This article is devoted to the church built by Constantine in Antioch. It is mentioned twice by Eusebius and appears in numerous texts, but it has not yet been recognized in the field. The names given to the church in the texts are examined: the original name seems to have been “The Golden Church”. However, already under Julian’s reign the church was commonly called “The Great Church” or even simply “The Church”. This name implies that the building was the main church of the Christian community. Its topographical situation is unknown. Due to the ambiguities of the architectural vocabulary used by Eusebius, any speculation about the architectural appearance of the church must be taken with great caution. Constantine’s decision to build this church must be interpreted as an act of recognition of the importance of Antioch as “Metropolis of the East”. Although the dedication of the church took place in 341, in the presence of Constantius, the church maintained the memory of Constantine until the beginning of the 6th century. In Malalas’ Chronicle, the narrative of its construction is associated with the appointment of the first Comes Orientis, the foundation of his praetorium and, anachronistically, the destruction of a temple and its replacement by Rufinus’ basilica, which played an important role in Antiochean urban space until at least the reign of Justinian.
- Content Type Journal Article
- Category Original
- Pages 125-136
- DOI 10.1484/J.AT.5.103182
- Authors
The text where Eusebius gives a description of the Holy Sepulchre is not clear in all its details. This article addresses some of the open questions: was Constantine looking for the tomb of Christ, when he decided to build this church in Jerusalem? Was the so-called Anastasis part of the Constantinian programme or was it a later addition? Some details of the description of the “martyrion”, or the basilica, need also some further explanation. Finally, why does Eusebius not say anything about the True Cross and the Rock of the Calvary? The proposed answers for the main question are: Constantine was not looking for the tomb; the Anastasis was built at the same time, but may be as the last part of the programme. The True Cross was not yet discovered and, in the course of the work, the Rock of the Calvary was identified as such, but did not get an architectural frame.
- Content Type Journal Article
- Category Original
- Pages 95-103
- DOI 10.1484/J.AT.5.103179
- Authors
The qualities of construction attested in the archeological remains of the impressive and well decorated church now named “Basilica of Quarter sand” in Tyre (formerly known under the name “Basilica of the Quarter Hajj Qaafarani”), have raised debates for the identification of this church with the cathedral mentioned by Eusebius of Caesarea in the famous panegyric included in his Ecclesiastical History (Book 10, Chap. 4), and delivered in 313-314 under the aegis of bishop Paulinus of Tyre. But recent epigraphic and topographic studies, C14 analysis and other archaeological discoveries, confronted with Eusebius’ panegyric, give us data in order not to identify Paulinus’s cathedral with the remains of “Basilica of Quarter Sand”; and, in contrary, to propose the identification of the latter, which seemingly had martyrial and funerary functions, with the Saint Mary of Swamp mentioned in the Acts of the Synod held under the aegis of Epiphanius of Tyre on September 16th of 518.
- Content Type Journal Article
- Category Original
- Pages 111-123
- DOI 10.1484/J.AT.5.103181
- Authors
- Sophie Garreau-Forrest
- Ali Khalil Badawi
Byzance n’avait guère vocation à devenir la capitale de l’Empire. Elle posait d’importants problèmes logistiques quant à l’approvisionnement et à l’accessibilité et n’avait que peu de valeur militaire, et d’autres villes présentaient une signification historique plus importante. Pourquoi alors Constantin a-t-il choisi Byzance ? À ce moment-là, il s’inquiétait davantage du passé immédiat que de l’avenir. En 324, sa principale priorité était d’effacer la mémoire de son rival Licinius en refondant et en renommant la ville. Constantin amorça également la transformation de Constantinople en une très grande ville. Mais pourquoi les empereurs qui lui ont succédé ont-ils continué de développer ces infrastructures ? Sans doute comme Constantin ont-ils reconnu la nécessité de maintenir une telle ville pour imposer leur autorité dans les provinces orientales et pour assurer la légitimité de leur dynastie. La valeur symbolique de Constantinople devait compenser les difficultés d’ordre fonctionnel en matière de ressources et de protection.
- Content Type Journal Article
- Category Original
- Pages 83-94
- DOI 10.1484/J.AT.5.103178
- Authors
Since the excavations carried out in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem by the British Department of Antiquities in Palestine in 1927 and during the 1930s, it has become clear that the current day building is not the church commissioned by the Emperor’s mother, Helena, which the so-called Pilgrim of Bordeaux saw as early as 333 AD, but rather the more recent structure erected in the late 5th century or even the 6th century. Unfortunately, the archaeological research in the eastern part of the church could only be carried out in its northern half; the church has been an UNESCO World Heritage Site since 2012.
