2001.08.16 10:06
(Helena) EPICENTRAL
First off I have to correct a mistake I made in writing here yesterday. I wrote that I have yet to see a footnote reference regarding the damnatio memoriae of Crispus and Fausta, and that statement is plain wrong. In truth I have seen the footnote, but not recently. Hans Pohlsander provides exactly what I was asking for within the Crispus and Fausta web pages at roman-emperors.org. Pohlsander provides all the dm occurrences within the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum for both imperials: documented are six occurrences of dm for Crispus and one for Fausta, and the one of Fausta's is also one of Crispus'. I looked at all the referenced inscriptions (in CIL) yesterday afternoon. I'm not fluent in Latin to have been able to read everything, but I understand enough to know that there is very good documentation on this specific subject.
I also borrowed Hedrick's History and Silence, which was in the exact same stack area as the CIL. Seeing that Hedrick immediately writes about Piranesi in the book's Preface made the book doubly interesting to me. Yes it is a very good (and quite timely) book. Last night, when I got around to reading chapter four at leisure (I skipped to chapter four, but already read the preface), I found myself understanding exactly what Hedrick was relating, namely that he was very close to describing reenactment. I quickly found that the first footnoote in chapter four references Collingwood and reenactment.
Now on to other wavelengths oscillating here at lt-antiq. Regarding Helena and calendrical coincidences, I no doubt appreciate what Paul Halshall writes. I, in turn, truly wish I had the academic background that makes doing saint cultus research and reading a not so almost impossible (for me) task. Nonetheless, saint cults are not finite sets or a done deal. As far as I'm concerned the Saint Helena cult (for example) is certainly hitting a new high crest.
But, of course, there are many, like Richard Burgess, who have, like Saint Thomas, doubts as strong as convictions. These cases only enforce the reality that history's real job is to understand what did happen, not so much what didn't happen. Hedrick's History and Silence is on this point axiomatic.
ps
Here's an apropos quotation from History and Silence (page 91):
"The history of poltical repression of social and cultural memory in ancient Rome, of the so-called damnatio memoriae, has yet to be written. Even the traditional narrative descriptions of the preocesses by which the state attacked the memory of those deemed public enemies are out of date or incomplete. Vittinghoff's classic book is more than fifty years old and is far from exhaustive. A full account of the damnatio memoriae would be a major project for a mature and accomplished Roman historian."
When reading all that has just been sent to lt-antiq on damnatio memoriae, I sense exactly the project that Hedrick is calling for.
2001.08.17 11:45
Helena: calendrical coincidences
Graham,
A good account of the 3 May feast is within Butler's Lives of the Saints. This at least gives a more or less thorough and concise history of the tradition, which is considered a much "after the fact" recollection. There is also much useful information in the Online Catholic Encyclopedia at www.newadvent.org -- start with looking under "The True Cross".
Steve
ps
I can't resist reiterating (with a big smile) that if you want to find the "true cross" you should start with looking under the true cross [of silence]!
Which, just to keep the coincidences going, I want to briefly explain where the title EPICENTRAL comes from. When I first responded to (you) Graham, I only related the most ancient of calendrical coincidences regarding Helena. I thought more about the other 18 August coincidences that night, specifically to the first time I ever specifically wrote an email/letter about St. Helena on her feast day, 18 August 1999. This was after 4.5 intense months of really getting to know (of) St. Helena for the fist time. I actually presented the beginnings of my hypothesis regarding Helena, the Cross, architecture (church building), etc., and this letter is indeed now a part of the very beginning of EPICENTRAL. The next day, 19 August 1999, I heard more on the TV news of the big earthquake in Turkey, and when I heard Izmit given as the epicenter I yelled out loud, "Izmit!?!? That's Nicomedia!". I immediately wrote an email about that. [Virtually all my Helena letters (until now) have been sent to either the DESIGN-L list, the ARCHITECTHETICS list, or both, and they are archived online.] Nicomedia is the 'epicenter' site of the last "Great Persecution" of the Christians, as well as where Constantine died in a suburban villa of. [Perhaps Constantine, is his usual gruff manner, was letting us know his "position" as well, or maybe all the Christian martyrs were rumbling.]
