Abstract
Within the study of Early Christianity, a pertinent topic is the sign of the cross. This article will focus on extra liturgical signing, that is, making the sign of the cross outside of a formal liturgy like baptism. “Extra liturgical signing” has not been researched in great detail especially in the liminal stage between Late Antiquity and the Medieval world. To help fill this lacuna, this article will focus on Gregory the Great’s Dialogues under two rubrics: (1) what did Gregory wish to convey through his text about the sign of the cross and (2) how did 6th-century people practice this ritual and what did they believe about it? It will be argued that Gregory depicted the cross as a powerful talisman against demonic powers. It will unveil as well that ‘signing’ in 6th century Italy had a different tone than in previous centuries.
Introduction
A hot topic in early Christian studies is the symbol of the cross. Scholars have examined it under a host of different themes: its development, significance, meaning, and use in art, literature, and theological thought. 1 Of particular interest is the use of the cross within the daily life of the ancient church. Under this rubric, the extra liturgical practice of making the sign of the cross, that is, making the sign of the cross outside of a formal liturgy, is pertinent, since it reveals what late antique people believed about the cross through their quotidian behavior. 2 There is explicit evidence of this type of ‘signing’ beginning in the 3rd century, and the practice might have emerged even in the 1st century. 3 The historical phenomenon of the sign of the cross has not been researched in great detail especially in the liminal stage between Late Antiquity and the Medieval world. 4 To add a small piece to this large puzzle, this study will attempt to examine a simple question: what does Gregory the Great’s Dialogues reveal about the sign of the cross? More to it, what does this text unveil about common people’s understanding and use of the sign of the cross during the 6th century and its environs? To answer this, first this article will summarize the current understanding of the sign of the cross within late antiquity, which will contextualize Gregory’s own contribution and then it will examine Gregory’s Dialogues.
Part I: The history of the sign of the cross within late antiquity
This article will focus on three characteristics of the late antique practice of the sign of the cross to contextualize Gregory’s contribution, which are the bodily placement of the sign of the cross, the meaning of this ritual, and the frequency of it. Before examining the pertinent texts, however, it is necessary to examine first Ezekiel 9:4, since many of the ancient witnesses to the sign of the cross reference this verse, which is ‘the LORD said to him [Ezekiel]: Pass through the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and mark an X (taw) on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the abominations practiced within it’. 5 Prior to the command to mark the grieving and lamenting people with the X (taw), the prophet reports that there were six men from ‘the upper gate which faces north’ who were summoned to strike idolaters within Jerusalem (Ezek. 9:2-5). Those grieving and lamenting over the present abominations, however, would be marked with the aforementioned X (taw) and be spared. These verses will set the tone for the later practice of the Christian sign of the cross.
The first explicit mentions of the sign of the cross are found in the father of Latin theology, Tertullian, who referred to the practice in his Against Marcion and also in De corona, both of which were composed between 207 and 212. 6 In Against Marcion, Tertullian quotes Ezekiel 9:4 and interprets the Greek taw to refer to the sign of the cross: ‘for this same letter TAU of the Greeks, which is our T, has the appearance of the cross, which he foresaw we should have on our foreheads in the true and catholic Jerusalem’. 7 The only difficulty is that the Hebrew text, of course, did not refer to a Greek tau, but rather to a Hebrew Taw, which does not resemble the form of a cross ת. LH Jeffery explains, however, that ‘One of the archaic forms of the semitic taw (predecessor of the Greek Tau) had, indeed almost the form of a cross, the only difference being that the cross beam was not always exactly horizontal’. 8 Fascinatingly, Origen refers to this archaic form. In his Sermons on Ezekiel, c. 240, he reports that he had inquired among some Jewish people what Ezekiel’s taw might represent. 9 Several of his interlocutors offered various symbolic interpretations, but a Jewish convert to Christianity remarked that ‘the form of the taw in old [Hebrew] script resembles the cross, and it predicts the mark which is to be placed on the foreheads of the Christians’. 10 This text from Origen is the second 3rd century text to connect Ezekiel 9:4 with the sign of the cross. Given the physical, cultural, and language distance between Origen’s Alexandria and Tertullian’s North Africa, it seems that the practice of making the sign of the cross spread and was contextualized through Ezekiel 9:4. This biblical verse provides a foundation for some common features of the practice of the sign of the cross, namely, where the sign of the cross is made on the body and the action’s meaning.
