Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 28

first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

L’image de la papauté dans l’Histoire ecclésiastique de Socrate

100%
Bralewski S.
Vox Patrum
|
2006
|
vol. 49
83-88
PL
Obraz papiestwa lansowany przez Sokratesa jest dość skomplikowany. Z jednej strony kreuje on wizerunek wyjątkowego biskupstwa, którego zwierzchnik przewodzi Kościołowi powszechnemu. Z drugiej poddaje je ostrej krytyce. Historyk wskazuje na uprzywilejowaną pozycję biskupa Rzymu.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Constantinian shift – the truth or a myth?

100%
Bralewski S.
Vox Patrum
|
2014
|
vol. 61
39-53
PL
Zdefiniowanie zjawiska nazwanego przełomem czy rewolucją konstantyńską nie jest łatwe. Wydaje się, że trzeba w nim widzieć epokowy czyn cesarza, który nie tylko uznał i otoczył opieką Kościół, ale związał go z państwem i doprowa­dził do wielkiego znaczenia, pozyskując w zamian, w swoim głębokim przeko­naniu, błogosławieństwo samego Boga dla Imperium Romanum i jego władców. Konsekwencją wydarzeń określanych tym mianem –według wielu badaczy – była epoka czy era konstantyńska, w której Kościół narażony był na dwojakie niebez­pieczeństwo. Mógł on bowiem zdominować rządzących i państwo bądź podpo­rządkować się im i stać się instrumentem w ich rękach. W Kościele katolickim zakończyć epokę tę miał dopiero II Sobór Watykański. Konstantyn w swej po­lityce państwowej był przede wszystkim kontynuatorem tradycji odziedziczonej po przodkach, co było zaprzeczeniem idei przełomu. Zapoczątkował jednak pro­cesy, dzięki którym z czasem dokonało się gruntowne przeobrażenie Cesarstwa Rzymskiego. Niewątpliwie charakter przełomowy miało samo nawrócenie cesa­rza na chrześcijaństwo, jakkolwiek by je rozumieć i datować, chociaż i ono mogło być postrzegane przez Rzymian jako wybór boskiego patrona, który zapewnia zwycięstwa cesarzowi oraz wychowanie cesarskich dzieci w duchu chrześcijań­skim. Jednak oddanie siebie i swego państwa przez Konstantyna w opiekę jedyne­go Boga samo w sobie miało charakter rewolucyjny. Monoteizm wszak z natury wykluczał inne kulty i choć upłynęło jeszcze kilkadziesiąt lat, nim chrześcijań­stwo oficjalnie stało się religią państwową w Imperium Romanum, to było to kon­sekwencją wyboru dokonanego przez Konstantyna.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Czy cesarz Konstantyn Wielki zabiegał o kompromis z donatystami?

100%
Bralewski S.
Vox Patrum
|
2000
|
vol. 38
427-448
FR
Constantin, au cours du conflit entre Cecilien, l'eveque de Carthage, et les donatistes est toujours reste trees critique envers ces derniers. Il a pris parti pour l'eveque et ses allies de 313 jusqu'a la fin de son regne.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Boże zwycięstwo (ενθεοσ νικη) – „ideologia tryumfu” w "Historii kościelnej" Euzebiusza z Cezarei

100%
Bralewski S.
Vox Patrum
|
2015
|
vol. 63
331-351
EN
“Ideology of victory” occupied a very important place in Ecclesiastical His­tory by Eusebius of Caesarea. The victory which he described had a sacred dimen­sion. It was God’s triumph in a war which mankind declared on God himself. Its turning point was the appearance of the Word of God, Wisdom, Jesus Christ, who taught people how to worship God the Father and who was given the power, the eternal reign of the everlasting kingdom. Together with his advent, according to Eusebius, a new Christian people came into being. Since it adopted the lifestyle and customs based on piety originating from the beginnings of mankind, it was not, in fact, a new nation. Christians fought a war against evil spirits, which were hostile to people and which hated God, my means of pure love. Christ, as God’s commander in chief, the Lord and the King, led this battle. Eusebius stated that He armed his army with piety and defeated the enemies completely. Victories achieved by Christians over the enemies of God, inspired by the evil spirit and dominated by hubris, had several dimensions: sacral-military, martyr’s and doc­trinal. The first one corresponded to the Roman tradition and was connected with the choice of the divine patron, to whose power military victories were attributed. Emperor Constantine played a special role in it, as, on the one hand, he chose the Christian God to be his ally and, on the other hand, was himself chosen by God and became a God’s tool. Having defeated God’s enemies, the Emperor put an end to the war between God and mankind and eliminated all the hatred to Him from the world. From the perspective of martyrdom, Christians seemingly suffered a defeat, while their prosecutors saw the triumph of their own gods in the suffer­ing and death of Christians. In fact, martyrs, under the sign of Christ, the great and undefeated athlete, triumphed giving their life for God, which was God’s victory. As a reward for their sacrifice they received the wonderful wreath of immortality. In the third, doctrinal dimension the truth preached by Christians triumphed over false teachings and predominated over them by virtue of their holiness and wis­dom and divine and philosophical principles, on which it was based.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Zagłada filozofów helleńskich w Imperium Romanum – obraz mędrców w relacji Sokratesa z Konstantynopola i Hermiasza Sozomena

