.

Showing posts with label ΔΙΩΓΜΟΙ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ΔΙΩΓΜΟΙ. Show all posts

Sunday, November 4, 2012

P. B. Shelley:

“...the insensate mob
uttered a cry of triumph,
and I wept” /

«...ο αναίσθητος όχλος
έβγαλε μια κραυγή θριάμβου,
κι έγω έκλαψα»




*





Percy Bysshe Shelley / Πέρσι Σέλλεϋ,  Book VII, Spirit,
The works of Percy Bysshe Shelley (1847, p. 13).



I was an infant when my mother went
   To see an atheist burned. She took me there.
   The dark-robed priests were met around the pile;
   The multitude was gazing silently;
   And as the culprit passed with dauntless mien,
   Tempered disdain in his unaltering eye,
   Mixed with a quiet smile, shone calmly forth;
   The thirsty fire crept round his manly limbs;
   His resolute eyes were scorched to blindness soon;
   His death-pang rent my heart! the insensate mob
Uttered a cry of triumph, and I wept.
   "Weep not, child!" cried my mother, "for that man
   Has said, There is no God."


Ήμουν παιδάκι όταν η μητέρα μου πήγε
Να δει έναν αθεϊστή να καίγεται. Πήρε κι εμένα εκεί.
Οι μαυροφορεμένοι ιερείς ήταν συγκεντρωμένοι γύρω από την πυρά.
Το πλήθος παρακολουθούσε σιωπηλά.
Και καθώς ο κατάδικος περνούσε με όψη αγέρωχη,
Η ατσαλωμένη περιφρόνηση στο αμετακίνητο βλέμμα του,
Ανάμεικτη με ένα μειδίαμα,  έλαμψε απαλά.
Η δειψασμένη φωτιά ήρπε γύρω από τα αντρίκια άκρα του.
Τα αποφασιστικά μάτια του σύντομα τυφλώθηκαν από τις φλόγες.
Οι επιθανάτιες κραυγές του μού έσκισαν την καρδιά! ο αναίσθητος όχλος
Έβγαλε μια κραυγή θριάμβου, κι έγω έκλαψα.
"Μην κλαις, παιδί μου!", φώναξε η μητέρα μου, "γιατί αυτός ο άνθρωπος
Είπε: Δεν υπάρχει Θεός".



Sunday, August 26, 2012

Jews & "heretics"
under harsh persecution
in the Byzantine empire /

Ιουδαίοι & «αιρετικοί»
υπό σκληρό διωγμό
στη Βυζαντινή αυτοκρατορία










Ιουδαίοι που περιτέμνουν Χριστιανό
τιμωρούνται με κεφαλική ποινή και δημεύονται.

Jews who circumcise a Christian
they incure capital punishment and confiscation.




Μιχαήλ Ατταλειάτης / Michael Attaleiates,
Πόνημα νομικὸν ἤτοι σύνοψις πραγματική / Jus Graecoromanum,

ΤΙΤΛΟΣ Γʹ.
Περὶ τῆς ἀνωτάτω τριάδος καὶ πίστεως καθολικῆς,
καὶ περὶ τοῦ μηδένα τολμᾶν περὶ αὐτῆς δημοσίως ἀμφισβητεῖν,
καὶ περὶ αἱρετικῶν.

Ζήτει βιβλίον τῶν Βασιλικῶν αʹ.


αʹ. Χριστιανός ἐστιν, ὁ πιστεύων μίαν εἶναι θεότητα, ἐν ἴσῃ ἐξουσίᾳ τοῦ Πατρός, καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος. Ὁ γὰρ παρὰ τὰ εἰρημένα δοξάζων, αἱρετικός ἐστιν.

βʹ. Μηδεὶς τοῖς τῶν αἱρετικῶν μυστηρίοῖς, ἀνεώχθω τόπος.

γʹ. Μὴ λαμβανέτω Ἰουδαῖος Χριστιανήν, μήτε Χριστιανὸς Ἰουδαίαν. Καὶ ἁπλῶς αἱρετικοὶ καὶ ἀλλόπιστοι μηδὲ κατά τινα πρόφασιν Χριστιανοῖς πρὸς γάμον συναπτέσθωσαν.

δʹ. Μηδεὶς αἱρετικὸς ἐπίκτησιν ποιείτω πράγματος ἀκινήτου ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ, μηδὲ κατὰ μίσθωσιν ἢ ἐμφύτευσιν. Εἰ δέ τι τοιοῦτον ἁμαρτηθῇ, τὸ δοθὲν ὑπὲρ τῆς τοιαύτης αἰτίας ἀπολέσας ὁ αἱρετικός.

εʹ. Ὁ συκοφαντήσας ἐγκληματικῶς ἐπίσκοπον τριάκοντα χρυσίου λίτρας προστιμάσθω τῷ δημοσίῳ.

ϛʹ. Τοὺς ἐπισκόπους ἀπαγορεύομεν μὴ ἀφορίζειν τινὰ τῆς ἁγίας κοινωνίας, ἄνευ τὸ δειχθῆναι αἰτίαν εὔλογον. Ὁ δὲ ἀναποδείκτως ἀφορίζων, κωλύεται τῆς ἁγίας κοινωνίας ἐπὶ χρόνον.

ζʹ. Οἱ ἐπίσκοποι δωρεὰν καὶ ἀμισθὶ προχειριζέσθωσαν. Ἐὰν γάρ τι δοθῇ, ἐκπίπτει τῆς ἱερωσύνης καὶ ὁ λαβὼν καὶ ὁ δεδωκώς. Εἰ δὲ λαϊκός ἐστιν ὁ δεδωκώς, δίδωσι τὸ διπλάσιον.

ηʹ. Οἱ ἐπίσκοποι, καὶ οἱ μοναχοὶ μὴ γινέσθωσαν ἐπίτροποι ἢ κουράτορες, κἂν θέλωσι.

θʹ. Μοναχὸς τοῦ μοναστηρίου ἀναχωρῶν, καὶ ἰδιώτου βίον ἑλόμενος, ἀπόλλει ὅσα εἰσήγαγεν εἰς τὸ μοναστήριον.

ιʹ. Πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος χρηματικῶς ψευδομαρτυρῶν, τρεῖς ἐνιαυτοὺς τῆς ἱερουργίας χωρίζεται· ἐγκληματικῶς δέ, τῆς ἀξίας γυμνούμενος τιμωρεῖται.

ιαʹ. Δοῦλος γινώσκοντος τοῦ δεσπότου καὶ σιωπῶντος χειροτονούμενος κληρικός, ἐλευθεροῦται.

ιβʹ. Οὔτε μητροπολίτης οὔτε ἐπίσκοπος ἀπαιτεῖται ἐγγύην οὐδὲ ὁμολογίαν ὑπὲρ δίκης κἂν ἐνάγηται.

ιγʹ. Ὁ ὑβρίζων ἐπίσκοπον ἢ κληρικὸν ἐν ἁγίᾳ λειτουργίᾳ ἢ ἐν λιτῇ, βασανίζεται καὶ ἐξορίᾳ παραπέμπεται. Ὁ δὲ ταράσσων τὰς θείας λειτουργίας ἢ τὰς ἁγίας λιτάς, καὶ κωλύων αὐτὰς μὴ γίνεσθαι, κεφαλικῶς τιμωρεῖται.

