Abstract
Abstract This article argues that the historical writings of the Venerable Bede (d. 735) can also be used by scholars examining the political history of the Eastern Roman Empire in the seventh and eighth centuries. Although Byzantinists have increasingly drawn upon texts written in Syriac, Arabic, and other eastern languages in their scholarship, sources composed in the post-Roman West have yet to be utilised to the same extent. Bede is particularly informative for the reigns of Phocas (602–10), Constans II (641–68), and Justinian II (685–95, 705–11), three emperors who were vilified in later Greek sources. By considering the near-contemporary perspectives preserved in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History and Chronicle alongside the eastern evidence, a more nuanced understanding can be reached for these emperors’ final years. Moreover, Bede’s unique reports strengthen the view that papal history should be integrated into studies of imperial politics. The papacy emerges as a loyal partisan of Phocas in 610 and an institution linked to the growing unrest against Constans in the 660s, while in the eighth century Bede recounted that Pope Constantine gave unheeded advice to Justinian prior to his downfall. In all three cases, Bede yields new insights into the ties that bound together Rome and Constantinople, further demonstrating the utility of Latin sources for reconstructing events in the Mediterranean, even at the end of Late Antiquity.
Highlights
From the genesis of the Gregorian mission to the fractious kings of his own age, the Venerable Bede provides scholars today with a detailed and skilful retelling of early English history
This account is a carefully shaped one, affected by, among other things, the monk-scholar’s desire to correct kings and monks alike in contemporary Northumbria.[1]
The recent work of Richard Shaw, has uncovered the documentary sources used in the Ecclesiastical History, in turn revealing just how little Bede and his informants knew of the 660s, to take one example.[3]
Summary
Regardless of whom we follow for the date of the attack on Constantinople, the sense of crisis within the empire must have been profound, for the preceding Arab offensives had already led to the revolt of a Roman general in Asia Minor in 667, and the year in July Constans was himself assassinated in Sicily, presumably a result of his seemingly illogical stay in the West while the eastern frontier was in flames.[69] as a man with dyothelete sympathies, Theodore of Koloneia, appears to have held significant power in Constantinople while the emperor was absent, it is possible that the emperor’s assassination was partially orchestrated by those who opposed the emperor’s religious policy.[70]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