100%
Bralewski S.
Vox Patrum
|
2012
|
vol. 57
59-76
EN
Socrates of Constantinople, the author of the Ecclesiastical History, distin­guishes between two types of philosophy: one practised by the use of words and the second reflected in deeds. The reason why the latter was considered by Socrates to be the true philosophy was the fact that it was the way to find God. That, at the same time, was the most important exercise for philosophers. According to histo­rians even an ordinary uneducated man, could also practise philosophy. However, Socrates believed that having Hellenic education with philosophical studies, was extremely useful for stopping the paganism, in particular. What is more, it enabled speech enhancement and development of the ability to think logically. He pointed out that a lot of sages were near the discovery of God. But he was aware of the existence of false philosophers with the emperor Julian the Apostate, who, un­like true philosophers, was still subject to the passions. By impersonating of the true philosophers they were cheaters and easily changed their views, in addition professed pagan cults. Sozomen also distinguished two types of philosophy: the Hellenic philosophy and the philosophy of church. Unlike Socrates, Sozomen did not attribute any value to the classical philosophy. He did not divide the philoso­phers into true and false. It seems that the work of Sozomen contains a crucial message. As the period of pagans quickly passed so did their wisdom and those who loved them. Thus, information about the extermination of Hellenistic phi­losophers was included in his Ecclesiastical History. They were replaced with Christian philosophers gathered in the monastic movement developing vigorously.
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Bałkany w ujęciu historiografii kościelnej V wieku związanej ze środowiskiem konstantynopolitańskim

100%
Bralewski S.
Vox Patrum
|
2016
|
vol. 66
277-299
EN
In the accounts of Socrates of Constantinople, Hermias Sozomenus and Phi­lostorgius, i.e. those ecclesiastical historians who represented the Constantino­politan point of view in church history, the region of the Balkans was neither ad­ministratively nor culturally or religiously uniform. Contents of their works sug­gest, however, that the area was very important strategically, which was indirectly stressed in Sozomenus’ and Phlilostorgius’ accounts of the conflicts between Con­stantine and Licinius, and then directly referred to when the three historians wrote on the invasion of the Goths and Maximus’ usurpation. All the three sources also imply that the Balkan peninsula became a shelter not only for refugees from the outside of the empire but also a safe haven for political fugitives from the Roman territories, as for instance is the case of Valentinian II and his entourage. It is also clearly visible that the region was treated by the historians as the hinterland of Constantinople, i.e. the second capital of the Roman Empire, founded by order of Constantine. Security of the capital was largely dependent on the stability of the Roman rule in the Balkans and the maintenance of peace in the area. The advent of the Huns, who pushed other barbarians to cross the Danube river, destabilized the region. The destabilization occurred even despite efforts of christianizing the inflowing tribes, which was an element of the strategy of the Romans targeted at subjecting the barbarian peoples to the empire both politically as well as re­ligiously. Socrates’, Sozomenus’ and Philostorgius’ accounts also show that the Balkans became a border zone of the empire (divided into its western and eastern parts) and a melting pot of various religious influences, which is exemplified by the regional history of Arianism. It is also undeniable that not only Socrates of Constantinople and Hermias Sozomenus but also Phlostorgius devoted to the Bal­kans more attention than Eusebius of Caesarea did. The fact can be explained on he basis of their geographical proximity to the region, which naturally drew the interest of the former, Constantinopole-based three. Last but not least, Sozomenus displayed in his narrative a better geographical competence as for the region than Socrates and therefore he tried to emend the account of his predecessor.
7
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Empress Eudoxia in the Light of the 5th-Century Ecclesiastical Histories

