Millennium DIPr最新文献

{"title":"Spengler redivivus? Garth Fowden’s First Millennium","authors":"S. Rebenich","doi":"10.1515/mill-2016-0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2016-0007","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":"77 6 1","pages":"53 - 56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72667760","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Late Antiquity, Islam, and the First Millennium: A Eurasian perspective","authors":"Garth Fowden","doi":"10.1515/MILL-2016-0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/MILL-2016-0002","url":null,"abstract":"Since 1970, the period covered by Millennium: Jahrbuch zu Kultur und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends n.Chr. has seen two major historiographical shifts that are distinctive to it, and it alone, namely the rise of ‘late Antiquity’ and the flowering of early Islamic studies. There is no (well-founded) disagreement about roughly when and where Islam started; but late Antiquity’s boundaries remain fluid. The Roman Empire’s painful third-century transition from Principate to Dominate amidst war against Sasanids and Germans, and the sixth century’s Justinianic consolidation of Christian East Rome, have often been attached to the core fourth and fifth centuries. A terminus c.600 is widely accepted, coinciding with Gregory the Great’s reforming papacy, and the start of the last and most dangerous war between East Rome and the Sasanids, leading to the former’s crushing defeat and the latter’s annihilation by Muslim armies emerging unforeseen from Arabia after 629. Such a cataclysm does at first sight suggest the end of an epoch, considering also the narrowing of cultural horizon it imposed on the surviving East Roman rump, and the emergence of a new empire, the caliphate. Yet, given the symbolism ancient historians attach to the Persian Wars from Marathon to Plataea (490–79 BCE), and to Rome’s wars with its eastern neighbour starting at Carrhae (53 BCE), it is perverse to exclude the last, most dramatic of these encounters, running from 603 to 628, from the canonical narrative. Is it that adding those extra three decades would bring one so close to the Arab invasions that their Qurʾanic inspiration would become impossible to ignore, and therefore unavoidable to study? And the caliphate these wars spawned: did it not, in many respects, perpetuate the earlier empires under new management, just as its religion, Islam, responded to the earlier scriptural monotheisms, Judaism and Christianity? Nobody doubts the convenience and indeed necessity of historical periodizations. Nor the validity and usefulness of the well-established categories: (late) Antiquity, early Middle Ages, Byzantium/East Rome, Sasanid Iran, early Islam. It appears, though, that the boundary at c.600 is sufficiently porous, and the world of early Islam insufficiently explicable in terms of parthenogenesis within an ‘Empty Ḥijāz’,1 that there is a case to be made, alongside existing conventions, for exploiting","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":"60 1","pages":"28 - 5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84517099","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Bittersüße Pfeile. Protreptische Rhetorik und platonische Philosophie in Lukians Nigrinus (2. Teil)","authors":"T. Lechner","doi":"10.1515/mill-2016-0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2016-0009","url":null,"abstract":"After 150 years of intensive investigation about Lucian’s Nigrinus, the research is still largely inconclusive. All essential issues concerning the interpretation of this enigmatic text remain unresolved. What is the meaning of the introductory letter to the Platonic philosopher Nigrinos? What is the intention of the following dialogue that is personally dedicated to Nigrinos? What role does Lucian play in this Platonic conversion drama? Why does Nigrinos’ protreptic discourse not contain any specific Platonic topics? How can the double conversion of the two dialogue partners be evaluated?What is the function of the framing dialogue with its intertextual allusions? In this analysis, Lucian’s text will be interpreted as a commentary to Plato’s arguments about rhetoric in the Phaedrus. As a consequence, the relation between rhetoric and philosophy emerges as the central theme ofNigrinus. In this sense, Lucian focuses on the Platonic definition of rhetoric as psychagogia and analyzes the dialectical and psychological art of protreptic discourse. The various allusions to Plato’s Symposion referring mainly to