#theophilus freeman

[theitalianmoviegoer]

12 Years Slave, 2013

[refreshdaemon]

Poster cast of 12 Years a Slave (2013):

Chiwetel Ejiofor as Solomon Northup

Michael Fassbender as Edwin Epps

Benedict Cumberbatch as William Ford

Paul Dano as John Tibeats

Paul Giamatti as Theophilus Freeman

Lupita Nyong'o as Patsey

Sarah Paulson as Mary Epps

Brad Pitt as Samuel Bass

Alfre Woodard as Harriet Shaw

[mikearteta01-blog]

12 Years a Slave

          In 1841, a free African American named Solomon Northup was working as a violinist and lived with his wife and two children in Saratoga Springs, New York. Two white men, named Brown and Hamilton, offered him short-term employment as a musician if he would travel with them to Washington, D.C. Once they arrived, Brown and Hamilton took Northup and delivered him to a slave pen run by a man named Burch. Though Northup claimed that he was a free man, he was beaten terribly with a wooden paddle and a leather belt.

           Northup was eventually shipped to New Orleans alongside other captured African Americans and was told by the others that if he wanted to survive in the South, he had to learn how to be a slave and not make it known that he is a free man. Theophilus Freeman, a slave trader, gave Northup the identity of a runaway slave from Georgia named Platt and sold him to a plantation owner named William Ford. Ford happened to like Northup and gave him a violin. However, Northup and the plantation carpenter John Tibeats did not get along as well, and Northup ends up severely beating and whipping Tibeats. Tibeats and his group tried to hang Northup but they failed. Northup ended up stuck in the noose for hours before he was finally cut down. In order to save Northup’s life, Ford sold Northup to Edwin Epps, another slave owner. While this was occurring, Northup tried to explain that he was actually a free man, but Ford was too afraid and told Northup that he couldn’t help him.

           Unlike Ford, Epps was much more twisted. One of his favored slaves, Patsey, was regularly raped by Epps while Epps’s wife abused her and humiliated her out of jealousy. After Epps’s cotton fields were destroyed by cotton worms, Epps leased his slaves to a neighboring plantation for the season. At this new plantation, Northup gained the favor of the owner, Judge Turner, who allowed him to play the fiddle at a neighbor’s wedding anniversary celebration and to keep his earnings. Northup attempted to send a letter to his friends in New York with the help of a white field hand named Armsby. However, Armsby betrayed Northup and sold him out to Epps. In an effort to keep Epps from finding it, he burned the letter. Later on, Epps caught Patsey trying to acquire soap from a neighboring plantation as Mrs. Epps would not let her have any. Epps then made Northup whip Patsey nearly to death for the incident.

           Northup eventually began working on the construction of a Gazebo with a Canadian laborer named Samuel Bass. Bass did not like the way that Epps treated his slaves and was against American slavery. Northup took advantage of this and told Bass about how he was kidnapped from New York and requested him to try to send his letter. Bass agreed and the local sheriff eventually arrived to ask Northup some questions about the situation. Northup was able to prove he was a free man and recognized his friend Mr. Parker in the sheriff’s carriage. This was another way that Northup was able to prove his freedom. After twelve years of being a slave, Northup was finally free to go home to his family in Saratoga Springs.

[historyholidays]

Justinian and Heraclius

These centuries, with the reigns of Justinian and Heraclius in the sixth and seventh centuries, constitute an epoch which is worthy to rank with the Roman Empire from Julius Theodosius on the one hand, and on the other with the Holy Roman Empire from Otto the Great to Frederick n. The Roman Empire of Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Empire of Otto, both in substance and in ceremonial, were much more truly imitations and rivals of the Roman Empire of the Bosphorus than they were revivals of the State of Augustus and Trajan; of whom all real memory was entirely lost in the eighth century, whom, as heathens without the semblance of Church or Patriarch, it was impossible that Franks and Saxons should imitate or approve.

At the close of his second volume Professor Bury sums up the function of the later Roman Empire under the five following heads, of which his whole work is an illustration and commentary: —

The Empire of New Rome did much more than preserve the idea of the Roman Empire. It prolonged the Roman Empire itself in a new, and even in some respects, a more developed form. As Mr. Freeman well puts it, ‘ the Eastern Empire is the surest witness to the unity of history,’ the most complete answer to the conventional opposition between ‘ancient’ and ‘modern’ history. That mysterious gulf — that unexplained paralysis — which, we are told, occurred in the history of European civilisation about the fifth century, and was hardly removed by the ninth or tenth, has no existence whatever if we trace the internal condition of New Rome from the age of Theodosius to the age of Basilir.

Literary standards and classical art

We are so greatly influenced by literary standards and classical art that we hasten to condemn an age in which we find these decay. It is quite true that pure Latinity, elegant Greek, and Attic art were not to be found in New Rome, and seemed to have perished with the coming of the Huns and the Goths. But this did not form the whole of civilisation or even the bulk of it ephesus daily tour. In many things the civilisation of the Byzantine Empire was far higher than the civilisation of the Augustan Empire. The Court of Justinian or of Leo III., or of Irene, of Theophilus, of Basil i., or Constantine Porphyrogennetus, would have been considered in the Middle Ages far more like civilised life than the courts of Nero, Hadrian, or Diocletian. In many of the most essential features of civil administration, the governments of Justinian, of the Iconoclast and Macedonian dynasties, were really (in spite of barbarous punishments, tyranny, and extortion) a great improvement on the imperialism of the Caesars on the Tiber.

