Procopius employs the motif of “grieving in silence” to describe the deliberations preceding Justinian’s invasion of Vandal North Africa in 533 (Wars 3.10.7-8) and his vendetta against the urban prefect of Constantinople in 523 (HA 9.41). The particularity of Procopius’ language in these passages makes their collocation especially pronounced. The distance between the Wars and the Secret History, which represents itself breaking the silence between what the Wars can state publicly and the unvarnished truth (HA 1.1-10), may be measured by two “wise advisers” who speak when others are silent: the quaestor Proclus, warmly remembered for his probity, and the praetorian prefect John the Cappadocian, a figure universally reviled. Discontinuities between the presentation of John in the Wars and the merits of the policies he endorses problematize readers’ impressions of not only John but also the relationship between the Wars and the historical reality the work claims to represent.
In this paper, I argue that, after centuries of neglect, a revival of interest towards Aristotle’s Rhetoric took place in 12th century Constantinople, which led to the production of a number of commentaries. In order to give an overview of the commentary tradition on the Rhetoric, I examine first the surviving extant commentaries themselves, then the information that the commentators offer regarding their preceding interpretations, and last the traces of commentaries on the Rhetoric found in other treatises. This examination will show that, at least within a specific group of scholars, the Rhetoric was studied and commented upon like never before. Finally, I attempt to explain this revival of interest, especially with respect to the role that philosophical and rhetorical education played in 12th century Byzantium.
The Erlöserkirche at Bad Homburg was built between 1903 and 1908 at the instigation of Kaiser Wilhelm II. It combines a neo-Romanesque exterior with Norman-Sicilian mosaics inside. Both were „Germanic“ to the emperor, and the church embodied his all encompassing claim to the tradition of the medieval Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. Alternatively, the contemporary Byzantinist Ernst Gerland pointed to a Byzantine origin of the Norman-Sicilian models (and thus subtly contradicted the „pan-Germanic“ myth). This „Byzantine“ reading has prevailed ever since, but does not stand up to scrutiny. It only serves to obscure the „pan-Germanic“ concept of the church. This contribution restores the „Germanic“ understanding and makes the point that the latter must be acknowledged in order to make proper sense of the church’s art and architecture, but also in order to face (rather than to downplay and conveniently forget) the racist-chauvinist character of German imperialism.
In the Iambs of Gregory of Nazianzus occur many hiatuses: this might suggest that his verses had been composed with carelessness. In fact, if we examine the various kinds of hiatuses, we notice that some of them should not be considered as such, because they occur after words, or along with iuncturae, that usually admit them. There remains, however, a considerable number of hiatus in caesura. The article strives to demonstrate that these hiatuses are due to the imitation of the well-known hiatus in trocaic caesura in the hexameter, which was allowed since Homer’s age. As a matter of fact, in some cases, the same words that produce a hiatus after a trochaic caesura in Homer show an identical one after a caesura in Gregory’s trimeters. Moreover, hexameter and iambic trimeter were frequently juxtaposed by the late ancient metric-grammatical tradition. The article further analyzes the occurence of the hiatus in caesura in the Byzantine dodecasyllables, which, among other reasons, might be due also to the influence of Gregory in Byzantine poetry.
This essay examines the main sources on the attitude of the Church of Cyprus in the so-called monoenergetic-monotheletic dispute. It is shown that the Church of Cyprus was a loyal and active partner in Constantinople’s policy of reconciliation with the Antichalcedonian churches of the East. Cyprus was also, especially under Archbishop Arkadios (624/25-641/2), a place of exile for opponents of this reconciliation, and in 636 also the venue of an important synod which was attended by legates of almost the whole church. The resulting Ekthesis was approved also in Rome and Jerusalem. Even Maximos did not succeed, after 636, to influence the position of Arkadios through the Cypriot priest monk Marinos. His six letters to Marinos offer no evidence for a dyenergetic or dyotheletic position of the Church of Cyprus. A letter from 643, written by the successor of Arkadios, Sergios (642-655), clearly shows that there was until then no protest against the Constantinopolitan church policy in Cyprus in this time. This letter, which demonstrates the firm dyenergetic and dyotheletic position of the whole Church of Cyprus, was presented at the Lateran Synod of 649, but forged or completely rewritten for this Synod. Even after 643, there is no evidence for public dissent in the Church of Cyprus, nor should it actually be expected.
What are the similarities and the differences of icons from the same workshop depicting the same subject? An important portable icon with the representation of the Dormition of the Virgin, hitherto unknown, preserved today in the Art Collection of the University of Göttingen, helps answering this question. The studydeals with the fascinating journey of this icon from Venetian-dominated Crete in the 15th century to Germany of the 18th century. Furthermore, this paper shows that the icon of Göttingen belongs to a group of a numerous icons that they all derive from the same icon-workshop of the renowned Cretan painters Andreas and Nikolaos Ritzos in Candia. Finally, it turned out that this icon was also the inspiration for Cretan painters of the 17th CE such as Emmanuel Lambardos and Viktor.