Furta Sacra refers to the theft of relics in western medieval Europe by Christians.
Furta Sacra refers to the theft of relics in western medieval Europe by Christians.
The Middle Ages was a period of turmoil making this theft so common that there is a name for it, Furta Sacra. Made popular by Patrick Geary in a book with the same name. Furta Sacra was not one specific event, but a series of thefts occurring throughout the Middle Ages. Patrick J. Geary in 1978 when he wrote Furta Sacra: Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages, he made the key argument that became the basis of Furta Sacra, relic theft was integral to the identity and culture of medieval Europe. Geary also relays the hagiographic narratives that framed the thefts in a divine light legitimizing the religious and political authority of possession of relics. [1] It commonly occurred in many kingdoms, cities, and duchies spanning across the Mediterranean and western Europe. Florence Bourgne links the concept of Furta Sacra to the “translation” of texts suggesting that Europe's modern claims of Mediterranean culture stemmed from both linguistic and material appropriation of documents and relics. [2] Relics were important for the populations of Europe. Relics of Saints were thought to have contained the spirits of that Saint. People would pray to these relics and the corresponding saints in their times of need. Bringing a Relic to a church would bolster that church's prestige, causing supporters of the saint to flood into the church leading to an increase in donations and visitors. These thefts were often carried out through war seen by authors Tomasz Borowski and Christopher Gerrard who furthered the field of study connecting relic theft to the identity of military orders like the Templars and Hospitallers. These organizations combined their religious devotion with the gain of political power; stealing relics would bolster their claim to both. [3] Theft was also through other means such as persuading priests or petty theft. These problems can be seen through the example of Venice's acquisition of the body of Saint Mark in 827 as behind this acquisition are several ecclesiastical and martial reasons that could make the theft of the body of a saint seem more reasonable. This also helps to explain why this was done by people who otherwise would likely view theft as a major sin, especially when considering the theft was of a saint himself.
One particular instance of Furta Sacra that helps to provide context for the practice as a whole is the theft of saint mark and his particular case. This is because during this time, Venice was more or less sandwiched between two great powers, those being the expansionist Carolingian Empire on one side and the Romans on the other. The reason is given by Patrick Geary in his Book Furta Sacra, where he says, “in 827 Venice was as usual attempting to maintain the maximum possible independence from Carolingian Italy on one hand and from the Byzantine Empire on the other without completely giving up good relations with either”. [1] Geary shows the predicament that Venice was in at them time, with the possibility of it being swallowed up, most probably looking very real to the nobility and clergy in Venice. The external threats become even more real when one considers that the son of Charlemagne had attempted to take the city by siege in 810 but ultimately failed. Showing the threat, at least militarily, from the Carolingians was very real, even though the Frank’s direct siege had failed. However, this does not discount the idea of the Carolingians taking over Venice's independence through ecclesiastical means. Also heavily written about by Geary, he lays out the possible reasoning for the eventual theft of Saint Mark based on arguments that were happening in the church at the time. The idea of Venice losing its spiritual autonomy was becoming prominent in the church at the time. This was because the church of Aquileia had been founded by Mark the Evangelist, and so the other churches that were in the region would therefore owe allegiance to this patriarchate. Marco Papasidero in multiple works revisits the Italian contexts of Furta Sacra further emphasizing the hagiographic biases that rewrote narratives to preserve Christian legitimacy and bolster local identity. Here Venice was clearly, eyeing power and separating itself from Aquileia and the Carolingians. [4] Failure would mean allegiance to Aquileia and therefore the Carolingians. The state of affairs could not be accepted by the Venetians, as it would mean total loss of power for those in charge, but it also ran the risk of angering the Byzantine Empire, which was likewise very touchy about of the goal of long-term independence for Venice. The anger towards the Venetians from the Byzantines was a worry because previously before Alexandra fell to the Islamic forces it was in the hands of the Byzantines, so body of saint Mark in their eyes belonged to them. This question of independence is touched on directly by Geary when he says “This decision in favor of Aquileia had it gone unchallenged would have amounted to a major setback for the Venetians' efforts toward autonomy…. he found a way in the acquisition of the body of Saint Mark. The choice could not have been better; the benefits of this acquisition only began by allowing a claim of superiority by the church possessing the body of a near Apostle over one merely founded by him.”