Zwei Berichte über die Entwicklung des Martyrerkultus in Manastirine

Manastirine is an ancient funerary complex north of Salona and near its episcopal centre. The most prestigious martyrs of Salona (those of the persecution of Diocletian) were buried there. After the fall of Salona (about 620), however, their relics were taken to Rome on the initiative of a Dalmatian pope. There they were installed in a specially built chapel in the Lateran, which was decorated with their portraits. It was very natural for the bishops of the fourth century and of the beginning of the fifth century to be buried near the saints, not far from their cathedral, as well as a large number of distinguished or more humble Christians. The excavation is an old one. It is very well known because of the debate it aroused at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century (it contradicted local legends), because of the personality of the principal excavator, Mgr Bulić, and because of the repercussions of the publication by the Austrian archaeologist Egger, who reconstructed the history of the site in 1926. A Franco-Croatian team undertook the task of reinterpreting the site, with supplementary excavation, from 1985 to 1999. It has just published a large volume giving the detail of its re-examination, which on several vital matters contradicts the scheme of development and the chronology proposed by Egger. There are two detailed reports which discuss a number of key points. J. Dresken-Weiland is the author of the volume of the Repertorium christlicher Sarkophagen which has reviewed the Adriatic sarcophagi carrying decoration (in the broadest sense), and she has devoted her thèse d’habilitation (as yet unpublished) to inhumation in sarcophagi, relying largely on the examples from Salona. As a result she sticks to the absolute and relative chronology of the burials and of the funerary monuments built round the tomb of the martyrs. B. Brenk is the well-known historian of the art of the late antique and early Byzantine period. He is more interested in the cult of the martyrs. He is surprised that burial-place of the martyrs, although in the open air, kept an almost private character in spite of the inhumation of bishops, members of the clergy and of leading citizens up to the 430s – a late date for the construction of a proper church. Both authors discuss the relationships between pagans and Christians in the light of the origin of the cemetery, the date and use of the areae, and of the ‘chapels’ (which are in fact mausolea with apses, without tombs of martyrs, and without liturgical fittings). In conclusion N. Duval makes a number of factual points. Concerning B. Brenk’s essay, he notes the persistence of a number of examples of the traditional interpretation, which have sometimes been contradicted by the facts of the recent analysis. He also defends the method followed, which has set bounds to comparisons which should be made with the monuments of Salona.

Nous avons reçu deux longs comptes rendus du même volume de collègues particulièrement qualifiés pour en juger. Puisque l’angle d’examen choisi n’est pas le même, nous publions ces deux textes, l’un à la suite de l’autre, comme il nous est arrivé de le faire mais dans des numéros différents. Noël Duval, qui a dirigé la rédaction française de cet ouvrage collectif, a ajouté quelques notes pour dissiper des incertitudes dont témoigne parfois cette double lecture.