A Guerra Gótica é uma narrativa composta em três livros, que fazem parte da coleção História das Guerras, de Procópio de Cesareia (490-562). Estes livros contêm relatos das campanhas enviadas pelo imperador bizantino Justiniano (527-565), com o objetivo de retomar para o Império o domínio sobre seus antigos territórios na Pérsia e no mundo mediterrânico, então sob autoridade de governos bárbaros. Estas guerras ficaram historiograficamente conhecidas como as guerras de Reconquista. As narrativas de Procópio se iniciam com a descrição da gradual perda do poder imperial na Itália em favor dos bárbaros em 476, que a historiografia consagrou como a Queda de Roma. Entretanto, Procópio não descreve esse processo como sendo a queda do Império, tão pouco fala das guerras de Justiniano como uma luta pela Reconquista. Mesmo assim, seus textos foram amplamente utilizados para estruturar e consolidar tais conceitos. Nossa proposta é analisar como o historiador interpretou as disputas pelo poder na Itália, travadas entre romanos e bárbaros, no período da deposição de Rômulo Augusto e no governo de Justiniano, contribuindo, assim, para a discussão de problemas historiográficos como os acima citados. / The Gothic War is a narrative composed in three books, which are part of the collection History of the Wars written by Procopius (490-562). These books contain accounts of the campaigns sent by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian (527-565), with the goal of regaining for the Empire the dominion over its former territories in Persia and the Mediterranean World, then under the authority of barbarian governments. These wars are historiographically known as the wars of \"Reconquest\". The narratives of Procopius begin with the description of the gradual loss of imperial power in Italy in favor of the barbarians in 476, which the historiography has consecrated as \"Fall of Rome\". However, Procopius did not describe this process as the \"fall\" of the Empire, neither wrote about the wars of Justinian as a fight for the \"Reconquest\". Even so, his texts were widely used to structure and consolidate these concepts. Our proposal is to analyze how the historian has interpreted the struggle for power in Italy, fought between romans and barbarians in the period of the deposition of Rômulo Augusto and the government of Justinian, thus contributing to the discussion of historiographical problems as mentioned above.

Cette thèse analyse le développement de l’identité institutionnelle de la papauté pendant l’époque byzantine, c’est-à-dire la représentation de l’Église romaine dans certaines sources officielles entre l’âge de l’empereur Justinien et la première moitié du huitième siècle. Le dossier des sources se concentre sur les actes des conciles œcuméniques et la production officielle du pouvoir impérial et de la papauté. Le propos est de montrer que loin d’être monolithique, l’identité institutionnelle de la papauté était changeante et fluide, et que les éléments qui la composaient se trouvaient modifiés selon le contexte, les nécessités et les enjeux du pouvoir. L’étude se focalise en particulier sur les disputes ecclésiologiques et les conciles destinés à les résoudre : la controverse des Trois Chapitres et le deuxième concile de Constantinople de l’année 553, la dispute monoénergiste et monothélite qui donne lieu au concile du Latran de l’année 649 et au troisième concile de Constantinople des années 680-681, et le concile quinisexte des années 691-692. Elle incorpore aussi d’autres développements liés à la représentation de la place de l’Église romaine, le rôle des papes, et la réception des conciles œcuméniques. / This dissertation analyses the development of the institutional identity of the Papacy during the Byzantine period, that is, the representation of the Roman Church in some official sources between the age of Emperor Justinian and the first half of the eighth century. The main sources are the acts of the ecumenical councils, as well as the official production of the imperial power and the papacy. The purpose is to show that, far from being monolithic, the institutional identity of the papacy was changing, dynamic and fluid, and the elements that composed it were modified according to the context, the necessities and the relations of power. The study focuses in particular on ecclesiological disputes and the councils aimed at resolving them : the Three Chapters controversy and the Second Council of Constantinople of 553, the monothelite dispute, including the Lateran Council of 649 and the Third Council of Constantinople of 680-681, and the Quinisext Council of 691-692. It also incorporates other developments related to the representation of the place of the Roman Church, the role of Popes, and the reception of ecumenical councils.

