Heraclius and the return of the Holy Cross (original) (raw)
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
AI
This paper explores the historical significance of Heraclius and the return of the Holy Cross, emphasizing the socio-political and religious implications during the Byzantine era.
Key takeaways
- The evidence available overwhelmingly identifies the Persian general Shahrvaraz as the person who sent the Holy Cross to Heraclius.
- The chapter of the Easter Chronicle dedicated to the 2 nd indiction 613/4 and to Heraclius' fourth year of reign (6.10.613-5.10.614) starts with a dramatic entry on the capture of Jerusalem by the Persians in June 614, the destruction of churches and the captivity of the Cross.
- Yet Baynes misconstrued Nikephoros' testimony by claiming that in the 2 nd indiction 628/9 Heraclius dispatched to the capital only a small fragment of the relic, which was clearly not the message that the text intended to convey.
- The latter was the greatest religious event of Heraclius' reign in Constantinople, in which Pyrrhos must have participated personally.
- A comprehensive survey of evidence carried out by Flusin shows the near consensus of independent sources stating that the Cross was handed over to Heraclius by Shahrvaraz.
Related papers
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 2001
The triune creator. A historical and systematic study. By Colin E. Gunton. (Edinburgh Studies in Constructive Theology.) Pp. xj. Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press, . £. (paper). This volume is one of a series that has produced some first-rate books. The present volume continues these extremely high standards and maintains the series' aim of avoiding preoccupation with method and ideological critiques. It draws from Christian history and tradition to engage with the modern world. Colin Gunton, Professor of Doctrine at King's College London, has achieved two important goals in this single volume. For rather too long there has been the need for a comprehensive history of the doctrine of creation within Christian history. Gunton presents that history with care and detail, from Greek philosophy and the biblical world to the contemporary writings of Karl Barth and Wolfhart Pannenberg, but primarily as a critical theologian. This means that the historical material is accompanied by analysis and Gunton advances an interesting and important argument. His second achievement is to develop the argument that a Trinitarian doctrine of creation allows for theology to engage with science in a properly robust manner, for it offers the presuppositions of intelligible and realist discourse regarding nature and ' history '. Gunton traces the loss of the doctrine of divine creation from Scotus to Kant and its disastrous implications for so many aspects of modern thought. Gunton then develops the implications of the doctrine of creation in relation to providence, ethics and eschatology. Gunton's important contribution to systematic theology in this book complements his earlier Christ and creation () and The one, the three and the many (). This is a book that historians and theologians will find deeply stimulating. U B G D'C Continuity and change in Christian worship. Papers read at the summer meeting and the winter meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society. Edited by R. N. Swanson. (Studies in Church History, .) Pp. xxivj incl. figs. Woodbridge : Boydell Press (for the Ecclesiastical History Society), . £. ; In these thirty-one papers we encounter the results of two recent meetings of the Ecclesiastical History Society. The theme on these occasions was liturgy. About two-thirds of the essays treat aspects of ecclesiastical practice in England, Scotland and Wales, whilst the remainder range over myriad places and themes, from Augsburg (Philip Broadhead) to East Africa (Emma L. Wild). The studies are placed in chronological order, beginning with Paul F. Bradshaw's consideration of the early Christian eucharistic meal and ending with Edward Yarnold's discussion of the restored catechumenate after the Second Vatican Council. While most contributors show a strong interest in the textual evidence, several authors also reflect methodological and theoretical shifts in our own time. Bradshaw insists that liturgical manuscripts are ' living literature ' : they circulate within a community, forming part of its heritage and tradition, but modify continually ' to reflect changing historical and cultural circumstances ' (p. ). He thereby rightly dismisses the premise of Gregory Dix and others that there was not only a unified archetype for the eucharist but in some measure a