Флорин Курта о Хрватима, Србима и цару Ираклију
Prikazujem rezultate 1 do 14 od 14

Tema: Флорин Курта о Хрватима, Србима и цару Ираклију

  1. #1
    Domaćin Pravi Vlah (avatar)
    Učlanjen
    28.04.2010.
    Pol
    muški
    Poruke
    3.357
    Reputaciona moć
    67

    Podrazumevano Флорин Курта о Хрватима, Србима и цару Ираклију

    У овом чланку из 2009 Курта анализира делове Порфирогенита у вези са Хрватима, Србима и њиховом досељавању на Балкан за време цара Ираклија. Долази до закључка да се не ради о опису историјских догађаја него да је то огледало византијских стереотипа и политичке агенде. Другим речима, оно што је Порфирогенит написао о Хрватима и Србима није историја него политичка пропаганда.



    https://www.academia.edu/228195/Emperor_Heraclius_and_the_conversion_of_the_Croats_and_the_Serbs



  2. #2
    Buduća legenda Slaven777 (avatar)
    Učlanjen
    29.09.2007.
    Pol
    muški
    Poruke
    35.321
    Reputaciona moć
    542

    Podrazumevano Re: Флорин Курта о Хрватима, Србима и цару Ираклију

    To je bilo 2009. godine i dok i dalje jeste na tim uopšteno stavovima, polako se kreće ka istoričnosti Porfirogenita. Obrati pažnju na njegovu tvrdnju da su jedini arheološki dokazi da je malena skupina 630-ih godina naselila zapadni Balkan iz Slovačke i južne Poljske. Slučajnost? Još se to poklapa sa Tiborovim dosta poznim datiranjem pada Salone (631. godine ili i kasnije).

    Takođe vrlo mi interesantno deluje cela priča o depopulaciji Balkana u VII stoleću.
    You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.

  3. #3
    Esad Dzudo nije na forumu
    Borac protiv ropstva i pampers pelena, tkoje poklanja AV, uz najjeftinije srpsko roblje
    Ističe se Esad Dzudo (avatar)
    Učlanjen
    14.05.2018.
    Pol
    muški
    Lokacija
    Niza, Naissus, Nis
    Poruke
    2.562
    Reputaciona moć
    42

    Podrazumevano Re: Флорин Курта о Хрватима, Србима и цару Ираклију

    Tko veruje povjesnicaru Kurti i Murti....ta daj Slavene ti si za njega mega giga historicar....dokle ce nas trovati ti prodavci magle u sluzbi VaKITAna.,,,jos Vlah
    Americki ambasador Kajl Skot i ja, na "sudaru" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAtDjfEhWT0

  4. #4
    Elita Konstantin Veliki (avatar)
    Učlanjen
    14.12.2008.
    Pol
    muški
    Poruke
    24.812
    Tekstova u blogu
    2
    Reputaciona moć
    327

    Podrazumevano Re: Флорин Курта о Хрватима, Србима и цару Ираклију

    Ili to stvarno misli. Spis je napisano sinu za unutrasnju potrebu, tu nema logike lagati sopstvenog sina. Kako je Zivkovic reko

  5. #5
    Buduća legenda Slaven777 (avatar)
    Učlanjen
    29.09.2007.
    Pol
    muški
    Poruke
    35.321
    Reputaciona moć
    542

    Podrazumevano Re: Флорин Курта о Хрватима, Србима и цару Ираклију

    Citat Original postavio Konstantin Veliki Pogledaj poruku
    Ili to stvarno misli. Spis je napisano sinu za unutrasnju potrebu, tu nema logike lagati sopstvenog sina. Kako je Zivkovic reko
    Ne mora značiti da je lagao uopšte, već da se određene percepcije preslikavaju u njemu. Što je nesporno, naravno.
    You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.

  6. #6
    Domaćin Pravi Vlah (avatar)
    Učlanjen
    28.04.2010.
    Pol
    muški
    Poruke
    3.357
    Reputaciona moć
    67

    Podrazumevano Re: Флорин Курта о Хрватима, Србима и цару Ираклију

    Citat Original postavio Konstantin Veliki Pogledaj poruku
    Ili to stvarno misli. Spis je napisano sinu za unutrasnju potrebu, tu nema logike lagati sopstvenog sina. Kako je Zivkovic reko
    Ма није лагао свом сину него му је дао оно што је најбоље знао. А то је било византијско гледиште његовог времена. Курта анализира и објашњава зашто то није историја.

    Ја сам поставио само задњи параграф Куртиног чланка који има десетак страница анализе.

    - - - - - - - - - -

    Citat Original postavio Esad Dzudo Pogledaj poruku
    Tko veruje povjesnicaru Kurti i Murti....ta daj Slavene ti si za njega mega giga historicar....dokle ce nas trovati ti prodavci magle u sluzbi VaKITAna.,,,jos Vlah
    Е сад, ако те баш занима џудо...