Co-tutelle de thèse Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne / Université Libre de Bruxelles, sous la direction conjointe de Michel KAPLAN (Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne) et de Jean-Marie SANSTERRE (Université Libre de Bruxelles) L’épiscopat constitue un fondement essentiel mais méconnu de l’Église mésobyzantine. Malgré la relative rareté des sources, il est possible d’en retracer l’histoire et les grandes évolutions : une part importante de l’hagiographie de l’iconoclasme et post-iconoclaste concerne en effet métropolites et évêques, témoignant du lien fort existant entre ceux-ci et le peuple des cités dont ils ont la charge, particulièrement quand ils sont considérés saints par la population. De nombreuses sources épistolaires, ecclésiastiques et sigillographiques, émanant des évêques eux-mêmes, permettent d’approcher les réalités du corps épiscopal et celles de la société provinciale qu’il représente auprès des autorités centrales. L’évêque apparaît également comme le relais des volontés impériale et patriarcale dans les provinces de l’Empire. Dans un contexte de compétition de pouvoir avec les autorités locales, l’évêque tente ainsi d’imposer le sien propre, dans ses aspects spatiaux, sociaux, religieux et symboliques. L’approche collective et les approches individuelles de l’épiscopat doivent permettre de comprendre les réalités sociales d’un Empire de plus en plus centré sur sa capitale et dont sont progressivement détachées, du moins dans les sources, les périphéries. Une histoire décentrée de l’Empire byzantin passe dès lors par des études régionales mais aussi par des études consacrées à des groupes sociaux enracinés dans tout l’Empire, surtout lorsque, comme les évêques, ils revendiquent la spécificité de leur région et leur attachement à une société provinciale qui constitue le socle de l’Empire. / The episcopate is an essential structure of the middle-Byzantine Church ; however, it remains little known. Although sources are limited, its history and evolution can still be reconstructed, as a large portion of the iconoclastic and post-iconoclastic hagiography deals with metropolitans and bishops. The sources reveal the strong connection between bishops and the inhabitants of the cities under their responsibility, especially when the population considers them as saints. Numerous epistolary, ecclesiastic and sigillographic documents issued by bishops themselves partially unveil the realities of the episcopal group and the provincial society that bishops represent to the central authorities. The bishop also serves as relay of both imperial and patriarchal wills to the provinces of the Empire. Competing with local authorities, the bishop thus tries to impose his own influence in its spatial, social, religious and symbolic dimensions. Both collective and individual approaches of the episcopate make the social realities of the Empire more understandable, as it becomes more and more focused on its capital city while its peripheries gradually move away, which documentation seems to imply. Regional studies, but also studies focused on social groups established across the whole Empire, are the fundamentals of a decentred history of the Byzantine Empire. This is especially true since social groups such as bishops claim the specificity of their regions and their link to a provincial society that represents the cornerstone of the Empire.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Princeton University, 1997. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 316-335).

Leo VI (886-912) is an emperor who has suffered from a hostile and inadequate press. He has been portrayed as a weak and careless emperor, known mainly for his dubious parentage and marital exploits. This thesis questions these popular perceptions of Leo, and attempts to present a more realistic account of the emperor and the politics of his age. The aspects of the reign tackled focus on essential elements of Leo's life and rule, presented in a rough chronological framework, and the themes of personal relationships and political ideologies are recurrent. Chapter One examines Leo's relationship with Basil I and his attitude to his Macedonian heritage. Chapter Two considers the fate of the monumental figure of Photios at the emperor's hands. Chapter Three deals with the position and role of the 'all powerful' Stylianos Zaoutzes during the first half of the reign. Chapter Four ponders the origin and meaning of Leo's 'wise' epithet. Chapter Five focuses on the emperor's four marriages. Chapter Six turns to the course of foreign affairs during the reign, concentrating on Bulgaria and the Arab navy, and considers the emperor's attitude towards these military problems. Chapter Seven examines the emperor's relationship with his senatorial officials, focusing on two distinct groups, eunuchs and the generals who originated from families of the eastern frontier. Finally Chapter Eight addresses the tense relationship that existed between Leo and his brother and co-emperor Alexander. What emerges from a consideration of these aspects of Leo and his reign is that this is an emperor who does not deserve the popular perceptions that still persist about him. He was an emperor who forged a 'new' and distinctive imperial style, a style that should not deceive us; he may have been literate, sedentary and city-based, but he was also forceful, strong-willed and conscientious.

