Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Constantinople as 'New Rome'

In modern works it is often stated that Constantinople was called ‘New Rome’ (or ‘Second Rome’), with the implication that this was an official title. This incorrect statement is particularly common in works written by scholars whose first, and perhaps only, language is English (which is why a thorough English-language study of the question, with the relevant evidence translated into English and analysed rather than simply accepted, is needed). Some ancient authors (writing long after the foundation of the city) do in fact say or imply that Constantinople was formally named ‘New Rome’ or ‘Second Rome’, but this claim is, as Franz Dölger wrote a long time ago, ‘auf einer Fiktion beruht’. These expressions belong to laudatory rhetoric and elevated historical prose and poetry, and are never found in official documents or on the coinage. Also, who could believe that Constantine I would ever have allowed any name other than his to be the official name of his new city? The present study examines the relevant evidence in order to demonstrate that it is wrong to say that Constantine’s city was ever officially called anything other than ‘Constantinople’. On the other hand, it also shows that in an ecclesiastical context it has been correct to refer to ‘New Rome’, ever since the decision of the Oecumenical Council of A.D. 381, arranged by Theodosius I. The question has often been discussed in the past, but this study of the evidence reaches a firmer conclusion than most previous discussions, explains why an incorrect opinion has flourished, analyses the evidence more closely and presents it in English.

National Documentation Centre (EKT)

John Richard MELVILLE-JONES

BYZANTINA SYMMEIKTA

2015

Title: Constantinople as 'New Rome'

Description:

0</o:Version> </o:DocumentProperties> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]-->  <!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.

MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.

4pt 0cm 5.

4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.

0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.

0pt; font-family:Times; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;} </style> <![endif]-->  In modern works it is often stated that Constantinople was called ‘New Rome’ (or ‘Second Rome’), with the implication that this was an official title.

This incorrect statement is particularly common in works written by scholars whose first, and perhaps only, language is English (which is why a thorough English-language study of the question, with the relevant evidence translated into English and analysed rather than simply accepted, is needed).

Some ancient authors (writing long after the foundation of the city) do in fact say or imply that Constantinople was formally named ‘New Rome’ or ‘Second Rome’, but this claim is, as Franz Dölger wrote a long time ago, ‘auf einer Fiktion beruht’.

These expressions belong to laudatory rhetoric and elevated historical prose and poetry, and are never found in official documents or on the coinage.

Also, who could believe that Constantine I would ever have allowed any name other than his to be the official name of his new city? The present study examines the relevant evidence in order to demonstrate that it is wrong to say that Constantine’s city was ever officially called anything other than ‘Constantinople’.

On the other hand, it also shows that in an ecclesiastical context it has been correct to refer to ‘New Rome’, ever since the decision of the Oecumenical Council of A.

381, arranged by Theodosius I.

The question has often been discussed in the past, but this study of the evidence reaches a firmer conclusion than most previous discussions, explains why an incorrect opinion has flourished, analyses the evidence more closely and presents it in English.

.

Back

Saint Sampson, whose feast is celebrated on June 27, was depicted among holy physicians. However, his images were not frequent. He was usually accompanied with Saint Mokios (...

Sicily between Constantinople and Rome

This chapter examines the web of connections linking Sicily to the Greek Christian world of the eastern Mediterranean and, simultaneously, to the Latin Christendom of Rome and the ...

annona (grain)

Imperial Rome was by far the largest city of its time, and feeding its populace—about one million according to most estimates—required an ever-watchful eye on the part of the autho...

Gurdjieff in Constantinople

Abstract George Gurdjieff (1866–1949) and his students’ stay in Constantinople in 1920–1921 remains a blank spot in the movement’s history. Very few records relating to this pe...

Mehmet II’s Political Success? The Establishment of the Florentine Colony in Ottoman Constantinople (1453–1470)

Abstract This article investigates the outset of Florence’s colony in Ottoman Constantinople until the conquest of Negroponte in 1470 by the Ottoman forces led by Mehmet II. It ana...

Geoffroy of Villehardouin, Marshal of Champagne

This book traces the remarkable life of Geoffroy of Villehardouin (c. 1148–c. 1217) from his earliest years in Champagne through his last years in Greece after the crusade. The fou...

David Jones and Rome

Abstract This interdisciplinary and archival study explores the reception of ancient Rome in the artistic, literary, and philosophical works of David Jones (1895–197...

Armeniske bøger fra 15-1700-tallet i Det Kongelige Biblioteks samlinger

In 2012, through various presentations and exhibitions, the 500th anniversary of thefirst printed book in Armenian was celebrated. Thus, 19 Armenian books printed from1565 to 1745,...

Email:
Password:

Email:

Constantinople as 'New Rome'

Related Results