Obviously the religious, moral, and domestic life — bad as it was from our standard — was better than that which is described by Juvenal and Tacitus, and was better than that of the greater part of Europe in the centuries between the fifth and the tenth. And in matters of taste, it is plain that those only can speak of the ‘servile debasement’ of Byzantine art who have never traced the influence upon Europe of the industries, manufactures, inventions, and arts, which had their seat in Constantinople, who have not studied descriptions of the great Palace beside the Hippo-drome, of the Boucoleon and Blachernae, and who know nothing of S. Sophia, S. Irene, SS. Sergius and Bacchus, the Church Tes Choras, and all the remains of architectural and decorative skill that extend in unbroken series from the age of Justinian to the Crusades. The vast administrative, legal, and military organisation of Augustus and Trajan no more perished in the sack of Rome than did the language, the culture, and the aesthetic aptitude of the Greco-Roman world. Both took new forms; they did not perish.

[communisttravel]

Justinian and Heraclius

These centuries, with the reigns of Justinian and Heraclius in the sixth and seventh centuries, constitute an epoch which is worthy to rank with the Roman Empire from Julius Theodosius on the one hand, and on the other with the Holy Roman Empire from Otto the Great to Frederick n. The Roman Empire of Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Empire of Otto, both in substance and in ceremonial, were much more truly imitations and rivals of the Roman Empire of the Bosphorus than they were revivals of the State of Augustus and Trajan; of whom all real memory was entirely lost in the eighth century, whom, as heathens without the semblance of Church or Patriarch, it was impossible that Franks and Saxons should imitate or approve.

At the close of his second volume Professor Bury sums up the function of the later Roman Empire under the five following heads, of which his whole work is an illustration and commentary: —

The Empire of New Rome did much more than preserve the idea of the Roman Empire. It prolonged the Roman Empire itself in a new, and even in some respects, a more developed form. As Mr. Freeman well puts it, ‘ the Eastern Empire is the surest witness to the unity of history,’ the most complete answer to the conventional opposition between ‘ancient’ and ‘modern’ history. That mysterious gulf — that unexplained paralysis — which, we are told, occurred in the history of European civilisation about the fifth century, and was hardly removed by the ninth or tenth, has no existence whatever if we trace the internal condition of New Rome from the age of Theodosius to the age of Basilir.

Literary standards and classical art

We are so greatly influenced by literary standards and classical art that we hasten to condemn an age in which we find these decay. It is quite true that pure Latinity, elegant Greek, and Attic art were not to be found in New Rome, and seemed to have perished with the coming of the Huns and the Goths. But this did not form the whole of civilisation or even the bulk of it ephesus daily tour. In many things the civilisation of the Byzantine Empire was far higher than the civilisation of the Augustan Empire. The Court of Justinian or of Leo III., or of Irene, of Theophilus, of Basil i., or Constantine Porphyrogennetus, would have been considered in the Middle Ages far more like civilised life than the courts of Nero, Hadrian, or Diocletian. In many of the most essential features of civil administration, the governments of Justinian, of the Iconoclast and Macedonian dynasties, were really (in spite of barbarous punishments, tyranny, and extortion) a great improvement on the imperialism of the Caesars on the Tiber.

Obviously the religious, moral, and domestic life — bad as it was from our standard — was better than that which is described by Juvenal and Tacitus, and was better than that of the greater part of Europe in the centuries between the fifth and the tenth. And in matters of taste, it is plain that those only can speak of the ‘servile debasement’ of Byzantine art who have never traced the influence upon Europe of the industries, manufactures, inventions, and arts, which had their seat in Constantinople, who have not studied descriptions of the great Palace beside the Hippo-drome, of the Boucoleon and Blachernae, and who know nothing of S. Sophia, S. Irene, SS. Sergius and Bacchus, the Church Tes Choras, and all the remains of architectural and decorative skill that extend in unbroken series from the age of Justinian to the Crusades. The vast administrative, legal, and military organisation of Augustus and Trajan no more perished in the sack of Rome than did the language, the culture, and the aesthetic aptitude of the Greco-Roman world. Both took new forms; they did not perish.

[travlestyes]

Justinian and Heraclius

These centuries, with the reigns of Justinian and Heraclius in the sixth and seventh centuries, constitute an epoch which is worthy to rank with the Roman Empire from Julius Theodosius on the one hand, and on the other with the Holy Roman Empire from Otto the Great to Frederick n. The Roman Empire of Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Empire of Otto, both in substance and in ceremonial, were much more truly imitations and rivals of the Roman Empire of the Bosphorus than they were revivals of the State of Augustus and Trajan; of whom all real memory was entirely lost in the eighth century, whom, as heathens without the semblance of Church or Patriarch, it was impossible that Franks and Saxons should imitate or approve.

