No description available.

This thesis examines the interaction between the conflicting ideologies of crusade and commerce, during the period when the Turkish maritime emirates of Anatolia became the primary target of western crusading endeavour. Through the close study of papal documents and archival evidence from the Italian mercantile republics, two principal areas are focussed on: firstly, the extent to which the temporal and spiritual mechanisms (e.g. trade licences and indulgences) introduced by the popes of the fourteenth century encouraged the Italian mercantile republics to participate in a crusade; secondly, the analysis of the policies of commercial exchange and military opposition adopted by the Latin states with regard to the Turks in the Aegean. The crusades in the Aegean are discussed in six chapters which broadly reflect the activities of the principal participants: 1) crusade negotiations during the pontificates of Clement V and John XXII: distractions to an Aegean crusade under Clement V; extrication from French influence under John XXII; gradual replacement of Byzantium as a target of the Aegean crusades during the 1320s; and the temporal and spiritual concessions granted by the popes to those Latin resisting the Turks in the Aegean; 2) the Zaccaria of Chios: their defence of the Aegean from Turkish attacks and the privileges they received from the papacy for this; 3) Venetian commercial activities in the Aegean: their alliances with and activities against the various Turkish emirates; 4) the 1334 naval league: the first anti-Turkish coalition; 5) the neglect of the Aegean crusades under Pope Benedict XII (1335-1342); 6) the Crusade of Smyrna and the climax of Latin efforts against the Turks in the first half of the fourteenth century (1343-1351). Although trade and crusade have often been regarded as incompatible by historians of the crusades (such as Stephen Runciman and Aziz Atiya), they both formed an integral, and inseparable, aspect of crusade policy and of western perceptions of the Turks.

The chapter concerning the life and times of Methodios, Patriarch of Constantinople, begins with a summary of the history of the iconoclastic controversy. This provides the background for a review of Methodios' vita. A native of Syracuse in Sicily, he became a central figure in the victory of the Iconoduies over the forces of iconoclasm. Methodios was the Patriarch of Constantinople (843 - 847).The Triumph of Orthodoxy, over which Methodios presided, commemorated the victory of icon supporters. The Sunday of Orthodoxy services are examined and the Synodicon's content is analysed. The third chapter discusses the consequences of the restoration of images. This period of stabilisation and strengthening of the Church was, nonetheless, fraught with turmoil and controversy. The re-integration of the former Iconoclasts and a schism from the Studite monks were two serious challenges the Patriarch faced during this time. The formation of Methodios' ecclesiology, his concept of the Church, including his sense of place in and responsibility for the Tradition of the Church were significant in his thinking. The synergy of Paradosis and Parakatatheki is explored and it will be shown that Methodios considered himself accountable to God for his ecclesial trust. His literary works are catalogued and analysed. Some previously unpublished compositions are discussed. The categories of hagiographic, poetic and liturgical compositions are emphasised. This is undertaken to reveal Methodios, both the dedicated iconodule but more importantly, the man. Finally, conclusions and thoughts concerning the legacy of Patriarch Methodios within Orthodoxy and history are offered.

This thesis presents an examination of the change in position of George (Gennadios) Scholarios on the question of the Union of the Roman and Eastern churches. The question I will address concerns the reason for Scholarios’ dramatic change of position from pro-Union to anti-Union, within a few years of the Council of Florence 1438-1439, where the Union of churches had been agreed. I will argue that Scholarios’ changed position on Union is best explained by political factors that influenced his decision, and was not simply governed by the theological questions debated at the Council of Florence. In Chapter One, the Introduction, I will introduce a critical analysis of the existing field of research, to set the thesis in the context of Scholarios scholarship that has previously been undertaken. In Chapter Two, Research Questions and Methodology, I will outline the scope of this thesis, discussing the crucial questions that need to be addressed and the method I will use to develop my arguments. In Chapter Three I examine the key cultural role that the philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas played in the fifteenth century, and the extent to which Scholarios’ views were formed and shaped by this philosophical context. This chapter will argue that these philosophical influences provided the initial motivation that moved Scholarios towards Union. As the implications of such political aspirations warrant further investigation; I go on to examine Scholarios’ writings, not only on philosophy, but also on theology. I will explore whether the political guidance offered in taking up the study of philosophy was also to be discerned in the study of theology. In Chapter Four, I will examine how Aristotelian philosophy was deployed as an explanatory tool in interpretations of polemics, debates, and panegyric and rhetoric works of the period. I will suggest that Byzantine preambles, poems, sermons and theological panegyrics were also subject to general imperial legislation. In Chapter Five, I will argue that Scholarios’ study of Aristotelian philosophy allowed him to form a view of how the political future of the Empire might to be developed. I explore Scholarios’ visionary ideas of reform and contrast these with Plethon’s political perspective. I suggest that the acrimonious relationship between Scholarios and Plethon was due to their political and philosophical differences, which defined the way they viewed the future of the Empire. In Chapter Six, I argue that the primary key to comprehending the relationship between East and West lies in understanding the vested commercial interests. I argue the Byzantine state had deteriorated owing to foreign powers—the Italian city states, Catalonians, Franks and the Ottoman Turks—attempting to acquire and dominate the commercial and strategic political domains of the Eastern Roman Empire. This was initially driven by trade and commercial rivalry between the Latins; commercial interests also prompted the development of naval and military power by the Latins at the expense of the Eastern Roman Empire, which eventually left the Empire militarily and financially destitute. One result of this deterioration in the commercial and military power of the Empire was to allow the progressive rise in dominance of the Ottoman Turks. In light of the dangerous situation the Empire was facing, Scholarios—in the service of the imperial bureaucracy and under the dominance of the Emperor’s political policy—sought to solve the dilemma and reconstruct the Empire's political power. In Chapter Seven, I will argue that these political events, together with the political aspirations of Scholarios, led to his change of position from pro-Union to anti-Union. I will suggest that examination of the cultural, commercial and political influences in play leads to the conclusion that Scholarios’ pro-Union position was primarily motivated by the objective of obtaining military aid. When it became apparent that such aid was not forthcoming, his position changed from pro-Union to anti-Union, as it was politically expedient for him to do so in light of the growing dominance of the Ottoman Turks. I argue that Scholarios followed the political policy concerning pro-Unionism proposed by Dimitrios Kydonis, and it was not until the political event of the Battle of Varna in 1444, when the Latin military forces lost to the Ottoman Turks that Scholarios formally openly declared his anti-Union stance. In the conclusion, I will argue that, following my presentation of the evidence as outlined above, the political motivations constitute the strongest reasons for Scholarios’ decision to change his stance on the Union. This conclusion allows us to understand the vested commercial and political interests at stake, since the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine state), had deteriorated owing to the dominance of foreign powers. The ramifications are to be seen in the outcome of the Council of Florence where the Byzantines sought the aid from the West, but also demonstrated its dependency upon them. In the light of the growing power of the Ottoman Turks, the Emperor’s political policy sought to solve the dilemma and reconstruct the Empire's political power.