Anyway, about a year and a half latter, while there was much discussion at DESIGN-L about the then recent earthquake in Seattle, I recalled the Izmit/Nicomedia event. In preparing for the email I then wanted to send, I did an Internet search to find the precise date/time of the 1999 Izmit quake, and, to my surprise, I found a very good reference to an earthquake that happened in Nicomedia something like 356. (I remember it being very close to 20 years after Constantine's death -- I'm in the process of collecting again all these letters for EPICENTRAL). The web data was found on a US government geology site, and it said that the 356 account is basically the best ancient (albeit late) account of an earthquake and its effects.
So there it is for me, Helena, 18 August, Izmit earthquake of 1999 reenacting Nicomedia earthquake of (c.)356, Constantine not be ignored... ...and then earlier this year I'm doing a quick (other fact) check in Plutarch's Romulus, and it's there I "discover" that 18 August is the DATE-RAPE of the Sabine Women. This is all the core of what I call EPICENTRAL.
Tomorrow, I plan to begin the web publication of EPICENTRAL at www.quondam.com/epicentral with a variety of Rape of the Sabine Women paintings mixed with lots of letters. Other than that, I'll also practice some silence.
So far, I foresence no major earthquakes. I hope.
| |
2001.08.17 12:40
24 August 358 is indeed EPICENTRAL
The correct date of the late antique Nicomedia earthquake is 24 August 358. It appears the 18/19 August 1999 Izmit earthquake is indeed a (natural) reenactment of 358.
The Washington State geology page I saw earlier this year is no longer available, but a quick web search of "nicomedia earthquake" gives lots of good data, and one very big 'aftershock' for me:
If you go to http://users.erols.com/saintpat/ss/0816.htm you will find a list of all the saints whose feasts are celebrated on 16 August, including St. Arsacius, a Nicomedian hermit who lived in a tower, and apparently foretold of the 358 earthquake he died in. Now here comes the 'unbelievable' part. I know you are all going to say that I already knew this, and in fact I did have prior knowledge (albeit stored mentally far back away) that 16 August is also the feast of St. Stephen of Hungary, who is actually my 'patron' (if that is the correct term) saint (and not Saint Stephen the Proto Martyr because, as my grandmother told me, one's name day is celebrated on the saint of same name closest after ones birthday. So, since I was born 20 March 1956 (coincidentally the equinox, dies sanguinis, etc., etc., EPICENTRAL), I (should have) celebrated my name day yesterday. And you know what? I have to say I was celebrating, but really not until now do I know exactly why.
2001.08.18 13:19
damnatio memoriae and palimpsest
In doing further (re)reading of material on Helena and other Neo-Flavians, in Drijvers' Helena Augusta (1992) on p. 49 there is a 'reprint' of inscription CIL X 678. This is the same evidence of damnatio memoriae where we have examples of both the dm of Crispus and Fausta. While there are more extant examples of the dm of Crispus, this is the only extant example of Fausta' dm. As I mentioned the other day, I went to look at all the Crispus and Fausta dms within the CIL at Temple U's library. Since those books are enormous, I only photocopied CIL X 678. There a fair amount of Latin commentary that goes with the inscription, and some of the commentary is (as I found out last night) translated in Drijvers' book.
Not only were the words FAUSTA and UXORI (wife) erased, but they were replaced with HELENAE and MATRI. Thus, not only do we have here an example of damnatio memoriae, but an example of palimpsest as well. Question: is it a fairly common occurrence within other examples of dm for there to be a palimpsest as well, or is this more part of 'rare' damnatio memoriae subset?
Since CIL X 678 is the only extant example of Fausta's dm, I wonder if it might also be of some significance that it is actually a dm plus palimpsest. For example, could it be that Fausta's 'erasure' from memory is integral with Helena's 'inscription' into memory. Of course, on the immediate level, this tight connection appears obvious, but I'm still looking for other aspects and explanations that may enhance the understanding here. To sharpen the focus, I'm aware that there are many examples of palimpsests within inscriptions, so I'm more interested in examples where specific names/persons manifest a damnatio memoriae plus palimpsest combination.
ps
I also read last night in Pohlsander's Helena: Empress And Saint (1995) on p. 151: "The feast of the Invention of the Cross was previously observed in the West on 3 May but was suppressed by Pope John XXIII in 1960." Could this be considered one of the new forms of damnatio memoriae, or is it an example of purging history of what didn't happen? Is there a name for the act of purging history of what didn't happen?
