Since 1970, the period covered by Millennium: Jahrbuch zu Kultur und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends n.Chr. has seen two major historiographical shifts that are distinctive to it, and it alone, namely the rise of ‘late Antiquity’ and the flowering of early Islamic studies. There is no (well-founded) disagreement about roughly when and where Islam started; but late Antiquity’s boundaries remain fluid. The Roman Empire’s painful third-century transition from Principate to Dominate amidst war against Sasanids and Germans, and the sixth century’s Justinianic consolidation of Christian East Rome, have often been attached to the core fourth and fifth centuries. A terminus c.600 is widely accepted, coinciding with Gregory the Great’s reforming papacy, and the start of the last and most dangerous war between East Rome and the Sasanids, leading to the former’s crushing defeat and the latter’s annihilation by Muslim armies emerging unforeseen from Arabia after 629. Such a cataclysm does at first sight suggest the end of an epoch, considering also the narrowing of cultural horizon it imposed on the surviving East Roman rump, and the emergence of a new empire, the caliphate. Yet, given the symbolism ancient historians attach to the Persian Wars from Marathon to Plataea (490–79 BCE), and to Rome’s wars with its eastern neighbour starting at Carrhae (53 BCE), it is perverse to exclude the last, most dramatic of these encounters, running from 603 to 628, from the canonical narrative. Is it that adding those extra three decades would bring one so close to the Arab invasions that their Qurʾanic inspiration would become impossible to ignore, and therefore unavoidable to study? And the caliphate these wars spawned: did it not, in many respects, perpetuate the earlier empires under new management, just as its religion, Islam, responded to the earlier scriptural monotheisms, Judaism and Christianity? Nobody doubts the convenience and indeed necessity of historical periodizations. Nor the validity and usefulness of the well-established categories: (late) Antiquity, early Middle Ages, Byzantium/East Rome, Sasanid Iran, early Islam. It appears, though, that the boundary at c.600 is sufficiently porous, and the world of early Islam insufficiently explicable in terms of parthenogenesis within an ‘Empty Ḥijāz’,1 that there is a case to be made, alongside existing conventions, for exploiting
{"title":"Late Antiquity, Islam, and the First Millennium: A Eurasian perspective","authors":"Garth Fowden","doi":"10.1515/MILL-2016-0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/MILL-2016-0002","url":null,"abstract":"Since 1970, the period covered by Millennium: Jahrbuch zu Kultur und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends n.Chr. has seen two major historiographical shifts that are distinctive to it, and it alone, namely the rise of ‘late Antiquity’ and the flowering of early Islamic studies. There is no (well-founded) disagreement about roughly when and where Islam started; but late Antiquity’s boundaries remain fluid. The Roman Empire’s painful third-century transition from Principate to Dominate amidst war against Sasanids and Germans, and the sixth century’s Justinianic consolidation of Christian East Rome, have often been attached to the core fourth and fifth centuries. A terminus c.600 is widely accepted, coinciding with Gregory the Great’s reforming papacy, and the start of the last and most dangerous war between East Rome and the Sasanids, leading to the former’s crushing defeat and the latter’s annihilation by Muslim armies emerging unforeseen from Arabia after 629. Such a cataclysm does at first sight suggest the end of an epoch, considering also the narrowing of cultural horizon it imposed on the surviving East Roman rump, and the emergence of a new empire, the caliphate. Yet, given the symbolism ancient historians attach to the Persian Wars from Marathon to Plataea (490–79 BCE), and to Rome’s wars with its eastern neighbour starting at Carrhae (53 BCE), it is perverse to exclude the last, most dramatic of these encounters, running from 603 to 628, from the canonical narrative. Is it that adding those extra three decades would bring one so close to the Arab invasions that their Qurʾanic inspiration would become impossible to ignore, and therefore unavoidable to study? And the caliphate these wars spawned: did it not, in many respects, perpetuate the earlier empires under new management, just as its religion, Islam, responded to the earlier scriptural monotheisms, Judaism and Christianity? Nobody doubts the convenience and indeed necessity of historical periodizations. Nor the validity and usefulness of the well-established categories: (late) Antiquity, early Middle Ages, Byzantium/East Rome, Sasanid Iran, early Islam. It appears, though, that the boundary at c.600 is sufficiently porous, and the world of early Islam insufficiently explicable in terms of parthenogenesis within an ‘Empty Ḥijāz’,1 that there is a case to be made, alongside existing conventions, for exploiting","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":"60 1","pages":"28 - 5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84517099","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}
After 150 years of intensive investigation about Lucian’s Nigrinus, the research is still largely inconclusive. All essential issues concerning the interpretation of this enigmatic text remain unresolved. What is the meaning of the introductory letter to the Platonic philosopher Nigrinos? What is the intention of the following dialogue that is personally dedicated to Nigrinos? What role does Lucian play in this Platonic conversion drama? Why does Nigrinos’ protreptic discourse not contain any specific Platonic topics? How can the double conversion of the two dialogue partners be evaluated?What is the function of the framing dialogue with its intertextual allusions? In this analysis, Lucian’s text will be interpreted as a commentary to Plato’s arguments about rhetoric in the Phaedrus. As a consequence, the relation between rhetoric and philosophy emerges as the central theme ofNigrinus. In this sense, Lucian focuses on the Platonic definition of rhetoric as psychagogia and analyzes the dialectical and psychological art of protreptic discourse. The various allusions to Plato’s Symposion referring mainly to the speech of Alcibiades illustrate in this context the power of psychagogic protrepsis. Lucian’s parable of the bowman which treats the protreptic art of Nigrinos can be described as the metaphorical exegesis of the rhetorical recommendations of Socrates in the Phaedrus:Bowmen such as Nigrinos aim at potentially receptive souls with bitter-sweet arrows in order to convert them to philosophy. The specific formulations of the parable can be attributed exactly to the corresponding parts of the dialogue in the Phaedrus. But how can the discrepancy between Nigrinos’ philosophically meaningless speech and the enthusiastic feedback in the bowman’s parable be interpreted? In order to properly evaluate Nigrinos’ protreptic discourse, it is essential to analyze the text specifically as logos protreptikos. Thereby, Nigrinos’ speech does not gain in quality but in logic because it fits with the typical criteria of the therapeutical protrepsis and actually creates the prerequisites for the described conversions. Considering the intertextual allusions in the framing dialogue, Lucian’s Nigrinus can be characterized as a tragicomical dialogue: it cautions against the intriguing protreptic discourses of philosophers who are trained theoretically and practically in psychagogical rhetoric.
