Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 7

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Spór o tytuł patriarchy ekumenicznego pomiędzy papieżem Grzegorzem Wielkim a biskupami Konstantynopola w świetle walki o prymat w Kościele powszechnym

100%
Wolińska T.
Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Historica
|
1993
|
vol. 48
EN
A quarrel about the title „ecumenical patriarch” was inseparably connected with struggle for primacy in Universal Church. This struggle was first started between Rome and Alexandria but in the middle of Vth century the most important rival of Rome became Constantinopie. The groving position of Constantinople’s bishop was caused by the fact that his city became in the begining of IVth century the capital of the empire. So, it was in the emperors’ interest to give to the bishop of their capital the same rights as those of the bishops of Old Rome. The groving importance and authority of Constantinople’s bishops resulted from new needs and natural evolution so, it was easily accepted in the Eastern part of the empire. It was confirmed both by the dedssions of the two ecumenical councils (Constantinople - 381 and Chalcedon - 451) and by emperors’ legislation. Hence, the bishops of Constantinople became the most important in the East. Popes opposed the groving authority of their rivals in Constantinople. They started to question the rule which connected closely the rank of the bishopric with the political importence of the city in which it was situated. They created and explicated the theory of apostolic origin of only 3 bishoprics - Rome, Alexandria and Antioch which were in their opinion the only autentic Patriarchats. Popes started to act as St. Peter’s succesores and tried to get independence from secular authorities. In spite of the efforts undertaken by them the importance of bishops of Constantinople was still groving. Rome’s rights to interfere with Eastern patriarchates were repudiated by them. They rejected the aspirations of popes to control the Church. That was the source of the quaxrel concerning the title „ecumenical patriarch” .
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Bessas - kariera Ostrogota w Bizancjum

100%
Wolińska T., Uniwersytet Łódzki I. H.
Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Historica
|
2005
|
vol. 80
EN
Among the commanders of Justinian I of barbarian origin, Bessas was the one who certainly deserves special attention. He was born in Thrace, ca. 480 AD. His ethnicity is controversial because of contradictions in sources (Procopius, Jordanes). He was most likely of Gothic origin, which a Russian scholar E. C. Skshinskaya tried to prove in a convincing way. Bessas descended from the Ostrogoths who did not leave for Italy along with Theodoric Amal in 488. The family of Bessas was assimilated, still they did not forget their mother tongue. Bessas’ military career started early. During the reign of Anastasius (503 AD) he had fought in the Roman army against Persians. Then, under Justinian he continued his service in the East in Arzacene and Martyropolis. It was then that he showed his military talent, but it was also then that he was accused for the first time of private grabbing. In 535-540 he accompanied Belisarius in Sicily where he fought with his kinsmen. He took part in the siege of Naples (he was to negotiate the conditions of surrender in his native language), Nami campaign and commanded the defense of Rome. On that last post he showed both much personal courage and little farsightedness. It was then that the beginning of the conflict between him and Belisarius could be observed, and this was not even soothed by the fact of saving the life of the latter by Bessas. Later we shall find Bessas on the side of Belisarius’ rival, Narzes. When Belisarius was called away from Italy, Bessas remained there but without any significant military success. With Belisarius’ return to Italy (spring 545), Bessas took over the command of the garrison of Rome. Procopius accuses him of taking this opportunity to multiply his fortune, which he eventually lost when the Goths captured the city. According to the writer, Bessas was to be so engaged in collecting goods that he did not care for defense of city walls nor did he give support to the defenders. He would not pay enough attention to the rebelious spirits of his men and therefore did not prevent the downfall of Rome. After that he managed to escape and thus avoided captivity. It is not known what he was doing then, until 549 or early 550, when he was appointed magister militum of Armenia. He waged a war against the Abasgi, who were seeking agreement with the Persians and he defended Lasica from the latter. He was famous for the capture of Petra in 551. Alas, again according to Procopius he soon himself wasted the fruits of his victory, as he cared for contributions from the occupied territories rather than for blocking of the passages from Georgia, which enabled a raid of Persian commander, Mermeroes. Following further adversities, Bessas was deprived of command and property and sent to Abkhasia. Although we often read of the wealth he collected, nothing particular can be said about it. Bessas’ career was typical of his times. He chose a military career, which is not strange, because a civilian one would require good education he most probably lacked. Just like many other barbarian chiefs he saw his chance in the service for the Empire and decided to cut off his tribal ties. Although he did not forget his native language, he never hesitated to fight against his kinsmen and never tried to go on their side. Bessas’ estimation is unequivocal. He was certainly a brave soldier and successful commander. On the other hand many sources inform of him as a person who cared mainly for his personal profit even at the cost of his duties. This opinion, however exaggerated, must contain some truth. Although written by a historian who did not have the reasons to like a soldier opposing his favorite Belisarius, yet his opinion is confirmed to some extent by Agatias and Zacharias the Retor.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Związki rodzinne w polityce personalnej Justyniana I