common Christian adherence to it. Donald Bullough argues for dynamism and variety in Carolingian liturgical experience, criticising ' an excessive credence in the '' unifying '' effect of early Carolingian liturgical reform ' (p. ). He urges moderation in looking to anthropology and ' the new criticism ' (p. ) although raising related questions about the effects of ritual Latinity upon the laity. Brenda Bolton looks as far afield as sixteenth-century Mexico in finding parallels to the use of liturgical drama for essentially missionary purposes (p. ). Bruce Gordon finds some non-Zwinglian sources for liturgical formulation in Zurich, including medieval precedent and the ideas of Leo Jud. Simon Ditchfield disputes the uniformity of ritual after the Council of Trent, allegedly the result of a ' centralising papal monarchy '. He argues persuasively for a ' kinetic, interactive mode of breviary reading ' (p. ). Thus, he insists that Tridentine worship was not static but does have a detailed, including a local, history. Judith Champ provides a fascinating window onto the nineteenth-century Romantic movement in England and its effects upon the liturgy. The reintroduction of Catholic episcopal hierarchy drew upon the wide appeal of the Middle Ages to educated classes. Champ briefly traces and reinterprets the roles of men like Daniel Rock and Augustus Welby Pugin. Although Romanism gained the ascendancy over Gallicanism, ' the divisions between '' old-English '' and '' Roman '' cannot be as sharply drawn as has been traditionally believed ' (p. ). R. W. Ambler firmly sets liturgical innovation within the context of social and economic change in nineteenth-century Lincolnshire. Frances Knight, too, places Welsh choir participation in a setting that includes traditional harvest festivals and English-medium as opposed to Welsh-medium worship. Reviewing anthologies is always frustrating, for much of great worth can only be hinted at or not mentioned at all. Taken as a group, these essays are based in deep research. At the same time, they reveal a pattern within liturgical history of relating ritual to the society and the occasions it both serves and mirrors.
6th SYMPOSIUM DAYS OF JUSTINIAN I OHRID
Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium "Days of Justinian I", 2019
"In between the Eastern and Western Christian empires: the role of mediators" This paper brings to the forefront the concept of the mediators in the Middle Ages, deemed important due to the fact that this lens offers a deeper comprehension of the currents and sub-currents linking East and West, as well as of the motifs lying behind the global picture of the particular research angle. This article represents an opening and an introductory stage to this topic through laying foundations for the implications and further elaboration of the concept of the mediators, upon which the first segment of the research, dating from the 9 th century, will be analyzed. The concept of the mediators (in the role of providing basis for contacts or division, and exchange) could also sketch a useful methodological frame for studying the medieval Balkans. The further elaboration of the concept of the mediators would imply 1) the agents/carriers of the mediating process: people (missionaries, monks, diplomats, merchants), texts, but also ideas (theological disputes and doctrines, which linked or divided East and West, sometimes through the Balkans; these often revolved around concepts of Orthodoxy/heresy). The spatial zone could also be understood as medial-which is observable on the example of the medieval Balkans. Namely, the Balkans, lying between East and West, could embody the concept of the mediators (applied here on the medial space), and be presented in a twofold aspect: 1) as a confluence in which the currents from Byzantium and West Europe joined, being geographically part of Europe in which tendencies from both parts coalesced; and 2) not only as a "state in-between", or the middle ground1, the isle, bridge, but also as the cross-intersection, which allowed and facilitated the transfer of people, ideas, doctrines, texts, Christian and non-Christian currents, as well as the contacts between Byzantium and Western Europe throughout the Middle Ages2. The important research question would equally imply the ways in which earlier trends, doctrines and textual authorities were employed (used/misused) in newly-arisen contexts (e.g. 1 1 Cf. Peter Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom. Triumph and Diversity, A. D. 200-1000 (Oxford: Blackwell, 2003), 37-52, 485. 2 The concept of the Balkans as the medial space will represent my future study a part.
