Abstract Procopius’ view on history and the nature of his Weltanschauung have been amatter of debate for a long time. Especially the relation between the influence of God and the influence of fate is a central problem in the interpretation of the Corpus Procopianum. In contrast, the concept of καιρός has been disregarded almost universally. Starting with the two fundamental meanings of the term in Greek literature and thought, the right measure and the right time, this paper gives a first glance at Procopius’ use of this concept. It is shown that both of these meanings can have an ontological and practical aspect, in Greek literature as well as in Procopius and even beyond that,while the typical Greek understanding and use of the term is a synthesis of both. To understand how Procopius uses καιρός, one needs to expound the problems of this synthesis, that culminate in three major questions:Who is the originator of the καιρός? How frequently does the καιρός appear and does every human action have its καιρός? How does one know the presence of the καιρός and whence does one know how to act during it? After a careful study of the works of Procopius, using mainly the philosophy of Plato and the assumptions of Dariusz Brodka, the answers are: 1) The originator of the καιρός is God, who not only gives the opportunity, but at the same time implements the task to use this opportunity, so the καιρός becomes a part of Salvation History. This concept is shown to be similar to Old Testament views on time and opportunity. 2) Contrary to ancient thought, not every human action in Procopius has its καιρός. The moment only arises when God wants it to arise. 3) The human ability to know the presence of a καιρός and to know the right action during this moment Procopius understands according to Plato: it is possible through the application of experience and reason. In the Anecdota, the καιρός is used to further discredit and demonise Justinianus. The rule of the Emperor changes the basic conditions of the world in such a way that man is no longer able to recognise the godly καιρός through application of experience and therefore is unable to use this moment given by God. The amount of knowledge one needs to manipulate the world in such away is an impossibility foramere human, but a given for the demon Justinianus. The terror of Justinianus therefore gains a metaphysical dimension, just like the Emperor himself thanks to his presentation as a demon. Justinianus’ relation to the καιρός is horrible, for God neither presents him with such a moment nor is he able to do anything but act against the godly καιρός of others, for it is the nature of a demon to act against God. Finally it is shown that the καιρός of Procopius is very different from the καιρός of Thucydides. In Procopius it is a basic principle of God’s operations in the world, whereas in Thucydides it is a somewhat vague everyday term.
{"title":"Der καιρός bei Prokop von Kaisareia","authors":"H. Andres","doi":"10.1515/mill-2017-0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2017-0003","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Procopius’ view on history and the nature of his Weltanschauung have been amatter of debate for a long time. Especially the relation between the influence of God and the influence of fate is a central problem in the interpretation of the Corpus Procopianum. In contrast, the concept of καιρός has been disregarded almost universally. Starting with the two fundamental meanings of the term in Greek literature and thought, the right measure and the right time, this paper gives a first glance at Procopius’ use of this concept. It is shown that both of these meanings can have an ontological and practical aspect, in Greek literature as well as in Procopius and even beyond that,while the typical Greek understanding and use of the term is a synthesis of both. To understand how Procopius uses καιρός, one needs to expound the problems of this synthesis, that culminate in three major questions:Who is the originator of the καιρός? How frequently does the καιρός appear and does every human action have its καιρός? How does one know the presence of the καιρός and whence does one know how to act during it? After a careful study of the works of Procopius, using mainly the philosophy of Plato and the assumptions of Dariusz Brodka, the answers are: 1) The originator of the καιρός is God, who not only gives the opportunity, but at the same time implements the task to use this opportunity, so the καιρός becomes a part of Salvation History. This concept is shown to be similar to Old Testament views on time and opportunity. 2) Contrary to ancient thought, not every human action in Procopius has its καιρός. The moment only arises when God wants it to arise. 3) The human ability to know the presence of a καιρός and to know the right action during this moment Procopius understands according to Plato: it is possible through the application of experience and reason. In the Anecdota, the καιρός is used to further discredit and demonise Justinianus. The rule of the Emperor changes the basic conditions of the world in such a way that man is no longer able to recognise the godly καιρός through application of experience and therefore is unable to use this moment given by God. The amount of knowledge one needs to manipulate the world in such away is an impossibility foramere human, but a given for the demon Justinianus. The terror of Justinianus therefore gains a metaphysical dimension, just like the Emperor himself thanks to his presentation as a demon. Justinianus’ relation to the καιρός is horrible, for God neither presents him with such a moment nor is he able to do anything but act against the godly καιρός of others, for it is the nature of a demon to act against God. Finally it is shown that the καιρός of Procopius is very different from the καιρός of Thucydides. In Procopius it is a basic principle of God’s operations in the world, whereas in Thucydides it is a somewhat vague everyday term.","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/mill-2017-0003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72531268","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The paper lines up with studies that discuss the impact of the Jewish War and Vespasian’s advancement on the composition of the Gospel According toMark. Its topic is to show that Mk 4,35-41 and Mk 5,1-20 form a structural unity that insinuates the idea of a Christian peace, distinguished from Roman warfare and peace. Following those scholars who read Mk 5,1-20 as an allusion to the legio X Fretensis it is argued that Mk 4,35-41 and Mk 5,1-20 are tied together in light of the Roman peace propaganda that claimed apeace by land and by sea - as did Vespasian after the civil war, when he reminded the Romans of Octavian’s victory at fretum Siculum.