| |
2001.08.18 15:46
re-reading VITA CONSTANTINI Book III
The 'epicenter' of my hypothesis that Helena died late July 326 (1675 years ago) in Rome during the end of Constantine's Vicennalia celebration there, is with a re-reading, and thus new interpretation, of Eusebius' Vita Constantini Book III. I'm looking at two editions of this text, the one online at www.newadvent.org/fathers (which does not offer the source edition of this text, but no doubt it is an older, copyright free text) and Cameron & Hall's Eusebius: Life of Constantine (1999). It is in book III of the VC that Eusebius writes about the Council of Nicaea, church building in the Holy Land, Helena, and other church building in the East along with destruction of pagan worship/ritual sites. The deaths of Crispus and Fausta fit within this time frame, but are not mentioned. Through various other readings, plus Cameron and Hall's commentaries, I've come to understand that the sequence of Book III is not considered to follow a strict chronology, and just what the correct chronology might be has been much addressed in recent studies. I'm testing the sequence of Book III as if it is written by Eusebius in chronological order (and I think doing this 'experiment' via html and webpages along with occasional letters to lt-antiq will provide a very good 'laboratory' for the test.
For starters, I point out that in 'chapter 23', which is between the end of the Council of Nicaea and the beginning of the Holy Land Church building accounts, Eusebius writes:
"He [Constantine] also wrote countless other things of the same kind, and composed a great many letters. In some he gave instructions to bishops about what affected the churches of God; but on occasion he also addressed the congregations themselves, and then the Trice-blessed would call the laity of the Church his own 'brothers' and "fellow-servants'. But there may be an opportunity to assemble these in a special collection, so as not to disrupt the sequence of our present account."
Eusebius never did assemble the letters, although there are many letters by Constantine interspersed throughout the rest of Book III and Book IV of the VC. What's really interesting is that modern scholarship believes that the un-chronological sequence of Book III begins with the chapters immediately after what Eusebius wrote above. Was Eusebius then acting against his own intentions? Or are modern historians of the life of Constantine just better historians than Eusebius? No offense, but lets see what happens if we take Eusebius for his word.
In chapter 47 Eusebius writes about what appears to be Helena's conversion to Christianity prompted by Constantine himself. Since I believe that Helena (along with Eutropia, Prisca, and Valeria -- all the (first) wives of Diocletian's tetrachy) was a Christian believer well before 28 October 312, the following passage gives me great pause.
"He [Constantine] deserves to be blessed, all else apart, for his piety to the one who bore him [i.e., Helena]. So far as he made her Godfearing, though she had not been such before, that she seemed to him to have been a disciple of the common Saviour from the first..."
Last night, in reviewing the case of the 'downfall' of Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, and it's seeming connection to his having said something about Helena, it is mentioned that Eustathius was anti-Arian while Helena seems to have been pro-Arian, and thus maybe Eustathius said something along these lines. [The fall of Eustathius occurred sometime 326-328, and is one of the factors that leads modern scholars to believe that Helena was in the Holy Land/East during that period. I think that Eustathius did fall because he said something about Helena, but that his real crime was that he said something about Helena after her death in Rome July 326. In other words, Eustathius broke the 'silence' regarding Helena and the Cross that was somehow enforced by Constantine, and Eustathius' losing his see is a clear example to those living then under Constantine of what will happen to you if you too break the 'silence'. Interestingly, it is Athanasius of Alexandria that first tells us of the Eustathius/Helena connection, and he was also a supported of Eustathius. Athanasius was exiled to Trier (where he might not be heard so well?) during the latter years of Constantine's life.]
Anyway, back to Constantine's conversion of Helena, I'm now wondering whether what Eusebius meant is that, because of Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, Helena died no longer being pro-Arian.
Steve Lauf
ps
the two excerpts above from the Vita Constantini are from Cameroun & Hall (1999).
| |
2001.08.18 16:32
Happy Saint Helena Day
I woke up thinking I heard the phone ring. Since the air conditioner was running and the phone is two rooms over, I really wasn't sure. Since it was already 10 o'clock, I got up to check the machine, and there was a message. R was in Philadelphia and wondered if I wanted to have breakfast somewhere. I called his cell phone, and he would be at my place in about 15 minutes. I was still getting dressed when R arrived, but I told him the door would be open. When he came in the house, I yelled down to him, "Happy Saint Helena Day!"
