 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Translatio imperii" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(June 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Translatio imperii (Latin for 'transfer of rule') is ahistoriographical concept that was prominent in theMiddle Ages in the thinking and writing of elite groups of the population in Europe, but was the reception of a concept fromantiquity.[1][2] In this concept the process ofdecline and fall of an empire theoretically is being replaced by a natural succession from one empire to another.Translatio implies that an empire metahistorically can be transferred from hand to hand and place to place, from Troy to Romans and Greeks toFranks (both remaining Romans) and further on to Spain, and has therefore survived.[3]
In classic antiquity, an authoritative user of this scheme wasVirgil, who has been traditionally ranked as one of Rome's greatest poets. In his workAeneid, that has been considered thenational epic ofancient Rome, he linked the Rome in which he lived, reigned by its first emperorCaesar Augustus, withTroy. The discourse of translatio imperii may be traced from the ninth century to the fourteenth, and may be carried on into the sixteenth century or even further.[3] In theEarly modern period, the translatio scheme was used by many authors who wished to legitimate their new centre of power and to provide it with prestige. In Renaissance Florence, humanists wrote Latin poems fashioning their city as the new Rome, and members of theMedici family as Roman rulers.[2]
More generally speaking, history is in this concept viewed as a linear succession of transfers of animperium that invests supreme power in a singular ruler, an "emperor", or sometimes even several emperors, e.g., theEastern Roman Empire and the WesternHoly Roman Empire.[citation needed] The concept is closely linked totranslatio studii, the geographic movement of learning. Both terms are thought to have their origins in the second chapter of theBook of Daniel in theHebrew Bible (verses 39–40).[4]
French historianJacques Le Goff (1924–2014) did describe thetranslatio imperii concept as "typical" for the Middle Ages for several reasons:[5]
To be noted is that Le Goff in saying that, did refer to a very small group of rich and prosperous people living during the Middle Ages. For the largest part of the citizens,translatio imperii was unknown.[3]
Different medievalhigh-class authors described thetranslatio imperii as a succession leaving the supreme power in the hands of the monarch ruling the region of the author's provenance:
Later, continued and reinterpreted by modern and contemporary movements and authors (some known examples):
Medieval andRenaissance authors often linked this transfer of power by genealogically attaching a ruling family to anancient Greek orTrojan hero; this schema was modeled onVirgil's use ofAeneas (aTrojan hero) as progenitor of the city ofRome in hisAeneid. Continuing with this tradition, the twelfth-century Anglo-Norman authorsGeoffrey of Monmouth (in hisHistoria Regum Britanniae) andWace (in hisBrut) linked the founding ofBritain to the arrival ofBrutus of Troy, son of Aeneas.[13]
In a similar way, the French Renaissance authorJean Lemaire de Belges (in hisLes Illustrations de Gaule et Singularités de Troie) linked the founding ofCelticGaul to the arrival of the TrojanFrancus (i.e.Astyanax), the son ofHector; and ofCeltic Germany to the arrival ofBavo, the cousin ofPriam; in this way he established an illustrious genealogy forPepin andCharlemagne (the legend ofFrancus would also serve as the basis forRonsard's epic poem, "La Franciade").
| This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Translatio imperii" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(June 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Famous and very successful was the use of the idea of thetranslatio imperii in establishing a link between theWestern Roman Empire after itsdownfall in the fifth century, and the possessions ruled by rulerCharlemagne between 768 and 814. Charlemagne wasKing of the Franks from 768 andKing of the Lombards from 774 and negotiated an agreement withPope Leo III to be crowned as Roman emperor in 800, reviving that title in Western Central Europe more than three centuries later. The title lapsed in 924, but was revived in 962 after negotiations betweenOtto I andPope John XII, where Otto had his troops positioned near Rome. As a result, the Pope accepted Otto fashioning himself as Charlemagne's and theCarolingian Empire's successor, and beginning a continuous existence of the empire for over eight centuries. From 962 until the 12th century, the empire was one of the most powerful monarchies in Europe, as theHoly Roman Empire.
Sayri Túpac, secondInca of Vilcabamba, after negotiating with theviceroyAndrés Hurtado de Mendoza on January 5, 1558, inLima ceded the rights of his crown to theKing of Castile, renouncing his claims as sovereign of theInca Empire and converting toCatholicism; in exchange, he received a pardon from the "superior government", obtained titles to land and income, recognition of the primogeniture of his lineage, and obtaining theEncomienda del Valle de Yucay [Mayorazgo deOropesa].[15][16] Later, his successorTitu Cusi Yupanqui, would ratify this transfer with the signing of thetreaty of Acobamba [es].
