Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 68(1-2), 211-215. doi: 10.2143/JECS.68.1.3164939 © 2016 by Journal of Eastern Christian Studies. All rights reserved. BOOK REVIEWS Marie-Hélène Blanchet et Frédéric Gabriel (éds.), Réduire le schisme? Ecclésiologies et politiques de l’Union entre Orient et Occident (XIIIe-XVIIIe siècle). Association des amis du Centre d’Histoire de Civilisation de Byzance (ACHCByz 2013), Monogra- phies, 39. Paris, 2013. 377 pages. 28,50 EURO. ISBN 978-2-916716-40-4. This collection, the result of a fruitful collaboration between scholars from several Euro- pean countries (mostly France, Italy, Greece and Russia), includes seventeen articles intro- duced by a comprehensive preface. The work is divided into three chapters and contains a useful index as well as a brief abstract of each article, both in French and English. Fourteen articles are in French, two in English, one in German and one in Italian. It might have made sense to translate the four non-French articles into French, to confer linguistic unity on the volume. Although aimed primarily at scholars and postgraduate students, the book still remains quite accessible to the larger readership. It can be safely recommended as assigned reading for advanced university history courses dedicated to the Great Schism. As the title suggests, the work is dedicated to the consequenses of the Great Schism. Therefore, the separation of the churches is viewed here first and foremost as a schism, not as a heresy. The latter attitude has become increasingly present in the contacts between the Catholic and Orthodox churches starting from the nineteenth century. It is not by chance that the current contribution deals exclusively with the 13th-18th centuries. Maybe a word could have been said about current inter-confessional contacts, but that was clearly not the interest of the participants. The quality of the contributions is in general quite impressive, but not all are equally easy to follow. The articles by M. Stavrou, S. Koldritz, L. Silvano, L. Tatarenko, M.-H. Blan- chet, K. Vetochnikov, V. Tchensova and A. Girard make a particularly good impression, but some of the other articles, despite their substantial length, are less evident to follow. It is a pity that the volume includes not one essay on the councils of Lyon (1274), Ferrara- Florence (1437-42), or Brest (1596). The collection is scrupulously edited. There remain some insignificant errors, which are hard to avoid in such a large project (p. 44 Union mistakenly spelled as U/nion; a curious blunder appears on p. 66 ‘Le De Trinitaté de Saint Augustin avait été traduit en latin par Maxime Planude…’, for “du”). As it is not possible to present all the essays in some detail, I have chosen four that are of particular interest. Marie-Hélène Blanchet (La réaction byzantine à l’Union de Florence (1439): le dis- cours antiromain de la Synaxe des Orthodoxes pp. 181-197) offers a useful response to the legend, spread throughout the Orthodox church(es), about the reasons for the rejection of the union of Florence, which was signed by almost all the representatives of both churches, and the growing schismatic tendencies. Blanchet convincingly argues against the version that the full weight of the Orthodox church was solely represented by Mark Eugenikos, bishop of Ephesus, who refused to sign the treaty. The author demonstrates that Mark’s activity after the council was reduced to a minimum and that he could hardly have had an impact on the mindset of his day. Blanchet offers an alternative explanation, according to which it was not one person who was responsible for spreading around the 99028_JECS_2016_1-2_04_BookReviews.indd 211 31/08/16 11:28 212 BOOK REVIEWS anti-unionist ideas, but a group which she identifies as the “Orthodox Fraternity” (Synaxis Orthodoxoon), whose head was Georges Scholarios, a monk who previously had occupied the post of protasecretis at the court of John VIII. Although quite convincing, the suggestion remains a hypothesis because certain questions remain unanswered. Blan- chet provides numerous examples from the writings of Georges Scholarios, but none by other members of the Synaxis. We are still ignorant as to what happened to the organisa- tion and who were its members. One important indication of its activities can be found n their correspidence with the Hussites (pp. 187-191), but this may not be enough to draw firm conclusions about its real importance. Michel Stavrou (Les tentative Gréco-Latines de rapprochement ecclésial au XIIIe siècle, pp. 41-56) contributes a nuanced article on the historical development of the unionist negotiations between the Byzantines and the West. As the author convincingly shows, this history is full of paradoxes. Stavrou discusses a large amount of little known mate- rial that leads the reader through the various stages in the negotiations. The references to Nicephore Blemmydès, who favoured unification, are revealing, because ofhis subtle use of the filioque cause, which gives the impression of being similar with