Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Byzantine Heritage => Topic started by: Frederika on April 21, 2005, 04:44:09 AM

Title: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Frederika on April 21, 2005, 04:44:09 AM
Could some one post some info on this empire and how it ended?
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: bluetoria on April 26, 2005, 10:55:27 AM
Hi Frederika!
There is a quite straightforward article about the Byzantine Empire here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03096a.htm
Title: Cantacuzene
Post by: Paul on April 29, 2005, 08:16:39 AM
Isn't the Romanian noble family of Cantacuzene recognised as being of Byzantine Imperial descent?

If memory serves, a John Cantacuzene reigned at Constantinople during the 12 or 1300s. He gave the Turks Gallipoli- their first toe-hold in Europe. whoops!
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: umigon on June 28, 2005, 06:01:25 AM
Here is a list of Byzantine Emperors:

 Arcadios                                         395 - 408
 Theodosius II                                    408 - 450
 Markianos                                        450 - 457
 Leo I                                            457 - 474
 Leo II                                           474
 Zeno                                             474 - 476
 Basiliskos                                       476 - 477
 Zeno (restored)                                  477 - 491
 Anastasios I                                     491 - 518

Justian family
 Justinus I                                       518 - 527
 Justinianus I "the Great"                        527 - 565
 Justinus II                                      565 - 578

Tiberian family
 Tiberius II                                      578 - 582

Kappadocian family
 Maurikios                                        582 - 602

Thrakian family
 Phokas                                           602 - 610

Heraklian family
 Héraklios                                        610 - 641
 Héraklonas                                       641
 Konstantinos III                                 641
 Konstans II                                      641 - 668
 Konstantinos IV                                  668 - 685
 Justinianus II "Cut nose"                        685 - 695

Leontian family
 Leontios                                         695 - 698

Apsimar family
 Tiberius III                                     698 - 705

Heraklian family
 Justinianus II "Cut nose"                        705 - 711

Bardenes family
 Filippikos                                       711 - 713

Artemian family
 Anastasios II                                    713 - 715

Theodosian family
 Theodosios III                                   715 - 717

Isaurian family
* Leo III                                          717 - 741
* Konstantinos V                                   741 - 775
* Leo IV "the Khazar"                              775 - 780

 Irene                                            780 - 790, regent

* Konstantinos VI                                  780 - 797

 Irene                                            792 - 802

Pisidian family
 Nikéforos I                                      802 - 811
 Staurakios                                       811

Rangabe family
* Michaél I                                        811 - 813

Armenian family
 Leo V                                            813 - 820

Frygian family
* Michaél II                                       820 - 829
* Theofilos                                        829 - 842

 Theodora                                         842 - 856, regent

* Michaél III "Mythistés"                          842/856 - 867

Macedonian family
* Basileos I                                       866 - 886
* Leo VI                                           886 - 912
* Alexandros                                       912 - 913
* Konstantinos VII                                 913 - 959

Lekapénos family
* Rómanos I "Lekapénos"                            919 - 944
* Christoforos                                     921 - 931

Macedonian family
* Rómanos II                                       959 - 963

Fokas family
 Nikéforos II                                     963 - 969

Tzimicses family
 Ióannés I                                        969 - 976

Macedonian dynasty
* Basileios II "Bulgar Slayer"                     976 - 1025
* Konstantinos VIII                                976 - 1028

 Rómanos III Argyros                             1028 - 1034

Paphlagon family
 Michaél IV                                      1034 - 1041
 Michaél V                                       1041 - 1042

Macedonian dynasty
* Theodora                                        1042
* Zoé                                             1042

 Konstantinos IX "Monomachos"                    1042 - 1055

Macedonian dynasty
* Theodora                                        1055 - 1056

Stratioticus family
 Michaél VI                                      1056 - 1057

Komnenos family
* Isaakios I                                      1057 - 1059

Dukas family
* Konstantinos X                                  1059 - 1067

Dalassena family
 Eudokia                                         1067

Diogenes family
 Rómanos V                                       1067 - 1071

Dukas family
* Michaél VII "Parapinaces"                       1071 - 1078

Botaneiates family
 Nikéforos III                                   1078 - 1081

Komnenos family
* Alexios I                                       1081 - 1118
* Ióannés II                                      1118 - 1143
* Manuél I                                        1143 - 1180
* Alexios II                                      1180 - 1183
* Andronikos I                                    1183 - 1185

Angelos family
* Issakios II                                     1185 - 1195
* Alexios III                                     1195 - 1203
* Issakios II                                     1203 - 1204 with
* Alexios IV                                      1203 - 1204

Dukas family
 Alexios V                                       1204

Laskaris family
* Théodoros I Laskaris                            1204 - 1222

Batatzes family
* Ióannés III Dukas Batatzes                      1222 - 1254 in Nicea
* Théodoros II                                    1254 - 1258
* Ióannés IV                                      1254 - 1261

Palaiologos family
* Michaél VIII                                    1261 - 1282
* Andronikos II                                   1282 - 1328
* Michaél IX                                      1295 - 1320
* Andronikos III                                  1325 - 1341
* Ióannés V                                       1341 - 1376

Kantakuzenos family
* Ióannés VI                                      1347 - 1354
* Matthias                                        1353 - 1357

Palaiologos family
* Andronikos IV                                   1376 - 1379
* Ióannés V                                       1379 - 1391
* Ióannés VII                                     1390
* Ióannés V                                       1390 - 1391
* Manuel II                                       1391 - 1425
* Ióannés VII                                     1399 - 1402/08
* Andronikos V                                         - 1408
* Ióannés VIII                                    1425 - 1448
* Konstantinos XI Dragasés                        1448 - 1453

(Note that there were some female rulers!). The Empire was conquered by the Turks in 1453, fact that for some historians means the development of Middle Ages into Modern Ages. For others the fact that would mean this is America's discovering by Christopher Columbus in 1492.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on June 28, 2005, 06:44:16 PM
If you want to know more about Byzantium you shouldn't start with Edward Gibbon's "Decline and fall of the Roman Empire". Historians agree today that this book is responsible for the modern misunderstanding of this "world". Think of only what the labeling "Byzantine" means today.

I would start with one of the books on the empire by Sir Steven Runciman. There is also a documentary about him called "Bridge to the East". Here is a part of a recent article you might find interesting:

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/laiou_runciman.html



Steven Runciman: A man who never grew tired


...
While Runciman wrote with a fluency that make his books a pleasure to read, he was at the same time a Byzantine historian who loved and respected the theme of his scholarly occupations. It is regrettable that the Anglo-Saxon school of Byzantinologists includes serious scholars of distinction and persuasiveness who loathed Byzantium, either because they saw it as obscurantist or because they thought of its religion as a negative phenomenon or because Byzantium was not ancient Greece or, contrarily, the Ottoman Empire. Rather than add here the transgressions of "liberal" historiography, I would mention in passing the fact that in contemporary Greece a deep-seated negative view of Byzantium is held, not by specialists but by a considerable segment of the educated public.

Runciman on the other hand had a very clear understanding of Byzantium. He considered the Byzantines to be the most civilized and enlightened of medieval peoples; in my opinion he was right. He was also one of the few non-Greek historians who saw in Byzantium the medieval age of Hellenism, just as he saw the continuity of Hellenism under Ottoman occupation. This was his great contribution to Byzantine historiography. From the Western European standpoint he was an irreproachable historian, for he was not a Greek and he could not be accused of having a Greek bias. He was moreover a historian with a profound knowledge of the sources and wrote about Byzantium both lovingly and respectfully in an alluring style. His books are reprinted to be read with pleasure by students, specialists and the public. His is an important contribution that has withstood the passing of the years.

I have not dwelt on Steven Runciman's major work, A History of the Crusades. I have repeatedly spoken about it, and thought I should focus this short appreciation elsewhere. But this inspired work cannot be wholly passed over, for it is a work which for the first time presented the Crusades as a cosmo-historic confrontation and the clash of three worlds, those of Byzantium, Islam and Western Europe. Runciman understood the significance of the Crusades as an international movement that led to the destruction of the outstanding medieval civilization, the civilization of the Christians of the East who, as he notes, were its main victims. He is one of the few Western European scholars of the Crusades, who has clearly and categorically condemned the movement. He condemned the Crusades as "nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God, which is a sin against the Holy Ghost". I was interested to see that the obituary published by The Times of London found in these words, which bring the History of the Crusades to a close, a kind of self-inflicted punishment, a self-flagellation of the West. This demonstrates that the historian's verdict on the Crusades has struck a chord and continues to disturb the Western conscience.

Runciman said that when he first came to Greece Byzantium was a neglected age. His work as well as his presence, his friendship with so many scholars, writers and historians, the persuasive nature of his conversation, his enthusiasm for Byzantium played an important part in the shaping of a more serious interest in that superb age of history both in Greece and in Western Europe and North America.

Angeliki A. Laiou
Title: Re: Cantacuzene
Post by: palimpsest on June 29, 2005, 03:42:47 AM
Quote
Isn't the Romanian noble family of Cantacuzene recognised as being of Byzantine Imperial descent?

If memory serves, a John Cantacuzene reigned at Constantinople during the 12 or 1300s. He gave the Turks Gallipoli- their first toe-hold in Europe. whoops!


The Cantacuzino family is a large one today and has played a very important role in Wallahia's history. They are related to the imperial dynasty with the same name. Other "Byzantine" families in Romania are: Ghyka, Mavrocordat, Paleologu. They all came to Wallahia and Moldavia from Constantinople [in the XVII century?] to by land and live because here they were more protected from the Turks, even if they still were under them.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0810233.html
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on July 31, 2005, 12:40:50 PM
The Cantacuzino Palace in Bucharest, now George Enescu museum [the composer married a Cantacuzene and lived here].

(http://img331.imageshack.us/img331/7061/10d48802403sc1wk.jpg)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on November 06, 2005, 07:22:31 PM
(http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/2019/12311074cf.jpg)

This undated handout photo shows a previously unknown silver coin marking the beginnings of Christianity in the Roman Empire on the date, May 11, 330 A.D. The coin was struck for the dedication of Constantinople as the capital of Constantine the Great's Christian Empire. The obverse has a portrait of Constantine and the reverse design depicts the goddess Roma, the embodiment of Rome. The coin, about the size of a U.S. half dollar and valued at $600,000, was bought at a coin show by ancient coin expert Harlan Berk of Chicago who realized its importance after extensive research. (AP Photo/Minkus & Dunne, HO)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Iskenderbey on November 07, 2005, 11:12:33 AM
Quote
Could some one post some info on this empire and how it ended?


The so called Byzantine Empire was in fact the Roman Empire, the Eastern part.  
There are many reasons why historians, especially in the 19th century, tried to distinguish between the Roman Empire and the "Byzantine" era.
Any google research would give you the reasons behind this.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on November 07, 2005, 01:42:27 PM
people insist on talking about "the fall of the Roman Empire" with the advent of Christianity and the "decadence of Byzantium"

this sort of interpretation is no longer sustainable

there is no such thing as the fall of the Roman Empire

maybe a long transformation


for me 1453 [the Fall of Constantinople] can be a better candidate for "The Fall"
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Branislav on November 08, 2005, 10:19:38 AM
There is an excellent web site devoted to late Greek theologian Fr. John Romanides, which has several articles on the false notions of "byzantine",  "Byzantium", "Byzantines", etc...:

http://www.romanity.org/

One of the articles is "What if anything is byzantine", by Clifton R. Fox Professor of History at Tomball College, TX.

http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm.

Regards,
Branislav
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on November 08, 2005, 10:57:25 AM
Thank you Branislav for the sites!

You are right about naming "Byzantium", it looks and feels like it was designed to down-grade it.

However, for lack of an accepted better name and to avoid confusion historians still speak of "Byzantium" and "Middle Ages" even if they know the problems with this naming.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Branislav on November 08, 2005, 12:57:47 PM
Yes, "palimpsest",

Especially, the notion of "DARK middle ages", ignores the fact of cultural flurishing in Byzantium during those "dark ages". But even regarding Western Europe, I strongly disagree about terming that period as "dark". Period that produced divine Gregorian Chant can only be full of divine Light. Seeing some darkness in it is possible only from, so to say, Marxist perspective on history (or more broadly - from materialistic point of view), where only material and economical  things matter.

Unfortunately, "Byzantium" was a product of a very unhappy politics, and it is not surprising that Byzantine Art is often placed out of context of so called "Western Art", and put, instead, next to Islamic Art, in general textbooks on Art History, like it had anything to do with Islam!

regards,
Branislav
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on November 08, 2005, 03:56:34 PM
I think "Byzantine" Art is related to Western Art but it isn't just a "part" of it. I think it has a distinct [how should I put this?]... "philosophical" foundation than Western Art. For me the "Western" world is defined mainly in comparison with Byzantium, so there is a difference, even if we are in the same "family".



There is another major problem. The lack of cooperation between "Post-Byzantine" Orthodox Countries. Romantic nationalism has divided orthodox nations into enclaves with little cultural exchange between them, much in contrast with "Byzantium". Even if "Byzantine" Orthodox ethos includes national/local cultural traditions with much more flexibility than "Western" Christianity, this advantage has become a disadvantage by ignoring each other. This is a product of a complicated history, but there is no reason for it to continue today.

So there is little surprise that the discourse about "Byzantium" is dominated by "Western" views and terms.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Branislav on November 09, 2005, 01:19:06 PM
Quote
I think "Byzantine" Art is related to Western Art but it isn't just a "part" of it. I think it has a distinct [how should I put this?]... "philosophical" foundation than Western Art. For me the "Western" world is defined mainly in comparison with Byzantium, so there is a difference, even if we are in the same "family".


My impression is that word "Western Art" has been constructed in contrast to all other Arts - Chinese, Arabic, Pre-Columbian, ... not primarily in contrast to Byzantine Art. Term "Western Art" is pretty vaguely defined. It is definitelly not based on geographic principle. But it is also not based on the principle of faith, since then Byzantium would be included. For me, Western Art is Christian Art. Christianity emerged in Middle East, not in England or France, and indeed, Middle East was the West for the Three Kings who came from the far East to pay respect to newly born Christ. So all Christian art should be called "western" if we don't want to discard term "western" alltogether.

Different "philosophical" foundation of "Byzantine" and "Western Art"? - I think, "philosophical" foundation was the same in the first 1,000 years, when there was unity between Rome and other Patriarchal sees. It is more Christian foundation then "philosophical". But after 1054, slowly but surely, and especially after St. Thomas Aquinas, and his "system", various philosophies emerged in the West, and took over theology, and later defined these differences between the "West" and "Byzantium".


Quote
see also:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=history;action=display;num=1121353312;start=0


This link is not working.

Quote
There is another major problem. The lack of cooperation between "Post-Byzantine" Orthodox Countries. Romantic nationalism has divided orthodox nations into enclaves with little cultural exchange between them, much in contrast with "Byzantium". Even if "Byzantine" Orthodox ethos includes national/local cultural traditions with much more flexibility than "Western" Christianity, this advantage has become a disadvantage by ignoring each other. This is a product of a complicated history, but there is no reason for it to continue today.

So there is little surprise that the discourse about "Byzantium" is dominated by "Western" views and terms.


I agree with this. But maybe Turkish conquest played some role too. When "Byzantine studies" were 'in statu nascendi' in western Europe, most of the Orthodox countries were still occupied by Otoman Empire. So, later, we all learned about Byzantium and its culture and Art from already established sources in the West, which in the meantime became dominant power, and thus able to dictate both terminology, approach, and the yard-stick with which everybody had to measure "other" arts and cultures.

But the truth is - as you said, that by ignoring each other, and taking national differences as more important than cultural similarities inherited from the Eastern Roman empire, Orthodox countries lost their "Byzantine Commonwealth" and the opportunity to participate and, indeed to lead, in defining what "Byzantine" actually is.

How true and sad is what you sad: "Romantic nationalism has divided orthodox nations into enclaves with little cultural exchange between them, much in contrast with "Byzantium" ", especially when you think that romantic nationalism was invented in western Europe, and then imported in Orthodox countries. (One can think of other parallels: Marxism was also invented in western Europe, not in Russia, or Bulgaria, and then imported in Orthodox countries).

I hope too that there is no reason for this fragmented life of post-Byzanitine countries to continue to exist today. As far as I follow, I am pleased to see increased cooperation, for instance, in Astronomy research between Bulgaria and Serbia. I believe there are other encouraging examples of cooperation.

