CEU Department of Medieval Studies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ANNUAL OF MEDIEVAL STUDIES AT CEU VOL. 10 2004 Central European University Budapest ANNUAL OF MEDIEVAL STUDIES AT CEU VOL. 10 2004 Edited by Katalin Szende and Judith A. Rasson Central European University Budapest Department of Medieval Studies All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the permission of the publisher. Editorial Board János M. Bak, Neven Budak, Gerhard Jaritz, Gábor Klaniczay, József Laszlovszky, István Perczel, Marianne Sághy Editors Katalin Szende and Judith A. Rasson Cover illustration Stove tile with the sitting figure of Matthias Corvinus fom the excavation of the Buda royal palace. Late fifteenth century. Budapest History Museum, Inv. no. 52.1183. (Photo: Bence Tihanyi) Department of Medieval Studies Central European University H-1051 Budapest, Nádor u. 9., Hungary Postal address: H-1245 Budapest 5, P.O. Box 1082 E-mail: [email protected] Net: http://www.ceu.hu/medstud/web/home/index.html Copies can be ordered at the Department, and from the CEU Press http://www.ceupress.com/Order.html ISSN 1219-0616 Non-discrimination policy: CEU does not discriminate on the basis of—including, but not limited to—race, color, national or ethnic origin, religion, gender or sexual orientation in administering its educational policies, admissions policies, scholarship and loan programs, and athletic and other school-administered programs. © Central European University Produced by Archaeolingua Foundation & Publishing House TABLE OF CONTENTS Editors’ Preface ............................................................................................................. 5 I. ARTICLES AND STUDIES ......................................................................... 7 Iuliana Viezure On the Origins of the Unus de Trinitate Controversy ....................................... 9 Lovro Kunčević The Oldest Foundation Myth of Ragusa: The Epidaurian Tradition ................ 21 Martin N. Ossikovski The Conciliar Doctrine of Marsiglio of Padua: An Important Biblical Argument ..................................................................... 33 David Movrin The Beloved Disciple: Stephen Maconi and St. Catherine of Siena ...................................................... 43 Stanislava Kuzmová Preaching a Model Bishop: A Sample of Sermons on Saint Stanislaus .............. 53 Victor Alexandrov “Because this also Belongs to our Diocese:” Forged Correspondence between Stephen the Great and Archbishop Dorotej ...... 65 Enikő Békés The Lion and King Matthias Corvinus: A Renaissance Interpretation of a Classical Physiognomic Image ....................... 77 Guest Article ........................................................................................................... 95 Jonathan Shepard Byzantine Writers on the Hungarians in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries ......... 97 Anthropology ..................................................................................... 125 Medieval Studies and Anthropology – Judith Rasson .................................. 127 Joseph C. Achike Agbakoba The Supreme Being in African Traditional Thought: A Logico-Ontological Approach ..................................................................... 129 Eszter Spät The Festival of Sheik Adi in Lalish, the Holy Valley of the Yezidis .............. 147 Crafts and Commerce in Late Medieval Towns ........................... 159 Foreword – Katalin Szende ............................................................................... 161 Edna Ruth Yahil Urban Identity, Guilds, and Justice in Late Medieval Saint Germain des Prés ....................................................... 163 Ian Blanchard Foreign Merchants in Early Modern Towns and International Market Intelligence Systems ................................................. 175 Ágnes Flóra Taking Pride of Place: Goldsmiths of Cluj (Kolozsvár) in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries ..... 181 II. REPORT OF THE YEAR ....................................................................... 203 Report of the Year – József Laszlovszky ......................................................... 205 MA Thesis Abstracts ....................................................................................... 213 PhD Defences during the Academic Year 2002–2003 .............................. 