Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

Konstantynopol i jego mieszkańcy widziani oczyma Liudpranda z Kremony

100%

Wolińska T.

Vox Patrum

|

2008

|

tom 52

|

nr 2

1231-1242

EN

brak w PDFie!

2

Bessas - kariera Ostrogota w Bizancjum

100%

Wolińska T.

Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Historica

|

2005

|

nr 80

81-93

EN

Among the commanders of Justinian I of barbarian origin, Bessas was the one who certainly deserves special attention. He was born in Thrace, ca. 480 AD. His ethnicity is controversial because of contradictions in sources (Procopius, Jordanes). He was most likely of Gothic origin, which a Russian scholar E. C. Skshinskaya tried to prove in a convincing way. Bessas descended from the Ostrogoths who did not leave for Italy along with Theodoric Amal in 488. The family of Bessas was assimilated, still they did not forget their mother tongue. Bessas’ military career started early. During the reign of Anastasius (503 AD) he had fought in the Roman army against Persians. Then, under Justinian he continued his service in the East in Arzacene and Martyropolis. It was then that he showed his military talent, but it was also then that he was accused for the first time of private grabbing. In 535-540 he accompanied Belisarius in Sicily where he fought with his kinsmen. He took part in the siege of Naples (he was to negotiate the conditions of surrender in his native language), Nami campaign and commanded the defense of Rome. On that last post he showed both much personal courage and little farsightedness. It was then that the beginning of the conflict between him and Belisarius could be observed, and this was not even soothed by the fact of saving the life of the latter by Bessas. Later we shall find Bessas on the side of Belisarius’ rival, Narzes. When Belisarius was called away from Italy, Bessas remained there but without any significant military success. With Belisarius’ return to Italy (spring 545), Bessas took over the command of the garrison of Rome. Procopius accuses him of taking this opportunity to multiply his fortune, which he eventually lost when the Goths captured the city. According to the writer, Bessas was to be so engaged in collecting goods that he did not care for defense of city walls nor did he give support to the defenders. He would not pay enough attention to the rebelious spirits of his men and therefore did not prevent the downfall of Rome. After that he managed to escape and thus avoided captivity. It is not known what he was doing then, until 549 or early 550, when he was appointed magister militum of Armenia. He waged a war against the Abasgi, who were seeking agreement with the Persians and he defended Lasica from the latter. He was famous for the capture of Petra in 551. Alas, again according to Procopius he soon himself wasted the fruits of his victory, as he cared for contributions from the occupied territories rather than for blocking of the passages from Georgia, which enabled a raid of Persian commander, Mermeroes. Following further adversities, Bessas was deprived of command and property and sent to Abkhasia. Although we often read of the wealth he collected, nothing particular can be said about it. Bessas’ career was typical of his times. He chose a military career, which is not strange, because a civilian one would require good education he most probably lacked. Just like many other barbarian chiefs he saw his chance in the service for the Empire and decided to cut off his tribal ties. Although he did not forget his native language, he never hesitated to fight against his kinsmen and never tried to go on their side. Bessas’ estimation is unequivocal. He was certainly a brave soldier and successful commander. On the other hand many sources inform of him as a person who cared mainly for his personal profit even at the cost of his duties. This opinion, however exaggerated, must contain some truth. Although written by a historian who did not have the reasons to like a soldier opposing his favorite Belisarius, yet his opinion is confirmed to some extent by Agatias and Zacharias the Retor.

3

S. Turlej, Justyniana Prima. Niedoceniony aspekt polityki kościelnej Justyniana, Kraków 2011, ss. 265.

100%

Wolińska T.

Balcanica Posnaniensia Acta et studia

|

2012

|

tom 19

309-316

4

Yuri Stoyanov, "Defenders and Enemies of the True Cross: The Sasanian Conquest of Jerusalem in 614 and Byzantine Ideology of Anti-Persian Warfare", Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien 2011, pp. 103

100%

Wolińska T.

