Suchergebnisse

The fate of Cassiodorus' Variae during the Early Middle Ages is largely unknown, since the manuscript tradition begins with the eleventh century, and long quotations taken from them are attested only from that period. However, words or expressions reminiscent of the Variae occur more than once in Charlemagne's letters to Byzantium, in the works of Paschasius, and in the Donation of Constantine. The author of the epistles sent by Charlemagne's to the East Roman emperor was aware of the ideological context of Variae 1.1, and the same is true for the Donation of Constantine. At the same time, Paschasius used Cassiodorus as a source of elegant words and expressions, thereby treating him like a classical author. It is impossible to ascertain whether Carolingian writers had access to all books of the Variae, or only to a substantial selection of letters (similar for instance to the manuscript containing the Epistolae Austrasicae), but there is a high degree of likelihood that they knew quite a few epistles of Cassiodorus, and were able to appreciate the political messages conveyed by them.

By the 10th century Serbian law recognized the following ways of dispute resolution: revenge and appeasement, and it may be indirectly proved that there was a system of compensation. As punishments, there was banishment into exile, blinding and a death sentence. Since revenge, appeasement and compensation system appear in the pre-state period, while the death penalty has its roots in the blood feud, that indicates they are all of local origin. A question remains about the origin of banishment and blinding a fallen ruler, that is, a rival to the throne. In the first half of the 9th century the Byzantine Empire managed to reinstate its power over the Adriatic Sea, to impose itself over the Serbian states, to Christianise them and to legalise ruling families in the Serbian lands. Suffice to say that in 869 the Serbian states fight wars on the Byzantine side. Origin of influences on the ways of the punishment we seek in Byzantium, or better still, in its legal practice. It has been found that Byzantium used to send their conquered rivals to the throne into exile, punishing them by blinding them, so we draw a conclusion that in the matter of punishment, i.e. in the customary law, it exercised its influence on Serbia.

Since the Hellenistic times (if not earlier) Iran participates in the philosophical development of classical Greece. In the times of the Sasanians some knowledge of Aristotelian and Neo-Platonic thinking is detectable, and treatises were written for Xosrō I by philosophers who were well acquainted with the writings of Aristotle. It was always maintained that also Sasanian Zoroastrianism was affected through these Greek-Iranian contacts. But it is remarkable that among the Zoroastrian writings of the 9th-10th centuries only two books–Dēnkard 3 and Škand Gumānīg Wīzār–seem to be substantially influenced by Aristotelian/Neo-Platonic terms and concepts. The paper deals with the question whether the Greek elements within these texts should not better be understood as the fruit of a Zoroastrian participation in the general interest of the Islamic world in Greek thinking in Abbasid Baghdad.