    - - - - - - - - - -

    Citat Original postavio Slaven777 Pogledaj poruku
    To je bilo 2009. godine i dok i dalje jeste na tim uopšteno stavovima, polako se kreće ka istoričnosti Porfirogenita. Obrati pažnju na njegovu tvrdnju da su jedini arheološki dokazi da je malena skupina 630-ih godina naselila zapadni Balkan iz Slovačke i južne Poljske. Slučajnost? Još se to poklapa sa Tiborovim dosta poznim datiranjem pada Salone (631. godine ili i kasnije).

    Takođe vrlo mi interesantno deluje cela priča o depopulaciji Balkana u VII stoleću.
    Порфирогенитова прича јесте у контексту неких историјских збивања, у смислу да су и Авари и Франци и Хрвати и Срби и Ираклије постојали, али према Курти опис досељавања и покрштавања Хрвата и Срба је шаблонски.

  7. #7
    Esad Dzudo nije na forumu
    Borac protiv ropstva i pampers pelena, tkoje poklanja AV, uz najjeftinije srpsko roblje
    Ističe se Esad Dzudo (avatar)
    Učlanjen
    14.05.2018.
    Pol
    muški
    Lokacija
    Niza, Naissus, Nis
    Poruke
    2.562
    Reputaciona moć
    42

    Podrazumevano Re: Флорин Курта о Хрватима, Србима и цару Ираклију

    Citat Original postavio Pravi Vlah Pogledaj poruku
    Ма није лагао свом сину него му је дао оно што је најбоље знао. А то је било византијско гледиште његовог времена. Курта анализира и објашњава зашто то није историја.

    Ја сам поставио само задњи параграф Куртиног чланка који има десетак страница анализе.

    - - - - - - - - - -



    Е сад, ако те баш занима џудо...
    A, o ovome sutis, ne zelis nas informirati....moze neko ako misli otvoriti novu temu....rumunizacija Srba kod Vas...vi ste pisali kirilicu do 1864 dok se nije vratilo par tisuca iz Pariza.

    Da Vas rumunjizira i latinizira, kao danas proces u Kazahstanu, nekoc u Albaniji i Turskoj....https://www.google.rs/search?q=knjig...TXgqUOPP5psiM:

    Glavni agenti su iz Temisvara Cincari....kapetan Misa Anastasijevic i dr.tajfuni, i visoki svecenici Cincari u vrhu SPC su bili subverzivni elementi....

    Država Rumunija se na istorijskoj sceni pojavljuje 1856. godine posle Krimskog rata koji je Rusija izgubila, a ratovala je protiv svih, bukvalno svih ondašnjih evrpskih sila plus Osmanske imperije. Evropa je u Parizu na mirovnoj konferenciji izdiktirala stvaranje Rumunije od do tada samostalnih država – tzv. Dunavskih kneževina.


    Ta teritorija je bila u sastavu Srpske pravoslavne crkve, Gospodu Isusu Hristu se u pravoslavnim crvama molilo na crkvenoslovenskom

    Čak i deo rumunskih istoričara ovo „priznaje“, nazivajući ovaj period svoje istorije „slovenskim“. Ovo je od Srba, naravno, sakriveno, ali istinu otkrivaju dva naučna zbornika – „Anatomija rumunske politike“ i „Rumunija i rumunizacija Srba“.

    Srbi treba da shvate da poslednje odvajanje Crne Gore i davanja posebnog antisrpskog identiteta Montenegrinima predstavlja samo nastavak dekonstrukcije srpskog naroda i države, što je pre toga primenjeno u Makedoniji, BiH, Hrvatskoj, Vlaškoj, Erdelju i Moldaviji.

    Rumunija je za prosečno obaveštenog čitaoca u Srbiji „marginalna i neinteresantna tema“, država i narod sa kojom Srbija ima dobre odnose i sa kojom nikada nije ratovala. Da li je ovaj stereotip održiv?

    Naravno da nije. Na sasvim suprotan stav nas podsećaju brojni skorašnji apeli Srpske pravoslavne crkve da se misionari Rumunske pravoslavne crkve povuku sa nezakonito (nekanonski) zauzete teritorije na Istoku Srbije, gde pokušavaju da rumunizuju Vlahe i Srbe. No, to je samo mali deo crne istine o Rumuniji.

    Dva naučna zbornika „Anatomija rumunske politike“ i „Rumunija i rumunizacija Srba“ otkrivaju jedan novi svet, istinu duboko sakrivenu od javnosti.

    Kao prvo, Rumunija se na istorijskoj sceni pojavljuje 1856. godine posle Krimskog rata koji je Rusija izgubila, a ratovala je protiv svih, bukvalno svih ondašnjih evrpskih sila plus Osmanske imperije. Evropa je u Parizu na mirovnoj konferenciji izdiktirala stvaranje Rumunije od Vlaške i dela Moldavije, do tada samostalnih država (tzv. Dunavske kneževine).