A Companion to the Byzantine Culture of War, ca. 300-1204
A Companion to the Byzantine Culture of War, ca. 300-1204, 2018
The conversion of the emperor to Christianity required an elaboration of the imperial "Theology of Victory". With the god of the Christians recognized as the "greatest god", one could now expect further uniquely Christian signs foretelling victory, such as the appearance of a cross of light above Jerusalem on 7 May 351. This apparition has received but a fraction of the scholarly attention lavished on Constantine's vision, and all modern commentators appear content to regard it as a solar halo, despite its appearance in the morning. Cyril of Jerusalem, who had recently taken up his episcopate, witnessed the spectacle, and took the opportunity to write to Constantius. In his letter Cyril described the appearance "during the holy days of Pentecost, on the Nones of May, at around the third hour of the day [9am], of an immense cross formed from light, in the sky, which stretched above the holy Golgotha as far as the holy Mount of Olives". It was visible to all in the city for several hours, brighter than the sun, and hordes flocked into the churches, young and old, men and women, locals and foreigners, Christians and others, intoning "as if from one mouth the name of Jesus Christ, their Lord". Cyril offered the vision to Constantius as a greater gift than the earthly crowns with which others had honoured him, and as concrete proof of divine favour for his rule, so that he might confront his "enemies with greater courage". The cross was a "trophy of victory", specifically of Christ's victory over death, but also a sign that Constantius has God as his ally, and that he might "bear the trophy of the cross, the boast of boasts, carrying forward the sign shown to us in the skies, of which heaven has made an even greater boast by displaying its form to human beings". Constantius' rival was Magnentius, and by Constantius' victory at Mursa on 28 September 351 the truth of Cyril's claims were demonstrated. Given the similarity between the language he employed and that of Eusebius, writing a little over a decade earlier in the same part of the world, it is striking that Cyril did not compare the "immense cross formed from light" to that which Constantine and his troops were now believed to have witnessed four decades you do so unwittingly." See also Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.20: "For with the last enemy death did He fight, and through the trophy of the cross He triumphed." 9 This passage is adapted from Stephenson, Constantine, pp. 74-5.
Chapter 1: Setting the Scene How certain can we be about what happened in the past? In his thought-provoking book, On 'What is History?', published in 1995, historian Keith Jenkins argued that, apart from some relatively trivial details such as dates, most views about what happened in the past, such as the causes of particular events, are determined by current political and philosophical theories [1]. Some would go further and suggest that even the dates need to be viewed with suspicion. That applies not only to far-distant times, where a degree of uncertainty is generally acknowledged, but also to more recent ones, where it is not. Towards the end of the 20 th century, a significant number of intellectuals in Russia and Eastern Europe, including the Grand Master of chess, Garry Kasparov, and a nuclear scientist, Eugen Gabowitsch, embraced the theories of the Russian statistician, Anatoly Fomenko (first presented in English in 1994 in the two-volume book, Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Materials and its Application to Historical Dating [2]), and maintained that the Roman and medieval periods had been artificially extended by many centuries as a result of misunderstandings and deliberate deceit. In subsequent books, Fomenko and his colleagues, particularly Gleb Nosovsky, continued to develop the thesis that all the surviving sources of information about events during the classical and early medieval periods were fabricated during the 16 th and 17 th centuries AD, initially by Joseph Justus Scaliger and subsequently by Dionysius Petavius and others. Hence, most of the supposed histories of those earlier periods were actually based on peoples and events from the first half of the second millennium AD, with several sequences of false early histories often being created from a single genuine sequence from a later time. So, for example, in the view of Fomenko and his colleagues, Byzantine history from AD 830-1143 was a copy of that from AD 1143-1453, and was also the same as English history from AD 1040-1327. Byzantine history from AD 378-830 was similarly a duplicate of English history from AD 640-1040, both being reflections of the same Late Medieval origin [3]. Furthermore, some sequences of repeated events could stretch over a much longer period of time that those mentioned above. For example, in Fomenko's proposed scheme, the war between the Greeks and the Trojans which supposedly took place in the 13 th century BC, the war to depose the last king of the Romans, Tarquin the Proud, in the 5 th century BC, the Roman civil war in the 1 st century BC, the Roman civil war in the 3 rd century AD, the war to defeat the Gothic kingdom in Italy in the 6 th century AD, the German invasion of Italy in the 10 th century AD, and the war for the throne of Sicily in the 13 th century AD, were all the same event, with the key participants, Achilles, Publius Valerius, Lucius Sulla, Emperor Aurelian, Narses, Emperor Otto I and Charles of Anjou all being the same person [4]. During the 1990s, in Germany, author and publisher Heribert Illig produced a model for shortening the first millennium AD which became known as the "Phantom Time Hypothesis". According to Illig, the history we now associate with the period between August 614 and September 911, for which (in the view of Illig) very little archaeological evidence has been found, is completely fictional [5]. A book in English in support of this concept, written by Emmet Scott, was published in 2014. Illig had suggested that Emperor Otto III, in collusion with Pope Silvester II, may have moved the calendar forward by three centuries to associate his reign with the start of the second millennium