calendar/s 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 23, 27, 44, 60, 69, 121; Breviarium Syriacum 47–49; and forgetting 54, 56; grouping of saints 128 – 129; martyrologies 10; Martyrologium Hiernymianum 69; standardizing 45; synaxaria 10; see also menaia Canon of Irenaeus 13 Canon of Irenaeus of Sirmium 32, 48 Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus 13, 32, 54, 79, 108, 116, 124 – 125; intertextuality 104 – 105; relics 122, 123; Sinaiticus gr. 632 32 canons 103 – 104, 123–125

Charlemagne 22, 25 Chiemgau, F. 25 Childeric III 22 Christian: missions 22, 68 – 69; necropolis 65 Christopher of Mytilene, Verse Calendar 53 Chrysostom, J. 28, 49 Church of the Virgin Mary of Blachernae 29 – 30 church/es: Church of the martyrs of Sirmium 141, 144; excavations in medieval Zidine 65 – 66, 67 – 68; Mačvanska Mitrovica 70 – 71; Sirmium 74 – 75 Clm 4554 92 coins 66, 67 collections 45; Byzantine 50; Marcianus gr. 359 50 – 51 collective amnesia/memory 5, 7, 54, 56, 135, 136 colophon 22, 31 commemoration 144; of martyrs 121 – 122 community/ies: mnemonic 7; remembering 144   comprehensibility, hagiography 36 concision 9, 95 condensation 9 Connerton, P. 5, 6, 56 Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus 121 Constantinople 29, 30 – 31, 79; Synaxarion 53; see also Byzantine/Byzantium Constantinopolitan calendar 53 Constantius II 120 copies and copying 45, 47, 71; Athos, Dionys. 83 126; The Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium 71; Moscow Syn. gr. 183 127; Suprasl Codex 28 Crone, P. 123 – 124 Cryptense Δ.α.XII 32 cult/s 21, 44, 68; of Anastasia 61; hagiography and 60; of Irenaeus 2 – 3, 12, 15, 61–63, 65  – 68, 72 – 73; locus 60 – 61, 73; memory and 48, 49;

204 Index relics 49, 61; of Sinerotes 2, 61; of St. Demetrius of Thessaloniki 1, 61 Cyril 68 – 69 Cyrillic 27 Cyrillo-Methodian School 27 D’Aiuto, F. 30 – 31, 118, 119 David IV 34 Delehaye, H. 23 – 24, 60, 62, 69, 79, 130 Demetrius 1 Diocletian 2, 93, 106 Dolbeau, F. 2, 3, 12 doublets 28 Dunkov, D. 28 – 29 Efthymiadis, S. 60 Ehrhard, A. 11, 30, 50–52 encomia 49 Encomium of Archangel Gabriel 51 epilepsy 120 Epiphanius of Cyprus 28 Euthymios 33 Evergetis monastery 71, 125; Typikon 11 excavations: coins 66, 67; Sirmium 62; Zidine 62, 63, 65 –  68 excision 9, 94, 99, 100 expansion 9, 95 expurgation 9 extension 9, 97, 99, 100 feast day 21, 26, 44 – 46; Irenaeus 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, 71, 72 Fine, J. 71 first-person narrative 8 forgetting 4, 7–9, 15 – 16, 44, 61, 73, 74, 78; as annulment 5, 35 – 36, 56; calendars and 54, 56; collective amnesia 5; Heidegger on 5; social 6 Fortunatus, V. 49 Four Crowned Martyrs 1 frequency 8, 88 Gelati Monastery 33–35 Genette, G. 8, 9