At the close of his second volume Professor Bury sums up the function of the later Roman Empire under the five following heads, of which his whole work is an illustration and commentary: —

The Empire of New Rome did much more than preserve the idea of the Roman Empire. It prolonged the Roman Empire itself in a new, and even in some respects, a more developed form. As Mr. Freeman well puts it, ‘ the Eastern Empire is the surest witness to the unity of history,’ the most complete answer to the conventional opposition between ‘ancient’ and ‘modern’ history. That mysterious gulf — that unexplained paralysis — which, we are told, occurred in the history of European civilisation about the fifth century, and was hardly removed by the ninth or tenth, has no existence whatever if we trace the internal condition of New Rome from the age of Theodosius to the age of Basilir.

Literary standards and classical art

We are so greatly influenced by literary standards and classical art that we hasten to condemn an age in which we find these decay. It is quite true that pure Latinity, elegant Greek, and Attic art were not to be found in New Rome, and seemed to have perished with the coming of the Huns and the Goths. But this did not form the whole of civilisation or even the bulk of it ephesus daily tour. In many things the civilisation of the Byzantine Empire was far higher than the civilisation of the Augustan Empire. The Court of Justinian or of Leo III., or of Irene, of Theophilus, of Basil i., or Constantine Porphyrogennetus, would have been considered in the Middle Ages far more like civilised life than the courts of Nero, Hadrian, or Diocletian. In many of the most essential features of civil administration, the governments of Justinian, of the Iconoclast and Macedonian dynasties, were really (in spite of barbarous punishments, tyranny, and extortion) a great improvement on the imperialism of the Caesars on the Tiber.

Obviously the religious, moral, and domestic life — bad as it was from our standard — was better than that which is described by Juvenal and Tacitus, and was better than that of the greater part of Europe in the centuries between the fifth and the tenth. And in matters of taste, it is plain that those only can speak of the ‘servile debasement’ of Byzantine art who have never traced the influence upon Europe of the industries, manufactures, inventions, and arts, which had their seat in Constantinople, who have not studied descriptions of the great Palace beside the Hippo-drome, of the Boucoleon and Blachernae, and who know nothing of S. Sophia, S. Irene, SS. Sergius and Bacchus, the Church Tes Choras, and all the remains of architectural and decorative skill that extend in unbroken series from the age of Justinian to the Crusades. The vast administrative, legal, and military organisation of Augustus and Trajan no more perished in the sack of Rome than did the language, the culture, and the aesthetic aptitude of the Greco-Roman world. Both took new forms; they did not perish.

[travelsinn]

Justinian and Heraclius

These centuries, with the reigns of Justinian and Heraclius in the sixth and seventh centuries, constitute an epoch which is worthy to rank with the Roman Empire from Julius Theodosius on the one hand, and on the other with the Holy Roman Empire from Otto the Great to Frederick n. The Roman Empire of Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Empire of Otto, both in substance and in ceremonial, were much more truly imitations and rivals of the Roman Empire of the Bosphorus than they were revivals of the State of Augustus and Trajan; of whom all real memory was entirely lost in the eighth century, whom, as heathens without the semblance of Church or Patriarch, it was impossible that Franks and Saxons should imitate or approve.

At the close of his second volume Professor Bury sums up the function of the later Roman Empire under the five following heads, of which his whole work is an illustration and commentary: —

The Empire of New Rome did much more than preserve the idea of the Roman Empire. It prolonged the Roman Empire itself in a new, and even in some respects, a more developed form. As Mr. Freeman well puts it, ‘ the Eastern Empire is the surest witness to the unity of history,’ the most complete answer to the conventional opposition between ‘ancient’ and ‘modern’ history. That mysterious gulf — that unexplained paralysis — which, we are told, occurred in the history of European civilisation about the fifth century, and was hardly removed by the ninth or tenth, has no existence whatever if we trace the internal condition of New Rome from the age of Theodosius to the age of Basilir.

Literary standards and classical art

We are so greatly influenced by literary standards and classical art that we hasten to condemn an age in which we find these decay. It is quite true that pure Latinity, elegant Greek, and Attic art were not to be found in New Rome, and seemed to have perished with the coming of the Huns and the Goths. But this did not form the whole of civilisation or even the bulk of it ephesus daily tour. In many things the civilisation of the Byzantine Empire was far higher than the civilisation of the Augustan Empire. The Court of Justinian or of Leo III., or of Irene, of Theophilus, of Basil i., or Constantine Porphyrogennetus, would have been considered in the Middle Ages far more like civilised life than the courts of Nero, Hadrian, or Diocletian. In many of the most essential features of civil administration, the governments of Justinian, of the Iconoclast and Macedonian dynasties, were really (in spite of barbarous punishments, tyranny, and extortion) a great improvement on the imperialism of the Caesars on the Tiber.

Obviously the religious, moral, and domestic life — bad as it was from our standard — was better than that which is described by Juvenal and Tacitus, and was better than that of the greater part of Europe in the centuries between the fifth and the tenth. And in matters of taste, it is plain that those only can speak of the ‘servile debasement’ of Byzantine art who have never traced the influence upon Europe of the industries, manufactures, inventions, and arts, which had their seat in Constantinople, who have not studied descriptions of the great Palace beside the Hippo-drome, of the Boucoleon and Blachernae, and who know nothing of S. Sophia, S. Irene, SS. Sergius and Bacchus, the Church Tes Choras, and all the remains of architectural and decorative skill that extend in unbroken series from the age of Justinian to the Crusades. The vast administrative, legal, and military organisation of Augustus and Trajan no more perished in the sack of Rome than did the language, the culture, and the aesthetic aptitude of the Greco-Roman world. Both took new forms; they did not perish.

