Texte remanié de: Tes. D--Santander--Universidad de Cantabria, Facultad de filosofía y letras, 1998. / Bibliogr. p. 209-230. Index.

Roman emperors came to power through a hybrid dynastic/elective selection system that was never formally codified. This lack of codification has caused problems for modern scholars looking to identify and categorize those who were involved in selecting the next Roman emperor. This thesis believes that these problems exist because scholars are not distinguishing the names of key ancient institutions from the underlying types of power which backed their capability for action. This thesis seeks to solve this problem by creating a categorization system for imperial accessions based around a basic unit called the “political interest.” At its core, a political interest is a combination of the name of the individual or group as listed in the primary sources, the different types of power they possessed, and the level of decision-making authority they wielded during an imperial selection. Using this system, this thesis creates a database of Late Roman emperors with information on when they came to power, the various stages of their accessions, what political interests supported them, and where these interests were located. This thesis then analyzes the political and geographic trends from the database and supplies provisional explanations as to why changes in the Late Roman accession process occurred.

Après la conquête de Constantinople en 1453, la nécessité de recueillir des informations mises à jour sur la ville et ses nouveaux dirigeants est devenue une nécessité. Non seulement la documentation disponible sur les Turcs était obsolète, les Ottomans eux-mêmes étaient différents de la dynastie Seldjouqide rencontrée pendant les Croisades. Européens et asiatiques, musulmans et chrétiens, turcs et grecs, cerner la société ottomane était une tâche ardue qui demandait un fin observateur. Les Ottomans étaient impliqués dans presque toutes les affaires européennes et méditerranéennes, soit par la formation d'alliances, des déclarations de guerre, la création d’états vassaux ou l'établissement de routes commerciales. Le Saint Empire, la France et les villes italiennes furent parmi les premiers à envoyer des émissaires à Constantinople. Les récits des voyageurs offrent une variété de témoignages de première main sur la manière dont la capitale de l'Empire ottoman était régie des activités de la vie quotidienne jusqu’à la vision politique du sultan. L'identité du voyageur joue un rôle important dans la détermination du contenu de son rapport. Un ambassadeur, un espion, voit les choses différemment d'un marchand ou d'un moine. La perception de la réalité ottomane elle-même évolue du début à la fin du séjour. La représentation du Turc moyen, du sultan, des Grecs et d'autres minorités à Constantinople donne un aperçu de la représentation sociale et politique de soi et de l’autre en Europe pendant la Renaissance. Les comparaisons fréquentes avec l'Empire romain montrent que, étonnement, les Ottomans héritent de certaines caractéristiques qui expliquent leur âge d'or avec Mehmet le Conquérant et Suleyman le Magnifique. Le résultat du croisement des récits conduit à la conclusion inattendue que non seulement Constantinople devenait Istanbul, mais elle renouait avec ses racines romaines. / After Constantinople’s conquest in 1453, the need to gather updated information on the city under its new rulers became a necessity. Not only the available documentation on the Turks was obsolete, the Ottomans themselves were different from the Seljuk dynasty encountered during the Crusades. Both Asian and European, Muslim and Christian, Turks and Greeks, defining the Ottoman society was a hard task that needed a journey and a shrewd observer. The Ottomans were involved in almost all the European and Mediterranean affairs whether through forming alliances, waging wars, creating puppet states or establishing trade routes. The Holy Roman Empire, France and the Italian city states were among the first to send emissaries to Constantinople. The reports gathered by the travelers offer a variety of first-hand eye witnesses of how the capital of the Ottoman Empire is ruled from daily life activities to the political vision of the sultan. The identity of the traveler plays a great role in determining the content of his report. An ambassador, a spy see things differently from a merchant or a monk. The perception of the Ottoman reality itself evolves from the beginning of the journey to its end. The representation of the average Turk, the sultan, the Greeks and other minorities in Constantinople gives a great insight about the social and political representation of self and others in Europe during the Renaissance. The frequent comparisons with the Roman Empire shows that, surprisingly, the Ottomans are inheriting some characteristics that explain their golden age with Mehmed the Conqueror and Suleiman the Magnificent. The result of crossing the traveler’s accounts leads to the unexpected conclusion that not only Constantinople is becoming Istanbul, it is reclaiming its Roman roots.

