Anastasius was for Marcellinus not only a historical figure, but a ruler whose reign he was first able to observe from the perspective of his native Illyricum, and later as an inhabitant of Constantinople. The dominant influence on Marcellinus’ attitude towards Anastasius, as has already been pointed out many times, had been the Emperor’s religious policy, to which the chronicler, as a supporter of the orthodoxy, was opposed. Undoubtedly it was also not indifferent to the manner of Anastasius’ portrayal that at the time of the creation of the first Chronicle Marcellinus was either already associated with Justinian, or wanted to gain recognition in the eyes of Justin I, who after taking over the power after Anastasius’ death had taken action to reverse the negative outcomes of his predecessor’s religious policy.
The aim of this article is to draw attention to the need to intensify historical research on Herulian settlements in Byzantium under Emperors Anastasius and Justinian based on the analysis of written sources. The starting point for studying the history of the Heruli in Late Antiquity should be a historical analysis of the excursus devoted to them by Procopius of Caesarea in the book VI Wars. As a result of a historical analysis based on literal interpretation and critical examination, taking into account legal circumstances and the historical context, it can greatly contribute to our knowledge of Herulian history. To sum up the results of the conducted research, it is possible to give quite a precise description of the relations between the empire and the Heruli based on an analysis of the accounts of Procopius of Caesarea and Marcellinus Comes. In 512, Emperor Anastasius settled the tribe on the empire’s lands. Taking advantage of their diffi cult situation, he probably forced them into full subordination. It seems that the Heruli, deprived of their tribal organisation and striving to keep their independence, rebelled and attacked the Romans at the fi rst opportunity, i.e. ca. 514. The imperial army managed to defeat them as early as 515 or 516, and Anastasius refused to give them the status of allies, i.e. improve their position. In this situation it seems most likely that the empire completely broke its ties with the Heruli and the tribe left the empire’s lands. At this stage of the analysis it is diffi cult to determine to what extent Procopius was aware of the nuances of Anastasius’ policy, as his account of the Herulian migration in search of new lands is very brief and schematic. All the details he provides, apart from the information about the Heruli crossing the Danube River on their own initiative, are in complete agreement with the reconstruction of events based on Marcellinus Comes’ mention. Only after completing the analysis of Procopius’ whole account on the Heruli will it be possible to formulate conclusions about its reliability and the sources he used.
Taking over the throne in 518 by the Emperor Justin I impacted on the emperor's court to change politics in order to support of the Chalcedonian Synod. The most important thing was that, the Emperor as well as his supporting courtiers, took into consideration the main role of the Apostolic See in protecting truth religion. Courtly guardians of Chalcedon such as the Empress Eufemia, Justinian's relative a commander of the Court Guard Vitalian, maids of honour: Anastasia, Palmacja Julianan Anicia, Celer, Pompeius, German were successful in making an ecumenical effort to restore the union in the Catholic Church.
De scientia politica was written in the form of a Platonist dialogue and constituted a political and philosophical theory of a state and its ruling king or emperor. The writing was created in the 6th century A.D., during the reign of Justinian I. The information about its existence had been known from a short note in Photios Library, long before its parts were found and published in 1827. The author – excellently educated and continuing the Platonist and Neo-Platonist tradition – preferred to remain anonymous, despite some attempts of identification. The work is highly intellectual, addressed to educated readers, capable of understanding sophisticated literary references and allusions. The author’s effort to give it a scholarly character is clearly visible. Book IV was devoted to military affairs, whereas Book V – to imperial power, where the author discussed the problem of its origin, limitations, principles of choosing a ruler and ruler’s obligations. While expressing the principles which a 6th century ruler (i.e. already a Christian ruler) should obey, the author makes references to the Greek and Roman writers – Homer, Plato and Neo-Platonists, Cicero, Seneca, Titus Livius and others. The Persian model was not alien to him either and it is not always clear if he took from the pagan or the Christian heritage. Frequent references to the predecessors’ thought do not mean that the author of De Scientia politica uncritically took over all of their views. He rather selected from the antique heritage what he thought to be current and at the same time he tried to adjust his work to the reality of a 6th century world. The work, albeit preserved only in fragments is, according to P. N. Bell: „the only surviving example of a Neo-Platonic political theory outside the Arab world”.
The conquest of the Vandal state by the army of Emperor Justinian is sometimes regarded as the retaking of former Roman provinces and the liberation of the Roman population from foreign rule. However, the Roman commanders operating in those territories did not consider the loyalty of the local inhabitants as something obvious. In fact, they had undertaken several measures aimed at gaining favour with the future subjects of the Roman Empire. The goal of this article is to trace the actions undertaken by the Roman military and administrative authorities towards the civilian population in the recaptured territories as a consequence of the Roman campaign in Africa, as well as the popular response, especially in relation to its possible significance to the course of the military operations in question. The study concentrates not only on the campaign of 533 A.D., but also takes into account the subsequent 15 years of conflicts, during which Roman rule over the recaptured territories became more stable and consolidated.