Regards,
Branislav
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on November 10, 2005, 08:48:13 AM
These are "heavy" subjects and there is a lot to be said, but I'm very glad to talk about them with you!  :)



for the link try:


The Alexander Palace Discussion Board / Discussions about Russian History / Imperial Russian History / discussion about Orthodoxy (2)


for me there is a major difference between "Byzantium" and the "West" even in the first millennium, and that is in the understanding of language... "icon" doesn't mean the same thing in the "East" and in the "West"... to put it in a very un-sophisticated way: in the "West" language is seen as a tool - in the "East" language can never be seen as a mere tool... and this makes not only the role of art different, the implications are far greater


within the Ottoman Empire the main problem was that Christians had no right to institutionalized education... this was a radical change from "Byzantium" and had vast implications... only in some "Western" cities like Venice few wealthy Greeks could learn in schools [not under the authority of the Catholic Church]



all the best
from palimpsest
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Branislav on November 10, 2005, 11:00:45 AM
All pleasure is mine - "palimsest"!  :)

I will check that link, if it is more appropriate for this kind of discussion.

Regarding "icon" in "Byzantium" and in the West, and the understanding of language, I would like to hear more about that from you.

As well as about term "Middle Ages", since you said it is also not quite accurate. If you can elaborate on that, I would appreciate.

Just briefly here - in 8th (and 9th) century, during the time of Iconoclasm in "Byzantium", Rome defended Orthodoxy by proper understanding of the meaning of Icon, and rejected heretical views of the iconoclasts in Constantinople.

Are you saying that even then "Byzantium" had better understanding of language, i.e. of the notion of "Icon", then "the West" ? It definitelly had different understanding of "Icon" than "the West", but in this period this difference worked in favor of Rome who stood firmly with Orthodox understanding of the notion.

With best wishes,
Branislav

Quote
These are "heavy" subjects and there is a lot to be said, but I'm very glad to talk about them with you!  :)

for the link try:

The Alexander Palace Discussion Board / Discussions about Russian History / Imperial Russian History / discussion about Orthodoxy (2)

for me there is a major difference between "Byzantium" and the "West" even in the first millennium, and that is in the understanding of language... "icon" doesn't mean the same thing in the "East" and in the "West"... to put it in a very un-sophisticated way: in the "West" language is seen as a tool - in the "East" language can never be seen as a mere tool... and this makes not only the role of art different, the implications are far greater
.....


Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Alexios on November 10, 2005, 05:01:45 PM
Byzantium is an extremely broad topic, even though a surprising amount of people (at least in my experience) don't know what it is. As an introduction to this fascinating world I could recommend the following books:
- R.J. Lilie, Byzanz, das zweite Rom, 576 pages. (Unfortunately in German, but a good book, which successfully deals with some prejudices.)
- J.J. Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium, 496 pages. (I'd take the longer version in three volumes. It's popular scientific, but still a good read in my opinion).
- G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, 624 pages. (Some decades old, but still a standard work).
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Alexios on November 10, 2005, 06:21:31 PM
(This is a list of the Byzantine Emperors, which I created, translated from German.)
The Byzantine Emperors: 395 until 1453.
(http://www.callisto.si.usherb.ca/~croisade/IMAGES/const9.gif)
Arkadius (* 377, † 408 ) 395-408
Theodosius II (* 401, † 450) 408-450
Markianus (* ca. 396, † 457) 450-457
Leo I (sometimes called "the Great) (* ca. 400, † 474)      457-474
Patrikius (co-ruler) 468-471
Leo II (* 467, † 474) 474
Zeno (* 426, † 491) 474-475; 476-491
Basiliskus the Younger (co-ruler) 477
Marcianus (Usurper) 479
Illus (Usurper in Asia Minor und Syria) 482-488
Leontius (Usurper in Isauria) 484-488
Basiliskus († 476) 475-476
Marcus (co-emperor) 475-476
Zeno the Younger (Caesar) 475-476
Leo the Younger (Caesar) 475-476
Anastasius I (* ca. 431, † 518 ) 491-518
Areobindus (Usurper in Constantinople) 512
Vitalianus (Usurper in Thrace and Moesia) 513-515
Justinus I (* ca. 450, † 527) 518-527
Theokritos (pretender of the throne in Constantinople)      518
Jusitnianus I the Great (* 481/82, † 565) 527-565
Justinus II (* ca. 520, † 578 ) 565-578
Tiberius II Constantine (* ca. 550, † 582) 578-582
Germanos Augustus (co-emperor) 582      
Maurikius (* 539, † 602) 582-602
Theodosius (co-emperor)      590-602
Phokas (* ca. 547, † 610) 602-610
Herakleios I (* ca. 575, † 641) 610-641
Johannes of Compsa (Usurper in Naples) 616-617
Eleutherius (Usurper in Italy) 617-619
Athalarikos (Usurper) 635-636
David Tiberios (co-emperor) 639-641
Constantine III (* 612, † 641)      641
Herakleios II Herakleonas (* 615/27, † 641) 641
Constans II. the Bearded (* 630, † 668 ) 641-668
Maurikios Chartularios (Usurper in Rome) 642
Gregorios (Usurper in Africa) 646-647
Olympios (Usurper in Italy)      649-652
Herakleios (co-emperor)      659-669
Tiberios (co-emperor)      659-669
Eleutherios the Younger (Usurper in Carthage) 665-666
Saborios (Usurper in Armenia) 667-668
Constantine IV. (* ca. 652, † 685) 668-685
Mezezios (Usurper in Sicily) 668-669
Justinianos II (* ca. 669, † 711) 685-695; 705-711
Tiberios (co-emperor) 705-711
Leontios († 706) 695-698
Tiberios III († 706) 698-705
Philippikos Bardanes († 713) 711-713
Anastasios II († 718 ) 713-715
Theodosios III († 732) 715-717
Leon III the Syrian (* ca. 685, † 741) 717-741
Tiberios Basileios (Usurper in Sicily) 718
Anastasios II Artemios (Usurper in Thessalonike) 719
Kosmas (Usurper in Hellas) 727
Tiberios Petasius (Usurper in Rome) 730
Constantine V Kopronymos (* 718, † 775) 741-775
Artabasdos (Usurper in Asia Minor/Constantinople)       742-743
Nikephoros (co-emperor of Artabasdos) 742-743
Nikephoros (Caesar) 769-776
Christophoros (Caesar) 769-776
Leon IV  (* 750, † 780) 775-780
Constantine VI Porphyrogennetos (* 770/71, † 797)      780-797
Eirene (* 752, † 803) 797-802
Nikephoros I (* ca. 765, † 811)      802-811
Bardanes Turkos (Usurper in Asia Minor)      803
Staurakios (* 790, † 812) 811
Michael I Rhangabe († 844) 811-813
Thephylaktos (co-emperor) 811-813
Leon V the Armenian  (* ca. 770/80, † 820) 813-820
Symbatios Konstantinos (co-emperor) 813-820
Michael II the Stammerer (* ca. 780, † 829) 820-829
Thomas the Slav of Klaudiopolis (Usurper in Asia Minor and Thrace)      821-823
Euphemios (Usurper in Sicily) 827-828
Theophilos (* 804/12/13, † 842)      829-842
Alexios Musele (Caesar/heir apparent) 831-840
Michael III (* ca. 840, † 867) 842-867
Theodora (mother of Michael III/Regent)      842-855
Thekla (co-empress/Regent) 842-855
Bardas (Unclel/Regent/Caesar (from 862)) 856-866
Konstantinos (co-ruler)      856-866
Basileios I the Macedonian (* ca. 812, † 886) 866-886
Konstantinos (co-emperor) 869-879
Leon VI the Wise (* 866, † 912)      886-912
Andronikos Doukas (Usurper in Asia Minor) 905-906
Alexandros (* ca. 870, † 913)      912-913
Konstantin VII. Porphyrogennetos (* 905, † 959)      913-959
Nikolaos Mystikos (Regent/Patriarch of Constantinople)      913-914; 918-919
Konstantinos Doukas (Usurper in Constantinople) 913
Zoe Karbonopsina (Empress Mother/Regent) 914-918
Leon Phokas the Elder (Usurper in Asia Minor) 919
Romanos I Lakapenos (* ca. 870, † 948 )      920-944
Christopheros Lakapenos (co-emperor) 921-931
Stephanos Lakapenos (co-emperor) 924-945
Konstantinos Lakapenos (co-emperor) 924-945
Romanos II (* 937/38/39, † 963) 959-963
Nikephoros II Phokas (* 912, † 969) 963-969
Bardas Phokas the Elder (Caesar/Basileopator) 963-968
John I Tsimiskes (* ca. 925, † 976) 969-976
Leon Phokas the Younger (Usurper in Constantinoplel)      970
Bardas Phokas the Younger (Usurper in Asia Minor)      971; 987-989
Basileios II the Bulgar Slayer (* 957, † 1025)      976-1025
Basileios Lakapenos (Regent, Parakoimomenos, Proedros)       976-985
Bardas Skleros (Usurper in Asia Minor) 976-979; 987
Nikephoros Xiphias and Nikephoros Phokas (Usurpers in Asia Minor) 1022      
Constantine VIII (* 961, † 1025) 1025-1028
Romanos III Argyros (* 968, † 1034) 1028-1034
Michael IV Paphlagonios (* ca. 1005/10, † 1041) 1034-1041
Michael V Kalaphates (* ca. 1022/25, † 1042) 1041-1042
Zoe (* ca. 978/80, † 1050) and Theodora (* ca. 985, † 1056) 1042; 1055-1056
Theodosios (Usurper in Constantinople)      1056
Constantine IX. Monomachos (* ca. 1000, † 1055)      1042-1055
Georgios Maniakes (Usurper in the Balkans and in Italy)      1042-1043
Theophilos Erotikos (Usurper in Cyprus) 1043
Leon Tornikes (Usurper in Cyprus) 1047
Michael VI. Stratiotikos (* ca. 990, † 1059)1056-1057
Nikephoros Bryennios 1057
Isaak I Komnenos (* ca. 1007, † 1061) 1057-1059
Constantine X Dukas (* 1006/7, † 1067) 1059-1067
Andronikos Dukas (co-emperor)      1067-1070
Konstantinos Dukas (co-emperor)      1067-1070
Romanos IV Diogenes (* ca. 1020, † 1072) 1068-1071
Michael VII Dukas (* before 1055, † ca. 1090) 1071-1078
Ioannes Dukas (Caesar/Usurper in Asia Minor)      1073-1074
Roussel d’Bailleul (Usurper in Asia Minor) 1073-1074
Konstantinos Dukas (co-emperor, Caesar, heir apparent)      1074-1078; 1081-1092
Nikephoros Bryennios (Usurper in Dyrrhachion)      1077-1078
Nikephoros Basilakios (Usurper in Dyrrhachion) 1078-1079
Nikephoros III Botaneiates (* ca. 1005, † 1081)      1078-1081
Nikephoros Melissenos (Usurper in Nikaia) 1080-1081      
Alexios I Komnenos (* 1048/57, † 1118 ) 1081-1118
Konstantinos Diogenes (Usurper) 1094-1095
Leon Diogenes (Usurpator in Bulgaria) 1116
John II Komnenos (* 1087, † 1143) 1118-1143
Alexios Komnenons Porphyrrogennetos (co-emperor)      1123-1142
Konstantinos Gabras (Lord of Trebizond) 1125-1139
Manuel I Komnenos (* ca. 1120, † 1180)      1143-1180
Alexios Bela of Hungary (Despotes and heir apparent)      1167-1169
Alexios II Komnenos (* 1169, † 1183) 1180-1183
Maria of Antiocheia (Empress mother/Regent)      1180-1182
Ioannes Batatzes (Usurper in Philadelphia) 1182
Andronikos I Komnenos (* ca. 1111/20/23, † 1185)      1183-1185
Isaak Komnenos (Usurper in Cyprus) 1184-1191
Theodoros Mankaphas (Usurper in Lydia, Lord of Philadelphia) 1185; 1204-1206/7
Isaak II Angelos (* ca. 1155, † 1204)      1185-1195; 1203-1204
Alexios Branas (Usurper in Adrianopolis) 1186
Leon Sguros (Archon of Nauplia) 1186-1208
Alexios Kontostephanos (Usurper in Constantinople)      1195
Pseudo-Alexios II (Usurper in Bithynia und Paphlagonia)      1195
Alexios III Angelos (* ca. 1150, † 1211) 1195-1203
Isaak Komnenos (Usurper in the Sultanate of Rum)      1195-1196
Johannes Komnenos the Fat (Usurper in Constantinople)      1200
Manuel Kamytzes (Usurper in Thessaly, Makedonia, Greece)      1201
Johannes Spyridonakes (Usurper) 1201
Manuel Komnenos (Usurper) 1201
Johannitzes (Usurper) 1201
Michael Angelos Komnenos (Usurper in the Maiandro Valley)1201
Alexios IV Angelos (* 1182, † 1204) 1203-1204
Nikolaos Kanabos (Usurper in Constantinople) 1204
Alexios V Dukas Murtzuphlos (* ca. 1160, † 1204)      1204
Manuel Maurozomes (Lord of the Maiandros Valley) 1204-1206/7
Sabbas Asidenos (Lord of Sampson at Milet)      1204-1206/7
Leon Gabalas (Lord of Rhodos)      1204-?
John Gabalas (brother of Leon)      ?-ca. 1230
Konstantine XI Laskaris (* ca. 1170, † 1205) 1204-1205
1204-1261: Residence in Nikaia.
Theodore I Laskaris (* ca. 1175, † 1222) 1205-1222
Alexios III Angelos (counter-emperor in Anatolia)      1210-1211
Johannes III Dukas Vatatzes (* ca. 1193, † 1254)      1222-1254
Theodore II Laskaris (* ca. 1221/22, † 1258 ) 1254-1258
John IV Laskaris (* 1251, † 1305?) 1258-1261
Michael VIII Palaiologos (* ca. 1224/25, † 1282) 1261-1282
John (Usurper against Akritai in Asia Minor) 1262
Andronikos II Palaiologos (* 1259, † 1332) 1282-1328
Alexios Philanthropenos (Usurper in Asia Minor) 1296
Andronikos III Palaiologos (* ca. 1296, † 1341)      1328-1341
John V Palaiologos (* 1332, † 1391) 1341-1391
Anne of Savoy (Empress mother, Regent)      1341-1347
John Kalekas (Regent, Patriarch of Constantinople)      1341-1346
Alexios Apokaukos (Leader of the Regency, Megas Dux)      1341-1345
Alexios of Velikoma (Lord of Eion-Anaktoropolis)      1345-1350
Limpidarios (Lord of Ainos)      ca. 1354/55
Matthaios Kantakuzenos (co-emperor/Prince in Thrace)      1353-1357
Alexios Palaiologos (Megas Stratopedarches, Lord of Chrysopolis, Anaktoropolis and Thasos)      1357-before 1373
John Palaiologos (Megas Primikerios, Lord of Chrysopolis, Anaktoropolis and Thasos) 1357-before 1373      
John VI Kantakuzenos (* ca. 1295, † 1383) 1347-1354
Andronikos IV Palaiologos (* ca. 1348, † 1385) 1376-1379
John VII Palaiologos (* 1370, † 1408 ) 1390
Manuel II Palaiologos (* 1350, † 1425) 1391-1425
Theodosios Kyprios (Usurper in Constantinople) 1402
John VIII Palaiologos (* 1392, † 1448 )      1425-1448
Constantin XI/XII/XIII Palaiologos (* 1404, † 1453) 1448-1453
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on November 10, 2005, 09:24:16 PM
Alexios

Welcome to the forum!
I like your pseudonym!





Branislav


about iconoclasm

1. iconoclasm was the first time when the "West" [i.e. Rome] understood that "Byzantium" could be wrong, and the undisputed authority it had in Christendom gradually diminished

2. even if at that time Rome maintained an "iconodule" position this doesn't mean that it had the kind of implicit understanding of language that was in place in the "East" inspire of iconoclasm; gradually all that is related to The Holy Spirit -including icons- became down-graded [or at least in comparison with the East]; so even if they had "icons" they probably regarded them somewhat different

3. one of the reasons for iconoclasm is that icons were [in the eyes of the iconoclasts] to important; this was a problem in the East, but not so much in the West;




about the "middle ages"

1. the first problem with it is that it is supposed to grasp such a long history, so complex, that it loses its sense, it really is meaningless

2. the name itself has come to be associated with the common prejudice that this was a "problematic"/dark age, something that was “overcome” by what followed

3. no serious historian can speak today with ease about the "middle ages" in general





about language I'll speak another time





Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Branislav on November 10, 2005, 11:37:56 PM
Dear palimpsest,

Thank you for your reply. I generally agree with your point of view on Byzantium and the West. It is a very complex and rich subject though, so I don't think we completely understend everything that is important to understand there.

I looked at the other link with discussions on Orthodoxy, and I came accross one discussion exchange between you and "bluetoria".

First you said:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"bluetoria

The Holy Ghost is considered to be "created" in the west, while The Father and The Son are considered to be "uncreated", even though they are said to be "equal". These means that the powers that the Church has are only spiritual aids, and true union with God is possible only after Purgatory [not an issue in the east].  