ιδʹ. Οὐδεμίαν ἄδειαν παρέχομεν ἢ τοῖς γονεῦσι τοὺς παῖδας ἢ τοῖς παισὶ τοῦ γονεῖς τὴν κοσμικὴν διαγωγὴν καταλιμπάνοντας ὡς ἀχαρίστους ἀποκλείειν τῆς ἰδίας κληρονομίας ὑπὲρ αἰτίας πρὸ τοῦ μοναχικοῦ βίου προακολουθησάσης.

ιεʹ. Ἐὰν μοναχὸς καταλείψας τὸ ἴδιον μοναστήριον εἰς ἄλλο ἔλθῃ, εἴ τινα πράγματα ἐν τῷ καιρῷ, καθ’ ὃν τὸ μοναστήριον κατέλειπεν, ἔχειν φανῇ, τῷ πρώτῳ μοναστηρίῳ, ἐν ᾧ ἐξαρχῆς εἰσῆλθε, διαφέρειν κελεύομεν.

ιϛʹ. Εἴ τις ἁρπάσῃ ἢ ὑπονοθεύσῃ ἢ διαφθείρῃ ἀσκήτριαν, ἢ διακόνισσαν ἢ μονάστριαν, τὰ τούτου πράγματα καὶ τῶν τοιούτου μύσους αὐτῷ συμμετασχόντων κελεύομεν τῷ εὐαγεῖ τόπῳ ἐν ᾧ ἡ τοιαύτη γυνὴ ᾤκει, ἐκδικεῖσθαι· τοὺς δὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα πλημμελήσαντας καὶ τοὺς μετασχόντας τὸν ἐκ τοῦ νόμου κίνδυνον ὑπομένειν· τὰς δὲ γυναῖκας ἀναζητεῖσθαι, καὶ μετὰ τῶν ἰδίων πραγμάτων εἰς μοναστήριον ἐμβάλλεσθαι.

ιζʹ. Ἐξέστω ἑκάστῳ τελευτῶντι τὰ οἰκεῖα πράγματα καταλιμπάνειν ταῖς ἁγίαις ἐκκλησίαις, προστάττειν δὲ διὰ τούτων καὶ εὐκτήριον οἶκον καὶ ξενῶνα καὶ νοσοκομεῖον καὶ μοναστήριον κτίζεσθαι, καὶ διοικεῖσθαι κατὰ τὸ διατεταγμένον παρ’ αὐτοῦ. Δεῖ γὰρ φυλάττεσθαι τὰς γνώμας αὐτῶν.

ιηʹ. Μέχρι τῶν πρὸ τῆς δημοσίας ἀγορᾶς τῆς ἐκκλησίας ὅρων τὸ ἀσφαλὲς ἐχέτωσαν οἱ πρόσφυγες.

ιθʹ. Ὁ ἐξεῶν τινὰ προσφυγόντα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ὡς ἱερόσυλος τιμωρεῖται.

κʹ. Μηδεὶς εὐαγὴς οἶκος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐκποιείτω ἀκίνητον πρᾶγμα, μήτε κατὰ πρᾶσιν, μήτε κατ’ ἐμφύτευσιν, εἰμὴ ἐρημοτόπιόν ἐστιν ἀπρόσοδον. Τὰ δὲ μοναστήρια τὰ ἐν τῇ βασιλευούσῃ καὶ τὰ ἐν ἐπαρχίαις, καὶ αἱ ἐν ἐπαρχίαις ἐκκλησίαι δύνανται καὶ ἐκποιεῖσθαι καὶ διηνεκῶς εἰς ἐμφύτευσιν ἐκδιδόναι, μετὰ συντετηρημένης καὶ εὐλόγου αἰτίας.

καʹ. Χρεῶν ὑπόντων δύνανται καὶ εὐαγεῖς οἶκοι πωλεῖν τὰ περιττὰ ἱερά.

κβʹ. Ἐὰν ὁ λαβὼν εἰς ἐμφύτευσιν ἀπὸ ἐκκλησίας ἐπὶ δύο ἐνιαυτοὺς μὴ παράσχῃ τὸ ἐμφυτευτικὸν δημόσιον, μετὰ ἐπιφωνήσεις καὶ ὀχλήσεις ἐκπίπτει τοῦ πράγματος.

κγʹ. Ἀπαγορεύομεν καὶ τοῖς ὁσιωτάτοις ἐπισκόποις πράγματα κινητὰ ἢ ἀκίνητα ἢ αὐτοκίνητα, ὅσα μετὰ τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν εἰς αὐτοὺς οἱῳδήποτε τρόπῳ περιέλθοι, εἰς ἰδίους συγγενεῖς κατά τινα τρόπον μεταφέρειν· εἰς αἰχμαλώτων δὲ ἀνάῤῥησιν καὶ πτωχῶν ἀποτροφάς, καὶ εἰς ἄλλας εὐσεβεῖς αἰτίας, ἢ ὑπὲρ τοῦ συμφέροντος τῆς ἰδίας ἐκκλησίας (ἐκ τούτων δαπανᾶν ἄδειαν ἐχέτωσαν)· δύνανται δὲ ἅπερ πρὸ τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς εἶχον, ἢ μετὰ τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν ἀπὸ συγγενῶν ἔλαβον, καταλιμπάνειν οἷς ἂν βουληθεῖεν.

κδʹ. Πᾶσα ἀγωγὴ ἁρμόζουσα σεπτῷ οἴκῳ, εἰς τεσσαρακονταετίαν ἐπεκτείνεται. Ἔσωθεν γὰρ ταύτης δύναται τὸ μέρος τῆς ἐκκλησίας κινεῖν καὶ ζητεῖν τὸ ἴδιον παρὰ ἀλλοτρίου κατεχόμενον, εἴτε κινητόν ἐστιν ἢ ἀκίνητον, εἴτε χρεωστούμενον ἐξ οἱασδηποτοῦν αἰτίας. Ὅταν δὲ εὐαγὴς οἶκος πρὸς εὐαγῆ οἶκον ἔχῃ, ἡ τριακονταετία ἀντίκειται.

[...]

σλεʹ. Ὁ ἀπὸ Χριστιανῶν Ἰουδαῖος γενόμενος δημευέσθω.

σλϛʹ. Ὁ τὴν ὀρθόδοξον πίστιν κλέπτων, μήτε διατιθέσθω, μήτε δωρείσθω, μήτε διὰ πράσεως εἰκονικῆς εἰς ἀπάτην τοῦ νόμου φερέτω. Διαδεχέσθωσαν δὲ αὐτὸν ἐξ ἀδιαθέτου μόνοι Χριστιανοὶ συγγενεῖς. Ἡ δὲ κατ’ αὐτοῦ ἀγωγὴ μὴ περιοριζέσθω χρόνῳ. Ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔστω μόνος ὑπὸ μέμψιν, ὃς ἔθυσεν ἢ θύσαι τινὶ ἐνετείλατο.

σλζʹ. Ἐὰν Ἰουδαῖος Χριστιανὸν πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν θρησκείαν ἐφελκύσαι τολμήσῃ, δημευέσθω καὶ τὴν δι’ αἵματος τιμωρίαν ὑπομενέτω.