Studia Ceranea

|

2012

|

tom 2

258-260

5

Jacek Bonarek, "Bizancjum w dobie bitwy pod Mantzikert. Znaczenie zagrożenia seldżuckiego w polityce bizantyńskiej w XI wieku" [Byzantium in the Times of the Battle of Mantzikert. Significance of the Seljuk Threat in the Byzantine Policy of 11th Century"]

100%

Wolińska T.

Studia Ceranea

|

2012

|

tom 2

256-258

6

Piotr Łukasz Grotowski, "Święci wojownicy w sztuce bizantyńskiej (843–1261). Studia nad ikonografią uzbrojenia i ubioru" ["Warrior Saints in Byzantine Art (843– 1261). Studies of the Iconography of Arms and Armour"], Wydawnictwo WAM, Kraków 2011, pp.492

100%

Wolińska T.

Studia Ceranea

|

2011

|

tom 1

232-234

7

Luigi Santagati, "Storia dei Bizantini di Sicilia", Edizioni Lussografica Caltanissetta, Caltanisetta 2012, pp. 421

100%

Wolińska T.

Studia Ceranea

|

2013

|

tom 3

238-245

8

Jedenastowieczne echo sporu o tytuł patriarchy ekumenicznego

100%

Wolińska T.

Vox Patrum

|

2006

|

tom 49

725-734

EN

Chronicler Rodulf Glaber has written about a Byzantine legation to Rome in ca. 1024. The envoys were to demand consent, on behalf of the patriarch and the emperor, to use the title ecumenical by the bishop of the Empire’s Capital city. Glaber’s account does not seem reliable. Still, despite some scholars’ doubts, it is believed that the legation really took place. Far-sighted plans of restoring influence in Italy and Sicily may have made Emperor Basil II take up negotiations with Rome. Yet, it was unlikely for the patriarch to seek the Pope’s consent to use the title that his predecessors had used for five hundred years. Even in the era of a fierce argument about that title, which took place during the pontificate of Gregory the Great (590-604), patriarchs did not find the Pope entitled in any way to decide about it. It is possible that the envoys brought a letter, signed by patriarch Eustacius as ecumenical patriarch, which forced Pope John XIX to express his opinion about it. According to Glauber’s account the demand of the Greeks would rouse indignation

PL

Chronicler Rodulf Glaber has written about a Byzantine legation to Rome in ca. 1024. The envoys were to demand consent, on behalf of the patriarch and the emperor, to use the title ecumenical by the bishop of the Empire’s Capital city. Glaber’s account does not seem reliable. Still, despite some scholars’ doubts, it is believed that the legation really took place. Far-sighted plans of restoring influence in Italy and Sicily may have made Emperor Basil II take up negotiations with Rome. Yet, it was unlikely for the patriarch to seek the Pope’s consent to use the title that his predecessors had used for five hundred years. Even in the era of a fierce argument about that title, which took place during the pontificate of Gregory the Great (590-604), patriarchs did not find the Pope entitled in any way to decide about it. It is possible that the envoys brought a letter, signed by patriarch Eustacius as ecumenical patriarch, which forced Pope John XIX to express his opinion about it. According to Glauber’s account the demand of the Greeks would rouse indignationin the West and conseąuently the legation left Romę without success.

9

Związki rodzinne w polityce personalnej Justyniana I

100%

Wolińska T.

Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Historica

|

2000

|

nr 67

23-44

EN

In the article the author analyses the influence of family connections on the personal policy of Byzantine Emperor Justinian I (527-565). The author is trying to answer the extent to which his policy was determined by family solidarity and whether it could be called nepotism or not. The first part of the article is devoted to the settlement of the circle of people connected with the Emperor and his wife, Empress Theodora. It was not a large group of people, especially the family of Theodora was very small and almost unknown. Her father died when she was a child, she did not have brothers. We know only about the vicissitudes of one of her sisters, Komito. Justinian’s family is known better, because when his uncle Justin became Emperor, Byzantine historians were interested in his origin and family connections. In spite of that, in case of some persons it is impossible to determine the relation between them and Emperor Justinian (Germanus is a good example). The second part of the article is devoted to Justinian’s personal policy in relation to his family relationships. Upon the analysis of the Imperial family members’ career, the author concludes that generally speaking Justinian’s policy was not deprived of some elements of nepotism, yet this nepotism had very limited character and did not undermine state affairs. Social promotion of the Emperor’s family took place during his uncle’s reign, so he himself was not forced to support its members in a very offensive way. They generally possessed big properties and were rich, their wealth not being directly connected with the post they held. The fact of being a member of the Imperial family could have facilitated their career, but did not guarantee it automatically. In the case of Theodora’s family the situation was slightly differrent, as its membres descended indeed from the lowest part of the social ladder, yet the lack of male family membres made the only profit they could take out of it was just a good marriage. However would Justinian support his relatives, he always considered their abilities first. That was one of the reasons why he never appointed his relatives to posts in the civil administration - their career was of military character. Almost all of Justinian’s collaborators were competent and skillful. The same can be said of the members of the Imperial family who played an important role in the army and court. The only exception we know was Areobindus, who showed indolence as a military commander in Africa. In comparison with the career of the persons not related to Justinian or Theodora, like Belisarius or Salomon of Dara, the members of the Imperial family did not distinguish themselves in any particular way. In spite of what has been said above, many people found entering the family (e.g. by marriage) very attractive. Those lucky to do so had already been high ranking people of the country, so the fact of becoming a member of the Imperial family could only make their position even stronger.

10

Sergius, the Paulician Leader, in the Account by Peter of Sicily

100%

Wolińska T.

Studia Ceranea

|

2019

|

tom 9

123-140

EN

Peter of Sicily, a Byzantine high official from the times of Basil I, intended to warn the Archbishop of Bulgaria against certain heretics, known as the Paulicians, as he learned during his mission to Tefrike about their plans of sending their missionaries there. His writings are regarded as the most competent source of information on the history and doctrine of the Paulicians. He also described some of their leaders, including Sergius himself. According to Peter, it was a woman with whom Sergius had had an affair who made him the devil’s tool. He accepted the name of Tychicos and passed himself off as a disciple of Paul the Apostle. For 34 years he was the leader of the Paulicians. Peter admits that Sergius was successful in winning followers and at the same time, besides making false statements, accuses him of selling Christians into slavery to barbarians and of collaboration with the Muslims. In the end, however, he was supposed to have an argument with another heresiarch, Baanes, which would lead to a break among the Paulicians. Sergius is colourfully described as an enemy of the Cross, a voice of impiety, a lover of darkness and a wolf in sheep’s clothing, who skilfully pretends to be a man of virtue but has deceived many. Although he himself was murdered in 834/835, his work was continued by disciples of his.

11

Gregory in Constantinople as a Responsaus of Pope Pelagius II

100%

Wolińska T.

Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Historica

|

1996

|

nr 56

113-136

PL

Niniejszy artykuł prezentuje działalność Grzegorza, późniejszego papieża, jako nuncjusza papieskiego w Konstantynopolu. Czas jego misji przypada na lata ok. 579-584/5. Grzegorz reprezentował na dworze cesarskim interesy papieża Pelagiusza II (579-590). Wybrany na tak wysokie stanowisko z racji swego doświadczenia w służbie publicznej i walorów duchowych Grzegorz dobrze spełniał powierzone sobie obowiązki. Utrzymywał szerokie kontakty nie tylko z cesarzami i członkami ich rodzin, ale także z urzędnikami, dostojnikami dworu cesarskiego i ludźmi Kościoła, szczególnie patriarchami Konstantynopola. Próbował bezskutecznie uzyskać od cesarza Tyberiusza, a potem jego następcy Maurycjusza pomoc wojskową dla Rzymu zagrożonego przez Longobardów. Przedmiotem zainteresowania nuncjusza papieskiego, zwanego z grecka apokryzjariuszem, były także sprawy dogmatyczne, czego dowodem jest m. in. dysputa, jaką przeprowadził przed obliczem cesarza z patriarchą Eutychesem na temat zmartwychwstawania ciał. Demonstrując niechęć do życia na dworze cesarskim i do „spraw światowych” otaczał się mnichami, których zabrał ze sobą z Italii i dla których wygłaszał komentarze do Pisma iw. Nie przeszkadzało mu to być bardzo wnikliwym obserwatorem stosunków panujących w stolicy cesarstwa analizującym zakres wpływów poszczególnych postaci sceny politycznej i zależności istniejące pomiędzy nimi. Szerokość kontaktów Grzegorza w Konstantynopolu oraz dokładna analiza jego dzieł pozwalają podać w wątpliwość deklarowaną przez niego nieznajomość greki. Być może nie znał tego języka tak dobrze, by się nim swobodnie posługiwać, ale rozumiał go z całą pewnością. Po powrocie do Rzymu i wyborze na biskupa tego miasta Grzegorz bardzo często wykorzystywał swą znajomość miasta i dworu cesarskiego. Wielokrotnie zwracał się o pomoc w różnych sprawach do poznanych w Konstantynopolu osób, dając przy tym dowód bardzo dobrej orientacji w mechanizmach sprawowania władzy i wzajemnych zależnościach między wpływowymi dostojnikami i urzędnikami dworskimi. Większość swych znajomych traktował dość instrumentalnie i utrzymywał z nimi kontakty jedynie wówczas, gdy byli mu potrzebni. O ile dla Zachodu i dla samego Grzegorza pobyt w Konstantynopolu miał bardzo duże znaczenie, to na Wschodzie nie zwrócono wcale uwagi na papieskiego nuncjusza. Nie wspomina o nim żadne współczesne źródło bizantyńskie.

12

Spór o tytuł patriarchy ekumenicznego pomiędzy papieżem Grzegorzem Wielkim a biskupami Konstantynopola w świetle walki o prymat w Kościele powszechnym

100%

Wolińska T.

Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Historica

|

1993

|

nr 48

95-126

EN

A quarrel about the title „ecumenical patriarch” was inseparably connected with struggle for primacy in Universal Church. This struggle was first started between Rome and Alexandria but in the middle of Vth century the most important rival of Rome became Constantinopie. The groving position of Constantinople’s bishop was caused by the fact that his city became in the begining of IVth century the capital of the empire. So, it was in the emperors’ interest to give to the bishop of their capital the same rights as those of the bishops of Old Rome. The groving importance and authority of Constantinople’s bishops resulted from new needs and natural evolution so, it was easily accepted in the Eastern part of the empire. It was confirmed both by the decissions of the two ecumenical councils (Constantinople - 381 and Chalcedon - 451) and by emperors’ legislation. Hence, the bishops of Constantinople became the most important in the East. Popes opposed the groving authority of their rivals in Constantinople. They started to question the rule which connected closely the rank of the bishopric with the political importence of the city in which it was situated. They created and explicated the theory of apostolic origin of only 3 bishoprics - Rome, Alexandria and Antioch which were in their opinion the only autentic Patriarchats. Popes started to act as St. Peter’s succesores and tried to get independence from secular authorities. In spite of the efforts undertaken by them the importance of bishops of Constantinople was still groving. Rome’s rights to interfere with Eastern patriarchates were repudiated by them. They rejected the aspirations of popes to control the Church. That was the source of the quarrel concerning the title „ecumenical patriarch” .

13

Wschodnie patriarchaty wobec sporu dotyczącego tytułu „patriarcha ekumeniczny”

100%

Wolińska T.