{"title":"Zu Wasser und zu Land","authors":"Karl Matthias Schmidt","doi":"10.1515/mill-2017-0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2017-0001","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The paper lines up with studies that discuss the impact of the Jewish War and Vespasian’s advancement on the composition of the Gospel According toMark. Its topic is to show that Mk 4,35-41 and Mk 5,1-20 form a structural unity that insinuates the idea of a Christian peace, distinguished from Roman warfare and peace. Following those scholars who read Mk 5,1-20 as an allusion to the legio X Fretensis it is argued that Mk 4,35-41 and Mk 5,1-20 are tied together in light of the Roman peace propaganda that claimed apeace by land and by sea - as did Vespasian after the civil war, when he reminded the Romans of Octavian’s victory at fretum Siculum.","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82916947","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In De magistratibus John Lydus refers to an epigram of eight lines insulting emperor Anastasius (491-518) as a money-collecting Charybdis. A similar version of this poem can be found in the Greek Anthology where it is divided into two epigrams of four lines each (AP XI 270 -71). In a first step, a critical edition of the epigram is established. On this basis it becomes clear that the earlier version referred to by Lydus comes close to the original poem. A detailed commentary reveals it as work of an able and witty poet who was familiar with both classical epic poetry and the formulas used in late antique laudatory epigrams. Looking at the historical background of the epigram, the paper highlights the history and varieties of Kaiserkritik in Late Antiquity and Byzantium, while another chapter takes a closer look at the far-reaching reforms undertaken by Anastasius which were heavily criticized by contemporaries. Taking into account the function of the epigram in Lydus’ work, it seems certain that John Lydus himself composed the poem to support his general criticism of the administrative reforms of both Anastasius and Justinian.
{"title":"Kaiserkritik in Konstantinopel. Ein Spottepigramm auf Kaiser Anastasius bei Johannes Lydus und in der Anthologia Palatina","authors":"Christoph Begass","doi":"10.1515/mill-2017-0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2017-0004","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In De magistratibus John Lydus refers to an epigram of eight lines insulting emperor Anastasius (491-518) as a money-collecting Charybdis. A similar version of this poem can be found in the Greek Anthology where it is divided into two epigrams of four lines each (AP XI 270 -71). In a first step, a critical edition of the epigram is established. On this basis it becomes clear that the earlier version referred to by Lydus comes close to the original poem. A detailed commentary reveals it as work of an able and witty poet who was familiar with both classical epic poetry and the formulas used in late antique laudatory epigrams. Looking at the historical background of the epigram, the paper highlights the history and varieties of Kaiserkritik in Late Antiquity and Byzantium, while another chapter takes a closer look at the far-reaching reforms undertaken by Anastasius which were heavily criticized by contemporaries. Taking into account the function of the epigram in Lydus’ work, it seems certain that John Lydus himself composed the poem to support his general criticism of the administrative reforms of both Anastasius and Justinian.","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75233285","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Sasanians have been characterized as Rome’s enemy par excellence in the ancient sources as well as in modern scholarship. According to the Greek and Roman historians, from the moment of its emergence in the second decade of the third century CE, the new dynasty pursued an extremely aggressive policy towards the Western neighbour that resulted in fierce and renewed military conflict and brought the Roman Empire to the brink of desaster. However, a closer look on the respective historiographic and biographic texts from contemporary and later authors reveals a deeper meaning behind their depictions of Roman-Sasanian conflict in the third century. This article argues that authors like Cassius Dio, Herodian and the composer of the fourth-century Historia Augusta used these narrations in order to name and address severe problems within the Roman Empire. Their considerations