DOCSLIB.ORG

An Uncertain Future: the Beginning of Papal Sovereignty, 476-510 ______

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Uncertain Future: the Beginning of Papal Sovereignty, 476-510 ______ AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE: THE BEGINNING OF PAPAL SOVEREIGNTY, 476-510 ____________________________________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, Fullerton ____________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in History ____________________________________ By Andrew Braun Thesis Committee Approval: Professor Maged Mikhail, Chair Professor Jonathan Markley, Department of History Professor James O’Connor, Department of History Fall, 2015 ABSTRACT The period between 472 A.D. and 510 A.D. was one of institutional uncertainty for the Catholic Church. The Western Roman Emperor was deposed and the position left vacant. The governing of Italy fell on Germanic warlords, both subordinate to and independent of the Emperor in Constantinople whose attentions were focused on political intrigue and wars, both civil and foreign. A schism in the Church further reduced his influence. This left a void of leadership for the people of Rome. The remaining Emperor was now far away, and the secular leadership of Italy in the hands of foreigners and not members of the Catholic Church. The bishops of Rome began to fill that void, though not without controversy and resistance. He was able to use his moral authority, and his important political position to form the beginnings of independent political authority. The temporal reality of this independence would vanish with the end of the Acacian Schism and the conquest of Rome by Emperor Justinian in 536AD. Only the rhetorical innovations, pushing for temporal authority remained, to be used in the ensuing centuries with the formation of the Papal States. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................. iv MANUSCRIPT TO BE SUBMITTED ......................................................................... 1 Background and Historiography ........................................................................... 1 Pope Gelasius ........................................................................................................ 14 The Laurentian Schism ......................................................................................... 20 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 29 iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank David and Cheryl Braun for their unending support and faith without which this project would never have been completed. Michael Tang and Ricky Qi spent countless hours as sounding boards for my ideas and frustrations. Finally I would like to thank Dr. Jonathan Markley for the advice that actually got this paper started and Dr. Maged Mikhail for the continual advice and support, even with my many disappearing acts. iv 1 Background and Historiography The mid-fifth century was a time of chaos in the Western Roman Empire. The last emperor was deposed in 476AD and much of Italy fell under Ostrogoth rule first Odoacer then Theodoric. The Ostrogoths, however, only controlled Italy. Other Germanic tribes, like the Visigoths, controlled other portions of the former Western Empire. This political fragmentation posed a problem for papal and Christian ideology. Since the days of Eusebius and Constantine, Christian political ideology had viewed the Empire and the Christian realm as an indivisible whole, with the Emperor as the leader of a Christian Roman Empire. Without an emperor, there was a hole at the top of this hierarchical chain that needed to be filled. The emperor in the east was too distant and the Ostrogoths were Arians and so unfit to act as a unifying force in a catholic Empire. The standard understanding of this portion of Papal history is that only a rhetorical papal supremacy was offered, along with the understanding that this supremacy only involved religious affairs.1 This is an oversimplification of the religious and political dynamics of papal ideology. Odoacer and Theodoric, outside of actual force, could not impose duties on the Pope since they were Arians, and the Popes did not recognize in them any authority to effect church decisions. The Emperor in Constantinople was too far away, and much of the later fifth century, sympathetic to 1 Jeffrey Richards, The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages, 476-752, (London; Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979), 20; Patrick Amory, People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489- 554, (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 197; George Demacopoulos, The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity, (Philidelphia: University of Philidelphia Press, 2013), 74. 2 schismatic ideas that the Popes had resoundingly rejected.2 This power vacuum made the Popes the de facto rulers of the city of Rome. It was during this brief period, from 483- 520, that not only were the ideological origins for the future Papal monarchy given their most aggressive form, but also the first real attempt at creating a physical place, under the rule of the Pope, that was as much as possible, free from outside influence. The Popes of this time would be able to combine the legal and social power they already possessed as judges whose decisions had state sanction and their support of the poor with their new freedom of political movement to create an unwitting, half-realized papal polity that would not come into its full potential for another 250 years. The historiography on this subject is complicated and varied, with scholars analyzing the time period from Byzantine, Germanic or