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 (...

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...

Giovanni d’Aragona (1456‒1485) szerepe Mátyás király mecénásságában

King Matthias Corvinus of Hungary (1458‒1490), son of the “Scourge of the Turks,” John Hunyadi, was a foremost patron of early Renaissance art. He was only fourteen years old in 14...

A Factory of Magnificence: Themistius, Thucydides, and Constantinople

In Themistius’orations there are many clear and direct references to the Greek literature of the 5th and 4th centuries BCE. However, there are also more subtle references to these ...

The Walls and Aqueducts of Rome in the Early Middle Ages, A.D. 500–1000

Our knowledge of the city of Rome after the fall of the Western Empire is largely determined by its position as the seat of the Papacy. Historical studies are based principally upo...

Between the king and the pope: French cardinals in Rome (1495–1560)

ABSTRACT:On account of their dual function as princes of the church and agents for the king of France, the French cardinals in Rome constitute a well-defined and self-contained com...

Hellenic culture and the Roman heroes of Plutarch

Plutarch of Chaeroneia stands almost alone among Greeks of the Roman Empire in displaying in his works an extensive knowledge of, and interest in, Rome and Romans. The knowledge of...

Forgotten Fragments of Ancient Wall Paintings in Rome I.–The Palatine

Students of ancient painting are apt to bestow exclusive attention upon the long series of pictures in the Museum of Naples recovered from Pompeii and Herculaneum, and to forget th...

Email:
Password:

Email:

Constantinople as 'New Rome'

Related Results