Tra memoria e oblio. Echi a Padova della guerra di Candia: Cretae oppugnatio di Carlo de’ Dottori, in Kretikos Polemos 1645-1669 Agnostes Ptykhes, Iraklio Vikelaia Demotiki Bibliotheke 2021, pp. 279–294, 2021
The eminent Paduan writer Carlo de’ Dottori composed a poem in Latin verses, Cretae oppugnatio, w... more The eminent Paduan writer Carlo de’ Dottori composed a poem in Latin verses, Cretae oppugnatio, which, printed only a few months before the fall of Candia, expresses the author’s hopefulness in the ultimate victory against the Turkish invader. The only edition of the poem is preserved in just a few libraries. It was not reissued in the collected works of Carlo de’ Dottori and has in fact been largely forgotten. It is therefore fitting to undertake a critical presentation and reading of the poem as a prelude to a new edition which will introduce it to a new and broader audience and shed fresh light on the echoes in Veneto of the distant war and its final phases.
Recent contributions to the study of Julian’s fortuna in Byzantine civilization reveal that he wa... more Recent contributions to the study of Julian’s fortuna in Byzantine civilization reveal that he was transformed into a figure who, for his opposition to Christianity, lost his individual historical characteristics and became the incarnation of absolute evil: in fact, the execrations and condemnations of Julian even lead to his being associated with one of his many critics, bishop John of Thessaloniki, active in the first half of the 7th century. One of John’s works, the Dormitio Virginis, is paradoxically presented in a note by a Byzantine reader in Cod. Vind. Hist. Gr. 45 as a text by the Apostate, so as to justify its censorship (conducted with drastic formality). At the same time, the last pagan emperor plays a surprising and intriguing role in one instance of the indirect transmission of Contra Galilaeos which has hitherto escaped remark. Liutprando of Cremona, in fact, in two passages of the Antapodosis (IV.7 and III.29) reflects the interest of learned Byzantines (among them perhaps Theodore Dafnopate) in Julian’s polemic (in fr. 100 Masaracchia = 6 Guida) against the evangelical doctrine on the renunciation of goods and the parallel between the Apostate and the Czar Simeon of Bulgaria. The bishop of Cremona’s testimony on this fragment can be added to that of Byzantine authors, among them Arethas and Photius, who seems to have played an important role in the transmission of this particular aspect of Julian’s polemic. Liutprando, however, can be distinguished from his sources by the purpose for which he uses it. He is, in fact, hardly interested in polemicizing against the last pagan emperor, since he wishes, above all, to stress the infamy of a hated personal rival (Bishop Manasse of Verona) and to this goal uses almost every means at his disposal, including what he had learnt in Constantinople about the Apostate. Draft of the papere Un'eco del Contra Galilaeos in Liutprando di Cremona e ulteriori tasselli della polemica contro Giuliano nel Medioevo bizantino, published in Interreligiöse Konflikte im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert. Julian “Contra Galilaeos” - Kyrill “Contra Iulianum”. Herausgegeben von Gerlinde Huber-Rebenich und Stefan Rebenich, Berlin/Boston, Walter de Gruyter, 2020 (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 181), pp. 65-90
On Kadare's thoughts about European history and cultural roots of Albania and Europe. Dra... more On Kadare's thoughts about European history and cultural roots of Albania and Europe. Draft of the article published in Kadare europeo e la cultura albanese oggi, a cura di Giuseppina Turano, Roma, Bulzoni, 2011 (Contesti adriatici, 3), pp. 79-90 [ISBN 978-88-7870-572-2];
Un'eco del Contra Galilaeos in Liutprando di Cremona e ulteriori tasselli della polemica contro Giuliano nel Medioevo bizantino, 2020
Recent contributions to the study of Julian’s fortuna in Byzantine civilization