AD. Scott commented that this change could have passed unnoticed "because of the general ignorance of history among the population, and by the confusion that reigned throughout Europe regarding calendars and dates" [6]. For many years, in Germany, Gunnar Heinsohn, a social scientist at the University of Bremen, had provided staunch support for Illig's hypothesis but he later produced a new theory which argued for a much greater shortening of the first millennium. Heinsohn gave a preview of it at the 2012 Conference of Quantavolution in Naxos and he then presented his overall scheme in outline in Alfred de Grazia's Magazine of Quantavolution in 2013, the first of an ongoing series of short articles about aspects of his theory in the same magazine. In Heinsohn's view, the artificial stretching of the first millennium was not a consequence of the deliberate invention of false histories but of the chaos caused by a major catastrophic event. Evidence of this was then wrongly interpreted to indicate a number of local events taking place at different times. According to Heinsohn, relatively minor events which are believed to have occurred in different parts of Europe during the 230s, 530s and 930s were manifestations of a single huge event which brought an end to civilised life throughout Europe. In this scenario, the activities of the emperors regarded as ruling from Rome between AD 1-230 and ones ruling from further east between AD 290-520, as well as the activities of rulers in northern and northeastern Europe between AD 701 and AD 930 (including the Carolingian Franks), were all taking place at the same time. This triplication of the history of a single 230-year period would in itself result in a false extension of the timescale amounting to 460 years and, considering the situation as a whole, around 700 years of history, from the 3 rd to the 10 th centuries, would already have been completed before the date when it was supposed to have started. Working back from present dates, Emperor Augustus would have been on the throne in AD 700 so, from that point of history to the end of the Early Medieval Period in Western Europe, in AD 1000, there would have been a period of just 300 years, not 1,000 years as generally supposed [7]. Meanwhile, in Britain, Steve Mitchell, an amateur archaeologist, had rejected Illig's hypothesis, but considered it possible that the history of the first millennium had been artificially extended for a shorter period at an earlier time. In 2008, he argued that the English monk Bede, who was the first to use the AD system of Dionysius Exiguus for historical purposes in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People (completed, according to the author, in AD 731) may have made errors in the AD dates he allocated to certain events. Mitchell raised two particular concerns. One was that it appeared from Bede's history that almost nothing of note had happened in England between the reigns of the Roman emperors, Marcian and Maurice, whose accession dates, according to Bede, were AD 449 and AD 582, a span of 133 years. The other was that Early Medieval documents were often dated simply to the year in the current 15-year indiction cycle (introduced for taxation purposes during the reign of Constantine the Great). Putting these two factors together, it was quite possible that Bede had over-estimated the timescale of this period by one or more indiction cycles. Mitchell subsequently went beyond this and, on the basis of perceived historical and archaeological gaps, began to develop arguments that the 250-year-long Early Anglo-Saxon Period (which encompassed the reigns of Marcian and Maurice) may have been artificially extended by up to 200 years [8]. An extension of a similar length, but at a time even later than that supposed by Illig, was proposed by Zoltán Hunnivari, forming what he termed the "Hungarian Calendar". On the basis of retro-calculations of eclipses and other astronomical phenomena, Hunnivari claimed that AD 960 was the same year as AD 1160 and almost two centuries of history have been fabricated to fill the space between these dates. According to Hunnivari, writing in From Harun Al-Rashid up to the Times of Saladin, the revision to the Christian Calendar was made by Pope Innocent III in AD 1016, with that year becoming AD 1206 at a stroke. Hunnivari wrote (p. 87), "The resetting of the calendar did not cause any difficulties since the Christian calendar before was used in only a very narrow circle of the Western Church" [9]. The one characteristic that these, and other, revisionists have in common is a belief that surviving historical sources which appear to have been written prior to the 16 th century AD are unreliable, in whole or in part. The extreme view, of course, is that taken by Fomenko, who to the compilation of the first of these sources are generally consistent with each other and with other evidence from the same period, including consular information inscribed on stone [16]. From the last consular year mentioned in the Chronography of 354 to the end of the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle in what was stated to be the 6 th consulship of Valens and the 2 nd of Valentinian the Younger, the Hydatius fasti gave 24 years, with generally consistent details being given in the chronicles of Prosper of Aquitaine and Cassiodorus, as well as the Chronicon Paschale. From that point until the end of Prosper's chronicle in the consulship of Valentinian III (for the 8 th time) with Anthemius, this source, together with the chronicles of Cassiodorus and Marcellinus Comes (Count Marcellinus), the Chronicon Paschale and the Hydatius fasti, gave 76 years, with very similar details. For example, all four chronicles noted the accession of Marcian in the consulship of Valentinian III (for the 7 th time) and Avienus. After the end of this period, the Chronicon Paschale and the chronicles of Marcellinus Comes (with its continuations) and Marius of Avenches all gave 86 years to the final consulship of a commoner, that of Basilius, in the reign of Justinian I (a total of 843 years after the consulship of Corvus and Pansa, and 570 years after Augustus assumed imperial powers). After that, the role of consul was incorporated into the duties of the emperor [17]. Another...
