This thesis discusses the Ottoman policies on archaeology in the aftermath of the initiation of the Tanzimat reforms (1839) and until the end of the Ottoman Empire (1923). It explores the activities of the central state, the autonomous Principality of Samos in the Aegean, and the Hellenic Literary Society at Constantinople. Primary and secondary sources in Ottoman Turkish, Katharevousa Greek, Modern Turkish and Modern Greek, English and French inform the analysis. The first chapter looks at the contexts within which an Ottoman interest in archaeology emerged. It discusses the rise of archaeology as a distinct area of scientific and scholarly research in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the encounters of the Ottomans with western archaeologies in that period, and those domestic intellectual dynamics that made them receptive to archaeology. The second chapter focuses on the Ottoman legislation on antiquities, and secondarily looks at related institutional developments. It discusses at length the emergence of an Ottoman voice on archaeology through the crystallisation of increasingly comprehensive and mature sets of rules and procedures on heritage management. By looking at the autonomous Principality of Samos, the third chapter shifts the attention to the western periphery of the empire, and explores how the Greek Orthodox, when outside the direct control of the central state, could develop their own understanding of, processes and structures regarding archaeology. The fourth chapter looks, for the first time in the literature, at the archaeological activities of the Hellenic Literary Society at Constantinople, and discusses the contribution of Ottoman society to the promotion of archaeological research and the protection of monuments. Overall, this thesis provides a critical analysis of the emergence of the concept and practice of archaeological heritage protection in the Ottoman Empire in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

As the title suggests, <i>Byzantios</i> or <i>About the Imperial Megalopolis</i> is the eulogy of Constantinople, one of Theodore Metochites' many works that still remain unpublished due to the writer's obscure style. My primary aim in this edition has been to establish the text, an oration written by one of the most prominent figures of the Palaeologan Renaissance. In fact, the text constitutes the eulogy of the Capital of the Byzantine Empire and it could provide useful information to historians, archaeologists and Various scholars. However, I must ask for the reader's understanding regarding the matters of punctuation. The artificial style and rhetorical presentation in many passages make no wonder if a satisfactory rendering of the Greek can be achieved. I have added an Introduction where I deal with Metochites' life and works, the genre of <i>Byzantios</i> and a few more issues raised by the oration (missing folios, dating of the oration, etc.). The text needs to be elucidated from a wide Variety of sources, historical and literary, and this is the main aim of the commentary. In addition. I wished to present reasons for my interventions in the Greek text, to offer some parallels from other - mainly rhetorical - works and to give the quotations of the classical authors to which Metochites refers. Obviously the commentary does not provide exhaustive discussion of the many different topics raised in <i>Byzantios</i>, but I hope to have provided a minimum bibliography for further study. The appendix at the end shows how much Metochites followed Menander's precepts. I believe that the indexes will also prove useful to the reader.

This paper seeks to continue the research started by scholars such as W. Liebeschuetz and P. Bell in order to challenge the traditional argument put forth by Al. Cameron, namely that the circus factions did not have a political role in society. The objective of this study is to examine the political importance of the circus factions from the reign of Anastasius (491-518) to Heraclius (610-641). Furthermore, it explores the political motivations behind the factions’ violent behaviour, the evidence for their involvement in the military, and their role in accession ceremonies. The methodology includes establishing a typology for sixth century riots, an examination of the hippodrome and its role as a medium between people and emperor, tracing the shift in the focus of imperial ideology, and a re-evaluation of the primary sources, with a focus on the literary and epigraphic evidence, to determine if there was a political aspect to the factions. The study concludes that Cameron did undervalue the factions’ political importance and outlines the conditions that were influential in their rise in importance.

No description available.