reveal that he wa... more Recent contributions to the study of Julian’s fortuna in Byzantine civilization reveal that he was transformed into a figure who, for his opposition to Christianity, lost his individual historical characteristics and became the incarnation of absolute evil: in fact, the execrations and condemnations of Julian even lead to his being associated with one of his many critics, bishop John of Thessaloniki, active in the first half of the 7th century. One of John’s works, the Dormitio Virginis, is paradoxically presented in a note by a Byzantine reader in Cod. Vind. Hist. Gr. 45 as a text by the Apostate, so as to justify its censorship (conducted with drastic formality). At the same time, the last pagan emperor plays a surprising and intriguing role in one instance of the indirect transmission of Contra Galilaeos which has hitherto escaped remark. Liutprando of Cremona, in fact, in two passages of the Antapodosis (IV.7 and III.29) reflects the interest of learned Byzantines (among them perhaps Theodore Dafnopate) in Julian’s polemic (in fr. 100 Masaracchia = 6 Guida) against the evangelical doctrine on the renunciation of goods and the parallel between the Apostate and the Czar Simeon of Bulgaria. The bishop of Cremona’s testimony on this fragment can be added to that of Byzantine authors, among them Arethas and Photius, who seems to have played an important role in the transmission of this particular aspect of Julian’s polemic. Liutprando, however, can be distinguished from his sources by the purpose for which he uses it. He is, in fact, hardly interested in polemicizing against the last pagan emperor, since he wishes, above all, to stress the infamy of a hated personal rival (Bishop Manasse of Verona) and to this goal uses almost every means at his disposal, including what he had learnt in Constantinople about the Apostate. Draft of the papere Un'eco del Contra Galilaeos in Liutprando di Cremona e ulteriori tasselli della polemica contro Giuliano nel Medioevo bizantino, published in Interreligiöse Konflikte im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert. Julian “Contra Galilaeos” - Kyrill “Contra Iulianum”. Herausgegeben von Gerlinde Huber-Rebenich und Stefan Rebenich, Berlin/Boston, Walter de Gruyter, 2020 (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 181), pp. 65-90
Georgius Gemistus Pletho died June 26, 1452, according to reports from
his followers in two separ... more Georgius Gemistus Pletho died June 26, 1452, according to reports from his followers in two separate manuscripts. However, as John Monfasani has noted, this date is problematic for various reasons. Since June 26, 363 AC is the day in which Julian the Apostate was mortally wounded in a battle, it cannot be excluded that Demetrius Kavakis, admirer of Julian and of Pletho, or another of their followers, tried to construct a symmetry between the two men by reporting a false date of death (that is, June 26) for the neopagan philosopher.
Echi di storia romana repubblicana nei panegirici gallici. Tesi di Laurea in Lettere (indirizzo classico) presso l'Università degli Studi di Padova (anno 1997), 1997
On the Roman republican history in the Gallic Panegyrics
A new Fragment of Contra Galilaeos by Emperor Julian provides evidence that the circulation of th... more A new Fragment of Contra Galilaeos by Emperor Julian provides evidence that the circulation of the anti-christian work was limited in the Byzantine culture: there was probably only an indirect tradition of fragments. Draft of a paper published in Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 62 (2012), pp. 265-279. In questa sede si presenta un nuovo frammento (da Teofilatto di Ocrida) e nuove testimonianze (in Procopio di Gaza e Michele Glica) del Contra Galilaeos di Giuliano. Il riesame dei dati già noti agli studiosi precedenti e di una testimonianza di Severo di Antiochia, finora considerata dal solo Rinaldi nel 1998, prova che quest'opera di Giuliano nel Medio Evo era nota per tradizione indiretta.
Tra memoria e oblio. Echi a Padova della guerra di Candia: Cretae oppugnatio di Carlo de’ Dottori, in Kretikos Polemos 1645-1669 Agnostes Ptykhes, Iraklio Vikelaia Demotiki Bibliotheke 2021, pp. 279–294, 2021
The eminent Paduan writer Carlo de’ Dottori composed a poem in Latin verses, Cretae oppugnatio, w... more The eminent Paduan writer Carlo de’ Dottori composed a poem in Latin verses, Cretae oppugnatio, which, printed only a few months before the fall of Candia, expresses the author’s hopefulness in the ultimate victory against the Turkish invader. The only edition of the poem is preserved in just a few libraries. It was not reissued in the collected works of Carlo de’ Dottori and has in fact been largely forgotten. It is therefore fitting to undertake a critical presentation and reading of the poem as a prelude to a new edition which will introduce it to a new and broader audience and shed fresh light on the echoes in Veneto of the distant war and its final phases.