100%
Bralewski S.
Vox Patrum
|
2020
|
vol. 75
43-66
PL
Na ogół zasadniczą rolę w sporze Jana Chryzostoma z dworem cesarskim przypisuje się cesarzowej Eudoksji, winiąc ją za jego wygnanie. W jaki sposób postępowanie cesarzowej oceniali piszący w pierwszej połowie V wieku autorzy Historii kościelnych? Pierwszy z nich, Filostorgiusz wyraźnie zasugerował, że chociaż początkowo status Eudoksji na dworze cesarskim nie był silny z powodu jej barbarzyńskiego pochodzenia, cesarzowa używająca swej kobiecości, jak potężnej broni, nie tylko potrafiła się obronić, ale także umocniła swoją pozycję w środowisku dworskim, pogrążając przeciwników w całkowitej bezsilności. Jeśli chodzi o Teodoreta, historyk ów odmówił ujawnienia imion winnych tragicznego losu Jana Chryzostoma. Nie przypisywał też umyślnej winy cesarskiej parze, uznając ich przewinienie za nieświadome. Zasugerował jednak, że wpływ Eudoksji na cesarski dwór był tak duży, że gdyby chciała, mogłaby doprowadzić do powrotu Jana z wygnania. W przypadku Sokratesa i Sozomena, obaj historycy, choć różnili się oceną Jana Chryzostoma, wykazali niezwykłą zbieżność poglądów w przypadku cesarzowej Eudoksji. Obaj opisali władczynię z wyraźną powściągliwością, wskazując na jej wielką emocjonalność, ale odpowiedzialność za konflikt z Janem składali na wrogów biskupa, podżegających przeciwko niemu cesarzową.
EN
In the dispute between John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, and the imperial court the main role is generally attributed to Empress Eudoxia, who was blamed for causing his exile. How did the authors of Ecclesiastical histories, writing in the first half of the 5th century, perceive this empress? The first of them, Philostorgius, clearly suggested that although initially the status of Eudoxia at the imperial court was not strong because of her barbaric origin, the empress - wielding her femininity as a powerful weapon-not only managed to defend herself but also strengthened her position in the courtly environment by plunging her opponents into utter powerlessness. As for Theodoret, this historian refused to disclose the names of those guilty of John Chrysostom’s fate. He also did not attribute intentional guilt to the imperial couple, considering that their guilt was unintentional. He suggested, however, that Eudoxia's influence at the imperial court was so great that if she wanted, she could have John return from the exile. In the case of Socrates and Sozomen, both historians, although they differed in their assessment of John Chrysostom, showed a remarkable convergence of views in the case of empress Eudoxia. They both described her with a clear restraint, pointing to her great emotionality, but the responsibility for the conflict with John they blamed mainly on the bishop’s enemies, who set the ruler against him.
8
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Wokół soboru nicejskiego (325): na kanwie monografii autorstwa Henryka Pietrasa SJ

100%
Bralewski S.
Vox Patrum
|
2016
|
vol. 65
75-98
EN
The Council convened by emperor Constantine the Great to Nicea in the year 325 still arouses keen interest of researchers around the world. Against the back­ground of international scholarship, the achievements of Polish academics look quite modest. That is why one should especially appreciate the publication of a book (written in Polish) on the subject by Henryk Pietras, an acclaimed Polish patrologist. The monograph is noteworthy for a number of reasons and compels the reader to a thorough reflection on a cornucopia of facts that have been already discussed by numerous academics and subject to manifold interpretations. Its spe­cial merit lies first and foremost in an erudite analysis of sources conducted by the Author, which is competent enough to exhort all the interested to (at least) re-think their views. It is necessary to admit that the Academic is right, when he argues that the Council (firstly convened to Ancyra, and subsequently to Nicea) was not organized for the reason of discussing the Arian controversy. In reality, it seems that the primary reason for the meeting was the Donatist schism, which the Patrologist underestimated, and additionally the problem of reaching an agree­ment on a date of the Passover celebration. Certainly, the Council was not of an anti-Arian nature, but Arius was condemned by the ecclesiastic meeting as the one who rejected a laboriously reached compromise as for the form of the credo and renounced the term homoousios.
9
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Hierarchia wschodnich biskupów w historiografii kościelnej V wieku