the speech of Alcibiades illustrate in this context the power of psychagogic protrepsis. Lucian’s parable of the bowman which treats the protreptic art of Nigrinos can be described as the metaphorical exegesis of the rhetorical recommendations of Socrates in the Phaedrus:Bowmen such as Nigrinos aim at potentially receptive souls with bitter-sweet arrows in order to convert them to philosophy. The specific formulations of the parable can be attributed exactly to the corresponding parts of the dialogue in the Phaedrus. But how can the discrepancy between Nigrinos’ philosophically meaningless speech and the enthusiastic feedback in the bowman’s parable be interpreted? In order to properly evaluate Nigrinos’ protreptic discourse, it is essential to analyze the text specifically as logos protreptikos. Thereby, Nigrinos’ speech does not gain in quality but in logic because it fits with the typical criteria of the therapeutical protrepsis and actually creates the prerequisites for the described conversions. Considering the intertextual allusions in the framing dialogue, Lucian’s Nigrinus can be characterized as a tragicomical dialogue: it cautions against the intriguing protreptic discourses of philosophers who are trained theoretically and practically in psychagogical rhetoric.","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":"1 1","pages":"140 - 67"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75768244","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Late Antique Dalmatia and Pannonia in Cassiodorus’ Variae","authors":"Hrvoje Gračanin","doi":"10.1515/mill-2016-0011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2016-0011","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract As the title suggests, the present paper offers an analysis of selected letters from Cassiodorus’ Variae, which are important for late antique history of Dalmatia and Pannonia. The study is intended to be twofold: on the one part, it examines the information that can be derived from the letters about both provinces’ political, administrative, economic, social and ethnic picture in the time of Ostrogothic rule over the Eastern Adriatic and Middle Danube regions; on the other part, it explores literary and political contexts and underlying ideologies that are present in the selected letters.","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":"25 1","pages":"211 - 274"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74598613","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Les fausses donations de Constantin dans le Liber pontificalis","authors":"Federico Montinaro","doi":"10.1515/mill-2015-0109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2015-0109","url":null,"abstract":"The Liber Pontificalis attributes to Constantine the Great the foundation and endowment of several Christian basilicas, which were placed in the possession of the Roman Church under the pontificate of Sylvester (314–335). This wealth consists largely of landed property in Italy, Africa, and Egypt and is presented by the compiler in the form of lists, in which an income expressed in Byzantine gold currency is associated to each item. This data, it is argued here, is inconsistent with what is otherwise known of the evolution of documentary practice on the one hand, of social and economic history on the other in Early Byzantine times. Moreover, the lists contain at least one overlooked and inescapable anachronism, in that their toponymy reflects the passage of the Vandals in Northern Africa in the fifth and sixth centuries. The analysis of two abridgments of the Liber, which go back to an earlier state of the text than the manuscripts, reveals the tendency by the successive compilers toward increasing the quantity and value of Constantine’s gifts in the early stages of the transmission. On these grounds, the bulk of the alleged donations should be regarded as a picture of the property of the Roman Church in the sixth or seventh centuries, only a part of which may have been acquired through imperial generosity. Le célèbre recueil médiéval des biographies des papes, le Liber Pontificalis (LP), attribue à l’empereur Constantin I la fondation du baptistère du Latran et de dix basiliques dans la ville de Rome, extra-muros et dans d’autres villes du Latium et de la Campanie. Le compilateur en donne la liste dans la Vie du pape Silvestre (ch. XXXIV), indiquant aussi, pour chaque fondation, la dotation pourvue par la munificence im Ce texte est une version remaniée de l’une des études dans ma thèse de Doctorat