Vox Patrum

|

2012

|

tom 58

59-90

EN

The struggle for primacy in the Universal Church was first started between Rome and Alexandria, but in the middle of 5th Century it was Constantinople that became the most important rival of Rome. The increasing position of the Constantinopolitan bishop was caused by the fact that at the turn of the 4th century the city became capital of the Empire. So, it was the emperor’s interest to give to the bishop of their capital the same rights as those of the bishops of the Old Rome. The growing importance and authority of Constantinopolitan bishops reflected the needs and natural evolution, so it was easily accepted in the Eastern part of the Empire. It was confirmed by the decisions of the two ecumenical councils and by imperial legislation. Hence, the bishops of Constantinople became the most important ones in the East. They rejected papal aspirations to control the whole Church. Popes opposed the growing authority of their rivals in Constantinople. They started to act as St. Peter’s successors and tried to obtain independence from secular authorities. Despite their efforts, the importance of bishops of Constantinople was still increasing. The argument concerning the title of „ecumenical patriarch” was a part of that struggle. Its beginning dates back to the year 483 when pope Felix protested against addressing Accacius, the bishop of Constantinople „ecumenical”. The argument became even more fierce during the pontificates of Pelagius II and Gregory the Great. They both fought against the title used by the patriarchs of Constantinople – John IV the Faster and Cyriacus. Gregory translated the controversial title as „universalis” or „solus” and tried to mount an alliance to fight it. He appealed to Eutychios, the patriarch of Alexandria and to the patriarch of Antioch – Anastasios. The predecessor of the latter, patriarch also named Gregory, just like the pope, did not take part in the argument, but he was in a way cause the cause of it, as the title had been used in the documents from just his trial that were sent to Rome. For Gregory using the title in relation just to the patriarchs of Constantinople sounded diminishing for other bishops. According to the pope, using the title by the patriarchs of Constantinople implied that they would subject other patriarchs and consequently would demand power over the whole Church. Gregory counted that due to that, other patriarchs, particularly those of Antioch and of Alexandria would support him in the argument. He kept writing to both Eulogius and Anastasius. He relied on them the more that he knew both personally and with Eulogius he was even befriended. To his disappointment, both patriarchs kindly refused their support. The problems they had were more important than the question of someone’s title. They felt they might need support from the Byzantine emperor as well as from the patriarch of Constantinople in the struggle with heretics on their own territory and absolutely did not feel threatened by the growing position of the fellow-bishop. Besides, it seems they quite did not understand what the whole problem was about. Consequently, the lack of support from eastern patriarchs and the negative opinion of emperor Maurice resulted in Gregory’s defeat in the argument.

14

Pogańskie idee polityczne w chrześcijańskim świecie. Władza, jej granice i źródła legitymizacji w ocenie autora dialogu περι πολιτικησ επιστημεσ (De scientia politica)

100%

Wolińska T.

Vox Patrum

|

2016

|

tom 66

327-351

EN

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”.

15

Synowie Hagar. Wiedza bizantyńczyków o armii arabskiej w świetle traktatów wojskowych z IX i X wieku

100%

Wolińska T.

Vox Patrum

|

2015

|

tom 63

397-416

EN

Arab military expansion was a real challenge to the Byzantine Empire. The defeats sustained in wars with the Arabs, whom the Byzantines called sometimes Hagarenes to refer to Biblical Hagar, forced new method of war waging. That knowledge was taken predominantly directly from battlefield. The Arab menace increased during the reign of Leo VI the Wise (886-912). Albeit not a soldier himself, he took an attempt to reorganize the Byzantine army and navy. Although it did not bring an immediate effect, the Empire gradually began to initiative. The situation changed for better during the reign of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (911-959) and Romanos I Lekapenos (919-959). A peace with the Bulgarians allowed to collect substantial forces on the eastern border of the empire. The weakening of the Abbasids gave way to the Hamdanid dynasty from northern Iraq and Syria to grow to the most serious Byzantine adversary in mid- 10th century, particularly during the reign of Sayf al-Dawla (945-967), who recorded some remarkable victories over the Byzantine forces. In 955 Nikephoros II Phokas took over the post of domesticos of the East. Along with his brother Leo, Strategos of Cappadocia and John Tzimiskes, they were able to change the course of war, winning some battles in northern Syria. The struggle with the Muslims resulted in a number of military treatises, the most known of which were attributed to emperors Leo VI and Nikephoros II Phokas. Although it is not certain if they were written by them themselves, they were certainly created on their behalf. Among several treatises of Leo VI, the Tactica seems to be the most interesting. The work divided in 20 chapters was meant as a handbook for military commanders. It discussed the organization of infantry, cavalry and navy, and their use in war, as well as that of sieges, ambushes etc. Much attention was paid to Arab logistics. Remarkably little, if any attention was paid to religious grounds as a reason for expansion. Not too surprisingly, much of the work was dedicated to the methods of efficient struggle against Muslims; the author correctly identified both strong and week sides of the Byzantine army. Some points clearly suggest a desire to take over certain elements of organization and war art from the adversary. Also the treatise by Nikephoros Phokas represents equally good value as Tactica. In this work we find a number of details regarding both military and non-military customs of the Arabs, which is not surprising, as the author was a military commander, experienced in battles against the Muslims. For this reason we should respect even more the military knowledge of Leo’s Tactica, if we remember that the author was not a professional soldier. Interestingly enough, with the notable exception of Nikephoros Phokas, the authors of other treatises added little to the information contained in Leo’s work. The reason for that was explicitly laid out by an anonymous author of still another treatise, Βιβλίον τακτικόν, who wrote that the chiefs knew so much about the raids on the lands of the Hagarenes that there was no use to discuss them in detail.