Augustine’s interpretation. Unfortunately, Stavrou pays little or no attention to the council of Lyon, because he does not regard it as a sincere attempt at unfication based on a presumption of equality. He may be right, but the council nevertheless wished to make an attempt at furthering the discussion, even if the results were disappointing. Marie-Hélène Congourdeau (Nil Cabasilas et les projets de concile oecuménique pour l’Union des Églises, pp. 75-83) studies the influence of Nilus Cabasilas on partisans and opponents of the Florence union on the basis of two of his smaller treatises, De causis dissensionum in Eсclesia and De primatu papae. Congourdeau lists a dozen standard argu- ments in favor of Rome’s primacy, to which Cabasilas provided a reply, but fails to offer the details of this reply. The section concerning the dates of the treatises is of some interest, although perhaps not entirely convincing, because incomplete. For instance, the conclusion (p. 77) that they were written before Nilus’ main polemic treatise on the filioque is exclusively based on the fact that this issue is not discussed in the treatises; but this in itself requires a further explanation. It was probably not just a matter of maturity on the side of Cabasilas. Konstantin Vetochnikov (La politique religieuse des autorités génoises vis-à-vis de l’église grecque de Caffa (Crimee, XVe siecle), p. 261-277) studies the importance of the union of Florence for the Orthodox communities in the Venetian and Genoan colonies, in particu- lar in the city of Caffa (nowadays Theodosia) on the Crimea. The author cites evidence for a possible unionist period among the Greek population of the city. The article presents the relationships of symbiosis and mutual understanding between the Orthodox and Catholic communities in Genoa’s colonies during this period. Still, one wonders what is the main idea of the article – the importance of the unionist cause in Caffa in the imme- diate aftermath of the council of Florence, or rather issues of religious tolerance of the Latin authorities in Caffa towards the Greeks. While the two are closely related, they are not identical. It is a pity that the author did not discuss the transition of the Greek diocese of Caffa from a pre-unionist position to a unionist position. The article could have been structured more clearly and the author could have given some more details on dates and names (e.g., the location of Amasea). The organisation of Caffa’s secular government could also have been presented somewhat more systematically. To a non-expert on Genoa’s history, the repeated references to certain protettori lack a context (p. 270). 99028_JECS_2016_1-2_04_BookReviews.indd 212 31/08/16 11:28 BOOK REVIEWS 213 All in all, this is a valuable contribution to a topic that has stirred the minds of many in the East and in the West, up to this day. Victor Yudin Alexander Agadjanian (ed.), Armenian Christianity Today; Identity Politics and Popu- lar Practice (London, Ashgate, 2014). ISBN 978-1-4724-1271-3 Armenian Christianity is a highly specific case in the contemporary global landscape, due to a peculiar combination of national and ethnic, historical, and “denominational” factors. First of all, present-day Armenia is one of the most ethnically homogeneous countries in the world (97.9%) and its national identity is very closely connected to both its ethnic and its religious identity (as well as to its unique language and alphabet). At the same time, Armenia has the largest diaspora in the world (over 2/3 of all 10 million Armenians live outside Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh and the Javakh enclave in neigh- bouring Georgia; by contrast, some 43% of the global Jewish population lives in Israel), and the larger part of its historic heartland, including its holy mountain Ararat, lies outside its current political borders (Few places in the world display stronger symbolism than the Genocide monument in Yerevan, from which Ararat is usually clearly visible.). Secondly, Armenia occupies a singular place among the post-Soviet states in that its independence was preceded by the uprising in the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave – the de facto inclusion of the region (the self-declared republic Artsagh) and the occupation of the territories between the enclave and Armenia proper have produced a frozen conflict with neighbouring Azerbaijan for over twenty years. This conflict, moreover, also blocks effective reconciliation with Turkey over the recognition of the genocide character of the displacement and extermination of around 1 million (estimates differ) Armenians in 1915, which adds to Armenia’s geographic isolation and vulnerability, and partly explains its alliance with the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation maintains a military base at Gyumri; Armenia is a CSTO founding member (since 1992), and in 1997 Armenia and Russia entered in a friendship treaty that allows Russian border guards to patrol Armenia’s borders with Turkey (closed) and Iran (open).