Characteristic 1: The bodily placement of the sign of the cross
Throughout late antiquity, the majority of texts that reference the sign of the cross and its placement on the body refer to signing the forehead. 11 Christians did not practice today’s ‘long sign of the cross’, which extends from the forehead to the chest in the Latin Church. In Ezekiel 9:4, the Lord commands the righteous to be signed on the forehead with the Hebrew taw or Greek tau. Tertullian, as mentioned above, said that Christians would have the ‘appearance of the cross . . . on our foreheads’. 12 In fact, de Vegar comments on this pattern: ‘Early texts consistently suggest that the laity signed themselves on the forehead, as catechumens and neophytes were signed in the baptismal liturgies’. 13
Besides the scriptural basis of Ezekiel 9:4, why was the forehead signed? Theodore of Mopsuestia was one of the few authors to comment on the appropriateness of the forehead: This [i.e. the forehead], he says, is the highest and noblest part of the body and the place we direct our eyes when we speak to someone. In the future, he adds, if we display this sign before God, we will be granted the privilege of beholding him face-to-face. (citing Cor. 12:13).
14
Theodore connotes that the sign of the cross seals the ‘noblest part of the body’. A Christian’s comportment is now governed by a forehead marked or branded with one’s faith. Although the forehead was signed consistently, there were some exceptions, which will be discussed below.
Characteristic 2: Talisman
As mentioned above, Ezekiel 9:4 provides the nexus for the later practice of signing with the cross. In this scriptural account, those signed with the taw or tau are protected from death. When speaking about the meaning of this practice, early Christians explained frequently that the sign offers protection from demons; it was employed as a type of talisman. Many late antique authors testify to this belief. 15 In fact, Longenecker speculates that the protective element of the sign of the cross could have begun in the 1st century: ‘There is no indication that this protective dimension was a late development. It is embedded within the very earliest traditions surveyed’. 16
Here are some textual examples that witness to Christian’s apotropaic belief in the sign of the cross. In his On the Incarnation, Athanasius writes that the sign of the cross has power to repel evil: ‘At the sign of the cross all magic ceases, all witchcraft is rendered void, all idols are abandoned and denied, all superstitious longings cease, and everyone raises their eyes to heaven . . .’ 17 This principle is reflected as well in his Life of Anthony, in which the hero repels demons with the sign of the cross frequently. William Harmless comments on this trope within the narrative: ‘Whenever Antony and the monks wished to torment Satan, they used the sign of the cross as their weapon. It was a talisman of extraordinary power’. 18 In another text, Lactantius says that just as Christ put all demons to flight by a word when he was alive, so now his followers by the name of their master and the sign of his passion exclude those same defiled spirits from men. 19
To contextualize the meaning of the sign of the cross as a talisman, it is important to note that in the ancient world, the fear of the demons was akin to modern people’s fear of germs. John McGuckin writes, ‘The widespread fear of demonic influence (spirits of place, hostile chthonic powers prevalent everywhere) was a force to reckon with in antiquity’. 20 Pliny the Elder describes the extent of this fear in his Natural History: ‘there is no one who does not fear to be spellbound by curses cast against them through supra-human agents’. 21 In fact, McGuckin speculates that Christians’ belief that Christ promised victory over demons could have been a powerful motive for pagan conversion. 22 If demons were an ever present threat, it would make sense to protect oneself frequently as people today wash their hands today. This then introduces the third characteristic of the sign of the cross: frequency.
Characteristic 3: Frequency
Longendecker comments on the phenomenon of Christians making the sign of the cross often: The sign of the cross . . . that the symbol of the cross was alive and well among ordinary Christians at the beginning of the third century. It was a part of their everyday life, a practice of Christian identity within mundane practices.
23
In his work De corona, c. 208-12, Tertullian emphasizes that Christians signed themselves often: At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we rub (terimus) upon the forehead the sign (signaculo).
24
With his verb choice terimus, Tertullian emphasizes that Christians ‘trace the signaculo’ so often that they rub it into their skin. In the Greek East, Cyril of Jerusalem exhorts Christians to make the sign of the cross throughout the day: ‘Make this sign (semeion) when you eat and when you drink, when you sit down, when you go to bed, when you get up, when you speak, in a word on all occasions’.