σληʹ. Πᾶς μὴ Χριστιανὸς οἰκέτην ἔχων Χριστιανόν, τριάκοντα χρυσίου λίτρας καταθήσει τῷ δημοσίῳ, καὶ εἰς ἐλευθερίαν ἁρπαζομένου τοῦ οἰκέτου.






* Iuris Graeco-Romani tomus secundus,
(Marquard Freher & Johannes Leunclavius, 1596),
pp./σσ. 6-8.
[Greek-Latin/Ελληνικά-Λατινικά, PDF]


Monday, July 9, 2012

France ordered to pay millions
for illegal taxation
of Jehovah’s Witnesses /

Η Γαλλία θα πρέπει να πληρώσει εκατομμύρια
για την παράνομη φορολόγηση
των Μαρτύρων του Ιεχωβά






Association Les Témoins de Jehovah v. France (no. 8916/05) - Chamber Judgment (Just Satisfaction). The applicant is the French association "Les Témoins de Jéhovah". By a judgment of 30 June 2011 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) concerning the taxation of hand-to-hand gifts received by the association between 1993 and 1996. Today’s [July 5, 2012] judgment concerned the question of just satisfaction (Article 41). The Court held that France is to reimburse the applicant association 4,590,295 euros (EUR) for the taxes unduly paid and EUR 55,000 for costs and expenses.


Νομικό σωματείο των Μαρτύρων του Ιεχωβά κατά Γαλλίας (αρ. 8916/05)
- Δικαστικό Τμήμα (Νόμιμη Ικανοποίηση).
Αιτόν είναι το γαλλικό νομικό σωματείο «Μάρτυρες του Ιεχωβά». Με απόφαση της 30ης Ιουνίου 2011 το Δικαστήριο αποφάσισε ότι υπήρξε παραβίαση του Άρθρου 9 (ελευθερία σκέψης, συνείδησης και θρησκείας) όσον αφορά στην φορολόγηση των από χέρι σε χέρι δωρεών που έλαβε το νομικό σωματείο μεταξύ του 1993 και του 1996. Η σημερινή [5 Ιουλίου 2012] απόφαση αφορούσε το ζήτημα της νόμιμης ικανοποίησης (Άρθρο 41). Το Δικαστήριο αποφάσισε ότι η Γαλλία θα πρέπει να αποζημιώσει το αιτόν νομικό σωματείο με 4.590.295 ευρώ για φόρους που εισπράχθηκαν αδικαιολόγητα και 55.000 ευρώ για δαπάνες και έξοδα.


* Strasbourg Consortium: Freedom of Conscience and Religion at the European Court of Human Rights,
"Recent Decisions and Judgments".


* Council of Europe: European Convention of Human Rights,
"Judges order €4 million Jehovah’s Witnesses award",
July 5, 2012.

* Strasbourg Consortium: Freedom of Conscience and Religion at the European Court of Human Rights,
"Association Les Témoins de Jéhovah v. France",
July 5, 2012.

* Jehovah’s Witnesses Official Media Web Site,
"France ordered to pay millions for illegal taxation of Jehovah’s Witnesses",
July 5, 2012.

* * *

ΕΝΗΜΕΡΩΣΗ:
* 12 Δεκεμβρίου 2012, Γαλλία:
Η Γαλλία Επιστρέφει Χρήματα που Εισέπραξε Παράνομα
από τους Μάρτυρες του Ιεχωβά
* December 12, 2012, France:
France Returns Funds Collected Illegally
From Jehovah’s Witnesses
+ Source: / Πηγή: www.jw.org

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Nazi regime
against Jehovah's Witnesses:
A case
of monumental Christian neutrality /

Το ναζιστικό καθεστώς
εναντίον των Μαρτύρων του Ιεχωβά:
Μια περίπτωση
μνημειώδους χριστιανικής ουδετερότητας





I was taken to the office of a Gestapo officer who specialised in Jehovah's Witnesses. On the wardrobe there was a death's head. The Gestapo officer said to me:

- Will you give up? If not, this is what your head will look like.

I said:

- My conscience does not allow me to kill.

He replied:

- We will cure your conscience.

The beating started again. I lost consciousness a few times. I was not able to walk out of there on my own. After six weeks of investigation I was transported to Auschwitz.




Οδηγήθηκα στο γραφείο ενός αξιωματικού της Γκεστάπο που ειδικευόταν στους Μάρτυρες του Ιεχωβά. Πάνω στην ντουλάπα υπήρχε μια νεκροκεφαλή. Ο αξιωματικός της Γκεστάπο μου είπε:

- Θα τα παρατήσεις; Αν όχι, έτσι θα γίνει και το δικό σου κεφάλι.

Του είπα:

- Η συνείδησή μου δεν μου επιτρέπει να σκοτώσω.

Εκείνος απάντησε:

- Εμείς θα γιατρέψουμε τη συνείδησή σου.


Ο ξυλοδαρμός άρχισε πάλι. Έχασα τις αισθήσεις μου αρκετές φορές. Δεν μπορούσα να περπατήσω από μόνος μου για να βγω από εκεί. Μετά από έξι εβδομάδες ανάκρισης μεταφέρθηκα στο Άουσβιτς.


* Teresa Wontor-Cichy,
Imprisoned for Their Faith: Jehovah's Witnesses in KL Auschwitz
[Φυλακισμένοι για την Πίστη τους: Οι Μάρτυρες του Ιεχωβά στο Στρατόπεδο Συγκέντρωσης Άουσβιτς],
Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, 2005,
pp./σσ. 15, 16 [14-20].
[English/Αγγλικά, PDF]


Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Theodosius I:
A Christian or an Emperor? /

Ο Θεοδόσιος Α':
Χριστιανός ή Αυτοκράτορας;



Theodosius I / Θεοδόσιος Α'

Μετὰ δὲ τὴν βασιλείαν Γρατιανοῦ ἡ σύγκλητος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἀνηγόρευσε βασιλέα Θεοδόσιον, ὡς ἐκ τοῦ γένους αὐτῶν ὄντα ἐκ τῆς Ἱσπανίας χώρας. καὶ ἀναγορευθεὶς ὑπὸ τῆς συγκλήτου ἐβασίλευσεν ὁ θειότατος Θεοδόσιος ὁ Σπανός, ὁ μέγας, γαμβρὸς Γρατιανοῦ, ἔτη ιζʹ. ἦν δὲ χριστιανὸς καὶ φρόνιμος καὶ εὐσεβὴς καὶ ἐνδρανής. ἢ μόνον δὲ ἐβασίλευσεν, εὐθέως ἀνέδωκε τὰς ἐκκλησίας τοῖς ὀρθοδόξοις, πανταχοῦ ποιήσας σάκρας καὶ διώξας τοὺς Ἀρειανούς. ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς βασιλεὺς ἔστεψε τοὺς δύο αὐτοῦ υἱούς, οὓς ἔσχεν ἀπὸ τῆς προτέρας αὐτοῦ γυναικὸς Γάλλης, καὶ τὸν μὲν Ἀρκάδιον ἐποίησε βασιλέα ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει, τὸν δὲ Ὁνώριον ἐν Ῥώμῃ. τοὺς δὲ ναοὺς τῶν Ἑλλήνων πάντας κατέστρεψεν ἕως ἐδάφους ὁ αὐτὸς Θεοδόσιος βασιλεύς. κατέλυσε δὲ καὶ τὸ ἱερὸν Ἡλιουπόλεως τὸ μέγα καὶ περιβόητον τὸ λεγόμενον Τρίλιθον, καὶ ἐποίησεν αὐτὸ ἐκκλησίαν χριστιανοῖς. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ ἱερὸν Δαμασκοῦ ἐποίησεν ἐκκλησίαν χριστιανῶν· καὶ ἄλλα δὲ πολλὰ ἱερὰ ἐποίησεν ἐκκλησίας, καὶ ηὐξήθη τὰ τῶν χριστιανῶν πλέον ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ. [...]

Ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς βασιλεὺς Θεοδόσιος ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ χρόνῳ τοὺς τρεῖς ναοὺς τοὺς ὄντας ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει εἰς τὴν πρῴην λεγομένην Ἀκρόπολιν καταλύσας, ἐποίησε τὸν τοῦ Ἡλίου ναὸν αὐλὴν οἰκημάτων, καὶ ἐδωρήσατο αὐτὴν τῇ μεγάλῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως· ἥτις αὐλὴ κέκληται ἕως τοῦ νῦν τοῦ Ἡλίου· τὸν δὲ τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος ναὸν ἐποίησε ταβλοπαρόχιον τοῖς κοττίζουσιν· ὅστις τόπος κέκληται ἕως τῆς νῦν ὁ ναός· ἡ δὲ πλησίον ῥύμη τὸ ἐλάφιν. τὸν δὲ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης ναὸν ἐποίησε καρουχαρεῖον τοῦ ἐπάρχου τῶν πραιτωρίων, κτίσας πέριξ ὁσπήτια καὶ κελεύσας δωρεὰν μένειν ἐν αὐτοῖς τὰς πάνυ πενιχρὰς πόρνας. ἐποίησε δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς Θεοδόσιος καὶ τὴν λεγομένην πρῴην κώμην Ῥοφαεινᾶν πόλιν· ἥτις μετεκλήθη Θεοδοσιούπολις, λαβοῦσα ἔκτοτε ἡ αὐτὴ κώμη καὶ δίκαιον πόλεως ἕως τῆς νῦν, ἐπὶ τῆς ὑπατείας Μηροβαύδου καὶ Σατουρνίνου.

Ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς Θεοδόσιος ἐπὶ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ βασιλείας ἐποίησε τὴν σύνοδον τῶν ρνʹ ἐπισκόπων τῶν ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει ἕνεκεν τοῦ ὁμοουσίου τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. [...]

Ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς Θεοδόσιος βασιλεὺς ἀπὸ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐξελθὼν ἐπὶ Ῥώμην εἰσῆλθεν ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ πόλει· καὶ τοῦ ὄντος μετ’ αὐτοῦ στρατιωτικοῦ πλήθους διὰ μιτᾶτα ταράξαντος τὴν πόλιν, ἐστασίασαν καὶ ὕβρισαν τὸν βασιλέα οἱ Θεσσαλονικεῖς. καὶ θεωρήσας ἱππικὸν ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ πόλει γέμοντος τοῦ Ἱππικοῦ ἐκέλευσε τοξευθῆναι· καὶ ἀπώλετο πλῆθος χιλιάδων δεκαπέντε. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀγανακτήσας κατ’ αὐτοῦ Ἀμβρόσιος ὁ ἐπίσκοπος ἐποίησεν αὐτὸν ὑπὸ κώλυμα· καὶ ἔμεινεν ἐπὶ πολλὰς ἡμέρας μὴ εἰσερχόμενος εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, ἕως οὗ παρακληθεὶς ὁ ἐπίσκοπος εἰς τὰ ἅγια γενέθλια ἐδέξατο αὐτόν. οὐκ ἄλλως δὲ ἐδέξατο αὐτόν, ἕως οὗ ἐποίησε σάκραν, ἵνα οἱασδήποτε ἀγανακτήσεως παρὰ βασιλέως γινομένης ἔνδοσιν δίδοσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπιτρεπομένων τριάκοντα ἡμερῶν καὶ εἶθ’ οὕτως γενέσθαι τὸ προσταχθέν.


After the reign of Gratian, the senate of Constantinople proclaimed as emperor Theodosius, who was related to the imperial family and came from the land of Spain. After being proclaimed by the senate, the most sacred Theodosius the Great, the Spaniard, the brother-in-law of Gratian, reigned for 17 years. He was a Christian, and a sensible, pious and energetic man. As soon as he began to reign, he immediately returned the churches to the Orthodox, issuing rescripts everywhere and expelling the Arians. The emperor crowned his two sons whom he had by his first wife, Galla, and made Arcadius emperor in Constantinople and Honorius in Rome. The emperor Theodosius razed all the shrines of the Hellenes to the ground. He also destroyed the large and famous temple of Helioupolis, known as Trilithon, and made it a church for the Christians. Likewise he made the temple of Damascus a Christian church. He made many other temples into churches and Christianity advanced further during his reign. [...]

The emperor Theodosius in that year pulled down the three temples in Constantinople on what was formerly known as the Acropolis. He made the temple of Helios into a courtyard surrounded by houses and donated it to the Great Church of Constantinople. This courtyard is called the "Courtyard of Helios" to the present day. The temple of Artemis he made into a gaming room for dice players. This place is called "The Temple" to the present day, and the street nearby is called "The Fawn". The temple of Aphrodite he made into a carriage-house for the praetorian prefect, and he built lodging-houses close by and gave orders that penniless prostitutes could stay there free of charge. Theodosius made the village formerly known as Resaina into a city, which was renamed Theodosioupolis; the village received the status of a city during the consulship of Merobaudes and Saturninus, from that date to the present day.

During his reign Theodosius held the Council of 150 Bishops in Constantinople concerning the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit. [...]

The emperor Theodosius left Constantinople for Rome and entered the city of Thessalonike. The military force which was with him caused an uproar in the city over billeting, and so the inhabitants of Thessalonike rioted and insulted the emperor; and when he was watching the races in the city with the hippodrome full, he ordered his archers to shoot at the crowd and as many as 15,000 were killed. Bishop Ambrose was angry with him because of this and placed him under interdict. He remained many days without entering the church, until the bishop was persuaded to receive him at the feast of the Holy Nativity. But he only agreed to receive him when he had issued an imperial rescript that, in any case of imperial displeasure, whatever its nature, a remission should be granted by the arbitrators for 30 days and only then should the sentence be carried out.

* Ιωάννη Μαλαλά, Χρονογραφία, Λόγος Β' 13:37, 39, 40, 43.
L. Dindorf, Ioannis Malalae chronographia Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae. Bonn: Weber, 1831,
σ. 344-348
.
[Ελληνικά/Greek, PDF]


English transl./Αγγλική μετάφρ.:Elizabeth Jeffreys, Michael Jeffreys, Roger Scott & Brian Croke (ed. & transl.),
The Chronicle of John Malalas (Byzantina Australiensia 4),
Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 1986.