16

Wizerunek pustyni i jej mieszkańców w świetle świadectw Świętych Ojców z Synaju

100%

Wolińska T.

Vox Patrum

|

2018

|

tom 70

559-600

EN

We owe important testimonies about local nomads to monks and pilgrims visiting Sinai. The information about them can be found in the works of Nilus of Sinai, Nilus of Ancyra, Ammonius, Jerome, Anastasius Sinaita or John Moschos. The image of the nomads, both Arabs and Blemmyds is painted in rather dark colours. The Christian authors pointed to the fact that they did not have permanent residences, nor cultivated land, but lived on what they hunted or robbed. They devoted much attention to the attacks of the nomads on monasteries, hermits and pilgrims. They also reported the fate of the latter in captivity. They were shocked by Saracen beliefs, the cult of al-Uzza, identified with Aphrodite and bloody victims, especially human, although the latter has often been questioned by researchers. It seems that such practices may have happened, although rarely. Those Saracens who had adopted Christianity were presented in a different manner. They were allies of monks and hermits, defending them fromtheir pagan brothers. Even if their customs had not radically changed, for the Christian writers they were no longer barbarians. In the written sources, there is little information about collaboration between ascetics and nomadic communities, although we know from the archaeological sources that it took place, even in the form of trade exchange.

17

Elity chrześcijańskie wobec islamu (VII-X wiek)

100%

Wolińska T.

Vox Patrum

|

2015

|

tom 64

529-567

EN

It is difficult to find equally important event in history as the birth of Islam and Arab expansion, although their importance was not appreciated at first. Its appearance was a breakthrough in several dimensions: religious, political, economic, cultural and lingual. The article attempts to discuss the reaction of Christian elites to the new monotheist religion. Initially, Islam was not identified as a new, separate religion. It was believed that the invaders would be chased away soon. The invasion was perceived in the biblical context, as a punishment for sins and as a work of the devil. So thought Sophronios, Theodor, John of Nikiu. Other writers pointed out Jews and heretics as the cause of God’s anger (Maximus the Confessor), but also emperor Constans (Anastasius the Synaite, Sebeos, some anonymous authors). A debate between Christians and Muslims commenced when Muhammad was still alive and both parties knew virtually nothing of each other. With time, the knowledge about Islam increased, although it still depended on education, social status, place of residence and knowledge of Arabic. In the 8th century it became obvious that Muslim rule would continue which can be observed in the opinion expressed by such writers as Sebeos, Anastasios, Denys of Tell Mahré or Ghewond. The task of Christian elites then, was to survive in an alien, not in frequently hostile environment and to preserve Christian faith. It was even more important when, particularly under the Umayyad rule, the religious policy became worse for Christians, which resulted in numerous conversions to Islam. The church must have felt threatened, consequently new arguments in the disputes with Muslims were needed. A form of a dialogue or polemics between two adversaries appeared. This can be seen in the texts of Theodor Abu Qurra, John on Damascus, in the polemics between patriarch Timothy with caliph Mahdi (781), homilies of a Syriac bishop from Iraq Mar Aba II (641-751), a discourse between monk Bert Hale and a wealthy Muslim or the answer of emperor Leo III to caliph Umar II (719), to mention just a few. The Christians attacked primarily Muhammad himself. He was accused of being a heretic or fake prophet. His knowledge would come either from Jews or heretic Christians. His adversaries pointed out that he had not done miracles as Christ had. It was also said that his revelation had been nothing but his dream or a result of his illness (epilepsy), or even that he had been possessed by daemons. Another target of attacks was the Quran, which was presented as a falsified Scripture. According to Niketas, it was not created by God, but by a daemon, as a compilation of many, often contradicting texts. It was also criticized as being non-original. Islam, was also be spread with the sword rather than with the word.

