2006.04.03 18:44
Pete vs. Rem, political campaign of the century
Like I said here before, "In the future everything will be an advertisement."
Advertising seems to always be the winner regardless of the votes.
| |
2006.04.03 17:50
Re: Constantine and Christians
Just for reference regarding the possible beginning date of the Basilica Constantiniani, according to Timothy Barnes in The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine, Constantine was at Rome 29 October 312 to January 313, and at Rome 21 July 315 to 27 September 315, and at Sirmium (in today's Serbia) 24 October 318 to 13 April 319. The only other time Constantine was at Rome was 18 July 326 to 3 August 326, and he never returned to Rome after that.
2006.04.03 17:22
Re: Constantine and Christians
Here is the Krautheimer footnote:
Construction [of the Basilica Constantiniani] need not have taken many years. The huge Basilica Nova [another building] with its time-consuming vaulting system was built and completely decorated in four or five years; and we shall see that at St. Peter's construction and interior decoration were presumably completed in the course of six to eight years. The Lateran basilica, being smaller than St. Peter's, might well have been built and finished within five or six years. Dates given for the consecration are numerous, varying from 315 to 324, but they are never based on any sources. The Martyrologium Romanum gives November 9 as the feast day of the basilica, "Romae dedicatio Basilicae Salvatoris." However, as pointed out by Lauer, the date occurs first in the second version of the Descriptio Ecclesiae Lateranensis, 1153-1154: "Cuius dedicatio per totum orbum quinto idus novembris...celebratur..." By that time, then, the tradition was well established, but we do not know how far back it went. It is certainly older than the twelfth century, but it does not occur in the early sacramentaries and martyrologia dating from the fifth to ninth century. Is it, then, the date of a reconsecration after the rebuilding by Sergius III (904-911)? This is possible, but it is equally possible that the tradition springs from a fourth century root. We leave the question open. In any event, no year is given. However, it is curious that in the reigns of Constantine and Sylvester, November 9 falls on a Sunday--since the Middle Ages the customary day for church consecrations--only four times: 312, 318, 329, 335. The last two dates can be dispensed with: the period of construction [beginning from] 313 or 314 would be too long. However, 318 would be a very plausible date for the consecration of the church. Or should we stress the choice of the word dedicatio, rather than consecratio, by the sources? Dedicatio in Roman legal language is the act of handing over or ceding--dedere--an object, be it real estate or something else, to a deity; the act of consecratio follows, once the object has been installed or the shrine, temple or whatever, has been built. Is it possible, then, that November 9, 312, not quite two weeks after his conquest of Rome, was the day Constantine ceded to Christ the terrain on which the basilica was to be built and made the endowment for its future maintenance, in servitio luminum?
I'm not sure of the date of this text, but I vaguely remember it being before World War II. I do remember, however, that the first time I read this text was November 9, 2000.
2006.04.03 16:25
Re: Constantine and Christians
I'd like to mention that Krautheimer, in Corpus Basilicum Christianum Romae, offers the possibility that the Basilica Constantiniani, today's Basilica of St. John Lateran, the first Constantinian basilica of Rome, may have been started as early as November 312. If this is indeed the case, then we have Constantine giving land and a major church building to Christians, in this case the Pope, even before the Edict of Milan.
2006.04.03 15:54
Re: Constantine and Christians
Pierre-Louis, I too thought of the Donatist controversy, (as preceding the Arian controversy), but I was more thinking of that controversy revolving around whether those Christian leader who gave up the faith under the Great Persecution should be allowed back into the Church. I was not aware (or had just forgotten) about the return-of-property issue, which I find much more provocative in that after 326 Constantine began to condemn (and seize the property of, I assume) Pagan cults with homosexual orientations.
I've always been curious if being a Roman emperor automatically meant that you were the wealthiest land owner in/of the Empire as well.
2006.04.03 14:58
Re: Constantine and Christians
My general answer is that Helena and Eutropia were extremely influential over Constantine when it came to Christianity--Christianity was at that time pro women's rights. Constantine may have also had a great dislike of the more homosexually oriented Pagan cults--now there's a future irony.
Did Constantine see the embrace of Christianity as a way to "re-unify" the Empire?
I'd say that Constantine's main reason for presiding over the Arian Controversy was to establish himself as (still) head over "church" and state.
| |
2006.04.02 13:01
Why does much 'avant-garde' design these days look straight out of the Sixties?
Being avant-garde is fucking great because it isn't mediocrity.
Personally, however, I settle for simply radical.
2006.04.02 11:45
Why does much 'avant-garde' design these days look straight out of the Sixties?
I wonder if there is or ever was an architecture equivalent to heliocentric theory?
I wonder if there is or ever was an architecture equivalent to atomic theory?
2006.04.02 10:27
Why does much 'avant-garde' design these days look straight out of the Sixties?
...and knowing exactly what to do.
2006.04.02 10:26
Why does much 'avant-garde' design these days look straight out of the Sixties?
I more like the notion of being bad in architecture. Talk about voids and opportunities.
2006.04.01 17:37
Why does much 'avant-garde' design these days look straight out of the Sixties?
House for Otto 3, 1999
Danteum wo bist du?
|