25
This directive is slightly different from Tertullian’s witness, since Tertullian was commenting on people’s behavior, and Cyril is instructing them to sign themselves often. Augustine supplies a different witness as well. In Hippo, people crossed themselves so often that the great bishop exhorted them not just to sign themselves but to behave as Christians: Many . . . find it easy to have Christ’s sign on their forehead, yet do not hospitable take Christ’s word into their heart. Friends, I have said, and I repeat Christ’s sign evicts the usurper, the devil, only if our hearts have Christ as a lodger.
26
This challenge implies that signing was done so frequently that it became a rote gesture and that Augustine wanted his flock to reflect on their behavior. In summary, Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Augustine witness to the fact that the sign of the cross was performed often in their various locales. 27
Part II: The use of the sign of the cross in Gregory the Great’s Dialogues
Having outlined these three characteristics of the sign of the cross, this study will now present what Gregory the Great’s Dialogues reveal about the sign of the cross, but under the rubric of two questions: (1) what did Gregory wish to convey about this ritual and (2) how did 6th century people practice this ritual and what did they believe about it? 28 Before beginning this analysis, one might ask why the Dialogues were chosen in the first place to examine the use of the sign of the cross in the 6th century. To answer this, it is important to summarize the purpose of this famous text.
The stated purpose of the Dialogues was to make known the reality of holy lives in the midst of a war-torn and ravaged 6th century Italy. 29 This has been a standard understanding of the purpose of the Dialogues. 30 The book opens with Peter, Gregory’s interlocutor, lamenting the lack of miracles and saints in their time and land. Then, Gregory responds, ‘Peter, the day would cease before I could finish my narrative concerning those faithful and good people whose holiness has been reported to me or I have learned of myself’. 31 With this reply, Gregory outlines a central purpose of the Dialogues: to narrate stories of holiness. One of the reasons that this was relevant is that famines, plagues, and Lombard swords had ravaged the Italian people and land. Many might have assumed that God had abandoned them. Peter connotes in the Dialogues that their generation was infirmitati (weak) in faith. 32 Stories of local Italian saints would have edified the people and reminded them of God’s presence. Mostly, all of the recorded saints are from the 6th century or its environs. 33 Within this context, the function of the cross within the narrative will be informative, since it will disclose the current belief in the cross at the time. More to it, because of its popularity, the Dialogues most likely helped to form and inculcate a certain belief of the cross as well. In short, this text can provide a glimpse into people’s belief in the sign of the cross in the 6th century.
An initial question for this survey might be the following: is the information in the Dialogues historically reliable, since it is hagiography? Peter Brown’s seminal essay ‘The Rise and Function of the Holy Man’ changed the contours of hagiographical scholarship in some remarkable ways, one of which is critical for this study, namely, that hagiography can unveil the lives of the humble and ordinary people in late antiquity. 34 With this being said, clearly not everything can be taken at face value, since The Dialogues contains various hagiographical topoi, biblical themes, and even classical motifs. 35 The challenge for this study is to discern the topoi from the glimpses into the lives and the beliefs of the people of the 6th century.
Consequently, this study will focus not on the saint or holy man’s use of the sign of the cross in grandiose miracles, since frequently these can be hagiographical tropes, but rather on common people’s use, such as a sinful monk crossing himself during a temptation. In this way, the lives of the 6th-century people can be overheard.
Examples of the cross in the Dialogues
The prideful monk
In one account in the Dialogues, a young monk, whose father was a high ranking official, was holding a lamp for Benedict while he was eating his evening meal. While he was doing so, the spiritus superbiae began to brew in his soul, and he thought to himself ‘Who is this that I should have to stand here holding the lamp for him while he is eating? Who am I to be serving him?’ 36 It seemed that his father’s high civil status caused the young monk to think highly of himself. Benedict, sensing this internal dialogue, rebukes the young monk: ‘signa cor tuum, frater’. 37 This command astounded the young monk, and he replied, ‘What are you saying?’ Benedict repeats the command: signa cor tuum, frater. 38 After this second command, Benedict implored this novice to give the lamp to someone else and to be quiet (quietum sedere). 39 Then, the other brothers approached the young monk and asked what did he have in his heart, to which he replied that ‘he had given in to the spirit of pride and silently murmured against the man of God’. 40
This brief story reveals a number of interesting aspects about people’s belief in the sign of the cross in the 6th century. First, the sign of the cross is referred to only as ‘signa’. Gregory does not need to include the full phrase, sign of the cross, but only ‘sign yourself’, which connotes that this practice was common and could be understood through an abbreviation. Second, Benedict instructs the young monk to sign his heart, cor, and not the forehead. In late Latin hagiographical literature, there is some precedence for this shift.