After showing him by 'new' books--1st edition Learning from Las Vegas I just got via eBay, Costa Iberica (by MVRDV and which I believe reenacts Learning from Las Vegas) and the new Koolhaas/OMA Projects for Prada (which arrived via Amazon/UPS last Thursday afternoon -- we went to Mil-Lee's LUV-IN Diner (a real local treasure dining car restaurant). We hadn't been there together since the early 1990s. After breakfast we checked out the new thrift shop down the corner and bought some neat stuff.
Then I took R to Ryerss Mansion and Museum in Burholme Park (near where my Mom lives). I've 'rediscovered' this place last December. It's one of those places you pass all the time, but never bother to look inside of. It's my new favorite place, and I think one of R's now too. I describe it as "'Venturi Shops' 100 years ago" because the VSBA 1995 exhibit Venturi Shops unwittingly reenacts exactly what Ryerss Mansion and Museum is, namely an exhibition of things bought during excursions of India and the Far East (albeit 100 years ago). Because Ryerss is actually a museum of someone's shopping, there is an interesting Koolhaasian reenactment manifested here as well. Additionally, I tell Ron my new typological interest is houses that morph into museums, of which Ryerss Mansion is a prime example.
Alas, R still had to visit his mother, so we say good-bye. When I get home I take some digital snapshots of the huge, wacko 1960s ceramic ashtray I just bought. I placed it on the coffee table next to all the books I was showing R. Before we went to breakfast I also took a picture of R standing next to the large painting of Santa Maria della Pace (Rome) in my living room. The painting is based on a picture I took in 1977, while on an Italian study tour, which R was actually on as well. Since we were in Italy during this time of year, I wondered if we were indeed at Santa Maria della Pace on 18 August. I check my journal from the trip, and we were at the church 13 August, however, 24 years ago R and I and some other architecture students were having breakfast along the Grand Canal of Venice. From breakfast near St. Mark's Square to breakfast at Mil-Lee's Luv-In Diner, Lawncrest -- don't you love how life just keeps getting better?
Anyway, here's some of what I've been sending to the LT-ANTIQ (late antiquity) list:
16 August 2001:
So, I'm now left with my own task, which is to write a book online (at www.quondam.com) between now and the next equinox, entitled EPICENTRAL. Since the epicenter this year is clearly at lt-antiq, samples of the (new) writing of EPICENTRAL will often appear here first. This is a quite unexpected project for me, but at the same time is precisely the type of project I've been (again) wanting to do, i.e., write and publish a book 'virtually' at the same time. Judging by the abundant and refreshing feelings I received so far via lt-antiq, I actually think I can do it.
17 August 2001:
Which, just to keep the coincidences going, I want to briefly explain where the title EPICENTRAL comes from. When I first responded to (you) Graham, I only related the most ancient of calendrical coincidences regarding Helena. I thought more about the other 18 August coincidences that night, specifically to the first time I wrote an email/letter about St. Helena on her feast day, 18 August 1999. This was after 4.5 intense months of really getting to know (of) St. Helena for the first time. I actually presented the beginnings of my hypothesis regarding Helena, the Cross, architecture (church building), etc., and this letter is indeed now a part of the very beginning of EPICENTRAL. The next day, 19 August 1999, I heard more on the TV news of the big earthquake in Turkey, and when I heard Izmit given as the epicenter I yelled out loud, "Izmit!?!? That's Nicomedia!". I immediately wrote an email about that. [Virtually all my Helena letters (until now) have been sent to either the DESIGN-L list, the ARCHITECTHETICS list, or both, and they are archived online.] Nicomedia is the 'epicenter' site of the last "Great Persecution" of the Christians, as well as where Constantine died in a suburban villa of. [Perhaps Constantine, is his usual gruff manner, was letting us know his "position" as well, or maybe all the Christian martyrs were rumbling.]
Anyway, about a year and a half latter, while there was much discussion at DESIGN-L about the then recent earthquake in Seattle, I recalled the Izmit/Nicomedia event. In preparing for the email I then wanted to send, I did an Internet search to find the precise date/time of the 1999 Izmit quake, and, to my surprise, I found a very good reference to an earthquake that happened in Nicomedia something like 358. (I remember it being very close to 20 years after Constantine's death -- I'm in the process of collecting again all these letters for EPICENTRAL). The web data was found on a US government geology site, and it said that the 358 account is basically the best ancient (albeit late) account of an earthquake and its effects.