Monday, November 28, 2011

Η γκετοποίηση
των αλλόθρησκων & αλλόδοξων
στο Βυζάντιο του 13ου αιώνα /

Ghettoizing
non-Christian communities
at 13th cent. Byzantium




*





* Ερωτήσεις του αγιωτάτου
μητροπολίτου Δυρραχίου Κωνσταντίνου του Καβάσιλα
,
και αποκρίσεις προς ταύτας του αγιωτάτου
αρχιεπισκόπου πάσης Βουλγαρίας, κυρού Δημητρίου του Χωματιανού
,
«Εί έξεστι τοις Αρμενίοις, εν αις πόλεσιν οικούσιν, κατά πάσαν άδειαν κτίζειν εκκλησίας,
και εί τε χρη κωλύεσθαι, ή εάν αυτούς ποιείν, ως βούλονται»,

στο Pitra, Analecta sacra (1891) τόμ. 7  στ. 662-664. 






* Ιωάννου του επισκόπου Κίτρου,
αποκρίσεις προς Κωνσταντίνον αρχιεπίσκοπον Δυρραχίου τον Καβάσιλαν
,
«Εί έξεστι τοις Αρμενίοις, εν αις πόλεσιν οικούσι, κατά πάσαν άδειαν κτίζειν Εκκλησίας,
και είτε χρη κωλύεσθαι, ή εάν αυτούς ποιείν, ως βούλονται»,




Βλέπε επίσης:

* Ιωάννη Ρωμανού, «Η εβραϊκή κοινότης της Κέρκυρας»
- Εστία 1891, τόμ. 31 τεύχ. 24, σσ. 369-374.
- Εστία 1891, τόμ. 31 τεύχ. 25, σσ. 385-388.
- Εστία 1891, τόμ. 31 τεύχ. 26, σσ. 401-403.
[Ελληνικά/Greek, PDF]
ΙΩΑΝΝΗΣ ΡΩΜΑΝΟΣ. Ο Ρωμανός διακριθείς εν τω κύκλω των λογίων ήδη προ της ενώσεως της Επτανήσου συνέγραψε πολλάς ιστορικάς πραγματείας ιδία εφαπτομένας της μεσαιωνικής ημών ιστορίας, ων εξέχει η μονογραφία περί του Γρατιανού Τζώρτζη αυθέντου της Λευκάδος. Εις δε τους αναγνώστας της Εστίας είνε γνωστός εκ της περί Ισαρηλιτικής κοινότητος εν Κερκύρα περισπουδάστου μελέτης του. Καίτοι πολλάκις επροτάθη εις αυτόν η θέσις καθηγητού της ιστορίας εν τω Εθνικώ Πανεπιστημίω, μετριοφρόνως απέσχε πάντοτε ταύτης και ηρκέσθη εις τον απλούν τίτλον γυμνασιάρχου του εν Κερκύρα γυμνασίου. Ο Ρωμανός εχρημάτισε και καθηγητής εις την νεοελληνικής της αυτοκρατείρας της Αυστρίας, πολύ δεν συνετέλεσε δια της μειλιχίου κα ιτερπνής αυτού διδασκαλίας εις την εν Κερκύρα αποκατάστασιν αυτής.

* Δελτίον της Εστίας, Τόμ. 16, Αρ. 13 (1892), σ. 2.
[Ελληνικά/Greek, PDF]



Saturday, November 26, 2011

Επιβολή συγκεκριμένων θεολογικών θέσεων
μέσω σύγκλησης γενικών εκκλησιαστικών συνόδων /

Enforcing particular theological views
by summoning general Councils of the Church



Η γενική μου θέση είναι πως η Σύνοδος της Χαλκηδόνος ήταν εξίσου μηχανισμός καταστολής όσο και η Δεύτερη Έφεσος (η λεγόμενη Ληστρική Σύνοδος), και μάλιστα ότι ο μηχανισμός ήταν πολύ πιο ισχυρός στη Χαλκηδόνα, τόσο που δεν χρειάστηκε να ασκηθεί πραγματική βία ή έστω να υπάρξει εμφανής απειλή βίας, διότι ο καθένας γνώριζε ότι η αντίσταση στην αυτοκρατορική θέληση θα κατέληγε στην καταστροφή του: απώλεια του επισκοπικού αξιώματος, αφορισμό, και ίσως εξορία σε έναν απομακρυσμένο τόπο της αυτοκρατορίας. Αυτό δεν θα έπρεπε να εκπλήσσει κανέναν, διότι αποτελεί  απλώς ένα από τα πολλά παραδείγματα τού άκρως εκτεταμένου ελέγχου που μπορούσε να ασκήσει ένας ρωμαίος αυτοκράτορας (αν το επιθυμούσε) επί των χριστιανικών εκκλησιών, στην περιοχή πού διοικούσε, ακόμη και στη σφαίρα του δόγματος. Εάν ένας αυτοκράτορας επιθυμούσε να επιβάλει ένα συγκεκριμένο σύστημα θεολογικών απόψεων, μπορούσε να το επιτύχει συγκαλώντας μια γενική σύνοδο της Εκκλησίας, πράγμα που μόνο αυτός είχε δικαίωμα να το κάνει. Ακόμη και ο πάπας Λέων ο Μέγας, ο οποίος είχε την πιο μεγάλη ιδέα για τη σημασία της Αποστολικής Έδρας, αναγκάστηκε να παραδεχτεί, στην αλληλογραφία του με τον Θεοδόσιο Β', με την Πουλχερία και τον Μαρκιανό, ότι ο αυτοκράτορας και μόνο αυτός αποφάσιζε εάν, πότε και πού θα συγκαλούσε γενική σύνοδο. Ο Λέων άλλαξε αρκετές φορές γνώμη σχετικά με τη σκοπιμότητα μιας γενικής συνόδου υπό τις συνθήκες του 449-51, χωρίς όμως να μπορέσει να επιβάλει την άποψή του. Στο τέλος αναγκάστηκε να αρκεστεί με την υιοθέτηση από τη Χαλκηδόνα της δογματικής επιστολής του προς τον Φλαβιανό, γνωστής ως «Τόμος του Λέοντα» και ως καλύτερης διακήρυξης Αληθινής Πίστης. Αναθέτοντας τον έλεγχο της συνόδου στα κατάλληλα πρόσωπα, ένας αυτοκράτορας μπορούσε να επιτύχει τις αποφάσεις που ήθελε. Βέβαια, ίσως να μην μπορούσε να επιβάλει κατόπιν τη δική του εκδοχή για το χριστιανισμό σε όλες τις κτήσεις του. Η Σύνοδος της Χαλκηδόνος, η οποία αυτή καθαυτήν μπορεί να φαίνεται ως ένας απόλυτος θρίαμβος και επαινείται αφειδώς από πολλούς σύγχρονους θεολόγους, έχει συχνά περιγραφεί (ορθώς, κατά την άποψή μου) ως καταστροφή για την Ανατολική Αυτοκρατορία. Όπως το έθεσε ο Norman Baynes, η Χαλκηδόνα συγκλήθηκε «όχι για να φέρει την ειρήνη, άλλα το σπαθί». Ο μονοφυσιτισμός ήταν πολύ ισχυρός για να καταπνιγεί σε ορισμένες περιοχές, κυρίως στην Αίγυπτο, καθώς και σε τμήματα της Συρίας και της Μεσοποταμίας· οι ορθόδοξοι αυτοκράτορες όφειλαν ασφαλώς να μείνουν ικανοποιημένοι με δογματικές διατυπώσεις που θα τον είχαν ενσωματώσει, ή τουλάχιστον θα ανέχονταν την ύπαρξή του. Σχεδόν όλοι όμως οι επίσκοποι επιθυμούσαν διακαώς να εξαλείψουν αυτό πού θεωρούσαν αίρεση.