In the east all three persons of the Trinity are "uncreated" and "full" union with God [his uncreated energies or Holy Ghost], or Deification, is possible even from this life".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

and "bluetoria" replied:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Palimpsest, this is not quite accurate. The Western Church doesn't believe the Holy Spirit was created - because the Holy Spirit is God. It is said in the Nicene Creed:

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified.

The 'proceeds' from doesn't mean 'created by' it simply means the Holy Spirit is the action of God (if you will) but also a person of the Trinity, one and co-equal with the Father & the Son. (When it comes down to it these theologies do turn rather into how many angels can dance on a pin head, don't they?)".
------------------------------------------------------------------------

You did not comment on one important part in this answer.

Niceene Creed does not say "who proceeds from the Father and the Son", but: "who proceeds from the Father".
This is the famous "filioque", and this constitutes the main reason why Holy Ghost is understood differently in the West.

You said, on the other hand: "The Holy Ghost is considered to be "created" in the west", and "with God [his uncreated energies or Holy Ghost]...".

I think you are mixing God's uncreated energies, with the Third Hypostasis of Holy Trinity - Holy Ghost. In the West they always believed that Holy Ghost is uncreated because He is God, third of His Hypostasis. But they did not understand St. Gregory Palamas in 14th century and his teaching about uncreated energies of God, as always believed in the Orthodox Church. Holy Ghost is not God's uncreated energies. Uncreated energies are manifestation of the whole Holy Trinity.

Here is an excerpt:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia): “The Orthodox Church”, pp. 77-78

“From this, Gregory [Palamas (1296-1359), Archbishop of Thessalonica] turned to the main problem: how to combine the two affirmations, that man knows God and that God is by nature unknowable. Gregory answered: we know the _energies_ of God, but not His _essence_. This distinction between God's essence (ousia) and His energies goes back to the Cappadocian Fathers. "We know our God from His energies", wrote Saint Basil, "but we do not claim that we can draw near to His essence." ... But however remote from us in His essence, yet in His energies God has revealed Himself to men. These energies are not something that exists apart from God, not a gift which God confers upon men: they are God Himself in His action and revelation to the world. God exists complete and entire in each of His divine energies. The world, as Gerard Manley Hopkins said, is charged with the grandeur of God; all creation is a gigantic Burning Bush, permeated but not consumed by the ineffable and wondrous fire off God's energies.

It is through these energies that God enters into a direct and Immediate relationship with mankind. In relation to man, the divine energy is in fact nothing else than the _grace_of_God_; grace is not just a "gift" of God, not just an object which God bestows on men, but a direct manifestation of the living God Himself, a personal confrontation between creature and Creator. "Grace signifies all the abundance of the divine nature, in so far as it is communicated to men." [V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p 162] When we say that the saints have been transformed... by the grace of God, what we mean is that they have a direct experience of God Himself. They Know God--that is to say, God in His energies, not in His essence”.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

St Gregory Palamas exposed this teaching of God's uncreated energies (which was always believed in Church) in his disputes with Barlaam of Calabria, Gregory Akindynos, and Nikephoros Gregoras. This was the final act in the process of divergence between East and West, in their understading of Christianity.

Regards,
Branislav

 

Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Branislav on November 11, 2005, 10:49:08 AM
Here are the links to the three very interesting articles on so called "Palamite controversy", i.e. on God's uncreated energies through which we know Him, as opposed to His essence which we can never have knowledge about. St. Gregory Palama's writing on this topic is along the lines of  the Orthodox Church Tradition to distinguish between cataphatic ("positive") and apophatic (negative) theology. "Positive" in the sense that there are things we can know about God (like His energies), and "negative" in the sense that there are things we can not positively know about God (like His essence).

[1] Notes on the Palamite Controversy and Related Topics
Part I
by Fr. John S. Romanides


http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frjr_notes1.aspx


[2] Notes on the Palamite Controversy and Related Topics
Part II
by Fr. John S. Romanides

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frjr_notes2.aspx


[3] THE HUMANIST QUEST FOR A UNITY OF
KNOWLEDGE AND THE ORTHODOX
METAPHYSICS OF LIGHT

A Corrective to Father Meyendorff’s
Misunderstanding of the Theology
of St. Gregory Palamas*

By The Right Reverend Dr. Auxentios
Titular Bishop of Photiki

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/MeyCorr.pdf


With best wishes,
Branislav
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Tania+ on November 15, 2005, 11:37:29 PM
Thank you for your input on the threads of The Byzantine Empire. You have given me a start for my winter reading. God Bless !

Tatiana


Quote
Dear palimpsest,

Thank you for your reply. I generally agree with your point of view on Byzantium and the West. It is a very complex and rich subject though, so I don't think we completely understend everything that is important to understand there.

I looked at the other link with discussions on Orthodoxy, and I came accross one discussion exchange between you and "bluetoria".

First you said:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"bluetoria
 
The Holy Ghost is considered to be "created" in the west, while The Father and The Son are considered to be "uncreated", even though they are said to be "equal". These means that the powers that the Church has are only spiritual aids, and true union with God is possible only after Purgatory [not an issue in the east].  
 
In the east all three persons of the Trinity are "uncreated" and "full" union with God [his uncreated energies or Holy Ghost], or Deification, is possible even from this life".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

and "bluetoria" replied:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Palimpsest, this is not quite accurate. The Western Church doesn't believe the Holy Spirit was created - because the Holy Spirit is God. It is said in the Nicene Creed:
 
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified.
 
The 'proceeds' from doesn't mean 'created by' it simply means the Holy Spirit is the action of God (if you will) but also a person of the Trinity, one and co-equal with the Father & the Son. (When it comes down to it these theologies do turn rather into how many angels can dance on a pin head, don't they?)".
------------------------------------------------------------------------

You did not comment on one important part in this answer.

Niceene Creed does not say "who proceeds from the Father and the Son", but: "who proceeds from the Father".
This is the famous "filioque", and this constitutes the main reason why Holy Ghost is understood differently in the West.

You said, on the other hand: "The Holy Ghost is considered to be "created" in the west", and "with God [his uncreated energies or Holy Ghost]...".

I think you are mixing God's uncreated energies, with the Third Hypostasis of Holy Trinity - Holy Ghost. In the West they always believed that Holy Ghost is uncreated because He is God, third of His Hypostasis. But they did not understand St. Gregory Palamas in 14th century and his teaching about uncreated energies of God, as always believed in the Orthodox Church. Holy Ghost is not God's uncreated energies. Uncreated energies are manifestation of the whole Holy Trinity.

Here is an excerpt:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia): “The Orthodox Church”, pp. 77-78

“From this, Gregory [Palamas (1296-1359), Archbishop of Thessalonica] turned to the main problem: how to combine the two affirmations, that man knows God and that God is by nature unknowable. Gregory answered: we know the _energies_ of God, but not His _essence_. This distinction between God's essence (ousia) and His energies goes back to the Cappadocian Fathers. "We know our God from His energies", wrote Saint Basil, "but we do not claim that we can draw near to His essence." ... But however remote from us in His essence, yet in His energies God has revealed Himself to men. These energies are not something that exists apart from God, not a gift which God confers upon men: they are God Himself in His action and revelation to the world. God exists complete and entire in each of His divine energies. The world, as Gerard Manley Hopkins said, is charged with the grandeur of God; all creation is a gigantic Burning Bush, permeated but not consumed by the ineffable and wondrous fire off God's energies.

It is through these energies that God enters into a direct and Immediate relationship with mankind. In relation to man, the divine energy is in fact nothing else than the _grace_of_God_; grace is not just a "gift" of God, not just an object which God bestows on men, but a direct manifestation of the living God Himself, a personal confrontation between creature and Creator. "Grace signifies all the abundance of the divine nature, in so far as it is communicated to men." [V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p 162] When we say that the saints have been transformed... by the grace of God, what we mean is that they have a direct experience of God Himself. They Know God--that is to say, God in His energies, not in His essence”.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

St Gregory Palamas exposed this teaching of God's uncreated energies (which was always believed in Church) in his disputes with Barlaam of Calabria, Gregory Akindynos, and Nikephoros Gregoras. This was the final act in the process of divergence between East and West, in their understading of Christianity.

Regards,
Branislav

  


Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Branislav on November 16, 2005, 11:20:32 AM
Dear Tatiana,
Christ in our midst!

I am glad you found it interesting.

What is better than to spend winter reading books, in a warm room, and look through the window how snow is quietly falling on Earth!?  :)

I am planning to do the same!  :)

God Bless you!
In Christ,
Branislav


Quote
Thank you for your input on the threads of The Byzantine Empire. You have given me a start for my winter reading. God Bless !

Tatiana

Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on November 19, 2005, 12:59:52 PM
Quote
Dear palimpsest,

Thank you for your reply. I generally agree with your point of view on Byzantium and the West. It is a very complex and rich subject though, so I don't think we completely understend everything that is important to understand there.

I looked at the other link with discussions on Orthodoxy, and I came accross one discussion exchange between you and "bluetoria".

First you said:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"bluetoria
 
The Holy Ghost is considered to be "created" in the west, while The Father and The Son are considered to be "uncreated", even though they are said to be "equal". These means that the powers that the Church has are only spiritual aids, and true union with God is possible only after Purgatory [not an issue in the east].  
 
In the east all three persons of the Trinity are "uncreated" and "full" union with God [his uncreated energies or Holy Ghost], or Deification, is possible even from this life".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

and "bluetoria" replied:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Palimpsest, this is not quite accurate. The Western Church doesn't believe the Holy Spirit was created - because the Holy Spirit is God. It is said in the Nicene Creed:
 
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified.
 
The 'proceeds' from doesn't mean 'created by' it simply means the Holy Spirit is the action of God (if you will) but also a person of the Trinity, one and co-equal with the Father & the Son. (When it comes down to it these theologies do turn rather into how many angels can dance on a pin head, don't they?)".
------------------------------------------------------------------------

You did not comment on one important part in this answer.

Niceene Creed does not say "who proceeds from the Father and the Son", but: "who proceeds from the Father".
This is the famous "filioque", and this constitutes the main reason why Holy Ghost is understood differently in the West.

You said, on the other hand: "The Holy Ghost is considered to be "created" in the west", and "with God [his uncreated energies or Holy Ghost]...".

I think you are mixing God's uncreated energies, with the Third Hypostasis of Holy Trinity - Holy Ghost. In the West they always believed that Holy Ghost is uncreated because He is God, third of His Hypostasis. But they did not understand St. Gregory Palamas in 14th century and his teaching about uncreated energies of God, as always believed in the Orthodox Church. Holy Ghost is not God's uncreated energies. Uncreated energies are manifestation of the whole Holy Trinity.

Here is an excerpt:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia): “The Orthodox Church”, pp. 77-78

“From this, Gregory [Palamas (1296-1359), Archbishop of Thessalonica] turned to the main problem: how to combine the two affirmations, that man knows God and that God is by nature unknowable. Gregory answered: we know the _energies_ of God, but not His _essence_. This distinction between God's essence (ousia) and His energies goes back to the Cappadocian Fathers. "We know our God from His energies", wrote Saint Basil, "but we do not claim that we can draw near to His essence." ... But however remote from us in His essence, yet in His energies God has revealed Himself to men. These energies are not something that exists apart from God, not a gift which God confers upon men: they are God Himself in His action and revelation to the world. God exists complete and entire in each of His divine energies. The world, as Gerard Manley Hopkins said, is charged with the grandeur of God; all creation is a gigantic Burning Bush, permeated but not consumed by the ineffable and wondrous fire off God's energies.

It is through these energies that God enters into a direct and Immediate relationship with mankind. In relation to man, the divine energy is in fact nothing else than the _grace_of_God_; grace is not just a "gift" of God, not just an object which God bestows on men, but a direct manifestation of the living God Himself, a personal confrontation between creature and Creator. "Grace signifies all the abundance of the divine nature, in so far as it is communicated to men." [V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p 162] When we say that the saints have been transformed... by the grace of God, what we mean is that they have a direct experience of God Himself. They Know God--that is to say, God in His energies, not in His essence”.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

St Gregory Palamas exposed this teaching of God's uncreated energies (which was always believed in Church) in his disputes with Barlaam of Calabria, Gregory Akindynos, and Nikephoros Gregoras. This was the final act in the process of divergence between East and West, in their understading of Christianity.

Regards,
Branislav

  



You might be right Branislav!
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on November 19, 2005, 01:11:18 PM
Quote
Here are the links to the three very interesting articles on so called "Palamite controversy", i.e. on God's uncreated energies through which we know Him, as opposed to His essence which we can never have knowledge about. St. Gregory Palama's writing on this topic is along the lines of  the Orthodox Church Tradition to distinguish between cataphatic ("positive") and apophatic (negative) theology. "Positive" in the sense that there are things we can know about God (like His energies), and "negative" in the sense that there are things we can not positively know about God (like His essence).

[1] Notes on the Palamite Controversy and Related Topics
Part I
by Fr. John S. Romanides


http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frjr_notes1.aspx


[2] Notes on the Palamite Controversy and Related Topics
Part II
by Fr. John S. Romanides

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frjr_notes2.aspx


[3] THE HUMANIST QUEST FOR A UNITY OF
KNOWLEDGE AND THE ORTHODOX
METAPHYSICS OF LIGHT

A Corrective to Father Meyendorff’s
Misunderstanding of the Theology
of St. Gregory Palamas*

By The Right Reverend Dr. Auxentios
Titular Bishop of Photiki

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/MeyCorr.pdf


With best wishes,
Branislav


Thank you for the readings B.

I know The Right Reverend Dr. Auxentios
Titular Bishop of Photiki [and also The Right Reverend Chrisostomos
Titular Bishop of Etna]
I was a student of both of them for one year in Bucharest
Unfortunately I'm not an educated theologian so I may lack serious insights in such important matters, but I try ;D


Glad to hear that you read them Tania!


Best from
palimpsest
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Branislav on November 21, 2005, 10:46:59 AM
Dear palimsest,

You had a great privilege being able to study with them!

It is pretty worthless to know all theology and to have cold heart. I am not an educated theologian either - it just happened that I was interested in St. Gregory Palamas and this subject so I read few things about it.

You give us on this list much more - your love for the Orthodox Church, and your love toward all people who are all God's children. This is what matters, and it is a real virtue of heart, while knowledge of theology, per se,  is not.

I am still thinking about what you said - how good it would be if post-byzantine countries would turn more attention toward each other, and start to resemble again byzantine commonwealth, understanding their national(istic) differences as secondary, and their common faith - as primary in their neighborly relationships. It would be really good, indeed!

By the way, I admire Emil Cioran - Romanian/French writer and philosopher, who at first sight looks to some  maybe like a nihillist, but carefull reading reveals him as one of the rare modern philosophers who is drawing his inspiration from Early Church Fathers and desert monasticism - although always in a hidden way.

All the best,
Branislav

Quote

Thank you for the readings B.

I know The Right Reverend Dr. Auxentios
Titular Bishop of Photiki [and also The Right Reverend Chrisostomos
Titular Bishop of Etna]
I was a student of both of them for one year in Bucharest ....


Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Alexios on November 21, 2005, 12:28:35 PM
Quote
I am still thinking about what you said - how good it would be if post-byzantine countries would turn more attention toward each other, and start to resemble again byzantine commonwealth, understanding their national(istic) differences as secondary, and their common faith - as primary in their neighborly relationships. It would be really good, indeed!

I hope that people become more aware of the Byzantine past in general. Byzantium, probably the most civilized state during the Middle Ages (e.g. for centuries, perhaps you could say until 1204, Constantinople was Christianity's only real metropolis), was more than some last twichtes of the Roman Empire, it managed to survive for over a thousand years after all. Today's Europe would be indeed unthinkable without the Byzantine Empire, which acted as a bulwark against Islam and saved a very considerable amout of the ancient classics, that are such an important element of our modern European culture...
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on November 21, 2005, 03:02:56 PM
Alexios
you are right, of course, but we would have learned nothing from our history if we would become proud, even of our history!
if the West should teaches us something, then that is the importance of being humble!

Branislav
sometimes I think an Orthodox Commonwealth would be capable of cultivating a better civilization than the one we find ourselves in... however, I have serious doubts about this kind of thoughts... we should better think about our own weaknesses first and foremost [and they are many, aren't they?]

Emil Cioran is a skillful writer, I know more about him from commentaries than from his own works I'm afraid, so I don't have a definite opinion about him, just a partial admiration
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Branislav on November 21, 2005, 03:54:02 PM
Dear Alexios,

Quote
Byzantium, ...,  was more than some last twichtes of the Roman Empire, ....


It was the Roman Empire, the East Roman Empire! So as palimpsest once said, the fall of Roman Empire occured in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople, not in 476 with the fall of western part of Roman Empire.