Catholic perspectives. Walter Ullman maintained a strong view of ideological papal power. The church had precedence in matters of religion, but Christianity encompassed all of man's actions, and could not be divided into separate spheres.3 If realized, this position would reduce the secular power to tax collection and military enforcement of the Churches’ will.4 Many historians focus on whether there was a substantial break between the Papacy and the Eastern Empire at this time. Patrick Amory and Jeffrey Richards take the position that most Romans at the time saw no break with Byzantium, with Richards going so far as to call the idea that the 2 Amory, People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489-554, 199; the harsh tone of Pope Anastasius’ biography in the Liber Pontificalis was primarily based on the rumor that he was going to sign Zeno’s Henotikon and end the Acacian Schism. Thomas F.X. Noble, “Theodoric and the Papacy,” Teoderico il Grande e I Goti d'Italia: atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sull'alto. (1992): 403. 3 Walter Ullman, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages: A Study in the Ideological Relation of Clerical to Lay Power (London: 1955), 11. 4 This teleological view of papal history was common among historians of the 19th and early 20th centuries as they could look forward to the apogee of papal power in the high Middle Ages under Innocent III and trace the ideological support for a powerful papacy to late antiquity. 3 Papacy was seeking to free itself from eastern control as “mythological”.5 Others find in Byzantine policy something akin to salutary neglect of the papacy. W.H.C. Frend and F.K. Haarer argued that Emperor Anastasius I focused most of his attention on the Eastern borders of the Empire, with the Papacy low on his list of priorities.6 A.H.M. Jones takes this neglect to an extreme by arguing that Italy was no longer part of the Empire.7 These perspectives cause a different interpretation of papal power. Those who focus on the Catholic Church view the strength (or weakness) of its authority as a result of its own agency. Those who view the period from Byzantine or Germanic perspectives see the popes as more passive or reactionary figures. The most important split between the Byzantine Empire and the Western Church during the late fifth and early sixth century was the Acacian Schism which lasted from 484-519. In 482 Acacius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, in an attempt to heal the division caused by competing views on the nature of Christ, wrote the Henotikon, whereupon Emperor Zeno attempted to cajole the Church patriarchs into affirming the 8 document. This represented secular interference in ecclesiastical concerns which 5 Amory, People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489-554, 197; Richards, The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages, 476-752, 17. Richards also sees the papacy as the bulwark of the empire, seeking above all else to maintain the status-quo against a rising Monophysite faction in the east. 6 W.H.C. Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement, (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 191-92; F.K. Haarer, Anastasius I: Politics and Empire in the Late Roman World, (Cambridge: Francis Cairns, 2006), 130. 7 A.H.M. Jones, “Constitutional Position of Odoacer and Theodoric,” in Journal of Roman Studies 52, no. 1 & 2 (1962): 128. 8 Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History, III.14 contains a translation of the Henotikon. Frend’s Rise of the Monophysite Movement remains an important source for the Henotikon in its Christological context, while Richard’s The Popes and the Papacy gives a good summary of the Western Catholic Church’s reaction to the document. 4 “weakened the compromise on the respective responsibilities of emperors and bishops,”9 Pope Felix III sent two bishops with a letter to the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Politics of Roman Memory in the Age of Justinian DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the D
    The Politics of Roman Memory in the Age of Justinian DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Marion Woodrow Kruse, III Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2015 Dissertation Committee: Anthony Kaldellis, Advisor; Benjamin Acosta-Hughes; Nathan Rosenstein Copyright by Marion Woodrow Kruse, III 2015 ABSTRACT This dissertation explores the use of Roman historical memory from the late fifth century through the middle of the sixth century AD. The collapse of Roman government in the western Roman empire in the late fifth century inspired a crisis of identity and political messaging in the eastern Roman empire of the same period. I argue that the Romans of the eastern empire, in particular those who lived in Constantinople and worked in or around the imperial administration, responded to the challenge posed by the loss of Rome by rewriting the history of the Roman empire. The new historical narratives that arose during this period were initially concerned with Roman identity and fixated on urban space (in particular the cities of Rome and Constantinople) and Roman mythistory. By the sixth century, however, the debate over Roman history had begun to infuse all levels of Roman political discourse and became a major component of the emperor Justinian’s imperial messaging and propaganda, especially in his Novels. The imperial history proposed by the Novels was aggressivley challenged by other writers of the period, creating a clear historical and political conflict over the role and import of Roman history as a model or justification for Roman politics in the sixth century.
