We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
In the Later Roman Empire (AD 300–650), power seems to manifest itself mostly through legislation, bureaucracy, and an increasingly distant emperor. This book focuses instead on personal interaction as crucial to the exercise of power. It studies four social practices (petitions, parrhesia, intercession, and collective action) to show how they are much more dynamic than often assumed. These practices were guided by strong expectations of justice, which constrained the actions of superiors. They therefore allowed the socially inferior to develop strategies of conduct that could force the hand of the superior and, in extreme cases, lead to overturning hierarchical relations. Building on the analysis of these specific forms of interaction, the book argues for an understanding of late antique power rooted in the character and virtue of those invested with it.
This is the first systematic collection of the remains of the lost Greek chronicles from the period AD 350–650 and provides an edition and translation of and commentary on the fragments. Introducing neglected authors and proposing new interpretations, it reveals the diversity of the genre and revises traditional views about its development, nuancing in particular the role usually attributed to Eusebius of Caesarea. It shows how the writing of chronicles was deeply entangled in controversies about exegesis and liturgy, especially the dates of Christmas and Easter. Drawing from Latin, Armenian, Syriac and Arabic sources besides Greek ones, the book also studies how chronographic material travelled across linguistic and cultural boundaries. In this way, it sheds a profoundly new light on historiography in transition from Antiquity to the Middle Ages.
Assessments of Lucian’s attitude towards philosophy have tended to focus on how much he really knew about philosophy, which school he preferred, and if his texts can be read as philosophy. This chapter argues that Lucian’s attitude is best understood as reflecting the central position philosophy occupied in imperial elite culture. As Lucian satirises elite paideia from within that same paideia, criticising imperial philosophy implied assuming a philosophical stance or appropriating philosophical concepts and vocabulary. Lucian explores themes that were current in philosophical discourse of the Roman Empire, such as the expectation of matching doctrine and deed, salaries for philosophical education, and ancient wisdom. Whilst he shows awareness of technical terminology, his writings are mostly concerned with protreptic and the question if one has to dedicate oneself fully to a philosophical life. His ubiquitous satire, even in works deemed ‘more serious’, does not permit firm conclusions about Lucian’s own ideas and solicits multiple interpretations on the part of the reader.
Religious violence is usually taken to encompass clashes between religious groups and the destruction these caused, as well as violence organised by institutions, in particular state and Church, against religious minorities. Using a broader definition of violence than just physical violence,2 such institutional violence included measures used to coerce individuals to abandon certain practices and beliefs judged harmful to society and themselves. This conjures up the question as to what coercion actually meant in Late Antiquity.