18

Polityka, przyjaźnie i podarunki w świetle korespondencji papieża Grzegorza Wielkiego

100%

Wolińska T.

|

tom 41

PL

POLITICS, FRIENDSHIPS, AND GIFTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE CORRESPONDENCE OF POPE GREGORY THE GREAT (590-604)Among persons exercising authority or holding high offi ces, gifts served many purposes, some important. They were part of respective ceremonial, won favors, broadened infl uences, persuaded donees, or won desired concessions. They could be helpful in propagating the giver’s ideas. Types of gifts and channels of delivery may be studied in offi cial and private accounts of participants in gift giving. All this was clear to pope Gregory I the Great (590-604). With carefully chosen gifts, he knew how to secure the support of barbarian Western rulers (queen Theodolinda of the Lombards and her son, queen Brunhilda of the Franks, the Visigothic king Reccared, king Ethelbert of Kent). Among such gifts predominated relics (in particular, pieces of St. Peter’s shackles) and books by Gregory himself. There were also other items such as garments.Many recipients of his gifts were people he had met when he was papal apocrisiary in Constantinople. It is all the more surprising, therefore, that he refused to send relics to empress Constantina, the wife of Mauricius.The pope was very careful in using the instrument of gift giving. Sometimes he used it to thank people to whom he owed something, but did not try to use it to win concessions he thought important. No gifts are on record to imperial offi cials in Italy or other Western lands, such as to exarchs, praetors of Sicily, prefects of the preatorium of Italy and Carthage. His frequent gifts of relics of St. Peter’s shackles helped spread the cult of this saint in all of Europe.Even more cautious was Gregory in receiving presents, perhaps fearing that they might be thought a form of bribery. He readily accepted gifts from friends and donations for the freeing of prisoners or assisting the poor, but steadfastly refused anything that might look suspicious. Among those rejected were gifts from Felix, bishop of Messina, or Januarius, bishop of Caralis.

19

Constantinopolitan Charioteers and Their Supporters

63%

Wolińska T. , Gucio K.

Studia Ceranea

|

2011

|

tom 1

127-142

EN

Support in sport is certainly one of the oldest human passions. Residents of the eastern Roman imperial capital cheered the chariot drivers The passion for supporting the drivers was common for all groups and social classes. The hippodrome was visited by the representatives of the aristocracy, artisans and the poor of the city alike. The popularity of chariot racing is evidenced by their frequency 66 days were reserved for circenses, that is racing. Organizing the competition along with all the accompanying events has been an essential task of circus factions (demes) In the empire, there were four factions named Blues, Greens, Whites and Reds. These factions were real sports associations, which can be compared to modern clubs. They had significant financial resources at their disposal. Each faction had their own racing team. They paid for and supported a number of drivers, runners, trainers of horses and wild animals, mimes, dancers, acrobats, poets, musicians and singers. They cared for their recruitment and training They also employed caretakers, messengers, artisans of various specialties, grooms, etc Expectations of subjects meant that emperors put great emphasis on the organization of shows and they were actively engaged in them themselves The preparation was personally supervised by the city prefect, and in the relations with the factions the emperor was represented by the praepositus sacri cubiculi. The latter managed the Hippodrome staff. Byzantine supporters, like their modern counterparts, had their idols. The object of their worship, and at the same time the elite among those working on the hippodrome, were charioteers. Outstanding competitors enjoyed immense popularity, just like modern stars of football or volleyball. They had monuments and stelae dedicated to them, as well as poems which praised their achievements. The ceiling in the gallery above the imperial kathisma featured images of famous drivers.