    [Show full text]
  • 1.1.3. Leone II E Lo Scenario Internazionale (Febbraio 474 - Agosto 474)
    1.1.3. Leone II e lo scenario internazionale (febbraio 474 - agosto 474) 1.1.3.1 Il testamento di Leone I: una doppia intronizzazione Poco prima di morire, nel gennaio del 474, Leone aveva designato al trono suo nipote, il figlio, cioè, di Zenone e Ariadne: era un bambino di sei anni. Quando l'imperatore morì, il 3 febbraio 474, apparve chiarissimo che il suo testamento era impraticabile politicamente. Qualche giorno dopo la scomparsa di Leone, esattamente il 9 febbraio, la nuova regina madre, Ariadne, dopo che Leone II era stato incoronato imperatore, fece a quello nominare il padre Zenone coimperatore; non era, in effetti, proponibile un imperatore bambino: si sarebbe scatenata una vera e propria guerra per la reggenza giacché i pretendenti a quella erano numerosi. Verina, vedova dell'imperatore appena morto, Basilisco suo fratello, e naturalmente Zenone potevano, giustamente, accampare diritti su quella; Ariadne, così, tagliò il nodo. L'intrapresa di Ariadne è dettata dal più completo buon senso politico, ma è altrettanto sicuro che tale iniziativa andava a frustrare gli interessi senatoriali e clarissimali che dietro una designazione imperiale 'debole' come quella offerta al piccolo Leone II, intendevano procurarsi spazio politico. Inoltre c'erano Verina e Basilisco ad attendere di potersi innalzare su di quella. In ogni caso Leone I, nel suo testamento, pur non rinnegando in maniera risoluta il partito isaurico, al quale, durante il regno, si era abbondantemente appoggiato, invitò, per così dire, il partito greco - romano e tradizionalista a rientrare ampiamente in partita; cercò Leone I, nel suo ultimo atto, di stabilizzare un equilibrio dietro il quale, però, si intravede la rottura e la possibilità della guerra civile.
    [Show full text]
  • Byzantine Missionaries, Foreign Rulers, and Christian Narratives (Ca
    Conversion and Empire: Byzantine Missionaries, Foreign Rulers, and Christian Narratives (ca. 300-900) by Alexander Borislavov Angelov A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (History) in The University of Michigan 2011 Doctoral Committee: Professor John V.A. Fine, Jr., Chair Professor Emeritus H. Don Cameron Professor Paul Christopher Johnson Professor Raymond H. Van Dam Associate Professor Diane Owen Hughes © Alexander Borislavov Angelov 2011 To my mother Irina with all my love and gratitude ii Acknowledgements To put in words deepest feelings of gratitude to so many people and for so many things is to reflect on various encounters and influences. In a sense, it is to sketch out a singular narrative but of many personal “conversions.” So now, being here, I am looking back, and it all seems so clear and obvious. But, it is the historian in me that realizes best the numerous situations, emotions, and dilemmas that brought me where I am. I feel so profoundly thankful for a journey that even I, obsessed with planning, could not have fully anticipated. In a final analysis, as my dissertation grew so did I, but neither could have become better without the presence of the people or the institutions that I feel so fortunate to be able to acknowledge here. At the University of Michigan, I first thank my mentor John Fine for his tremendous academic support over the years, for his friendship always present when most needed, and for best illustrating to me how true knowledge does in fact produce better humanity.
    [Show full text]
  • BOOK 15 the Time of the Reign of Zeno to the Time of the Reign of Anastasios
    BOOK 15 The Time of the Reign of Zeno to the Time of the Reign of Anastasios 1. (377) After the reign of Leo the Younger, the most sacred Zeno reigned for 15 years. In the eighth month of his reign, he appointed Peter, the p!JrBmomr.ios of St Euphemia's in Chalkedon, as bishop and patriarch of Antioch the Great and sent him to Antioch. 2. After two years and ten months of his reign, he quarrelled with his mother-in-law, Verina, over a request she had made of him but which he had refused her, and so his mother-in-law, the lady Verina, began to plot against him. Terrified that he would be assassinated by someone in the palace, since his mother-in-law was living in the palace with him, he made a processusto Chalkedon and escaped from there using post-horses, and got away to Isauria even though he was emperor. (378) The empress Ariadne, who had also secretly fled from her mother, caught up with him in Isauria and remained with her husband. 3, After the emperor Zeno and Ariadne had fled, the lady Verina inunediately chose an emperor by crowning her brother Basiliscus. Basiliscus, the brother of Zeno's mother-in-law Verina, reigned for two years. When Verina had made Basiliscus emperor, she also named him as consul, together with Armatus who had been appointed by Basiliscus as AD476 senior lllc1q.ister mii1"tum prBesentalis. These two held the consulship. As soon as Basiliscus began to reign, he crowned his son, named Marcus, as emperor.