100%
Bralewski S.
Vox Patrum
|
2012
|
vol. 58
181-199
EN
Francis Dvornik has expressed the view that, in the Eastern part of the Empire, the principle of accommodation dominated over the principle of the apostolic ori­gin. The situation, he maintained, resulted from the fact that the aforementioned area included excessively numerous sees which were either established by one of the Apostles or were considered to be somehow connected with their activities. Does the conclusion of the Czech researcher find any justification in the way the precedence of bishoprics is depicted in the Greek ecclesiastical historiography of the fifth century? The present article is to give an answer to the question. The analysis of the ecclesiastical historiography in question demonstrates that Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote in the IV th century, while setting a hierarchy of bishops was guided first and foremost by the principle of accommodation. The church historians, however, who compiled their works a mere century later put a decisively lesser stress on Eusebius’ predilection in that matter. Although the narrative of Philostorgius, since fragmentary, is hard to interpret, Socrates’ atti­tude displays a marked tendency of favoring the importance of the apostolic ori­gin, which was most probably taken over from Rufinus of Aquileia. Sozomen tended to tell the difference between the official hierarchy of bishops, which was based on the principle of accommodation, and the structure of bishoprics connec­ted with the Apostles. Theodoretus, in turn, tended to connect both the principles, however, preferring the idea of the Church originated by saint Peter, accordingly of the ecclesiastic structure based on the principle of the apostolic origin. As a consequence, and contrary to F. Dvornik’s thesis, it should be concluded that (at least) the authors of the Ecclesiastic Histories of the fifth century were in favor of the principle of the apostolic origin and maintained it was over the prin­ciple of accommodation.
10
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Praktykowanie postu w świetle historiografii kościelnej IV-V wieku

100%
Bralewski S.
Vox Patrum
|
2013
|
vol. 59
359-378
EN
The ecclesiastical histories of the fourth and the fifth centuries confirm the fasting as a practice popularly observed by the Christians of that time. From the account of the historians one can conclude that fasting combined with prayer was a distinctive feature of Christian piety. From the fourth century the principal prac­tice of abstention from food included the concept of a forty-day fasting period before Easter, i.e. Lent, and additionally the fast practiced two days every week throughout the year, namely each Wednesday and Friday, while the scheme is con­sidered to have its roots in the regulations promoted by the Church authorities of the period. Nonetheless, by the middle of the fifth century the individual churches of the West and the East had not arrived at an unanimous agreement on the length of Lent neither on its form. Moreover, the practice of fasting was also introduced as obligatory for the catechumens before baptism and for the local church com­munities they represented. Additionally, fasting was a must for those repenting their sins. First and foremost, however, a very strict practice of food abstention was observed by the monks of the period.
11
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Porfirowa kolumna w Konstantynopolu i jej wczesnobizantyńska legenda

100%
Bralewski S.
Vox Patrum
|
2010
|
vol. 55
95-110
EN
La colonne de porphyre à Constantinople qui a été créée pendant les règnes de Constantin le Grand dans les années 324- 330, occupe une place extraordinaire dans l’histoire de la capitale orientale d’Imperium Romanum. Elle est devenue même le symbole légendaire de la ville. Mesurant 37 mètres d’hauteur et finie par la statue de l’empereur Constantin- Helios, la colonne devait comporter des reliques de grande valeur pour les chrétiens. Elle constituait aussi un point important dans les célébrations des victoires de l’empereur. De plus, les habitants de la ville croyaient que la colonne pourrait leur assurer la délivrance dans le cas de la destruction de leur monde. Les débuts de la légende de la colonne de porphyre apparaissent avec le début de Byzance. Dans cet article, je voudrais présenter ce que constituait cette tradition et établir si la conscience de l’importance particulière de la colonne existait déjà au début de Byzance. En ce temps- là, le monument liait les idées païennes et chrétiennes, étant le sacrum aussi bien pour les uns que pour les autres. Il est très intéressant de voir comment la colonne a été présentée par les historiens d’église de Constantinople au milieu du Vème siècle: Socrate et Sozomène. Dans son “Histoire ecclésiastique”, Socrate a mentionné la colonne deux fois: d’abord dans la description de la découverte des reliques da la Sainte Croix par Hélène, la mère de Constantin le Grand, et puis quand il présentait les circonstances de la mort de l’hérésiarque Arius. Dans le premier cas, Socrate décrit la colonne comme un lieu où on a mis les reliques de la Sainte Croix: l’empereur qui les a reçues de sa mère, étant convaincu que la ville où se trouverait cette saintété ne pourrait pas déperir, a ordonné de les cacher dans sa propre statue. Dans le
12
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Mądrość kontra ignorancja – spór o tytuł Theotokos w świetle "Historii kościelnej" Sokratesa z Konstantynopola