Cette thèse doctorale a pour objet l’étude de la réception de l’Histoire Ecclésiastique de Socrate de Constantinople dans trois œuvres tardo-antiques : l’Histoire Tripartite (HT) de Théodore le Lecteur, composée en grec en 518, l’Histoire Tripartite (HT) de Cassiodore composée en latin (1re moitié du VIe s.), et la première version arménienne de Socrate (« Grand Socrate ») (VIe-VIIe s.). Les œuvres de Théodore et de Cassiodore sont traditionnellement considérées comme de simples compilations alors que le Grand Socrate n’est perçu que comme une traduction. Une double question a guidé notre recherche : comment et pourquoi les auteurs tardo-antiques ont-ils exploité l’Histoire Ecclésiastique de Socrate de Constantinople ? Pour répondre à ces questions, nous avons examiné quel rôle jouait l’œuvre de Socrate dans chacun des trois témoins ciblés, en déterminant préalablement la fonction de ces œuvres « réceptrices » à leur propre époque. Dans les trois témoins analysés, malgré les différences apparentes entre « compilation » et « traduction », l’auteur a procédé à une déconstruction de l’Histoire ecclésiastique de Socrate – son matériel historiographique est disséqué en notices ou en morceaux – et a ensuite arrangé ce matériel, l’a reconstruit selon des critères méthodologiques et historiographiques propres. L’œuvre de Socrate est avant tout une source d’informations sur l’histoire de l’Eglise dont se servent les trois « récepteurs » en vue de créer leur propre récit, original, des mêmes événements. L’entérinement de leur récit ne repose pas sur le respect de la signification historiographique de l’œuvre de Socrate mais sur l’autorité qui émane de l’invocation du nom de son auteur. / This Ph.D. thesis examines the reception of the Church History of Socrates of Constantinople in three late-antique historiographical texts: the Tripartite History (TH) of Theodorus Lector, composed in Greek in 518, the Tripartite History (TH) of Cassiodorus, written in Latin in the first half of the sixth century, and the first Armenian version of Socrates (the so-called « Great Socrates », 6th-7th c.). The works of Theodorus and Cassiodorus are traditionally considered to be mere compilations whereas the Great Socrates was considered a mere translation. The core research question of this thesis is a double one: how and why did these late-antique authors use the Church History of Socrates of Constantinople? In order to answer these questions, I examine the role of Socrates’ work in each of the three historiographical texts under examination in view of the function that each of these new texts fulfilled in their own context. Notwithstanding the differences between a “compilation” and a “translation”, or the clear differences between the HT of Cassiodorus and Theodore, each of our three witnesses has deconstructed the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates, divided it up in separate notices and pieces, then re-arranged the material to reconstruct it according to his own methodological and historiographical criteria. Socrates is above all a source of information for church history, used by all three witnesses with the aim of creating their own, original narrative of the same events. The validity of their narrative does not derive from a respect for the historiographical significance of the work of Socrates but on the authority evoked by his very name.

Cette thèse porte sur l’évolution des cérémonies publiques impériales dans le monde romain tardif, thème qui nous a semblé fondamental pour la compréhension des institutions politiques de l’Empire Romain des IVe-VIIe s. Ces évolutions comptent sans doute parmi les plus importantes mutations qu'a connues le monde romain de l'Antiquité Tardive, puisqu'elles touchent le pouvoir suprême et son aura à l'intérieur de la société. L’objectif majeur du cérémonial est d’exalter l’empereur, de manifester sa gloire triomphale et sa sacralité – voire sa sainteté après l’adoption du christianisme – ainsi que de magnifier et célébrer le pouvoir d’origine divine qu’il détenait. Notre propos sera de montrer comment on passe d’un Empereur, princeps senatus, qui cherche à maintenir une fiction républicaine pour masquer le caractère monarchique de son pouvoir et qui est l’incarnation du passé romain ; à un empereur qui est l’élu de Dieu, affirmant un pouvoir monarchique avec le soutien de l’Eglise. Trois axes ont guidé notre recherche : La centralité du rôle de l’empereur dans l’évolution des cérémonies publiques. L’importance de l’intégration de l’empereur dans le système cérémoniel de l’Eglise et celle de l’intégration du clergé et principalement de l’évêque dans le système cérémoniel de l’empire. L’importance du fait barbare sur le phénomène cérémoniel. Dans l’Antiquité tardive on voit clairement des influences et des acculturations réciproques au niveau des cérémonies, mais aussi des formes de rejet de ces changements caractéristique des évolutions culturelles de la période. / This thesis focuses on the evolution of imperial public ceremonies in the late Roman world, a theme that seemed fundamental to the understanding of the political institutions of the Roman Empire of the fourth to seventh centuries. These developments are without doubt among the most important changes that have taken the world of Late Roman Antiquity, as they reach the supreme power and aura within society. The main objective of the ceremonies is to exalt the emperor, to manifest his triumphal rulership and his sacrality - even his holiness after the adoption of christianism - and to magnify and celebrate the divine power he held. Our purpose is to show how we shift from an emperor, princeps senatus, which seeks to maintain a republican fiction to hide the monarchical nature of his power, and is the epitome of Roman history ; to an emperor who is elected by God. Three axes have guided our research: The centrality of the role of the emperor in the evolution of public ceremonies. The importance of the integration of the emperor in the ceremonial system of the Church and the integration of the clergy and especially the bishop in the ceremonial system of the empire. The importance of the barbars on the ceremonial phenomenon. In Late antiquity we can clearly seen influences and mutual acculturation in the ceremonies, but also forms of rejection of these paradigmatic changes of the cultural evolutions of the period.