    Zašto je bila potrebna Rumunija? Prema njenim zapadnim ocima – da geopolitički razdvoji Srbiju i Rusiju.

    Ko su bili stanovnici Vlaške i Moldavije? Za današnje Srbe to su bili Rumuni, ali njih nije bilo do pomenute 1856. – istraživanja brojnih autora, uključujići i istraživače DNK-a, govore da su u Vlaškoj i Moldaviji živeli Srbi, ove teritorije su bile u sastavu Srpske pravoslavne crkve, pisalo se ćirilicom i zborilo srpski (u državnoj administraciji), a molilo se Gospodu Isusu Hristu u pravoslavnim crvama na crkvenoslovenskom. Čak i deo rumunskih istoričara ovo „priznaje“, nazivajući ovaj period svoje istorije „slovenskim“. Ovo je od Srba, naravno, sakriveno.

    U prvom zborniku „Anatomija rumunske politike“ ovo svedoči 19 autora iz Srbije, Rumunije, Moldavije, Rusije, Ukrajine i Belorusije. Na primer, Tamara Semjonova Guzenkova je pisala o Međunarodnom statusu i spoljnopolitičkim pretenzijama Rumunije, Mihail Borisovič Smolin o Ideološkim pretpostavkama mesijanskog ekspansionizma Rumunije u Drugom svetskom ratu, a Dragoljub Petrović o Iredenti fašističke Rumunije u severoistočnoj Srbiji 1941-1944. godine. Petrović piše: „Krajem Prvog svetskog rata izraženije su rumunske revandikacije na čitav Banat a takođe, samo u mnogo blažoj meri, na teritoriju severoistočne Srbije.

    Rumunska iredenta razvila je izvesnu aktivnost preko Nacionalnog komiteta Rumuna u Srbiji, formiranog u Kišnjevu još pre oslobođenja Rumunije i Lige za oslobođenje Rumuna ispod srpskog jarma u Srbiji i Makedoniji“. No, značajniji prodor na teritoriju Istočne Srbije Rumunija je ostvarila tokom Drugog svetskog rata.
    Americki ambasador Kajl Skot i ja, na "sudaru" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAtDjfEhWT0

  8. #8
    Elita Konstantin Veliki (avatar)
    Učlanjen
    14.12.2008.
    Pol
    muški
    Poruke
    24.812
    Tekstova u blogu
    2
    Reputaciona moć
    327

    Podrazumevano Re: Флорин Курта о Хрватима, Србима и цару Ираклију

    Citat Original postavio Pravi Vlah Pogledaj poruku
    Ма није лагао свом сину него му је дао оно што је најбоље знао. А то је било византијско гледиште његовог времена. Курта анализира и објашњава зашто то није историја.

    Ја сам поставио само задњи параграф Куртиног чланка који има десетак страница анализе.
    .
    Mozes sve osporiti iz srednjeg veka, to nije tesko. Ako je car sam verovao onda nije politicka proganda nego se zezno.

    Sad vidim on samo neke Aspekte osporava, dobro javi cu se opet kad procitam.

  9. #9
    Domaćin NickFreak (avatar)
    Učlanjen
    06.02.2008.
    Pol
    muški
    Lokacija
    Pa
    Poruke
    4.327
    Reputaciona moć
    86

    Podrazumevano Re: Флорин Курта о Хрватима, Србима и цару Ираклију

    У читавом спису о народима ми смо од споредног значаја тако да написано је онолико колико је требало да зна.
    Можда и постоји некакав код њима познат јер су фусноте према Живковићу значиле наставиће се а мени је пало на памет да упућују на друга места, поглавља и књиге не знам када будем имао времена позабавићу се целокупним делом односно делима.

    Међутим пошто су пре мене то радили хиљаде бољих од мене сумњам да ћу нешто ново наћи осим задовољавања пуке радозналости

    Послато са Nokia 3.1 уз помоћ Тапатока

  10. #10
    Aktivan član supertruper (avatar)
    Učlanjen
    20.11.2010.
    Pol
    muški
    Poruke
    1.097
    Reputaciona moć
    41

