Formed in 2009, the Archive Team (not to be confused with the archive.org Archive-It Team) is a rogue archivist collective dedicated to saving copies of rapidly dying or deleted websites for the sake of history and digital heritage. The group is 100% composed of volunteers and interested parties, and has expanded into a large amount of related projects for saving online and digital history.
João Vicente de Medeiros Publio Dias
PhD in Byzantine Studies (2018) at the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz with a post-doctoral internship at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (2021-2023). Master in History - research line "Culture and Power" – (2010) and Bachelor and Licentiate in History (2007) at the Federal University of Paraná. I am a member of the Brazilian Society of Medieval Studies (ABREM), Argentinian Committee of Byzantine Studies (CAEB) and the German Working Group for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies (DAFBS). Production focused on representation, exercise, sharing and contestation of power, ideology and historiography in the Middle Byzantine period (863-1204).
less
InterestsView All (16)
uploads
Abstract: The present work aims to tackle questions opened by recent studies about the discourses which legitimized the political process in Byzantium. We analyze here some of the discursive traditions, as well as how they related to each other; similarly, it will be examined how they were used to legitimize the practice of opposition in Byzantium between the 11 th and 13 th centuries. The article presents, therefore, case studies based in historiographic sources and examines the several forms of discourse construction that justify the deposition of emperors, and how these discourses relate with the Imperial Idea (Kaiseridee), which elevated the imperial office to a divine level. It presents how Byzantine authors created coherent, idiosyncratic and creative solutions to adapt their reports about manifestations of opposition to emperors, as rebellions and conspiracies, to the multiplicity of discourses and ideologies available.
Resumo:
O objetivo desse artigo é analisar como o poder imperial bizantino reagia a tentativas de usurpação de prerrogativas do imperador, sejam, essas tentativas, ações pontuais de insubordinação por representantes do governo imperial nas províncias, sejam tentativas de deposição do imperador, entre os anos de 1025 e 1118. Primeiramente serão abordadas as leis relacionadas a rebeliões e tentativas de usurpação, ações compreendidas pela legislação bizantina como crimes de alta traição (latim: crimen laesae majestatis/grego: kathosīosis).. Desse modo, partiremos da legislação para os episódios narrados pela historiografia e outros gêneros para entender qual papel tinha a legislação na repressão a tentativas de usurpação se elas de fato tiveram algum papel e quais fatores determinavam a ação imperial. Este artigo será dividido conforme os três passos tradicionais relacionados à repressão imperial – o processo, a pena e a clemência – na medida em que as fontes permitirem. Será examinado o contexto no qual elas aparecem e não aparecem, e também a razão da enorme variedade de reações imperiais.
Palavras-chave: Repressão Política, Lesa Majestade, Império Bizantino, História Política, Século XI
Abstract:
The aim of this article is to analyze how the Byzantine imperial power reacted to attempts of usurpation of imperial prerogatives, either local insubordinations by representatives of the imperial government, or attempts to depose the emperor, between the years of 1025 and 1118. Firstly, the Byzantine laws concerning rebellions and usurpation attempts will be approached, the Byzantine legislation characterizes those actions as high treason (Latin: crimen laesae majestatis/Greek: kathosīosis). Accordingly, the analysis will begin with the legislation and then go to the episodes reported by the historiography and other literary genres in order to understand which role the legislation had in the repression of usurpation attempts – if it had one at all – and which factors determined imperial action. This article will be divided according to the three traditional steps related to the imperial repression – the proceedings, the punishment and mercy – in so far as the sources allow it. The context in which they appear and in which they do not will be analyzed, as well as the great variety of imperial reactions.
Key-words: Political Repression, High Treason, Byzantine Empire, Political History, 11th Century.
Zusammenfassung
In diesem Aufsatz wird die Entstehung der Darstellung des byzantinischen Kaisers Nikephoros III. (reg. 1078-1081) als gescheiterten Kaisers schlechthin durch die byzantinischen Historiographen analysisiert und die diesem Bild zugrunde liegenden politischen Interessen identifiziert, die kritiklos durch die moderne Historiographie übernommen wurde. Es wird hier gefolgert, dass die Darstellung des Nikephoros und seiner Herrschaft durch die Geschichtsschreibung vor allem dem Bedarf der neuen Dynastie der Komnenoi (1081-1185) entsprach, durch die er abgelöst wurde. Die Komnenoi präsentierten sich als Erneuer des Römischen Reiches, als neue Konstantine. Die Regierung des Nikephoros III. sei infolgedessen zum Symbol des Verfalls und von allem, was in Byzanz falsch gelaufen sei, geworden.
Summary:
The present chapter analyses the emergence of the portrayal of the Byzantine emperor Nikephoros III (1078-1081) as the epitome of the failed ruler by the Byzantine history-writing and identifies the political interests underlying this characterization, which was adopted by the modern historiography without proper criticism. The conclusions were that the portrayal of Nikephoros and his rule by the history-writing corresponded above all the needs of the new dynasty of the Komnenoi (1081-1185), which replaced this emperor. The Komnenoi presented themselves as being those that renewed the Roman Empire, as New Constantines. The rule of Nikephoros III became, accordingly, a symbol of decay and of everything that went wrong in Byzantium.
sultan Malik-Shah in 1116 and the Digenis’ palace by the Euphrates’ banks.