    [Show full text]
  • Berichus and the Evidence for Aspar's Political Power and Aims in the Last Years of Theodosius II's Reign
    Studia Ceranea 8, 2018, p. 237–251 ISSN: 2084-140X DOI: 10.18778/2084-140X.08.13 e-ISSN: 2449-8378 Łukasz Pigoński (Łódź) Berichus and the Evidence for Aspar’s Political Power and Aims in the Last Years of Theodosius II’s Reign he objective of this article is to explore the evidence for the political position T of Aspar in the last years of the reign of Theodosius II. There is almost no information concerning the general’s activity in the sources; only one situation mentioned by Priscus provides some evidence, albeit indirect. The event in ques- tion is the diplomatic scandal concerning a certain Berichus, a Hunnic nobleman and diplomat, who fell into disagreement with the envoy Maximinus over the lat- ter’s alleged statements concerning Aspar’s incompetence and lack of influence at the court. The situation is certainly unclear and calls for further analysis. It is important to note that scholars are not in agreement when it comes to the evaluation of Aspar’s political power and goals in the last years of the reign of The- odosius II. Most researchers concentrate on the political struggle that emerged immediately after the emperor’s death and involved Aspar, Theodosius’s sister Pulcheria, as well as the eunuch Chrysaphius – Theodosius’s all-powerful advisor. It used to be assumed routinely in the literature that Aspar retained his political power despite his military defeats at the hands of the Huns, and used it to secure the throne for his close subordinate, Marcian1. This viewpoint was independently challenged by Ronald Bleeker and Kenneth Holum, both of whom claimed that Aspar’s influence diminished severely in those years, so that he was only able to regain it through his alliance with Pulcheria2.
    [Show full text]
  • Perjury and False Witness in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages
    Perjury and False Witness in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages by Nicholas Brett Sivulka Wheeler A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Centre for Medieval Studies University of Toronto © Copyright by Nicholas Brett Sivulka Wheeler 2018 Perjury and False Witness in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages Nicholas Brett Sivulka Wheeler Doctor of Philosophy Centre for Medieval Studies University of Toronto 2018 Abstract This dissertation, ‘Perjury and False Witness in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages’, investigates changing perceptions of perjury and false witness in the late antique and early medieval world. Focusing on primary sources from the Latin-speaking, western Roman empire and former empire, approximately between the late third and seventh centuries CE, this thesis proposes that perjury and false witness were transformed into criminal behaviours, grave sins, and canonical offences in Latin legal and religious writings of the period. Chapter 1, ‘Introduction: The Problem of Perjury’s Criminalization’, calls attention to anomalies in the history and historiography of the oath. Although the oath has been well studied, oath violations have not; moreover, important sources for medieval culture – Roman law and the Christian New Testament – were largely silent on the subject of perjury. For classicists in particular, perjury was not a crime, while oath violations remained largely peripheral to early Christian ethical discussions. Chapter 2, ‘Criminalization: Perjury and False Witness in Late Roman Law’, begins to explain how this situation changed by documenting early possible instances of penalization for perjury. Diverse sources such as Christian martyr acts, provincial law manuals, and select imperial ii and post-imperial legislation suggest that numerous cases of perjury were criminalized in practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Les Destinées De L'illyricum Méridional Pendant Le Haut Moyen Âge
    JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 1 SESS: 12 OUTPUT: Thu May 26 16:08:52 2011 SUM: 6023F8EF /v2451/blackwell/journals/emed_v19_i3/05emed_324 1 Book reviewsemed_324 354..376 2 3 Les destinées de l’Illyricum méridional pendant le haut Moyen Âge. 4 Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome, Moyen Âge 120–2. Rome: 5 l’École Française de Rome. 2009. 238 pp. + 50 b/w and 101 color figures. 6 EUR 55. ISBN 978 2 7283 0870 5; ISSN 0223 9883. 7 8 This is the proceedings of a conference jointly organized by École 9 française de Rome, Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, and 10 the Albanian Institute of Archaeology in Lezha (Albania) in 2008.In 11 the introduction, Etleva Nallbani explains its main objective as throw- 12 ing new light on developments in the Western Balkans during the early 13 Middle Ages, primarily on the basis of archaeological research con- 14 ducted in the past two decades. The present volume witnesses not only 15 the technological advances in archaeology, which can be seen at work in 16 a number of contributions, but it also bears the mark of a renewed 17 interest in rural settlements and the relative departure from political 18 history in favour of detailed analyses of production, distribution, and 19 exchange routes. 20 Rather than summarize the wealth of insights in a short space, I will 21 focus on two major themes addressed by this volume: urban and rural life 22 in Illyricum and patterns of production and distribution. Pascale Cheva- 23 lier and Jagoda Mardešic´ contribute an insightful piece on urban life at 24 Salona during the sixth–seventh centuries based on the recent excavations 25 conducted in the episcopal complex of the town.