focused on the mechanisms of imperial government and self-representation which underwent a profound and radical change in the course of the third century. The principate of the previous centuries with its perfectly balanced system of communication between the emperor, the senate, the people of Rome and the army was gradually transformed into an overt military monarchy in which the emperors ostentatiously displayed their exclusive reliance on the soldiers as the crucial foundation of their rule. Although the characterization of Sasanian politics and attitudes towards Rome in the historiographic and biographic texts was certainly not merely an interpretatio Romana, the conditions within the Roman empire have to be taken into account in order to fully understand the contemporary and later historians’ intentions and the specific thrust of their texts. Folgt man den Ausführungen des Zeitgenossen Cassius Dio, so ließen sich die Zustände im Imperium Romanum in den 220er-Jahren prägnant auf den Punkt bringen: „Zahlreiche Personen erregten eine Menge von Aufständen, von denen einige sogar großen Schrecken verbreiteten, doch wurden schließlich alle niedergeworfen.“1 An einer Front, schreibt Dio weiter, konnte jedoch keine Entwarnung gegeben werden, im Gegenteil: „Noch gefährlicher gestaltete sich die Lage in Mesopotamien und erfüllte Cass. Dio 80,3,1: Πολλαὶ δὲ καὶ παρὰ πολλῶν ἐπαναστάσεις γενόμεναι, καί τινες καὶ ἰσχυρῶς ἐκφοβήσασαι, κατεπαύθησαν. Die Übersetzung der Dio-Passagen folgt der Version von Otto Veh. Für wertvolle Hinweise und Anregungen bin ich Henning Börm, Hilmar Klinkott, Norbert Kramer, Kai Trampedach und Josef Wiesehöfer zu Dank verpflichtet, ebenso Hartmut Leppin, Timo Christian und dem anonymen Gutachter des Millennium für ihre hilfreichen Anmerkungen. https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2017-0002 alle mit begründeterer Angst, nicht allein die Einwohner Roms, sondern auch die übrige Menschheit.“2 Dio spielt damit auf ein Ereignis an, das nach verbreiteter Ansicht die Außenpolitik des Imperium Romanum im 3. Jh. prägen sollte: Im Jahr 224 n.Chr. besiegte der Sasanide Ardašir3
萨珊人在古代文献和现代学术中都被认为是罗马的敌人。根据希腊和罗马历史学家的说法，从公元三世纪第二个十年出现的那一时刻起，这个新王朝对西方邻国采取了极其激进的政策，导致了激烈的和新的军事冲突，把罗马帝国带到灾难的边缘。然而，仔细研究当代和后来作者各自的史学和传记文本，就会发现他们对三世纪罗马-萨珊冲突的描述背后有更深的含义。这篇文章认为，像希律王卡修斯·迪奥和四世纪奥古斯塔历史的作曲家这样的作者使用这些叙述来命名和解决罗马帝国内部的严重问题。他们的思考集中在帝国政府和自我代表的机制上，这在三世纪的过程中发生了深刻而彻底的变化。前几个世纪的元首制，在皇帝、元老院、罗马人民和军队之间有着完美平衡的沟通体系，逐渐转变为公开的军事君主制，皇帝炫耀地显示他们对士兵的完全依赖，作为他们统治的关键基础。尽管在史学和传记文本中对萨珊政治和对罗马态度的描述肯定不仅仅是对罗马的一种解释，但为了充分理解当代和后来的历史学家的意图和他们文本的具体主旨，必须考虑到罗马帝国内部的情况。folt man den ausf<s:1> hengen des Zeitgenossen Cassius Dio, so ließen siich die Zustände im Imperium Romanum in den 220er-Jahren prägnant auf den Punkt bringen:“Zahlreiche Personen erregten eine Menge . Aufständen, von denen einige sogel ßen Schrecken verbreiteten, doch wurden schließlich alle niedergeworfen。”“1一个静脉,schreibt戴奥魏特,konnte jedoch keine Entwarnung gegeben了,im Gegenteil:“还有gefahrlicher gestaltete西奇死在Mesopotamien拉赫和erfullte卡斯。戴奥80 3 1:Πολλαὶδὲκαὶπαρὰπολλῶνἐπαναστάσειςγενόμενα,ικαίτινεςκαὶἰσχυρῶςἐκφοβήσασα,ικατεπαύθησαν。Die Übersetzung der Dio-Passagen folgt der Version von Otto Veh。<s:1>德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国德国https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2017-0002 alle mit begringer焦虑，每晚allein die Einwohner Roms, sonderauth die bridge Menschheit。“2 .我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是我的意思。”Jh。prägen sollet:我是Jahr 224 n.r。围攻der Sasanide Ardašir3 den parthischen Großkönig阿达万四世在der Schlacht von Hurmuzğan。Die arsakidische dynasty, Die jahrhundertelang der große Gegenspieler Roms and der Ostgrenze des Reiches gewesen war, Die jahrhundertelang in der Folge abgelöst durch eine neue Herrscherlinie, Die Die Geschicke Persiens is zur islamischen Expansion bestimmen solte。在Dios Bericht fand der Aufstieg der Sasaniden erstmals Eingang In die griechisch-römische史学学。4 Von Bedeutung ist dabei insbesonere die Art und Weise, In der Dio die Sasaniden beschrieb: Ardašir, so wiederholt er wenige Sätze nach der eben zitierten Stelle, habemit seinem进取性Auftreten Furcht beden Römern verbreitet: ο τος ο ο ν φοβερ ος ς ερ ος ν μ ν ν γ γ τοDie Sasaniden als Furcht einflößende neue Gegenspieler des Römischen Reiches - disese formululerung des zeitgenössischen Historikers erwies在der Folge als programmatisch sowohl f<e:1> r Die antike Geschichtsschreibung als auch fre weite Teile der modernen Forschung。(1)帝国主义与扩张主义(2)帝国主义与扩张主义(3)帝国主义与扩张主义(3)帝国主义与扩张主义(3)帝国主义与扩张主义(3)帝国主义与扩张主义(4)帝国主义与扩张主义(4)帝国主义与扩张主义(4)帝国主义与扩张主义(4)帝国主义与扩张主义(4)帝国主义与扩张主义hätten。6Cass。戴奥80 3 1:ΤὰδὲἐντῇΜεσοποταμίᾳκαὶφοβερώτερα,καὶἀληθέστερονδέοςσύμπασι,νοὐχὅτιτοῖςἐνῬώμῃἀλλὰκαὶτοῖςἄλλοις,παρέσχεν。本论文介绍了一种基于文本的文本分析方法:Längenzeichen bei mittelpersischen Namensformen verzichtet。Grundlegend fr die Geschichte der Sasaniden und ihrer Beziehungen zu Rom im 3。Jh。ist Josef Wiesehöfer, Das Reich der Sāsāniden，见:Klaus-Peter john /Udo Hartmann/Thomas Gerhardt (Hrsg.)， Die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser。Krise与Transformation des Römischen Reiches im 3。Jahrhundert n.Chr。(235 - 284)。柏林2008,531-569;vgl。每个Beate D