S’il est généralement reconnu que le processus d’institutionnalisation de l’Église s’est accéléré au IVe siècle, certaines de ses étapes nous sont moins connues. Ce mémoire cherche à évaluer l’importance de Jean Chrysostome dans l’émergence de la primauté d’honneur de Constantinople. Après une étude attentive du troisième canon du concile de Constantinople I mise en relation avec l’opinion de trois auteurs contemporains, c’est-à-dire Palladius d’Hélénopolis, Socrate de Constantinople et Sozomène, il ressort de ce travail que l’épiscopat de Jean Chrysostome a favorisé l’implantation de cette prééminence dans l’Église. L’analyse des modalités de la primauté d’honneur de Constantinople montre bien qu’historiquement, les évêques de l’ancienne et de la nouvelle Rome n’ont pas construit leur primat à l’aide des mêmes arguments. L’explicitation de ces éléments ne se veut pas une prise de position dans les débats oecuméniques actuels, mais plutôt un préliminaire permettant une meilleure compréhension des données du problème. / Even though it is generally accepted that the Church institutionalization process accelerated in the IVth century, some of its steps are less known. This dissertation tries to assess John Chrysostom’s importance in the emergence of Constantinople’s primacy of honour. After a thorough study of the third canon of the council of Constantinople I and of the opinion of three contemporary authors, namely Palladius of Helenopolis, Socrates of Constantinople and Sozomenos, the results of this works are that John Chrysostom’s episcopate fostered the implementation of this preeminence in the Church. The analysis of the terms of the primacy of honour of Constantinople shows that historically, the bishops of Old and New Rome did not build their primacy with the same arguments. Clarifying these elements is not a way to make a stand in the current ecumenical debate, but rather is a preliminary step to a better understanding of the problem.