Recent contributions to the study of Julian’s fortuna in Byzantine civilization reveal that he wa... more Recent contributions to the study of Julian’s fortuna in Byzantine civilization reveal that he was transformed into a figure who, for his opposition to Christianity, lost his individual historical characteristics and became the incarnation of absolute evil: in fact, the execrations and condemnations of Julian even lead to his being associated with one of his many critics, bishop John of Thessaloniki, active in the first half of the 7th century. One of John’s works, the Dormitio Virginis, is paradoxically presented in a note by a Byzantine reader in Cod. Vind. Hist. Gr. 45 as a text by the Apostate, so as to justify its censorship (conducted with drastic formality). At the same time, the last pagan emperor plays a surprising and intriguing role in one instance of the indirect transmission of Contra Galilaeos which has hitherto escaped remark. Liutprando of Cremona, in fact, in two passages of the Antapodosis (IV.7 and III.29) reflects the interest of learned Byzantines (among them perhaps Theodore Dafnopate) in Julian’s polemic (in fr. 100 Masaracchia = 6 Guida) against the evangelical doctrine on the renunciation of goods and the parallel between the Apostate and the Czar Simeon of Bulgaria. The bishop of Cremona’s testimony on this fragment can be added to that of Byzantine authors, among them Arethas and Photius, who seems to have played an important role in the transmission of this particular aspect of Julian’s polemic. Liutprando, however, can be distinguished from his sources by the purpose for which he uses it. He is, in fact, hardly interested in polemicizing against the last pagan emperor, since he wishes, above all, to stress the infamy of a hated personal rival (Bishop Manasse of Verona) and to this goal uses almost every means at his disposal, including what he had learnt in Constantinople about the Apostate. Draft of the papere Un'eco del Contra Galilaeos in Liutprando di Cremona e ulteriori tasselli della polemica contro Giuliano nel Medioevo bizantino, published in Interreligiöse Konflikte im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert. Julian “Contra Galilaeos” - Kyrill “Contra Iulianum”. Herausgegeben von Gerlinde Huber-Rebenich und Stefan Rebenich, Berlin/Boston, Walter de Gruyter, 2020 (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 181), pp. 65-90
On Kadare's thoughts about European history and cultural roots of Albania and Europe. Dra... more On Kadare's thoughts about European history and cultural roots of Albania and Europe. Draft of the article published in Kadare europeo e la cultura albanese oggi, a cura di Giuseppina Turano, Roma, Bulzoni, 2011 (Contesti adriatici, 3), pp. 79-90 [ISBN 978-88-7870-572-2];
Un'eco del Contra Galilaeos in Liutprando di Cremona e ulteriori tasselli della polemica contro Giuliano nel Medioevo bizantino, 2020
Recent contributions to the study of Julian’s fortuna in Byzantine civilization
reveal that he wa... more Recent contributions to the study of Julian’s fortuna in Byzantine civilization reveal that he was transformed into a figure who, for his opposition to Christianity, lost his individual historical characteristics and became the incarnation of absolute evil: in fact, the execrations and condemnations of Julian even lead to his being associated with one of his many critics, bishop John of Thessaloniki, active in the first half of the 7th century. One of John’s works, the Dormitio Virginis, is paradoxically presented in a note by a Byzantine reader in Cod. Vind. Hist. Gr. 45 as a text by the Apostate, so as to justify its censorship (conducted with drastic formality). At the same time, the last pagan emperor plays a surprising and intriguing role in one instance of the indirect transmission of Contra Galilaeos which has hitherto escaped remark. Liutprando of Cremona, in fact, in two passages of the Antapodosis (IV.7 and III.29) reflects the interest of learned Byzantines (among them perhaps Theodore Dafnopate) in Julian’s polemic (in fr. 100 Masaracchia = 6 Guida) against the evangelical doctrine on the renunciation of goods and the parallel between the Apostate and the Czar Simeon of Bulgaria. The bishop of Cremona’s testimony on this fragment can be added to that of Byzantine authors, among them Arethas and Photius, who seems to have played an important role in the transmission of this particular aspect of Julian’s polemic. Liutprando, however, can be distinguished from his sources by the purpose for which he uses it. He is, in fact, hardly interested in polemicizing against the last pagan emperor, since he wishes, above all, to stress the infamy of a hated personal rival (Bishop Manasse of Verona) and to this goal uses almost every means at his disposal, including what he had learnt in Constantinople about the Apostate. Draft of the papere Un'eco del Contra Galilaeos in Liutprando di Cremona e ulteriori tasselli della polemica contro Giuliano nel Medioevo bizantino, published in Interreligiöse Konflikte im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert. Julian “Contra Galilaeos” - Kyrill “Contra Iulianum”. Herausgegeben von Gerlinde Huber-Rebenich und Stefan Rebenich, Berlin/Boston, Walter de Gruyter, 2020 (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 181), pp. 65-90
Georgius Gemistus Pletho died June 26, 1452, according to reports from
his followers in two separ... more Georgius Gemistus Pletho died June 26, 1452, according to reports from his followers in two separate manuscripts. However, as John Monfasani has noted, this date is problematic for various reasons. Since June 26, 363 AC is the day in which Julian the Apostate was mortally wounded in a battle, it cannot be excluded that Demetrius Kavakis, admirer of Julian and of Pletho, or another of their followers, tried to construct a symmetry between the two men by reporting a false date of death (that is, June 26) for the neopagan philosopher.