100%
Bralewski S.
Vox Patrum
|
2021
|
vol. 80
177-196
EN
The conflict over the title given to Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, in fact the Christological dispute, involved the most important doctrinal issues considered in the fifth century. In turn, the message of Socrates from Constantinople, referring to the origin and course of this controversy, is the oldest source known to us, which gives an account on this subject. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates from the point of view of its author on the course of events related to the dispute over the title Theotokos to which the teaching of Nestorius led. Socrates was very critical of the actions taken by Nestorius from the first days of his pontificate, seeing him as a troublemaker who was right punished at the Council of Ephesus. Nevertheless, he did not see Nestorius as a heretic, but seemed to accept the judgment of the Council of Ephesus which recognized him as such. Regarding the title Theotokos, he accepted the teaching of Origen. He mainly accused Nestorius of lack of education. Nestorius' opponents in Constantinople were also, according to Socrates, the wise men who knew how to reason correctly, which makes it possible to connect them with the circle of Troilos Sophist.
PL
Konflikt o tytuł przysługujący Maryi, Matce Jezusa Chrystusa - Theotokos, w rzeczywistości spór chrystologiczny, dotyczył najważniejszych kwestii doktrynalnych rozpatrywanych w piątym wieku. Przekaz Sokratesa z Konstantynopola odnoszący się do genezy i przebiegu owej kontrowersji jest zaś najstarszym znanym nam źródłem zdającym relację na ten temat. Celem niniejszego artykułu jest analiza Historii kościelnej Sokratesa pod kątem punktu widzenia jej autora na bieg wydarzeń związanych ze sporem o Theotokos. Sokrates bardzo krytycznie oceniał działania podejmowane przez Nestoriusza od pierwszych dni jego pontyfikatu, widząc w nim wichrzyciela, którego spotkała na soborze w Efezie (431) słuszna kara. Niemniej nie widział w Nestoriuszu heretyka, ale wydawał się akceptować wyrok soboru w Efezie, który za takiego go uznał. W sprawie tytułu Theotokos przyjmował nauczanie Orygenesa. Zarzucał głównie Nestoriuszowi brak wykształcenia. Jak się wydaje nie było w tym przypadku. Sokrates podkreślał wszak, że w opozycji do Nestoriusza stanęli też ludzie mądrzy, umiejący rozumować poprawnie, co pozwala łączyć ich ze środowiskiem Troilosa Sofisty, obdarzanego przez historyka wielką atencją.
13
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Catalogue of Virtues in the "Ecclesiastical History" of Sozomen of Bethelia

100%
Bralewski S.
Vox Patrum
|
2022
|
vol. 84
31-50
PL
W swojej Historii kościelnej Sozomen przedstawił przymioty, z jednej strony władcy, którego obdarzał wielką estymą, a więc Teodozjusza II, a z drugiej podziwianych przez siebie ascetów, nowych mędrców, żyjących w jego przekonaniu według zasad najlepszej filozofii. Interesujące, że użył do tego niemal identyczny zestaw cnót, który przypisywał i władcy i mnichom. W obydwu przypadkach pobożność utożsamiał z mądrością i czynił z nich najważniejsze, wiodące cnoty. To one warunkowały kolejne przymioty. Można zatem w przekazie Sozomena doszukiwać się teorii jedności cnót charakterystycznej już dla Sokratesa z Aten, wedle którego nie można posiadać cząstki jakiejś cnoty, nie posiadając jej całości, ani posiadać jednej konkretnej cnoty, nie posiadając wszystkich. Wydaje się, że zastosowana przez Sozomena kolejność cnót w katalogu zalet przypisanych Teodozjuszowi II nie jest przypadkowa, a oddaje ich hierarchię: εὐσέβεια-σοφία φιλανθρωπία, ἀνδρεία, σωφροσύνη, δικαιοσύνη, φιλοτιμία, μεγαλοψυχία. Hierarchia ta wynika z chrześcijańskich wartości przyjętych przez Sozomena
EN
On the one hand, in his Ecclesiastical History, Sozomen presented the qualities of the ruler he held in high esteem – Theodosius II; on the other, he listed characteristics of the ascetics he admired, the new sages, living – in his view – according to the principles of the best philosophy. Interestingly, in this presentation, he applied an almost identical set of virtues that he attributed to both rulers and monks. In both cases he equated piety with wisdom and made them the most important, leading virtues. They were the ones that conditioned the subsequent qualities. Thus, in Sozomen’s account, one can trace the theory of the unity of virtues characteristic of Socrates of Athens. It claimed that one cannot possess a particle of virtue without possessing the whole, nor can one possess one specific virtue without possessing all of them. It seems that the order of virtues used by Sozomen in the catalogue of virtues ascribed to Theodosius II is not accidental, and reflects their hierarchy: εὐσέβεια-σοφία φιλανθρωπία, ἀνδρεία, σωφροσύνη, δικαιοσύνη, φιλοτιμία, and μεγαλοψυχία. This hierarchy stems from the Christian values adopted by Sozomen.
14
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Siła i bezsilność cesarza Walensa, gorliwego chrześcijanina a zarazem wroga chrześcijan w ujęciu Sokratesa z Konstantynopola