The Water Supply of Byzantine Constantinople is one of the most outstanding achievements of hydraulic engineering from the Roman world. Working entirely as a gravity-fed system, this infrastructure relied on hundreds of kilometres of masonry channels, winding along the hills of Turkish Thrace and carrying water to Constantinople across different watersheds. The Water Supply was built in two main phases: the first in the mid-fourth century, following the foundation of Constantinople in 330 AD; and the second in the early fifth century. It is not clear whether the aqueducts from these two phases worked independently or as a single system, yet the scale of this would have been colossal, reaching lengths of 450 km between the two aqueducts. However, a full and close understanding of its hydraulic design and function has until now been missing. As such, this investigation aims to: (1) establish a clear route for the aqueducts, both in terms of length and gradient (mapping); (2) determine likely volumes of water entering the system at the various intakes (hydrology); and (3) evaluate its hydraulic behaviour and flow characteristics (hydraulics). While previous work on similar Roman aqueducts yielded only estimates of maximum capacity, this work delves into the engineering of the ancient infrastructure to provide a more realistic assessment of theWater Supply discharge to the City. The physical configuration of the aqueducts is reinterpreted based on the latest archaeological records comprising Global Positioning System (GPS) measurements and field observations, and validated against modern satellite terrain data in a Geographic Information System (GIS). Refined estimates of length and gradient are proposed, along with a reassessment of all channel observations, bridges and tunnels along the system. It is found that the total length of the aqueducts would have been around 426 km if they operated as a single system, and up to 565 km if they continued in parallel all the way to Constantinople; the gradient of the system would have been well below 0.1% throughout, decreasing from upstream to downstream, with steeper slopes only at the intakes. To estimate reasoned inflow conditions for the Water Supply intakes at the time of its operation, modern spring flow records are investigated, and climatic changes from the Early Byzantine period are studied by means of Macrophysical Climate Modelling (MCM). Monthly and daily resolutions are addressed: monthly inflow data can capture the extent of the seasonal variations that may have occurred at the springs, accounting for karst hydrogeology; daily inflow data allows the study of flow attenuation in the Water Supply in the short term. Simplified models and engineering judgement are employed to recreate monthly and daily inflow series from limited modern data for karstic springs and weather stations in Thrace. The results from GIS mapping, combined with the proposed inflow scenarios, are used to develop open-channel flow modelling of the Water Supply at a global scale. Aqueduct flow is numerically simulated by means of both steady (monthly) and unsteady (daily) analysis using the river modelling software HEC-RAS. The system capacity and hydraulic performance are studied for the fourth and fifth century aqueducts operating either as parallel lines or joining into a single system. An estimation of water delivered to Constantinople is proposed for typical dry, average and wet years. Results of this work are employed in a parallel research investigation on the management and distribution of water within the ancient city.

S’il est généralement reconnu que le processus d’institutionnalisation de l’Église s’est accéléré au IVe siècle, certaines de ses étapes nous sont moins connues. Ce mémoire cherche à évaluer l’importance de Jean Chrysostome dans l’émergence de la primauté d’honneur de Constantinople. Après une étude attentive du troisième canon du concile de Constantinople I mise en relation avec l’opinion de trois auteurs contemporains, c’est-à-dire Palladius d’Hélénopolis, Socrate de Constantinople et Sozomène, il ressort de ce travail que l’épiscopat de Jean Chrysostome a favorisé l’implantation de cette prééminence dans l’Église. L’analyse des modalités de la primauté d’honneur de Constantinople montre bien qu’historiquement, les évêques de l’ancienne et de la nouvelle Rome n’ont pas construit leur primat à l’aide des mêmes arguments. L’explicitation de ces éléments ne se veut pas une prise de position dans les débats oecuméniques actuels, mais plutôt un préliminaire permettant une meilleure compréhension des données du problème. / Even though it is generally accepted that the Church institutionalization process accelerated in the IVth century, some of its steps are less known. This dissertation tries to assess John Chrysostom’s importance in the emergence of Constantinople’s primacy of honour. After a thorough study of the third canon of the council of Constantinople I and of the opinion of three contemporary authors, namely Palladius of Helenopolis, Socrates of Constantinople and Sozomenos, the results of this works are that John Chrysostom’s episcopate fostered the implementation of this preeminence in the Church. The analysis of the terms of the primacy of honour of Constantinople shows that historically, the bishops of Old and New Rome did not build their primacy with the same arguments. Clarifying these elements is not a way to make a stand in the current ecumenical debate, but rather is a preliminary step to a better understanding of the problem.

No description available.

The Disputatio cum Pyrrho purports to be a transcript of the 645 debate that took place in North Africa. The text initially addresses Monotheletism, the theology of the Constantinopolitan church that held that the Christ had a single will, then Monoenergism, which held that Christ possessed a single operation and which had in the 620’s and 630’s been the official position of the Constantinopolitan church, but which by 645 had been rejected and replaced by Monotheletism. Pyrrhus, the exiled, former Patriarch of Constantinople, represents the Monothelete and Monoenergist positions and Maximus the Confessor opposes them. Throughout the dialogue, Maximus repeatedly and overwhelmingly demonstrates the correctness of his position, eventually forcing Pyrrhus to renounce his position and to travel to Rome to receive absolution from the Pope. Traditionally scholars have accepted the authenticity of this document, and few have critically examined the claims the text makes about itself. The present study brings this authenticity into question, and reexamines the authorship, date, and purpose of the document, employing textual critiques and comparing the document with historical events later in the seventh century.