{"title":"Metus Persicus?","authors":"Wolfgang Havener","doi":"10.1515/mill-2017-0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2017-0002","url":null,"abstract":"The Sasanians have been characterized as Rome’s enemy par excellence in the ancient sources as well as in modern scholarship. According to the Greek and Roman historians, from the moment of its emergence in the second decade of the third century CE, the new dynasty pursued an extremely aggressive policy towards the Western neighbour that resulted in fierce and renewed military conflict and brought the Roman Empire to the brink of desaster. However, a closer look on the respective historiographic and biographic texts from contemporary and later authors reveals a deeper meaning behind their depictions of Roman-Sasanian conflict in the third century. This article argues that authors like Cassius Dio, Herodian and the composer of the fourth-century Historia Augusta used these narrations in order to name and address severe problems within the Roman Empire. Their considerations focused on the mechanisms of imperial government and self-representation which underwent a profound and radical change in the course of the third century. The principate of the previous centuries with its perfectly balanced system of communication between the emperor, the senate, the people of Rome and the army was gradually transformed into an overt military monarchy in which the emperors ostentatiously displayed their exclusive reliance on the soldiers as the crucial foundation of their rule. Although the characterization of Sasanian politics and attitudes towards Rome in the historiographic and biographic texts was certainly not merely an interpretatio Romana, the conditions within the Roman empire have to be taken into account in order to fully understand the contemporary and later historians’ intentions and the specific thrust of their texts. Folgt man den Ausführungen des Zeitgenossen Cassius Dio, so ließen sich die Zustände im Imperium Romanum in den 220er-Jahren prägnant auf den Punkt bringen: „Zahlreiche Personen erregten eine Menge von Aufständen, von denen einige sogar großen Schrecken verbreiteten, doch wurden schließlich alle niedergeworfen.“1 An einer Front, schreibt Dio weiter, konnte jedoch keine Entwarnung gegeben werden, im Gegenteil: „Noch gefährlicher gestaltete sich die Lage in Mesopotamien und erfüllte Cass. Dio 80,3,1: Πολλαὶ δὲ καὶ παρὰ πολλῶν ἐπαναστάσεις γενόμεναι, καί τινες καὶ ἰσχυρῶς ἐκφοβήσασαι, κατεπαύθησαν. Die Übersetzung der Dio-Passagen folgt der Version von Otto Veh. Für wertvolle Hinweise und Anregungen bin ich Henning Börm, Hilmar Klinkott, Norbert Kramer, Kai Trampedach und Josef Wiesehöfer zu Dank verpflichtet, ebenso Hartmut Leppin, Timo Christian und dem anonymen Gutachter des Millennium für ihre hilfreichen Anmerkungen. https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2017-0002 alle mit begründeterer Angst, nicht allein die Einwohner Roms, sondern auch die übrige Menschheit.“2 Dio spielt damit auf ein Ereignis an, das nach verbreiteter Ansicht die Außenpolitik des Imperium Romanum im 3. Jh. prägen sollte: Im Jahr 224 n.Chr. besiegte der Sasanide Ardašir3","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74577962","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
S’il y a lieu d’exprimer certaines divergences d’approche ou d’analyse, il importe surtout de rendre hommage a l’effort sagace et remarquablement informe de G. Fowden. En effet, la nouvelle periodisation proposee comporte d’incontestables merites heuristiques et incite a poursuivre le debat scientifique en la matiere. Surtout, elle convie a ne pas considerer le premier islam et les realisations culturelles qui caracterisent l’espace dans lequel il s’est affirme, comme un objet etranger a la reflexion du tardo-antiquiste mais bien comme un domaine de reception et de reelaboration decisif de traditions susceptibles d’enrichir notre comprehension d’une epoque decidement particuliere.