Echi di storia romana repubblicana nei panegirici gallici. Tesi di Laurea in Lettere (indirizzo classico) presso l'Università degli Studi di Padova (anno 1997), 1997
On the Roman republican history in the Gallic Panegyrics
A new Fragment of Contra Galilaeos by Emperor Julian provides evidence that the circulation of th... more A new Fragment of Contra Galilaeos by Emperor Julian provides evidence that the circulation of the anti-christian work was limited in the Byzantine culture: there was probably only an indirect tradition of fragments. Draft of a paper published in Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 62 (2012), pp. 265-279. In questa sede si presenta un nuovo frammento (da Teofilatto di Ocrida) e nuove testimonianze (in Procopio di Gaza e Michele Glica) del Contra Galilaeos di Giuliano. Il riesame dei dati già noti agli studiosi precedenti e di una testimonianza di Severo di Antiochia, finora considerata dal solo Rinaldi nel 1998, prova che quest'opera di Giuliano nel Medio Evo era nota per tradizione indiretta.
Julian, the last pagan emperor of the Roman empire, died in war in 363. In the Byzantine (that is... more Julian, the last pagan emperor of the Roman empire, died in war in 363. In the Byzantine (that is, the Eastern Roman) empire, the figure of Julian aroused conflicting reactions: antipathy towards his apostasy but also admiration for his accomplishments, particularly as an author writing in Greek. Julian died young, and his attempt to reinstate paganism was a failure, but, paradoxically, his brief and unsuccessful policy resonated for centuries.
This book analyses Julian from the perspectives of Byzantine Culture. The history of his posthumous reputation reveals differences in cultural perspectives and it is most intriguing with regard to the Eastern Roman empire which survived for almost a millennium after the fall of the Western empire. Byzantine culture viewed Julian in multiple ways, first as the legitimate emperor of the enduring Roman empire; second as the author of works written in Greek and handed down for generations in the language that scholars, the Church, and the state administration all continued to use; and third as an open enemy of Christianity.
"Molti fedeli di Cristo morirono tra terribili pene". Bibliografia agiografica giulianea con edizione della Passio Cyriaci BHG 465b, 2018
Bibliography about vitae et passiones sanctorum sub Juliano and critical edition of the Passio Cy... more Bibliography about vitae et passiones sanctorum sub Juliano and critical edition of the Passio Cyriaci BHG 465b
Draft in Italian of "Venise des origines à l'an 827", in "Venise. Histoire, promenades, anthologie & dictionnaire". Sous la direction de Delphin Gachet et Alessandro Scarsella, Paris, Robert Laffont, 2016 (Bouquins) [ISBN 978-2-221-12874-9], pp. 3-41, 2016
Draft in Italian language of the French text "Venise des origines à l'an 827", in "Venise. Histoi... more Draft in Italian language of the French text "Venise des origines à l'an 827", in "Venise. Histoire, promenades, anthologie & dictionnaire". Sous la direction de Delphin Gachet et Alessandro Scarsella, Paris, Robert Laffont, 2016 (Bouquins) [ISBN 978-2-221-12874-9], pp. 3-41 ("Venise. Histoire, promenades, anthologie & dictionnaire" has got the "Prix des Belles Lettres" 2016 of "Académie nationale des sciences, belles-lettres et arts de Bordeaux") Bizantinità di Venezia Il filosofo tedesco Karl Jaspers nel volume Origine e senso della storia ritiene "principe prudent de ne pas se mêler des premiers âges de l'humanité". A proposito della preistoria Jaspers aggiunge: "Ce temps prodigieusement long, où l'homme peuplait déjà la terre, garde son secret. Quoique l'histoire n'y parle pas encore, nous savons qu'il a dû s'y produire quelque chose d'essentiel". Per i primordi di Venezia gli storici hanno poche fonti rispetto a quelle a disposizione della storia della città lagunare nei periodi successivi (e anche rispetto a quelle a disposizione di chi è interessato alla storia di altre località italiane nell'ottavo secolo e nei primi decenni del nono). Per esempio il primo documento veneziano fu scritto nell'anno 819 dal tribuno e notaio ducale Demetrio, qualche anno dopo il costituirsi della cancelleria dei dogi. Eppure, come scrive Jaspers sempre a proposito della preistoria, nei primi e oscuri secoli della storia veneziana "tout