[travelagentr]

Justinian and Heraclius

These centuries, with the reigns of Justinian and Heraclius in the sixth and seventh centuries, constitute an epoch which is worthy to rank with the Roman Empire from Julius Theodosius on the one hand, and on the other with the Holy Roman Empire from Otto the Great to Frederick n. The Roman Empire of Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Empire of Otto, both in substance and in ceremonial, were much more truly imitations and rivals of the Roman Empire of the Bosphorus than they were revivals of the State of Augustus and Trajan; of whom all real memory was entirely lost in the eighth century, whom, as heathens without the semblance of Church or Patriarch, it was impossible that Franks and Saxons should imitate or approve.

At the close of his second volume Professor Bury sums up the function of the later Roman Empire under the five following heads, of which his whole work is an illustration and commentary: —

The Empire of New Rome did much more than preserve the idea of the Roman Empire. It prolonged the Roman Empire itself in a new, and even in some respects, a more developed form. As Mr. Freeman well puts it, ‘ the Eastern Empire is the surest witness to the unity of history,’ the most complete answer to the conventional opposition between ‘ancient’ and ‘modern’ history. That mysterious gulf — that unexplained paralysis — which, we are told, occurred in the history of European civilisation about the fifth century, and was hardly removed by the ninth or tenth, has no existence whatever if we trace the internal condition of New Rome from the age of Theodosius to the age of Basilir.

Literary standards and classical art

We are so greatly influenced by literary standards and classical art that we hasten to condemn an age in which we find these decay. It is quite true that pure Latinity, elegant Greek, and Attic art were not to be found in New Rome, and seemed to have perished with the coming of the Huns and the Goths. But this did not form the whole of civilisation or even the bulk of it ephesus daily tour. In many things the civilisation of the Byzantine Empire was far higher than the civilisation of the Augustan Empire. The Court of Justinian or of Leo III., or of Irene, of Theophilus, of Basil i., or Constantine Porphyrogennetus, would have been considered in the Middle Ages far more like civilised life than the courts of Nero, Hadrian, or Diocletian. In many of the most essential features of civil administration, the governments of Justinian, of the Iconoclast and Macedonian dynasties, were really (in spite of barbarous punishments, tyranny, and extortion) a great improvement on the imperialism of the Caesars on the Tiber.

Obviously the religious, moral, and domestic life — bad as it was from our standard — was better than that which is described by Juvenal and Tacitus, and was better than that of the greater part of Europe in the centuries between the fifth and the tenth. And in matters of taste, it is plain that those only can speak of the ‘servile debasement’ of Byzantine art who have never traced the influence upon Europe of the industries, manufactures, inventions, and arts, which had their seat in Constantinople, who have not studied descriptions of the great Palace beside the Hippo-drome, of the Boucoleon and Blachernae, and who know nothing of S. Sophia, S. Irene, SS. Sergius and Bacchus, the Church Tes Choras, and all the remains of architectural and decorative skill that extend in unbroken series from the age of Justinian to the Crusades. The vast administrative, legal, and military organisation of Augustus and Trajan no more perished in the sack of Rome than did the language, the culture, and the aesthetic aptitude of the Greco-Roman world. Both took new forms; they did not perish.

[bgineurope]

Justinian and Heraclius

These centuries, with the reigns of Justinian and Heraclius in the sixth and seventh centuries, constitute an epoch which is worthy to rank with the Roman Empire from Julius Theodosius on the one hand, and on the other with the Holy Roman Empire from Otto the Great to Frederick n. The Roman Empire of Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Empire of Otto, both in substance and in ceremonial, were much more truly imitations and rivals of the Roman Empire of the Bosphorus than they were revivals of the State of Augustus and Trajan; of whom all real memory was entirely lost in the eighth century, whom, as heathens without the semblance of Church or Patriarch, it was impossible that Franks and Saxons should imitate or approve.

At the close of his second volume Professor Bury sums up the function of the later Roman Empire under the five following heads, of which his whole work is an illustration and commentary: —

The Empire of New Rome did much more than preserve the idea of the Roman Empire. It prolonged the Roman Empire itself in a new, and even in some respects, a more developed form. As Mr. Freeman well puts it, ‘ the Eastern Empire is the surest witness to the unity of history,’ the most complete answer to the conventional opposition between ‘ancient’ and ‘modern’ history. That mysterious gulf — that unexplained paralysis — which, we are told, occurred in the history of European civilisation about the fifth century, and was hardly removed by the ninth or tenth, has no existence whatever if we trace the internal condition of New Rome from the age of Theodosius to the age of Basilir.