    [Show full text]
  • Jordanes and the Invention of Roman-Gothic History Dissertation
    Empire of Hope and Tragedy: Jordanes and the Invention of Roman-Gothic History Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Brian Swain Graduate Program in History The Ohio State University 2014 Dissertation Committee: Timothy Gregory, Co-advisor Anthony Kaldellis Kristina Sessa, Co-advisor Copyright by Brian Swain 2014 Abstract This dissertation explores the intersection of political and ethnic conflict during the emperor Justinian’s wars of reconquest through the figure and texts of Jordanes, the earliest barbarian voice to survive antiquity. Jordanes was ethnically Gothic - and yet he also claimed a Roman identity. Writing from Constantinople in 551, he penned two Latin histories on the Gothic and Roman pasts respectively. Crucially, Jordanes wrote while Goths and Romans clashed in the imperial war to reclaim the Italian homeland that had been under Gothic rule since 493. That a Roman Goth wrote about Goths while Rome was at war with Goths is significant and has no analogue in the ancient record. I argue that it was precisely this conflict which prompted Jordanes’ historical inquiry. Jordanes, though, has long been considered a mere copyist, and seldom treated as an historian with ideas of his own. And the few scholars who have treated Jordanes as an original author have dampened the significance of his Gothicness by arguing that barbarian ethnicities were evanescent and subsumed by the gravity of a Roman political identity. They hold that Jordanes was simply a Roman who can tell us only about Roman things, and supported the Roman emperor in his war against the Goths.
    [Show full text]
  • On Leontius' Origin and Career up Until the Year 481/482*
    Piotrkowskie Zeszyty Historyczne, t. 21 (2020), z. 3, s. 9-18 www.ihpt.pl/pzh DOI: 10.25951/4249 Mirosław J. Leszka https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2643-4520 Uniwersytet Łódzki e-mail: [email protected] On Leontius’ Origin and Career up until the Year 481/482* O pochodzeniu Leoncjusza i jego karierze do roku 482 Abstract This article discusses the usurper Leontius’ origin and career up until the year of 481/482. He was most likely born in a family belonging to the circles of provincial aristocracy, which enabled him to receive a good education. As for his ethnicity, contrary to a rather popular scholarly opinion that he was from Isauria, he might just as well have come from Syria (as Theophanes points out directly). Regarding his position as magister militum per Thracias, it seems that he could have held it in the years 478–482 (there is no certainty that he exer- cised this function in 484). He probably had known Illus before 481/482. Abstrakt Artykuł poświęcony jest pochodzeniu i karierze Leoncjusza (do roku 481/482). Urodził się on zapewne w rodzinie należącej do kręgów prowincjo- nalnej arystokracji, co umożliwiło mu odebranie dobrego wykształcenia. Co do pochodzenia etnicznego, to wbrew dość powszechnej w nauce opinii, że po- chodził z Izaurii, trzeba wskazać, że równie dobrze można uznać, że wywodził się z Syrii (o czym bezpośrednio mówi Teofanes). Co do pełnienia przez niego * The research project financed by the National Science Centre, Poland. Decision number: DEC-2018/31/B/HS3/03038. 10 Mirosław J. Leszka stanowiska magister militum per Thracias, to wydaje się, że mógł je sprawować w latach 478–482 (nie ma pewności, że był nim w 484 r.).