{"title":"Accomplissement de la maturation ou éclatement de la pseudomorphose? Autour de la périodisation proposée par G. Fowden","authors":"Philippe Blaudeau","doi":"10.1515/MILL-2016-0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/MILL-2016-0003","url":null,"abstract":"S’il y a lieu d’exprimer certaines divergences d’approche ou d’analyse, il importe surtout de rendre hommage a l’effort sagace et remarquablement informe de G. Fowden. En effet, la nouvelle periodisation proposee comporte d’incontestables merites heuristiques et incite a poursuivre le debat scientifique en la matiere. Surtout, elle convie a ne pas considerer le premier islam et les realisations culturelles qui caracterisent l’espace dans lequel il s’est affirme, comme un objet etranger a la reflexion du tardo-antiquiste mais bien comme un domaine de reception et de reelaboration decisif de traditions susceptibles d’enrichir notre comprehension d’une epoque decidement particuliere.","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83407454","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Only written sources from the 10th and 11th centuries inform us about the existence of images of the Mother of God in the three buildings of the Blachernae shrine at Constantinople (Great Church, Chapel of the Soros and Holy Bath). The first part of my study deals with the question of the localization of these images as well as their date and iconographical details. Furthermore, their possible material and technical features (wall paintings, mosaics or stone carvings) are discussed. In the case of the icon of the „usual miracle“ the Mother of God was doubtless represented with the Christ child on her arm. The second part of the paper investigates an icon in the Sinai Monastery with images of the Blachernitissa, Hodegetria, Hagiosoritissa and Cheimeute. The Hagiosoritissa can be identified as the icon of the Mother of God in the Chalkoprateia, probably linked with the icon of the Christos Antiphonetes. In an excursus, the returning date of the garment of the Virgin into the Blachernae sanctuary is examined.
只有10世纪和11世纪的书面资料告诉我们，君士坦丁堡Blachernae神殿的三座建筑(Great Church, Chapel of the Soros和Holy Bath)中存在圣母的形象。我的研究的第一部分涉及这些图像的定位问题，以及它们的日期和图像细节。此外，他们可能的材料和技术特征(壁画，马赛克或石雕)进行了讨论。在“通常的奇迹”的图标的情况下，上帝的母亲无疑是代表与基督的孩子在她的手臂上。论文的第二部分考察了西奈修道院的一个圣像，其中有Blachernitissa, Hodegetria, Hagiosoritissa和Cheimeute的图像。Hagiosoritissa可以被识别为Chalkoprateia中上帝之母的图标，可能与Christos Antiphonetes的图标有关。在一个短途旅行，返回日期的服装的圣母进入Blachernae圣所进行了检查。
{"title":"Marienbilder im Blachernenheiligtum","authors":"A. Effenberger","doi":"10.1515/mill-2016-0012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2016-0012","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Only written sources from the 10th and 11th centuries inform us about the existence of images of the Mother of God in the three buildings of the Blachernae shrine at Constantinople (Great Church, Chapel of the Soros and Holy Bath). The first part of my study deals with the question of the localization of these images as well as their date and iconographical details. Furthermore, their possible material and technical features (wall paintings, mosaics or stone carvings) are discussed. In the case of the icon of the „usual miracle“ the Mother of God was doubtless represented with the Christ child on her arm. The second part of the paper investigates an icon in the Sinai Monastery with images of the Blachernitissa, Hodegetria, Hagiosoritissa and Cheimeute. The Hagiosoritissa can be identified as the icon of the Mother of God in the Chalkoprateia, probably linked with the icon of the Christos Antiphonetes. In an excursus, the returning date of the garment of the Virgin into the Blachernae sanctuary is examined.","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75458956","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We break the past down into periods of time defined by cultural, political, social-economic or technological criteria because they offer a useful heuristic framework whereby historians can marshal the vast array of data of varying types and qualities at their disposal. Discussion of the merits and demerits of using a vocabulary of periodisation is of longstanding, nor is the idea that we can study the past in terms of periods characterised by a particular set of agreed criteria new. It was Petrarch who, in the fourteenth century, in comparing his own times with what had gone before— the ancient and classical world—described his century as a time of rebirth of ancient virtues and values after an intermediate period of social and moral chaos and decline, the Middle Ages. The notion that this ‘middle age’ represented a transitional phase between two other broadly-defined eras—the ancient and the modern—remains with us and is, indeed, and certainly throughout the ‘western’ world, the dominant mode of representing historical periods. Why is this particular descriptive framework so persistent? Chiefly, one might conclude, because it suits the concept of linear time and the fundamentally teleological mode of apprehension and perception that so characterises western thinking and philosophy (however much scientific thinking and physics in particular tells us that time is not linear). It thus helps people place themselves, however vaguely and arbitrarily, at a point along a chronological