{"title":"Bittersüße Pfeile. Protreptische Rhetorik und platonische Philosophie in Lukians Nigrinus (2. Teil)","authors":"T. Lechner","doi":"10.1515/mill-2016-0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2016-0009","url":null,"abstract":"After 150 years of intensive investigation about Lucian’s Nigrinus, the research is still largely inconclusive. All essential issues concerning the interpretation of this enigmatic text remain unresolved. What is the meaning of the introductory letter to the Platonic philosopher Nigrinos? What is the intention of the following dialogue that is personally dedicated to Nigrinos? What role does Lucian play in this Platonic conversion drama? Why does Nigrinos’ protreptic discourse not contain any specific Platonic topics? How can the double conversion of the two dialogue partners be evaluated?What is the function of the framing dialogue with its intertextual allusions? In this analysis, Lucian’s text will be interpreted as a commentary to Plato’s arguments about rhetoric in the Phaedrus. As a consequence, the relation between rhetoric and philosophy emerges as the central theme ofNigrinus. In this sense, Lucian focuses on the Platonic definition of rhetoric as psychagogia and analyzes the dialectical and psychological art of protreptic discourse. The various allusions to Plato’s Symposion referring mainly to the speech of Alcibiades illustrate in this context the power of psychagogic protrepsis. Lucian’s parable of the bowman which treats the protreptic art of Nigrinos can be described as the metaphorical exegesis of the rhetorical recommendations of Socrates in the Phaedrus:Bowmen such as Nigrinos aim at potentially receptive souls with bitter-sweet arrows in order to convert them to philosophy. The specific formulations of the parable can be attributed exactly to the corresponding parts of the dialogue in the Phaedrus. But how can the discrepancy between Nigrinos’ philosophically meaningless speech and the enthusiastic feedback in the bowman’s parable be interpreted? In order to properly evaluate Nigrinos’ protreptic discourse, it is essential to analyze the text specifically as logos protreptikos. Thereby, Nigrinos’ speech does not gain in quality but in logic because it fits with the typical criteria of the therapeutical protrepsis and actually creates the prerequisites for the described conversions. Considering the intertextual allusions in the framing dialogue, Lucian’s Nigrinus can be characterized as a tragicomical dialogue: it cautions against the intriguing protreptic discourses of philosophers who are trained theoretically and practically in psychagogical rhetoric.","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":"1 1","pages":"140 - 67"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75768244","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 As the title suggests, the present paper offers an analysis of selected letters from Cassiodorus’ Variae, which are important for late antique history of Dalmatia and Pannonia. The study is intended to be twofold: on the one part, it examines the information that can be derived from the letters about both provinces’ political, administrative, economic, social and ethnic picture in the time of Ostrogothic rule over the Eastern Adriatic and Middle Danube regions; on the other part, it explores literary and political contexts and underlying ideologies that are present in the selected letters.
{"title":"Late Antique Dalmatia and Pannonia in Cassiodorus’ Variae","authors":"Hrvoje Gračanin","doi":"10.1515/mill-2016-0011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2016-0011","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract As the title suggests, the present paper offers an analysis of selected letters from Cassiodorus’ Variae, which are important for late antique history of Dalmatia and Pannonia. The study is intended to be twofold: on the one part, it examines the information that can be derived from the letters about both provinces’ political, administrative, economic, social and ethnic picture in the time of Ostrogothic rule over the Eastern Adriatic and Middle Danube regions; on the other part, it explores literary and political contexts and underlying ideologies that are present in the selected letters.","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":"25 1","pages":"211 - 274"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74598613","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 Liber Pontificalis attributes to Constantine the Great the foundation and endowment of several Christian basilicas, which were placed in the possession of the Roman Church under the pontificate of Sylvester (314–335). This wealth consists largely of landed property in Italy, Africa, and Egypt and is presented by the compiler in the form of lists, in which an income expressed in Byzantine gold currency is associated to each item. This data, it is argued here, is inconsistent with what is otherwise known of the evolution of documentary practice on the one hand, of social and economic history on the other in Early Byzantine times. Moreover, the lists contain at least one overlooked and inescapable anachronism, in that their toponymy reflects the passage of the Vandals in Northern Africa in the fifth and sixth centuries. The analysis of two abridgments of the Liber, which go back to an earlier state of the text than the manuscripts, reveals the tendency by the successive compilers toward increasing the quantity and value of Constantine’s gifts in the early stages of the transmission. On these grounds, the bulk of the alleged donations should be regarded as a picture of the property of the Roman Church in the sixth or seventh centuries, only a part of which may have been acquired through imperial generosity. Le célèbre recueil médiéval des biographies des papes, le Liber Pontificalis (LP), attribue à l’empereur Constantin I la fondation du baptistère du Latran et de dix basiliques dans la ville de Rome, extra-muros et dans d’autres villes du Latium et de la Campanie. Le compilateur en donne la liste dans la Vie du pape Silvestre (ch. XXXIV), indiquant aussi, pour chaque fondation, la dotation pourvue par la munificence im Ce texte est une version remaniée de l’une des études dans ma thèse de Doctorat de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études – Sorbonne, soutenue en avril , mais sa rédaction originale remonte à . Ce n’est qu’en juillet que Béatrice Caseau m’a bien voulu faire part de son travail, désormais publié, où elle suggère que certains éléments du mobilier liturgique dans les listes que j’étudie seraient un ajout du début du VI siècle: B. Caseau, « Constantin et l’encens. Constantin a-t-il procédé à une révolution liturgique ? », dans Costantino prima e dopo Costantino, éd. G. Bonamante, N. Leski et R. Lizzi Testa (Munera ), Bari , pp. –. Ce n’est enfin que pendant la révision de cet article pour la publication que Dominic Moreau a bien voulu me faire part de ces travaux touchant au passage à la question de possibles falsifications constantiniennes dans le Liber et tout particulièrement de son article: « Et postmodum rediens cum gloria baptizavit Constantinum augustum. Examen critique de la réception et de l’utilisation de la figure de Constantin par l’Église romaine durant l’Antiquité », ibid., pp. –. Je n’ai pas pu tenir compte non plus de la nouvelle traduction française de Michel Aubrun, Turnhout , sur laq