Related topics
Related papers
The Year 629 and the Chronicon Paschale
Travaux et Mémoires, 2022
The end of the Chronicon paschale in the Vatican manuscript is damaged, with the result that there have been various proposals about the transposition of material. In 2001 Holger Klein argued that two notices relating to the arrival in Constantinople of minor relics associated with the Passion that are located in 614 properly belong in 629. This switched the ceremonies to welcome the relics from the aftermath of the Persian capture of Jerusalem and the removal to Babylonia of the True Cross to the context of Heraclius’ recovery of the Cross after the overthrow of Khusro II. This chapter demonstrates that the arguments advanced by Klein in terms of liturgy, the condition of the Vatican manuscript and historical context are not robust, so that there is no basis for the transposition. As a result, the celebration of the relics should be seen as part
Dehumanisation of pagans and heretics: Gregory Tsamblak on non-Orthodoxes in Martyrdom of John the New The image of the non-Orthodox in Camblak's work is unequivocally negative. Behind the abusive rhetoric lie patterns well known to social psychology. One can easily recognize the author's dehumanizing attitude, which reveals the meaning of many elements of Camblak's narrative in The Martyrdom of John the New. The concept of dehumanization is useful for the study of the attitude of medieval literate elites towards minorities. Although at its core it concerns cognitive phenomena it immediately makes us think about their behavioral implications.
phrases of acclamation and invocation; the invention of new devices signaling Christian affiliation; and their reproduction as signs of social prestige and authority on coins, glass vessels, public monuments, and more. Part 3 turns to the transformation of late antique graphic traditions in early medieval Europe. The last two chapters focus on the evolution of monogrammatic initials in Carolingian biblical, liturgical, and other manuscripts; the renewed interest in personal monograms among Carolingian rulers, aristocrats, and ecclesiastical hierarchs; and finally, the paramount importance of the cross as a graphic symbol of authority in the Carolingian world, a phenomenon illustrated with analysis of Rabanus's In honorem sanctae crucis. This brief overview does not do justice to the impressive scope of Garipzanov's book. Every chapter considers a plethora of artifacts and monuments, some well studied in past scholarship, others less so. Thus chapter 1 surveys third-century Christian gems; the Books of Jeu, a late antique Gnostic work; engraved silver found at Water Newton, Cambridgeshire; Egyptian "magical" papyri; floor mosaics in Syria and Lebanon; and much in between. Chapter 7 discusses royal monograms on post-Roman coinage from North Africa, Italy, and Gaul; monograms on objects made for lesser rulers and bishops (signet rings, a horse bit, the cathedra of Maximian of Ravenna, belt strap ends, and other items); and monogrammatic letterforms in sixth-to eighth-century manuscripts. Often Garipzanov offers digressions that are not directly relevant to the topic at hand but fascinating nonetheless, such as his comments in chapter 8 on the origins of certain liturgical prayers (250-52). Elsewhere his focus on monograms brings new insights into historical puzzles. The examination of the monograms in Saints Sergius and Bacchus, Istanbul, helps date its architecture (167-75). Evidence of Theoderic's influence outside Italy is found in the copying of his monogram on coins associated with the Gepids (201). Knowledge of the ubiquity of monograms in Ravenna elucidates an obscure passage in Agnellus's Liber pontificalis (211-12). The discussion is dense, yet many charts, graphs, and figures are included that aid comprehension. A few objects are discussed for which unfortunately no reproductions are provided, while a greater problem lies in the mediocre quality of the images, all black-and-white and in-text. Sometimes, Garipzanov refers to details indiscernible in the accompanying pictures. Also to note are occasional small errors and idiosyncrasies. Reference is made, for example, to mosaics (rather than paintings) in the Dura-Europos domus ecclesiae (28). The introduction of the Inventio crucis festival in Rome is misdated (89); the name of Areobindus's wife is variously given as Anicia Juliana (144), Juliana Anicia (144), and Juliana Aniana (160). Yet such problems are minor. Despite the narrow focus that the book's title may seem to imply, this is a work of prodigious scholarship. Historians interested in many facets of late antique and early medieval religion, culture, and politics will find much of value in Garipzanov's compelling study.