And definitelly, the influx of "Byzantines" in the West during the final siege of Byzantium and after the fall of Constantinople, triggered Rennaissance, i.e rediscovering of ancient Greece and Rome by West Europeans, under the influence of the civilization which represented the continuation of ancient Rome (and Greece), of course within Christian framework.

I agree with palimpsest that people should not be too proud about their past and heritage in the sense that this becomes PRIDE, and that starts running against other peoples heritages. But they also should not feel humiliated, of lesser value then those who are rich and powerful today, they should not feel like second class citizens, third world citizens, etc... Indeed nobody should feel like that. Instead, they should love and know their own heritage, so that in this way, having roots in their own culture, and neccessary knowledge about it, they can love and understand other and different cultures.

regards,
Branislav
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Branislav on November 21, 2005, 04:08:07 PM
Dear palimpsest,

Quote

sometimes I think an Orthodox Commonwealth would be capable of cultivating a better civilization than the one we find ourselves in... however, I have serious doubts about this kind of thoughts... we should better think about our own weaknesses first and foremost [and they are many, aren't they?]


Today's "Orthodox commonwealth" - of course I did not mean something like European Union. I meant friendly mutual relations of brotherly love. Instead of waging mutual wars because of excess of ugly nationalism, it would be wiser to realise that national differences are not that important compared to the commonly shared faith.

That was an interesting text on Heidegger  you sent ...

regards,
Branislav

Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: romios on November 21, 2005, 06:52:08 PM
I just stumbled across your conversation! Think of the magnificence of a commonwealth of orthodox/byzantium states! Imagine the glory, the honour, the learning the restoration of culture. It would be like the fourth crusade had never hapened!
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Alexios on November 22, 2005, 11:16:50 AM
Quote
Dear Alexios,

It was the Roman Empire, the East Roman Empire! So as palimpsest once said, the fall of Roman Empire occured in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople, not in 476 with the fall of western part of Roman Empire.

People like thinking that Byzantium was only the heir of the Roman Empire. The Byzantine Empire never had that view. To say that the Empire ended in 476 would be absolutely foolish, since the Eastern Empire continued as before and the Eastern Emperor was acknowledged by Odacer as overlord of Italy (Under Justinian Italy was reconquered anyway, and Rome was under the wings of Byzantium until the middle of the 8th century). There was no reason for Byzantium to regard itself no longer as the Roman Empire until the second third of the 7th century, when Byzantium suffered a huge decline in territory and power. And also after that - as long as they held the city of Constantinople, the New Rome, they didn't doubt their claim. Until 1453 the  difference between reality and the claim became larger. Of course the history of Byzantium is not one of constant decline, but after the conquest of Syria and Egypt in the 630s and 40s, it would never regain its old power. By the 9th century it no longer had to struggle for survival against an Arab invasion and regained huge territories in the second half of the 10th century and in the early 11th century, especially under the Emperors Nikephoros II, John I and Basil II. The disaster of the defeat of Mantzikert (1071) was not necessary, but nonetheless it happened, leading to the loss of most of Asia Minor, but Byzantium still had quite an important role for another century, under the Comnenoi (1081-1185), which was not a period of decline, but one of rise compared with the situation after Mantzikert. The disaster of 1204 finally destroyed almost every hope to rise in power again. Constantinople was recovered in 1261, but after that the history is sadly one of constant decline in power, although art and culture in this period prospered.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Branislav on November 22, 2005, 12:06:59 PM
There is an excellent book about history of "byzantine" literature, from which one can clearly get the feeling about Romanity of so called "Byzantine empire":

Averincev, Sergej Sergejevic: "The Poetics of the Early Byzantine Literature". Belgrade, SKZ, 1982, (Moscow, Science, 1977).

I am not sure if there is yet an english translation of this masterpiece of scholarship. Bahtin has been translated in English, but I am not sure about Averincev. If there is somebody who knows I would appreciate the info.

Branislav
PS - palimpsest, what happend with that text on Heidegger which I saw in an instance of time and than it disappeared?  :)

Quote
People like thinking that Byzantium was only the heir of the Roman Empire. The Byzantine Empire never had that view. To say that the Empire ended in 476 would be absolutely foolish, since the Eastern Empire continued as before and the Eastern Emperor was acknowledged by Odacer as overlord of Italy (Under Justinian Italy was reconquered anyway, and Rome was under the wings of Byzantium until the middle of the 8th century).

Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: romios on November 22, 2005, 06:32:53 PM
Branislav,
Thank you for your post about the Balkans and the way people see themselves. The Byzantine empire was without a shadow of doubt the most illustrious of human civilization in the sense that it reigned supreme for many hundreds of years and it considered itself to be the modern metamorphosis of the Roman Empire. Having studied many writings in both Greek(Byzantine) and English and read modern scholars,Runciman and Norwich,I often feel the modern history has done a diservice to it because the Empire  is not well known nor generally understood. One fine such example of misconception  is the birth of the Rennaissance immeadiately after the fall of the Polis and the people who created it by escaping from her.It has always been my strong belief that the Empire unified and strenghtend many different tribes/people  under one system and religion and was hence able to create the wonders that it did.I do not believe that their exists another example in history of so many different groups assimilating and being able to live in peace with one another(not their enemies) for so long and able to regard one central place and one central idea as belonging to all of them!
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Branislav on November 23, 2005, 11:44:11 AM
Romios,

Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans was the greatest tragedy in Christian world. My wife, who is an Art Historian, turned my attention to Steven Runciman. Whenever she re-reads pages from his "Fall of Constantinople", she gets excited and, as she says, hopes it won't fall this time! Runciman is a very good writer.

The cultural influence of "Byzantium" on the western parts of Europe is obvious. For instance, even organ, so typical for western churches, was actually brought to the west from "Byzantium" in 757 at the court of Frankish king Pepin the Short, as the Emperor's gift. On www.answers.com we read:

Quote
Evidence of the first purely pneumatic organ is found on an obelisk erected at Byzantium before A.D. 393. Byzantium became the center of organ building in the Middle Ages, and in 757 Constantine V presented a Byzantine organ to Pepin the Short. This is the earliest positive evidence of the appearance of the organ in Western Europe. By the 10th cent., however, organ building had made considerable progress in Germany and England. The organ built c.950 in Winchester Cathedral is said to have had 400 pipes and 26 bellows and required two players and 70 men to operate the bellows.


It is interesting to listen French ensemble for medieval music "Organum", lead by Marcel Peres.
Peres did a lot of research on Byzantine influence in Western medieval music, and created series of CDs where his singers sing with ornamentation, not flat. He even invited Greek tenor Lykourgos Angelopoulos and made couple of CDs with him singing together, in a style which he believes was used in many western churches in Middle Ages when Byzantium dominated culturally.

It is interesting to compare "Ensemble Organum" with "Hilliard ensemble" who sings extremely flat! I like both approaches.

Just one question, what did you mean by this:

Quote
....
I often feel the modern history has done a diservice to it because the Empire  is not well known nor generally understood. One fine such example of misconception  is the birth of the Rennaissance immeadiately after the fall of the Polis and the people who created it by escaping from her.
...


What is the misconception you are talking about here?

Regards,
Branislav
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: romios on November 23, 2005, 07:06:07 PM
The misconception that I am referring to is that it was primarilly Byzantine scholars,priests,noblemen etc(who left Constantinople) that sped up the culturalization of Western Europe and that it is so unknown in modern European society.  
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: dvoretzky on November 24, 2005, 12:19:54 AM
Let me draw your attention to the fact that many representatives of the virtual Orthodox Commonwealth died defending Constantinople, including scions of the Bulgarian Assen dynasty. You can find the names of other Balkan noblemen by googling.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: romios on November 24, 2005, 12:37:14 AM
Dvoretzky,
what does that mean or is it a nick name?
I am at work and as such do not have the lists in front of me but here goes.
Defending the battlements of the Polis there included,Venetians,Turks,Genoese,Greeks,Bulgars,Norse(english scandanavian etc).
When a count of all able bodied men within the walls was mage by the Emperors Exarch it was found that there wer only 6500 available men to defend the city of which some 450 were men of the cloth both orthodox and catholic! Of the remainder some estimated 30%were men who did not regard them selves as Byzantines but were there because they were either traders or mercenaries!Sad reallywhen  you think about  what state of disrepair the Empire had fallen to.
It is interesting to know that Sultan Mehmet's younger brother who had rebelled against his brother and had attempted to wrest the throne for himself was one who had sought refuge from Paleologue and who not only defended the battlements but was subsequently captured and beheaded after he was discovered posing as an Orthodox monk attempting to escape!
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: dvoretzky on November 24, 2005, 11:30:42 AM
I am sorry, I cannot find an online listing now. Several months ago I saw the names of at least two Asanes who died defending Constantinople. I am sure you know that the Asanes were descendents of King Mitzo Asen.
one interesting detail: "Constantine had asked for one of his brothers, Thomas or Demetrios, to come from the Morea to swell the ranks of defenders. The Sultan had foreseen this possibility. Tο keep them where they were, he ordered the elderly Turahan to invade the Morea again in October 1452, taking with him a large army and his sons Umur and Ahmed. The Hexamilion wall was nο longer in their way and they plundered all the Peloponnese from Corinth down to Messenia. Οnly one setback marred their victory. Ιn an encounter with the army of the Despotate, Matthew Asen, one of the officers of Demetrios, captured Turahan's son Ahmed. He was carried away as a prisoner to Mistra. Ιt was a small triumph but an encouraging one."
[glb][/glb] http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/nicol_fall.html
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on November 26, 2005, 11:29:34 AM
I always wondered if the organ was used in church services in "Byzantium".



It was God's will that [political] “Byzantium” should fade away and the “West” should rise to dominate even the “East”. I’m sure this happened so that we might learn some important lessons.

Perhaps one of the lessons is to always be humble, remembering the priority our Church Fathers put on this virtue!





Monks come to blows at rebel monastery in Vatican dispute
Orthodox monks traded blows yesterday in the Mount Athos monastic community in northern Greece as a bitter fight between church authorities and a rebel monastery turned violent. (Telegraph, UK)
________________________________________

(Filed: 25/11/2005)
Orthodox monks traded blows yesterday in the Mount Athos monastic community in northern Greece as a bitter fight between church authorities and a rebel monastery turned violent.
A spokesman for the besieged Esphigmenou Monastery said workmen and rival monks tried to demolish the community's offices at Karyes, the administrative centre of the medieval sanctuary - from which women and female animals are banned.
"They used pickaxes, spades and crowbars to try to break down the door," said Father Neophytos. "They were trying to throw us out."
Police said nobody was injured in the clashes.
In a dispute spanning three decades, the zealot monks staunchly oppose efforts to improve relations between the Orthodox Church and the Vatican.
The spiritual leader of the world's Orthodox Christians, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, has declared the monks in the 1,000-year-old monastery to be schismatics, and ordered them out of the walled compound.
But the 100 monks of Esphigmenou, one of 20 monasteries at Athos, have settled in for a long siege.
However, their supplies are dwindling and the monks' telephone line was cut last month. They are now relying on mobile phones.
The sanctuary is popular with Christian pilgrims.
The Prince of Wales is a regular visitor to Mount Athos and President Vladimir Putin spent time there in August.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Alexios on November 26, 2005, 01:29:47 PM
How interesting...thank you, palimpsest.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Branislav on November 26, 2005, 05:52:58 PM
Palimpsest,

Quote
I always wondered if the organ was used in church services in "Byzantium".
 

Organ was not used in church services in Byzantium. Only at the court and for weddings, and other secular celebrations.

Even in the West, it was introduced in church services quite late.

Look at: http://www.westfield.org/curious.htm.

Quote
OUT OF THE CIRCUS AND INTO THE  CHURCH
The organ began making its way into churches around 900 CE. Exactly how and why remains an enigma, but it appears that the organ was first used for ceremonial purposes. By the 1400s, the use of organs was well established in monastic churches and cathedrals throughout Europe. Large and small organs were in use on festival occasions and in alternation with church choirs for liturgical purposes. While most Americans may link the organ to the church, the instrument was around for more than 1100 years before it made its way into a church setting.


Regards,
Branislav
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on November 27, 2005, 12:58:59 PM
Thank you Branislav!

Am I right in saying that in the orthodox liturgy, while there isn't a specific ban of musical instruments, the human voice is considered the most complex "instrument", and therefore the most fit to praise God?

I enjoy very much Byzantine Psaltic Music!
Do you?
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on November 29, 2005, 03:48:08 PM
What do you think about this discussion from the Romanian Royal Family Portraits thread?


(http://home.xnet.com/~jkelley/BucharestBugle.fldr/Romania.Images/CurteArgesMarie.JPG)

on Nov 28th, 2005, 12:48am, Svetabel wrote:


Is it an icon ??  






my first replay

Very good question. On the West wall of Orthodox Churches, close to the exit of the church, there usually is a similar-to-the-rest-of-the-mural-icons image that presents the patron-donors-builders who have helped in the building and the decoration of the church. The main donor usually presents a small model of the new church as a gift to Christ or the Theotokos. So even if the depicted donors are not canonized saints the whole scene is an icon because of the "happening" of giving something to God, a sacred and blessed act. You must also keep in mind that in the Orthodox Church the "sacred" tends to permeate the "profane" much more than in Western Christianity.

However, these images are icons mainly in the context of that particular church. It would be highly unusual to make a separate-portable icon out of it. They are usually called "votive mural-paintings".  

The particular votive murals you can see here with the Romanian Royal Family are problematic because they don't respect the regular canons of icon-painting.

[see also the following]
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on November 29, 2005, 03:49:57 PM
then ilyala answered




on Today at 8:25am, ilyala wrote:
it's not an icon. the orthodox churches have the habbit of painting their main contributors on the walls. as a tribute. as in, if the king x built a church, the church will aknowledge him as its founder by painting him on the wall. icons are of saints.











my second replay



ilyala
Icons are of Christ, and only as long as somebody [a saint] or an event becomes a recognizable "image" of Christ it becomes an icon.

Icons aren't only of saints but of holy "acts/events" as well, for example a Holy Synod/Council of the Church. Not all the participants are saints. Even the central figure can be an Emperor that is not a saint. The ACT of giving/dedicating a church/synod to God is an ICON of holiness; this is why it is acceptable within the iconography. When a saint dedicates his whole life to Christ, even his torture and martyrdom becomes an icon of the Crucifixion, and you can see many acts of torture on church walls [in the pro-naos or exonarthex].

In the Orthodox Church we believe that God has “come down” to us to GIVE us the chance of deification as long as we become icons of that GIVING. The church itself is a complex icon.  

The main theme in an Orthodox Church is God coming down, working and GIVING Himself among us. Building/GIVING a place fit for the Liturgy within a community, fully decorated with the complete iconography, entitles the donor eternal remembrance in the Liturgy and a place in the iconography [even if at the "end" of it], even if that person is not a saint. This is why donors and kings have special places to sit during the Liturgy and why they can be buried within the church.

You must also remember that every church has as historical/symbolical model the Synagogue. The Synagogue has as historical/symbolical model the Temple of Solomon. And, not surprisingly, the temple of Solomon is similar to Egyptian temples. If you remember, almost all temples in Egypt are built by kings/pharaohs. Initially they were the only intercessors between Egypt and the gods. The priests were only substitutes for the king. You must also remember that in the Orthodox Church to this day an anointed king has the right to enter the altar of the church during the Liturgy passing the Imperial doors. The king giving to the gods is a prominent fixture of the "iconography" of a temple. Even if this theme has diminished in importance in a church it is still there, and rightfully so.  

You may say “we pray before an icon, and I cannot pray before somebody who is not a saint!” If you say that you forget that the donor gives his gift/prayer to Christ, and that Christ is the main element there, and because of that it becomes an icon [not as important as all the rest in the church, but nevertheless an icon]. When we pray we become icons of Christ praying to God in the garden of Gethsemane. When a king GIVES a church to God for a community he becomes an icon of Christ GIVING Himself on the Cross to God for the world.



(http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/4679/001diapozitivemic7tk.jpg)


isn't this an icon?
[the donor here is not a saint but a king of Sicily]

artistically it is far away from the XIXth century votive paintings of the Romanian Royal Family, but it is still the same theme

even if I don't consider XIXth century church painting [of Nicolae Grigorescu for example] proper for church walls and iconography, those churches were dedicated and consecrated by bishops and so the murals are icons [even if they remain problematic]



what do you think?
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Alexios on November 30, 2005, 12:39:49 PM
My personal recommendation.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521439914/qid=1133375972/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-8664058-9276653?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Branislav on November 30, 2005, 01:00:18 PM
Thank you Alexios for this book!
It seems to be an excellent one!!!

Regards,
Branislav
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Alexios on November 30, 2005, 02:05:18 PM
Quote
Thank you Alexios for this book!
It seems to be an excellent one!!!