《教皇笔记》(Liber Pontificalis)认为君士坦丁大帝是几座基督教长方形教堂的奠基者和捐赠者，这些教堂在西尔维斯特(Sylvester)教皇任期内(314-335)归罗马教会所有。这些财富主要由意大利、非洲和埃及的土地财产组成，由编者以列表的形式呈现，其中每项收入都以拜占庭黄金货币表示。这里有人认为，这一数据与早期拜占庭时期文献实践的演变，以及社会和经济史的演变不一致。此外，这些名单中至少有一个被忽视的、不可避免的时代错误，因为它们的地名反映了五、六世纪汪达尔人在北非的足迹。对《自由手稿》的两个节选的分析，可以追溯到比手稿更早的文本状态，揭示了在传播的早期阶段，连续的编纂者倾向于增加君士坦丁礼物的数量和价值。基于这些理由，大部分所谓的捐赠应该被视为六世纪或七世纪罗马教会财产的一幅画，其中只有一部分可能是通过帝国慷慨获得的。《罗马天主教档案》(LP)、《康斯坦丁皇帝档案》(Constantin empereur)、《罗马天主教档案》(Latran basiliques)基金会、《罗马天主教档案》(extra-muros)、《罗马天主教档案》(la Latium villes)和《公司档案》(la Campanie)。Le compileur en donne la liste dans la Vie du ape Silvestre (ch. xiv)，独立的aussi, pour chque foundation, la dotation pourvue par la ence in文本测试了一个版本的remaniacei de l ' une des sames dans ma the doctor ' se de l ' École praatique des Hautes Études - Sorbonne, soutenue en avril，mais sa racei originale resmonte。Ce n ' est qu ' en juilletque banciatrice Caseau m ' a bien voulu faire part de son travail, danci.que banciatrice Caseau m ' a bien voulu faire part de sontravail, danci.com/， où elle suggire que某些moilier liturgique dles listes que j ' samudie sanci.com/， ' Constantin et l ' encens， ' Constantin et l ' encens。Constantin a-t-il procsamdise . une resamdise liturgique ?* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *G. Bonamante, N. Leski et R. Lizzi Testa (Munera)， Bari，pp.。这最后,吊坠拉修订de cet(中央东部东京)倒拉出版,多米尼克·莫罗条好想我做一部分de ces减速touchant盟通道问题de可能造假constantiniennes在书籍等兜售particulierement de儿子文章:«et postmodum rediens和格洛丽亚baptizavit Constantinum augustum。审查《关于变革的批判》和《关于变革的批判》，《关于康斯坦丁的批判》，《关于变革的批判》，《关于变革的批判》，《关于变革的批判》，《关于变革的批判》，《关于变革的批判》，《关于变革的批判》，《关于变革的批判》，《关于变革的批判》，《关于变革的批判》，《关于变革的批判》，《关于变革的批判》，《关于变革的批判》。jen 'ai pas compcompte non plus de la la nouvelle traduction france - aise de Michel Aubrun, turnout，sur le le，，pp.-。朱克曼和布加德都提出了不同的建议和批评，même在某些方面存在明显的分歧。psiriale: 1 ' part la vaisselle sacrimes et le mobilier liturgique: 1 'indication du nombre des piures, du macrimes, des pierres and du pioids en livres;De l 'autre les immeubles et les propriacematsams fonciires。这一组包括农业、基金、massae和财产、主要计算单位、个人和个人的薪金、薪金、薪金、薪金、薪金、薪金、薪金、薪金。在意大利、非洲、法国、埃及、东方、法国、法国、各省、各省和各城市都有固定的固定的<s:2>和非固定的<s:2>和非固定的<s:2>和非固定的。几cas, la出处d一个bien-fonds du陆战队des好echus盟国库帝国se找到specifiee(马萨Festi praepositi sacri cubiculi donavit奥古斯都Constantinus起点与终点,市民;占有;占有;占有;scheneca deserta)。(1)在康斯坦丁(Constantin)和(Constantin)的领土上，所有的领土被没收，所有的领土被没收，所有的领土被没收，所有的领土被没收，所有的领土被没收，所有的领土被没收，所有的领土被没收，所有的领土被没收，所有的领土被没收，所有的领土被没收。西比尔斯，奥古斯托夫人;占有罗马，奥古斯托·康斯坦丁诺，安布罗西奥，安布罗西奥;阿加皮的所有权，奥古斯托·康斯坦丁的所有权;拥有权:君士坦丁·奥古斯托·海布罗米乌斯;奥古斯都拥有海格力;市民奥古斯都;拥有Micinas Augusti)， d 'un成员de sa famille(拥有Augustae helena) ou de la Couronne(拥有Tiberii Caesaris)。À chque propriacemans . est associe . cn . experimental . cn . cn . cn . cn . cn . cn . cn . cn . cn . cn . cn . cn . cn . cn . cn . cn . cn . cn . cn . cn 《教皇笔记》(Liber Pontificalis)认为君士坦丁大帝是几座基督教长方形教堂的奠基者和捐赠者，这些教堂在西尔维斯特(Sylvester)教皇任期内(314-335)归罗马教会所有。这些财富主要由意大利、非洲和埃及的土地财产组成，由编者以列表的形式呈现，其中每项收入都以拜占庭黄金货币表示。这里有人认为，这一数据与早期拜占庭时期文献实践的演变，以及社会和经济史的演变不一致。此外，这些名单中至少有一个被忽视
{"title":"Les fausses donations de Constantin dans le Liber pontificalis","authors":"Federico Montinaro","doi":"10.1515/mill-2015-0109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2015-0109","url":null,"abstract":"The Liber Pontificalis attributes to Constantine the Great the foundation and endowment of several Christian basilicas, which were placed in the possession of the Roman Church under the pontificate of Sylvester (314–335). This wealth consists largely of landed property in Italy, Africa, and Egypt and is presented by the compiler in the form of lists, in which an income expressed in Byzantine gold currency is associated to each item. This data, it is argued here, is inconsistent with what is otherwise known of the evolution of documentary practice on the one hand, of social and economic history on the other in Early Byzantine times. Moreover, the lists contain at least one overlooked and inescapable anachronism, in that their toponymy reflects the passage of the Vandals in Northern Africa in the fifth and sixth centuries. The analysis of two abridgments of the Liber, which go back to an earlier state of the text than the manuscripts, reveals the tendency by the successive compilers toward increasing the quantity and value of Constantine’s gifts in the early stages of the transmission. On these grounds, the bulk of the alleged donations should be regarded as a picture of the property of the Roman Church in the sixth or seventh centuries, only a part of which may have been acquired through imperial generosity. Le célèbre recueil médiéval des biographies des papes, le Liber Pontificalis (LP), attribue à l’empereur Constantin I la fondation du baptistère du Latran et de dix basiliques dans la ville de Rome, extra-muros et dans d’autres villes du Latium et de la Campanie. Le compilateur en donne la liste dans la Vie du pape Silvestre (ch. XXXIV), indiquant aussi, pour chaque fondation, la dotation pourvue par la munificence im Ce texte est une version remaniée de l’une des études dans ma thèse de Doctorat de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études – Sorbonne, soutenue en avril , mais sa rédaction originale remonte à . Ce n’est qu’en juillet que Béatrice Caseau m’a bien voulu faire part de son travail, désormais publié, où elle suggère que certains éléments du mobilier liturgique dans les listes que j’étudie seraient un ajout du début du VI siècle: B. Caseau, « Constantin et l’encens. Constantin a-t-il procédé à une révolution liturgique ? », dans Costantino prima e dopo Costantino, éd. G. Bonamante, N. Leski et R. Lizzi Testa (Munera ), Bari , pp. –. Ce n’est enfin que pendant la révision de cet article pour la publication que Dominic Moreau a bien voulu me faire part de ces travaux touchant au passage à la question de possibles falsifications constantiniennes dans le Liber et tout particulièrement de son article: « Et postmodum rediens cum gloria baptizavit Constantinum augustum. Examen critique de la réception et de l’utilisation de la figure de Constantin par l’Église romaine durant l’Antiquité », ibid., pp. –. Je n’ai pas pu tenir compte non plus de la nouvelle traduction française de Michel Aubrun, Turnhout , sur laq","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":"48 1","pages":"203 - 230"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75758193","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}