    Podrazumevano Re: Флорин Курта о Хрватима, Србима и цару Ираклију

    na minulom kongresu slavista u beogradu jula 2018 došlo je do sukoba između kurte, jednog rumuna i grka; polemika je izbila oko naziva za sklavinije i njihove stanovnike sklabenoe ili sklave; kurta je to izjednačio sa slavinijama i slavima, odnosno, slovenima; bugarin i grk su mu se suprostavili pa su polemisali da bi , u kuloarima, milanović rekao da se termin sklavi (sklabenoi) ne može izjednačavati sa slavi te da su stanovnici tih sklavinija bili srbi a zapovednici, u počecima nastanka tzv. arhonti srba i zamerio kurti na njegovoj knjizi making of the slavs gde ne pominje srbe , kurta je odgovorio da to nije istina jer je u knjizi pomenuo nekog franačkog hroničara i njegovu rečenicu kako su sklavi soraborum gente; zanimljivo a o tome slabo je bilo po našim novinama a bilo se iskupilo veliko društvo pa me interesuje je li još neko čuo za tu polemiku bugarina, grka i kurte oko sklabenoa, sklava i sklavinija, meni zvuči interesantno i kako je svaka sitnica važna- ako je to uopšte sitnica

  11. #11
    Zainteresovan član Vend (avatar)
    Učlanjen
    20.03.2015.
    Pol
    muški
    Lokacija
    Kragujevac
    Poruke
    200
    Reputaciona moć
    17

    Podrazumevano Re: Флорин Курта о Хрватима, Србима и цару Ираклију

    Bicu slobodan da postujem jedan tekst blizak ovoj tematici. Rad naseg coveka, potpuno nepoznat.

    Pope Zachary and the Question of Illyricum (741-752)

    During Late Antiquity, Illyricum was the revolving door through which wave after wave of barbarians eviscerated the Roman empire. The restoration of the Sava-Danube line by Heraclius in 626-629 brought a great measure of relief to the Empire (Ostrogorsky …)

    In the course of the seventh century, the Empire lost its possession in Syria, Egypt and Africa; the east-west trade which had earlier travelled via Carthage and Marseille now flowed through the Adriatic and Venice (contra Pirenne). The period during which these momentous changes took place is known as the «Dark Ages». The purpose of this article is to examine some problems of ecclesiastical jurisdiction connected with this area and this period and shed some light on those dark ages.

    For the best part of Late antiquity, the western half of the Balkans, from Achaia to Pannonia, was subordinated to Rome for ecclesiastical affairs. At some point towards the middle of the 8th century, these dioceses were transferred to Constantinople. So far scholars are in agreement. There is however a debate concerning the date of this transfer. Did it take place in ca 733, in the days of Leo and Gregory II or in 755-756 in the days of Constans and Stephen II? While the evidence is ambivalent, scholars are not: they feel it has to be one or the other.

    The purpose of this article is to present a third option: I believe that Illyricum was assigned to Constantinople by Leo, that it returned to Rome in the days of Zachary (under either Constantine V or the usurper Artabasdus), then back to Constantinople in 755 or shortly after. In support of this hypothesis, I submit a letter from Pope Zachary appointing Andrew archbishop of Epitaurus (now Dubrovnik) and all Praevalitana, edited by Smiciklas in 1904.

    Zacharias episcopus, seruus seruorum dei. Dilecto in Christo filio Andree, archiepiscopo sancte Pitauritane ecclesie. Constituimus te omnibus uite tue esse pastorem te et successores tuos super istam prouinciam. In primis Zachulmie regno et regno Seruulie Tribunieque regno, ciuitati namque Catarinensi seu Rose atque Buduanensi, Auarorum, Liciniatensi atque Scodrinensi nec non Driuastinensi atque Polatensi cum ecclesiis atque parochiis eorum. […] Palleum autem ex more ad missarum sollemnia celebranda diebus uite tue tantummodo tibi concedimus more predecessorum tuorum consecrationem uero tuorum successorum nobis nostrisque successoribus in perpetuum reseruantes. […] et in die ordinationis tue, uerum etiam in suffraganeorum tuorum ordinatione sicuti a beato Gregorio, […] Scriptum per manum Theodori diaconi, sacri palatii scriniarii. BENE VALETE. Data xvii Kalendas Iunii per manus Theophilacti, archidiaconi sancte apostolice sedis. Anno Zacharie beatissimo II pape indictione xi. (Codex Dipl. I:1; I left out the pastoral bits.)

    This letter is not unknown: it is recorded as number 2268 in Jaffé, Regesta but it was branded as a forgery by Pflugk-Harttung in 1882:

    743, Mai 16
    Zacharias Andrea archiepiscopo Pitauritanae 1) ecclesiae usum pallii concedit. Data XVII. Kl. Jun per manum Theophilacti archidiac. S.A.S. Pont. II Ind. XI Constituimus te omnibus diebus 2).
    _________________
    1) l. «Pisauritanae». d. h. von Pesaro, dort is Bischof Andreas für das Jahr 743 durch seine Unterschrift auf dem Römischen Conzil, Mansi XII, 367 gesichert. Trotzdem scheint die Fälschung evident. P. E. 2) Gefälscht oder überarbeitet.