Literary standards and classical art

We are so greatly influenced by literary standards and classical art that we hasten to condemn an age in which we find these decay. It is quite true that pure Latinity, elegant Greek, and Attic art were not to be found in New Rome, and seemed to have perished with the coming of the Huns and the Goths. But this did not form the whole of civilisation or even the bulk of it ephesus daily tour. In many things the civilisation of the Byzantine Empire was far higher than the civilisation of the Augustan Empire. The Court of Justinian or of Leo III., or of Irene, of Theophilus, of Basil i., or Constantine Porphyrogennetus, would have been considered in the Middle Ages far more like civilised life than the courts of Nero, Hadrian, or Diocletian. In many of the most essential features of civil administration, the governments of Justinian, of the Iconoclast and Macedonian dynasties, were really (in spite of barbarous punishments, tyranny, and extortion) a great improvement on the imperialism of the Caesars on the Tiber.

Obviously the religious, moral, and domestic life — bad as it was from our standard — was better than that which is described by Juvenal and Tacitus, and was better than that of the greater part of Europe in the centuries between the fifth and the tenth. And in matters of taste, it is plain that those only can speak of the ‘servile debasement’ of Byzantine art who have never traced the influence upon Europe of the industries, manufactures, inventions, and arts, which had their seat in Constantinople, who have not studied descriptions of the great Palace beside the Hippo-drome, of the Boucoleon and Blachernae, and who know nothing of S. Sophia, S. Irene, SS. Sergius and Bacchus, the Church Tes Choras, and all the remains of architectural and decorative skill that extend in unbroken series from the age of Justinian to the Crusades. The vast administrative, legal, and military organisation of Augustus and Trajan no more perished in the sack of Rome than did the language, the culture, and the aesthetic aptitude of the Greco-Roman world. Both took new forms; they did not perish.

[travelessbg]

Justinian and Heraclius

These centuries, with the reigns of Justinian and Heraclius in the sixth and seventh centuries, constitute an epoch which is worthy to rank with the Roman Empire from Julius Theodosius on the one hand, and on the other with the Holy Roman Empire from Otto the Great to Frederick n. The Roman Empire of Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Empire of Otto, both in substance and in ceremonial, were much more truly imitations and rivals of the Roman Empire of the Bosphorus than they were revivals of the State of Augustus and Trajan; of whom all real memory was entirely lost in the eighth century, whom, as heathens without the semblance of Church or Patriarch, it was impossible that Franks and Saxons should imitate or approve.

At the close of his second volume Professor Bury sums up the function of the later Roman Empire under the five following heads, of which his whole work is an illustration and commentary: —

The Empire of New Rome did much more than preserve the idea of the Roman Empire. It prolonged the Roman Empire itself in a new, and even in some respects, a more developed form. As Mr. Freeman well puts it, ‘ the Eastern Empire is the surest witness to the unity of history,’ the most complete answer to the conventional opposition between ‘ancient’ and ‘modern’ history. That mysterious gulf — that unexplained paralysis — which, we are told, occurred in the history of European civilisation about the fifth century, and was hardly removed by the ninth or tenth, has no existence whatever if we trace the internal condition of New Rome from the age of Theodosius to the age of Basilir.

Literary standards and classical art

We are so greatly influenced by literary standards and classical art that we hasten to condemn an age in which we find these decay. It is quite true that pure Latinity, elegant Greek, and Attic art were not to be found in New Rome, and seemed to have perished with the coming of the Huns and the Goths. But this did not form the whole of civilisation or even the bulk of it ephesus daily tour. In many things the civilisation of the Byzantine Empire was far higher than the civilisation of the Augustan Empire. The Court of Justinian or of Leo III., or of Irene, of Theophilus, of Basil i., or Constantine Porphyrogennetus, would have been considered in the Middle Ages far more like civilised life than the courts of Nero, Hadrian, or Diocletian. In many of the most essential features of civil administration, the governments of Justinian, of the Iconoclast and Macedonian dynasties, were really (in spite of barbarous punishments, tyranny, and extortion) a great improvement on the imperialism of the Caesars on the Tiber.

Obviously the religious, moral, and domestic life — bad as it was from our standard — was better than that which is described by Juvenal and Tacitus, and was better than that of the greater part of Europe in the centuries between the fifth and the tenth. And in matters of taste, it is plain that those only can speak of the ‘servile debasement’ of Byzantine art who have never traced the influence upon Europe of the industries, manufactures, inventions, and arts, which had their seat in Constantinople, who have not studied descriptions of the great Palace beside the Hippo-drome, of the Boucoleon and Blachernae, and who know nothing of S. Sophia, S. Irene, SS. Sergius and Bacchus, the Church Tes Choras, and all the remains of architectural and decorative skill that extend in unbroken series from the age of Justinian to the Crusades. The vast administrative, legal, and military organisation of Augustus and Trajan no more perished in the sack of Rome than did the language, the culture, and the aesthetic aptitude of the Greco-Roman world. Both took new forms; they did not perish.

[bookinghotelbg]

Justinian and Heraclius

These centuries, with the reigns of Justinian and Heraclius in the sixth and seventh centuries, constitute an epoch which is worthy to rank with the Roman Empire from Julius Theodosius on the one hand, and on the other with the Holy Roman Empire from Otto the Great to Frederick n. The Roman Empire of Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Empire of Otto, both in substance and in ceremonial, were much more truly imitations and rivals of the Roman Empire of the Bosphorus than they were revivals of the State of Augustus and Trajan; of whom all real memory was entirely lost in the eighth century, whom, as heathens without the semblance of Church or Patriarch, it was impossible that Franks and Saxons should imitate or approve.