* Geoffrey de Ste Croix,
Ο χριστιανισμός και η Ρώμη. Διωγμοί, αιρέσεις και ήθη,
Μετάφρ. Ιωάννα Κράλλη,
Αθήνα 2005, 1η ανατύπωση 2010,
σσ. 328-330.





My overall thesis is that the Council of Chalcedon was every bit as much an engine of coercion as the ‘Robber’ Council of Second Ephesus, and that the machinery of compulsion was actually far more powerful at Chalcedon, so much so that actual force did not need to be used, or even visibly threatened, because everyone knew that resistance to the imperial will would result in his ruin: the loss of episcopal office, and perhaps excommunication and exile to a distant part of the empire, as happened to the one determined opponent, Dioscorus. This should not surprise anyone, as it only provides one more among many examples of the very high degree of control that a Roman emperor could exercise (if he wished) over the Christian churches in the area over which he ruled, even in the sphere of doctrine. It was easiest to enforce a particular set of theological views by summoning a general Council of the Church, which the emperor alone had the power to do. Even Pope Leo the Great, who had the most exalted idea of the importance of his own Apostolic See, had to admit throughout his correspondence with Theodosius II, Pulcheria, and Marcian, which fortunately survives, that it was the emperor and the emperor alone who decided whether, when, and where to summon a general council. Leo changed his own view about the desirability of a general council more than once between 449 and 451 in the light of changing circumstances, but was unable to impose his wishes. In the end he had to be content with having his doctrinal letter to Flavian of Constantinople, which is commonly referred to as the Tome of Leo, endorsed at Chalcedon as the best statement of the true faith. [...]

It was only by placing control of a council in the right hands that an emperor could be certain of securing the decisions that he wanted: even an emperor’s representative might be outmanoeuvred if he was not presiding. [...]

The Council of Chalcedon, which in isolation can be seen as a complete triumph for Marcian and Two Nature Christology, and which has been lavishly praised by some modern theologians, has often been described, rightly in my opinion, as a disaster for the Eastern Empire: as Norman Baynes put it, Chalcedon came ‘not to bring peace, but a sword’. Monophysite views were far too strong to be suppressed in some areas, above all in Egypt and much of Syria and Mesopotamia, and the Orthodox Empire would surely have done better to be content with doctrinal formulae that would have accommodated it, or at least tolerated its existence. [...]

It is true that most bishops whose voices can be heard wanted to be on record as deeply committed to stamping out what was identified as heresy, but that should come as no surprise.


* Geoffrey de Ste Croix,
edited by Michael Whitby & Joseph Streeter,
Christian Persecution, Martyrdom, and Orthodoxy
[Χριστιανικός Διωγμός, Μαρτύριο και Ορθοδοξία],
pp. 274, 275, 319, 281.

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Byzantine heretics & Jews
in the 7th cent. /

Βυζαντινοί αιρετικοί & Ιουδαίοι
κατά τον 7ο αιώνα




*

More important for the state, politically and also ideologically, were the various heretical groups which existed within the empire, important because they posed a more immediate and coherent challenge to neo-Chalcedonian orthodoxy, and thereby to the authority of the emperors. But the most dangerous of these, monophysitism, became ever less relevant during the course of the seventh century. True, the imperial government and Church probably never wrote off entirely the possibility of reconquering the lost Eastern provinces in which monophysitism was the dominant creed. But by the 640s imperial attempts to find and impose a compromise - in the event, monotheletism - reflected rather the perceptions of those in power that the imperial authority was endangered, than the real desire to win over the populations of Syria and Egypt. Armenia remained a problem, of course, but again, a distant imperial power, even with the occasional use of force, could not seriously hope to compel a monophysite population to accept imperial and Chalcedonian authority. And in the event, the alienation of the non-Byzantine Armenian nobility and the much cleverer politics of the caliphate lost this region, too. No doubt monophysitism remained among elements of the population of Asia Minor - according to John of Ephesus, Cilicia, Isauria, Asia and Cappadocia all possessed strong and flourishing monophysite communities. Other well-known monophysites, such as Jacob Baradaeus, had also been active in converting pagans to monophysitism in Asia Minor. Jacob travelled in Cappadocia, Cilicia, lsauria, Pamphylia, Lycaonia, Lycia, Phrygia, Caria, Asia, as well as on Chios, Rhodes and Lesbos. Monophysite bishops were consecrated for many of the cities of these regions. And it is most unlikely that these communities did not survive well into the seventh century and beyond. But the effects of the Arab invasions and attacks and, in particular, the loss of the monophysite provinces, cut such communities off from the wider world which had nourished them hitherto. They can only have survived -where they were not destroyed or fragmented through hostile military activity - in relative isolation, and the pressing insistence of the state on orthodoxy within its own apparatus, at least for the vast mass of the bureaucracy, cannot have contributed to the maintenance of their ideological integrity. At any rate, while monophysite sentiment continued to exist within the empire, the canons of the Quinisext suggest that it played only a minor role. Only two canons, 81 and 82, reflect a clearly anti-monophysite tendency, the first prohibiting the addition of the phrase 'who was crucified for us' to the creed, a theopaschite formulation which reflected a monophysite theology; the second prohibiting the depiction of Christ as a lamb, a practice which, it was argued, jeopardised the assumption of two natures, human and divine, of Christ. Canon 95 also implies the continued existence of a variety of monophysite sects and tendencies, although the list must be treated with caution. In listing the process whereby heretics who wish to join or rejoin the true faith might be admitted to the Church, the canon notes that for certain groups, Severus of Antioch and the archimandrite Eutyches, two of the best-known monophysite polemicists, were to be first condemned (along with the patriarch Nestorius) before they could be accepted. It is probable that various minor sects, which still held views that might be characterised as either monophysite or Nestorian, were intended here. On the whole, however, monophysites do not seem to be a serious concern, and indeed the fact that the canon stipulates the requirements for admission may well suggest that such monophysites as remained within the empire were being gradually assimilated into the Chalcedonian fold.

The hostile activity of the Arabs may well have played a central role here, for the devastation they brought about seems to have dislodged large numbers of the rural populace in many areas, forcing them to seek refuge in less exposed districts. Interestingly, canon 95 notes that numbers of heretics - including Eunomians, Sabellians and Montanists - had left the region of Galatia and sought baptism: and it is highly likely that this movement was a result of the economic and physical dislocation caused by raiding Muslim forces. More importantly, it forced hitherto isolated rural communities, who had probably been able to practise their form of Christianity with little interference, into the 'outside' world of neo-Chalcedonian orthodoxy, where the differences and divergences were more apparent, attracting the attention of the authorities. This general phenomenon must surely have applied to other non-Chalcedonian or heretical groups. On at least one occasion, and possibly more often, we know that considerable numbers of refugees from a famine in Syria entered the empire (in 686, according to Theophanes), and this was yet another source of potential difference or disruption which the Church had to handle.