Georgian 33; The Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium 14, 105 – 107; ypomnistikon 35 Great Persecution 1, 4, 73 Greek: Constantinopolitan and Byzantine manuscripts 29 – 33; correspondence with Latin and Slavic versions of The Martyrdom of Irenaeus 92 – 95; The Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium 12 – 13, 46, 71; menologia 50; textological doublets 28; translation 35; see also BHG 948 and 949; BHG 949e; BHG 950z “Greek passions” 23 Gregory XIII, Pope 48 Hadrian, Pope 25 hagiography/hagiographical texts 3 – 4, 6, 32 – 33, 62; audience 32 – 33; Byzantine 10, 11, 32 – 33; collections 45; comprehensibility 36; cult of saints and 60; illuminations 118 – 119; intertextuality 8 – 9; Latin 25 – 26; lesser saints 4 – 5; libelli 9; manuscript geography 20 – 21, 23 – 25; menaia 10; menologia 10, 11; Merovingian 26, 49 – 50; metaphrasis 33; readership 20 – 21; Slavic 11 – 12; St. Benedict 46; statistical codicology 9 – 10; in the Suprasl Codex 28; textual variations 5; see also calendar/s; collections; text/s Haldon, J. 124 Halkin, F.: Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca 13; Novum Auctarium 13 healing miracles, of Irenaeus 72 – 73 Heene, K. 26 Heidegger, M. 5 Hermeland 48 heterodiegeic descriptions 8 Hieronymian Martyrology/ Martyrologium Hiernymianum

Index  205 47; see also calendar/s: Martyrologium Hiernymianum Høgel, C. 11 homiletic manuscripts 11 homilies 28 – 29 homodiegetic tales 8 hymnography 123 –125 Iconoclasm 123 – 124 identity: of Irenaeus 130; national 135 ideology 5 – 6 illuminations, Moscow Syn. gr. 183 118 – 119 Imperial Menologia 15, 30, 51, 115, 118, 121; Athos, Dionys. 83 126; illuminations 118 – 119; Jerusalem Panagiou Taphou 17 31, 116, 126 – 127; Moscow Syn. gr. 183 50, 51, 115, 116, 127 imperial patrons 127 – 128 Institut de Recherché et d’Histoire des Textes (IRHT) 10 – 11 interpolation 4 intertextuality 8 – 9, 78; between BHG 948 and BHG 949e 95 –97, 99, 100; between BHG 949e and BHG 950z 100 – 103; in Canon of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus 104 – 105; between Kutaisi I (XVI) and Greek versions 106 – 107 Irenaeus 2, 45; cult of 6, 61; feast day 46–48, 50, 52, 53, 71, 72; forgetting 56, 73; healing miracles 72 – 73; identity 130; suffering 116; see also Sirmium Isakios 128 Italy 24, 31 Ivanova, A. 72 Jerusalem, St. Crucis No. 16 126 Jerusalem Panagiou Taphou 17 31, 116, 126 – 127; grouping of saints 128 Jerusalem St. Crucis 40 71 John the Eunuch 118 John Xiphilinos the Younger 33

Jokić, A. 139 Joseph the Hymnographer 32, 104, 116, 123 – 125 Kapaldo, M. 14 Karlsruhe Aug. XXXII 24, 47 Kekelidze, K. 33, 34 Kochel monastery 22 – 23 Komnenos, J. 71 Komnenos, M. 67 Krausmüller, D. 32 Kutaisi 1 (XVI) 33 – 34, 166 – 168; intertextuality with Greek versions 106 – 107 Kysila/Gisila, Queen 22 language 21; translation 34 – 35; vernacular 10; see also Georgian; Greek; Latin; Slavic/Old Slavonic late antique Sirmium 62, 63, 65 Latin 36; correspondence with Greek and Slavic versions of The Martyrdom of Irenaeus 92 – 95; hagiography 25 – 26; liturgical 25; The Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium 12, 23, 46; Vienna 371 24 – 25 Latyšev, V. V. 13 legendaries see hagiography length, narrative 8, 9 leprosy 120 lesser saints, hagiography 4 – 5 libelli 9, 44 Life of Zotikos 120 Lifshitz, F., Martyrologium Hiernymianum 60 liturgical practice 7; hagiographical reading 32; Imperial Menologia 30 – 31; menaia 10; Merovingian 25; Metaphrastic Menologion 11, 53; morning services 32 – 33; reading menaia 11 – 12; reform 36; Roman Rite 25 locus 60 – 61, 73 Louis the Pious 25 Mačvanska Mitrovica 63, 65, 135; church 70 – 71; see also Zidine