de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études – Sorbonne, soutenue en avril , mais sa rédaction originale remonte à . Ce n’est qu’en juillet  que Béatrice Caseau m’a bien voulu faire part de son travail, désormais publié, où elle suggère que certains éléments du mobilier liturgique dans les listes que j’étudie seraient un ajout du début du VI siècle: B. Caseau, « Constantin et l’encens. Constantin a-t-il procédé à une révolution liturgique ? », dans Costantino prima e dopo Costantino, éd. G. Bonamante, N. Leski et R. Lizzi Testa (Munera ), Bari , pp. –. Ce n’est enfin que pendant la révision de cet article pour la publication que Dominic Moreau a bien voulu me faire part de ces travaux touchant au passage à la question de possibles falsifications constantiniennes dans le Liber et tout particulièrement de son article: « Et postmodum rediens cum gloria baptizavit Constantinum augustum. Examen critique de la réception et de l’utilisation de la figure de Constantin par l’Église romaine durant l’Antiquité », ibid., pp. –. Je n’ai pas pu tenir compte non plus de la nouvelle traduction française de Michel Aubrun, Turnhout , sur laq","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":"48 1","pages":"203 - 230"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75758193","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Bittersüße Pfeile. Protreptische Rhetorik und platonische Philosophie in Lukians Nigrinus","authors":"T. Lechner","doi":"10.1515/mill-2015-0102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2015-0102","url":null,"abstract":"After 150 years of intensive investigation about Lucian’s Nigrinus, the research is still largely inconclusive. All essential issues concerning the interpretation of this enigmatic text remain to be unresolved: What is the meaning of the introductory letter to the platonic philosopher Nigrinos? What is the intention of the following dialogue that is personally dedicated to Nigrinos? What role does Lucian play in this platonic conversion drama? Why does Nigrinos’ protreptic discourse not contain any specific platonic topics? How can the double conversion of the two dialogue partners be evaluated? What is the function of the framing dialogue with its intertextual allusions? In this analysis, Lucian’s text will be interpreted as a commentary to Plato’s arguments about rhetoric in the Phaedrus. As a consequence, the relation between rhetoric and philosophy emerges as the central theme of Nigrinus. In this sense, Lucian focuses on the platonic definition of rhetoric as psychagogia and analyzes the dialectical and psychological art of protreptic discourse. The various allusions to Plato’s Symposion referring mainly to the speech of Alcibiades illustrate in this context the power of psychagogic protrepsis. Lucian’s parabel of the bowman, which treats the protreptic art of Nigrinos, can be described as the metaphorical exegesis of the rhetoric recommendations of Socrates in the Phaedrus: Bowmen such as Nigrinos aim at potentially receptive souls with bitter-sweet arrows in order to convert them to philosophy. The specific formulations of the parable can be attributed exactly to the corresponding parts of the dialogue in the Phaedrus. But how can the discrepancy between Nigrinos’ philosophically meaningless speech and the enthusiastic feedback in the bowman’s parable be interpreted? In order to properly evaluate Nigrinos’ protreptic discourse, it is essential to analyze the text specifically as logos protreptikos. Thereby, Nigrinos’ speech does not gain in quality but in logic because it fits with the typical criteria of the therapeutical protrepsis and actually creates the prerequisites for the described conversions. Considering the intertextual allusions in the framing dialogue, Lucian’s Nigrinus can be characterized as a tragicomical dialogue: it cautions against the intriguing protreptic discourses of philosophers who are trained theoretically and practically in psychagogical rhetoric. 