So there it is for me, Helena, 18 August, Izmit earthquake of 1999 reenacting Nicomedia earthquake of 358, Constantine not be ignored... ...and then earlier this year I'm doing a quick (other fact) check in Plutarch's Romulus, and it's there I "discover" that 18 August is the DATE-RAPE of the Sabine Women. This is all the core of what I call EPICENTRAL.
18 August 2001:
The 'epicenter' of my hypothesis that Helena died late July 326 (1675 years ago) in Rome during the end of Constantine's Vicennalia celebration there, is with a re-reading, and thus new interpretation, of Eusebius' VITA CONSTANTINI Book III. I'm looking at two editions of this text, the one online at www.newadvent.org/fathers (which does not offer the source edition of this text, but no doubt it is an older, copyright free text) and Cameron & Hall's Eusebius: Life of Constantine (1999). It is in Book III of the VC that Eusebius writes about the Council of Nicaea, church building in the Holy Land, Helena, and other church building in the East along with destruction of pagan worship/ritual sites. The deaths of Crispus and Fausta fit within this time frame, but are not mentioned. Through various other readings, plus Cameron and Hall's commentaries, I've come to understand that the sequence of Book III is not considered to follow a strict chronology, and just what the correct chronology might be has been much addressed in recent studies. I'm testing the sequence of Book III as if it is written by Eusebius in chronological order (and I think doing this 'experiment' via html and webpages along with occasional letters to lt-antiq will provide a very good 'laboratory' for the test).
For starters, I point out that in 'chapter 24', which is between the end of the Council of Nicaea and the beginning of the Holy Land Church building accounts, Eusebius writes:
"He [Constantine] also wrote countless other things of the same kind, and composed a great many letters. In some he gave instructions to bishops about what affected the churches of God; but on occasion he also addressed the congregations themselves, and then the Trice-blessed would call the laity of the Church his own 'brothers' and "fellow-servants'. But there may be an opportunity to assemble these in a special collection, so as not to disrupt the sequence of our present account."
Eusebius never did assemble the letters, although there are many letters by Constantine interspersed throughout the rest of Book III and Book IV of the VC. What's really interesting is that modern scholarship believes that the un-chronological sequence of Book III begins with the chapters immediately after what Eusebius wrote above. Was Eusebius then acting against his own intentions? Or are modern historians of the life of Constantine just better historians than Eusebius? No offense, but lets see what happens if we take Eusebius for his word.
In chapter 47 Eusebius writes about what appears to be Helena's conversion to Christianity prompted by Constantine himself. Since I believe that Helena (along with Eutropia, Prisca, and Valeria -- all the (first) wives of Diocletian's tetrachy) was a Christian believer well before 28 October 312, the following passage gives me great pause.
"He [Constantine] deserves to be blessed, all else apart, for his piety to the one who bore him [ie, Helena]. So far as he made her Godfearing, though she had not been such before, that she seemed to him to have been a disciple of the common Saviour from the first..."
Last night, in reviewing the case of the 'downfall' of Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, and it's seeming connection to his having said something about Helena, it is mentioned that Eustathius was anti-Arian while Helena seems to have been pro-Arian, and thus maybe Eustathius said something along these lines. [The fall of Eustathius occurred sometime 326-328, and is one of the factors that leads modern scholars to believe that Helena was in the Holy Land/East during that period. I think that Eustathius did fall because he said something about Helena, but that his real crime was that he said something about Helena after her death in Rome July 326. In other words, Eustathius broke the 'silence' regarding Helena and the Cross that was somehow enforced by Constantine, and Eustathius' losing his see is a clear example to those living then under Constantine of what will happen to you if you too break the 'silence'. Interestingly, it is Athanasius of Alexandria that first tells us of the Eustathius/Helena connection, and he was also a supported of Eustathius. Athanasius was exiled to Trier (where he might not be heard so well?) during the latter years of Constantine's life.]
Anyway, back to Constantine's conversion of Helena, I'm now wondering whether what Eusebius meant is that, because of Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, Helena died no longer being pro-Arian.
Steve Lauf
ps
Koolhaas calls his new PRADA stores Epicenter stores, however, I don't think he knows what EPICENTRAL means.
|