100%
Bralewski S.
Przegląd Nauk Historycznych
|
2019
|
vol. 18
|
issue 2
175-188
EN
Emperor Valens, who ruled in the years 364–378, is connected above all with the fateful disaster suffered by the Roman army in the clash with the Goths at Adrianople on 9 August 378, in which he himself found death. Christians, supporters of the Nicene creed of 325, read his sudden death as God’s punishment for the persecution of Orthodox Christians, whom they considered themselves to be. Socrates of Constantinople, author of Ecclesiastical History, which was a continuation of the work of Eusebius of Caesarea, noticed a contradiction in the conduct of Emperor Valens. The historian saw in him both an ardent Christian, who was zealous in his faith, and an enemy of Christians, who waged war against them. This contradiction was attributed by Socrates to the ruler himself, who, though convinced of his great religious zeal, had nothing to do with the principles of the Christian religion, which he should follow. As for the strength and powerlessness of the title, it must be said that Socrates of Constantinople believed that the power of Emperor Walens was only apparent, although much Christian blood was shed on his command. The powerlessness of this ruler was first exposed by the Christians persecuted by him, and ultimately by God himself, sending various cataclysms to the Roman Empire, and to Walens himself a death unworthy of the emperor without his due burial.
PL
Cesarza Walensa, sprawującego rządy w latach 364–378, łączy się przede wszystkim ze straszliwą i brzemienną w skutki klęską poniesioną przez wojska rzymskie w starciu z Gotami pod Adrianopolem 9 sierpnia 378 r., w której on sam poniósł śmierć. Chrześcijanie, zwolennicy nicejskiego credo z roku 325, odczytywali jego nagły zgon jako karę Bożą za prześladowanie prawowiernych chrześcijan, za których oni sami się uważali. Sokrates z Konstantynopola, autor Historii kościelnej, będącej kontynuacją dzieła Euzebiusza z Cezarei, dostrzegł w postępowaniu cesarza Walensa sprzeczność. Historyk ów widział w nim zarówno zagorzałego chrześcijanina, który w swej wierze kierował się gorliwością, jak i wroga chrześcijan, prowadzącego przeciwko nim wojnę. Sprzeczność tę Sokrates kładł na karb samego władcy, który choć przekonany o swej wielkiej gorliwości religijnej, za nic miał zasady religii chrześcijańskiej, którymi winien się kierować. Jeśli chodzi natomiast o tytułową siłę i bezsilność, to stwierdzić trzeba, że w przekonaniu Sokratesa z Konstantynopola siła cesarza Walensa była tylko pozorna, choć na jego rozkaz przelano niemało chrześcijańskiej krwi. Bezsilność wspomnianego władcy obnażyli najpierw sami prześladowani przez niego chrześcijanie, a ostatecznie uczynił to sam Bóg, zsyłając na Imperium Romanum różnorakie kataklizmy, a na samego Walensa śmierć niegodną cesarza bez należnego mu pochówku.
15
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Postawa cesarza Teodozjusza II wobec biskupów