    The text reads clearly «Pitauritanae»; Pflugk-Harttung emends it to Pisauritanae and on the basis of his own emendation claims that Andrew was archbishop of Pesaro in Italy. The emendation is unjustified: the text of the letter makes it quite clear that Epitaurus, and not Pesaro, is meant since the suffragans listed are those of Ragusa (called Epitaurus until the 8th century, and now Dubrovnik) and Praevalitana (modern Montenegro), and of no Italian see:

    In primis Zachulmie regno et regno Seruulie Tribunieque regno, ciuitati namque Catarinensi seu Rose atque Buduanensi, Auarorum, Liciniatensi atque Scodrinensi nec non Driuastinensi atque Polatensi cum ecclesiis atque parochiis eorum.

    The sees listed are: Hum (modern Herzegovina), Serbia (that is Old Serbia, Kosovo), Trebinje, Cataro, Budva, Ljes, Skodra, Drivast, Pola. These locations are all in the Balkans. Pesaro could not possibly have been meant.

    This document, unfairly branded as a forgery, and edited in a collection rarely consulted by church historians, has not been recognized as a key source for the dispute over Illyricum, or the relations of the See of Rome with Artabasdus and Constantine V, or the Christianization of the Serbs — all of which it undoubtedly is.

    For instance, the commentators on Constantine Porphyrogenitus (the DAI) have refused to believe Constantine’s statement that the Serbs were converted to Christianity directly they settled in the Balkans; they have even doubted Porphyrogenitus’ claim that the priests who converted them came from Rome. This letter by Pope Zachary, written barely a century after the settlement of the Serbs, lists without comment three Serbian sees. This long pastoral letter is also noteworthy from what is missing from it: injunctions to do missionary work. This imposes the conclusion that Praevalitana was thoroughly Christian by 743, including the three Serbian dioceses.

    In this article, however, I am not concerned with the early history of Christianity amongst the Serbs but with the fate of Illyricum caught between Rome and Constantinople. On the question of Zachary’s relations with Byzantium, Noble finds it «reasonable to assume» that Zachary must have written letters of denunciation against the notorious iconoclast Constantine V (1984:49). In fact, we have no such letter, and in the existing Vita Zach. we can only note that Zachary acknowledged Constantine and was a loyal and obedient subject.

    It is curious that Zachary did not denounce Constantine’s iconoclast policies, though Lombard thinks nothing of it (1902:66); but Noble’s «reasonable assumption» that Zachary must have denounced Constantine V is not supported by the evidence which, such as it is, indicates that Zachary did not quarrel with Constantine V. Why did he not? I submit that Zachary’s letter appointing Andrew to a see in Illyricum provides a clue: Artabasdus returned Illyricum to Zachary, and Constantine confirmed this decision when he wrested power from Artabasdus. Therefore it was in Zachary’s interest not to rock the boat with doctrinal disputes which would have cost him Illyricum.

    Zachary’s appointment of Andrew to Epitaurus is merely dated to the 17th calend of June, the second year of Zachary, and the eleventh indiction, which adds up to May 16, 743. Unfortunately the name of the emperor and his regnal year are not included in the letter. The text survives in a 12th century copy. The original may have included this information originally, and the copist may have missed it, or there may have been political reasons why the emperor’s name was left out.

    Before looking at this letter, we must first deal with a chronological difficulty connected with the revolt of Artabasdus which has generated much scholarship: Ostrogorsky, Speck, Treadgold, etc. Here is my solution, taking up all of one page, after the hundreds which have been written on this. My argument rests on Zachary’s letters (referenced according to both MGH Ep. and PL 89.
    UJEDINJENJE ILI SMRT!

  12. #12
    Zainteresovan član Vend (avatar)
    Učlanjen
    20.03.2015.
    Pol
    muški
    Lokacija
    Kragujevac
    Poruke
    200
    Reputaciona moć
    17

    Podrazumevano Re: Флорин Курта о Хрватима, Србима и цару Ираклију

    MGH #…, PL # 19, Jaffé 2258
    to Austrobert, Nones of March, 27th (s/b 22nd) regnal year of Constantine, the first year after his consulate, dated March 7, 742 by Jaffé, with note: «Mittit acta synodi, die 22. Martii Romae habitae.»

    MGH # 51, PL # 2, Jaffé 2264
    to Boniface, Kalends of April, 24th regnal year of Constantine, second year after his consulate, indiction 11; dated by editors 1 April 743.

    MGH #52, Jaffé 2265
    to Witta, Kalends of April, 24th regnal year of Constantine, second year after his consulate, indiction 11; dated by editors 1 April 743.

    MGH # 53, PL # 3, Jaffé 2266
    to Burchard, Kalends of April, 24th regnal year of Constantine, second year after his consulate, indiction 11, dated by editors 1 April 743.

    MGH # 57, PL # 5, Jaffé 2270
    to Boniface, X Kal Jul., third regnal year of Artabasdus and Nicephorus, third year after Artabasdus’ consulate, indiction 12, dated by editors 22 June 744.