Regards,
Branislav


Yes, I enjoyed it very much. It's not only very good, but highly readable and exciting too.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on November 30, 2005, 02:45:52 PM
For the coming winter holidays I recommend this documentary:

Byzantium - The lost Empire

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00004REVW/qid=1133383013/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl27/104-6008642-7574304?v=glance&s=video&n=507846


I have some objections to it, but it sure was wonderful to watch.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Branislav on November 30, 2005, 03:23:01 PM
Yes palimpsest,

John Romer is very good, and exciting in his presentation of Byzantium. He is and egyptologist, but knows Byzantium very well too. I saw this documentary couple of times on PBS, and enjoyed it. I don't remember I had any important objections then - but maybe I would now :-) I also recommend this for viewing.

Regards,
Branislav
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on November 30, 2005, 03:28:27 PM
and an even better one, one of the best video documentaries I've ever seen:

"Bridge to the East" - Sir Steven Runciman [1987]

http://www.alanbates.com/abarchive/tv/bridge.html

[unfortunately you can't find it on amazon.com]
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on November 30, 2005, 03:50:18 PM
Quote
Yes palimpsest,

John Romer is very good, and exciting in his presentation of Byzantium. He is and egyptologist, but knows Byzantium very well too. I saw this documentary couple of times on PBS, and enjoyed it. I don't remember I had any important objections then - but maybe I would now :-) I also recommend this for viewing.

Regards,
Branislav


my objections are:

1. he doesn't make it very clear that "Byzantium" was "lost" on purpose [my opinion]; the myth of the "Dark Ages" wouldn't have been possible without demonizing "Byzantium"

2. the explanations he gives ["this happened because of this"] aren't very sophisticated, and sometimes even wrong

3. he doesn't make it very clear that guys like Plethon [a Platonist] weren't the mainstream Byzantine thinkers, even if he/they had imperial support, and even if they greatly influenced the Renaissance

3. when it comes to the "legacy" of Byzantium I would have added much more impressive "stuff"




but all-in-all he does partially fill up a vacuum of information, points to some interesting and not-so-well-known influential historical facts, and his enthusiasm on the subject is contagious
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Branislav on November 30, 2005, 04:39:57 PM
Palimpsest,

Well, after your well founded criticism, I am afraid that when I see that documentary again, I will trash it right away! :-)

I have to see it again to comment on your comments, but I am trying to be realistic - it is hard to expect too much after so many centuries of deceit, so I was happy with what I got in this documentary. Hopefully Romer will be that important link to some future documentarist who will make it ideally right.

Thank you for that other video. I will try to find it somewhere!

And - I owe you the answer on your question on icons with ktitors on them, but this is a hard one, so I am still thinking .... :-) I think I am going to consult my priest on that - before or after I reply to you.  :)

Regards,
Branislav
Quote

my objections are:

1. he doesn't make it very clear that "Byzantium" was "lost" on purpose [my opinion]; the myth of the "Dark Ages" wouldn't have been possible without demonizing "Byzantium"

2. the explanations he gives ["this happened because of this"] aren't very sophisticated, and sometimes even wrong

3. he doesn't make it very clear that guys like Plethon [a Platonist] weren't the mainstream Byzantine thinkers, even if he/they had imperial support, and even if they greatly influenced the Renaissance

3. when it comes to the "legacy" of Byzantium I would have added much more impressive "stuff"




but all-in-all he does partially fill up a vacuum of information, points to some interesting and not-so-well-known influential historical facts, and his enthusiasm on the subject is contagious

Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Alexios on November 30, 2005, 04:50:22 PM
Quote
For the coming winter holidays I recommend this documentary:

Byzantium - The lost Empire

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00004REVW/qid=1133383013/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl27/104-6008642-7574304?v=glance&s=video&n=507846


I have some objections to it, but it sure was wonderful to watch.

How long is this documentary?

Some more books:
-http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521894093/ref=pd_ecc_rvi_f/103-8664058-9276653?n=283155

-http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521526531/qid=1133390683/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-8664058-9276653?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

-http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521552567/qid=1133390700/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-8664058-9276653?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

-http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679423087/qid=1133390745/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-8664058-9276653?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on November 30, 2005, 05:07:34 PM
if I'm not mistaken "Byzantium - The lost Empire" is divided in six episodes of half an hour [two tapes]... so 3 hours in total


what I like most of all about it is that:

1. he presents difficult stories/situations in brief convincing words/rhetoric

2. he makes some remarkable "interdisciplinary" connections, and he covers both the "front" history and the "background" [daily life]

3. the script plus the video and audio parts give a good "feeling" of historical situations
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on November 30, 2005, 05:18:48 PM
Alexios

I would take out the last book on your list

I'm even surprised that you would like E. Gibbon

have you read the book? [I haven't]
how do you find it?
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Alexios on December 01, 2005, 11:32:45 AM
Quote
Alexios

I would take out the last book on your list

I'm even surprised that you would like E. Gibbon

have you read the book? [I haven't]
how do you find it?

I have not read it, but read some quotes. I think it is not bad and nice to read, although it has an incorrect view on Byzantium. Nonetheless, Edward Gibbon is an important researcher - his negative view on Byzantium (in which he saw more or less a continous history of decline) dominated the western world for a century.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Branislav on December 01, 2005, 12:08:45 PM
Gibbon is probably good for understanding prejudices about "Byzantium". He has good style, and had tremendous influence. But it is definitely not a book to read if someone wants to learn something truthful about East Roman Empire.

Branislav
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Alexios on December 02, 2005, 06:47:31 AM
Quote
Gibbon is probably good for understanding prejudices about "Byzantium". He has good style, and had tremendous influence. But it is definitely not a book to read if someone wants to learn something truthful about East Roman Empire.

Branislav

Yes, I agree.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Alexios on December 02, 2005, 10:17:51 AM
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521802024/qid=1133539253/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-8664058-9276653?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0198148046/qid=1133539308/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-8664058-9276653?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0813207541/qid=1133539355/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/103-8664058-9276653?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140441697/ref=pd_bxgy_text_b/103-8664058-9276653?%5Fencoding=UTF8

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/185728495X/qid=1133539515/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/103-8664058-9276653?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0752423436/qid=1133539515/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/103-8664058-9276653?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521430933/qid=1133539515/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/103-8664058-9276653?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/052131917X/qid=1133539515/sr=1-8/ref=sr_1_8/103-8664058-9276653?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1841763608/qid=1133539515/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-8664058-9276653?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0299060306/qid=1133539696/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-8664058-9276653?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0880330139/qid=1133539732/sr=1-9/ref=sr_1_9/103-8664058-9276653?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0718500768/qid=1133539858/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/103-8664058-9276653?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0292702701/qid=1133539858/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/103-8664058-9276653?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007C8NRS/qid=1133539965/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-8664058-9276653?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521576237/qid=1133540244/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/103-8664058-9276653?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521428947/qid=1133540244/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/103-8664058-9276653?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521585104/qid=1133540244/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/103-8664058-9276653?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521261902/qid=1133540317/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-8664058-9276653?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Branislav on December 02, 2005, 11:01:51 AM
Palimpsest,

Regarding icons. I think the first one is NOT an icon, and the second one IS.

[1] The first painting is done in western style of "religius paintings", but "religious painting" is not the same thing as Icon. The second one is done in proper style of Icon.

[2] In the first picture, ktitor (royal family member) and Theotokos do not belong to the same space: ktitor is shown in front of an icon of Mother fo God; In the second picture Theotokos and ktitor are in the same space.

[3] In the first picture ktitor is dominant figure - standing in front of an icon of Theotokos, while in the second picture Theotokos is dominant, standing figure, receiving a gift from a neeling ktitor.

[4]  Finally, if there was just a ktitor (King of Sicily) depicted on the second painting, this would not have been an Icon either: we would not pray in front of it, because we need a Saint to pray to, not just a donor.

From an Orthodox dictionary:

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article9152.asp
Quote
Icon. (Gr. image). A Byzantine-style painting in oil on wood, canvas, paper or a wall (fresco) representing Christ, the Virgin Mary, or other Saints and scenes from the Bible. The Orthodox Church uses icons for veneration with the understanding that the respect is paid not to the material icon but to the person represented "in spirit and truth" (cf. John 4: 24).


And excerpt from an article on Iconography:

A Discourse in Iconography
by Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco


http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/icon_discourse.aspx
Quote
.....
However, it is far worse when everything is correct in the physical, bodily sense, but the saint appears as an ordinary man, as if he had been photographed, completely devoid of the spiritual. When this is the case, the depiction cannot be considered an Icon.
...........

Nevertheless, not all that was Western was good for Russia. It also wrought horrible moral damage at that time, for the Russians began to accept, along with useful knowledge, that which was alien to our Orthodox way of life, to our Orthodox faith. The educated portion of society soon sundered themselves from the life of the people and from the Orthodox Church, in which all was regulated by ecclesiastical norms. Later, alien influence touched Iconography as well. Images of the Western type began to appear, perhaps beautiful from an artistic point of view, but completely lacking in sanctity, beautiful in the sense of earthly beauty, but even scandalous at times, and devoid of spirituality. Such were not Icons. They were distortions of Icons, exhibiting a lack of comprehension of what an Icon actually is...........


But maybe I am wrong on this. Maybe the second picture with king of Sicily is not an icon either! :-)

Regards,
Branislav
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on December 02, 2005, 07:18:49 PM
Branislav
You are partially right. I agree but there are a few more points that need consideration.

[1] First, what icons are. They are not just symbols or images but they are part of what they ”represent”. It is inappropriate to say that icons are “used”, it is more a dialogue. Icons have a threefold “power”:
1. doxological- the veneration of God
2. catechetical- they teach
3. eschatological- they prophesize  

[2] for an icon to be an icon two aspects have to be considered:
1. the “iconicity” of the icon itself [here the Holy Tradition of the church is very important]
2. the consecration by the clergy [the power to decide rests with the priesthood]

[3] there are different degrees of “iconicity”; a particular icon can bear a greater or smaller resemblance to the “model”

[4] the West-East and sacred-profane relations are more complicated than it may seem, and more so in religious art. [see the following citations]

[5] every particular situation has to be “judged” separately, as you have said. For each separate person, for each particular historical time, the situation can change.


So, in our particular case the strongest argument that votive paintings are icons is the fact that they were consecrated together with the whole church. That means that a bishop has “judged” the building and decoration to be fit for a church and approved it. Now, it is true that many unworthy churches and iconographies have been blessed, but the judgment of the bishop has to be respected. The votive scene can be regarded as “part” of a greater icon, the church. A church would not be complete without the votive scene, and a votive scene is an icon only in the context of the church. It is "right and beautiful" to see a donor giving a church to God, isn't it?

So we should "judge" a particular votive painting in its context. If we separate it from the church it is difficult to consider it an icon, especially if the artistic “style” is Western. In the church it is part of the holiness of the place.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on December 02, 2005, 07:20:58 PM
Here are some interesting philosophical views about our dilemma:
From “Truth and Method” by Hans Georg Gadamer


I.
Hence representation remains limited in an essential sense to the original that is represented in it. But it is more than a copy. That the representation is a picture and not the original itself does not mean anything negative, any mere diminution of being, but rather an autonomous reality… That the picture has its own reality means now that the original is represented it experiences, as it were, an increase in being… Every such representation is an ontological event and belongs to the ontological level of what is represented. Through being represented it experiences, as it were, an increase of being. The particular import of the picture is determined ontologically as an emanation of the original.
It is of the nature of an emanation that what emanates is an overflow. That from which it proceeds does not thereby become less. The development of this idea by neoplatonic philosophy, which uses it to break the bonds of Greek substance ontology, is the basis of the positive ontological level of the picture. For if what originally is one, does not grow less trough the outflow of the many from it, this means that being becomes more.
p. 125
It seems that the Greek fathers used this kind of neoplatonist thinking in overcoming the old testament’s hatred of images when it came to Christology. In the incarnation of God they saw the fundamental recognition of the visible appearance and thus legitimated works of art. In this overcoming of the ban on images we can see the event through which the development of the plastic arts became possible in the Christian West.52  
Thus the ontological relationship between the original and copy is the basis of the ontological reality of the picture. But it is important to see that the Platonic conceptual relationship between copy and original does not exhaust the ontological value of what we call a picture. It seems to me that this mode of being cannot be better characterized than by an idea of canon law: representation.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on December 02, 2005, 07:22:41 PM
II.
Obviously the concept of representation does not appear by accident when we want to determine the ontological level of the picture as against the copy. There must be an essential modification, almost a reversal of the ontological relationship of original and copy if the picture is an element of “representation” and thus has its own ontological status. The picture then has an independence that also affects the original. For strictly speaking it is only through the picture that the original becomes the original picture, ie it is the picture that makes what is represented into a picture.
p. 126
We have verified this ‘ontology’ of the picture so far by secular examples. But, as we know, only the religious picture shows the full ontological power of the picture.56 For it is really true of the appearance of the divine that it acquires its pictorial quality only through the word and the picture. Thus the meaning of the religious picture is an exemplary one. In it we can see without any doubt that the picture is not a copy of a copied being, but is in ontological communion whit what is copied. It is clear from this example that art as a whole and in a universal sense brings an increase in ‘pictorialness’ to being. Word and picture are not mere imitative illustrations, but allow what they represent to be for the first time what it is.
As the poetic word goes beyond local cults and unifies religious consciousness, it presents plastic art with a new task. For the poetic always retains a curious indeterminate quality, in that in the intellectual universality of language it presents something that is still open to all kinds of imaginative elaboration. It is plastic art that fixes and thus creates the types. This is true even when one does not confuse the creating of an image of the divine with the invention of gods and refuses Feuerbach’s reversal of the imago dei thesis of Genesis. This anthropological reversal and reinterpretation of religious experience which became current in the nineteenth century, arises from that same subjectivism which lies at the basis of modern aesthetic thought.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on December 02, 2005, 07:24:28 PM
III.
Religious or secular monuments display the universal ontological value of a picture more clearly than the intimate portrait does. For it is on this that their public function depends. A monument holds what is represented in it in a specific state of presentedness which is obviously something quite different from that of the aesthetic consciousness. It does not live only from the autonomous expressive power of a picture. This is clear from the fact that things other than works of art: eg symbols or inscriptions, can have the same function… Nevertheless, if it is a work of art, this means not only that it adds something to this given meaning, but also that it can say something of its own, and thus becomes independent of the anterior knowledge of which it is the bearer. [See the example of Hagia Sophia]
What a picture is remains, despite all aesthetic differentiation, a manifestation of what it represents, even if it makes it manifest through its autonomous expressive power. This is obvious in the case of the religious picture; but the difference between the sacred and the secular is relative in a work of art. Even an individual portrait, if it is a work of art, shares in the mysterious radiation of being that flows from the level of being of that which is represented.

It is consistent with the present viewpoint that the difference between profane (secular) and sacred should only be relative. [this is very orthodox] We need only recall the meaning and the history of the word ‘profane’: the ‘profane’ is the place in the front of the sanctuary. The concept of the profane and of its derivative, profanation, always presuppose the sacred. Actually, the difference between profane and sacred could only be relative in classical antiquity from which it stems, since the whole sphere of life was sacrally ordered and determined. Only Christianity enables us to understand profaneness in a stricter sense. The New Testament de-demonized the world to such an extent that room was made for an absolute contrast between the profane and the religious.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on December 02, 2005, 07:28:29 PM
IV.
The relativity of profane and sacred is not only part of the dialectic of concepts, but can be seen as a reality in the phenomenon of the picture. A work of art always has something sacred about it. True, a religious work of art or a monument on show in a museum can no longer be desecrated in the same sense as one that has remained in its original place. But this means only that it has in fact already suffered an injury, in that it has become an object in a museum.
p.134
All these considerations justify a characterization of the mode of being of art in general in terms of presentation; this includes play and picture, communion and representation. The work of art is conceived as an ontological event and the abstraction to which aesthetic  differentiation commits it is dissolved. A picture is an event of presentation. Its relation to the original is so far from being a reproduction of the autonomy of its being that, on the contrary, I had to speak, in regard to the picture, of an ‘increase of being’. The use of concepts from the sphere of the holy seemed appropriate.
Now it is important not to confuse the special sense of representation proper to the work of art with the sacred representation performed by, say, the symbol. Not all forms of representation have the character of ‘art’. Symbols and badges are also forms of representation. They too indicate something, and this makes them representations.
The essence of the picture stands, as it were, midway between two extremes: these extremes of representation are pure indication (the essence of the sign) and pure representation (the essence of the symbol). There is something of both in a picture.p.135

The difference between a picture and a sign has an ontological basis. The picture does not disappear behind its pointing function but, in its own being, shares in what it represents.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on December 02, 2005, 07:38:13 PM
Icons are so important for the “Byzantine” world that I hope you will excuse the length  of these citations. :)

The Feast of “the Triumph of Orthodoxy” is the Feast of the restoration of icons.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: dvoretzky on December 02, 2005, 10:35:39 PM
Were the Iconoclasts kind of Othodox Talibans?
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on December 02, 2005, 11:54:09 PM
in a way yes

but I would say that they were more taliban than orthodox  ;D
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Branislav on December 03, 2005, 09:28:31 AM
Quote
in a way yes

but I would say that they were more taliban than orthodox  ;D


This is a good one!! :) :)


Still reading Gadamer ...
But in a way, what you said:

Quote
So, in our particular case the strongest argument that votive paintings are icons is the fact that they were consecrated together with the whole church. That means that a bishop has “judged” the building and decoration to be fit for a church and approved it. Now, it is true that many unworthy churches and iconographies have been blessed, but the judgment of the bishop has to be respected. The votive scene can be regarded as “part” of a greater icon, the church. A church would not be complete without the votive scene, and a votive scene is an icon only in the context of the church. It is "right and beautiful" to see a donor giving a church to God, isn't it?
 