At the close of his second volume Professor Bury sums up the function of the later Roman Empire under the five following heads, of which his whole work is an illustration and commentary: —

The Empire of New Rome did much more than preserve the idea of the Roman Empire. It prolonged the Roman Empire itself in a new, and even in some respects, a more developed form. As Mr. Freeman well puts it, ‘ the Eastern Empire is the surest witness to the unity of history,’ the most complete answer to the conventional opposition between ‘ancient’ and ‘modern’ history. That mysterious gulf — that unexplained paralysis — which, we are told, occurred in the history of European civilisation about the fifth century, and was hardly removed by the ninth or tenth, has no existence whatever if we trace the internal condition of New Rome from the age of Theodosius to the age of Basilir.

Literary standards and classical art

We are so greatly influenced by literary standards and classical art that we hasten to condemn an age in which we find these decay. It is quite true that pure Latinity, elegant Greek, and Attic art were not to be found in New Rome, and seemed to have perished with the coming of the Huns and the Goths. But this did not form the whole of civilisation or even the bulk of it ephesus daily tour. In many things the civilisation of the Byzantine Empire was far higher than the civilisation of the Augustan Empire. The Court of Justinian or of Leo III., or of Irene, of Theophilus, of Basil i., or Constantine Porphyrogennetus, would have been considered in the Middle Ages far more like civilised life than the courts of Nero, Hadrian, or Diocletian. In many of the most essential features of civil administration, the governments of Justinian, of the Iconoclast and Macedonian dynasties, were really (in spite of barbarous punishments, tyranny, and extortion) a great improvement on the imperialism of the Caesars on the Tiber.

Obviously the religious, moral, and domestic life — bad as it was from our standard — was better than that which is described by Juvenal and Tacitus, and was better than that of the greater part of Europe in the centuries between the fifth and the tenth. And in matters of taste, it is plain that those only can speak of the ‘servile debasement’ of Byzantine art who have never traced the influence upon Europe of the industries, manufactures, inventions, and arts, which had their seat in Constantinople, who have not studied descriptions of the great Palace beside the Hippo-drome, of the Boucoleon and Blachernae, and who know nothing of S. Sophia, S. Irene, SS. Sergius and Bacchus, the Church Tes Choras, and all the remains of architectural and decorative skill that extend in unbroken series from the age of Justinian to the Crusades. The vast administrative, legal, and military organisation of Augustus and Trajan no more perished in the sack of Rome than did the language, the culture, and the aesthetic aptitude of the Greco-Roman world. Both took new forms; they did not perish.

[pictravels]

Justinian and Heraclius

These centuries, with the reigns of Justinian and Heraclius in the sixth and seventh centuries, constitute an epoch which is worthy to rank with the Roman Empire from Julius Theodosius on the one hand, and on the other with the Holy Roman Empire from Otto the Great to Frederick n. The Roman Empire of Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Empire of Otto, both in substance and in ceremonial, were much more truly imitations and rivals of the Roman Empire of the Bosphorus than they were revivals of the State of Augustus and Trajan; of whom all real memory was entirely lost in the eighth century, whom, as heathens without the semblance of Church or Patriarch, it was impossible that Franks and Saxons should imitate or approve.

At the close of his second volume Professor Bury sums up the function of the later Roman Empire under the five following heads, of which his whole work is an illustration and commentary: —

The Empire of New Rome did much more than preserve the idea of the Roman Empire. It prolonged the Roman Empire itself in a new, and even in some respects, a more developed form. As Mr. Freeman well puts it, ‘ the Eastern Empire is the surest witness to the unity of history,’ the most complete answer to the conventional opposition between ‘ancient’ and ‘modern’ history. That mysterious gulf — that unexplained paralysis — which, we are told, occurred in the history of European civilisation about the fifth century, and was hardly removed by the ninth or tenth, has no existence whatever if we trace the internal condition of New Rome from the age of Theodosius to the age of Basilir.

Literary standards and classical art

We are so greatly influenced by literary standards and classical art that we hasten to condemn an age in which we find these decay. It is quite true that pure Latinity, elegant Greek, and Attic art were not to be found in New Rome, and seemed to have perished with the coming of the Huns and the Goths. But this did not form the whole of civilisation or even the bulk of it ephesus daily tour. In many things the civilisation of the Byzantine Empire was far higher than the civilisation of the Augustan Empire. The Court of Justinian or of Leo III., or of Irene, of Theophilus, of Basil i., or Constantine Porphyrogennetus, would have been considered in the Middle Ages far more like civilised life than the courts of Nero, Hadrian, or Diocletian. In many of the most essential features of civil administration, the governments of Justinian, of the Iconoclast and Macedonian dynasties, were really (in spite of barbarous punishments, tyranny, and extortion) a great improvement on the imperialism of the Caesars on the Tiber.

Obviously the religious, moral, and domestic life — bad as it was from our standard — was better than that which is described by Juvenal and Tacitus, and was better than that of the greater part of Europe in the centuries between the fifth and the tenth. And in matters of taste, it is plain that those only can speak of the ‘servile debasement’ of Byzantine art who have never traced the influence upon Europe of the industries, manufactures, inventions, and arts, which had their seat in Constantinople, who have not studied descriptions of the great Palace beside the Hippo-drome, of the Boucoleon and Blachernae, and who know nothing of S. Sophia, S. Irene, SS. Sergius and Bacchus, the Church Tes Choras, and all the remains of architectural and decorative skill that extend in unbroken series from the age of Justinian to the Crusades. The vast administrative, legal, and military organisation of Augustus and Trajan no more perished in the sack of Rome than did the language, the culture, and the aesthetic aptitude of the Greco-Roman world. Both took new forms; they did not perish.