<p>This thesis comprises the first full-length study of Gregory of Nazianzus's theology of the Holy Spirit. Gregory was a major political and intellectual figure during the pneumatological controversies of the late Fourth Century. Gregory is the first author whose works are extant to declare that “the Holy Spirit is God” in so many words. He advocated, against leading figures including Basil of Caesarea, that such a declaration should be made by the Church, but largely met with failure in his lifetime. Yet, Gregory's affirmation of the Spirit's divinity was eventually to be embraced by nearly all Christians, and it remains so today. Despite these facts, Gregory is usually treated by historians as a minor influence on Fourth Century pneumatology. This thesis will not necessarily challenge this assessment, but will seek to establish a fuller understanding of how Gregory's pneumatology functions in itself such that his historical place can be reassessed in the future.</p> <p>Our key observation is that Gregory's pneumatology is rooted in his understanding of the Spirit's relationship to the Church. A discussion of Gregory's ecclesiological pneumatology comprises Part I. Having presented Gregory's understanding of the Spirit's relationship to the Church, and his understanding of his own place within this relationship, we explore, in Part II, some of the texts in which Gregory argues for his pneumatological doctrine in the face of various opponents. We note that Gregory remains consistently concerned with ecclesiology when engaging other thinkers on the Spirit. We conclude that when Gregory's ecclesiological pneumatology is accounted for, his reactions to the pneumatological controversies of his day appear as consistent, pastorally motivated responses to concerns about the Church's relationship to the Holy Spirit and the preaching of pneumatological truth which Gregory thought this relationship demanded.</p> / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Le présent mémoire se donne pour fin d'étudier, en les replaçant au sein du contexte politique de leur époque, deux textes importants de la pensée politique de Justinien : l'Ekthesis d'Agapète le diacre, et le Dialogue de science politique. Ces deux textes représentent le point de vue de deux groupes d'acceptation de Constantinople – à savoir des groupes qui peuvent participer à l’élévation ou à la destitution d’un empereur : le clergé, et l'élite des sénateurs et des hauts-fonctionnaires. À partir de ce cadre conceptuel, il s'agira, pour ce mémoire, de définir les problématiques ayant trait à la fonction et la conception du pouvoir impérial et à la forme de l'État, telles que les présentent ces deux textes. À terme, devra émerger comme cadre interprétatif l'affrontement de deux tendances: d'une part, un hellénisme politique christianisé (associé au clergé), et, d'autre part, une romanité conjuguée à une vision néoplatonicienne du monde (associée à l'élite sénatoriale et fonctionnaire). Ces deux traditions posent des questions différentes. D'un côté, celle de l'orthodoxie de l'empereur et de la nécessité, pour ce dernier, de suivre les préceptes de l'éthique chrétienne, de se montrer digne de Dieu, dont il est le serviteur; de l'autre, celle de la sauvegarde de l'héritage romain, portant notamment sur le rôle du Sénat et l’importance de la loi, de même que le lien entre empereur et philosophe. / The object of this thesis is to study two important texts of the political thought of the Age of Justinian by replacing them in the political context of the Age. The two texts represent the point of view of two acceptation groups of Constantinople – groups that can participate in the election or the destitution of an emperor : the clergy and the elite of the senators and the high spheres of the bureaucracy. What will emerge is a clash between two tendencies : on the one hand a christianised political hellenism (associated with the clergy) and on the other a roman vision mixed to neoplatonician metaphysics (associated with senators and the high spheres of the bureaucracy). The two tendencies/traditions ask different questions. The first one asks the questions of the orthodoxy of the emperor and of the necessity for him to follow the rules of christian ethics, as well as to show himself worthy of God, of whom he is the servant; the other, the question of the preservation of the roman heritage, particularly in regards of the role of the Senate and the importance of the law, and of the relation between imperial power and philosophy.

No description available.

M.A. / 144 This dissertation is essential because it has indicated the reasons, which have caused the religious juxtaposition, then antagonism, between Constantinople and Rome from the patriarchate of Photios (867) to the days of Michael Keroularios (1054), as well as the consequences that have emanated from it, both at political and social level. It is a historical comparative study, which avoids the narrow limits of theological “misunderstandings” and the various dogmatic interpretations. It is placed within a social, political and cultural framework that has resulted from the particular cultural conditions as these have been formed in both parts of the Roman Empire.This particular study has followed the historical comparative method for the analysis of the religious juxtaposition between Constantinople and Rome. The sources were studied in their original Medieval Greek language according to the historical-critical and philological methodology. The study is completed by the comparison of two Schisms of the year 867 between patriarch Photios and Pope Nicholas I, and of the year 1054 between patriarch Michael Keroularios and Cardinal Umberto, and their consequences, especially from a Byzantine point of view.