Why would Gregory shift the locus of the sign of the cross from the forehead to the heart, cor? Although the majority of texts mention the forehead, there are few that include both the forehead and heart [cor] or forehead and chest [pectus]. In the Conferences of John Cassian, the monk recounts that when demons confronted the blessed Anthony, the holy monk signed himself with ‘the sign of the cross on his chest (pectori) and on his forehead’. 41 Benedict Ramsey comments on this subtle shift in Cassian and explains that the shift to the ‘chest’ is logical since it, like the forehead, stands for the rest of the body and is need of protection. 42 Besides this Cassian text, Prudentius, in his Liber Cathemerinon, writes, ‘do this, when called by sleep, you seek your chaste bed, may the image of the cross mark your forehead and also the place of your heart’. 43
Why would Gregory mention the signing of the heart only and not include the forehead? The story of Benedict and the young monk contains a clue. After witnessing this scene, the young monk’s confreres asked, ‘what did he have in his heart?’ 44 In other words, why did he sign your heart? Throughout the Dialogues, the heart is the liminal place between good and evil or God and the devil. 45 Therefore, it is logical that Benedict would instruct the young monk to sign his heart and implore the help of God to fight against the spirit of pride. This reveals that people could sign themselves in a variety of ways depending on the needs of the moment. In other words, if someone today said, ‘make the sign of the cross’, the Christian would comply with the fixed formula. But Benedict instructed the young monk to sign or mark his heart demonstrating that the sign could be used in a variety of ways depending on the need of the moment. Through this scene as well, Gregory is conveying that the sign of the cross is a powerful weapon against the devil and against the temptation of pride, which, in the Moralia, he names as the source of all sin. 46
Sign of the cross on bread
In Book 1 of the Dialogues, Gregory narrates the story of a certain monk Martyrius who lived in the province of Valeria, and whom Gregory praises as ‘a devout servant of almighty God’. 47 It was customary in this region of Valeria, Gregory explains, to ‘sign (signari) the bread’. 48 On one occasion, the Martyrius’s confreres forgot to do so. While they were discussing their error, Martyrius overheard them and said, ‘why did you not sign (signastis) the bread?’ 49 At this time, the bread ‘was already in the hot embers and covered with ashes’. 50 Thereupon, Martyrius ‘made the sign of the cross with his finger over the ashes’. 51 When he did this, ‘a loud noise like the breaking of a jar, came from inside the hot ashes where the bread was baking’. 52 When the monks removed the loaves from the embers, they discovered that the loaves were ‘signed (signatus) with the sign of the cross’. 53
This brief story reveals a number of interesting aspects about people’s use and understanding of the sign of the cross in the 6th century. First, linguistically, Gregory conveys that ‘signing’ the bread was common. He again abbreviates the action of ‘signing the cross’ with simply (to sign) throughout the narrative ‘signari’, for example, ‘why did you not sign (signastis) the bread?’
54
Second, Gregory reveals that it was customary in the entire province of Valeria to ‘sign the bread’. Therefore, an entire region would sign their bread with the cross. We might ask why this would be important. Vegar writes: One of the chief points of demonic access to the body was through the mouth; food and drink had to be carefully signed to protect the diner from unwanted passengers. Monastic rulers required diners to make the sign of the cross over their food before eating it.
55
This practice denotes that Christians continued to sign frequently, as they did since the 3rd century, but, in the later centuries, there is an emphasis on signing food, since, as Vegar notes, it could be a doorway to the evil one.
One of the more critiqued passages in the Dialogues includes the signing of food as well. 56 In this story, a nun eats some lettuce from a garden, but being filled with desire (concupiuit) forgets to bless (benedicere) the food with the sign of the cross (signo crucis) before eating it. 57 It just so happened that a devil was sitting on the lettuce and then promptly sat on the sister’s tongue and possessed her. The other sisters summoned Abbot Equitus who promptly exorcized the nun. This brief story emphasizes again that signing food was customary, since the text connotes that the nun’s desire overcame her own habit of blessing her food. Also, the text reveals that people feared eating unblessed food since it could be a pathway for the devil.
A Jew going from Campania to Rome
In Book 3 of the Dialogues, Gregory narrates the story of a Jew traveling along the Appian way going from ‘Campania to Rome’ and who settled for the evening at Fondi. Unable to find any lodging, he decided to stay in a temple of Apollo overnight. However, ‘Fearing the unholiness of the place, he took the precaution of fortifying (munire) himself with the sign of the cross (signo crucis) even though he did not have faith in the cross (fidem crucis)’.