    MGH # 58, PL # 6, Jaffé 2271
    to Boniface, Nones of November, third regnal year of Artabasdus and Nicephorus, indiction 13, dated by editors 5 November 744.

    MGH # .., PL # 7, Jaffé 2273
    to Boniface, Kal. Jul. 26th regnal year of Constantine, in the fifth year after his consulate, indiction 14, dated by editors

    MGH # 59
    Synod at Rome, Oct 25, 745, 26th regnal year of Constantine, 5th year after his consulate, 14th indiction.

    MGH # 60, PL # 10, Jaffé 2276
    to Boniface, Kal. Nov., 27th (s/b 26) regnal year of Constantine, 5th year after his consulate, 14th indiction, dated October 31, 745 by editors.

    MGH # …, PL # 11, 2286
    to Burchard, Kal. May, 29th regnal year of Constantine, the seventh year after his consulate, indiction 1.

    MGH # …, PL # 14, Jaffé 2291 or 2292
    to Boniface, xi nones Nov., 32th regnal year of Constantine, the eleventh year after his consulate, indiction 1.

    The regnal years and the indictions provide the answer: both Artabasdus and Constantine dated their reign from the death of Leo II. But that was an ideal and not a real date. The real date of Artabasdus’ revolt is two years after the accession of Constantine V; he back dated his reign for a veneer of legitimacy, which is where Theophanes got confused. Official documents which had already been issued could not however be back-dated; they remained as witnesses for the true situation.

    The point then is that the regnal years of Artabasdus are ideal and not real. Whittemore missed this when he sought to date the seal of Artabasdus which he edited in OC (1947). I don’t think that his miscalculation affects his final result, but it should be kept in mind when consulting this otherwise valuable article. Hodgkin (1898) also missed this point: he noted that Zachary dated some letters in the «third» regnal year of Artabasdus and concluded that Artabasdus had ruled at least three years. But the indictions show that this is impossible. If Constantine’s second regnal year was the 11th indiction, and Artabasdus’ third regnal year was the 12th indiction, then obviously they were both dating their reign from the same event: the death of Leo. As we know that they were not co-emperors, then it follows that Artabasdus back-dated his reign.

    - - - - - - - - - -

    Brooks (1898 and 1899) provided good reasons to rely on dated documents rather than upon Theophanes’ reconstructed history: «The year of Artabazd’s elevation may be fixed in another way. Pope Zachariah, who was ordained in December 741, sent a letter to Constantine, the bearers of which on their arrival found Artavazd in possession. Now it is clear that, if his elevation had been in 741, Zachariah would have known the fact before sending the letter» (1899:97).

    The passage concerning Artabasdus in the Vita Zachariae is clearly mendacious. The author states that Zachariah never recognized Artabasdus, and was rewarded by Constantine V for his loyalty. However, we have Zachary’s letters dated to Artabasdus’s reign. Therefore we must believe the letters, rather than the Vita.

    Conclusion: there is no missing year in Artabasdus’ revolt.

    From the Vita Zach.:

    Hic beatissimus vir [Zacharias], iuxta ritum ecclesiasticum, fidei suae sponsionis orthodoxam ecclesie misit Constantinopolitanae synodicam, simulque et aliam suggestionem dirigens serenissimo Constantino principi. Et pergentibus apostolicae sedis responsalibus regiam urbem, invenerunt intro palatium regiae potestatis invasorem quendam et rebellem, Artaustum nomine. Dum enim isdem imperaor ad dimicandum Agarenorum properasset gentem, ilico praelatus Artaustus, datis populo qui regia remanserunt urbem praemiis, imperialem arriuit solium. Et postmodum adgregans Orientalium exercituum multitudinem, antelatus Constantinus princeps pregensque Constantinopolim, eandem viriliter expugnans atque extrinsecus circumvallans conprehendit civitatem, et pristinum regni sui adeptus est fastigium, statimque iam fati Artausti eiusque filiorum eruit oculus et plures ex suis rebellibus exules a propriis fecit habitaculis. Post hec vero requierens missum apostolicae sedis qui ibidem in temporis perturbatione contigerat advenisse, eumque reppertum, ad sedem absolvit apostolicam. Et iuxta quod beatissimus pontifex postulaverat, donationem in scriptis de duabus massis quae Nimphas et Normias appellantur, iuris existentes publici, eidem sanctissimo ac beatissimo papae sanctaeque Romanae ecclesiae iure perpetuo direxit possidendas.

    Cite from Davis’ translation, p. 46: In view of the Pontiff’s request, he [Constantine] sent a written donation of two estates in public ownership called Ninfa and Norma to the same holy and blessed pope and to the holy Roman church, to be occupied and owned in perpetuity.