The documentation in the reports of the walls and remains of the floor discovered during the excavation is often imprecise, so that many questions with regard to the reconstruction of the Constantine basilica remain unanswered. An atrium lays to the west of the five-aisled basilica. Compared to today’s building, the Constantinian basilica was around one bay shorter. A reconstruction of the part of the building over the Grotto of the Nativity is difficult. The excavated walls and the remains of the mosaic floor lead one to believe that a towering octagonal building was located here, at the centre of which an octagonal raised platform with steps and a round opening was situated, allowing a view of the Grotto of the Nativity below. This reconstruction is widely accepted today and has found its way into the reference books of early Christian architecture. So the Constantine Church of the Nativity is considered to be the earliest example of the combination of basilica and central-plan buildings in early Christian churches.
B. Bagatti had doubts about this reconstruction back in 1952 and suggested a polygonal apse as an alternative to the eastern terminal. When a model of the Church of the Nativity was produced for the Constantine exhibition held in Trier in 2007, the excavation documentation was examined and numerous irregularities were discovered, so as to question the existence of an octagonal tower-like structure. A sanctuary with a three-sided apse solves this problem however. Both of the narrow walls, which run angled along to the nave, are actually choir screens, which strikingly framed the holy domain with the raised platform. The connection of the sanctuary, with its side rooms onto the basilica section of the Church of the Nativity, which had galleries over its side aisles, can be realised without any problems, too. The towering octagon, which from the exterior seemed to stand alone, was not actually a feature of the Constantine Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.
- Content Type Journal Article
- Category Original
- Pages 105-110
- DOI 10.1484/J.AT.5.103180
- Authors
A commentary on the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius requires a discussion of the text as a memorial work, and its examination from the perspective of Cultural History, so dear to the Anglo-Saxons. Indeed, the Ecclesiastical History goes beyond a mere collection of extant documentation: it skillfully interweaves quotations and allusions so as to present them as meaningful literary / historical traces. The disposition of these traces, along with some literary / historical grey areas that they tend to produce, has had unfortunate consequences on subsequent research, which has tried to make the text into something that it is not. Thus, there is all the more reason to re-examine these traces – which this article can only outline – while also heeding the silences in the text where Eusebius allowed his Ecclesiastical History to resonate with the lack of certain documents that he could not access.
- Content Type Journal Article
- Category Original
- Pages 71-77
- DOI 10.1484/J.AT.5.103176
- Authors
Eusebius’ silence on the martyrdom of Pierius, documented by the Apology of Phileas, bishop of Thmouis, may give some substance to allegations of weakness during the Tetrarchic prosecutions, launched against him in a later period.
- Content Type Journal Article
- Category Original
- Pages 79-82
- DOI 10.1484/J.AT.5.103177
- Authors
Eusebius never refers to non-Christian writers in his Ecclesiastical History, except for Porphyry on Origen in book 6 and Josephus and Philo in the first books in order to confirm what he has already based on Christian sources. In book 2, where the history of the Church proper begins, Eusebius writes a story based on what he holds as Scripture and he confirms some elements of it by drawing on Jewish and Christian non-canonical texts. In the following books, he draws on “ecclesiastical writers”, viz. the authors he considers as orthodox. In order to affirm or to refute the “testamentary” authority of a text, Eusebius never appeals to oral tradition but only to the writings of ecclesiastical authors. He places in the reign of Trajan the death of the last apostles and the beginning of heresies, making that reign a crucial turning point in Church history. It is no coincidence that he assigns to the same period the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, in which he is interested mainly because of their polemics against heresy. They mark for him the beginning of Christian literature, which has to be faithful to apostolic writings and update their teaching in the struggle against heresies. In this way Eusebius creates an intrinsic connection between ecclesiastical history and ecclesiastical literature.
- Content Type Journal Article
- Category Original
- Pages 61-69
- DOI 10.1484/J.AT.5.103175
- Authors
Februar 4, 2015, 1:30 pm, C.E.E.O.L. Issues Coverage - Germanoslavica, Allgemein.
Germanoslavica; Issue: 1 / 2014
Februar 3, 2015, 10:23 pm, Julio César Pino, Allgemein.
Volume 40, Issue 1, February 2015, pages 134-135<br/>10.1080/03071022.2014.984408<br/>Julio César Pino