trajectory that makes sense of ‘now’ in contrast to ‘then’. But the problem of periodisation is analogous to the problems of the grammarian, who strives to understand the mechanics of a language and thus requires a heuristic device, in this case, a descriptive grammar. Just like a grammar, however, so a period, however defined, is also just that—a heuristic device—and imposes limits on thinking and analysis as much as it permits the asking of certain questions and liberates the analyst from previous inhibiting frameworks. On this basis, therefore, any characterisation of the historical past that generates a new heuristic framework that enables us—or compels us—to ask new or different questions is to be welcomed. As Garth Fowden comments at the outset of his important intervention, Peter Brown’s contribution in exploiting the notion of ‘late Antiquity’ as a way of understanding the threads of continuity from the ‘ancient’ to the ‘medieval’ in western Eurasia has more than demonstrated its heuristic value. For Brown, this was a holistic exercise, aimed at understanding the gradual transformations in a culture broadly speaking and over several centuries, in ideas and attitudes, perceptions and explanations of the world, in ‘ways of seeing’ and believing, and through a careful examination of the many different modalities of late ancient life and thought. It has been remarkably successful, and deservedly so, in challenging overly-simplifying notions of rupture and sudden change
{"title":"Problems with periodisation?","authors":"J. Haldon","doi":"10.1515/mill-2016-0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2016-0004","url":null,"abstract":"We break the past down into periods of time defined by cultural, political, social-economic or technological criteria because they offer a useful heuristic framework whereby historians can marshal the vast array of data of varying types and qualities at their disposal. Discussion of the merits and demerits of using a vocabulary of periodisation is of longstanding, nor is the idea that we can study the past in terms of periods characterised by a particular set of agreed criteria new. It was Petrarch who, in the fourteenth century, in comparing his own times with what had gone before— the ancient and classical world—described his century as a time of rebirth of ancient virtues and values after an intermediate period of social and moral chaos and decline, the Middle Ages. The notion that this ‘middle age’ represented a transitional phase between two other broadly-defined eras—the ancient and the modern—remains with us and is, indeed, and certainly throughout the ‘western’ world, the dominant mode of representing historical periods. Why is this particular descriptive framework so persistent? Chiefly, one might conclude, because it suits the concept of linear time and the fundamentally teleological mode of apprehension and perception that so characterises western thinking and philosophy (however much scientific thinking and physics in particular tells us that time is not linear). It thus helps people place themselves, however vaguely and arbitrarily, at a point along a chronological trajectory that makes sense of ‘now’ in contrast to ‘then’. But the problem of periodisation is analogous to the problems of the grammarian, who strives to understand the mechanics of a language and thus requires a heuristic device, in this case, a descriptive grammar. Just like a grammar, however, so a period, however defined, is also just that—a heuristic device—and imposes limits on thinking and analysis as much as it permits the asking of certain questions and liberates the analyst from previous inhibiting frameworks. On this basis, therefore, any characterisation of the historical past that generates a new heuristic framework that enables us—or compels us—to ask new or different questions is to be welcomed. As Garth Fowden comments at the outset of his important intervention, Peter Brown’s contribution in exploiting the notion of ‘late Antiquity’ as a way of understanding the threads of continuity from the ‘ancient’ to the ‘medieval’ in western Eurasia has more than demonstrated its heuristic value. For Brown, this was a holistic exercise, aimed at understanding the gradual transformations in a culture broadly speaking and over several centuries, in ideas and attitudes, perceptions and explanations of the world, in ‘ways of seeing’ and believing, and through a careful examination of the many different modalities of late ancient life and thought. It has been remarkably successful, and deservedly so, in challenging overly-simplifying notions of rupture and sudden change","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87497806","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
