Errors & Omissions: The Emperor’s new title is one we got wrong

Style and history glitches from the week's Independent

Yesterday we ran a story about a forthcoming exhibition at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, headlined “Byzantine ‘self-assembly’ church to be reconstructed in Oxford”. The report began like this: “Centuries before the Swedes started flat-packing their furniture, the Holy Roman Emperor Justinian had his own version, sending self-assembly churches to newly conquered parts of his empire.”

No, Justinian was just a Roman emperor, not a Holy Roman Emperor. The medieval and later manifestations of the Roman Empire are a source of endless confusion.

Very briefly. The Latin-speaking Roman Empire of the west came to an end in 476, an event known in Western Europe as the fall of the Roman Empire. The Greek-speaking Roman Empire of the east, which Justinian ruled in the sixth century, carried on, in a gradually shrinking territory, until 1453, when its capital, Constantinople (also known as Byzantium and Istanbul), fell to the Ottoman Turks. Nineteenth-century historians did not aid comprehension (I submit) by calling this medieval period of the Roman Empire the “Byzantine Empire” – though in the history of art and architecture “Byzantine” is a useful term.

Meanwhile, back in the west, the successors of Charlemagne set up a new version of the Roman Empire, known as the Holy Roman Empire, which exercised hegemony over Germany from the late 10th to the early 19th century. That is another story, and it has nothing to do with Justinian.

µ Still with the Romans, on Thursday a news story reported: “Rome’s authorities are cracking down on the costumed legionnaires and centurions who pose for photos with tourists before demanding cash with menaces.” “Légionnaire” is a French word, which has slipped into English by way of the French Foreign Legion and legionnaire’s disease, an American term. For the soldiers of a Roman legion, let’s stick to British English, and call them legionaries.

µ On Wednesday there was a story about the High Sheriff of Cornwall. Here is the last paragraph: “According to Cornwall Council’s website, the office of High Sheriff is an independent non-political royal appointment for a single year which traces its roots back to the Saxon ‘shire reeve’ who was responsible to the king for the maintenance of law and order and tax collection in the county.”

All true, no doubt, and interesting in itself, and scrupulous sourcing is important in news stories. But why attribute this item of general knowledge to the council website?

µ Here is a blurb from Wednesday: “British middle distance runner Hannah England recalls losing out to soon-to-be-banned Alminova and ‘sobbing my eyes out’.”

It is customary for us pedants to denounce “losing out” as an American waste of space. What’s wrong with just “losing”, we growl, what does the “out” add? But maybe here there is a difference: Alminova, remember, is involved in the Russian doping scandal. Maybe England didn’t really lose on this occasion – she just lost out.