58
Unable to sleep, the Jewish man witnessed an apparition of a demonic tribunal within the temple. Anticipating C. S. Lewis’s Strewtape Letters, a master demon interrogated various charges concerning the progress of their respective temptations. One demon touted his success at tempting a bishop to succumb to the temptation of the flesh. After hearing this report, the master demon noticed a man in that very temple and commanded his charges to reconnoiter the situation: Going up to the and looking intently at him, they were surprised to see him signed with the mystery of the Cross (crucis mysterio signatum). ‘Woe to us’, they said, ‘Woe to us’, ‘Woe to us’, an empty vessel signed with the cross. Turning from the cross, then the whole crowd of evil spirits disappeared.
59
The next morning the Jewish man approached the aforementioned bishop and revealed how the demons had been plotting against him. With his sin being disclosed, the bishop confessed it, and the Jewish man professed his belief in Christianity. Gregory concludes the story with this summary line: ‘Through God’s providence it so happened that the preservation of the son from sin became the occasion for the other’s conversion’. 60
This fascinating account depicts a Jewish man resorting to a powerful amulet, the cross, in a moment of desperation. In general, this story emphasizes the power of the sign of the cross. The demons approached the man and found him ‘signed with the mystery of the Cross (crucis mysterio signatum)’. This infers that the sign of the cross marks an individual as a member of Christ’s flock and that this cross was then visible to spiritual beings, since at the beginning of the night, the Jewish man had signed himself, and the cross remained visible on him. More to it, despite the Jewish man’s lack of faith, the sign of the cross was effective in and of itself: ‘“Woe to us,” they said, “Woe to us,” “Woe to us,” an empty vessel signed with the cross’. 61 Besides conveying the power of the sign of the cross, the brief story also implies that the practice of the sign of the cross was so pervasive that a Jewish man was familiar with it.
A worldly monk in extremis
In a final example, from the fourth book of the Dialogues, a worldly monk, Theodore, is in extremis, and his confreres have gathered around him to support him with prayer. 62 While they were praying, a draco, or dragon, began to devour half of his body. The other monks’ presence prevented the dragon from eating the other half of Theodore. The dying monk’s anguish was so intense that he commanded the other monks to stand back so that the dragon would finish him off, and his pain would subside. His brother monks then implored him to make the sign of the cross, signum tibi sanctae crucis imprime. 63 Since his arms were within the beast, he explained that he was unable to do so: uolo me signare, sed non possum. 64 Thereupon, his confreres increased their prayers, and the dragon fled. This brief story conveys as well the power of the sign of the cross. Despite the worldliness of the monk and his desperate plight, his holy confreres were convinced that if he would merely sign himself (imprime) with the cross, it would save him from hell.
Conclusion
What can be gleaned from this brief study? The initial question for this article was what do Gregory’s Dialogues reveal about the sign of the cross? This question was investigated under two rubrics: (1) what did Gregory wish to convey through his text about the sign of the cross and (2) how did 6th century people practice this ritual and what did they believe about it? Answering number 1, Gregory conveyed that the cross is a powerful talisman against demons, which was typified in the Jewish man’s recourse to the sign of the cross. Further examples are Benedict’s instruction to use the sign of the cross on the heart in a moment of temptation and the failure of the nun to make the sign of the cross led to her demonic possession. Through these examples, Gregory was touting the power of the supernatural through the cross and encouraging his audience to use this ritual. Regarding number 2, 6th century’ people were accustomed to use the sign of the cross often which has been a consistent theme since the beginnings of the sign of the cross, as noted at the start of the article. Gregory’s frequent abbreviations for the sign of the cross revealed this. The Dialogues emphasized, however, a different aspect of the frequency of the sign of the cross, since the text focused on the signing of food and the danger of demons entering through one’s mouth. It conveyed that before every meal people should bless their food with the cross. In terms of the ritual practice of the sign of the cross, the beginning of this study demonstrated that the locus of the sign was on the forehead. Benedict’s instruction to the young prideful monk to ‘sign his heart’ showed that there was some flexibility regarding the placement of the sign. Given the popularity of the Dialogues, it is certain that this text helped to form people’s understanding of and belief in the sign of the cross for centuries.
