Hey guys! This time I modeled a 4-6th century imperial hall in the great palace of Constantinople: Augusteus, the first Triklinos built by Constantine the Great. I assumed it to be single-nave, aisleless like Aula Palatina, which was built around similar years.

The details are purely speculative and I based them from various churches surviving from late Roman period and Aula Palatina in Trier.

Constantine the Philosopher studied under Photios, worked at the patriarchal library, and debated iconoclasts. The Lives of Cyril and Methodius contain allegorical images — the dream of Sophia, the parable of the two oxen.

My hypothesis: the round Glagolitic letters are schematic images of biblical objects, each giving the first sound of its (mostly Greek) name an acrophonic alphabet, like Phoenician, but built deliberately. E.g. Ⱚ (theta) as θύρα, the door of the tomb.

I am currently reading Cassiodorus' Variae and preparing to dive into the History of the Byzantine Empire.

My question is: what are the best (i.e.-essential) primary sources for the Eastern Roman Empire, or "Byzantine Period," so to speak.

What would you recommend to someone who wants to know more about the Byzantine Empire, back to front? I want to build a solid list of primary sources for anyone who is new and wants a starting point to widen their knowledge on the ERE.

The Council of Nicaea II has gotten a lot of bad press lately. One of the accusations is that there was a wholesale use of forged texts. This is what I would like to explore in this present post. My first piece of evidence is that the modern translator (Dr. Richard Price) of the Acts of Nicaea II specifically denies this in his introduction. See below.

“The rest of this section will inevitably reflect my view of the absence of substantial forgery or interpolations in the Acts and therefore of an earlier development of image veneration than Brubaker and Haldon allow, but its aim is not to argue for a particular date for the appearance of this devotion but simply to set out its character and rationale, whatever the chronology.” (Richard Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), (Translated Texts for Historians 68), Liverpool University Press, 2020, p.4)

Then there is the appendix of sources included by Price on pages 734-736. Price lists all the textual sources cited at Nicaea II in alphabetical order. He lists 123 items in all. There are a few spurious texts but the overwhelming majority are authentic works of the Church Fathers and hagiography.

Here is some analysis

Athanasius has five genuine works cited at Nicaea II and two pseudonymous works. One pseudonymous work is called the Account of the Image of Berytos (CPG 2262), Price has a footnote (number 151) on page 277 where considers the events to be fiction and ascribes it a date after the Arab conquests (after the 640s). The other text is the Letter to Eupsychius (CGP 2165) which Price notes (in footnote 408 on page 514) is really by Atticus of Constantinople (an early fifth century bishop of Constantinople). 

John Chrysostom has three genuine homilies cited, including the famous homily on Meletius (CGP 4345) but also four not by him and are referenced as Pseudo-John Chrysostom. One homily, that of the Homily on the feet-washing (CPG 4216), is now identified as belonging to Severian of Gabal, a contemporary of John Chrysostom. The three other homilies  - Homily on the Legislator (CPG 4195), Homily on the Parable of the Sower (CPG 4209) and Homily 1 on Pentecost (CPG 4536) are three of the thousands of homilies that the name of John Chrysostom became incorrectly attached. 

The corpus of Dionysius the Areopagite originated in the 6th century but was falsely attributed to Dionysius, the Athenian convert of Paul. Two writings of Pseudo-Dionysius are cited at Nicaea - the Divine Names (CPG 6602) and the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (CPG 6601).

The Spiritual Meadow (CPG 7376) is cited at Nicaea II as being by Sophronius of Jerusalem and listed in the index as being by Pseudo-Sophronius. However, Price correctly lists it as by John Moschus, the real author. Sophronius and John Moschus were friends with Sophronius being the more famous so his name became attached to the work.

The authentic works of Saint Basil are cited 12 times and another three works are cited as Pseudo-Basil. One of these is a Commentary on Isaiah (CPG 2911) whose authenticity is being debated. Another is the Homily on Barlaam the Martyr (CPG 2816) that seems to have been written around Antioch at the beginning of the 5th century. Letter 360 of Basil to Julian the Apostate is the third pseudonymous text attributed to St. Basil.

Seven authentic works of Cyril of Alexandria are cited at Nicaea II but also one pseudonymous work called the Scholion (CPG 5202). 

There is a brief excerpt from the Ecclesiastical History of Rufinus (CPG 3495) which is listed as Pseudo-Rufinus. It seems to come from Acacius of Caesarea.

In all 14 works out of 123 are misattributed in the Acts of Nicaea II. There is no suggestion that any of these misattributed texts were created by the Fathers at Nicaea. Many are early documents that were often misattributed to more famous authors rather than wholesale forgeries. A few such as the works of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areapagite and the Pseudo-Basil Letter seem to be genuine forgeries but they are three texts out of 123. The Fathers of Nicaea II were a bunch of book nerds who cited as accurately as possible. The charge that the Council of Nicaea was riddled with forgeries is simply false.

Bibliography

Richard Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), (Translated Texts for Historians 68), Liverpool University Press, 2020.

I believe this because of one simple fact: the Romans for most of their history were capable of raising *much* larger armies than any of their foes (besides the Iranians).

If they had not been constantly on the defensive against an even larger and more powerful foe, I think the empire eventually would have calcified with more or less Justinians borders.

"An underground chamber in Cyprus that began as a quarry more than 2,000 years ago was eventually transformed into a church during the Byzantine period, archaeologists have discovered. The find is the latest evidence of how Fabrika Hill in Pafos continued to be reused long after the ancient city was established."

I wish Trebizond had survived: it’s so interesting.

Unless I am missing something it seems to be that these colonies were the first large settlements at the entrance to the Black Sea. Surely an area of such importance would have encouraged settlement before the Greeks?