    [Show full text]
  • Calendar of Roman Events
    Introduction Steve Worboys and I began this calendar in 1980 or 1981 when we discovered that the exact dates of many events survive from Roman antiquity, the most famous being the ides of March murder of Caesar. Flipping through a few books on Roman history revealed a handful of dates, and we believed that to fill every day of the year would certainly be impossible. From 1981 until 1989 I kept the calendar, adding dates as I ran across them. In 1989 I typed the list into the computer and we began again to plunder books and journals for dates, this time recording sources. Since then I have worked and reworked the Calendar, revising old entries and adding many, many more. The Roman Calendar The calendar was reformed twice, once by Caesar in 46 BC and later by Augustus in 8 BC. Each of these reforms is described in A. K. Michels’ book The Calendar of the Roman Republic. In an ordinary pre-Julian year, the number of days in each month was as follows: 29 January 31 May 29 September 28 February 29 June 31 October 31 March 31 Quintilis (July) 29 November 29 April 29 Sextilis (August) 29 December. The Romans did not number the days of the months consecutively. They reckoned backwards from three fixed points: The kalends, the nones, and the ides. The kalends is the first day of the month. For months with 31 days the nones fall on the 7th and the ides the 15th. For other months the nones fall on the 5th and the ides on the 13th.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Paper No. 8
    working paper no. 8 Gyburg Uhlmann The Noise of the Books Practices of Knowledge Transfer in Damascius’ Vita Isidori Sonderforschungsbereich 980 Episteme in Bewegung. Wissenstransfer von der Alten Welt bis in die Frühe Neuzeit Collaborative Research Center Episteme in Motion. Transfer of Knowledge from the Ancient World Berlin 2016 to the Early Modern Period ISSN 2199-2878 SFB Episteme – Working Papers Die Working Papers werden herausgegeben von dem an der Freien Universität Berlin angesiedelten Sonderforschungsbereich 980 Episteme in Bewegung. Wissenstransfer von der Alten Welt bis in die Frühe Neuzeit und sind auf der Website des SFB sowie dem Dokumentenserver der Freien Universität Berlin kostenfrei abrufbar: www.sfb‐episteme.de und http://edocs.fu‐berlin.de Die Veröffentlichung erfolgt nach Begutachtung durch den SFB‐Vorstand. Mit Zusendung des Typoskripts überträgt die Autorin/der Autor dem Sonderforschungsbereich ein nichtexklusives Nutzungsrecht zur dauerhaften Hinterlegung des Dokuments auf der Website des SFB 980 sowie dem Dokumentenserver der Freien Universität. Die Wahrung von Sperrfristen sowie von Urheber‐ und Verwertungsrechten Dritter obliegt den Autorinnen und Autoren. Die Veröffentlichung eines Beitrages als Preprint in den Working Papers ist kein Ausschlussgrund für eine anschließende Publikation in einem anderen Format. Das Urheberrecht verbleibt grundsätzlich bei den Autor/innen. Zitationsangabe für diesen Beitrag: Uhlmann, Gyburg: The noise of the books – Practices of Knowledge Transfer in Damascius’ Vita Isidori,
    [Show full text]
  • Byzantine Hymnography and the Quest for Orthodox Unity: Notes on the Liturgical Commemoration of the Council of Chalcedon, Towar
    Byzantine Hymnography and the Quest for Orthodox Unity: Notes on the Liturgical Commemoration of the Council of Chalcedon, Towards the Reconciliation of “Eastern” and “Oriental” Churches Gregory Tucker* Among the issues remaining to be addressed along the path to reconciliation between the “Eastern” and “Oriental” Orthodox is the characterisation of Oriental teachers as heretics in the liturgical texts of the Byzantine Rite. The mere suggestion of liturgical revision to reflect the agreement that multiple theological vocabularies are legitimate and therefore theologians associated with them should not be anathematized or deprecated has been met with fierce opposition from some Eastern Orthodox. This paper considers what might actually be involved in such a revision, taking as an example the texts for the commemoration of the Council of Chalcedon. It suggests that the extent of necessary revision would be far less than is perhaps feared. Keywords: Chalcedon, liturgy, liturgical revision, Byzantine Rite, Eastern Or- thodox, Oriental Orthodox Introduction From an Orthodox perspective, one of the great fruits of modern ecumen- ism1 has been the inauguration of a new phase in the relationship between the “Eastern” and “Oriental” Orthodox churches.2 An unofficial bilateral dialogue began in 1964, which became an official dialogue in 1985. Initial conversations correctly prioritised discussion of contested points in Chris- tology (disagreement over which contributed significantly to and, to a large * Gregory Tucker, Universität Regensburg, Universitätsstr. 31, 93503 Regensburg, Germa- ny, [email protected] 1 This paper will not address opposition on principle to ecumenical dialogue (including dialogue between separated Orthodox groups) which is a common–indeed, characteristic– feature of some traditions within contemporary Eastern Orthodoxy.
    [Show full text]