233 EDITORS’ PREFACE Lectori salutem! Volume 10 of our Annual, which is by its nature always one year behind the events, presents some academic results of our tenth year of existence. The special events of the anniversary are covered briefly in the Report of the Year, and more extensively in Vol. 5.1 (October 2003) of our Medieval News. The articles published in the Annual reflect more of the “ordinary” work at the Department of Medieval Studies. The first section contains articles based on MA theses or papers presented by our students at major international conferences. The quest and the thematic blocks have arisen partly from our workshops, partly from our intentions to be open to new branches of studies— in this case anthropology—which can enrich our research and teaching through comparisons or contrasting views. Our regular readers will probably notice that Part II of the yearbook has shrunk in the variety of topics covered. This is due to the more extensive use of both our newsletter and our website for publicizing up-to-date information. Therefore columns on activities and events, field trips, courses of the year, as well as the publications and other activities of the resident faculty can be consulted on these two forums. The space that we gain by omitting these pieces of information can be devoted to a wider range of articles, thus strengthening the Annual ’ s character as an academic journal. As usual, the editors were helped in the most demanding tasks of copy- editing by a competent and enthusiastic group of PhD students, which this year included Iulia Caproş, Jurgita Kunsmanaitė, Stanislava Kuzmová, David Movrin, and Péter Levente Szőcs. Beside them, we would also like to thank Matthew Suff (PhD student in Philosophy), who has helped in improving the clarity and fluency of several of the contributions, and our constant partners in the department’s publishing activity, the Archaeolingua Foundation and Publishing House, for turning the manuscripts into a handsome publication. ON THE ORIGINS OF THE UNUS DE TRINITATE CONTROVERSY Iuliana Viezure In 518, a group of monks, whose leader was Maxentius and whose protector in Constantinople was the magister militum Vitalianus, came to Constantinople from Scythia Minor, claiming that the phrase Unus de Trinitate passus est carne should be added to the decisions taken in Chalcedon in 451 pro ipsius defensione. Given its history and its possible heretical echoes, the formula was bound not to attract many supporters to the Scythian cause in Constantinople. The entire situation was rendered still more complicated by the presence in the capital, from the beginning of 519, of a papal delegation sent from Rome in order to discuss the terms of a reconciliation between Rome and Constantinople. The addition proposed by the Scythians was not well received by the papal legates either. As J. A. McGuckin puts it, not only were the legates “unlikely to side against the patriarch in his own capital, but they undoubtedly recognised the incompatibility of the formula with the type of Dyophysitism supported in Rome.”1 Seeing that their chances to have the formula sanctioned in Constantinople were practically non-existent, the monks left for Rome (in June, 519) and submitted their initiative to the consideration of Pope Hormisdas. A sudden change in the Constantinopolitan attitude towards the Unus de Trinitate formula occurred at the end of 519; a long process of legitimation followed, which was to culminate in the official acceptance of the formula in the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553). The monks returned to Constantinople in 520, presumably continuing their actions. The Scythians sent a second delegation to Rome, sometime before 523. Not much is known regarding the historical context of this second visit to Rome; it appears that, on this occasion, the monks tried, without much success, to gain recognition for their cause from the African bishops (among them Fulgentius of Ruspe) exiled in Sardinia by the Vandal King Thrasamund. This study is intended as a small initial contribution—consisting essentially of some historical clarifications—towards a more substantial investigation of the controversy. Rather generously dealt with in early twentieth-century scholarship, the question of why the Scythian monks considered it necessary to bring in and vigorously defend a (historically rather than Christologically) controversial 1 John A. McGuckin, “The ‘Theopaschite Confession’ (Text and Historical Context): a Study in the Cyrilline Re-interpretation of Chalcedon,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 35 (1984): 239–255, here 244. For designating the Roman interpretation of Chalcedon, McGuckin uses the term “Leonine Dyophysite” (see ibid., 240–241). 9 Iuliana Viezure formula has hardly ever been dealt with from the perspective of a primary source-based insertion of the monks in the Christological, and, more generally, ecclesiastical context of Scythia Minor. Although, as will be seen, the sources contain explicit references to the Scythian controversy as having originated in a regional context, namely in a conflict of the monks with some of the bishops from their region, those references