Zur Datierung von Prokops Geheimgeschichte
The debate surrounding the date of Procopius'has one question at its core: when did Justinian start ruling the Eastern Roman Empire? Usually, it is assumed based on the perspective of Procopius' text that it was when Justin I became emperor in 518. Taking this year as the starting point an...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | German |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Peeters
[2019]
|
| In: |
Byzantion
Year: 2019, Volume: 89, Pages: 37-57 |
| IxTheo Classification: | CD Christianity and Culture CG Christianity and Politics KAB Church history 30-500; early Christianity KBL Near East and North Africa |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | The debate surrounding the date of Procopius'has one question at its core: when did Justinian start ruling the Eastern Roman Empire? Usually, it is assumed based on the perspective of Procopius' text that it was when Justin I became emperor in 518. Taking this year as the starting point and counting 32 years, a time-span Procopius mentions several times, theshould be dated to 550. While this year is commonly accepted, some researchers suggest the year 559, counting from 527. This article analyses the different arguments for both propositions, and suggests that the survivingrepresents a version of the text which dates neither to 550 nor to 559, but to 553 or 554. The debate surrounding the date of Procopius’ Secret History has one question at its core: when did Justinian start ruling the Eastern Roman Empire? Usually, it is assumed based on the perspective of Procopius’ text that it was when Justin I became emperor in 518. Taking this year as the starting point and counting 32 years, a time-span Procopius mentions several times, the Secret History should be dated to 550. While this year is commonly accepted, some researchers suggest the year 559, counting from 527. This article analyses the different arguments for both propositions, and suggests that the surviving Secret History represents a version of the text which dates neither to 550 nor to 559, but to 553 or 554. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2294-6209 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Byzantion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.2143/BYZ.89.0.3287066 |