After 150 years of intensive investigation about Lucian’s Nigrinus, the research is still largely inconclusive. All essential issues concerning the interpretation of this enigmatic text remain to be unresolved: What is the meaning of the introductory letter to the platonic philosopher Nigrinos? What is the intention of the following dialogue that is personally dedicated to Nigrinos? What role does Lucian play in this platonic conversion drama? Why does Nigrinos’ protreptic discourse not contain any specific platonic topics? How can the double conversion of the two dialogue partners be evaluated? What is the function of the framing dialogue with its intertextual allusions? In this analysis, Lucian’s text will be interpreted as a commentary to Plato’s arguments about rhetoric in the Phaedrus. As a consequence, the relation between rhetoric and philosophy emerges as the central theme of Nigrinus. In this sense, Lucian focuses on the platonic definition of rhetoric as psychagogia and analyzes the dialectical and psychological art of protreptic discourse. The various allusions to Plato’s Symposion referring mainly to the speech of Alcibiades illustrate in this context the power of psychagogic protrepsis. Lucian’s parabel of the bowman, which treats the protreptic art of Nigrinos, can be described as the metaphorical exegesis of the rhetoric recommendations of Socrates in the Phaedrus: Bowmen such as Nigrinos aim at potentially receptive souls with bitter-sweet arrows in order to convert them to philosophy. The specific formulations of the parable can be attributed exactly to the corresponding parts of the dialogue in the Phaedrus. But how can the discrepancy between Nigrinos’ philosophically meaningless speech and the enthusiastic feedback in the bowman’s parable be interpreted? In order to properly evaluate Nigrinos’ protreptic discourse, it is essential to analyze the text specifically as logos protreptikos. Thereby, Nigrinos’ speech does not gain in quality but in logic because it fits with the typical criteria of the therapeutical protrepsis and actually creates the prerequisites for the described conversions. Considering the intertextual allusions in the framing dialogue, Lucian’s Nigrinus can be characterized as a tragicomical dialogue: it cautions against the intriguing protreptic discourses of philosophers who are trained theoretically and practically in psychagogical rhetoric. 1. Einleitung mit forschungsgeschichtlichem Überblick Λουκιανὸς Νιγρίνῳ εὖ πράττειν. Mit dieser platonischen salutatio beginnt Lukians Nigrinus, ein rätselhafter und irritierender Text, der aus einem kurzen Widmungsbrief an Nigrinos und einem im Brief annoncierten βιβλίον besteht.1 Das dem platonischen Philosophen dedizierte βιβλίον präsentiert sich formal als ein Dialog, in dem geschildert wird, wie zwei Freunde, die beide namentlich ungenannt bleiben,2 zur Philosophie konvertieren: Der eine wird bei seinem Rombesuch von Nigrinos persönlich überzeugt, der andere vom zu
{"title":"Bittersüße Pfeile. Protreptische Rhetorik und platonische Philosophie in Lukians Nigrinus","authors":"T. Lechner","doi":"10.1515/mill-2015-0102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2015-0102","url":null,"abstract":"After 150 years of intensive investigation about Lucian’s Nigrinus, the research is still largely inconclusive. All essential issues concerning the interpretation of this enigmatic text remain to be unresolved: What is the meaning of the introductory letter to the platonic philosopher Nigrinos? What is the intention of the following dialogue that is personally dedicated to Nigrinos? What role does Lucian play in this platonic conversion drama? Why does Nigrinos’ protreptic discourse not contain any specific platonic topics? How can the double conversion of the two dialogue partners be evaluated? What is the function of the framing dialogue with its intertextual allusions? In this analysis, Lucian’s text will be interpreted as a commentary to Plato’s arguments about rhetoric in the Phaedrus. As a consequence, the relation between rhetoric and philosophy emerges as the central theme of Nigrinus. In this sense, Lucian focuses on the platonic definition of rhetoric as psychagogia and analyzes the dialectical and psychological art of protreptic discourse. The various allusions to Plato’s Symposion referring mainly to the speech of Alcibiades illustrate in this context the power of psychagogic protrepsis. Lucian’s parabel of the bowman, which treats the protreptic art of Nigrinos, can be described as the metaphorical exegesis of the rhetoric recommendations of Socrates in the Phaedrus: Bowmen such as Nigrinos aim at potentially receptive souls with bitter-sweet arrows in order to convert them to philosophy. The specific formulations of the parable can be attributed exactly to the corresponding parts of the dialogue in the Phaedrus. But how can the discrepancy between Nigrinos’ philosophically meaningless speech and the enthusiastic feedback in the bowman’s parable be interpreted? In order to properly evaluate Nigrinos’ protreptic discourse, it is essential to analyze the text specifically as logos protreptikos. Thereby, Nigrinos’ speech does not gain in quality but in logic because it fits with the typical criteria of the therapeutical protrepsis and actually creates the prerequisites for the described conversions. Considering the intertextual allusions in the framing dialogue, Lucian’s Nigrinus can be characterized as a tragicomical dialogue: it cautions against the intriguing protreptic discourses of philosophers who are trained theoretically and practically in psychagogical rhetoric. 1. Einleitung mit forschungsgeschichtlichem Überblick Λουκιανὸς Νιγρίνῳ εὖ πράττειν. Mit dieser platonischen salutatio beginnt Lukians Nigrinus, ein rätselhafter und irritierender Text, der aus einem kurzen Widmungsbrief an Nigrinos und einem im Brief annoncierten βιβλίον besteht.1 Das dem platonischen Philosophen dedizierte βιβλίον präsentiert sich formal als ein Dialog, in dem geschildert wird, wie zwei Freunde, die beide namentlich ungenannt bleiben,2 zur Philosophie konvertieren: Der eine wird bei seinem Rombesuch von Nigrinos persönlich überzeugt, der andere vom zu","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":"81 5 1","pages":"1 - 40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80758292","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}
Theudila, son of the Visigothic king Sisebut, is known from the letter his father sent him when he entered a monastery. After a presentation of the letter and its translation, a close reading and interpretation of its contents leads to the result that – contrary to the view held so far – Theudila did not become a monk voluntarily. He was, moreover, sentenced by his father to lead a monastic life after the failure of his rebellion against him. Most probably a signetring bearing the inscription Teudila D[ominus] belonged to the Visigothic prince. Obviously he escaped from his monastery after his father’s death and was among the pretenders who tried to win the throne of the Kingdom of Toledo when king Sisenand had died in 636. This becomes evident from canon 17 of the 6th council of Toledo (638) in which a detonsus, i.e. a cleric or monk, is mentioned who is expressly excluded from becoming king and has to be identified with Theudila. I. Der Bief König Sisebuts an Theudila: Überlieferung, Text und Übersetzung Unter den als Anhang des 3. Epistolae-Bandes der MGH edierten EpistolaeWisigoticae1 findet sich als Nr. 8 ein Schreiben des Wisigotenkönigs Sisebut (612–621)2 an seinen Sohn Theudila3.Während der Adressat am Ende des Schreibens namentlich genannt wird, erscheint der Name des Verfassers/Absenders lediglich im „Lemma“ einer der vier Hss., in denen der Brief als Kopie überliefert ist.4 Es handelt sich um den von Wilhelm Gundlach als M2 bezeichneten Codex bibliothecae regiae Madridensis Dd. 104 (18. Jh.), in dem einem auf fol. 115 enthaltenen Fragment des Briefes (das ganze Schreiben findet sich dort bereits vorher auf fol. 895) folgendes Lemma vorausgeht: Hg. von Wilhelm Gundlach, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Epistolae : Epistolae Merovingici et Karoli aevi I, Berlin (Nachdruck München ). Vgl. Alexander P. Bronisch, Art. Sisebut, in: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, Bd. (), S. −. Hg. von Gundlach (wie Anm. ), S. −. Dem Umstand, daß der Codex Escurialensis &. I. (. Jh.), die älteste Hs., das Schreiben nicht enthält, kommt keine Bedeutung zu, da die vier den Brief tradierenden Hss. des .