A Guerra Gótica é uma narrativa composta em três livros, que fazem parte da coleção História das Guerras, de Procópio de Cesareia (490-562). Estes livros contêm relatos das campanhas enviadas pelo imperador bizantino Justiniano (527-565), com o objetivo de retomar para o Império o domínio sobre seus antigos territórios na Pérsia e no mundo mediterrânico, então sob autoridade de governos bárbaros. Estas guerras ficaram historiograficamente conhecidas como as guerras de Reconquista. As narrativas de Procópio se iniciam com a descrição da gradual perda do poder imperial na Itália em favor dos bárbaros em 476, que a historiografia consagrou como a Queda de Roma. Entretanto, Procópio não descreve esse processo como sendo a queda do Império, tão pouco fala das guerras de Justiniano como uma luta pela Reconquista. Mesmo assim, seus textos foram amplamente utilizados para estruturar e consolidar tais conceitos. Nossa proposta é analisar como o historiador interpretou as disputas pelo poder na Itália, travadas entre romanos e bárbaros, no período da deposição de Rômulo Augusto e no governo de Justiniano, contribuindo, assim, para a discussão de problemas historiográficos como os acima citados. / The Gothic War is a narrative composed in three books, which are part of the collection History of the Wars written by Procopius (490-562). These books contain accounts of the campaigns sent by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian (527-565), with the goal of regaining for the Empire the dominion over its former territories in Persia and the Mediterranean World, then under the authority of barbarian governments. These wars are historiographically known as the wars of \"Reconquest\". The narratives of Procopius begin with the description of the gradual loss of imperial power in Italy in favor of the barbarians in 476, which the historiography has consecrated as \"Fall of Rome\". However, Procopius did not describe this process as the \"fall\" of the Empire, neither wrote about the wars of Justinian as a fight for the \"Reconquest\". Even so, his texts were widely used to structure and consolidate these concepts. Our proposal is to analyze how the historian has interpreted the struggle for power in Italy, fought between romans and barbarians in the period of the deposition of Rômulo Augusto and the government of Justinian, thus contributing to the discussion of historiographical problems as mentioned above.

No description available.