206 Index Magyars 69 manipulated memory 5 – 6, 74, 107 – 108, 115 manuscript: geography 20 – 21, 23 – 25; provenance 22 March menologion 50 – 51 Marcianus gr. 359 50 – 51 Martyrdom of Anthusa and Athanasios, Harisimos, and Neophitos 129 Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium, The 11, 21, 148; Armenian translation 93, 168 – 170; audience 26, 29; authenticity 2; Barnes on 2; BHBS 508 14; BHG 948 and 949 13, 29 – 30, 31 – 32, 79, 84 – 92; BHG 949e 84 – 92, 116; BnF gr. 548  30; BnF gr. 1177 30; Clm 4554 12, 22– 24, 92; copying 71; correspondence between Greek, Latin and Slavic versions 92 – 95; cultural contexts and memory 35 – 36; dating 28 – 29; dialogues 88 – 89; editions 12; Georgian 14, 105 – 107; Greek 12 – 13, 46, 71; Karlsruhe Aug. XXXII 24, 47; Kutaisi 1 (XVI) 33 – 34; Latin manuscripts 12, 46; Marcianus gr. 359 50 – 51; monastic provenance 22; Moscow Syn. gr. 183 30, 50; narrative structure 78; Old Slavonic version 14; ÖNB 371 12; original language 3; Patmos 736 50 – 51; Rouen U 42 25, 47; Slavic manuscripts 46; in the Suprasl Codex 28 – 29; textual versions 3 – 4; Turin F. III. 16. 24; Venice manuscript 13; Venice Marcianus gr. 360 29 – 30; Vienna 371 24 – 25, 47; Vienna Hist. gr. 45 30; see also BHG 948 and 949; BHG 949e; Clm 4554; Kutaisi 1 (XVI); Moscow Syn. gr. 183 Martyrdom of Irenaeus, Or, and Oropseus 12 – 13, 21, 54; BHG 950z 31, 85 – 92; BHG 951 31; Jerusalem Panagiou Taphou

17 31; see also BHG 950z; BHG 951 Martyrdom of Straton, Phillipos, and Eutychianos 128 – 129 Martyrdom of the Two Irenaei 12 – 13, 30 Martyrologium Hiernymianum 69 martyrologies 10, 47, 69 – 70 martyrs/martyrdom 1, 148; commemoration 121 – 122; Irenaeus 15; narratives 2; “new” 144 material evidence 6 Mavropous, J. 35 memory 4, 14, 21, 78; amputation 9; calendars 7; collective 7, 54, 56, 135, 136; cults and 48, 49; expurgation 9; of Irenaeus 35 – 36, 73; manipulated 5 – 6, 74, 107 – 108, 115; migration 6 – 7, 61, 74, 75; monuments and shrines 6; narrativity 7 – 8; prehistory of pain 15 – 16; recollection 5; rewriting and 7 – 8, 107; social 54, 56, 115; versions 9; see also forgetting menaia 10, 32; reading 11 – 12, 28; service 11 menologia 10, 12, 13, 30, 32 – 33; August 53 – 54; March 50 – 51; Metaphrastic Menologion 11; pre-metaphrastic 50 – 51, 52; see also Imperial Menologia Menologii Anonymi Byzantini 13 Menologion 34 Merovingian: hagiography 26; liturgical practice 25; saints 49 – 50 Merovingian liturgical practice 25 metaphrasis 3, 7, 8, 15, 33, 34, 36, 78, 94, 95 Metaphrastic Menologion 11, 14, 71, 118 Methodius 27, 29, 68 – 69 Michael IV Paphlagonian 115, 118, 120, 121 Middle Ages, revival of the cult of Irenaeus 61 – 62 military saints 127 – 128

