|Title||Emperor and Patriarch: Questions of Authority in Byzantium|
|Date/Time||Tuesday 5 July 2022: 16.30-18.00|
|Organiser||IMC Programming Committee|
|Moderator/Chair||Rebecca Darley, Institute for Medieval Studies / School of History, University of Leeds|
|Paper 813-a||The Blurred Boundaries between the Emperor and the Patriarch in Byzantium: The Interference of Patriarch Athanasios I of Constantinople in Secular Affairs
Phoebe-Irene Georgiadi, Department of History & Archaeology, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens
Index Terms: Byzantine Studies; Political Thought
|Paper 813-b||How the Question of Authority Has Defined Borders of Confessional Practice in Middle Byzantium
Index Terms: Byzantine Studies; Canon Law; Ecclesiastical History; Monasticism
|Paper 813-c||'Moving Byzantium to Crete': An Appeal to the Emperor by Patriarch Photius - Ecclesiastical Intervention during Warfare and Political Rivalry
Athanasios Tziertzis, School of Theology, Faculty of Theology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Index Terms: Byzantine Studies; Ecclesiastical History; Politics and Diplomacy; Theology
The imperial and the ecclesiastic spheres in Byzantium cooperated and were thought to be interdependent. However, conflicts between emperors and patriarchs were not unusual as there was no written constitution that would specifically separate the two powers. Consequently, their areas of responsibility were rather blurred in regard to many fields, such as the jurisdictional boundaries between the emperor and the patriarch.
During his first patriarchate, Athanasios I was opposed because of his continuing involvement in state affairs, while during his second tenure he found himself with more power in his hands. Therefore, he seems to have been in a position to affect many aspects of the empire's secular life.
This paper attempts to examine the boundaries between state and church in the early Palaiologan era, focusing on the interference of patriarch Athanasios in secular affairs under the reign of Andronikos II Palaiologos, as this is recorded in the former's correspondence with the emperor.
The radical change in the Byzantine practices of confession is associated with the iconoclastic period. Indeed, it was then that the confession of laymen to lay monks became widespread, and was legalised by Patriarch Nikephoros the Confessor. However, at that moment, the practice was developing in accordance with the direction adopted earlier. The turning point occurred in the 10th century, when the church authorities spotted the question of repentance actor as a question of power. From this period, the confrontation began, in which representatives of both the hierarchy and monasticism took part. In the paper, we attempt to describe this turning point and identify its reasons.
In an epistle with covered content to the young Michael III, Photius using two geographical sizes, the capital of the empire and a former province, one of the largest islands of the Aegean, wishes the impossible: the transfer or connection of one place to the other! The hinted military campaign for the recapture of Crete by the Arabs is not considered the first priority and should end successfully but urgently. The danger of the situation for the fate of the emperor and therefore of the Patriarch himself, the boundaries between death and life for the protagonists of power, make Photius extremely anxious. Moreover this paper will approach the borders between political and ecclesiastical authority.