So we should "judge" a particular votive painting in its context. If we separate it from the church it is difficult to consider it an icon, especially if the artistic “style” is Western. In the church it is part of the holiness of the place.


makes Gadamer's philosophy irrelevant in the context of your original question, don't you think?

Because if all that matter is that "bishop has to be respected", then EVERYTHING that you can find in ANY orthodox church is icon by definition, because it is in the church, so we don't need to think hard on that one, do we! :)

Hopefully, the bishop in question was not secretly provoking "talibans"! :) You know that many bishops were iconoclasts at the time, and that according to the cannons of Church we don't need to follow a heretical bishop. I think that Iconoclasm could be provoked again by pictures like the first one with that royal family member, which is pretty secular to my taste. I don't see how this painting could be a window to Heaven so that we can pray in front of it?

In short, what I am trying to say, - if the only argument that this is an icon is the fact that bishop "  “judged” the building and decoration to be fit for a church and approved it", than why do you question that by posing question whether it is, or it is not an icon?  :)

Regards,
Branislav
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on December 03, 2005, 11:22:56 AM
Dear Branislav

Gadamer would be irrelevant if all I wanted from this conversation would be to find a "winning" argument.

I'm more interested in the fact that this topic seems to point out some interesting and complex questions, that are thought provoking. I'm only glad that this subject is intriguing enough so that we might find out something about our own tradition.

If it is true that Truth occurs in conversation, and not as a result of method, then I'm glad we are talking about something so important as icons. By doing so we might be able to find something about our tradition, "Byzantium", art in general, the nature of language and even Truth itself.

What I said about the importance of the consecration was not to “end” the debate, but to continue it. My aim was not to “make” those mural images icons but to show what important issues surrounds the icon. And a difficult example such as this is revelatory, don’t you think?

All matters concerning faith have something paradoxical in them. When faith is replaced by certitude/knowledge something is lost, it is as if something that was alive dies. How beautiful it is that the mysteries of faith are protected by paradoxes so that our minds can never “control” them. So it should be with the icons. I do not hope to give a final answer the question whether those images are icons or not. It is more important to see the importance of the question, don’t you think? Isn’t it wonderful that we “wonder” what icons are, that we put our trust in them and venerate God with their help?

Whatever we do or think as Christians we hope that it will bring us closer to God. Let us hope that what our ancestors did by putting donors on the walls of their churches was right, beautiful and pleasing to God.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on December 03, 2005, 03:36:57 PM
(http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/2479/img5187000a7ty.jpg)

The Holy Savior in Chora — Theodore Metochites, Grand Logothete of the Treasury in the reign of Andronicus II Paleologos (1282-1328 ), devoted a great part of his life and fortune to the restoration of the monastery of The Holy Savior in Chora (1303-1321).  Metochites is believed to have planned and supervised the magnificent iconographic programme of the monument.  The mosaic shows him presenting a model of the church to Christ.

(http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/9768/zw10922cl.jpg)


(http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/5697/img518ac00142aj.jpg)

The Holy Savior in Chora — Miniature portrait of Isaac Comnenus.  Detail of the Deesis mosaic.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on December 03, 2005, 04:01:07 PM
(http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/9971/zw10227hj.jpg)

St. Peter and Paul as “Patrons of the Church”
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on December 03, 2005, 04:05:35 PM
(http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/7922/zwicoanavotivahurezi8xc.jpg)

Hurezi Monastery [1690-1703], Constantine Brancoveanu and his family
when this votive scene was painted none of the figures were saints
now the Romanian Orthodox Church has canonized Constantin Brancoveanu, five of his sons and his advisor [they were beheaded in Constantinople/Istanbul in 1714 for refusing to convert to Islam]
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Alexios on December 05, 2005, 12:44:46 PM
Beautiful pictures, thank you!
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Alexios on December 11, 2005, 10:05:46 AM
Do you have any favourite emperor or which emperors do you think were particulary able?
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on December 11, 2005, 04:05:00 PM
For a fan I have surprisingly little detail knowledge of the history of “Byzantium”

I thank God for the providential Emperors like

Constantine the Great
Justinian
Heraclius
Basil II
Alexios I Komnenos
Michael VIII Palaiologos
and even
Constantine XI

[I also like some of the extraordinary women of Byzantium]


I’m sure you can provide us with a much more detailed list. Please do comment on your choices!
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Alexios on December 12, 2005, 12:22:28 PM
Quote
Constantine the Great
Justinian
Heraclius
Basil II
Alexios I Komnenos
Michael VIII Palaiologos
and even
Constantine XI

Constantine I - certainly a strong emperor with a great ability, but quite controversial...
Justinian - Although his reign was a zenith of the Byzantine Empire, you could criticize him heavily for his policies.
Heraclius - he defeated the Persians (who were, after all, provoked by his usurpation) , but Phocas wasn't as bad as his reputation. In his last years he was helpless against the Arab invasion.
Basil II - he achieved a lot, but the circumstances were favourable as well and I've read that the annexations of some frontier territories under his reign had negative consequences, depriving the Empire of buffer areas. (By the way, it seems he never married and I heard he could have been homosexual, any further details on this?)
Alexios I - I think I agree, he was a wise and cunning ruler who consolidated the Empire's position for another century.
- Michael VIII - Could be criticized for his neglect of the provinces in Asia Minor and for his attempt to unite the churches, but the circumstances were equally difficult.
- Constantine XI, proved to be a strong ruler in the Morea and died a hero's death.

Some others:
- Anastasios I - all in all quite an able ruler, an educated Greek, who became almost 90 years old.
- Maurikios - strong willed, did his best to defend his Empire.
- Constantine IV - managed to defeat the Arabs when they besieged Constantinople in 674-78 (very important for the course of World History).
- Basil I - The first Macedonian ruler, many important developments took place in his reign.
- Nicephoros II & John I - successful military leaders.
- John II Komnenos - a very able ruler, Byzantium was further strenghtened under his reign.
- Manuel I - very interesting, debatable ruler, under whose reign the Empire underwent a last great period of splendour and active foreign policy of a great power.
- Manuel II - a very educated, most noble and impressive Emperor in very difficult times.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on December 13, 2005, 11:34:55 AM
Thank you for this list and comments.

How did you get interested in "Byzantine" history?

And another question. I read somewhere [I forgot where] that because of their uncompromising character something like 80% of the Patriarchs of Constantinople died of un-natural causes. Is it true?
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Alexios on December 14, 2005, 05:03:16 AM
Quote
Thank you for this list and comments.

How did you get interested in "Byzantine" history?

And another question. I read somewhere [I forgot where] that because of their uncompromising character something like 80% of the Patriarchs of Constantinople died of un-natural causes. Is it true?

Well, I got interested in history in general first, especially medieval history, when I was about 14. Then I started reading more about Byzantium, starting with J. J. Norwich. And so my interest in Byzantium became deeper.

I'd doubt that 80 % died of un-natural causes. Where did you read that? And you should state if you mean all bishops, archbishops and finally Patriarchs from St. Andrew to Bartholomew I or only the Patriarchs during the Byzantine period (abt 330-1453).
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on December 14, 2005, 10:12:10 AM
It was a long time ago... I don't claim it to be true, just asking... [if I remember well it was only about the Patriarchs of Constantinople from Constantine to 1453]


List of Patriarchs of Constantinople
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Bishops of Byzantium (until 330)

St. Andrew the Apostle ( founder )
Stachys the Apostle (38-54)
Onesimus (54-68 )
Polycarpus I (69-89)
Plutarch (89-105)
Sedecion (105-114)
Diogenes (114-129)
Eleutherius (129-136)
Felix (136-141)
Polycarpus II (141-144)
Athendodorus (144-148 )
Euzois (148-154)
Laurence (154-166)
Alypius (166-169)
Pertinax (169-187)
Olympians (187-198 )
Mark I or Marcus I (198-211)
Philadelphus (211-217)
Ciriacus I (217-230)
Castinus (230-237)
Eugenius I (237-242)
Titus (242-272)
Dometius (272-284)
Rufinus I (284-293)
Probus (293-306)
Metrophanes (306-314)
Alexander (314-337)

Bishops and Archbishops of Constantinople (330-451 inclusive)

Paul I (337-339)
Eusebius of Nicomedia (339-341)
Paul I, restored (341-342)
Macedonius I (342-346)
Paul I, restored (346-351)
Macedonius I, restored (351-360)
Eudoxius of Antioch (360-370)
Demophilus (370-379)
Euagrius (370 or 379)
Maximus (380)
Gregory I Nazianzus the Theologian (379-381)

Patriarchs of Constantinople (since 381)

Nectarius (381-397)
John I Chrysostom (398-404)
Arsacius of Tarsus (404-405)
Atticus (406-425)
Sisinnius I (426-427)
Nestorius (428-431)
Maximianus (431-434)
Proclus (434-446)
Phlabianus or Flavian (446-449)
Anatolius (449-458 )
Gennadius I (458-471)
Acacius (471-488 )
Phrabitas or Fravitta (488-489)
Euphemius (489-495)
Macedonius II (495-511)
Timothy I or Timotheus I (511-518 )
John II Cappadocia (518-520)
Epiphanius (520-535)
Anthimus I (535-536)
Menas (536-552)
Eutychius (552-565, 577-582)
John III Scholasticus (565-577)
John IV Nesteutes (582-595)
Cyriacus or Kyriakos (Greek) (596-606)
Thomas I (607-610)
Sergius I (610-638 )
Pyrrhus I (638-641)
Paul II (641-653)
Peter (654-666)
Thomas II (667-669)
John V (669-675)
Constantine I (675-677)
Theodore I (677-679)
George I (679-686)
Paul III (687-693)
Callinicus I (693-705)
Cyrus (705-711)
John VI (712-715)
Germanus I (715-730)
Anastasius (730-754)
Constantine II (754-766)
Nicetas (766-780)
Paul IV (780-784)
Saint Tarasius (784-806)
Nicephorus I (806-815)
Theodotus I Cassiteras (815-821)
Antony I (821-836)
John VII Grammaticus (836-843)
Methodius I (843-847)
Ignatius I (847- December 25 858, 867- October 23 877)
Photius I the Great (December 25 858-867, 877-886)
Stephanus I (886-893)
Antony II Kauleas (893-901)
Nicholas I Mysticus (901-907, 912-925)
Euthymius I Syncellus (907-912)
Stephanus II of Amasea (925-928 )
Tryphon (928-931)
Theophylactus (933-956)
Polyeuctus (956-970)
Basil I Skamandrenus (970-974)
Antony III Studites (974-980)
Nicholas II Chrysoberges (984-996)
Sisinnius II (996-998 )
Sergius II (999-1019)
Eustathius (1019-1025)
Alexus I Studites (1025-1043)
Michael I Cerularius (1043-1058 )
Constantine III Lichoudas (1059-1063)
John VIII Xiphilinus (1064-1075)
Cosmas I (1075-1081)
Eustathius Garidas (1081-1084)
Nicholas III Grammaticus (1084-1111)
John IX Agapetus (1111-1134)
Leon Styppes (1134-1143)
Michael II Kurkuas (1143-1146)
Cosmas II Atticus (1146-1147)
Nicholas IV Muzalon (1147-1151)
Theodotus II (1151-1153)
Neophytus I (1153)
Constantine IV Chliarenus (1154-1156)
Luke Chrysoberges (1156-1169)
Michael III of Anchialus (1170-1177)
Chariton (1177-1178 )
Theodosius I Borradiotes (1179-1183)
Basil II Carnaterus (1183-1186)
Nicetas II Muntanes (1186-1189)
Leon Theotokites (1189-1190)
Dositheus (1190-1191)
George II Xiphilinus (1191-1198 )
John X Camaterus (1198-1206)
Michael IV Autoreianus (1207-1213)
Theodore II Eirenicus (1213-1215)
Maximus II (1215)
Manuel I Charitopoulos (1215-1222)
Germanus II (1222-1240)
Methodius II (1240)

vacancy 1240-1244
Manuel II (1244-1255)
Arsenius Autoreianus (1255-1259, 1261-1267)
Nicephorus II (1260-1261)
Germanus III (1267)
Joseph I Galesiotes (1267-1275)
John XI Bekkos (1275-1282)
Gregory II Cyprius (1283-1289)
Athanasius I (1289-1293, 1303-1310)
John XII (1294-1303)
Nephon I (1310-1314)
John XIII Glykys (1315-1320)
Gerasimus I (1320-1321)
Jesaias (1323-1334)
John XIV Kalekas (1334-1347)
Isidore I (1347-1350)
Callistus I (1350-1354, 1355-1363)
Philotheus Kokkinos (1354-1355, 1364-1376)
Macarius (1376-1379, 1390-1391)
Neilus Kerameus (1379-1388 )
Antony IV (1389-1390, 1391-1397)
Callistus II Xanothopoulos (1397)
Matthew I (1397-1410)
Euthymius II (1410-1416)
Joseph II (1416-1439)
Metrophanes II (1440-1443)
Gregory III Mammas (1443-1450)
Athanasius II (1450-1453)

Gennadius II Scholarius (1453-1456, 1458, 1462-1463, 1464)
Isidore II Xanthopoulos (1456-1457)
Sophronius I Syropoulos (1463-1464)
Joasaph I (1464, 1464-1466)
Marcus II Xylokaraves (1466)
Symeon I of Trebizond (1466, 1471-1474, 1481-1486)
Dionysius I (1466-1471, 1489-1491)
Raphael I (1475-1476)
Maximus III Manasses (1476-1481)
Nephon II (1486-1488, 1497-1498, 1502)
Maximus IV (1491-1497)
Joachim I (1498-1502, 1504)
Pachomius I (1503-1504, 1504-1513)
Theoleptus I (1513-1522)
Jeremias I (1522-1545)
Joannicus I (1546)
Dionysius II (1546-1555)
Joasaph II (1555-1565)
Metrophanes III (1565-1572, 1579-1580)
Jeremias II Tranos (1572-1579, 1580-1584. 1587-1595)
Pachomius II (1584-1585)
Theoleptus II (1585-1586)
Matthew II (1596, 1598-1602, 1603)
Gabriel I (1596)
Theophanes I Karykes (1597)
Meletius I Pegas (coadjutor) (1597-1598, 1601)
Neophytus II (1602-1603, 1607-1612)
Raphael II (1603-1607)
Timothey or Timotheus (II) (1612-1620)
Cyril I Lucaris (1612, 1620-1623, 1623-1630, 1630-1633, 1633-1634, 1634-1635, 1637-1638 )
Gregory IV of Amasea (1623)
Anthimus II (1623)
Cyril II Kontares (1633, 1635-1636, 1638-1639)
Athanasius III Patelaros (1634)
Neophytus III of Nicea (1636-1637)
Parthenius I (1639-1644)
Parthenius II (1644-1646, 1648-1651)
Joannicus II (1646-1648, 1651-1652, 1653-1654, 1655-1656)
Cyril III (1652-1654)
Paisius I (1652-1653,1654-1655)
Parthenius III (1656-1657)
Gabriel II (1657)
Parthenius IV (1657-1662, 1665-1667, 1671, 1675-1676, 1684, 1685)
Theophanes II (1659)
Dionysius III (1662-1665)
Clement (1667)
Methodius III (1668-1671)
Dionysius IV Muselimes (the Muslim) (1671-1673, 1676-1679, 1682-1684, 1686, 1687, 1693-1694)
Gerasimus II (1673-1674)
Athanasius IV (1679)
James (1679-1682, 1685-1686, 1687-1688 )
Callinicus II (1688, 1689-1693, 1694-1702)
Neophytus IV (1688 )
Gabriel III (1702-1707)
Neophytus V (1707)
Cyprianus I (1707-1709, 1713-1714)
Athanasius V (1709-1711)
Cyril IV (1711-1713)
Cosmas III (1714-1716)
Jeremias III (1716-1726. 1732-1733)
Paisius II (1726-1732, 1740-1743, 1744-1748 )
Serapheim I (1733-1734)
Neophytus VI (1734-1740, 1743-1744)
Cyril V (1748-1751, 1752-1757)
Callinicus III (1757)
Serapheim II (1757-1761)
Joannicus III (1761-1763)
Samuel I Chatzeres (1763-1768, 1773-1774)
Meletius II (1769-1769)
Theodosius II (1769-1773)
Sophronius II (1774-1780)
Gabriel IV (1780-1785)
Procopius I (1785-1789)
Neophytus VII (1789-1794, 1798-1801)
Gerasimus III (1794-1797)
Gregory V (1797-1798, 1806-1808, 1818-1821)
Callinicus IV (1801-1806. 1808-1809)
Jeremias IV (1809-1813)
Cyril VI (1813-1818 )
Eugenius II (1821-1822)
Anthimus III (1822-1824)
Chrysanthus I (1824-1826)
Agathangelus I (1826-1830)
Constantius I (1830-1834)
Constantius II (1834-1835)
Gregory VI (1835-1840, 1867-1871)
Anthimus IV (1840-1841, 1848-1852)
Anthimus V (1841-1842)
Germanus IV (1842-1845, 1852-1853)
Meletius III (1845)
Anthimus VI (1845-1848, 1853-1855, 1871-1873)
Cyril VII (1855-1860)
Joachim II (1860-1863, 1873-1878 )
Sophronius III (1863-1866)
Joachim III (1878-1884, 1901-1912)
Joachim IV (1884-1887)
Dionysius V (1887-1891)
Neophytus VIII (1891-1894)
Anthimus VII (1895-1896)
Constantine V (1897-1901)
Germanus V (1913-1918 )

vacancy 1918-1921
Meletius IV Metaxakis (1921-1923)
Gregory VII (1923-1924)
Constantine VI (1924-1925)
Basil III (1925-1929)
Photius II (1929-1935)
Benjamin I (1936-1946)
Maximus V (1946-1948 )
Athenagoras I (1948-1972)
Demetrius I (1972-1991)
Bartholomew I (1991-present)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Alexios on December 14, 2005, 01:15:03 PM
Quote
It was a long time ago... I don't claim it to be true, just asking... [if I remember well it was only about the Patriarchs of Constantinople from Constantine to 1453]