–. Jh. über einen (verschollenen) Codex vetustissimus Ovetensis (Ende ./Anfang . Jh.) auf einen (nicht erhaltenen) gemeinsamenArchetyp (wohl aus derMitte des . Jh.) zurückzuführen sind.Vgl.WilhelmGundlach, Der Anhang des III. Epistolae-Bandes der Monumenta Germaniae historica: Epistolae ad res Wisigotorum pertinentes, in: Neues Archiv (), S. −. Vgl. dazu Gundlach (wie Anm. ), S. f. sisebuti regis directa ad theudilanem6, dum ex laico habitu ad monasterium convertisset.7 Wenn sich auch in keiner der vier Hss., die den Brief überliefern, die übliche, den Absender/Verfasser und Empfänger enthaltende Eingangsformel findet, ist dennoch an der Verfasserschaft Sisebuts nicht zu zweifeln, da das Schreiben an Theudila zusammen mit sieben weiteren Briefen überliefert ist, die Sisebut als Empfänge
提乌迪拉是西哥特国王西塞布特的儿子，人们从他父亲在他进入修道院时寄给他的信中得知他的名字。在介绍了这封信及其翻译之后，仔细阅读和解释其内容，结果与迄今为止所持的观点相反，提乌迪拉并不是自愿出家的。此外，在反抗失败后，他被父亲判处过修道院生活。最有可能的签名是Teudila D[ominus]，属于西哥特王子。显然，他在父亲死后从修道院逃了出来，在西塞南德国王于636年去世后，他是试图赢得托莱多王国王位的伪装者之一。这从托莱多第六次会议(638)的正典17中可以明显看出，其中提到了一个被明确排除在成为国王之外的神职人员或僧侣，必须与提乌迪拉(Theudila)相提并论。1 . Der Bief König Sisebuts and Theudila: Überlieferung, Text and ÜbersetzungEpistolae-Bandes der MGH edierten EpistolaeWisigoticae1 findet sich, no . 8 in Schreiben des Wisigotenkönigs Sisebut (612-621)2 and seinen Sohn theudil3。Während地址:地址:地址:地址:地址:地址:地址:地址:地址:地址:地址:地址:地址:地址:地址:地址:地址:地址:地址:地址:地址:地址:地址:地址:地址:地址:地址4 . in denen der Brief als Kopie <s:1> berliefert list他的handelt sich um den von Wilhelm Gundlach als M2 bezeichnedex bibliothecae regies madridens Dd. 104(18)。j . h.)， in dem einem auf foll。摘要摘要(das ganze Schreiben findet)发现，该港口拥有其他的港口。895) folgendes Lemma vorausgeht:h.g. von Wilhelm Gundlach，德国历史纪念碑，Epistolae: Epistolae Merovingici et Karoli aevi I, Berlin<e:2>(Nachdruck m<e:1> nchen<e:2>)。Vgl。Alexander P. Bronisch，艺术。ssebut, in: reallexkon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, Bd.<s:1>()，S. <s:1>。·冯·冈拉克)，s .−。Dem Umstand, dasß der Codex escuralensis &。1 .Jh)，死älteste。， das Schreiben night enthält, kommt keine Bedeutung zu, da die vier den Brief traderenden Hss。des。-。Jh。<s:1>德国(verschollenen)食品法典(Ende。/安防。Jh.) auf einen (nicht erhaltenen) gemeinsamenprototype (wohl ' s derMitte des)。[j . h.] [j .] [j .] [j .]威廉·冈拉克，《andhang des III》。书信体-德国历史纪念物:书信体和相关文献，见:Neues archiiv(<e:2>)，S.−《飞鸟集》。Vgl。美联储主席冈拉克)，S.. f. sisebuti regiis directa and theudilanem, dum ex laico habitu and monasterium convertisset当我在keiner der vier Hss看到这些的时候。7 . die den Brief berlin, die die bliche, den Absender/Verfasser und Empfänger enthaltende Eingangsformel findet, ist dennoch and der Verfasserschaft Sisebuts nicht zu zweifeln, da das Schreiben and Theudila zusammen mitben weinteren Briefen <e:1> berliefert ist, die Sisebut als Empfänger oder Absender ausweisnIn welchem Regierungsjahr Sisebut den Brief and seinen Sohn verfaßte, läßt sich night mehr bestmen。<s:1>新技术研究<e:1> (<s:1>新技术研究<e:1>) Königs、新技术研究(新技术研究)Sätzen、新技术研究(新技术研究)和新技术研究(新技术研究)。Bevor das写作interpretiert和在窝historischen Kontext eingeordnet将,erfolgt zunachst塞纳河satzweise Prasentation samt静脉Ubersetzung: (1), enim超越权限immensas vobis9非份箅子、动荡频仍的inflammatio醑剂sancti锁创作存在cultores吗?−where nämlichmöchte euh night <e:1> ber alle Maßen Dank sagen, den des Heiligen Geistes Glut veranlast hat, zu seinen verehern zu gehören?(2)在一个区域内，如果一个人对一个地区的经济状况不满意，他就会对一个地区的经济状况不满意。−werschließ lich könnte nicht durch aufrichtigstes Lob [diejenigen] auszeichnen,von denen er weiß， dasß sie mit freudigerem Eifer in die ewigen Regionen eilen?(3)从实际意义上说，从实际意义上说，从实际意义上说，从实际意义上说，从实际意义上说，从实际意义上说，从实际意义上说，从实际意义上说，从实际意义上说，从实际意义上说，从实际意义上说。对此findet namlich der Glaube在der答青年社Beweis,军队要是窝Glauben风景明信片祝答vollbracht wird12,和我们bekennen, daßdiejenigen u
{"title":"Theudila. Königssohn, Usurpator und Mönch","authors":"Gerd Kampers","doi":"10.1515/mill-2015-0108","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2015-0108","url":null,"abstract":"Theudila, son of the Visigothic king Sisebut, is known from the letter his father sent him when he entered a monastery. After a presentation of the letter and its translation, a close reading and interpretation of its contents leads to the result that – contrary to the view held so far – Theudila did not become a monk voluntarily. He was, moreover, sentenced by his father to lead a monastic life after the failure of his rebellion against him. Most probably a signetring bearing the inscription Teudila D[ominus] belonged to the Visigothic prince. Obviously he escaped from his monastery after his father’s death and was among the pretenders who tried to win the throne of the Kingdom of Toledo when king Sisenand had died in 636. This becomes evident from canon 17 of the 6th council of Toledo (638) in which a detonsus, i.e. a cleric or monk, is mentioned who is expressly excluded from becoming king and has to be identified with Theudila. I. Der Bief König Sisebuts an Theudila: Überlieferung, Text und Übersetzung Unter den als Anhang des 3. Epistolae-Bandes der MGH edierten EpistolaeWisigoticae1 findet sich als Nr. 8 ein Schreiben des Wisigotenkönigs Sisebut (612–621)2 an seinen Sohn Theudila3.Während der Adressat am Ende des Schreibens namentlich genannt wird, erscheint der Name des Verfassers/Absenders lediglich im „Lemma“ einer der vier Hss., in denen der Brief als Kopie überliefert ist.4 Es handelt sich um den von Wilhelm Gundlach als M2 bezeichneten Codex bibliothecae regiae Madridensis Dd. 104 (18. Jh.), in dem einem auf fol. 115 enthaltenen Fragment des Briefes (das ganze Schreiben findet sich dort bereits vorher auf fol. 895) folgendes Lemma vorausgeht: Hg. von Wilhelm Gundlach, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Epistolae : Epistolae Merovingici et Karoli aevi I, Berlin (Nachdruck München ). Vgl. Alexander P. Bronisch, Art. Sisebut, in: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, Bd. (), S. −. Hg. von Gundlach (wie Anm. ), S. −. Dem Umstand, daß der Codex Escurialensis &. I. (. Jh.), die älteste Hs., das Schreiben nicht enthält, kommt keine Bedeutung zu, da die vier den Brief tradierenden Hss. des .–. Jh. über einen (verschollenen) Codex vetustissimus Ovetensis (Ende ./Anfang . Jh.) auf einen (nicht erhaltenen) gemeinsamenArchetyp (wohl aus derMitte des . Jh.) zurückzuführen sind.Vgl.WilhelmGundlach, Der Anhang des III. Epistolae-Bandes der Monumenta Germaniae historica: Epistolae ad res Wisigotorum pertinentes, in: Neues Archiv (), S. −. Vgl. dazu Gundlach (wie Anm. ), S. f. sisebuti regis directa ad theudilanem6, dum ex laico habitu ad monasterium convertisset.7 Wenn sich auch in keiner der vier Hss., die den Brief überliefern, die übliche, den Absender/Verfasser und Empfänger enthaltende Eingangsformel findet, ist dennoch an der Verfasserschaft Sisebuts nicht zu zweifeln, da das Schreiben an Theudila zusammen mit sieben weiteren Briefen überliefert ist, die Sisebut als Empfänge","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":"38 1","pages":"179 - 202"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78807109","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}