DE
Die Eroberung des Vandalenstaates durch das Heer von Kaiser Justinian wird manchmal als Rückgewinnung der ehemaligen römischen Provinzen und als Befreiung der römischen Bevölkerung von der Fremdherrschaft gesehen. Die römischen Befehlshaber, die in diesem Gebiet operierten, nahmen die Loyalität der Einheimischen jedoch keineswegs als selbstverständlich hin, sondern unternahmen eine Reihe von Maßnahmen, um die Gunst der künftigen Untertanen des Reiches zu gewinnen. Ziel dieses Aufsatzes ist es, sowohl die Handlungen der römischen Armee und Verwaltung gegenüber der Zivilbevölkerung im afrikanischen Kriegsgebiet als auch deren Reaktion, insbesondere in Bezug auf die Durchführung von militärischen Operationen, nachzuzeichnen. In meinen Überlegungen konzentriere ich mich nicht nur auf den Feldzug von 533, sondern betrachte auch die folgenden 15 Kriegsjahre, in denen sich die römische Herrschaft über die zurückgewonnenen Gebiete stabilisierte.
PL
Podbój państwa Wandalów przez armię cesarza Justyniana postrzegany bywa jako odzyskanie dawnych rzymskich prowincji i wyzwolenie rzymskiej ludności spod obcego panowania. Tymczasem rzymscy dowódcy działający na tym terenie nie traktowali lojalności miejscowych jako rzeczy oczywistej, przeciwnie, podjęli wiele działań mających pozyskać przychylność przyszłych poddanych Cesarstwa. Artykuł ma na celu prześledzenie zarówno działań rzymskiej armii i administracji wobec ludności cywilnej na afrykańskim obszarze działań wojennych, jak i jej reakcji, w szczególności w wymiarze mającym znaczenie dla przebiegu wojskowych operacji. W swoich rozważaniach skupiam się nie tylko na kampanii 533 r., ale biorę też pod uwagę kolejnych 15 lat wojen, podczas których stabilizowała się władza rzymska nad odzyskanymi terenami.
Cesarz Justynian I w swojej bogatej działalności prawnej i teologicznej wiele uwagi poświęcił problemowi recta fides, potępiając - między innymi - monofizytyzm i uznając ortodoksyjną doktrynę IV Soboru w Chalcedonie (451 r.). Troparion Ὁ μονογενὴς [ ... ] był znany i powszechnie stosowany w liturgii Kościoła bizantyńskiego VI w., a jego autorstwo przypisywane jest Justynianowi. Tekst hymnu liturgicznego może być analizowany w kilku teologicznych płaszczyznach badawczych: trynitarnej, chrystologicznej i mariologicznej. Wszelkie dogmatyczne kwestie wynikające z hymnu Ὁ μονογενὴς [ ... ] znajdują swoją podstawę w prawodawstwie justyniańskim i działalności teologicznej cesarza. Dotyczy to promulgowanych w Codex repetitae praelectionis: listów cesarskich do papieża Jana II (z czerwca 533 r.) i do Epifaniusza, patriarchy Konstantynopola (z marca 533 r.); konstytucji kierowanej do mieszkańców Konstantynopola (także z marca 533 r.) oraz bliżej nieznanej konstytucji z około 527 r. Do cesarskich dzieł teologicznych zawierających analogiczne -jak w troparionie- problemy zaliczyć trzeba przede wszystkim: prawdopodobnie justyniański edykt przeciw Orygenesowi, Ὁμολογία πίστεως , dogmatyczne pisma przeciwko tzw. Τρία Κεφάλαια oraz list dogmatyczny kierowany do mnichów aleksandryjskich.
EN
Emperor Justinian I in his profuse legal and theological activity devoted a lot of time and space to the problem of recta fides in the way of condemning monophysitism and deeming the doctrine of the fourth ecumenical Council in Chalcedon (451 AD) as orthodox. Troparion Ὁ μονογενὴς […] had been known and widely used in the liturgy of the Byzantine Church since the 6th century and its authorship is tentatively attributed to Justinian. The text of the liturgical hymn can be analyzed on three research levels: trinitarian, christological and mariological. All dogmatic issues arising from troparion Ὁ μονογενὴς […] are founded in Justinian legislation and the theological activity of the emperor. It refers to the letters to pope John II and to patriarch of Constantinople Epiphanius, promulgated in Codex repetitae praelectionis, to the constitution addressed to the people of Constantinople from 15th March 533 and to a not fully known constitution from around AD 527. Theological works containing issues analogous to the troparion include: probably Justinian Dogmatic edict against Origen, Ὁμολογία πίστεως, dogmatic writings on the so-called Τρία Κεφάλαια and Dogmatic letter to Alexandrian monks.
RU
Император Юстиниан I в своей богатой богословской и юридической деятельности уделял большое внимание проблеме recta fides, осуждая, между прочим, монофизитство и признавая православное учение о четвертом Халкидонском Соборе (451). Тропарь Ὁ μονογενὴς [...] был хорошо известен и широко использовался в литургии византийской церкви шестого века, а его авторство приписывается Юстиниану. Текст литургического гимна может быть проанализирован в нескольких богословских аспектах исследования: учениях о святой Троице, христологических и мариологических. Всякие догматические вопросы, вытекающие из гимна Ὁ μονογενὴς [...], находятся в основании Юстинианского законодательства и в богословской деятельности императора. Это касается обнародованных в Codex repetitae praelectionis императорских писем к Папе Римскому Иоанну II (июнь 533 г) и к Епифанию, Константинопольскому патриарху (март 533 года); Конституции для граждан Константинополя (также в марте 533 года), а также почти неизвестной Конституции около 527 г. Императорские богословские труды, содержащие аналогичные, как в Тропаре, проблемы включают в первую очередь: вероятно юстинианский указ против Оригена, Ὁμολογία πίστεως, догматические письма против так называемых Τρία Κεφάλαια и догматическое письмо к Александрийским монахам.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.