Hm...I don't really know, but I wouldn't think so. I could ask my professors though.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: dvoretzky on December 14, 2005, 11:00:02 PM
[quote author=
- Constantine IV - managed to defeat the Arabs when they besieged Constantinople in 674-78 (very important for the course of World History).

In fact, the Arabs were finally expelled after the 717/718 Battle of Constantinople which Justinian II won with the decisive help of Bulgarian Khan Tervel.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Alexios on December 15, 2005, 04:55:04 AM
Quote
In fact, the Arabs were finally expelled after the 717/718 Battle of Constantinople which Justinian II won with the decisive help of Bulgarian Khan Tervel.

Well, Ostrogorsky, if I remember correctly, states that the siege of 674-78 was more important and decisive. Justinian II died in 711, Leon III (717-741) was empeor then.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on December 16, 2005, 10:01:31 PM
(http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/8279/byzantineeagle28nk.jpg)

Eagle and Snake, 6th century AD Mosaic Flooring ­Costantinople, Grand Imperial Palace

(http://img270.imageshack.us/img270/8403/450pxmuseicapitolinitestabronz.jpg)

Bronze head of Constantine I, Musei Capitolini, Rome

(http://img270.imageshack.us/img270/1803/800pxjohnviiipalaeologus2cempe.jpg)

John VIII Palaeologus, Emperor of Byzantium, by Pisanello Ferrara, Italy, about AD 1438-42--
Cast bronze medal-The first Renaissance medal
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on December 17, 2005, 02:37:05 PM
(http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/2366/90972586eq.jpg)

ART HELLENISM IN BONDAGE

"Icon of the Virgin Madre della Consolazion", egg tempera on wood, with gold leaf, from a Cretan workshop, artist unknown, painted in the second half of the 15th century, is seen at left in the exhibit "From Byzantium to Modern Greece, Hellenic Art in Adversity, 1453-1830" at the atrium gallery of the Onassis Cultural Center in New York Wednesday Dec. 14, 2005. The exhibit, which includes 137 objects from the Benaki Museum in Athens, Greece, opens Dec 15, 2005 and runs through May 6, 2006. (AP Photo/Tina Fineberg)

(http://img415.imageshack.us/img415/7423/90972668dl.jpg)

Emmanuel Lambardos' "Icon of the Virgin of Tenderness", egg tempera on wood, with gold leaf, priming on linen, possibly done around 1609, left, and a painted map of Greece, egg tempura on wood, done about 1585, are seen in the exhibit "From Byzantium to Modern Greece, Hellenic Art in Adversity, 1453-1830" at the atrium gallery of the Onassis Cultural Center in New York Wednesday Dec. 14, 2005. The exhibit, which includes 137 objects from the Benaki Museum in Athens, Greece, opens Dec 15, 2005 and runs through May 6, 2006. (AP Photo/Tina Fineberg)

(http://img311.imageshack.us/img311/5863/90972658tf.jpg)

El Greco's "The Adoration of the Magi", egg tempera on wood painted about 1565, left, and "Icon of the Virgin Madre della Consolazion", egg tempera on wood, with gold leaf, from a Cretan workshop, artisit unknown, painted in the second half of the 15th century, are seen in the exhibit "From Byzantium to Modern Greece, Hellenic Art in Adversity, 1453-1830" at the atrium gallery of the Onassis Cultural Center in New York Wednesday, Dec. 14, 2005. The exhibit, which includes 137 objects from the Benaki Museum in Athens, Greece, opens Dec 15, 2005 and runs through May 6, 2006. (AP Photo/Tina Fineberg)

(http://img415.imageshack.us/img415/7410/90972677mo.jpg)

A late 17th century prelatic pectoral from Constantinople, made of gold, gilt silver, rubies, emeralds, amethyst and emamel is seen in the exhibit "From Byzantium to Modern Greece, Hellenic Art in Adversity, 1453-1830" at the atrium gallery of the Onassis Cultural Center in New York Wednesday Dec. 14, 2005. The exhibit, which includes 137 objects from the Benaki Museum in Athens, Greece, opens Dec 15, 2005 and runs through May 6, 2006. The piece is 6 centimeters high, and 4.7 centimeters wide. (AP Photo/Tina Fineberg)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on December 17, 2005, 03:28:57 PM

I've just read this comment:


As Orthodox priest, Fr. Andrew Phillips has said, the Monarchy is, in fact, one of the few remaining vestiges of Orthodox Christianity in the West.

Christian monarchy was inherited from the first Christian Emperors. It is not by chance, Fr. Phillips says, that the Golden Jubilee celebration of Her Majesty's accession coincides with the Feast of Sts. Constantine and Helen. Constantine himself was born in Eboracum or what is now York in England!




What do you think about this?
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: dvoretzky on December 18, 2005, 07:49:37 AM
Constantine was born at Naissus (today's Niš, Serbia) in Upper Moesia.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on December 18, 2005, 12:23:48 PM
Constantine I (emperor)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.



Gaius Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus (Latin: IMP CAESAR FLAVIVS CONSTANTINVS PIVS FELIX INVICTVS AVGVSTVS ¹) (February 27, 272–May 22, 337), commonly known as Constantine I or Constantine the Great, was proclaimed Augustus by his troops on July 25, 306 and ruled an ever-growing portion of the Roman Empire until his death. Constantine is famed for his refounding of Byzantium (modern Istanbul) as "Nova Roma" (New Rome) or Constantinople (Constantine's City). Constantine is best remembered in modern times for the Edict of Milan in 313 and the Council of Nicaea in 325, which fully legalized and then legitimized Christianity in the Empire for the first time. These actions are considered major factors in that religion's spread, and his reputation as the "first Christian Emperor" has been promulgated by historians from Lactantius and Eusebius of Caesarea to the present day.


Constantine was born at Naissus,(today's Niš, Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro) in Upper Moesia, to Greek general Constantius I Chlorus, and his first wife Helena, an innkeeper's daughter who at the time was an adolescent of only sixteen years. His father left his mother around 292 to marry Flavia Maximiana Theodora, daughter or step-daughter of the Western Roman Emperor Maximian. Theodora would give birth to six half-siblings of Constantine, including Julius Constantius.

Young Constantine served at the court of Diocletian in Nicomedia, after the appointment of his father as one of the two caesares(junior emperors) of the Tetrarchy in 293. In 305, the Augustus, Maximian, abdicated, and Constantius succeeded to the position. However, Constantius fell sick during an expedition against the Picts and Scots of Caledonia, and died on July 25, 306. Constantine managed to be at his deathbed in Eboracum (York) of Roman Britain, where the loyal general Chrocus, of Alamannic descent, and the troops loyal to his father's memory proclaimed him an Augustus ("Emperor"). For the next eighteen years, he fought a series of battles and wars of consolidation that first obtained him co-rule with the Eastern Roman Emperor, and then finally leadership of a reunified Roman Empire.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I_of_the_Roman_Empire



(http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/2780/constantine0in.jpg)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on December 22, 2005, 10:32:51 PM
(http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/2558/91283791lz.jpg)

A Christian Palestinian lights candles inside the Church of the Nativity, traditionally believed to be the birthplace of Jesus Christ, in the West Bank town of Bethlehem, Thursday, Dec. 22, 2005. Israeli authorities will ease access to Bethlehem during Christmas in a "calculated risk" meant to let Christian pilgrims celebrate the holiday freely in the West Bank town, security officials said. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer)


The Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is one of the oldest continuously operating churches in the world. The original structure was built by Bishop Makarios of Jerusalem at the direction of Constantine I of the Roman Empire following the First Council of Nicaea in 325. That structure was burnt down in the Samaritan revolt of 529.

It is administered by a coalition of Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox clerics. Tradition has it that the church was built over Jesus' birthplace, and it is held as sacred by followers of Christianity and Islam.

It is actually a combination of two churches, with a crypt, the Grotto of the Nativity, where Jesus is said to have been born:

The main section (the basilica) now being controlled by the Greek Orthodox. It is designed like a generic Roman basilica, with three aisles and an apse. It featured golden mosaics covering the side walls, now largely decayed, and a Roman style floor (since covered over). It also features a large iconstasis, and a complex array of lamps throughout the entire church.
The adjoining Roman Catholic church, which is done in a more modern Gothic revival style, and has since been further modernized according to the liturgical trends after Vatican II.
The underground cave, which features the altar over the place Jesus is said to have been born. The exact spot is marked by a hole in the middle of a silver star, surrounded by silver lamps. This altar is neutral although it features primarily Armenian Orthodox design.



Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on December 31, 2005, 10:31:21 AM
(http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/6762/87674678ls.jpg)

A Byzantine-era water jug from the Andritsa Cave in southern Greece is displayed with other pottery finds at the Byzantine and Christian museum in Athens on Monday, Oct. 10, 2005. Archaeologists excavating the cave discovered the remains of at least 33 people, mostly young adults and children, who were trapped there in the 6th Century while seeking refuge from an unknown threat. The cave retained its dark secret until it was accidentally discovered in 2004. (AP Photo/Kostas Tsironis)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on December 31, 2005, 10:52:59 AM
(http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/4089/83641783ps.jpg)

Yachts, with the Ottoman era Blue mosque, left, and Byzantine monument of St. Sophia, right, in the background, set sail on Istanbul's Bosporus, in Turkey, Friday, July 15, 2005, at the start of the 34th Navy Cup. Some 65 yachts will compete between July 15-23, 2005 from Istanbul's Bosporus to the Turkish resort of Cesme on the Aegean coast for the Turkey's most prestigious yacht race. (AP Photo/Murad Sezer)

(http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/6747/88680316ic.jpg)

Local and foreign tourists visit the Byzantine era monument of St. Sophia in Istanbul, Turkey, Sept. 28, 2004. An estimated 22 million tourists will visit Turkey in 2005, a 25 percent increase over last year's record numbers, figures from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism show. Around 55 percent of those visitors will come from the countries that Turkey is hoping to join in the EU. (AP Photo/Murad Sezer)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on January 01, 2006, 06:51:42 PM
(http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/7189/21091763un.jpg)

This mosaic in Istanbul's Saint Sophia church depicts legendary Byzantine Empress Zoe. The mosaic and empress are among the art works and subjects featured in "Byzantium: The Lost Empire," a four-part documentary on the Learning Channel. (AP Photo/TLC)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on January 16, 2006, 09:09:47 AM
(http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/8404/71930332ue.jpg)

A Byzantine lamp hangs in the center of the room surrounded by other artifacts on display during a preview of a new exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, "Byzantium: Faith and Power," at the museum in New York, Monday, March 15, 2004. The exhibit, which showcases more than 350 masterpieces of Byzantine art from some 30 nations, opens March 23. The hanging lamp dates from the 13th century and normally resides in the Monestary of Xeropotamou in Mount Athos, Greece. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on January 16, 2006, 09:19:01 AM
(http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/6310/74064461ov.jpg)

A journalist and an Olympic Games volunteer look over various remnants varying from a water-supply system from the Ottoman period to Byzantine and Roman-period houses on display in the Metro station of Syntagma in Athens, Wednesday Aug. 11, 2004. History runs deep in Greece, and as Athens rushed to expand its subway system in time for the upcoming Olympics, work has been repeatedly halted by the discovery of ruins and artifacts. Officials have managed to find a golden lining: now some stations double as museums, with artifacts unearthed during construction displayed in glass case where they were found. (AP Photo/Lefteris Pitarakis)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on January 16, 2006, 09:34:05 AM
An interesting site and a good forum about The Roman Empire [including Byzantium]:

UNRV Roman History
http://www.unrv.com/

Ancient Roman Empire Forums > Roman History > Postilla Historia Romanorum
http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showforum=18
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on February 17, 2006, 09:35:53 AM
(http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/9374/31025988mm.jpg)

This is part of the one-of-a-kind copy of a 2,300-year -old text by the ancient Greek scientist Archimedes as seen in this handout photo given by Christie 's Athens Thursday October 22, 1998. The portrait presumably an Evangelist was a later attempt to embellish the work. Christie's auction house said Monday Oct. 26,1998 they may call off this week's auction of the text because of ownership claims by Greek orthodox clerics . (AP Photo/Christie's/Copy: Lefteris Pitarakis)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on February 17, 2006, 09:37:27 AM
(http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/75/31026046us.jpg)

This is part of the one-of-a-kind copy of a 2,300-year -old text by the ancient Greek scientist Archimedes as seen in this handout photo given by Christie 's Athens Thursday October 22, 1998. Christie's auction house said Monday Oct. 26,1998 they may call off this week's auction of the text because of ownership claims by Greek orthodox clerics. (AP Photo/Christie's/Copy: Lefteris Pitarakis)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on March 22, 2006, 03:27:23 PM
Theotokos he Pammakaristos [The Mother-of-God the All-Blessed], and Christos ho Logos [Christ the Word] Fethiye Camii, Constantinople, 1310

The parekklesion, vaulting

(http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/6918/pammakaristosmic29gm.jpg)

(http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/3751/crucegreacainscrisa22zw.jpg)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on March 22, 2006, 03:28:10 PM
Byzantine masonry at St. Sophia cathedral in Kiev [XI century]

(http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/2852/015kiev7yu.jpg)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on March 22, 2006, 03:30:44 PM
San Marco again

(http://img278.imageshack.us/img278/9564/sanmarcomicccc0le.jpg)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on March 22, 2006, 03:31:50 PM
Byzantine mosaics in Palermo, Sicily.

(http://img351.imageshack.us/img351/2966/007mic17er.jpg)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on March 22, 2006, 03:32:38 PM
The main church of the Hosios Lukas [St. Luke] monastery, Greece

(http://img426.imageshack.us/img426/1790/009hosioslukas27dn5od.jpg)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on March 22, 2006, 03:33:10 PM
Church in Athens

(http://img343.imageshack.us/img343/2995/atena23lq.jpg)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on March 22, 2006, 03:33:58 PM
St. Catherine monastery, Mount Sinai

[with the longest uninterrupted monastic life and some of the most precious icons in the world -VI century; it has a mosque inside its walls!]