1. Einleitung mit forschungsgeschichtlichem Überblick Λουκιανὸς Νιγρίνῳ εὖ πράττειν. Mit dieser platonischen salutatio beginnt Lukians Nigrinus, ein rätselhafter und irritierender Text, der aus einem kurzen Widmungsbrief an Nigrinos und einem im Brief annoncierten βιβλίον besteht.1 Das dem platonischen Philosophen dedizierte βιβλίον präsentiert sich formal als ein Dialog, in dem geschildert wird, wie zwei Freunde, die beide namentlich ungenannt bleiben,2 zur Philosophie konvertieren: Der eine wird bei seinem Rombesuch von Nigrinos persönlich überzeugt, der andere vom zu","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":"81 5 1","pages":"1 - 40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80758292","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Theudila. Königssohn, Usurpator und Mönch","authors":"Gerd Kampers","doi":"10.1515/mill-2015-0108","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2015-0108","url":null,"abstract":"Theudila, son of the Visigothic king Sisebut, is known from the letter his father sent him when he entered a monastery. After a presentation of the letter and its translation, a close reading and interpretation of its contents leads to the result that – contrary to the view held so far – Theudila did not become a monk voluntarily. He was, moreover, sentenced by his father to lead a monastic life after the failure of his rebellion against him. Most probably a signetring bearing the inscription Teudila D[ominus] belonged to the Visigothic prince. Obviously he escaped from his monastery after his father’s death and was among the pretenders who tried to win the throne of the Kingdom of Toledo when king Sisenand had died in 636. This becomes evident from canon 17 of the 6th council of Toledo (638) in which a detonsus, i.e. a cleric or monk, is mentioned who is expressly excluded from becoming king and has to be identified with Theudila. I. Der Bief König Sisebuts an Theudila: Überlieferung, Text und Übersetzung Unter den als Anhang des 3. Epistolae-Bandes der MGH edierten EpistolaeWisigoticae1 findet sich als Nr. 8 ein Schreiben des Wisigotenkönigs Sisebut (612–621)2 an seinen Sohn Theudila3.Während der Adressat am Ende des Schreibens namentlich genannt wird, erscheint der Name des Verfassers/Absenders lediglich im „Lemma“ einer der vier Hss., in denen der Brief als Kopie überliefert ist.4 Es handelt sich um den von Wilhelm Gundlach als M2 bezeichneten Codex bibliothecae regiae Madridensis Dd. 104 (18. Jh.), in dem einem auf fol. 115 enthaltenen Fragment des Briefes (das ganze Schreiben findet sich dort bereits vorher auf fol. 895) folgendes Lemma vorausgeht:  Hg. von Wilhelm Gundlach, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Epistolae : Epistolae Merovingici et Karoli aevi I, Berlin  (Nachdruck München ).  Vgl. Alexander P. Bronisch, Art. Sisebut, in: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, Bd.  (), S. −.  Hg. von Gundlach (wie Anm. ), S. −.  Dem Umstand, daß der Codex Escurialensis &. I.  (. Jh.), die älteste Hs., das Schreiben nicht enthält, kommt keine Bedeutung zu, da die vier den Brief tradierenden Hss. des .–. Jh. über einen (verschollenen) Codex vetustissimus Ovetensis (Ende ./Anfang . Jh.) auf einen (nicht erhaltenen) gemeinsamenArchetyp (wohl aus derMitte des . Jh.) zurückzuführen sind.Vgl.WilhelmGundlach, Der Anhang des III. Epistolae-Bandes der Monumenta Germaniae historica: Epistolae ad res Wisigotorum pertinentes, in: Neues Archiv  (), S. −.  Vgl. dazu Gundlach (wie Anm. ), S.  f. sisebuti regis directa ad theudilanem6, dum ex laico habitu ad monasterium convertisset.7 Wenn sich auch in keiner der vier Hss., die den Brief überliefern, die übliche, den Absender/Verfasser und Empfänger enthaltende Eingangsformel findet, ist dennoch an der Verfasserschaft Sisebuts nicht zu zweifeln, da das Schreiben an Theudila zusammen mit sieben weiteren Briefen überliefert ist, die Sisebut als Empfänge","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":"38 1","pages":"179 - 202"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78807109","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The “correspondence” of Leo III and ‘Umar II: traces of an early Christian Arabic apologetic work","authors":"Cecilia Palombo","doi":"10.1515/mill-2015-0110","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2015-0110","url":null,"abstract":"This article compares and revisits the corpus of texts pertaining to the socalled “correspondence” between the Byzantine emperor Leo III and the caliph ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Azīz. By adducing textual, philological and palaeographic arguments, I suggest that all the extant versions of the “correspondence” ultimately derive from an original Arabic Christian apologetic work, composed probably in mideighth century, in the monastic circles of Syria-Palestine. While acknowledging the importance of previous research on the subject, this article hopes to provide an original explanation that might finally account for both the similarities and the differences between the various extant versions of the “correspondence”. Besides clarifying the origin and transmission history of this text, the results of