This thesis is a study of the pre-Islamic passages of Abū Ḥanīfa Aḥmad ibn Dāwūd ibn Wanand Dīnawarī's Kitāb al-Aḫbār al-Ṭiwāl. This is to say that it stops at the beginning of the Arab conquest of Iran. It is intended for scholars of Late Antiquity. Special emphasis is placed on Dīnawarī's exposition of the rule of the Sasanian dynasty and questions relating to the mysterious Ḫudāynāma tradition which are intimately connected with it. Beginning with a discussion of Dīnawarī and his work, the thesis moves into a discussion of indigenous Iranian historiography. Speculation on the sources of Kitāb al-Aḫbār al-Ṭiwāl follows, and the historiographical investigation of the most substantial portion of Kitāb al-Aḫbār al-Ṭiwāl's notices on the Sasanian dynasty comes next. The conclusion summarises the findings of the thesis. The final section (an appendix) is a translation of the relevant part of Kitāb al-Aḫbār al-Ṭiwāl running from the beginning of that text to the reign of Šīrūya. This thesis was written with one main question in mind: what does Dīnawarī's Kitāb al-Aḫbār al-Ṭiwāl have to say about pre-Islamic Iranian history? A host of other questions arose immediately: who was Dīnawarī; when did he live; what did he do; how was his work perceived by others; where did Dīnawarī get his information and how did he present it; is Dīnawarī's information reliable? These questions are addressed one by one in my thesis.

According to the orthodox priest John Meyendorff, the Byzantine dream consisted of the establishment of a universal Christian empire spiritually and politically governed by the emperor of Constantinople. This essay intends to shed light on the topic of Byzantine religious and political expansion in the context of Byzantine view on Barbaricum and the barbarians inhabiting it. The fundamental question asked is: how do the Byzantines view the barbarians outside the Byzantine Empire and in what sense, if any, does this view have implications for the Byzantine dream? To answer the question the essay examines four 6th century historians, namely: Procopius of Caesarea, Johannes Malalas, Menander Protector and Agathias of Myrina. The method being used is a hermeneutical method and the theoretical framework is made up of Edward Said’s Orientalism. The results indicate that the barbarians in Barbaricum were viewed upon with great distrust. The Byzantines considered the barbarians to be ontologically different from themselves. Furthermore, the Byzantines regarded the barbarians behaviour as uncivilized. The typical barbarian was deemed to be wild, cruel, irrational, mostly religiously backwards, lacking in education and, more often than not, displaying arrogance and boasting. At the same time they were mystified, and thought of as physically impressive beings capable of unnatural strength. Consequently, the barbarians were viewed upon as creatures of lust and physicality rather than, like the Byzantines, beings of rationality and sense. The conclusion can be made that the Byzantines regarded Barbaricum in much the same manner as the postcolonial powers regarded the Orient – through the construction of a dichotomy between the self and the other. Concerning the Byzantine adherence to the Byzantine dream as expressed by John Meyendorff, to spread the Byzantine Empire beyond its borders and consume Barbaricum by political and religious means, the results indicate that there are reasons to question Meyendorff’s assumption. It’s plausible that there indeed were Byzantine inclinations to transform Barbaricum. Furthermore, the results indicate that the Byzantine view of the barbarians played some part in shaping that inclination. It’s, however, also plausible that while the Byzantines may have strived to transform Barbaricum, it doesn’t neccessarily follow that it had to succumb to Byzantine imperial authority. The investigated sources seem to suggest that the primary Byzantine goal was solely to transform Barbaricum religiously and politically into something that resembled the Byzantine Empire but wasn’t necessarily a full fledged part of it.