‘Study problems in preference to periods’, Lord Acton averred in 1885. Situated amidst a series of aphorisms, the ironic subversion (intentional or otherwise) may have been lost on an audience listening to a lecture that inaugurated Acton’s tenure as Regius Professor of Modern History.1 Minutes earlier he had defined the subject of his chair by adducing a familiar pantheon of early modern avatars: Columbus, Machiavelli, Erasmus, Luther, and Copernicus. ‘The modern age did not proceed from the mediaeval by normal succession, with outward tokens of legitimate descent. Unheralded, it founded a new order of things, under a law of innovation, sapping the ancient reign of continuity’.2 It was the breathless celebration of that order, which included history’s role in ‘detecting error and vindicating entrusted truth’, and so in rousing man from the ‘dreaming prehistoric world’, that earned Acton infamy as the ‘highest consciousness’ of Whig history, in whose thought ‘the moral function of history was most greatly magnified’.3 The twentieth century disabused most of us of Acton’s moral certainties, but I cannot be the only historian who, having read a confused thesis prospectus, still directs the wayward Ph.D. student to heed his advice. For reasons that are not unrelated to that century’s political and epistemological convulsions, of course it will no longer do to pronounce ex cathedra, Acton-style. If he was a ‘lumper’ who drew sweeping and so aphorism-generating conclusions, the professionalization of history has made most of us ‘splitters’, determined to define and defend our modest territories of specialist knowledge, wary of perilous excursions outside of our own areas of expertise. In narrating and understanding the past, we typically transmute the time and space of human experience into chronology and geography, concepts that are ultimately reified into markers of professional expertise: one historian does ‘18-century France’, another ‘Tang China’. In an age of globalization and big data, there are naturally some reflexes, most notably a torrent of books and journals with a comparative, interdisciplinary, hemispheric or even global reach, including the rise of ‘Big History’, a mode of universal narration in which Eusebius’ or al-Ṭabarī’s (Biblical) Creation is replaced by the astronomers’ Big Bang. But narrow specialism remains the marrow of disciplinary training in history. If change is coming, it is coming slowly, despite the efforts of a journal such as this. Disciplinary habits are hard to kick. By disrupting Acton’s facile distinction between period and problem—that is, by making problems of both period and place—Fowden swims against this tide of spe-
{"title":"Fowden’s First Millennium","authors":"Chase F. Robinson","doi":"10.1515/mill-2016-0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2016-0008","url":null,"abstract":"‘Study problems in preference to periods’, Lord Acton averred in 1885. Situated amidst a series of aphorisms, the ironic subversion (intentional or otherwise) may have been lost on an audience listening to a lecture that inaugurated Acton’s tenure as Regius Professor of Modern History.1 Minutes earlier he had defined the subject of his chair by adducing a familiar pantheon of early modern avatars: Columbus, Machiavelli, Erasmus, Luther, and Copernicus. ‘The modern age did not proceed from the mediaeval by normal succession, with outward tokens of legitimate descent. Unheralded, it founded a new order of things, under a law of innovation, sapping the ancient reign of continuity’.2 It was the breathless celebration of that order, which included history’s role in ‘detecting error and vindicating entrusted truth’, and so in rousing man from the ‘dreaming prehistoric world’, that earned Acton infamy as the ‘highest consciousness’ of Whig history, in whose thought ‘the moral function of history was most greatly magnified’.3 The twentieth century disabused most of us of Acton’s moral certainties, but I cannot be the only historian who, having read a confused thesis prospectus, still directs the wayward Ph.D. student to heed his advice. For reasons that are not unrelated to that century’s political and epistemological convulsions, of course it will no longer do to pronounce ex cathedra, Acton-style. If he was a ‘lumper’ who drew sweeping and so aphorism-generating conclusions, the professionalization of history has made most of us ‘splitters’, determined to define and defend our modest territories of specialist knowledge, wary of perilous excursions outside of our own areas of expertise. In narrating and understanding the past, we typically transmute the time and space of human experience into chronology and geography, concepts that are ultimately reified into markers of professional expertise: one historian does ‘18-century France’, another ‘Tang China’. In an age of globalization and big data, there are naturally some reflexes, most notably a torrent of books and journals with a comparative, interdisciplinary, hemispheric or even global reach, including the rise of ‘Big History’, a mode of universal narration in which Eusebius’ or al-Ṭabarī’s (Biblical) Creation is replaced by the astronomers’ Big Bang. But narrow specialism remains the marrow of disciplinary training in history. If change is coming, it is coming slowly, despite the efforts of a journal such as this. Disciplinary habits are hard to kick. By disrupting Acton’s facile distinction between period and problem—that is, by making problems of both period and place—Fowden swims against this tide of spe-","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89082015","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Questo saggio di Garth Fowden rappresenta un brillante – e seducente – approccio innovativo, sorretto da un’ammirabile dottrina, rispetto all’indagine delle relazioni culturali e intellettuali delle culture antiche, in primo quella greco-latina