Vizantijske predstave o kugi krajem VIII i početkom IX veka nalaze se u dva istorijska dela, Kratkoj istoriji Nikifora Carigradskog, budućeg patrijarha Konstantinopolja (806-815), i Hronici Teofana, igumana jednog od manastira na južnoj obali Propontide i kasnijeg ispovednika za svete ikone (oko 815. godine). Dva autora su poznata kao predvodnici stranke ikonopoštovatelja za vreme drugog talasa ikonoborstva (od 815. do 843. godine), ali koji su imali značajne karijere i pre izbijanja drugog talasa ikonoborstva, kada su i napisali svoja dela. Njihove predstave o kugi u Vizantiji koje su ostavili u svojim delima otkrivaju NAM njihov autorski postupak kao istoriografa. Naime, obojica su sastavili dela koja se bave istorijom Vizantije u prošlosti. Nikiforova Kratka istorija pokriva period od 602. do 769. godine i nastala je između 787. i 806. godine, dok Teofanova Hronika pokriva period od 284. do 813. godine, odnosno vremena samog Teofana. U Nikiforovoj Kratkoj istoriji pominje se kuga u doba cara Iraklija (610-641) koja se pojavila u Carigradu 619. godine uporedo sa persijskim osvajanjima istočnih provincija, Sirije, Palestine i Egipta, usled čega je prestonica bila lišena isporuka pšenice i novčanih prihoda od poreza. Sve je ovo, prema kazivanju Nikifora, nateralo cara Iraklija da abdicira i povuče se iz Carigrada u Kartaginu. Patrijarh Sergije Carigradski je uspeo da obaveže cara da ne napušta presto i na taj način je spasio unutrašnje jedinstvo i poredak Carstva. Drugi slučaj opisa kuge u Kratkoj istoriji je u vezi sa Nikiforovim pripovedanjem o građanskom ratu u Vizantiji krajem VII veka kada je pretendent na carski presto, Tiberije Apsimar 698. godine upravo zahvaljujući kugi koja je izbila u Carigradu i trajala četiri meseca, uspeo da osvoji prestonicu i svrgne dotadašnjeg cara Leontija, domogavši se carskog prestola. Iz ovih opisa se vidi da je Nikifor epidemije kuge uvek dovodio u vezu sa političkim dešavanjima u Carstvu i sa postupcima vizantijskih careva, da li kao posledicama epidemije, ili uticaja epidemije na tok događaja. Njegov opis kuge koja je izbila u Carigradu 747/8. godine za vreme vladavine ikonoboračkog cara Konstantina V je međutim nešto drugačiji. On se izdvaja pre svega po opširnosti i detaljima u opisu, kao i u piščevom otvorenom iznošenju sopstvenog stava da je do epidemije kuge i velikog stradanja stanovništva Carigrada došlo zbog careve jeresi i progona ikonopoštovatelja. Zapravo, u Nikiforovoj naraciji opis kuge u vreme Konstantina V predstavlja ujedno i početak piščevog opisa carevog ikonoborstva. Teofanova Hronika najpre daje opis kuge koja je izbila u Rimskom carstvu za vreme vladavine cara Justinijana (527-565). Teofanov opis kuge je uzgredan, i pisac prelazi preko ovog događaja sasvim površno, navodeći epidemiju kao jednu od pošasti uz zemljotrese, gladi i nebeska znamenja koja su zabeležena u tom dobu. Međutim, kada pominje kugu u doba vladavine cara Mavrikija, on je dovodi u vezu sa Božijim gnevom na avarskog Kagana i njegovu vojsku koja je u jednom od svojih pljačkaških pohoda u Trakiji opustošila svetilište jednog od lokalnih svetitelja mučenika. Teofan koristi priliku da kugu poveže sa Božijim gnevom koji je kaznio varvare za svetogrđe i uopšte, za napad na Rimsko carstvo. Kada opisuje kugu iz 747/8. koju u Kratkoj istoriji opisuje i Nikifor, on je znatno detaljniji u prikazu zaraze. Jasno je da su dva vizantijska istoričara u opisima ove kuge imali na raspolaganju isti izvor. Premda Teofan daje izveštaj koji sadrži podatke koje ne donosi Nikifor. Kao i Nikifor, Teofan je iskoristio prikaz kuge u vreme cara Konstantina V da naglasi carevu jeres i progon Crkve i ikonopoštovanja u Vizantiji, te da pojavu kuge protumači kao izraz Božijeg gneva. Iz poređenja dva opisa, koje pružaju Nikifor i Teofan, proizilazi da su obojica narative o kugi u Vizantiji 747/8. godine iskoristili kao literarno sredstvo koje je trebalo da podupre njihov ikonopoštovateljski stav, odnosno kritiku ikonoborstva cara Konstantina V. ; In the late 8th and early 9th century two historical works, the Short history of Nikephoros of Constantinople, and the Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor, give evidence about the plague which appeared in Sicily and Calabria in 745/6 and spreading to the East, erupted in Constantinople in 747/8 during the reign of Emperor Constantine V. In this paper, we analyze the narratives offered by the two historians and place their historical representation of the plague in the context of the religious controversy over icons which shook Byzantium in the 8th and 9th centuries. It appears that both historians, themselves engaged in the controversy over icon worship, Nikephoros in the capacity of the patriarch of Constantinople, and Theophanes as a hegumenos of an orthodox monastery, utilized the description of the plague to portray the emperor Constantine V's rule as irreligious and devastating for the Byzantine state and church.

The current violence and killings in the name of Islam cannot be regarded as historically unparalleled. Several interesting examples come from the 9th century Muslim dominated Cordoba. In these cases, some Christians intentionally sought to destroy their own lives through execution by insulting Islam. Their acts were viewed as theologically legitmate in the Bible and within the Christian tradition. The Cordovan selfsacrifications, or voluntary deaths, have been regarded as very controversial in different scholarly traditions. They have been considered martyrs, madmen, and even criminals. The publications on these events, which this article analyzes, show that the past, and largely its interpretation, affect our view of current political and social realities. The phenomenon of violence or intolerance cannot be labeled to a particular religion, as the justification to seek martyrdom is largely based on the interpretation of religious meanings by those considered as authorities.

The present book is dedicated to one main aspect of the Marian cult: it investigates the historical process that made Mary, mother of Jesus, the most prominent intercessor across the Byzantine Empire at the end of Iconoclasm (843). The study touches religious and social issues, it refers only to contemporary ideas and sources and distinguishes itself consciously from later mariological concepts. - Das vorliegende Buch ist einem wesentlichen Aspekt des Marienkultes gewidmet; es untersucht den – regional unterschiedlich verlaufenden – historischen Prozeß, der Maria, Mutter Jesu von Nazareth, bis zur Mitte des 9. Jh. im gesamten Byzantinischen Reich zur wichtigsten Fürbitterin der Gläubigen machte. Die Untersuchung berührt gleichermaßen religiöse wie gesellschaftliche Aspekte; sie basiert ausschließlich auf zeitgenössischen Vorstellungen und grenzt sich bewußt von späteren mariologischen Konzepten ab.

The short but significant experiment of the Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy left politically ephemeral albeit culturally surprisingly durable traces in the peninsula. Among them, epigraphy takes centre stage when discussing decrees, laws, and public documents, which are a direct expression of the rulers' will to gain greater visibility and disseminate their voice. However, epigraphy is also crucial to knowing the names, professions, ideas, and other concepts relating to the ordinary people. This contribution aims to examine a number of issues concerning controversial Germanic names datable between the VIth and VIIth century AD, and variably assigned to Ostrogoths, Lombards, and even Carolingians characters; through the lens of these durable materials, which – ironically enough – are monuments both recording contemporary propaganda and everyday life facets, the article will also explore the graphic and epigraphic changes which occurred in Italy between the VIth-IXth centuries.