It seems not unreasonable to suppose, therefore, that it was in fact the disruption of the seventh century which produced a greater uniformity of belief within Byzantine Asia Minor.

Other heresies and schismatic sects existed across the empire, of course. In North Africa, Donatism - which had come to represent local cultural-political feeling as well as religious dogmatic differences of opinion - seems to have experienced a very limited revival during the later years of the sixth century, if the letters of Pope Gregory are to be given credence: although their numbers seem to have been small, and their influence limited. But whether the people in question are really Donatists, or whether the term is simply used of non-Chalcedonian heretics generally, is uncertain. Even so, a reference to Donatists in North Africa in a letter of Pope Gregory II for the year 722 suggests that it may have survived, albeit in isolation and on a very limited scale, throughout the period with which we are dealing.

Arianism likewise survived on a limited scale, chiefly among Germanic mercenaries in the imperial armies in the later sixth and early seventh centuries. John of Εphesus reports the presence of an Arian church for the German community ιn Constantinople, and the popular hostility to it. But this was an isolated incident: and while Arianism may have persisted in the West, particularly in North Africa after the defeat of the Vandals, and in Italy among the Lombards until 680, it seems to have disappeared from within the empire, including its Spanish territories (held until c. 625: the final conversion of the Visigothic Church to Chalcedonian orthodoxy took place at the council of Toledo in 589) by the time of the accession of Heraclius.

The Montanist heresy, which had its centre in Phrygia, may have lingered on into the seventh and early eighth centuries, although the evidence is inconclusive: it is difficult to ascertain whether a source such as Theophanes means the real Montanists or merely uses the term as a convenient and well-known element in a list. Later legislation- notably the condemnation of Montanists and Manichaeans in the Ecloga - seems to rely on the Justinianic codification for its inspiration, and the term is used once more as a convenient 'catch-all', as may also be the case with the 95th canon of the Quinisext. Montanism certainly seems to have existed into the late sixth century, however, as John of Ephesus, who led a major drive against their cult centres and converted many to orthodoxy (i.e. monophysitism), reports in detail. But his missionary activities, together with the fierce persecutions under Tiberius Constantine, may well have dealt the fatal blow to the Montanist communities.

Similar considerations apply to the Messalians, sometimes called Marcianists, both terms used in the sixth and seventh centuries for defamatory purposes, rather than signifying actual practices or beliefs. Messalianism originated as an ascetic heresy in Syria during the fourth century: but by the later sixth century the term seems to have lost its real significance. And the fact that it occurs in the scholia of Maximus Confessor to the Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagite - 'Lampetianoi, that is, Messalianoi or Adelphianoi, which is to say, Markianistai'- is no evidence for the existence of Messalian heretics or communities. Part of the difficulty in identifying such groups lies in the fact that orthodox critics of aberrant beliefs and heresies tended to use the descriptive terms of earlier writers and of an earlier period in their lists and classifications of heretics and heretical beliefs, and it is difficult to know to what extent these lists represent a contemporary situation, or merely reflect an antiquarian and condemnatory topos. Older terms were often applied, with little or no theological justification, to quite new groups of heretics. The term 'Messalian' was thus used also of Bogomils in the later period, while terms such as Montanist or Arian occur similarly alongside other names of actual, living, heresies from the seventh century on. Thus references to the Meletians, Paulianists, Marcionists, Sabbatians, Novatians, Quartodecimans (Tessarakaidekatitai), Eunomians, Sabellians and many other sects must be treated cautiously. In the early seventh-century handbook of the presbyter Timothy of Constantinople, De receptione haereticorum, and in the 95th canon of the Quinisext, such sects are mentioned without any real evidence that they actually survived. What both texts represent is a catalogue of traditional heresies, subdivided into three categories according to their degree of difference from orthodox Christianity and the mode in which their adherents are to be readmitted to the Church. Similarly, in the anti-heretical compilation of Anastasius of Sinai and in a (probably) seventh-century text on the Messalians by the monk and presbyter George, lists of heretics also occur, and it is clear that in part, at least, the polemical tradition and the intention of the authors of such works have determined the composition of the lists themselves.

While it is quite probable that much of the rural population of Asia Minor - where these heresies had mainly had their roots in the period from the second to the fifth centuries - did express their beliefs through ideas and liturgical practices which might have seemed heretical or aberrant to the strictly orthodox observer (and to the official Church position), and while such groups may even have referred to themselves by such sectarian names, it seems unlikely that any organised movements or sect Churches existed. Many may have seen their differences from the orthodox establishment as a symbol of their own cultural traditions - and even at times of their opposition to aspects of state rule as vehicles for the expression of their cultural and social solidarity. The occurrence of these terms in later commentators, therefore, especially when used in connection with a known heretical movement or unorthodox activity, must be viewed with especial suspicion. On the whole, with the exception of the Marcionist sect, which may have contributed to the development of the Paulician Church, the great majority of these sects seems to have vanished by the later sixth century. The use of their names in later sources reflects either the age-old practice of using old names for new heresies where a connection, spurious or real, could be found; or their application to regional customary usages for which the observer may have felt little sympathy.

If the great majority of the older heresies had disappeared in all but name by the later sixth or early seventh centuries, two groups seem to have their origins in this period. In the first, that of the Paulicians, the question of dualism in its Manichaean forms was encountered once more. The confrontation with dualism begins much earlier, of course, in the early Christian centuries: Manichaeism, with its systematised and sophisticated theology, gave dualism a new strength and provided later dualist heresies with a valuable arsenal of arguments.

The beginnings of Paulicianism are shrouded in obscurity, and the question of when and where the sect was first established remains a subject of debate. It was a dualist and egalitarian sect, which based its beliefs on an interpretation of the New Testament, regarding the Old Testament as irrelevant. Its rejection of baptism and of any formal ecclesiastical hierarchy brought it into conflict with the established Church and thus with the state: and in the second half of the seventh century it was heavily persecuted - the later evidence, at least, suggests that it already had at this time a considerable popular following in the still limited areas of the provinces Armenia I and II where it is first encountered. It was, of course, to become a major threat to imperial territorial and administrative integrity in the ninth century: but at this period although persecutions took place under Constantine IV and Justinian II, it remained a minor problem.

The second heretical sect whose origins have been traced to the later seventh or early eighth centuries is that of the Athigganoi. They are first mentioned in the writings on heresy usually ascribed to the patriarch Germanus (715-30) between 727 and 733. The nature of their beliefs is unclear, and they have been connected with both the Novatians, Montanists and Paulicians, and with the Jews. They were associated in Byzantine times with Phrygia and Lycaonia especially, and the Montanist connection is suggested by the fact that they were sometimes referred to as 'Phrygians', a term applied also to the older sect. But they seem to have been few in number and relatively insignificant until the middle and later eighth century. From our point of view, their significance, as that of the Paulicians, lies in their possible connection with some of the earlier sects, which may have been reshaped during the seventh century, or may indeed have attracted new followers and adherents as the remnants of the majority of the older sects were dispersed or died out. It is at least likely, therefore, that while the Paulician and athigganoi movements developed their own independent and dynamic traditions, they were rooted in, and owed their beginnings to, the conditions which signalled the end of most of the other Christian sects of Anatolia.

