I’m considering building the Great seal of God, per Honorius’ Sworn Book. I have no problem with the instructions, or the Latin, however, I’m stumbling on three items, and I’m hoping this sub can assist.
First, the instructions say to do this on calf-skin parchment, which would be vellum. This is quite expensive. I will purchase it if it seems neccesary, but I’m wondering if modern vellum would be just as effective. Durability may be an issue as you will see on the last question.
Second, it says to be drawn using the blood of a dove, or another animal which I don’t recall just at the moment. Does “dove blood ink” that you can buy have actual dove blood in it? I’m really opposed to any kind of animal sacrifice, and this counts in my book. Can I just use ink?
Lastly, and most puzzlingly, it says to “Tunc habeas cirothecas novas sine creta factas, in quas quis nuncquam manum posuerit, in quibus signum “glutetur”. The English translation is, “Then you should have new gloves, made without whitening chalk, into which no one should have placed a hand, in which the seal must be <glued> [*held]. This “glutetur” does not conjugate properly and it seems to indicate that you glue, or firmly affix this seal to a new, unworn glove, rather than just hold it in your hand like Solomon’s pentacle.
Like, on the palm? On the back? I can’t find any examples from antiquity to look at, so thought I would ask if anyone knows.
Thanks.
Honorius and Valentinian III were both incredibly weak, incompetent, and overall terrible emperors for the Roman Empire, weakening and effectively guaranteeing the collapse of its western half. They oversaw massive blunders and humiliations and in general were terrible emperors. Did contemporary or later historians have that view, however? How did they view the reigns of Honorius/Valentinian III? Did they try justifying/excusing their shortcomings, outright lie in their favor and write glowing accounts, or outright condemn their incompetence? I am curious.
Examine this law in the Codex Theodosianus
"Exceptis plebeis scaenicis et qui spectaculo sui praebuit populo materiam voluptatis et tabernariis, ceteris omnibus usum sellarum et sedendi ac conveniendi in publicum tribuimus facultatem."
Except for plebeians, actors, those who provide the people with material pleasure, and tavernists; we give to all the opportunity to use chairs and convene in public.
IV Consulship of Flavius Arcadius | III Consulship of Flavius Honorius (396 AD)
Codex Theodosianus - 15.13.0. De usu sellarum.
What's up with this weird law? People can't use chairs in public anymore?
Alexios IV Angelos, his father was overthrown and he enlisted the help of the Fourth Crusade knowing well he can't pay for them. And when he didn't pay them. They sacked Constantinople (1204). Which directly led to 1453. In conclusion. Alexios IV Angelos was a total piece of shit.
I was reading about Old St' Peter's basilica and found about two "chapels" that were attached to the south side of the structure. One, the so called "Vatican Rotunda" aka chapel of St. Andrew, was originally a 3rd century structure with unknow purpose, probably a tomb. And the second, called the chapel of St. Petronilla during the middle ages, was originally the Tomb of Honorius.
Both are now demolished, and in the 15th century a few sarcophagi were uncovered from the Tomb of Honorius, but apparently not the one of the chicken emperor himself. Could someone provide some additional info, if this could indeed be true that an intact sarcophagus of a Roman Emperor is still lying in the ground under the south side of the modern St. Peter's?
Some sources I read of the topic:
http://www.quondam.com/04/0400.htm
https://preview.redd.it/gzps76azpwj71.jpg?width=572&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=536e67b898591b923f69f26818caa739f867ad4b
Late at night, the emperor Honorius stands in his villa, pondering his power and life. General Stilicho truly owns the 16 year old- a fact that he has not forgotten. Honorius, emperor of the Romans, must do what is right for the Roman people. He slowly begins to realize that at only 16, he doesn't truly know how to rule. He looks down the hall of emperors... Gordian 3, took power at 13 and was assassinated shortly thereafter. Nero... 16, persecutor and destroyer. Elagabalus... 14 and a complete hedonist. Not to mention the innumerable emperors who took power with another truly behind the wheel. Honorius wants power, but doesn't want to be made a fool. Otho killed himself to avoid that.
Slowly, Honorius begins to think of a honorable way out.
Is there any particular reason as to why Honorius and Arcadius or even some buerocatic official that thought it would be beneficial didn't try to assassinate one or the other for control over the other half of the Roman Empire that to my knowledge they'd inherit upon succession?
My assumption would be that governing it would be difficult but couldn't one just appoint rulers submissive and loyal to the emporer to control parts of the other half of the empire?
Were both of them just adverse to use of Machiavellian tactics because they were worried of eternal damnation or was there some other real politik reason as to why that would be nonbeneficial or detrimental?
I've been reading the Sworn Book of Honorius and found the text to be interesting as well as apparently compatible with my own workings. The hesitancy that I have is related to the sections of divine names. They are incomprehensible (which I recognize is part of the point) to the point where I can't recognize the source of most of them. Any research I have done simply links to the Ars Notoria, which does no more to elaborate the source or meaning of these sections of names. I have read rumors that they are actually demonic names rather than divine, but there is nothing I've seen to substantiate these claims. Does anyone know the source or meaning of these names, or could anyone attest to their nature?
I've been reading the Sworn Book of Honorius and found the text to be interesting as well as apparently compatible with my own workings. The hesitancy that I have is related to the sections of divine names. They are incomprehensible (which i recognize is part of the point) to the point where I can't recognize the source of most of them. Any research I have done simply links to the Ars Notoria, which does no more to elaborate the source or meaning of these sections of names. I have read rumors that they are actually demonic names rather than divine, but there is nothing I've seen to substantiate these claims. Does anyone know the source or meaning of these names, or could anyone attest to their nature?