    Speck has exposed the disingenuousness of this passage. The word quendam is a poem in its own right: Artabasdus was a prince of the blood and a valid competitor for Constantine, etc. His name was well known in the Empire. Zachary’s letters expose the lie in the Vita: the legates came to Constantinople, found Artabasdus on the throne and changed their allegiance, and when they returned to Rome, sometime in April or early May (after the sailing season resumed) the see of Rome began to date its letters with the name of Artabasdus. When Constantine returned to power, then Zachary changed his dating again. The other doctored part of this passage is that the visit on which the legates found Artabasdus on the throne was not the same as the first one during which Zachary had his synodical letter presented. We are dealing with conflation here.

    We now return to the letter to Andrew of Epitaurus: it fits chronologically between items 2 and 3 above: 16 May 743. On April 1, Zachary was still dating by Constantine; by 22 June, he was dating by Artabasdus. And it is curious that the biographer should feel the need to insist on Zachary’s non-existent loyalty to Constantine V: coins were struck in Italy with Artabasdus’ name (Treadgold…); Artabasdus was widely accepted.

    Naymore: the biographer does not only insist on Zachary’s loyalty but on a gift made in return for that imaginary loyalty: the estates of Ninfa and Norma. This leaves us with a tangled web indeed: Zachary was not loyal to Constantine V. So who granted him these estates, and why? Then again, as Davis points out, these two estates were not such an extravagant gift. The letter dated 16 May appointing Andrew in Ragusa provides the clue to a much more generous gift but one which Zachary would consider no more than his right: Illyricum. I have not found direct evidence concerning Illyricum after Constantine V drove out Artabasdus but the indirect evidence would indicate that Constantine confirmed Artabasdus’ grant for the same reason for which Artabasdus made it in the first place. The clues are:

    - - - - - - - - - -

    a) Zachary’s apparent contentment with Constantine in the latter part of his pontificate. I.e. no recriminations on the subject of iconoclasm, retroactive denial of Artabasdus (that quendam!).

    b) No mention of disputes on the subject of Illyricum until 756, i.e. after the death of Zachary.

    After careful weighing of what indigent evidence we have, I would now find it «reasonable to assume» that Zachary kept Illyricum and provided Constantine much needed support at a time when his power was challenged.

    Doctrine and politics

    In a terse note Grumel (1953) insisted that the annexation of Illyricum, Sicily and Calabria to the Patriarchate of Constantinople had nothing to do with iconoclasm but everything to do with the growing influence of the Carolingians in Italy — and that therefore the correct date for this transfer was 756. This is an equation with two unknown: we do not know for sure the date of the transfer, and we do not really know the reason.

    A few years later (1957), Anastos argued against Grumel that the transfer of these dioceses was due to conflicts between Rome and the Byzantine emperors on the subject of iconoclasm. He cited as evidence letters by Hadrian I to Charlemagne, and by Nicholas I, in which these pontiffs state that this was the case (23 and note 1).

    On one point, Anastos can be proven wrong, and Grumel correct. That iconoclasm had nothing to do with the transfer is probably correct. The proof is found in an event which took place on Christmas Day 800: the coronation at Rome of an emperor who was not only an iconoclast, but had just imposed upon his subjects a revised Creed not authorized by an oecumenical council.
    UJEDINJENJE ILI SMRT!

  13. #13
    Zainteresovan član Vend (avatar)
    Učlanjen
    20.03.2015.
    Pol
    muški
    Lokacija
    Kragujevac
    Poruke
    200
    Reputaciona moć
    17

    Podrazumevano Re: Флорин Курта о Хрватима, Србима и цару Ираклију

    Obviously, the rapprochement pursued for more than a half century by the See of Rome with the Frankish empire was not doctrinal, far from it. Whatever the reason, however, it could only make the Byzantines suspicious. Grumel offers a possible reason for the Byzantines’ discomfort: «La conscience byzantine ne put supporter que des évêques sujets au basileus furent soumis à un chef ecclésiastique étranger, protégé par des rois inférieurs et barbares» (376).

    If the Byzantines did withdraw Illyricum, Calabria, etc, from Roman administration on grounds of political disloyalty, then obviously, Hadrian could not say so in a letter to Charlemagne, nor Nicholas. Some other reason had to be given, and this «other reason» misled Anastos. And the proof is found in the same letters upon which Anastos relies. As he himself writes further in the same article: «Hadrian then goes on to say that, if the Byzantines persist in their refusal to return the archbishoprics, bishoprics, and patrimonies in question, he will condemn them as heretics despite their orthodoxy with regard to the images» (24).When one matches this statement with the coronation at Rome of a ruler, both confirmed iconoclast, and «Macedonian» in his official pneumatology, it is quite clear that doctrine provided good excuses, but no real motives.

