CONSTANTINE'S MAUSOLEUM: A D D E N D U M

C. MANGO/OXFORD

In my article (cf. supra p. 51-62) I was possibly at fault in accepting, along with nearly
all my predecessors, that the translation of the relics of Sts. Andrew and Luke to Con-
stantinople occurred on 3 March 357. That date has, indeed, strong support (Jerome,
Consularia Constant. and Chron. Paschale), but there exists another tradition according
to which the same event occurred in 336, hence in Constantine's lifetime.
The 336 date is common to the various recensions of the 'Alexandrian' Chronicle,
namely Barbarus Scaligeri, the Fasti Vindobonenses (priores and posteriores) and the
Berlin parchment leaf, first published in 1937. They record it under the consulship of
Nepotianus and Facundus and give the day of arrival s either C X kl. Julias' (Barbarus) or
' . . (Berlin leaf), hence 21 or 22 June. The Fasti Vindob. post. absurdly
confuse the translation with the apostles' passion and consequently change the day to 30
Nov. (feast of St. Andrew). The 'Alexandrian' Chronicle does not record the translation
of the relics of St. Timothy.
To my knowledge, H. Lietzmann is the only scholar to have defended the 336 date
against Mommsen's judgement to the contrary. 1 He did so because he discovered in the
Synaxarion of Constantinople (Delehaye, 759) what he thought was an appropriate litur-
gical commemoration on 20 July and consequently proposed to emend the chronicle
entry to 'XII kl. Julias.' In this respect, however, he went completely astray. The notice
of the Synaxarion concerns not a translation under Constantine I, but an invention of the
garments of apostles and other saints which occurred towards the end of the reign of
Constantine VII. 2 That may be of interest with regard to the date of the compilation oi
the Synaxarion but has nothing to do with the problem before us.
Even if Lietzmann's argument must be rejected, we are still left with two irreconcilable
dates, both of them supported by 4th-century evidence. The difference not only in the
year but also in the day of the month speaks against a simple mistake. We are then left
with two alternatives: either there were two translations of different relics belonging to
the same apostles (unlikely but not impossible) or the date has been deliberately changed.
The involvement of Artemius (real or invented) may be thought to exclude 336, yet, s l
pointed out in mv article (p. 60, note s8), it, too, presents some serious chronological
difficulties. To go any further one would have to re-open the old debate about the lost

Arian History' - a can of worms I prefer to leave undisturbed for the time being.
It must be admitted that a translation in 336 would make some sense. That is preciselv
the juncture when Constantine installed his apostles' and he may well have taken
Steps to have them filled with relics. If that is what really happened and if the story was
later doctored in the interests of the Arian party, the whole scenario would call for .1
different Interpretation without, I believe, undermining my main contention, namely tha:
Constantine built only his own mausoleum with the intention of representing himself in
the place of Christ and that the church of the Holy Apostles was added by his successor.

1
Blatt aus einer antiken Weltchronik/ Quantulacumque, Studies Presented to K. Laki
(London, 1937) 339-48 = Kleine Schriften, I (Berlin, 1958) 42(^29.
2
De Cerimoniis, II. 42, Bonn, 642-43; pseudo-Symeon, Bonn, 755.