. [1] Which helps to show that, indeed, the Venetians most probably did steal the body of Saint Mark for what was more or less a decision of political expediency. This contextual information gives some possibility's for why the people who perpetrated furta sacra did what they did however it does not explain why your everyday person would accept what was essentially a direct theft. Your every day person was still certainly left with the question “is it moral to steal these relics?” Early historians during the enlightenment like Honore de Sainte-Maria and Discalced Carmelite investigated why they were being stolen. To conclude, relics were acquired mostly through money or an obligation to faith or people; the latter two are where Furta Sacra could be observed. Honore de Sainte-Maria justified these thefts as the relics were still being worshipped just as God intended. [5] Archaeologist Marcantonio Boldetti wrote a chapter about the theft of sacred bodies in 1720. In this chapter in (‘Observations on the Cemeteries of Holy Martyrs’), he called the practice a sin under any circumstance contradictory to his contemporary's that justified it as an act of God. [5] The debate reached Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758), In his fourth book he mentions many cases of theft of relics. While reflecting upon the authenticity of relics, he uses the term furtum. He includes thirteen examples in the book De servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione. The pope concluded that these claims of relics are legitimate if supported by historical sources, local tradition, or papal declarations no matter the means of acquiring the relic. [5] His words were set as standard until the nineteenth century.
Following the collapse of Rome, the Eastern Roman Empire held together forming the Byzantine Empire, but in the west a series of different Empires, city-states, and provinces were continuously grasping for power. The fragmented west allowed for different regional groups’ hunger for power to grow. Furta Sacra was a way for these regions to bolster their identity and power, cementing themselves into the region. This was common in northern Italy with fractured cities fighting for prestige and piety. In this power vacuum the church was able to consolidate more power leading to the pope having more centralized control. The rise of Islam saw Muslim armed forces sweep throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and Asia, controlling cities that were once Christian strongholds. The religious divide between Christian Europe and the now Muslim controlled Southern and Eastern Mediterranean led to much resentment. Damien Boquet and Piroska Nagy investigated the emotional resonance that relics had, showing how the spirituality of these relics shaped the medieval responses to their theft. This research argued that relic thefts were seen as divinely called. Christian’s felt divinely called to “rescue” Christian relics from the control of Islamic invaders seeing their thefts as divinely sanctioned. This is confirmed by contemporary sources like the The Golden Legend. In this text, the theft of Saint mark from Alexandra is discussed in a case where people from Venice were able to convince the priests who concealed the body to be taken away from Alexandra in fear of the new Muslim rulers of the city. The fact that the Saint is described as being taken to the Venetian ship and “borne secretly and privily" [6] shows that both the Venetians and eastern priests feared the relic falling into Muslim hands. Byzantium was the continuation of Rome and thought they should be the hub for religion like they already were for arts and economics. As time went on, more differences between Western and Eastern doctrine changed. This is seen with the banning of Iconography and eventually schism. This played a big role in where we see Furta Sacra; the banning of Iconography did not just have an effect on the artwork but also relics. Simply the West valued relics more than the East, which is why we see Furta Sacra occur more frequently in Western Europe. [7] Similarly, Alfred J. Andrea and Paul I. Rachlin analyzed numerous crusade-era texts determining how holy war and relic theft were intertwined when creating a medieval Christian identity that the West could cling onto for power in the Mediterranean Basin. [8] These factors manifest in the Fourth Crusade. Historians David M. Perry and M.J Angold examined Furta Sacra through the lenses of the fourth crusade, arguing that the theft of relics functioned as political propaganda for Western European expansion. Along with Islamic control of the birthplace of Christianity in Jerusalem, the pope called for a Crusade where knights of Western Europe rode into Jerusalem capturing the city and looting the relics they could find. Western Europeans went to the middle east to loot and plunder. Taking back jewels, art, and relics with the biggest relic of them all, Jerusalem. [8] This Furta Sacra was called upon and supported by the Pope. This shows how the practice of Furta Sacra became normalized over time manifesting in the Pope calling for such.