Co-tutelle de thèse Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne / Université Libre de Bruxelles, sous la direction conjointe de Michel KAPLAN (Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne) et de Jean-Marie SANSTERRE (Université Libre de Bruxelles)<p><p><p>L’épiscopat constitue un fondement essentiel mais méconnu de l’Église mésobyzantine. Malgré la relative rareté des sources, il est possible d’en retracer l’histoire et les grandes évolutions :une part importante de l’hagiographie de l’iconoclasme et post-iconoclaste concerne en effet métropolites et évêques, témoignant du lien fort existant entre ceux-ci et le peuple des cités dont ils ont la charge, particulièrement quand ils sont considérés saints par la population. De nombreuses sources épistolaires, ecclésiastiques et sigillographiques, émanant des évêques eux-mêmes, permettent d’approcher les réalités du corps épiscopal et celles de la société provinciale qu’il représente auprès des autorités centrales. L’évêque apparaît également comme le relais des volontés impériale et patriarcale dans les provinces de l’Empire. Dans un contexte de compétition de pouvoir avec les autorités locales, l’évêque tente ainsi d’imposer le sien propre, dans ses aspects spatiaux, sociaux, religieux et symboliques.<p>L’approche collective et les approches individuelles de l’épiscopat doivent permettre de comprendre les réalités sociales d’un Empire de plus en plus centré sur sa capitale et dont sont progressivement détachées, du moins dans les sources, les périphéries. Une histoire décentrée de l’Empire byzantin passe dès lors par des études régionales mais aussi par des études consacrées à des groupes sociaux enracinés dans tout l’Empire, surtout lorsque, comme les évêques, ils revendiquent la spécificité de leur région et leur attachement à une société provinciale qui constitue le socle de l’Empire.<p><p>/ <p><p>The episcopate is an essential structure of the middle-Byzantine Church ;however, it remains little known. Although sources are limited, its history and evolution can still be reconstructed, as a large portion of the iconoclastic and post-iconoclastic hagiography deals with metropolitans and bishops. The sources reveal the strong connection between bishops and the inhabitants of the cities under their responsibility, especially when the population considers them as saints. Numerous epistolary, ecclesiastic and sigillographic documents issued by bishops themselves partially unveil the realities of the episcopal group and the provincial society that bishops represent to the central authorities. The bishop also serves as relay of both imperial and patriarchal wills to the provinces of the Empire. Competing with local authorities, the bishop thus tries to impose his own influence in its spatial, social, religious and symbolic dimensions.<p>Both collective and individual approaches of the episcopate make the social realities of the Empire more understandable, as it becomes more and more focused on its capital city while its peripheries gradually move away, which documentation seems to imply. Regional studies, but also studies focused on social groups established across the whole Empire, are the fundamentals of a decentred history of the Byzantine Empire. This is especially true since social groups such as bishops claim the specificity of their regions and their link to a provincial society that represents the cornerstone of the Empire. / Doctorat en Histoire, art et archéologie / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

- 5 - Abstract: The diploma thesis "Coronation of Byzantine Emperors in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages" deals with gradual changes of the ceremonies associated with the imperial accessions. Using narative, legal, artistic and numismatic evidence, it attempts to identify crucial components of each coronation ceremony, analyses gradual transformation these components underwent and points out new developments that helped each emperor to estabilish his right to the throne. The thesis also deal with the imperial insignia used both during coronation ceremonies and during other court rites.

This thesis explores the literary topos in which heresy is defined in terms of disease, focusing particular attention on the reign of the Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos (1081-1118). By examining the portrayals of two heretics – the philosopher Ioannes Italos and the dualist Bogomil heresiarch Basileios – in a body of interrelated source material, conclusions are drawn related to the contemporary thought-world, which influenced the authors, their works and their understanding of the heterodox threat. This, in turn, is used to gain insight into the contemporary dynamics of imperial propaganda and power. There are four main chapters, the first of which discusses the methodological approach adopted throughout this study. This section treats various questions related to the problems inherent in heresy scholarship, such as the ever-changing definition of ‘heresy' and the use of source material that is fundamentally antagonistic towards the heretical subject. The second chapter traces the transmission of the focal topos, ‘heresy as disease', within heresiology from its origins in the fourth-century Panarion of the bishop Epiphanios of Salamis up to the twelfth century, where it is found used prevalently by the court of Alexios I. Chapter three then offers a detailed analysis of the primary sources that are employed in the case studies of Italos and Basileios: Anna Komnene's Alexias, Euthymios Zygabenos's Panoplia Dogmatike, the Synodikon of Orthodoxy and trial proceedings preserved from the synodal examination of Italos. The final chapter explores the surviving presentations of both men – their depictions as ‘outsiders' and the specific association developed between their teachings and disease – within the context of the newly emerging and insecure Komnenian dynasty. ‘Heresy as disease' is found to transmit an ideological framework, allowing Alexios to reinforce his unstable position by capitalising on the image of the great Orthodox doctor, providing a cure for the common soul.