Index  207 Milošević, S. 139, 140 miracles 72; healing 72 – 73 Mircheva, 29 missions 22, 68 – 69, 70; see also church/es mnemonic: communities 7; synchronization 7 monasteries and monasticism: Abbey of Angers 25; Benedictine 23, 24, 26 – 27; Benediktbeuern 22 – 23; Bobbio Abbey 24; Evergetis 71, 125; Gelati 33–35; Kochel/ Cochel 22 – 23; libraries 20 – 21; Preslav 27 – 28; Ravna 27 – 28; reforms 25; Reichenau 24; Rule of St. Benedict 22, 24, 25; St. Nicola di Calamizzi 31 Montanus 1 monuments 6, 15, 70; Sremska Mitrovica 135, 136 Moravia 68 – 69 Moscow Syn. gr. 183 50, 51, 115, 121, 127; acrostic 117, 118; illuminations 118 – 119; prayer for the emperor 116 – 118 Moss, C. 121, 148 movable feasts 28 Mtsire, E. 8 Munich Clm 4554 23 – 24, 69 Musurillo, H. 2 narrative/s 14; amplification 9; first-person 8; frequency 8; intertextuality 8 – 9; length 8, 9; martyrdom 121 – 122; memory and 7 – 8; pause 8; pseudo-duration 8; scene 8; speed 8; structure 8; structure, Martyrdom of Irenaeus 78; third-person 8; voice 8 nationalism 137 necropolis: Christian 65; Roman 62, 63 “neglected but preserved” stories 115, 116 Nietzsche, F. 148; “prehistory of pain” 15 – 16 non-narrative comments 8 Nora, P. 6

oblivion 5, 6 oral tales 44, 45 Orthros 32 Paris 241 92 – 93, 129 Paris 548 92 – 93 Paris 1177 92 – 93 passionale 10; see also hagiography passionaries 27 Patmos 266 53, 71 Patmos 736 50 – 51 Patriarch Photius 28 pause 8 Perhthar 25 persecution: of Christians in Sirmium 1; of Irenaeus 2, 90 – 91 personal language situation 8, 84, 88, 92 Petritsi, I. 34 Philippart, G. 9 – 10, 23 – 24, 46 Pirmin 24 place/s 6; cult 60 – 61; cult of Irenaeus 62, 63, 65; manuscript geography 20 – 21; memory migration 61; see also cult/s Plate, L. 7 – 8; on rewriting 78 Popović, V. 3, 61 – 62, 65–68, 70 prayer for the emperor 91, 116 –118, 126 prehistory of pain 15 – 16 pre-metaphrastic menologia 50 – 51, 52; August 53 – 54; March 50 – 51, 52 Preslav School 27 – 29 provenance: manuscript 22; The Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium 22; Suprasl Codex 27 Psellos, M. 34, 120 pseudo-duration 8 quantitative manuscript analysis 9 – 10 Rapp, C. 60 Rastislav 68 Ravna monastery 27 – 28 readership, hagiography 20 – 21 reading menaia 11 – 12, 28 recollection 5 reduction 9, 78

