Relics and Shrines

The relics of St. Paraskevi the Great Martyr of Rome are a far thinner and more dispersed matter than the cult that venerates her. There is no securely documented translation of her body comparable to the famous journey of the other Paraskevi — Petka of Epivates, whose incorrupt relics rest at Iași in Romania — and what fragments are venerated under the Roman martyr’s name are scattered, poorly provenanced, and, because of the long conflation of the two saints, often uncertain as to which Paraskevi is even meant. This file states that honestly: it sets the well-documented relics of Petka against the poorly-documented relics of the Roman martyr, explains why “the relics of St. Paraskevi” is an ambiguous phrase, and holds to the disposition that the cult is far better attested than any specific relic-translation for the Great Martyr of Rome.

Tradition: Pan-Orthodox (Great Martyr; healer of the eyes)

Two Saints, Two Relic-Histories

The single most important thing to say about the relics of St. Paraskevi the Great Martyr of Rome is that they must not be confused with the relics of St. Paraskevi (Petka) of Epivates, and that the two stand in almost opposite evidentiary positions. The relics of Petka — the eleventh-century Balkan ascetic commemorated on 14 October — are among the best-documented holy relics in the Orthodox world: her incorrupt body was discovered at Epivates, translated to Tarnovo by the Bulgarian tsar in the late twelfth century, carried thence to Belgrade and to Constantinople in the upheavals of the Ottoman conquest, and finally enshrined in 1641 at the church of the Three Hierarchs in Iași, Moldavia, where it remains the object of one of the largest pilgrimages in Eastern Europe each 14 October. That itinerary is traceable through named patrons, dated translations, chronicles, and a substantial body of modern scholarship (the Bibliotheca Sanctorum entry on Parasceve of Epivates; the relic-translation studies of Matei Cazacu), and the distinct saint is treated on her own terms in Section 07 of this collection.

Nothing of the kind exists for the Great Martyr of Rome. She is, as the foundations of this collection establish, a saint known almost wholly through a legendary Greek Passio (BHG 1420) with no early or contemporary witness (The Historical Core). A saint whose very biography cannot be anchored in datable history is unlikely to leave behind a securely documented relic-translation, and the Roman martyr does not. There is no chronicle of the discovery of her body, no dated translation under a named ruler, no enshrinement comparable to Iași — nothing, in short, that would let one trace a continuous and verifiable provenance from a second-century death to a present-day reliquary. What is venerated under her name is venerated within the cult-tradition, not on the strength of a documented chain of custody (METHODOLOGY §3.5).

[Disputed: the conflation of the relics — the well-documented incorrupt relics of St. Paraskevi (Petka) of Epivates at Iași (14 October) are frequently and wrongly attributed in popular and devotional literature to St. Paraskevi the Great Martyr of Rome (26 July); the *Bibliotheca Sanctorum* keeps the two saints' entries and cults distinct, and the relic-translation scholarship on Petka (Cazacu) concerns the Epivates ascetic alone, not the Roman martyr. Any claim that "the relics of St. Paraskevi" rest at Iași refers to Petka, not to the Great Martyr of Rome.]

Why “the Relics of St. Paraskevi” Is an Ambiguous Phrase

Because the two saints share a name, a feast-bearing identity as “St. Paraskevi,” and a healing reputation, the phrase the relics of St. Paraskevi cannot be taken at face value. It is one of the most reliable trip-wires of the whole tradition. A reliquary, a guidebook entry, a parish bulletin, or a pilgrimage notice that speaks of “St. Paraskevi’s relics” may mean: the incorrupt body of Petka at Iași (14 October); a fragment of Petka distributed from that or an earlier resting place; a portion venerated as the Roman Great Martyr (26 July); or — not infrequently — a relic whose label has simply collapsed the two saints together without distinguishing them at all. The honest reader must always ask which Paraskevi is meant, and on what authority the attribution rests.

This is not a pedantic distinction. It follows directly from the conflation problem that this collection treats as its central source-critical theme (The Conflation Problem). Popular memory has long fused the second-century Roman virgin-martyr with the eleventh-century Balkan ascetic, drawn by the shared name and the shared character of a beloved, healing woman-saint. The fusion that blurs the two biographies blurs their relics just as easily, and with higher stakes, because a relic is a physical object to which a specific provenance is — or ought to be — attached. When the provenance is in fact Petka’s, but the name on the reliquary or in the devotional account is read as the Great Martyr’s, the result is a false attribution that no amount of piety can repair. [Disputed: relic-attribution — particular fragments venerated as relics "of St. Paraskevi" are in many cases not securely assignable to the Roman Great Martyr rather than to Petka of Epivates (or to Paraskevi of Iconium); the *Bibliotheca Sanctorum* distinguishes the three cults, but individual relic-labels and pilgrimage traditions frequently do not, and no inventory securely distinguishing the Roman martyr's relics from the others is available. Such attributions should be received as cult-tradition, not as documented provenance.]