y était virtuellement contenu; ce qui s'y passa fut décisif et orienta le cours même de l'histoire" i. Il fattore decisivo di tutta la storia di Venezia fu la sua iniziale appartenenza all'Impero Romano d'Oriente, ovvero a Bisanzio. Nell'imminenza della caduta dell'Impero, una delegazione guidata dall'imperatore Giovanni Paleologo giunse a Venezia per partecipare al Concilio ecumenico di Ferrara-Firenze del 1438-1439 (organizzato per riunire cattolici e ortodossi in una unica Chiesa) ed visitò la città e i suoi monumenti. Uno dei membri di questa delegazione, Bessarione, il metropolita ortodosso di Nicea e futuro fondatore della Biblioteca Marciana (il cui ornato edificio oggi fronteggia Palazzo Ducale), rimase colpito dalla particolare atmosfera della città lagunare tanto che successivamente la definì "come una seconda Bisanzio" (quasi alterum Byzantium). Anche oggi, secondo Jonathan Harris, l'attuale "Istanbul non possiede un corrispettivo bizantino dell'acropoli di Atene o del foro di Roma [.. .] C'è un altro modo, tuttavia, per farsi un'idea della Costantinopoli bizantina: visitare Venezia". In origine Venezia era, in effetti, non una seconda Bisanzio, ma una parte integrante del mondo bizantino e dell'Impero Bizantino, e anche quando di fatto si rese indipendente, restò per generazioni parte integrante di quello che è stato definito con una moderna espressione il "Commonwealth bizantino" oppure koine bizantina ii. La leggenda delle origini selvagge: profughi in un disabitato mondo acquatico
David Abulafia, il Mediterraneo e l'Impero Romano. Draft to be published in "Studi comparatistici" (fascicolo 22), 2021
About the Roman Empire and the echoes of its propaganda in the historian David Abulafia. Draft to... more About the Roman Empire and the echoes of its propaganda in the historian David Abulafia. Draft to be published in "Studi comparatistici" (fascicolo 22)
Lo storico medievista David Abulafia in una sua recente pubblicazione ha tracciato una storia del Mar Mediterraneo dalla preistoria ai giorni nostri. Tra i tanti e differenti stimoli presenti all'interno di quest'opera vi è la rievocazione dell'unità della civiltà mediterranea raggiunta in epoca imperiale romana. E' un'eco della propaganda dei Cesari che, anche dopo il sacco di Roma del 410, continuava a magnificare la res publica come la realizzazione dell'unità del genere umano. In questo intervento si osserva come appare l'Impero Romano nelle pagine di Abulafia, anche in comparazione alla sua presentazione di successive civiltà che nel Medio Evo si affacciarono sul Mediterraneo.
Uploads
Papers by Stefano Trovato
reveal that he was transformed into a figure who, for his opposition to Christianity, lost his individual historical characteristics and became the incarnation of
absolute evil: in fact, the execrations and condemnations of Julian even lead to his
being associated with one of his many critics, bishop John of Thessaloniki, active in
the first half of the 7th century. One of John’s works, the Dormitio Virginis, is paradoxically presented in a note by a Byzantine reader in Cod. Vind. Hist. Gr. 45 as a
text by the Apostate, so as to justify its censorship (conducted with drastic formality).
At the same time, the last pagan emperor plays a surprising and intriguing role
in one instance of the indirect transmission of Contra Galilaeos which has hitherto
escaped remark. Liutprando of Cremona, in fact, in two passages of the Antapodosis
(IV.7 and III.29) reflects the interest of learned Byzantines (among them perhaps
Theodore Dafnopate) in Julian’s polemic (in fr. 100 Masaracchia = 6 Guida) against
the evangelical doctrine on the renunciation of goods and the parallel between the
Apostate and the Czar Simeon of Bulgaria. The bishop of Cremona’s testimony on
this fragment can be added to that of Byzantine authors, among them Arethas and
Photius, who seems to have played an important role in the transmission of this
particular aspect of Julian’s polemic. Liutprando, however, can be distinguished
from his sources by the purpose for which he uses it. He is, in fact, hardly interested
in polemicizing against the last pagan emperor, since he wishes, above all, to stress
the infamy of a hated personal rival (Bishop Manasse of Verona) and to this goal
uses almost every means at his disposal, including what he had learnt in Constantinople about the Apostate.