In his attempt to dismantle the notion of a pagan-senatorial reaction in Late Antiquity, Alan Cameron, in his major work “The Last Pagans of Rome”, also covers historiographical matters in great detail. He argues that the supposition of a biased Latin historiography at the end of the fourth century, which viewed the recent imperial past from an anti-Christian perspective and was supported by the senatorial class – as put forth by Paschoud on the grounds of evidence found in Zosimus – is based on misinterpretations and mistakes. Accordingly, the same holds true regarding the tradition of secular historiography preserved in Zonaras, known as the “Leoquelle”. But as far as Zonaras is concerned, Cameron’s polemic proves to fall short on account of evidence based on source criticism. Alan Cameron’s long anticipated book on the Last Pagans, which appeared in 2011, is the culmination of the author’s efforts over several decades to describe the late antique pagan milieu of the city of Rome.2 Cameron rejects the view that there was a “pagan reaction” against Christianity at the end of the fourth century, driven by educated senators resident in Rome, reflected in literary and artistic creations, and culminating in Nicomachus Flavianus’ support of Eugenius. Cameron derides this view of things as “myth”, which still remains everywhere to be found. The evidence cited by Cameron may not always be as devastating as he implies,3 and whether the thesis of a pagan reaction as he presents it is still widely believed and not long since abandoned in favor of other models that do not reduce everything to the dichotomy of Pagan and Christian need not concern us here; likewise, one might question whether the Battle on the Frigidus “on the standard modern view” really was “a watershed of European history”.4 All that aside: through Cameron’s argumentative ceterum censeo, over hundreds of pages, the reader gets to know numerous facets of late Roman intellectual life, and Cameron’s expertise in this field is undisputed. A detailed discussion of this provocative, feisty book would balloon into a monograph; this is true especially of Cameron’s handling of the Carmen contra paganos, Macrobius’ Saturnalia, the Historia Augusta, the interpretation of the contorniates, and the ivory diptychs. In both chapters on Nicomachus Flavianus, Cameron does my 1992 dissertation the honor of detailed criticism. In consequence of his belief Translation by J. Dillon. Alan Cameron, The Last Pagans of Rome, Oxford . Thus, for example, the very brief synthesis by S. Mitchell, A History of the Later Roman Empire. AD –, Oxford , –, attacked by Cameron (cf. fn. ) , n. . Cameron (cf. fn. ) . in the non-existence of Pagan-Roman literature and Pagan-Roman ideology, Cameron’s goal is to refute the hypothesis that there are traces of the existence of a detailed, late antique historical source that was used both by Ammianus and, by whatever circuitous route it reached him,
艾伦·卡梅隆在他的主要著作《罗马最后的异教徒》中，试图消除古代晚期异教徒元老院反应的概念，他也非常详细地涵盖了历史问题。他认为，在四世纪末有一种有偏见的拉丁史学的假设，即从反基督教的角度看待近代帝国的历史，并得到元老院阶级的支持——正如帕斯舒德在《佐西摩斯》中发现的证据所提出的那样——是基于误解和错误。因此，对于被称为“Leoquelle”的Zonaras保存下来的世俗史学传统，也是如此。但就佐纳拉斯而言，卡梅伦的争论被证明是不足的，因为证据是基于对来源的批评。艾伦·卡梅隆期待已久的《最后的异教徒》一书于2011年出版，是作者几十年来对罗马城晚期古代异教环境的描述的高潮。卡梅隆不同意这样的观点，即在四世纪末，罗马有受过教育的参议员推动了对基督教的“异教反应”，反映在文学和艺术创作中，并以尼科马库斯·弗拉维亚努斯对尤吉尼奥斯的支持为高潮。卡梅伦嘲笑这种观点是“神话”，这种观点仍然随处可见。卡梅伦引用的证据可能并不总是像他暗示的那样具有毁灭性，3而且他提出的异教反应的论点是否仍然被广泛相信，而且不久之后就被抛弃了，而支持其他模型，这些模型不会将一切都归结为异教和基督徒的二分法，我们在这里不需要关心;同样，有人可能会质疑，“从标准的现代观点来看”，弗里基德斯战役是否真的是“欧洲历史的分水岭”撇开这些不谈:通过卡梅隆的论辩性的《中心调查》，读者可以了解到罗马晚期知识分子生活的许多方面，卡梅隆在这一领域的专业知识是无可争议的。对这本挑衅性的、激烈的书的详细讨论将膨胀成一本专著;这一点在卡梅隆对《反对异教的卡门》、马克宏比乌斯的《农神节》、《奥古斯塔历史》、对铜像的解释和象牙双联画的处理上尤为明显。在关于Nicomachus Flavianus的两章中，Cameron为我1992年的论文提供了详细的评论。由于他的信仰狄龙译。艾伦·卡梅隆，《罗马最后的异教徒》，牛津。例如，S.米切尔的一篇非常简短的综合，《后罗马帝国史》。广告——,牛津,——,卡梅隆(参看fn的攻击。)，名词。卡梅隆(cf. fn.))。在不存在异教罗马文学和异教罗马意识形态的情况下，卡梅隆的目标是反驳这样一种假设，即存在一种详细的、晚期的古代历史资料的痕迹，这种资料既被Ammianus使用，也被Zonaras使用，不管它是通过什么迂回的途径到达他那里的，这可能与Nicomachus Flavianus的编年史有关。通过详细地讨论这个问题，卡梅伦同时打算一劳永逸地反驳盎格鲁-撒克逊学者(巴恩斯、伯吉斯、卡梅伦)没有充分赏识欧洲大陆学术的指责这样，对bleckman - paschoud论点的反驳就完成了毫无疑问，拜占庭古代帝国历史的原始材料是复杂的。尽管如此，它对古代晚期的史学来说是必不可少的。鉴于现存文献的稀少，学者们不能忽视拜占庭传统的证据和附加材料，而必须整合和消化它们。在我的论文中，以19世纪末和20世纪初的研究为基础——然而，论文的真正重点是三世纪的历史——我得出了两个主要结论:一个有价值的叙述来源，即所谓的Leoquelle(“Leo-source”)可以在Zonaras中重建，它似乎与匿名后Dionem有关，这是Logothete编年史中的一个来源(在“Leo Grammatikos”中被识别，特别是与Kedrenos达成协议)和一些摘录来自所谓的“Salmasian”John of Antioch;2)这个来源，大概可以追溯到petrs Patrikios，它本身利用了一个有价值的，大概是来自4世纪晚期的拉丁传统。当然，在我的初级工作中，许多细节是有争议的，有些结论是草率或错误的。例如，我将不再遵循旧资料研究的结论，并将Eunapios的历史描述为一本历史小册子。因此，R. W. Burgess - M. Kulikowski的《时间的马赛克》被认为是最新的、权威的学术著作。从公元前一世纪到公元六世纪的拉丁编年史传统。卷我。
{"title":"Last Pagans, Source Criticism and Historiography of the Late Antiquity","authors":"Bruno Bleckmann","doi":"10.1515/mill-2015-0105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2015-0105","url":null,"abstract":"In his attempt to dismantle the notion of a pagan-senatorial reaction in Late Antiquity, Alan Cameron, in his major work “The Last Pagans of Rome”, also covers historiographical matters in great detail. He argues that the supposition of a biased Latin historiography at the end of the fourth century, which viewed the recent imperial past from an anti-Christian perspective and was supported by the senatorial class – as put forth by Paschoud on the grounds of evidence found in Zosimus – is based on misinterpretations and mistakes. Accordingly, the same holds true regarding the tradition of secular historiography preserved in Zonaras, known as the “Leoquelle”. But as far as Zonaras is concerned, Cameron’s polemic proves to fall short on account of evidence based on source criticism. Alan Cameron’s long anticipated book on the Last Pagans, which appeared in 2011, is the culmination of the author’s efforts over several decades to describe the late antique pagan milieu of the city of Rome.2 Cameron rejects the view that there was a “pagan reaction” against Christianity at the end of the fourth century, driven by educated senators resident in Rome, reflected in literary and artistic creations, and culminating in Nicomachus Flavianus’ support of Eugenius. Cameron derides this view of things as “myth”, which still remains everywhere to be found. The evidence cited by Cameron may not always be as devastating as he implies,3 and whether the thesis of a pagan reaction as he presents it is still widely believed and not long since abandoned in favor of other models that do not reduce everything to the dichotomy of Pagan and Christian need not concern us here; likewise, one might question whether the Battle on the Frigidus “on the standard modern view” really was “a watershed of European history”.4 All that aside: through Cameron’s argumentative ceterum censeo, over hundreds of pages, the reader gets to know numerous facets of late Roman intellectual life, and Cameron’s