What Can and Cannot Be Said About the Roman Martyr’s Relics

Following the discipline this repository applies throughout — to say plainly what the sources support and to refuse to invent what they do not (METHODOLOGY §3, §6) — the relics of the Great Martyr of Rome may be described only in general terms.

What can be said. Within the cult-tradition, fragments and portions venerated as relics of St. Paraskevi the Great Martyr are found in various churches across the Orthodox world, brought out and honored above all on her feast of 26 July, and associated — as is fitting for the patroness of sight — with prayer for the healing of the eyes (on the patronage itself, see the foundations’ account of the cult in The Historical Core and the eye-healing tradition more broadly). That such relics are venerated is a fact about the cult; it is well within the ordinary practice of Orthodox veneration of the saints, in which relics of the martyrs are received and honored, and it requires no documentary biography to be a genuine and devout part of the Church’s life. The veneration of relics of the martyrs is itself an ancient and securely attested practice, witnessed already in the second-century account of the gathering of the bones of St. Polycarp of Smyrna (Martyrdom of Polycarp 18; see St. Polycarp of Smyrna); the practice is old even where a particular relic’s provenance is thin.

What cannot be said. It cannot be said, on the strength of the available sources, that any specific reliquary preserves a securely provenanced portion of the second-century Roman martyr, traced through a documented translation to her death. There is no Iași for the Great Martyr of Rome — no single, datable, chronicled enshrinement that scholarship can follow back. To list precise locations and inventories of “her” relics as though their provenance were established would be to manufacture exactly the false specificity this methodology forbids. Where a particular church venerates a relic under her name, that veneration is real and may be reported as such; but the historical claim that the fragment is demonstrably the Roman martyr’s, rather than Petka’s or simply an unprovenanced portion received within the cult, is in most cases not something the sources can bear. The dispersed, poorly-documented character of the Roman martyr’s relics is the honest state of the evidence, and it is reported here as a topic, not concealed as an embarrassment.

The Asymmetry of Relic and Cult

The deepest point this file can make is the asymmetry between how thin the relic-record is and how vast the cult is. For most great healing saints of the Orthodox world there is at least one principal shrine that anchors the veneration — Petka at Iași, the head of St. Panteleimon on Athos and his relics dispersed from there, the relics of St. Barbara. The Great Martyr of Rome is unusual in that her cult is enormous while her relic-record is faint. The firmest evidence that her veneration leaves is not a body or a reliquary with a traceable history but the sheer density of churches, chapels, springs, and place-names dedicated to her across Greece and Cyprus — a density treated in the companion file Paraskevi in Greece, and argued there to be the durable historical datum of the cult.

This inverts the order one might expect. The reader who comes looking for the saint’s relics, hoping to find the solid physical ground beneath the legend, finds instead that the relics are the softer ground and the dedications the firmer; that the question “where are her relics?” yields a thin and contested answer, while the question “where is she venerated?” yields an overwhelming one. That is precisely the lesson the foundations of this collection teach about the saint as a whole: the events of the biography and even the chain of physical custody are dim, while the existence and reach of the cult are vivid and secure (The Cult and the Record). The relics of the Great Martyr of Rome are best described, in the end, not as a documented translation but as a feature of that cult — honored within it, dispersed across it, and resistant, like the legend itself, to the historian’s demand for provenance. To say so is not to diminish the saint but to be honest about what kind of evidence the tradition has handed down, so that the confidence level of every claim about her relics is legible (METHODOLOGY §6).

References

Bibliotheca Sanctorum. 12 vols. Rome: Istituto Giovanni XXIII, 1961–1970. (The distinct entries on Parasceve of Rome, Parasceve/Petka of Epivates, and Parasceve of Iconium; the basis for keeping their cults and relics apart.)
Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca (BHG) 1420–1420f. Ed. François Halkin. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1957. (The legendary Passio of Paraskevi of Rome, the saint’s only narrative source.)
Cazacu, Matei. Sainte Parascève de Tarnovo: vie et culte. (The relic-translation scholarship on Petka of Epivates — Epivates → Tarnovo → Belgrade → Constantinople → Iași — concerning the eleventh-century ascetic, not the Roman martyr.)
Delehaye, Hippolyte. The Legends of the Saints. Trans. Donald Attwater. New York: Fordham University Press, 1962. (On the cult as the firm datum behind a legendary record.)
Martyrdom of Polycarp 18. (The earliest attestation of the gathering and veneration of a martyr’s relics, the ancient practice within which Paraskevi’s relics are honored.)
Nikodemos the Hagiorite. Synaxaristes. (The commemoration of the Roman Great Martyr on 26 July and of Petka on 14 October.)
METHODOLOGY.md, this repository (§3.5 on hagiographic and cult attestation; §4 on disputed relic-attribution and conflation; §6 on legible confidence).