[triptraveltour]

Justinian and Heraclius

These centuries, with the reigns of Justinian and Heraclius in the sixth and seventh centuries, constitute an epoch which is worthy to rank with the Roman Empire from Julius Theodosius on the one hand, and on the other with the Holy Roman Empire from Otto the Great to Frederick n. The Roman Empire of Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Empire of Otto, both in substance and in ceremonial, were much more truly imitations and rivals of the Roman Empire of the Bosphorus than they were revivals of the State of Augustus and Trajan; of whom all real memory was entirely lost in the eighth century, whom, as heathens without the semblance of Church or Patriarch, it was impossible that Franks and Saxons should imitate or approve.

At the close of his second volume Professor Bury sums up the function of the later Roman Empire under the five following heads, of which his whole work is an illustration and commentary: —

The Empire of New Rome did much more than preserve the idea of the Roman Empire. It prolonged the Roman Empire itself in a new, and even in some respects, a more developed form. As Mr. Freeman well puts it, ‘ the Eastern Empire is the surest witness to the unity of history,’ the most complete answer to the conventional opposition between ‘ancient’ and ‘modern’ history. That mysterious gulf — that unexplained paralysis — which, we are told, occurred in the history of European civilisation about the fifth century, and was hardly removed by the ninth or tenth, has no existence whatever if we trace the internal condition of New Rome from the age of Theodosius to the age of Basilir.

Literary standards and classical art

We are so greatly influenced by literary standards and classical art that we hasten to condemn an age in which we find these decay. It is quite true that pure Latinity, elegant Greek, and Attic art were not to be found in New Rome, and seemed to have perished with the coming of the Huns and the Goths. But this did not form the whole of civilisation or even the bulk of it ephesus daily tour. In many things the civilisation of the Byzantine Empire was far higher than the civilisation of the Augustan Empire. The Court of Justinian or of Leo III., or of Irene, of Theophilus, of Basil i., or Constantine Porphyrogennetus, would have been considered in the Middle Ages far more like civilised life than the courts of Nero, Hadrian, or Diocletian. In many of the most essential features of civil administration, the governments of Justinian, of the Iconoclast and Macedonian dynasties, were really (in spite of barbarous punishments, tyranny, and extortion) a great improvement on the imperialism of the Caesars on the Tiber.

Obviously the religious, moral, and domestic life — bad as it was from our standard — was better than that which is described by Juvenal and Tacitus, and was better than that of the greater part of Europe in the centuries between the fifth and the tenth. And in matters of taste, it is plain that those only can speak of the ‘servile debasement’ of Byzantine art who have never traced the influence upon Europe of the industries, manufactures, inventions, and arts, which had their seat in Constantinople, who have not studied descriptions of the great Palace beside the Hippo-drome, of the Boucoleon and Blachernae, and who know nothing of S. Sophia, S. Irene, SS. Sergius and Bacchus, the Church Tes Choras, and all the remains of architectural and decorative skill that extend in unbroken series from the age of Justinian to the Crusades. The vast administrative, legal, and military organisation of Augustus and Trajan no more perished in the sack of Rome than did the language, the culture, and the aesthetic aptitude of the Greco-Roman world. Both took new forms; they did not perish.

[travellingbalkan]

Justinian and Heraclius

These centuries, with the reigns of Justinian and Heraclius in the sixth and seventh centuries, constitute an epoch which is worthy to rank with the Roman Empire from Julius Theodosius on the one hand, and on the other with the Holy Roman Empire from Otto the Great to Frederick n. The Roman Empire of Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Empire of Otto, both in substance and in ceremonial, were much more truly imitations and rivals of the Roman Empire of the Bosphorus than they were revivals of the State of Augustus and Trajan; of whom all real memory was entirely lost in the eighth century, whom, as heathens without the semblance of Church or Patriarch, it was impossible that Franks and Saxons should imitate or approve.

At the close of his second volume Professor Bury sums up the function of the later Roman Empire under the five following heads, of which his whole work is an illustration and commentary: —

The Empire of New Rome did much more than preserve the idea of the Roman Empire. It prolonged the Roman Empire itself in a new, and even in some respects, a more developed form. As Mr. Freeman well puts it, ‘ the Eastern Empire is the surest witness to the unity of history,’ the most complete answer to the conventional opposition between ‘ancient’ and ‘modern’ history. That mysterious gulf — that unexplained paralysis — which, we are told, occurred in the history of European civilisation about the fifth century, and was hardly removed by the ninth or tenth, has no existence whatever if we trace the internal condition of New Rome from the age of Theodosius to the age of Basilir.