This application of the Translatio Imperii, for the Kingdoms of Peru, was invoked as the legitimacy tool, by theSpanish Empire, for its domain in theViceroyalty of Peru, while, from these treaties, the incorporation of theTahuantinsuyo in the Spanish Monarchy, with the official recognition of theInca royal House [es], which consider the Monarchs of Spain as Kings of Peru, which would encourage the loyalty and fidelity of thePeruvian Monarchists [es] (especially theroyalists from theRoyal Army of Peru) towards theSpanish monarchy and its promotion ofmiscegenation.[17]
Given this, the Kings of Spain would be the legitimate successors of the Sapa Incas, therefore,Carlos I of Spain would be succeedingAtahualpa as Emperor of the Kingdoms of Peru, not only in fact, but also in law.[18] Which was referenced in multiple paintings ofviceregal art (especially from theSchool of Cuzco and theCathedral of Lima), such as the iconicEfigies de los incas o reyes del Perú,[19] present in theMuseum of Art of Lima, in which Atahualpa bestows his Scepter of Power to theSpanish Habsburgs (marked with a cross),[20] or the painting byJuan Núñez Vela y Ribera, in theCopacabana monastery, where reference is made to the "poderosissimo Inga D.Carlos II Augustissimo Emperador de la América".[21] Meanwhile, the King of Spain would flaunt his rights as Sapa Inca, through the title King of the West Indies, which is the sum of the rights of theInca andAztec crowns, which has been commemorated with the statues of the Aztec and Inca Emperors at the main entrance of theRoyal Palace of Madrid.[22]
This in turn gave guarantees to theInca Nobility to have recognition of their titles (and traditions of their peoples) inSpanish law, considering themselves twinned with theSpanish Nobility, theindigenous nobility receiving multiple shields and privileges from the Crown. Authors like theInca Garcilaso de la Vega would make a lot of reference to this Translatio imperii in his works.[23]
The claims of Spanish rights in the Kingdoms of Peru is in this way:Pre-Inca Kingdoms andAndean civilizations →Incan Empire/Tahuantinsuyo →Christianity →Spanish Empire
A long-standing problem in thehistoriography of the medieval history ofKievan Rus',Vladimir-Suzdal andMuscovy, preceding the modern republics ofRussia andUkraine,[24] is when usage of the term "Rus' land" (Old East Slavic:ро́усьскаѧ землѧ́,romanized: rusĭskaę zemlę;Russian:Русская земля,romanized: Russkaia zemlia[25]),[26] which was initially associated with theMiddle Dnieper (Dnipro) river valley around Kiev (modernKyiv), shifted towards Vladimir-Suzdal, also known as "Suzdal land" or "Suzdalia".[27][28] There is scholarly agreement that by the late 15th century, and perhaps earlier, theDaniilovichiprinces of Moscow were presenting themselves as the legitimate dynastic successors to Kievan Rus', and the true representatives of the "Rus' land".[29] The question is how much earlier thistranslatio can be dated, because the evidence is ambiguous.[27] In 2016,Charles J. Halperin summarised the scholarly debate so far:
Application of the term "Rus" to Muscovy has always been a bone of contention, especially to Ukrainian historiography. Nasonov and others noted that in Kievan Rus' "Rus" originally meant the Dnieper (Dniepr', Dnipro) River triangle of Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Pereslavl', not Vladimir–Suzdal'. [...] Rus'" wasnot an ethnic term, it was a political term. By the late fourteenth century Rus' meant Moscow, Kolomna, and Serpukhov.[24]
Several scholars including Halperin previously used the 1950 Priselkov reconstruction of theTrinity Chronicle as evidence to date thetranslatio (variously from the 1320s to the mid-14th century[30]), but – by 2001 – Halperin changed his position (confirmed in 2010 afterSerhii Plokhy (2006) explored the question) due to the unreliability of Priselkov's reconstruction.[27][28][31] In his 2022 updated bundle of all previous articles about the Rus' land (published at Plokhy's suggestion[32]), Halperin posited that the last time "Rus' land" meant the region around Kiev was inc. 1240, when theTale of the Destruction of the Rus' Land was written (probably in Kiev) during theMongol invasion of Kievan Rus'.[33] Conversely, byc. 1340, at the accession ofIvan I Kalita as Prince of Moscow in 1340, "thetranslatio of the Rus' Land to the Muscovite principality itself, or at the very least to the Northeast, was afait accompli."[33] Plokhy (2006) had argued this was too early, and thetranslatio could not have taken place before the mid-15th century due toDonald Ostrowski in 1998 re-dating of theworks of the Kulikovo cycle to after the 1440s,[34] which Halperin (1999) rejected.[35] Instead, Plokhy suggested tracing it to the Muscovite Codex of 1472, wherein an entrysub anno 1471 "may be regarded as one of the first expressions of thetranslatio theory that postulated the transfer of power in the Rus' lands from Kyiv toVladimir on the Kliazma and then to Moscow."[36][35]
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