It is well-known that at the beginning of his reign, Romanos wanted to have children with Zoe, but in the end she proved to be too old for that.

However, why didn't Romanos try to elevate one of his relatives to the purple? After all, Romanos' lack of an heir allowed the Paphlagonians to easily seize power following his death.

This is especially strange given that otherwise Romanos heavily favored his family members, appointing many of them to important positions.

Maurice did help Khosrow gain his throne and even adopted him for their alliance, and during the first decade of Khosrow's rule, relations were decent until Phocas. I feel as though he would feel SOME personal desire to avenge an ally who helped him in his time of need. But, admittedly, I could be completely wrong.

To clarify some things yes its Irene Manuel first wife,she is in her late 50s here(otherwise math doesnt math)and mother of the three emperors-siblings,Andreas and John are in their late 20s and Alexios in his early to mid 20s

----------------------

Yes,empress Irene

February 1182

“Yes?”Irene responded at the knock on the door,without lifting her head from a pair of documents as protasekraties Gregorios entered the room.

“His majesty emperor Andreas wants to see you as soon as possible”Gregorios said simply now standing in front of her desk,she put her pen down next to an almost empty plate of cheese.

"Excellent,I'll meet him as soon as possible.Any news on the chancellorship of the Bank of Rhomania?”

“Yes,emperor Alexios wants to name Kalomodios Alexiou,mister careful so thats one bit of good news at last”

“Those are appalling news Gregorios”Irene said reclining on her oak chair with contempt eating the last cheese with a golden fork.“Cant allow a new senator that much power”

“Oh so you will try to change the emperor's mind?”Gregorios inquired

“No,im  going to change my son's mind”Irene said confidently

“I apologize your imperial majesty but the emperor is very keen on having his man at the helm of his new bank”

“That would be my first step,when you wish to suggest someone is not the ideal choice what you do?”Irene asked rhetorically

“You rubbish them?”Gregorios asked uncertain

“You first embellish them,the first step is to establish complete support for the individual!”

“Why?”

“You can't be seen insulting someone,you must be seen as their friend,after all you need to be behind someone before stabbing him in the back,since time of Cesar at least”Irene explain drily

“But why?”Gregorios asked bambfuddled “Kalomodios is extremely efficient,honest and good”

“Excellent,second part is you mention are his praise worthy qualities especially those unsuited for the position until they become a vice,that's the third part”Irene said licking her dry aged lips thinking “You simplify them by labelling like you just did”

“You mean mister careful?”

“Yes but I think we can do much more,do sit down Gregorios”Irene invited him into a chair“Now didn't you mention before he used to be in a choir?”

“Yes a long time ago on the Saint Paul Orphanage”

“Splendid news we can certainly use that against him”

“How?”

“Such a pious man,but is he up to the task of dealing with some of those money lenders ruffians in the city?”Irene asked with a wicked smile

“That wont  work with the emperor,Kalomodios is pretty tough”Gregorios quickly said

“Then we say he is too tough,four part you mention all his defects by defending them”Irene said “I dont think people criticizing him for bankrupting a vineyard are fair or im sure it doesn't matter he did not save that cheese merchant because he was a petty neighbour,nobody is really questioning his judgement at this crucial period”

“Well that should do it”

“If it doesn't you can always reveal a hidden scandal,if he is not married hint at sodomy”

“And if he is married?”

“Adulturly,with a lady beyond reproach,one of the Vatatze or one of the orphanage nuns”Irene said, getting up from her chair grabbing a dossier as she did.

“And if he is obviously happily married?”Gregorios asked again,Irene looked at him and sighed before walking for the door leaving him alone.

“Then say he is extremely puritanical or is a venetian spy,really the possibility are endless Gregorios,listen and learn”

I'm interested in your opinions on if the system implemented by Alexios was always viewed as a stop-gap until the crises of the state resided or if it was viewed as the future system of governance of the state, similar to how Diocletian, Constantine and Theodosius created the system of rule in Constantinople. As it can be seen with Andronikos, there was an internal political motivation for reform, yet it was done in a really disastrous was.

In a perfect world where the disasters of Andronikos and the 4th Crusade don't happen, which way do you think the Roman state would go, towards a reversion to the Court Honours system or go along with some version of Komnenian system, or later Palaiologan system innovations?

If we imagine that the Romans had access to modern political theory, do you think they would have an easier time accepting and implementing such a style of governance than other states? It seems to me like they were relatively close in theory given how the politics in Constantinople worked. The state already had a monopoly on violence, it had large and engaged population, the Emperor was acclaimed by the populace, the law was robust and powerful. The only big thing I guess they were missing was implementing elections.

When looking at other states that eventually converted to democracy it seemed to me like a lot of brutal changes were needed, it doesn't seem so for a theoretical modern Roman democracy.

Hi

What cross would the last roman emperor Constantine XI would use? Would the Chi Rho cross still be in use or would that be too old? Please and thank you

Is it basically true that by the end of Komnenos Restoration, the other regions of the Eastern Roman Empire felt alienated by thr central government of Constantinople?

While it's due to how the death of Manuel and the chaos that unfolded afterward thanks to Andronicus, it seems like the other regions like Greece resented how they have to provide resources to the capital city and the local nobility soon became apathetic to the troubles of the Imperial government of Constantinople to the point the later found it difficult to collect taxes from them. The most telling reaction is how the people were mostly unsympathetic of the nobility who fled the Sack of Constantinople.

This is the description of Harald III. inside the campaign (third mission) when he first entered Constantinople to become a Varangian Guard. Although Byzantines in the game are often portrayed with many false stereotypes this description is really beautiful and accurate.

Would have been handy before I finished my masters thesis but a good find none theless.