Abstract: The present work aims to tackle questions opened by recent studies about the discourses which legitimized the political process in Byzantium. We analyze here some of the discursive traditions, as well as how they related to each other; similarly, it will be examined how they were used to legitimize the practice of opposition in Byzantium between the 11 th and 13 th centuries. The article presents, therefore, case studies based in historiographic sources and examines the several forms of discourse construction that justify the deposition of emperors, and how these discourses relate with the Imperial Idea (Kaiseridee), which elevated the imperial office to a divine level. It presents how Byzantine authors created coherent, idiosyncratic and creative solutions to adapt their reports about manifestations of opposition to emperors, as rebellions and conspiracies, to the multiplicity of discourses and ideologies available.
Resumo:
O objetivo desse artigo é analisar como o poder imperial bizantino reagia a tentativas de usurpação de prerrogativas do imperador, sejam, essas tentativas, ações pontuais de insubordinação por representantes do governo imperial nas províncias, sejam tentativas de deposição do imperador, entre os anos de 1025 e 1118. Primeiramente serão abordadas as leis relacionadas a rebeliões e tentativas de usurpação, ações compreendidas pela legislação bizantina como crimes de alta traição (latim: crimen laesae majestatis/grego: kathosīosis).. Desse modo, partiremos da legislação para os episódios narrados pela historiografia e outros gêneros para entender qual papel tinha a legislação na repressão a tentativas de usurpação se elas de fato tiveram algum papel e quais fatores determinavam a ação imperial. Este artigo será dividido conforme os três passos tradicionais relacionados à repressão imperial – o processo, a pena e a clemência – na medida em que as fontes permitirem. Será examinado o contexto no qual elas aparecem e não aparecem, e também a razão da enorme variedade de reações imperiais.
Palavras-chave: Repressão Política, Lesa Majestade, Império Bizantino, História Política, Século XI
Abstract:
The aim of this article is to analyze how the Byzantine imperial power reacted to attempts of usurpation of imperial prerogatives, either local insubordinations by representatives of the imperial government, or attempts to depose the emperor, between the years of 1025 and 1118. Firstly, the Byzantine laws concerning rebellions and usurpation attempts will be approached, the Byzantine legislation characterizes those actions as high treason (Latin: crimen laesae majestatis/Greek: kathosīosis). Accordingly, the analysis will begin with the legislation and then go to the episodes reported by the historiography and other literary genres in order to understand which role the legislation had in the repression of usurpation attempts – if it had one at all – and which factors determined imperial action. This article will be divided according to the three traditional steps related to the imperial repression – the proceedings, the punishment and mercy – in so far as the sources allow it. The context in which they appear and in which they do not will be analyzed, as well as the great variety of imperial reactions.
Key-words: Political Repression, High Treason, Byzantine Empire, Political History, 11th Century.
Zusammenfassung
In diesem Aufsatz wird die Entstehung der Darstellung des byzantinischen Kaisers Nikephoros III. (reg. 1078-1081) als gescheiterten Kaisers schlechthin durch die byzantinischen Historiographen analysisiert und die diesem Bild zugrunde liegenden politischen Interessen identifiziert, die kritiklos durch die moderne Historiographie übernommen wurde. Es wird hier gefolgert, dass die Darstellung des Nikephoros und seiner Herrschaft durch die Geschichtsschreibung vor allem dem Bedarf der neuen Dynastie der Komnenoi (1081-1185) entsprach, durch die er abgelöst wurde. Die Komnenoi präsentierten sich als Erneuer des Römischen Reiches, als neue Konstantine. Die Regierung des Nikephoros III. sei infolgedessen zum Symbol des Verfalls und von allem, was in Byzanz falsch gelaufen sei, geworden.
Summary:
The present chapter analyses the emergence of the portrayal of the Byzantine emperor Nikephoros III (1078-1081) as the epitome of the failed ruler by the Byzantine history-writing and identifies the political interests underlying this characterization, which was adopted by the modern historiography without proper criticism. The conclusions were that the portrayal of Nikephoros and his rule by the history-writing corresponded above all the needs of the new dynasty of the Komnenoi (1081-1185), which replaced this emperor. The Komnenoi presented themselves as being those that renewed the Roman Empire, as New Constantines. The rule of Nikephoros III became, accordingly, a symbol of decay and of everything that went wrong in Byzantium.
sultan Malik-Shah in 1116 and the Digenis’ palace by the Euphrates’ banks.
Eu falarei sobre sua história, elementos constitutivos, questões relacionadas à execução e performance, e seu papel social e político.
Ela será transmitida ao vivo pela página do Instituto de Investigações Filológicas da UNAM
https://www.facebook.com/IIFL.UNAM
Diese und andere Fragen werden in der Podiumsdiskussion zu Karriere in den kleinen Fächern diskutiert. PD Dr. Mareike Menne (Wissenschaftsberaterin und Coach) moderiert das Gespräch. Eingeladen zur Diskussion sind Dr. Zachary Chitwood (ERC Starting Grant Projektleiter und Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter der Byzantinistik - JGU Mainz), Dr. Christine Stephan-Kaissis (Vertretung der Professur für Christliche Archäologie und byzantinische Kunstgeschichte - JGU Mainz) und Dr. Luise Borek (Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin am Fachgebiet Germanistische Computerphilologie und Mediävistik).
Die Podiumsdiskussion findet im Rahmen des Treffens „Knotenpunkt Byzanz: Junge Forscher, Neue Perspektiven“ statt und wird vom Young Academics Network Byzanz Mainz-Frankfurt und der Akademie der Wissenschaft und der Literatur Mainz organisiert. Gefördert wird diese Veranstaltung von der Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (HRK).
Alle weiteren Infos, sowie den Zugang zum Youtube Livestream finden sich auf dem Flyer oder direkt unter folgendem Link: https://youtu.be/vp7P-KNTCuI