expertise in this field is undisputed. A detailed discussion of this provocative, feisty book would balloon into a monograph; this is true especially of Cameron’s handling of the Carmen contra paganos, Macrobius’ Saturnalia, the Historia Augusta, the interpretation of the contorniates, and the ivory diptychs. In both chapters on Nicomachus Flavianus, Cameron does my 1992 dissertation the honor of detailed criticism. In consequence of his belief Translation by J. Dillon. Alan Cameron, The Last Pagans of Rome, Oxford . Thus, for example, the very brief synthesis by S. Mitchell, A History of the Later Roman Empire. AD –, Oxford , –, attacked by Cameron (cf. fn. ) , n. . Cameron (cf. fn. ) . in the non-existence of Pagan-Roman literature and Pagan-Roman ideology, Cameron’s goal is to refute the hypothesis that there are traces of the existence of a detailed, late antique historical source that was used both by Ammianus and, by whatever circuitous route it reached him,","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":"26 1","pages":"103 - 116"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77463991","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}
It is still a generally accepted view that Constantine tolerated the Christian church in 313 in the so-called edict of Milan. In the following article at least 18 constitutiones issued by eight Roman emperors for the toleration of the Christians are analysed. 260 Gallienus ended the persecution of Valerian, when he ordered the property of the Christians to be restored. After Christianity had extended successfully, Diocletian initiated the great persecution in 303, which failed in most parts of the empire. Constantine and Maxentius, who were declared emperor in 306, adopted therefore a policy of toleration in Britannia, Gallia, Italia and Africa. In 311 Galerius, Constantine, Licinius and Maximinus Daia, who didn′t accept Maxentius as emperor, issued an edict ending the persecution and declaring toleration for all Christians to gain their support. On 28 October 312 Constantine defeated Maxentius in the battle of the Milvian bridge. After this battle Licinius attacked Maximinus Daia on the Balkan regions, whose attitude towards the Christians was changing. With Constantine he devised a mandatum (not an edict!) to governors in the east, which effectively restored freedom to Christians. So the Christian church profited from the rivalry of the tetrarchs and would have succeeded without the help of Constantine, the first Christian emperor. In einem 1891 publizierten Aufsatz tat der Greifswalder Althistoriker O. Seeck die Tatsache, dass Constantin im Edikt von Mailand „den Christen im römischen Reiche gesetzliche Toleranz“ gewährte, als bloße Schulbuchweisheit ab. Kurz und bündig erklärte er, dass die als Edikt bezeichnete Urkunde eigentlich kein Edikt sei, nicht in Mailand und nicht von Constantin erlassen worden sei und lediglich eine regionale Bedeutung besessen habe, da die Christen bereits im gesamten Reich geduldet wurden.1 Seecks These stieß sofort auf heftigenWiderstand. Bereits 1892warf ihm F.Görres vor, „von der Aera der Toleranzedicte, überhaupt von Constantin′s genialer Religionspolitik keine Ahnung“ zu haben.2 Die Reaktion fiel deshalb so heftig aus, weil Seeck mit seiner These einen Mythos in Frage stellte, der entscheidend für das Seeck, Otto, Das sogenannte Edikt von Mailand, ZKG ,, –. Görres, Franz, Eine Bestreitung des Edicts von Mailand durch O. Seeck, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie ,, ; zu den Reaktionen auf Seecks These s. auch Crivellucci, Amedeo, L’editto di Milano, StudStor ,, ff. und ders., Intorno all′editto di Milano (Risposta al Prof. O. Seeck), StudStor ,, ff. und Sesan, Valerian, Die Religionspolitik der christlich-römischen Kaiser von Konstantin d.Gr. bis Theodosius d.Gr. (–), Czernwitz (ND Leipzig ), f. Selbstverständnis der katholischen Kirche war und ist; denn bislang ging man davon aus, dass Constantin als Dank für seinen Sieg, den er allein mit Gottes Hilfe am 28. Oktober 312 über seinen Widersacher Maxentius an der Milvischen Brücke vor den To
{"title":"Die Tolerierung der Christen in der Zeit von Gallienus bis zur sogenannten Constantinischen Wende (260–313)","authors":"Frank M. Ausbüttel","doi":"10.1515/mill-2015-0103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2015-0103","url":null,"abstract":"It is still a generally accepted view that Constantine tolerated the Christian church in 313 in the so-called edict of Milan. In the following article at least 18 constitutiones issued by eight Roman emperors for the toleration of the Christians are analysed. 260 Gallienus ended the persecution of Valerian, when he ordered the property of the Christians to be restored. After Christianity had extended successfully, Diocletian initiated the great persecution in 303, which failed in most parts of the empire. Constantine and Maxentius, who were declared emperor in 306, adopted therefore a policy of toleration in Britannia, Gallia, Italia and Africa. In 311 Galerius, Constantine, Licinius and Maximinus Daia, who didn′t accept Maxentius as emperor, issued an edict ending the persecution and declaring toleration for all Christians to gain their support. On 28 October 312 Constantine defeated Maxentius in the battle of the Milvian bridge. After this battle Licinius attacked Maximinus Daia on the Balkan regions, whose attitude towards the Christians was changing. With Constantine he devised a mandatum (not an edict!) to governors in the east, which effectively restored freedom to Christians. So the Christian church profited from the rivalry of the tetrarchs and would have succeeded without the help of Constantine, the first Christian emperor. In einem 1891 publizierten Aufsatz tat der Greifswalder Althistoriker O. Seeck die Tatsache, dass Constantin im Edikt von Mailand „den Christen im römischen Reiche gesetzliche Toleranz“ gewährte, als bloße Schulbuchweisheit ab. Kurz und bündig erklärte er, dass die als Edikt bezeichnete Urkunde eigentlich kein Edikt sei, nicht in Mailand und nicht von Constantin erlassen worden sei und lediglich eine regionale Bedeutung besessen habe, da die Christen bereits im gesamten Reich geduldet wurden.1 Seecks These stieß sofort auf heftigenWiderstand. Bereits 1892warf ihm F.Görres vor, „von der Aera der Toleranzedicte, überhaupt von Constantin′s genialer Religionspolitik keine Ahnung“ zu haben.2 Die Reaktion fiel deshalb so heftig aus, weil Seeck mit seiner These einen Mythos in Frage stellte, der entscheidend für das Seeck, Otto, Das sogenannte Edikt von Mailand, ZKG ,, –. Görres, Franz, Eine Bestreitung des Edicts von Mailand durch O. Seeck, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie ,, ; zu den Reaktionen auf Seecks These s. auch Crivellucci, Amedeo, L’editto di Milano, StudStor ,, ff. und ders., Intorno all′editto di Milano (Risposta al Prof. O. Seeck), StudStor ,, ff. und Sesan, Valerian, Die Religionspolitik der christlich-römischen Kaiser von Konstantin d.Gr. bis Theodosius d.Gr. (–), Czernwitz (ND Leipzig ), f. Selbstverständnis der katholischen Kirche war und ist; denn bislang ging man davon aus, dass Constantin als Dank für seinen Sieg, den er allein mit Gottes Hilfe am 28. Oktober 312 über seinen Widersacher Maxentius an der Milvischen Brücke vor den To","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":"14 3 1","pages":"41 - 74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80581317","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}