this study have broader implications for the history of Muslim-Christian relations in the early Islamic period, for the creation of a Christian Arabic culture, and for the circulation of literary texts between the Dār al-Islām and Byzantium in the early Middle Ages. The so-called “correspondence” of Leo III (r. 717–41) and ‘Umar II (r. 717–720 CE/99– 101 H)1 is arguably one of the most interesting texts of the Christian-Muslim debate from the early Islamic period. Because of its singular transmission history, it is also a text that has lent itself to many misinterpretations. The dating of the “correspondence”, its authorship, its audience and function, as well as its original language of composition, are all problematic issues. Several hypotheses have been formulated over the years, but none of them seems conclusive or thoroughly persuasive. This is partly a result of the reference to the emperor Leo, which has long sidetracked researchers, and partly it derives from the fact that very different versions of the “correspondence” exist, written in different languages and in different historical contexts. This linguistic barrier has often led to too specialized, narrow analyses that have prioritized one version over the others. This paper will aim at combining the information provided by the various versions of this source, in order to suggest a new explanation of their origin, which may account for both their similarities and their variations. The most recent contributions to the study of the “correspondence” will be acknowledged, and the main hypotheses advanced by scholars recapitulated. At the same time, it is the hope of this paper to contribute to the discussion by radically shifting perspective and intro The hijrī date (H) will be given along with the year of the Common Era (CE) only with reference to Muslim leaders, or to historical figures who lived under the caliphate. ducing a new interpretation, in a way that might enhance our understanding of this complex source. In general, scholarship has tended to emphasise either the Byzantine or, more recently, the Islamic nature and origin of the “correspondence”; it will be argued that, in both cases, this has l","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":"81 1","pages":"231 - 264"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88062702","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Die Tolerierung der Christen in der Zeit von Gallienus bis zur sogenannten Constantinischen Wende (260–313)","authors":"Frank M. Ausbüttel","doi":"10.1515/mill-2015-0103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2015-0103","url":null,"abstract":"It is still a generally accepted view that Constantine tolerated the Christian church in 313 in the so-called edict of Milan. In the following article at least 18 constitutiones issued by eight Roman emperors for the toleration of the Christians are analysed. 260 Gallienus ended the persecution of Valerian, when he ordered the property of the Christians to be restored. After Christianity had extended successfully, Diocletian initiated the great persecution in 303, which failed in most parts of the empire. Constantine and Maxentius, who were declared emperor in 306, adopted therefore a policy of toleration in Britannia, Gallia, Italia and Africa. In 311 Galerius, Constantine, Licinius and Maximinus Daia, who didn′t accept Maxentius as emperor, issued an edict ending the persecution and declaring toleration for all Christians to gain their support. On 28 October 312 Constantine defeated Maxentius in the battle of the Milvian bridge. After this battle Licinius attacked Maximinus Daia on the Balkan regions, whose attitude towards the Christians was changing. With Constantine he devised a mandatum (not an edict!) to governors in the east, which effectively restored freedom to Christians. So the Christian church profited from the rivalry of the tetrarchs and would have succeeded without the help of Constantine, the first Christian emperor. In einem 1891 publizierten Aufsatz tat der Greifswalder Althistoriker O. Seeck die Tatsache, dass Constantin im Edikt von Mailand „den Christen im römischen Reiche gesetzliche Toleranz“ gewährte, als bloße Schulbuchweisheit ab. Kurz und bündig erklärte er, dass die als Edikt bezeichnete Urkunde eigentlich kein Edikt sei, nicht in Mailand und nicht von Constantin erlassen worden sei und lediglich eine regionale Bedeutung besessen habe, da die Christen bereits im gesamten Reich geduldet wurden.1 Seecks These stieß sofort auf heftigenWiderstand. Bereits 1892warf ihm F.Görres vor, „von der Aera der Toleranzedicte, überhaupt von Constantin′s genialer Religionspolitik keine Ahnung“ zu haben.2 Die Reaktion fiel deshalb so heftig aus, weil Seeck mit seiner These einen Mythos in Frage stellte, der entscheidend für das  Seeck, Otto, Das sogenannte Edikt von Mailand, ZKG ,, –.  