The one group of believers who presented a real problem for both Christian theologians and the Christian state throughout the period dealt with here, and indeed throughout the history of the state itself, a group which, in spite of more or less constant persecution, occupying always a subordinate position within Eastern Christian society and culture, does survive and is able even to prosper, is represented, of course, by the Jews. Judaism presented a number of difficulties to Christian thinkers.

But it also presented difficulties for the state and for society at large, for the structure of Jewish beliefs and kinship gave Jewish communities a stubborn resilience which was able to weather the fiercest storms of persecution, forced baptism and so on. Up to the sixth century, the Jews had been tolerated, with only minor and occasional persecutions directed specifically against them. But they, along with certain other groups within Roman society, had fewer rights than orthodox subjects. From Justinian's reign, however, begins a long period of persecution: Justinian himself deprived Jews, and Samaritans, of their few remaining rights within the state with regard to public office or state service in general. Under Justin they had already been deprived of the right to make wills and to receive inheritances, being also debarred from carrying out any legal act, such as being a witness in a law court. Justin and Justinian both began to apply the laws against heretics and pagans to Jews and Samaritans as well: and although forcible baptism had been applied to Jewish communities in the fifth century on occasion, such measures were enacted increasingly from Justinian's reign on in the East, and from the later sixth century in the West also. Under Tiberius Constantine, Maurice and Heraclius, similar persecutions took place, and the Jews were increasingly reduced to the position of a very marginalised social and cultural element within a predominantly Christian society.

Under Heraclius, a series of forced baptisms of Jews culminated in 634 in the first general edict to compel all Jews within the empire to accept baptism. While it seems to have met with very little success, and to have been only half-heartedly imposed, it is nevertheless symptomatic of a change in the situation of Jews. The days when Jews were accorded a privileged status, enshrined in the legal codifications of the emperors -including Justinian's- and based on both Roman legal theory and Christian notions of the Jews as a living testimony to the Christian interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, were gone. Even though Jews lost their 'civil rights' under Justin and Justinian, they were still, in general, set apart from pagans and heretics alike. Judaism was both permitted and protected. By the time of Heraclius, this situation had begun to change; and although there now existed a constant tension between the traditional approach on the one hand, enshrined in the Codex Theodosianus and the Codex Iustinianus, and on the other the exclusivism of emperors like Heraclius, or Leo III (who is reported to have issued a similar edict to that of Heraclius), the attempts to force the conversion of Jews to Christianity, repeated sporadically throughout Byzantine history, were on the whole a failure: the older Christian tradition, which set Jews apart from other marginal groups, retained its hold on Eastern Christian attitudes and beliefs.

Accusations of Judaism began to be used increasingly from the later sixth century to denigrate heretical tendencies, or those suspected of deviating from the proper orthodox path - notably in the canons of the Quinisext, in the introductory declaration of which the assembly addressed the emperor and noted the survival of 'pagan and Jewish perversity'. But already the increasing persecution of Jews within the empire in the sixth century - possibly, if not probably, an imperial response to popular pressure - had encouraged Jews to re-examine their position and their role within the state. Their resentment expressed itself in terms of civil disturbances, and in particular in the collaboration of some Jewish communities with the Persians in the early seventh century. The consequent Christian outrage merely exacerbated a vicious circle. By the time of the Quinisext, Jews were explicitly as bad as pagans and heretics in terms of the danger they posed to the state, and especially of the challenge they presented to the universalist claims of neo-Chalcedonian imperial orthodoxy. Anti-Jewish tracts now became a standard element of Christian polemic. Regular persecution of Jews becomes a commonplace in Byzantine political history: and the regular use of the term 'Jew' to demean or insult becomes a topos of some genres of Byzantine literature. Judaism itself becomes synonymous with a drift away from orthodoxy and with potential political-ideological subversion. Whether there were, in fact, any substantial communities of Jews in the territories remaining to the empire after about 650 is difficult to say. Individuals and their families there must certainly have been; but (and ignoring the numerous literary topoi referred to) there is no evidence for organised communities of Jews in the empire until a much later date. Jews, nevertheless, became scapegoats for Christian apologists, as Byzantine society became more and more exclusivist and introverted. I will return to this below.


[Το Βυζάντιο κατά τον Έβδομο Αιώνα: Η Μεταμόρφωση μιας Κουλτούρας],
Cambridge University Press 1997,
pp./σσ. 337-348.


Sunday, June 12, 2011

Medieval Christian movements:
"Rejecting marriage"
or insisting on virginity before marriage? /

Μεσαιωνικά χριστιανικά κινήματα:
"Απέρριπταν το γάμο"
ή απαιτούσαν παρθενία πριν το γάμο;






All marriage they call fornication except that contracted between virgins, male and female, basing this belief on the words with which the Lord answered the Pharisees, "What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder," as though God had joined only such [i.e. virgins] in likeness to the union of the first of mankind. They also base their belief on His reply to the same persons, who raised objections to Him about a bill of divorce commanded by Moses: "From the beginning it was not so," and also on the words which follow in the same passage, "He that shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery"; and on the words of the Apostle, "Marriage [is] honorable in all and the bed undefiled."

Αποκαλούν πορνεία κάθε γάμο εκτός από εκείνον που συνάπτεται μεταξύ δύο παρθένων, άνδρα και γυναίκας, βασίζοντας αυτή την πεποίθηση στα λόγια με τα οποία ο Κύριος αποκρίθηκε στους Φαρισαίους, "Αυτό λοιπόν που ο Θεός συνέζευξε, να μην το χωρίζει άνθρωπος", σαν να πρόκειται ο Θεός να ενώνει μόνο τέτοιους (δηλ. παρθένους) κατά την ομοιότητα της ένωσης των πρώτων ανθρώπων. Βασίζουν επίσης την πεποίθησή τους στην απάντησή Του στα ίδια άτομα, τα οποία ήγειραν αντιρρήσεις προς Αυτόν σχετικά με το διαζευκτήριο έγγραφο που έδωσε εντολή ο Μωυσής: "Εξαρχής δεν συνέβαινε έτσι" και επίσης στα λόγια που ακολουθούν στο ίδιο απόσπασμα, "Όποιος παντρευτεί διαζευγμένη γυναίκα μοιχεύει" και στα λόγια του Αποστόλου, "Ο γάμος [είναι] αξιότιμος μεταξύ όλων, και το κρεβάτι αμόλυντο".

* An appeal from Eberwin of Steinfeld against heretics [i.e. a Cathar/Bogomil bishop and his companion, who were examined and burnt] at Cologne, 1143 /
Αίτημα από τον Έμπερβιν του Στάινφελντ κατά των αιρετικών [δηλ. ενός επισκόπου και του συνοδού του που ήταν Καθαροί/Βογόμιλοι και οι οποίοι ανακρίθηκαν και κάηκαν στην πυρά] στην Κολωνία το 1143.


# Eberwin of Steinfeld,
Epistola ad S. Bernardum,
PL 182:679.

Translation of / Μετάφραση υπό W.L. Wakefield and A.P. Evans,
Heresies of the High Middle Ages,
New York and London: Columbia University Press 1969,
p./σ. 131.