This article compares and revisits the corpus of texts pertaining to the socalled “correspondence” between the Byzantine emperor Leo III and the caliph ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Azīz. By adducing textual, philological and palaeographic arguments, I suggest that all the extant versions of the “correspondence” ultimately derive from an original Arabic Christian apologetic work, composed probably in mideighth century, in the monastic circles of Syria-Palestine. While acknowledging the importance of previous research on the subject, this article hopes to provide an original explanation that might finally account for both the similarities and the differences between the various extant versions of the “correspondence”. Besides clarifying the origin and transmission history of this text, the results of this study have broader implications for the history of Muslim-Christian relations in the early Islamic period, for the creation of a Christian Arabic culture, and for the circulation of literary texts between the Dār al-Islām and Byzantium in the early Middle Ages. The so-called “correspondence” of Leo III (r. 717–41) and ‘Umar II (r. 717–720 CE/99– 101 H)1 is arguably one of the most interesting texts of the Christian-Muslim debate from the early Islamic period. Because of its singular transmission history, it is also a text that has lent itself to many misinterpretations. The dating of the “correspondence”, its authorship, its audience and function, as well as its original language of composition, are all problematic issues. Several hypotheses have been formulated over the years, but none of them seems conclusive or thoroughly persuasive. This is partly a result of the reference to the emperor Leo, which has long sidetracked researchers, and partly it derives from the fact that very different versions of the “correspondence” exist, written in different languages and in different historical contexts. This linguistic barrier has often led to too specialized, narrow analyses that have prioritized one version over the others. This paper will aim at combining the information provided by the various versions of this source, in order to suggest a new explanation of their origin, which may account for both their similarities and their variations. The most recent contributions to the study of the “correspondence” will be acknowledged, and the main hypotheses advanced by scholars recapitulated. At the same time, it is the hope of this paper to contribute to the discussion by radically shifting perspective and intro The hijrī date (H) will be given along with the year of the Common Era (CE) only with reference to Muslim leaders, or to historical figures who lived under the caliphate. ducing a new interpretation, in a way that might enhance our understanding of this complex source. In general, scholarship has tended to emphasise either the Byzantine or, more recently, the Islamic nature and origin of the “correspondence”; it will be argued that, in both cases, this has l
这个术语可能指的是正式和非正式的文化适应实践，最重要的是，社会同化很难用现代的“to convert”来表达。此外，Magaritai并不完全对应于“穆斯林”，因为它反映了作者的辩论立场，也可能反映了他对这些事件的来源的东方起源。事实上，这个名字很可能是早期对原始阿拉伯语术语(muḥājirūn)的希腊语改编的再现。它出现在七、八世纪的希腊文献中，也以叙利亚文的形式得到证实(mhggrāyē)。在其他段落中，西奥芬更喜欢希腊文的Sarakenoi或Hagarenoi。参见Robert G. Hoyland，“新纪录片文本与早期伊斯兰国”，BSOAS: <s:1>()，<s:1>(-);罗伯特·g·霍伊兰，《以他人的方式看待伊斯兰教:基督教、犹太教和琐罗亚斯德教关于早期伊斯兰教的著作的调查与评价》(普林斯顿:达尔文出版社，)，-，。——;帕特里夏·克罗恩“嗨ğra的一世纪概念”,阿拉比卡/(),——(——)。克龙西奥芬尼。， p.专题:参见芒果的翻译。)，p.。编年史帖奥芬斯。页。——。232塞西莉亚·帕伦波
{"title":"The “correspondence” of Leo III and ‘Umar II: traces of an early Christian Arabic apologetic work","authors":"Cecilia Palombo","doi":"10.1515/mill-2015-0110","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2015-0110","url":null,"abstract":"This article compares and revisits the corpus of texts pertaining to the socalled “correspondence” between the Byzantine emperor Leo III and the caliph ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Azīz. By adducing textual, philological and palaeographic arguments, I suggest that all the extant versions of the “correspondence” ultimately derive from an original Arabic Christian apologetic work, composed probably in mideighth century, in the monastic circles of Syria-Palestine. While acknowledging the importance of previous research on the subject, this article hopes to provide an original explanation that might finally account for both the similarities and the differences between the various extant versions of the “correspondence”. Besides clarifying the origin and transmission history of this text, the results of this study have broader implications for the history of Muslim-Christian relations in the early Islamic period, for the creation of a Christian Arabic culture, and for the circulation of literary texts between the Dār al-Islām and Byzantium in the early Middle Ages. The so-called “correspondence” of Leo III (r. 717–41) and ‘Umar II (r. 717–720 CE/99– 101 H)1 is arguably one of the most interesting texts of the Christian-Muslim debate from the early Islamic period. Because of its singular transmission history, it is also a text that has lent itself to many misinterpretations. The dating of the “correspondence”, its authorship, its audience and function, as well as its original language of composition, are all problematic issues. Several hypotheses have been formulated over the years, but none of them seems conclusive or thoroughly persuasive. This is partly a result of the reference to the emperor Leo, which has long sidetracked researchers, and partly it derives from the fact that very different versions of the “correspondence” exist, written in different languages and in different historical contexts. This linguistic barrier has often led to too specialized, narrow analyses that have prioritized one version over the others. This paper will aim at combining the information provided by the various versions of this source, in order to suggest a new explanation of their origin, which may account for both their similarities and their variations. The most recent contributions to the study of the “correspondence” will be acknowledged, and the main hypotheses advanced by scholars recapitulated. At the same time, it is the hope of this paper to contribute to the discussion by radically shifting perspective and intro The hijrī date (H) will be given along with the year of the Common Era (CE) only with reference to Muslim leaders, or to historical figures who lived under the caliphate. ducing a new interpretation, in a way that might enhance our understanding of this complex source. In general, scholarship has tended to emphasise either the Byzantine or, more recently, the Islamic nature and origin of the “correspondence”; it will be argued that, in both cases, this has l","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":"81 1","pages":"231 - 264"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88062702","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：