Literary standards and classical art

We are so greatly influenced by literary standards and classical art that we hasten to condemn an age in which we find these decay. It is quite true that pure Latinity, elegant Greek, and Attic art were not to be found in New Rome, and seemed to have perished with the coming of the Huns and the Goths. But this did not form the whole of civilisation or even the bulk of it ephesus daily tour. In many things the civilisation of the Byzantine Empire was far higher than the civilisation of the Augustan Empire. The Court of Justinian or of Leo III., or of Irene, of Theophilus, of Basil i., or Constantine Porphyrogennetus, would have been considered in the Middle Ages far more like civilised life than the courts of Nero, Hadrian, or Diocletian. In many of the most essential features of civil administration, the governments of Justinian, of the Iconoclast and Macedonian dynasties, were really (in spite of barbarous punishments, tyranny, and extortion) a great improvement on the imperialism of the Caesars on the Tiber.

Obviously the religious, moral, and domestic life — bad as it was from our standard — was better than that which is described by Juvenal and Tacitus, and was better than that of the greater part of Europe in the centuries between the fifth and the tenth. And in matters of taste, it is plain that those only can speak of the ‘servile debasement’ of Byzantine art who have never traced the influence upon Europe of the industries, manufactures, inventions, and arts, which had their seat in Constantinople, who have not studied descriptions of the great Palace beside the Hippo-drome, of the Boucoleon and Blachernae, and who know nothing of S. Sophia, S. Irene, SS. Sergius and Bacchus, the Church Tes Choras, and all the remains of architectural and decorative skill that extend in unbroken series from the age of Justinian to the Crusades. The vast administrative, legal, and military organisation of Augustus and Trajan no more perished in the sack of Rome than did the language, the culture, and the aesthetic aptitude of the Greco-Roman world. Both took new forms; they did not perish.

[travelinmarmar]

Justinian and Heraclius

These centuries, with the reigns of Justinian and Heraclius in the sixth and seventh centuries, constitute an epoch which is worthy to rank with the Roman Empire from Julius Theodosius on the one hand, and on the other with the Holy Roman Empire from Otto the Great to Frederick n. The Roman Empire of Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Empire of Otto, both in substance and in ceremonial, were much more truly imitations and rivals of the Roman Empire of the Bosphorus than they were revivals of the State of Augustus and Trajan; of whom all real memory was entirely lost in the eighth century, whom, as heathens without the semblance of Church or Patriarch, it was impossible that Franks and Saxons should imitate or approve.

At the close of his second volume Professor Bury sums up the function of the later Roman Empire under the five following heads, of which his whole work is an illustration and commentary: —

The Empire of New Rome did much more than preserve the idea of the Roman Empire. It prolonged the Roman Empire itself in a new, and even in some respects, a more developed form. As Mr. Freeman well puts it, ‘ the Eastern Empire is the surest witness to the unity of history,’ the most complete answer to the conventional opposition between ‘ancient’ and ‘modern’ history. That mysterious gulf — that unexplained paralysis — which, we are told, occurred in the history of European civilisation about the fifth century, and was hardly removed by the ninth or tenth, has no existence whatever if we trace the internal condition of New Rome from the age of Theodosius to the age of Basilir.

Literary standards and classical art

We are so greatly influenced by literary standards and classical art that we hasten to condemn an age in which we find these decay. It is quite true that pure Latinity, elegant Greek, and Attic art were not to be found in New Rome, and seemed to have perished with the coming of the Huns and the Goths. But this did not form the whole of civilisation or even the bulk of it ephesus daily tour. In many things the civilisation of the Byzantine Empire was far higher than the civilisation of the Augustan Empire. The Court of Justinian or of Leo III., or of Irene, of Theophilus, of Basil i., or Constantine Porphyrogennetus, would have been considered in the Middle Ages far more like civilised life than the courts of Nero, Hadrian, or Diocletian. In many of the most essential features of civil administration, the governments of Justinian, of the Iconoclast and Macedonian dynasties, were really (in spite of barbarous punishments, tyranny, and extortion) a great improvement on the imperialism of the Caesars on the Tiber.

Obviously the religious, moral, and domestic life — bad as it was from our standard — was better than that which is described by Juvenal and Tacitus, and was better than that of the greater part of Europe in the centuries between the fifth and the tenth. And in matters of taste, it is plain that those only can speak of the ‘servile debasement’ of Byzantine art who have never traced the influence upon Europe of the industries, manufactures, inventions, and arts, which had their seat in Constantinople, who have not studied descriptions of the great Palace beside the Hippo-drome, of the Boucoleon and Blachernae, and who know nothing of S. Sophia, S. Irene, SS. Sergius and Bacchus, the Church Tes Choras, and all the remains of architectural and decorative skill that extend in unbroken series from the age of Justinian to the Crusades. The vast administrative, legal, and military organisation of Augustus and Trajan no more perished in the sack of Rome than did the language, the culture, and the aesthetic aptitude of the Greco-Roman world. Both took new forms; they did not perish.

[deannadupont]

12 Years A Slave: “Located in the Faubourg Marigny, from the corner of Esplanade Ave. and Chartres St., is the former site of Theophilus Freeman's notorious slave pen (demolished after the Civil War) where Solomon Northup, a free man of color from New York, was sold into slavery in 1841. Northup's story is chronicled in his 1853 memoir "12 Years a Slave" and in the award winning movie by the same name.” https://www.instagram.com/p/CdoSoXDJKA0/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=