208 Index reform, liturgical 25, 36 Reichenau 24 relics 49, 60, 61, 116, 122, 123, 125; miracles and 72; see also Iconoclasm remembering 44, 45, 78; see also forgetting; memory Republic of Yugoslavia 146 rewriting 7 – 8, 107, 115, 116; Plate and Rose on 78 Rhetor, N. 35 Ricoeur, P. 5, 7 – 8, 74, 78, 115, 121 Roman Martyrology 48 Romanos III 120 Rome/Roman: necropolis 62, 63; scriptoria 24 Rose, E. 7 – 8, 107; on rewriting 78 Rouen U 42 25, 47 Rule of St. Benedict 22–25 Sacramentarium Gregorianum 25 saints and sainthood 60; cults 44; feast day 21, 26, 44 –47, 50; grouping 128 – 129; imperial patrons 127 – 128; memory 7; Merovingian 49 – 50; military 127 – 128; relics 49; remembering 48, 49 Samoilova, N. 29 scene 8 Schirò, J. 104, 124 scriptoria: Bulgaria 27; Rome 24 secondary remembrance 5, 74, 148 Serbia 137; see also Zidine service menaia 11 Ševčenko, N. 32 – 33, 120, 124, 126 shrines 6 Simonetti, M. 3, 93 Sinaiticus gr. 614 32 Sinaiticus gr. 632 32 Sinerotes (Serenus) 1 Sirmium 2 – 3, 6, 135; Avar incursion 61; Byzantine and Bulgarian rule 72; churches 74 – 75; excavations 62; late antique 62, 63, 65; martyrs 1; see also Zidine Sirmondianum 53 Skylitzes 120

Slavic/Old Slavonic 14; correspondence with Greek and Latin versions of The Martyrdom of Irenaeus 92 – 95; The Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium 46; reading menaia 11 – 12; Suprasl Codex 27 – 29 “Small Bosnia” 141 Smjadovski, T. 72 social forgetting 6 social memory 54, 56, 115 Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS) 139 speed, narrative 8 Spiegel, G. 7 Sremska Mitrovica 63, 135; Bridge of Irenaeus 137, 139; Committee for Naming the Streets and Squares 140, 141; monuments 135, 136; “Svilara” concentration camp 144 St. Anastasia 1 St. Benedict 46 St. Columbanus 24 St. Giovanni Calibita 31 St. Nicola di Calamizzi 31 St. Zotikos 120 standardizing calendars 45 statistical codicology 9 – 10 Stephenson, P. 70 – 71 Stojšić, D. 139 St-Omer 715 47 Strumica 72 suffering 147; of the family 85 – 86, 95, 100; of Irenaeus 116 Suprasl Codex 50–52, 72, 73; dating of The Martyrdom of Irenaeus 28 – 29; The Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium, BHBS 508 14; provenance 27; “textological doublets” 28; texts 28; translation 29 Symeon of Bulgaria 27 synaxaria 10, 53 Synaxarion of Constantinople 100–102; grouping of saints 128 – 129 Tarnovo School 27 “textological doublets” 28

Index  209 text/s: augmentation 9, 78; concision 9; condensation 9; copying 4 – 5, 7; excision 9; expansion 9; extension 9; intertextuality 8 – 9, 78; places of production and use 6; reduction 9, 78; rewriting 7 – 8; versions 7; see also narrative Theodore 32 Theophylact of Ohrid, Historia martyrii XV martyrum 72 – 73 third-person narrative 8 Tillemont, L. 3 Tomadakes, E. I. 104 topoi 144 – 145 translation 34; Cyrillo-Methodian School 27; from Greek 35; Preslav School 27; Suprasl Codex 29; Tarnovo School 27 Trigalet, M. 9 – 10 Tsar Peter of Bulgaria 27 Turin F. III. 16. 24 Typikon 11, 53 “usable past” 5, 115 Uytfanghe 26

Vat. gr. 1671 129 Venerable Bede 47 Venice Marcianus gr. 360 29 – 30 vernacular language 10 versions, Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium 13, 15; differences in 78 Vidovdan 137 Vienna 371 24 – 25, 47; introduction 93 Vienna Hist. gr. 45 92 – 93 vitae sanctorum 12; see also hagiography voice 8 White, M. 121 – 122, 127 Xiphilinos, J. 34 – 35, 105, 107 ypomnistikon 35 Zaimov, I. 14 Zakharova, A. 119 Zerubavel, E. 7 Zidine, excavations 62, 63, 65 – 68