Chapter 1: Setting the Scene …………………………………………………. Chapter 1: Setting the Scene How certain can we be about what happened in the past? In his thought-provoking book, On 'What is History?', published in 1995, historian Keith Jenkins argued that, apart from some relatively trivial details such as dates, most views about what happened in the past, such as the causes of particular events, are determined by current political and philosophical theories [1]. Some would go further and suggest that even the dates need to be viewed with suspicion. That applies not only to far-distant times, where a degree of uncertainty is generally acknowledged, but also to more recent ones, where it is not. Towards the end of the 20 th century, a significant number of intellectuals in Russia and Eastern Europe, including the Grand Master of chess, Garry Kasparov, and a nuclear scientist, Eugen Gabowitsch, embraced the theories of the Russian statistician, Anatoly Fomenko (first presented in English in 1994 in the two-volume book, Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Materials and its Application to Historical Dating [2]), and maintained that the Roman and medieval periods had been artificially extended by many centuries as a result of misunderstandings and deliberate deceit. In subsequent books, Fomenko and his colleagues, particularly Gleb Nosovsky, continued to develop the thesis that all the surviving sources of information about events during the classical and early medieval periods were fabricated during the 16 th and 17 th centuries AD, initially by Joseph Justus Scaliger and subsequently by Denis Petau (also known as Dionysius Petavius) and others. Hence, most of the supposed histories of those earlier periods were actually based on peoples and events from the first half of the second millennium AD, with several sequences of false early histories often being created from a single genuine sequence from a later time. So, for example, in the view of Fomenko and his colleagues, Byzantine history from AD 830-1143 was a copy of that from AD 1143-1453, and was also the same as English history from AD 1040-1327. Byzantine history from AD 378-830 was similarly a duplicate of English history from AD 640-1040, both being reflections of the same Late Medieval origin [3]. Furthermore, some sequences of repeated events could stretch over a much longer period of time that those mentioned above. For example, in Fomenko's proposed scheme, the war between the Greeks and the Trojans which supposedly took place in the 13 th century BC, the war to depose the last king of the Romans, Tarquin the Proud, in the 5 th century BC, the Roman civil war in the 1 st century BC, the Roman civil war in the 3 rd century AD, the war to defeat the Gothic kingdom in Italy in the 6 th century AD, the German invasion of Italy in the 10 th century AD, and the war for the throne of Sicily in the 13 th century AD, were all the same event, with the key participants, Achilles, Publius Valerius, Lucius Sulla, Emperor Aurelian, Narses, Emperor Otto I and Charles of Anjou all being the same person [4]. During the 1990s, in Germany, author and publisher Heribert Illig produced a model for shortening the first millennium AD which became known as the "Phantom Time Hypothesis". According to Illig, the history we now associate with the period between August 614 and September 911, for which (in the view of Illig) very little archaeological evidence has been found, is completely fictional [5]. A book in English in support of this concept, written by Emmet Scott, was published in 2014. Illig had suggested that Emperor Otto III, in collusion with Pope Silvester II, may have moved the calendar forward by three centuries to associate his reign with the start of the second millennium AD. Scott commented that this change could have passed unnoticed "because of the general ignorance of history among the population, and by the confusion that reigned throughout Europe regarding calendars and dates" [6]. For many years, in Germany, Gunnar Heinsohn, a social scientist at the University of Bremen, had provided staunch support for Illig's hypothesis but he later produced a new theory which argued for a much greater shortening of the first millennium. Heinsohn gave a preview of it at the 2012 Conference of Quantavolution in Naxos and he then presented his overall scheme in outline in Alfred de Grazia's Magazine of Quantavolution in 2013, the first of an ongoing series of short articles about aspects of his theory in the same magazine. In Heinsohn's view, the artificial stretching of the first millennium was not a consequence of the deliberate invention of false histories but of the chaos caused by a major catastrophic event. Evidence of this was then wrongly interpreted to indicate a number of local events taking place at different times. According to Heinsohn, relatively minor events which are believed to have occurred in different parts of Europe during the 230s, 530s and 930s were manifestations