(http://img450.imageshack.us/img450/6557/sinai13bo1jc.jpg)

(http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/2840/cai196mk.jpg)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on March 22, 2006, 03:34:41 PM
SIMONOPETRA monastery, Mount Athos

(http://img348.imageshack.us/img348/6637/1058simonopetra25em.jpg)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on March 22, 2006, 03:35:14 PM
Nave of monastery church on Mount Athos

(http://img333.imageshack.us/img333/3240/untitled21mic1dc.jpg)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on March 22, 2006, 03:35:48 PM
HILANDAR -Serbian- monastery, Mount Athos

(http://img348.imageshack.us/img348/1189/1048hilandar2mic8ba.jpg)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on March 22, 2006, 03:36:38 PM
HILANDAR church

(http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/695/vhosteterhilandarhtml22hx.jpg)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on March 22, 2006, 03:38:51 PM
From the island of Patmos, with its famous monastery
where the book of Revelation [Apocalypse] was written
by St. John the Theologian.


The cave-church where St. John was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

(http://img349.imageshack.us/img349/8530/untitled23mic7pc.jpg)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on March 22, 2006, 03:39:20 PM
Patmos

(http://img349.imageshack.us/img349/6213/untitled20mic0rw.jpg)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on March 22, 2006, 03:39:47 PM
Patmos

(http://img349.imageshack.us/img349/6581/untitled18mic4ma.jpg)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: dvoretzky on March 23, 2006, 10:53:27 AM
Ah, the holy island of Patmos!
I am lucky that I managed to go  there in 1995.
The Bishop of Kalithea told me that in the 17th and 18th century there were Bulgarian monks in the monastery.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on March 27, 2006, 06:55:30 AM
I've been to Greece only once, ten years ago, as far as Athens, but I' haven't seen any of the islands.

I hope I'll get there some day. 8-)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: boyar on April 25, 2006, 01:31:39 PM
Does anyone knows where the Byzantium Emperors and Empresses are buried?
Do you have pictures of their tombs?
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on May 14, 2006, 11:59:56 AM
news from 10 May 2006

Prince Charles to visit Greek monastic community

Prince Charles is due to visit the monastic community of Mount Athos in
Greece for three days this week, authorities said today.

Charles has made several annual trips to the all-male Orthodox
community, which has 20 monasteries.

Charles and Prince Philip are members of the Friends of Mount Athos, a
group that supports the self-governing community.

Mount Athos is about 70 miles from the northern Greek city of
Thessaloniki.

It has been an autonomous monastic state since Byzantine times.


http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaking/story.asp?
j=77878552&p=77878854&n=77878932&x=
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on September 15, 2006, 08:52:39 AM
Emperor Manuel II Paleologus is in todays news headlines:


Muslim anger grows at Pope speech

A statement from the Vatican has failed to quell criticism of Pope Benedict XVI from Muslim leaders, after he made a speech about the concept of holy war.
Speaking in Germany, the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things.

Pakistan's parliament passed a resolution on Friday criticising the Pope for making "derogatory" comments.

The Vatican said the Pope had not intended to offend Muslims.


 HAVE YOUR SAY
I think the Pope's comments weren't anti-Islamic, they were used to prove a point
Chris, Liverpool
 

"It is clear that the Holy Father's intention is to cultivate a position of respect and dialogue towards other religions and cultures, and that clearly includes Islam," said chief Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi in a statement.

But in spite of the statement, the pontiff returned to Rome to face a barrage of criticism, reports the BBC's David Willey in Rome.

The head of the Muslim Brotherhood said the Pope's remarks "aroused the anger of the whole Islamic world".

Violence and faith

The controversy comes on an important day for the Vatican, with Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, former Archbishop of Genoa, taking over as secretary of state.

Our correspondent says Pope Benedict, who has been closeted with his chief advisers at his summer residence near Rome, is upset at the way in which his remarks have been interpreted.

But there is no sense of panic at the Vatican, he says, and preparation for the Pope's forthcoming visit to Turkey, a predominantly Muslim secular nation, next November, are going ahead as planned.

In his speech at Regensburg University, the German-born Pope explored the historical and philosophical differences between Islam and Christianity, and the relationship between violence and faith.


 The remarks do not express correct understanding of Islam
Mohammed Mahdi Akef
Muslim Brotherhood
 

Stressing that they were not his own words, he quoted Emperor Manuel II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul.

The emperor's words were, he said: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Benedict said "I quote" twice to stress the words were not his and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".

"The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application," he added in the concluding part of his speech.

"Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today."

'Angry and hurt'

Pakistan's parliament passed a resolution demanding that the Pope retract his remarks "in the interest of harmony between religions".


 READ THE SPEECH

Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader 

"The derogatory remarks of the Pope about the philosophy of jihad and Prophet Mohammed have injured sentiments across the Muslim world and pose the danger of spreading acrimony among the religions," the AFP news agency quoted the resolution by the country's national assembly as saying.

The remarks prompted fears of unrest in Indian-administered Kashmir, as a result of which two separatist leaders were put under house arrest.

Meanwhile, the "hostile" remarks drew a demand for an apology from a top religious official in Turkey.

Ali Bardakoglu recalled atrocities committed by Roman Catholic Crusaders against Orthodox Christians and Jews, as well as Muslims, in the Middle Ages.

In Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood head Mohammed Mahdi Akef said the Pope's words "do not express correct understanding of Islam and are merely wrong and distorted beliefs being repeated in the West".

The 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference also said it regretted the Pope's remarks.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/5347876.stm

Published: 2006/09/15 11:08:53 GMT

© BBC MMVI



link to the full text of the Popes's speech:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
or
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_09_06_pope.pdf
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on November 16, 2006, 09:11:12 PM
some links to Byzantine Studies:




AIEB -Association Internationale des Etudes Byzantines (http://www.aiebnet.gr/)



Byzantium on the Internet - Paul Halsall (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/byzantium/)

Dumbarton Oaks (http://doaks.org/)

The Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies (SPBS) (http://www.byzantium.ac.uk/index.htm)

Le Comité Français des Études Byzantines (CFEB) (http://www.cfeb.org/)

Centre d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance  (http://byzance.dr10.cnrs.fr/site/index.htm)






Australian Association for Byzantine Studies (http://home.vicnet.net.au/%7Ebyzaus/)

Byzantine Studies Conference (http://www.byzconf.org/)

Byzantine Studies at Oxford (http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/byzstud/)

The British School at Athens (http://www.bsa.gla.ac.uk/)

Institute of Byzantine Studies -Queen's University Belfast  (http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/InstituteofByzantineStudies/)

Spätantike Archäologie und Byzantinistische Kunstgeschichte e.V. - Society for Late Antique and Byzantine Art (http://www.spaetantikeundbyzanz.de/de/index.htm)

Byzantine Studies Conference (http://www.sc.edu/bsc/)

Centre for Byzantine Studies at Iasi (http://www.csbi.ro/)

Archéologie paléochrétienne et byzantine (APB) -Université de Fribourg (http://www.unifr.ch/scant/apb/bienvenue.htm)

Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies Department-King's College University of London (http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/humanities/bymogrst/)

Centre de recherche d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance (Collège de France - CNRS) (http://www.college-de-france.fr/chaires/chaire23/)

Center For Byzantine & Modern Greek Studies -Queens College New York (http://www.hellenicosmos.com/)

Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies in the Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity -University of Birmingham (http://www.arch-ant.bham.ac.uk/bomg/)

Department of Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies -Moscow Lomonossov State University (http://www.philol.msu.ru/rus/kaf/byzant/intro.htm)

Institute of Byzantine Research -National Hellenic Research Foundation (NHRF) (http://www.eie.gr/nhrf/institutes/ibr/index-en.html)

Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Philology -University of Göttingen (http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~asidera/welcome-engl.html)

Institut für Byzantinistik und Neogräzistik -University of Vienna (http://www.univie.ac.at/byzneo/)

Institut für Byzanzforschung (IBF) -Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften (http://www.oeaw.ac.at/byzanz/)

Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes (CNRS) (http://www.irht.cnrs.fr/)

Byzantine Studies -University of Notre Dame (http://www.library.nd.edu/byzantine_studies/)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on November 18, 2006, 11:40:18 AM
GERMANY

Das Dölger-Institut - der Universität Bonn (http://www.antike-und-christentum.de/)

Arbeitsgemeinschaft Christliche Archäologie  (http://www.agca.de/static/)

Deutsche Arbeitsgemeinschaft zur Förderung byzantinischer Studien (http://www.byzantinistik.de/)

Freie Universität Berlin -Byzantine Studies (http://web.fu-berlin.de/byzneogr/byzanz/index.htm)

ABTEILUNG FUR BYZANTINISTIK -Universität Bonn (http://www.uni-bonn.de/www/Philologie/Byzantinistik.html)

Abteilung Byzantinistik und Neugriechische Philologie -Universität zu Köln (http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/byzneograez/)

Abteilung für Byzantinische und Neugriechische Philologie -Universität Leipzig (http://www.uni-leipzig.de/%7Eneograez/)

Abteilung V - Byzantinistik -Johannes Gutenberg-Universität (http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Geschichte/hist5/)

ARBEITSBEREICH   -Institut für Kunstgeschichte -Universität Mainz (http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Philologie-III/kunstgesch/)

Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Christliche Archäologie (http://www.christliche-archaeologie.uni-hd.de/)


AUSTRIA

Institut für Byzantinistik und Neogräzistik -Vienna (http://www.univie.ac.at/byzneo/)

Öesterreischische Akademie der Wissenschaften — Kommission für Byzantinistik (http://www.oeaw.ac.at/byzanz/)


CYPRUS

Department of Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies -University of Cyprus  (http://www.ucy.ac.cy/bneG/)


FRANCE

Byz@nce Web -Centre d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance (http://byzance.dr10.cnrs.fr/)

Centre d' Histoire et Civilization de Byzance, Collège de France - C.N.R.S.  (http://www.college-de-france.fr/chaires/chaire23/frameset.htm)

Association pour l'Antiquité Tardive (http://callimac.vjf.cnrs.fr/AnTardWEB/AnTard.html)

Centre Gabriel Millet -Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes (http://www.ephe.sorbonne.fr/index.php?option=com_contact&task=view&contact_id=33)

Centre d'Études Byzantines, Néo-Helléniques et Sud-Est Européennes (http://www.ehess.fr/centres/belon/pages/presentation.html)

La bibliothèque de l'Institut Français d'Etudes Byzantines (IFEB) (http://www.icp.fr/icp/biblio_etudes_byzantines_ifeb.php)

CNRS - Departement des sciences de l' homme et de la societe (http://www.cnrs.fr/infoDS.htm)


GREECE

ΙΝΣΤΙΤΟΥΤΟ ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΩΝ ΕΡΕΥΝΩΝ -INSTITUTE OF BYZANTINE RESEARCH -National Hellenic Research Foundation (NHRF) (http://www.eie.gr/nhrf/institutes/ibr/index-gr.html)

Κέντρο Βυζαντινών Ερευνών -Byzantine Research Centre (http://web.auth.gr/kbe/)


GREAT BRITAIN

Byzantine Studies Conference (http://www.byzconf.org/)

Byzantine Studies at Oxford (http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/byzstud/)

The British School at Athens (http://www.bsa.gla.ac.uk/)

Institute of Byzantine Studies -Queen's University Belfast  (http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/InstituteofByzantineStudies/)

Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies Department-King's College University of London (http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/humanities/bymogrst/)

Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies in the Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity -University of Birmingham (http://www.arch-ant.bham.ac.uk/bomg/)


UNITED STATES

United States National Committee for Byzantine Studies (http://www.sc.edu/bsc/)

Dumbarton Oaks -Byzantine Studies (http://www.doaks.org/Byzantine.html)

Society for Late Antiquity (http://www.sc.edu/ltantsoc/)

Byzantine Studies -University of Notre Dame  (http://www.library.nd.edu/byzantine_studies/)

University of Maryland - Webpages of Professor Sharon Gerstel (History of Art and Archaeology)  (http://www.arthistory-archaeology.umd.edu/)

Program in Hellenic Studies -Princeton University (http://www.princeton.edu/~hellenic/)


VATICAN

Vatican Library (http://bav.vatican.va/en/v_home_bav/home_bav.shtml)
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: Iskenderbey on December 01, 2006, 11:05:21 AM
Having watched with intensity the visit of the Pope to the Ecumenical Patriarch, I was quite moved to watch the two brothers of Christ united under a single roof, and awed by the awesome mysteries that is my religion, Orthodoxy, and as I heard the hymns and Divine Liturgy, could only imagine what orthodoxy was like in the ancient days of Holy and Imperial Constantinople.

Quite a landmark visit by the Pope, and one by which I will remember for a long time.  Watching his entrance into St. George's, as incense was swung in front of both men, and hearing the blessing hymn of "Many Years" being sung in an Orthodox Church for the Pope, was very moving. 

To the day when the two churches are re-united!

REgards to all,
S
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on December 07, 2006, 11:22:32 AM
What wonderful words! Thank you for posting this Iskenderbey!
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: TampaBay on December 09, 2006, 06:10:23 AM
Palimpsest,

Thank you for the many hours of work devoted to this thread.

If you are not on the payroll of the Turkish Tourist Commission you should be.

Again, thank you for all your efforts.  It is pure enjoyment.

TampaBay
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on December 11, 2006, 07:35:05 PM
Thank you Lady T!
I know I exaggerate, but I can't help it, I'm passionate about this stuff.  ;D








The Getty Center, Los Angeles
Holy Image, Hallowed Ground: Icons from Sinai
November 14, 2006 - March 4, 2007
http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/icons_sinai/index.html

This exhibition offers an unprecedented look at some of the oldest surviving icons from the Byzantine world, and provides rare insight into monastic life, past and present, at the remote Holy Monastery of Saint Catherine.

Lying in the shadow of Mount Sinai in Egypt, the Holy Monastery of Saint Catherine is the world's oldest continuously operating Christian monastery. Since the third century, monks have resided here, at the foot of the mountain where Moses is said to have encountered God. The present church and monastery walls were commissioned by the Byzantine emperor Justinian, who ruled over most of the Mediterranean region, including the Sinai peninsula, between 527 and 565.

Fifty-three objects have traveled from the monastery in Sinai for this exhibition. All were either commissioned by the monastery or received as gifts and have remained in the continuous care of generations of monks at Saint Catherine's.

Because of its geographic and political isolation from the Byzantine Empire, the monastery escaped the destruction of religious images that was sanctioned by Byzantine emperors during the period of Iconoclasm in the 700s and 800s. The veneration of icons continued uninterrupted at Sinai, and over the centuries the monastery both commissioned and received as gifts numerous icons, manuscripts, and liturgical objects.

Today, Saint Catherine's monastery is the world's largest repository of Byzantine icons. The works on display underscore the icon's central role in religious practice and introduce the public to the compelling history of Saint Catherine's.








The British Museum
Encounters: travel and money in the Byzantine world
until January 2007

http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/cm/cmnoex.html

Byzantium and the Byzantine Empire are names given to the Eastern Roman Empire during the Middle Ages (5th to 15th centuries). Byzantines thought of themselves as Romans, and their imperial capital at Constantinople (now called Istanbul) was known as New Rome.
This exhibition examines the context and spread of Byzantine coins beyond the borders of the empire and how other peoples responded to Byzantine coinage.
It has been mounted in partnership with the Barber Institute of Fine Arts, University of Birmingham and a version will be on show there from February 2007 until January 2008. An accompanying book, Encounters: Travel and Money in the Byzantine World, by E. Georganteli and B. Cook, will be available from August.






List of Byzantine Museums and Collections in Greece (http://www.culture.gr/2/21/toc/byz_mus.html)





Museum of Byzantine Culture  -Thessaloniki (http://www.mbp.gr/html/en/index.htm)




Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: boyar on December 18, 2006, 09:43:48 PM
Hello everybody,

Does anyone knows if the Convent of Kyra Martha in Constantinople still exists. And if it exists does, do you have pictures to share. Please share whatever information and pictures you have.

Thank you very much.
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: boyar on December 19, 2006, 09:45:03 AM
Hello palimpsest,

Thank you very much for this information. I would deeply appreciate if you post whatever pictures you have. It is important to me because the Convent of Kyra Martha is the final resting place of the Bulgarian Tsaritsa Theodora. Tsaritsa Theodora was the consort of Theodore Svetoslav, Tsar of Bulgaria and Michael III Shishman, Tsar of Bulgaria. She was the daughter of Michael IX Palaiologos, co-emperor of Byzantium (1295-1320) and Rita of Armenia (1278-1333). She was also the sister of Andronikos III Palaiologos, Emperor of Byzantium (1328-1341).
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: TampaBay on December 19, 2006, 07:00:02 PM
What do historians think it is???

TampaBay
Title: Re: The Byzantine Empire
Post by: palimpsest on December 20, 2006, 03:50:05 AM
I don't know... yet ;D
I'll try to find out more, but since the church/mosque was completely demolished in 1943 I think there must be little to no recent study on the matter.

I'm going too far with this, isn't it?  ::)
Sorry, the passion is too great! ;D