Görres, Franz, Eine Bestreitung des Edicts von Mailand durch O. Seeck, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie ,, ; zu den Reaktionen auf Seecks These s. auch Crivellucci, Amedeo, L’editto di Milano, StudStor ,,  ff. und ders., Intorno all′editto di Milano (Risposta al Prof. O. Seeck), StudStor ,,  ff. und Sesan, Valerian, Die Religionspolitik der christlich-römischen Kaiser von Konstantin d.Gr. bis Theodosius d.Gr. (–), Czernwitz  (ND Leipzig ),  f. Selbstverständnis der katholischen Kirche war und ist; denn bislang ging man davon aus, dass Constantin als Dank für seinen Sieg, den er allein mit Gottes Hilfe am 28. Oktober 312 über seinen Widersacher Maxentius an der Milvischen Brücke vor den To","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":"14 3 1","pages":"41 - 74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80581317","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Last Pagans, Source Criticism and Historiography of the Late Antiquity","authors":"Bruno Bleckmann","doi":"10.1515/mill-2015-0105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2015-0105","url":null,"abstract":"In his attempt to dismantle the notion of a pagan-senatorial reaction in Late Antiquity, Alan Cameron, in his major work “The Last Pagans of Rome”, also covers historiographical matters in great detail. He argues that the supposition of a biased Latin historiography at the end of the fourth century, which viewed the recent imperial past from an anti-Christian perspective and was supported by the senatorial class – as put forth by Paschoud on the grounds of evidence found in Zosimus – is based on misinterpretations and mistakes. Accordingly, the same holds true regarding the tradition of secular historiography preserved in Zonaras, known as the “Leoquelle”. But as far as Zonaras is concerned, Cameron’s polemic proves to fall short on account of evidence based on source criticism. Alan Cameron’s long anticipated book on the Last Pagans, which appeared in 2011, is the culmination of the author’s efforts over several decades to describe the late antique pagan milieu of the city of Rome.2 Cameron rejects the view that there was a “pagan reaction” against Christianity at the end of the fourth century, driven by educated senators resident in Rome, reflected in literary and artistic creations, and culminating in Nicomachus Flavianus’ support of Eugenius. Cameron derides this view of things as “myth”, which still remains everywhere to be found. The evidence cited by Cameron may not always be as devastating as he implies,3 and whether the thesis of a pagan reaction as he presents it is still widely believed and not long since abandoned in favor of other models that do not reduce everything to the dichotomy of Pagan and Christian need not concern us here; likewise, one might question whether the Battle on the Frigidus “on the standard modern view” really was “a watershed of European history”.4 All that aside: through Cameron’s argumentative ceterum censeo, over hundreds of pages, the reader gets to know numerous facets of late Roman intellectual life, and Cameron’s expertise in this field is undisputed. A detailed discussion of this provocative, feisty book would balloon into a monograph; this is true especially of Cameron’s handling of the Carmen contra paganos, Macrobius’ Saturnalia, the Historia Augusta, the interpretation of the contorniates, and the ivory diptychs. In both chapters on Nicomachus Flavianus, Cameron does my 1992 dissertation the honor of detailed criticism. In consequence of his belief  Translation by J. Dillon.  Alan Cameron, The Last Pagans of Rome, Oxford .  Thus, for example, the very brief synthesis by S. Mitchell, A History of the Later Roman Empire. AD –, Oxford , –, attacked by Cameron (cf. fn. ) , n. .  Cameron (cf. fn. ) . in the non-existence of Pagan-Roman literature and Pagan-Roman ideology, Cameron’s goal is to refute the hypothesis that there are traces of the existence of a detailed, late antique historical source that was used both by Ammianus and, by whatever circuitous route it reached him,","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":"26 1","pages":"103 - 116"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77463991","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}