This dissertation examines the ceremonies and rituals involving the princes of early Rus’ and their entourage, how these ceremonies and rituals are represented in the literature and artefacts of early Rus’, the possible cultural influences on ceremony and ritual in this emergent society, and the role of ceremony and ritual as representative of political structures and in shaping the political culture of the principalities of early Rus’. The process begins by introducing key concepts and historiographic considerations for the study of ceremony and ritual and their application to the medieval world. The textological survey that follows focusses on the chronicles of Rus’, due to their compilatory nature, and discusses the philological, linguistic, and contextual factors governing the use of chronicles in this study. This examination of the ceremonies and rituals of early Rus’, the first comprehensive study of its kind for this region in the early period, engages with other studies of ceremony and ritual for the medieval period to inform our understanding of the political culture of early Rus’ and its influences. The structure of this dissertation is dictated by the chronology of ceremonies and rituals that structure the reigns of Rus’ princes in literary sources. The first chapter investigates—both comparatively and locally—the development of enthronement rituals depicted in textual sources and on coins. The second chapter focusses on rituals of association that are represented as mediating relations between princes in a non-central functioning dynastic culture. Oath-taking (and breaking) and association through commensality—dining and gift-giving—are examined in terms of historical context and the internal categorisation of associative acts in textual sources from Rus’. The final chapter builds on recent studies of ritualised warfare in early Rus’ and examines the ritualisation of princely movement—the most common action associated with the princes of Rus’ in textual sources—in times of war. The celebration of triumph and princely entry along with ritualised invocations for intercession in war are acts examined—both in textual sources and iconographic artefacts—as rituals of triumphal rulership reflecting both Byzantine and wider medieval culture. This study concludes with a discussion of the themes explored in its three chapters and offers further considerations about the influence of the Church and monastic culture inherited from Byzantium (and developed in Rus’) on the preservation, creation, and promulgation of ritualised political power.

The purpose of this thesis is to further our understanding of the period between the death of Basil II in 1025 and the accession of Alexios I Komnenos in 1081. Modern scholarship has often portrayed these 56 years as an important, transformative period, viewing the empire as standing at the height of its power at its beginning, only to be brought to the brink of collapse by civil wars and foreign invasions following the battle of Manzikert in 1071. Based on three unique and underexploited sources of evidence, namely the letters of Michael Psellos, the judicial handbook commonly known as the Peira and the so-called Consilia et Narrationes of Kekaumenos, it argues that the Byzantine state to a large extent relied on private networks to carry out public administration throughout the empire. Public and private power were thus intimately intertwined and by conveying information, orders and requests, but also by reproducing and enforcing norms of acceptable political behaviour, these networks served to compensate to some extent for the institutional shortcomings of the premodern state. It also challenges the idea that the political dynamic of the eleventh century was centred around the power struggles of 'great families' or clans that effectively functioned as political parties, as well as the idea that the emperors and their officials were apathetic about governing the provinces beyond what was necessary to pacify and extract resources from them. Taken together, the evidence examined consequently appears to suggest that, by the standards of the pre-modern world, the Byzantine empire had a reasonably well-functioning state and a fairly coherent society during the period in question, suggesting that the focus of the scholarly debate on the eleventh-century Byzantine collapse should, to some extent, be shifted from internal to external factors.

No description available.