of a single huge event which brought an end to civilised life throughout Europe. In this scenario, the activities of the emperors regarded as ruling from Rome between AD 1-230 and ones ruling from further east between AD 290-520, as well as the activities of rulers in northern and northeastern Europe between AD 701 and AD 930 (including the Carolingian Franks), were all taking place at the same time. This triplication of the history of a single 230-year period would in itself result in a false extension of the timescale amounting to 460 years and, considering the situation as a whole, around 700 years of history, from the 3 rd to the 10 th centuries, would already have been completed before the date when it was supposed to have started. Working back from present dates, Emperor Augustus would have been on the throne in AD 700 so, from that point of history to the end of the Early Medieval Period in Western Europe, in AD 1000, there would have been a period of just 300 years, not 1,000 years as generally supposed [7]. Meanwhile, in Britain, Steve Mitchell, an amateur archaeologist, had rejected Illig's hypothesis, but considered it possible that the history of the first millennium had been artificially extended for a shorter period at an earlier time. In 2008, he argued that the English monk Bede, who was the first to use the AD system of Dionysius Exiguus for historical purposes in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People (completed, according to the author, in AD 731) may have made errors in the AD dates he allocated to certain events. Mitchell raised two particular concerns. One was that it appeared from Bede's history that almost nothing of note had happened in England between the reigns of the Roman emperors, Marcian and Maurice, whose accession dates, according to Bede, were AD 449 and AD 582, a span of 133 years. The other was that Early Medieval documents were often dated simply to the year in the current 15-year indiction cycle (introduced for taxation purposes during the reign of Constantine the Great). Putting these two factors together, it was quite possible that Bede had over-estimated the timescale of this period by one or more indiction cycles. Mitchell subsequently went beyond this and, on the basis of perceived historical and archaeological gaps, began to develop arguments that the 250-year-long Early Anglo-Saxon Period (which encompassed the reigns of Marcian and Maurice) may have been artificially extended by up to 200 years [8]. In 2018, Patrick Giles introduced to English readers the work of Tóth Gyula, a Hungarian researcher who maintained that there were serious problems with the conventional view of the chronology of the fifth-century AD. From a comparison of the conventional chronology of that period with what was said in the Chronicon Pictum (a lavishly-illustrated account of Hungarian history written during the Late Medieval Period), Gyula came to the conclusion that, confused by the switch from the Julian to the Gregorian Calendar after the Chronicon Pictum was written, modern scholars created a chronology for the 5 th -century in which a period of around 25 years was duplicated, with analogous events being separated by around 44 years. According to Gyula's theory, the period conventionally dated to AD 407-433, which included the sack of Rome by the Goths, was the same as that conventionally dated to AD 451-476, which included the sack of Rome by the Vandals. No complete contemporary history of the 5 th century had survived, so Gyula envisaged a process in which later scholars struggled to piece together a the west. In Egypt, events continued to be dated from the first regnal year of Diocletian, even after the end of his reign. Thus, despite the fact that Diocletian had persecuted Christians, the Christians in Alexandria used this system to date the years in their Easter Tables, which gave future calendar-dates for Easter Sunday determined on the basis of a 19-year lunar cycle. The Diocletian Era system, subsequently renamed the "Era of Martyrs" by Christians (the first attested use of this being in year 359 of the Era), is still used by the Coptic Church in Egypt today. The chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor, which consisted of 528 yearly entries, began with the first year of Diocletian. Although the Diocletian Era dating system was not a major feature of this chronicle, Theophanes noted that Anastasius I came to the throne in the 207 th year of Diocletian and was succeeded by Justin I in the 234 th year of Diocletian. John of Nikiu, writing in Egypt, noted the death of Emperor Heraclius in the 357 th year of Diocletian. According to the Chronicon Paschale, the first regnal year of Diocletian, from which the years in the Easter Tables were reckoned, corresponded to the consulship of Diocletian (his 2 nd ) and Aristobalus [17]. Dating by reference to the consuls appointed for a particular year was the traditional system of the Romans. The historical...