100%
Bralewski S.
Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Historica
|
1993
|
issue 48
39-60
FR
L’empereur Théodose II suscite des jugements contradictoires. Les uns le prennent pour un souverain faible, influencé par ses courtisans; pour les autres, malgré une certaine velléité, il reste capable de prendre une décision indépendante et énergique. Par contre sa piété exceptionnelle est reconnue de tous. Le but de cet article est de constater dans quelle mesure celle-ci a déterminé l’attitude de Théodose face aux évêques, ainsi que sa conduite à l’égard de l'Eglise. La politique de l’empereur envers l’Eglise semble ne dépendre que du hasard. Il a d’abord soutenu Nestorius, ensuite Cyrille qui au départ était dans la disgrâce, pour appuyer à la fin Eutychés et Dioscore. Durant son règne il approuvait donc les opinions tout à fait opposées. De même on observe une hésitation surprenante dans son comportement face aux évêques. Tout d’abord il les a laissés diriger l’Eglise à leur gré et puis tout au contraire il les met dans la dépendance totale. De là on pourrait conclure que l’empereur agit selon les volontés de son entourage. Cependant on ne peut pas oublier que sa théologie politique d’un côté et la dévotion ardente d’un autre ne lui permettaient ni la négligence de la paix ni le manque de souci de l’unité de l’Eglise. Il ne pouvait donc pas accepter les conflits qui la tourmentaient. Tout à fait consciente, la décision de laisser les évêques résoudre les problèmes par eux-mêmes témoigne de sa piété et de son estime pour les pasteurs de l’Eglise à la fois. Pourtant la façon de régler le litige concernant le problème de Theotokos de même que la conduite des évêques qui ne répondait pas à l'attente de l’empereur l'ont forcé à changer son comportement. Déçu par les évêques, Théodose s’ingère de plus en plus dans les affaires intérieures de l’Eglise. Et cela d’autant plus que l’Empire commençait à subir défaite militaire sur défaite, ce que l’empereur, conformément à ses idées, devait prendre pour la punition infligée par Dieu, vu la situation de l’Eglise.
16
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Could a heretic be a beautiful woman in Socrates of Constantinople’s and Sozomenus’s eyes?

100%
Bralewski S.
Przegląd Nauk Historycznych
|
2017
|
vol. 16
|
issue 3
203-212
17
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Labarum – from Crux Dissimulata and Chi-Rho to the Open Image Cross

100%
Bralewski S.
Studia Ceranea
|
2020
|
vol. 10
243-258
EN
Based on the testimony of emperor Constantine the Great himself, Eusebius of Caesarea presented a labarum in the form of crux dissimulata crowned with the Chi-Rho. The continuers of his Church History in the next century, Rufinus of Aquileia, Philostorgius, Socrates of Constantinople, and Sozomen, only kept the cross-shape of the banner, excluding the christogram. This might have happened because in two main sources informing about the vision of Constantine – the accounts of Eusebius of Caesarea and Lactantius – it was not only the monogram of Christ that played a significant role. The motif of the cross also appears in them, in the account of Eusebius directly, and Lactantius indirectly. Furthermore, Christians interpreted the cross explicitly as a sign of victory. Eusebius wrote about the cross as a symbol of immortality, a triumphant sign of Christ overcoming death. In the account of the bishop of Caesarea, on the other hand, Constantine’s supposed vision included a triumphal sign in the form of a luminous cross, or the symbol of the trophy of salvation. Numismatic evidence also cannot be ignored. Already during the reign of Constantine the Great, the Chi-Rho appeared on the coins both on the shields and on the labarum. However, starting from the reign of Constantius II, coins that were minted included the cross instead of the Chi-Rho on the labarum. It also began to be placed on the shields, in their central part, where the monogram of Christ used to be. Over time, the cross replaced the entire labarum. The iconography present on the coins may prove that the phenomenon of identifying the labarum or Chi-Rho with the cross was not limited to church historiography and was more widespread, although it should be remembered that coins continued to also be decorated with the letters Chi-Rho. Therefore, the representation of the cross did not replace this symbol. However, it cannot be ruled out that the increasingly common image of the cross on coins also contributed to the aforementioned perception of the labarum by church historians.
18
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

‘Terrible diseases’ Spreading Among the Romans in Res Gestae by Ammianus Marcellinus