Draft of the papere Un'eco del Contra Galilaeos in Liutprando di Cremona e ulteriori tasselli della polemica contro Giuliano nel Medioevo bizantino, published in Interreligiöse Konflikte im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert. Julian “Contra Galilaeos” - Kyrill “Contra Iulianum”. Herausgegeben von Gerlinde Huber-Rebenich und Stefan Rebenich, Berlin/Boston, Walter de Gruyter, 2020 (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 181), pp. 65-90
his followers in two separate manuscripts. However, as John Monfasani has
noted, this date is problematic for various reasons. Since June 26, 363 AC is the
day in which Julian the Apostate was mortally wounded in a battle, it cannot be
excluded that Demetrius Kavakis, admirer of Julian and of Pletho, or another of
their followers, tried to construct a symmetry between the two men by reporting
a false date of death (that is, June 26) for the neopagan philosopher.
reveal that he was transformed into a figure who, for his opposition to Christianity, lost his individual historical characteristics and became the incarnation of
absolute evil: in fact, the execrations and condemnations of Julian even lead to his
being associated with one of his many critics, bishop John of Thessaloniki, active in
the first half of the 7th century. One of John’s works, the Dormitio Virginis, is paradoxically presented in a note by a Byzantine reader in Cod. Vind. Hist. Gr. 45 as a
text by the Apostate, so as to justify its censorship (conducted with drastic formality).
At the same time, the last pagan emperor plays a surprising and intriguing role
in one instance of the indirect transmission of Contra Galilaeos which has hitherto
escaped remark. Liutprando of Cremona, in fact, in two passages of the Antapodosis
(IV.7 and III.29) reflects the interest of learned Byzantines (among them perhaps
Theodore Dafnopate) in Julian’s polemic (in fr. 100 Masaracchia = 6 Guida) against
the evangelical doctrine on the renunciation of goods and the parallel between the
Apostate and the Czar Simeon of Bulgaria. The bishop of Cremona’s testimony on
this fragment can be added to that of Byzantine authors, among them Arethas and
Photius, who seems to have played an important role in the transmission of this
particular aspect of Julian’s polemic. Liutprando, however, can be distinguished
from his sources by the purpose for which he uses it. He is, in fact, hardly interested
in polemicizing against the last pagan emperor, since he wishes, above all, to stress
the infamy of a hated personal rival (Bishop Manasse of Verona) and to this goal
uses almost every means at his disposal, including what he had learnt in Constantinople about the Apostate.
Draft of the papere Un'eco del Contra Galilaeos in Liutprando di Cremona e ulteriori tasselli della polemica contro Giuliano nel Medioevo bizantino, published in Interreligiöse Konflikte im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert. Julian “Contra Galilaeos” - Kyrill “Contra Iulianum”. Herausgegeben von Gerlinde Huber-Rebenich und Stefan Rebenich, Berlin/Boston, Walter de Gruyter, 2020 (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 181), pp. 65-90
his followers in two separate manuscripts. However, as John Monfasani has
noted, this date is problematic for various reasons. Since June 26, 363 AC is the
day in which Julian the Apostate was mortally wounded in a battle, it cannot be
excluded that Demetrius Kavakis, admirer of Julian and of Pletho, or another of
their followers, tried to construct a symmetry between the two men by reporting
a false date of death (that is, June 26) for the neopagan philosopher.
This book analyses Julian from the perspectives of Byzantine Culture. The history of his posthumous reputation reveals differences in cultural perspectives and it is most intriguing with regard to the Eastern Roman empire which survived for almost a millennium after the fall of the Western empire. Byzantine culture viewed Julian in multiple ways, first as the legitimate emperor of the enduring Roman empire; second as the author of works written in Greek and handed down for generations in the language that scholars, the Church, and the state administration all continued to use; and third as an open enemy of Christianity.
Lo storico medievista David Abulafia in una sua recente pubblicazione ha tracciato una storia del Mar Mediterraneo dalla preistoria ai giorni nostri. Tra i tanti e differenti stimoli presenti all'interno di quest'opera vi è la rievocazione dell'unità della civiltà mediterranea raggiunta in epoca imperiale romana. E' un'eco della propaganda dei Cesari che, anche dopo il sacco di Roma del 410, continuava a magnificare la res publica come la realizzazione dell'unità del genere umano. In questo intervento si osserva come appare l'Impero Romano nelle pagine di Abulafia, anche in comparazione alla sua presentazione di successive civiltà che nel Medio Evo si affacciarono sul Mediterraneo.