    The alienation between Rome and Byzantium was a long drawn process but surely Christmas Day 800 must have been the low water-mark: the bishop of Rome crowning Roman emperor a man who was a very serious menace for Byzantium. The restructuration of Illyricum which took place in the early years of the ninth century may have been a form of retaliation as well as self-protection.

    Laurent has shown on the basis of a Frankish source that Athens was raised to the rank of metropolis under Tarasius (787-806). Athens is listed as a metropolitan see in the Notice of Basil, the Armenian monk, who lived in the days of Michael II and Theophilus (i.e. between 820-842). The exact year is unknown but the general period fits with Rome’s intimacy with Charlemagne. Laurent attributes the raising of Athens’ status to the favour of Irene who was Athenian. However, Georgius of Cyprus states that several sees were raised along with Athens and that the reason was because Rome was now subject of the Barbarians. This points to the date 800 — the coronation of Charlemagne.

    Administrative note

    Zachary’s letter appointing Andrew may be the earliest source we have on the new diocese of Praevalitana recreated after the wars with the Avars. It is an any rate the oldest ecclesiastic source; we do have a reference to Praevalitana in the Synecdemus of Hierocles which is congruent with the appointment letter to Andrew, see below for more detail. Geographic information available from the letters of Gregory the Great (just before these devastating wars) provide references to Dyrrachium, archdiocese of Epirus nova; references to Epitaurus without mention of the archdiocese, but Scodra (not Docleia) is the metropolis of Praevalis. Diocleia was destroyed by the Avars and never rebuilt: the last mention is 602 over a dispute with Scodra. Before 600, Epitaurus (Ragusa/Dubrovnik) may have been a suffragan of Salona and all Dalmatia.

    The impact of the Avars and their Slavic allies. I) The destruction of Salona, the disorganisation of Dalmatia, the emergence of Split as the new metropolis of Dalmatia. II) The arrival of large numbers of Latin-speaking refugees from inland settling on the coast, noticeable especially in Praevalitana where the number and size of towns increase. III) The settlement of the Serbs as soldier-farmers after the reconquest of Heraclius (i.e. between 629-61). IV) The reorganisation of Praevalitana under Epitaurus with its increased Latin-speaking city-dwellers and its influx of Serbian farmers.

    That this reorganisation of Praevalitana was permanent (and lasted beyond Zachary’s pontificate) can be noted from subsequent papal epistles. Letters similar to that of Zachary are known from later popes, and edited by Smiciklas.

    Benedict VIII grants to Ragusa the sees of Labused in Hum and Serbia, Trebinje, Catarinensis, Antibari (Bar) and Ulcinj in 1022 (Codex Dipl. I:44). This is confirmed in 1076 by Gregory VII (I:112), which adds the sees of Drivast, Pola and Scodra. Some of these cities are flagged as «Romani» in the DAI while Hum and Trebinje were Serbian (DAI…).

    Here is an exemple from II:35, a letter from Callixtus II dated 1120 confirming these sees under Ragusa:

    videlicet in regno Zacholmie, et regno Servilie, Tribunieque regno, civitate quoque Catharinensi seu Rose, Buduanensi Auarorum, Liciniatensi, Scodrinensi, Driuastensi et Polatensi.

    In this last letter, Zachary’s letter of 743 is mentioned. As the copy we have of Zachary’s letter was removed from Dubrovnik to the Archives at Vienna, this indicates two copies in existence in the 12th century: one at Ragusa, the other at Rome mentioned by Callixtus II.
    Poslednji put ažurirao/la Vend : 09.01.2019. u 20:56
    UJEDINJENJE ILI SMRT!

  14. #14
    Zainteresovan član Vend (avatar)
    Učlanjen
    20.03.2015.
    Pol
    muški
    Lokacija
    Kragujevac
    Poruke
    200
    Reputaciona moć
    17

    Podrazumevano Re: Флорин Курта о Хрватима, Србима и цару Ираклију


Slične teme

  1. Odgovora: 4
    Poslednja poruka: 13.06.2013., 13:52
  2. Рекли су о Србима
    Autor BodoniuS u forumu Istorija
    Odgovora: 8
    Poslednja poruka: 25.09.2005., 16:51
  3. Рекли су о Србима
    Autor BodoniuS u forumu Politika
    Odgovora: 20
    Poslednja poruka: 22.09.2005., 06:05
  4. ВИРУС МЕЂУ СРБИМА
    Autor Marty Misterija u forumu Politika
    Odgovora: 29
    Poslednja poruka: 12.07.2005., 15:36
  5. ОПОМЕНА СРБИМА РОДОЉУБИМА
    Autor Marty Misterija u forumu Politika
    Odgovora: 54
    Poslednja poruka: 03.07.2005., 18:28

Pravila za slanje poruka

  • Ne možete kreirati novu temu
  • Ne možete poslati odgovor
  • Ne možete dodati priloge
  • Ne možete prepraviti svoju poruku
  •