con quella islamica ed ebraica, per un periodo che può essere ricompreso, con qualche approssimazione, nel primo millennio CE. Esso può considerarsi, in qualche misura, lo sviluppo della monografia Before and After Muhammad: The First Millennium Refocused, Princeton Univ. Press 2015, che conteneva un’originale e controversa proposta di una nuova periodizzazione.1 In buona sostanza Fowden vede nel “Primo Millennio” fondamentalmente un periodo di “crucial conceptual maturations in politics, religion and the sciences”. Forse per avere una sorta di padre nobile nella sua rivalutazione dell’Islam Fowden si appella a Edward Gibbon che, nel capitolo trentatreesimo della History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, riferisce di una “insipida leggenda”, la storia dei sette dormienti di Efeso, che finì per passare, in quanto “facile e universale credenza”, dalla tradizione del cristianesimo tardoantico a quella musulmana.2 Per quanto fosse raccontata da vescovi siriaci prima dell’ascesa dell’Islam, fu incorporata parzialmente nel Corano: Gibbon congetturò che Maometto l’avesse ascoltata durante i suoi viaggi da mercante in Siria attribuendogli l’invenzione del cane che accompagnava i dormienti.3 Tuttavia nella prospettiva di Fowden, malgrado lo scetticismo di Gibbon a proposito della rivelazione divina, in questo aneddotto si palesa il debito di Maometto rispetto alla tradizione siriaca. Con una certa generosità Fowden sostiene che Gibbon anticipava così il proprio peculiare interesse, sviluppato nei capitoli successivi, a integrare, con ampie digressioni, la storia dello sviluppo dell’Islam in quella del declino dell’Impero romano. In realtà si potrebbero allora fare altri nomi e prendere in considerazione altre opere, forse meno note, che esercitarono una forte influenza per la rappresentazione dell’Oriente musulmano nella cultura settecentesca e non solo in Gibbon: si pensi, ad esempio, a La vie de Mahomed di Henri de Boulainvilliers apparsa postuma e incompleta nel 1730, che ebbe una fortuna significativa.4 Ancora più importanti sono
这篇文章的Garth诱人和Fowden是一位杰出的——创新,支持的理论方法,古代文化和知识分子的文化关系的调查相比,第一个拉丁与伊斯兰教和犹太教,一段时间的,可能会有一些近似,在第一个千年。在某种程度上，这可以看作是穆罕默德前后专著的发展:第一个千年回顾，普林斯顿大学出版社2015年，其中包含了一项关于新周期调整的原始而有争议的建议基本上，福登认为“第一个千年”是“政治、宗教和科学的关键概念成熟”的时期。也许你有一种父亲崇高的伊斯兰教Fowden呼吁Edward Gibbon,重估History of the Decline and trentatreesimo章中报告说,到秋天of the Roman帝国的一个“趣味”,历史的传奇7个弗的卧底,最终却因为和普遍的信念”,“容易从基督教的传统tardoantico穆斯林。2尽管这是叙利亚主教在伊斯兰教兴起之前所讲的故事，但它在一定程度上被纳入了《古兰经》然而，从福尔登的角度来看，尽管吉本对神的启示持怀疑态度，但这篇轶事揭露了穆罕默德对叙利亚传统的债务。福尔登相当慷慨地声称，吉本期待着他在接下来的章节中发展出自己独特的兴趣，将伊斯兰教的发展历史与罗马帝国的衰落结合起来。事实上我们可以那么做其他名字,并考虑到其他不太为人所知的作品,也许东方表示,批准一项强大影响力的穆斯林鞑靼文化和不仅在Gibbon:例如,想想a la vie de Mahomed亨利·德·Boulainvilliers出现死后和不完整1730年,有一大笔钱重要。4更重要的是
{"title":"Garth Fowden ed il primo millennio CE","authors":"A. Marcone","doi":"10.1515/mill-2016-0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2016-0005","url":null,"abstract":"Questo saggio di Garth Fowden rappresenta un brillante – e seducente – approccio innovativo, sorretto da un’ammirabile dottrina, rispetto all’indagine delle relazioni culturali e intellettuali delle culture antiche, in primo quella greco-latina con quella islamica ed ebraica, per un periodo che può essere ricompreso, con qualche approssimazione, nel primo millennio CE. Esso può considerarsi, in qualche misura, lo sviluppo della monografia Before and After Muhammad: The First Millennium Refocused, Princeton Univ. Press 2015, che conteneva un’originale e controversa proposta di una nuova periodizzazione.1 In buona sostanza Fowden vede nel “Primo Millennio” fondamentalmente un periodo di “crucial conceptual maturations in politics, religion and the sciences”. Forse per avere una sorta di padre nobile nella sua rivalutazione dell’Islam Fowden si appella a Edward Gibbon che, nel capitolo trentatreesimo della History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, riferisce di una “insipida leggenda”, la storia dei sette dormienti di Efeso, che finì per passare, in quanto “facile e universale credenza”, dalla tradizione del cristianesimo tardoantico a quella musulmana.2 Per quanto fosse raccontata da vescovi siriaci prima dell’ascesa dell’Islam, fu incorporata parzialmente nel Corano: Gibbon congetturò che Maometto l’avesse ascoltata durante i suoi viaggi da mercante in Siria attribuendogli l’invenzione del cane che accompagnava i dormienti.3 Tuttavia nella prospettiva di Fowden, malgrado lo scetticismo di Gibbon a proposito della rivelazione divina, in questo aneddotto si palesa il debito di Maometto rispetto alla tradizione siriaca. Con una certa generosità Fowden sostiene che Gibbon anticipava così il proprio peculiare interesse, sviluppato nei capitoli successivi, a integrare, con ampie digressioni, la storia dello sviluppo dell’Islam in quella del declino dell’Impero romano. In realtà si potrebbero allora fare altri nomi e prendere in considerazione altre opere, forse meno note, che esercitarono una forte influenza per la rappresentazione dell’Oriente musulmano nella cultura settecentesca e non solo in Gibbon: si pensi, ad esempio, a La vie de Mahomed di Henri de Boulainvilliers apparsa postuma e incompleta nel 1730, che ebbe una fortuna significativa.4 Ancora più importanti sono","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86430401","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：