Anti-Armenian Polemics in a Slavic Canon-Law Miscellany (Ms. Slav. No 461 from the Manuscript Collection of the Romanian Academy). (original) (raw)
Related papers
The chapter presents a new critical edition, a translation and a commentary of the acts of the Council of Širakawan. In 862, the Armenian Catolicos Zachary of Jagkʽ received an emissary of Photios of Constantinople, who conveyed to him the Patriarch's appeal for Church reunion. In response, Zachary convened a Council in Širakawan, in which representatives of the Armenian, the Byzantine and the West-Syrian Churches took part. The embassy to Armenia was a part of the vast ecclesiastical activity that the Byzantines conducted in the Black Sea basin during those years, primarily at Photios's own initiative. The Byzantine mission to Armenia occurred at the moment when the conflict between the patriarchal sees of Constantinople and Rome was deepening; Pope Nicholas had declined to recognise Photios's enthronement and had also advanced several territorial claims of the Roman See. By sending his emissary to Armenia, Photios presented himself as a promoter of Christian unity, defying thereby the Roman claims of universal jurisdiction. The fact that Zachary had been ordained three years earlier, in Širakawan, in a manner similar to the ordination of Photios could have offered him additional grounds to expect support from the Armenian primate. The Council took place after several years of an unprecedented Byzantine advance on the Arab front. Reminiscent of the Emperor Herakleios's initiatives on the morrow of his re-conquest of Jerusalem in 629, the assembly convened at Širakawan was intended to work out a formula of mutual recognition between representatives of the ancient Christian Œcoumene. Although the Council did not achieve a reunion of the two Churches, it formulated an agreement which allowed for peaceful co-existence of Orthodox and non-Chalcedonians in the Byzantine-Armenian borderlands. Thereby, both the Armenian faith and the Byzantine mission to the Armenians were acknowledged. At the same time, the Canons of the Council secured the Orthodox Church against a possible influx of neophytes motivated by reasons of convenience. This settlement was intended to prevent the emigration of Armenians from the territories conquered by the Byzantines: they need no longer fear religious persecution. The spirit of tolerance, to which the Canons of the Council give voice, as well as the capacity of distancing oneself from one's own tradition, which they imply, endured in Armenia also in the centuries to come. This we learn from a letter that King Gagik Arcruni dispatched, in c. 935, to Constantinople (see Chapter IV of this book), as well as from Nersēs Šnorhali's writings (1165-1172) and later Armenian authors.
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 2022
Imperial piety and the writing of Christian history', moves away from the city to focus on the self-presentation of Theodosius II. Drawing particularly on the analysis of Judith Evans-Gruber, Falcasantos analyses how Theodosius and his councillors portrayed the imperial regime as a pious reforming monarchy in the best Roman tradition, highlighting how these policies correlated with times of potential stress and giving some discussion of Constantinople as the theatre of Theodosian self-presentation. This is, again, an interesting analysis. Yet like the discussion in chapter iv, it feels only partially relevant to the city and thus to the rest of the book. Although in Falcasantos's defence this is consistent with her desire to offer conclusions about the wider empire, it still flows somewhat awkwardly. The conclusion brings together previous themes and is a competent summary. Falcasantos is broadly successful in her main argument. The contention that Constantinople did not necessarily begin as a Christian city but became one through the efforts of episcopal and imperial figures is generally persuasive, although it would have been augmented by more use of the evidence in pagan writers like Julian, Himerius or Themistius. To a lesser extent, so is her contextualisation and de-familiarisation of Christianity, which fruitfully questions narratives of Christian exceptionalism and the categories they have inspired. This is only partially effective, however, because her alternatives do not always persuade. Sometimes the problem is stylistic-'those who engaged in practices directed at Christ' instead of 'Christians' (p. ) is a particularly egregious example. Sometimes it is analytical. Calling churches 'temples' (discussion at pp. -) from time to time is generally misleading in the majority of cases given the differences in ritual usage and architecture (Falcasantos makes a strong case, however, regarding Constantine's mausoleum, the Church of the Apostles [pp. -]). The methodology itself has a 'love it or hate it' quality. At some points it is a helpful and incisive theoretical framework which illuminates the city's religious life, while at others it a contestable and frustrating intellectual structure which distracts from her analysis. The prose style is often complex and jargon-laden, which can partially be attributed to these methodological choices. The editing and proofreading is by contrast near-perfect though there are some inconsistencies between the two maps (pp. and ). Overall, this book makes an intelligent and informative argument about religious change in late antique Constantinople, though one whose focus could be tighter. It is only partially convincing, however, as a vindication of a general method and approach.
JSAS, 2020
In the late seventeenth century along the lines of European confession-building and Ottoman sunnitization, the Armenian Apostolic Church initiated the reshaping of its orthodoxy in the face of growing Tridentine Catholicism. Through the contextualiza-tion of the polemical writing attributed to the famed Constantinopolitan Armenian erudite Eremia Čʻēlēpi Kʻēōmiwrčean, this article discusses the ways of detecting "bad innovations" in the doctrine and practice of Armenian communities in the Ottoman realms, and the doctrinal instruments used for enforcing "pure faith" towards social disciplining of the Apostolic Armenians.
Between 693 and 701, the Umayyad Caliphate established direct political control over Armenia and definitively suppressed the Armenian princes’ autonomy. Yet the Armenian Church acquired a new authority within Armenian society; its official Miaphysite faith received support from the Caliphate against the Chalcedonian, pro-Byzantine, tendencies significant especially in Siwnik‘. A moderate Julianist position, acceptable to both parties, was elaborated at a Council convoked at Mantzikert in 726 at the joint-initiative of the Armenian Catholicos and the West-Syrian Patriarch, the legal chiefs of two communities of dhimmi: this would remain the official doctrine of the Armenian Church to this day.This chapter analyses the activity of one of the major figures of this period, Stephen of Siwnik‘, and especially the circumstances of his travel to Constantinople (712–18), where he translated numerous Patristic texts into Armenian. The earlier part of Stephen’s sojourn in the capital overlaps with the brief reign of the emperor Bardanes Philippikos, a man of Armenian descent, who faced the urgent necessity of countering the Arab advance in Asia Minor. This unrelenting threat might well have driven the Byzantines to seek once more a strategic co-operation with the Armenians, both those outside and within the Empire. Bardanes convoked in Constantinople a synod which revoked the decisions of the Sixth Œcumenical Council and accommodated Monothelitism. Stephen’s writings confirm that Monothelitism stood closer to the Armenians’ theological sensitivity than did the doctrine of the Sixth Council. During the later part of his sojourn in Constantinople, Stephen made the acquaintance of Patriarch Germanos and returned to Armenia with Germanos’s letter, in which the Patriarch exhorted the Armenians to join the Orthodox Church. This letter and Stephen’s Response to Germanos reflect numerous theological themes important for understanding Byzantine-Armenian relationships and the shaping in Armenia of a distinct theological synthesis: the questions of natures, energies and wills in Christ, as well as the incorruptibility of Christ’s body.