100%
Bralewski S.
Przegląd Nauk Historycznych
|
2023
|
vol. 22
|
issue 1
29-48
EN
Describing diseases was not the aim of Ammianus Marcellinus. He mentioned them whenever the narrative and the events he described required it. He did not treat them instrumentally. Neither he intended to use them to convince his readers of the theses he promoted. At the same time, he eagerly referred to the medical knowledge of that time, be it in order to carry out their scientific classification or description. Ammianus Marcellinus clearly distinguished between diseases suffered by individuals and mass diseases. As for the first, it must be emphasized that he wrote about them casually. He devoted more space to the plague, which he approached in a dispassionate way, invoking the knowledge of his time, without involving supernatural powers. Still, Ammianus Marcellinus’s worldview manifested itself in his remarks on issues related to the healing of diseases, not only with appropriate medicines, but also with amulets, spells of an old woman, and the healing of many diseases by a divine hero. His reflections on the factors that influence health are also of particular interest and show that he was particularly aware of this issue. The historian knew about the dependence of health on a proper diet, a moderate lifestyle, body hardening treatments, clean air and water, and a healthy mild climate.
PL
Opisywanie chorób nie było celem Ammiana Marcellina. Wspominał o nich wtedy, kiedy wymagała tego narracja i przedstawiane przez niego wydarzenia. Nie traktował ich instrumentalnie. Nie zamierzał za ich pomocą przekonywać czytelników do lansowanych przez siebie tez. Odwoływał się za to chętnie do ówczesnej wiedzy medycznej czy to w celu przeprowadzenia ich naukowej klasyfikacji, czy opisu. Ammian Marcellin wyraźnie rozróżniał choroby, atakujące pojedyncze osoby oraz choroby występujące masowo. Przy czym, jeśli chodzi o pierwsze z nich, trzeba podkreślić, że pisał o nich zdawkowo. Więcej miejsca poświęcał zarazom. Podchodził do nich w sposób beznamiętny, odwołując się do ówczesnej wiedzy i nie mieszając do tego sił nadprzyrodzonych. Światopogląd Ammiana Marcellina ujawnił się natomiast w jego wywodach na temat kwestii związanych z leczeniem chorób nie tylko za pomocą stosownych lekarstw, ale też amuletów, zaklęć staruszki czy uzdrawiania z licznych chorób przez herosa. Niezwykle interesujące są zarazem jego dywagacje dotyczące czynników warunkujących zdrowie, świadczące o dużym stopniu świadomości w tej materii. Historyk dysponował wiedzą o zależności zdrowia od właściwej diety, umiarkowanego stylu życia, zabiegów hartujących ciało, czystego powietrza i wody czy zdrowego, łagodnego klimatu.
19
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Pious Life of Empress Helena, Constantine the Great’s Mother, in the Light of Socrates of Constantinople and Sozomen

100%
Bralewski S.
Studia Ceranea
|
2017
|
vol. 7
27-39
EN
In his Ecclesiastical history, Socrates depicts Helena as a pious, strong and independent woman, the mother of the emperor, realizing her own ideas and acting as a tool in the hands of God – the ultimate inspiration of her actions. The emperor, her son, only supported her in her undertakings. According to Socrates, Helena travelled to Jerusalem to answer God’s call; there, she organized the search for the Sepulchre and the Holy Cross and found them. She was supported by Macarius, the bishop of Jerusalem, who, after God’s intervention, distinguished the True Cross from the crosses of the two villains. The empress divided the relics and sent some of them to her son to Constantinople; moreover, in the Holy Land, she built three basilicas connected with the life of Christ. Finally, Socrates mentions her piety and discusses the place of her burial. Conversely, in Sozomen’s account of the recovery of Christ’s Sepulchre and the relics, the main role is played by emperor Constantine, who wished to repay God for his blessings; he ordered the search and the construction of the basilica on Mount Golgotha. His mother only supported him in his plans, led by her devoutness, to which Sozomen pays more attention than his predecessor – he emphasizes Helena’s sensitivity to human poverty and suffering. The emperor was also involved in her generous deeds and gave her access to the imperial treasury. Thus, as indicated by Sozomen, Helena’s piety brought prosperity both to her family and to the whole Roman Empire.
20
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Was Constantine the Great Aware of the Constantinian Shift?

100%
Bralewski S.
Studia Ceranea
|
2019
|
vol. 9
157-169
EN
In this article, I try to answer the following question: was Constantine himself aware of the revolution that he was carrying out? Did he realise that his actions were going to change the course of the history of the Empire? An analysis of sources seems to indicate that emperor Constantine the Great saw in his reign a fundamental change not only in the history of the Imperium Romanum, but also of the entire world. He believed that this change had an eschatological dimension. Constantine’s reign, at least in its propagandist framing, was to be the turning point in the fight against evil. It appears that the ruler was fully aware that by putting an end to the persecutions of Christians he was restoring universal peace. Thus, the shift with which he is associated amounted, on the one hand, to restoring the pax Christiana and the beginning of the Kingdom of God on earth, and on the other to eliminating evil from the world. Therefore, Constantine, in believing that he had become God’s tool for fighting evil, must have also been convinced that he played an incredibly important role in God’s plan of salvation; especially since the Kingdom of God, apparently realised on earth through Constantine’s military victories, was to only finally prevail when evil and death had been defeated forever.
first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.