For Byzantium the relationship and the cohabitation with the Islamic-Turkish world are inexorable necessity to know and to understand the last centuries of the Greek Empire. Nevertheless at the beginning of 14 th Century the process of formation of Turkish emirates in the Western lands of Asia Minor meant an absolute novelty for the political and religious scene of Byzantium. Necessary and constant exchanges, the aggressive policy of the numerous emirates, the need to rely on them to work out the institutional muddle of the civil wars have been reasons of acceleration of the phenomenon which have finally led to the end of the Empire. Obviously other elements – seemingly unrelated – have contributed: the convulsive development of the palamitic debate, the social changes and the troubled relationship with the Latin World are only the main factors. To be interested to the perception of the Turkish danger is a necessary engagement to fully understand the 14 th Century. We must consider that the main figures who debated about the Islamic-Turkish matters are the same who played an important role in the religious and political life at that time (John VI Cantacuzenus, Gregory Palamas, Callistus I patriarch). But there are some other factors for the urgency of the study we offer. First of all the renewed interest that it finds in the scientific literature. Then we have to consider the lack of comprehensive studies available on the matter. The Khoury's works, for now the summa for everyone who likes to approach the byzantine antislamic controversy, don't deal with 14 th Century authors or writings. The convergence of these three elements (relevance of the matter, renewed interest and lack of comprehensive studies) have persuaded us to take up this matter. Our work is divided into five parts: the presentation of four dossiers and a conclusion that revalues and upgrades the materials we gathered. Indeed other sources have allowed us to enlarge the objective of our observations. So we have been able to define a significant overview. First of all we have selected four areas of research according to the importance and dimension of the available works. So we have focused our attention on authors and documents relating to the middle of 14 th Century: documents from the archives of the
Review by Alexandra Vukovich in The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 72: 4 (2021)
A number of aspects of the presentation in this book present obstacles for the reader. The first is the repetitive and wordy style. Of Hraban Maur's set of acrostic poems already mentioned, for example, Kitzinger writes that 'Hrabanus's work greatly helps to clarify the category of cross images whose explicit invocation of materiality is coupled with indices of utility.' I take this to mean that the pictures of a cross and the text of Hraban's poem and commentary remind viewers and readers of the original wooden cross on which Christ was crucified. All the notes, moreover, are printed at the end of the book (pp. -), in a two-column format in small print. The notes themselves, more or less without exception, are lengthy and discursive, containing essential explanatory as well as tangential material in addition to the references. It is difficult to read these notes in conjunction with the main text; it becomes even more cumbersome in the e-version of the book. The bibliographical references in the notes, however, are not included in the bibliography; the latter lists 'additional key sources for the study' not cited in the notes. Another problem is the illustration. It is wonderful to have so many figures in colour, the actual quality and resolution is mostly very good, and the author is meticulous about providing the dimensions of her artworks the first time they are illustrated. Nevertheless, the relative scale of the examples needs to be registered when a book like the Lorsch Gospels ( x . cm) is reproduced in little more than postage-stamp format. And the ambo from Romainmoutier (. x cm) is reproduced in exactly the same size of figure as the page opposite from the Rule of Benedict in Clm ( × cm). This is certainly an exposition full of astute and subtle nuances of observation, with detailed commentary on the remarkable variety of representations of the cross in an interesting selection of Carolingian books. The discussions of the imagery in the Gellone Sacramentary (BnF, Paris, MS lat. ) from Meaux and the late Carolingian 'Angers Gospels' (Bibliothèque Municipale, Angers, MS ) from Brittany are particularly enlightening. Kitzinger's overall claim is that such images of the physical object and all it stood for were formative in shaping the understanding of art and its function and status beyond the merely decorative, or in her words 'used as a sign of the immanence, utility and materiality of other works of art', but this aspect of her argument remains a possibility rather than being established. ROSAMOND MCKITTERICK SIDNEY SUSSEX COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE The liturgical past in Byzantium and early Rus. By Sean Griffin. (Studies in Medieval Life and Thought Fourth Series.) Pp. x + . Cambridge-New York: Cambridge University Press, . £. JEH () ; doi:./S The Povest' vremennykh let or the Rus Primary Chronicle, as Griffin refers to it in his book, has probably received more attention than any other text attributed to early Rus, certainly more so than any other chronicle of Rus. Its initial sections, in particular, continue to capture the imagination of medievalists because of their varied narrative elements. Folk tales, administrative documents, hagiographies, Byzantine chronicle excerpts and annals combine to recount the emergence of Rus via a multi-layered narrative, one that elevates the ascendant ruling group (the so-called
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.