100%
Wolińska T., Uniwersytet Łódzki I. H.
Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Historica
|
2000
|
vol. 67
EN
In the article the author analyses the influence of family connections on the personal policy of Byzantine Emperor Justinian I (527-565). The author is trying to answer the extent to which his policy was determined by family solidarity and whether it could be called nepotism or not. The first part of the article is devoted to the settlement of the circle of people connected with the Emperor and his wife, Empress Theodora. It was not a large group of people, especially the family of Theodora was very small and almost unknown. Her father died when she was a child, she did not have brothers. We know only about the vicissitudes of one of her sisters, Komito. Justinian’s family is known better, because when his uncle Justin became Emperor, Byzantine historians were interested in his origin and family connections. In spite of that, in case of some persons it is impossible to determine the relation between them and Emperor Justinian (Germanus is a good example). The second part of the article is devoted to Justinian’s personal policy in relation to his family relationships. Upon the analysis of the Imperial family members’ career, the author concludes that generally speaking Justinian’s policy was not deprived of some elements of nepotism, yet this nepotism had very limited character and did not undermine state affairs. Social promotion of the Emperor’s family took place during his uncle’s reign, so he himself was not forced to support its members in a very offensive way. They generally possessed big properties and were rich, their wealth not being directly connected with the post they held. The fact of being a member of the Imperial family could have facilitated their career, but did not guarantee it automatically. In the case of Theodora’s family the situation was slightly differrent, as its membres descended indeed from the lowest part of the social ladder, yet the lack of male family membres made the only profit they could take out of it was just a good marriage. However would Justinian support his relatives, he always considered their abilities first. That was one of the reasons why he never appointed his relatives to posts in the civil administration - their career was of military character. Almost all of Justinian’s collaborators were competent and skillful. The same can be said of the members of the Imperial family who played an important role in the army and court. The only exception we know was Areobindus, who showed indolence as a military commander in Africa. In comparison with the career of the persons not related to Justinian or Theodora, like Belisarius or Salomon of Dara, the members of the Imperial family did not distinguish themselves in any particular way. In spite of what has been said above, many people found entering the family (e.g. by marriage) very attractive. Those lucky to do so had already been high ranking people of the country, so the fact of becoming a member of the Imperial family could only make their position even stronger.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Gregory in Constantinople as a Responsaus of Pope Pelagius II

100%
Wolińska T.
Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Historica
|
1996
|
vol. 56
PL
Niniejszy artykuł prezentuje działalność Grzegorza, późniejszego papieża, jako nuncjusza papieskiego w Konstantynopolu. Czas jego misji przypada na lata ok. 579-584/5. Grzegorz reprezentował na dworze cesarskim interesy papieża Pelagiusza II (579-590). Wybrany na tak wysokie stanowisko z racji swego doświadczenia w służbie publicznej i walorów duchowych Grzegorz dobrze spełniał powierzone sobie obowiązki. Utrzymywał szerokie kontakty nie tylko z cesarzami i członkami ich rodzin, ale także z urzędnikami, dostojnikami dworu cesarskiego i ludźmi Kościoła, szczególnie patriarchami Konstantynopola. Próbował bezskutecznie uzyskać od cesarza Tyberiusza, a potem jego następcy Maurycjusza pomoc wojskową dla Rzymu zagrożonego przez Longobardów. Przedmiotem zainteresowania nuncjusza papieskiego, zwanego z grecka apokryzjariuszem, były także sprawy dogmatyczne, czego dowodem jest m. in. dysputa, jaką przeprowadził przed obliczem cesarza z patriarchą Eutychesem na temat zmartwychwstawania ciał. Demonstrując niechęć do życia na dworze cesarskim i do „spraw światowych” otaczał się mnichami, których zabrał ze sobą z Italii i dla których wygłaszał komentarze do Pisma iw. Nie przeszkadzało mu to być bardzo wnikliwym obserwatorem stosunków panujących w stolicy cesarstwa analizującym zakres wpływów poszczególnych postaci sceny politycznej i zależności istniejące pomiędzy nimi. Szerokość kontaktów Grzegorza w Konstantynopolu oraz dokładna analiza jego dzieł pozwalają podać w wątpliwość deklarowaną przez niego nieznajomość greki. Być może nie znał tego języka tak dobrze, by się nim swobodnie posługiwać, ale rozumiał go z całą pewnością. Po powrocie do Rzymu i wyborze na biskupa tego miasta Grzegorz bardzo często wykorzystywał swą znajomość miasta i dworu cesarskiego. Wielokrotnie zwracał się o pomoc w różnych sprawach do poznanych w Konstantynopolu osób, dając przy tym dowód bardzo dobrej orientacji w mechanizmach sprawowania władzy i wzajemnych zależnościach między wpływowymi dostojnikami i urzędnikami dworskimi. Większość swych znajomych traktował dość instrumentalnie i utrzymywał z nimi kontakty jedynie wówczas, gdy byli mu potrzebni. O ile dla Zachodu i dla samego Grzegorza pobyt w Konstantynopolu miał bardzo duże znaczenie, to na Wschodzie nie zwrócono wcale uwagi na papieskiego nuncjusza. Nie wspomina o nim żadne współczesne źródło bizantyńskie.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Armeńscy współpracownicy Justyniana Wielkiego, część 1. Dezerterzy z armii perskiej w Bizancjum

100%
Wolińska T., Łódzki U.
Przegląd Nauk Historycznych
|
2002
|
vol. 1
|
issue 2
EN
The author has tried to answer a series of questions concerning Armenian deserters in service of Justinian I: who the deserters were, why the emperor let them service in the Byzantine army and what reasons underlay their desertions. Although the significant role of Armenians in Byzantium has been appreciated by historians for a long time, little has been written about the times when their significance rose, which happened in 6th century. Due to her geographic position Armenia had been an area of rivalry between Persia and Byzantium. As a result her territory was divided between both empires, which however did not put an end to wars between them. Though early Christianization of Armenia made her a natural ally of the Byzantine empire, it was not easy to come to any agreement as the Armenians had rejected the decisions of the Chalcedonian council. The situation was complicated by unsatisfactory rule in that part of Armenia, which remained under Byzantine influence. Such a situation favored Armenian trimming between the two powers. Armenians often sought service in both Persia and Byzantium, sometimes turning from one to the other. Not infrequently members of the same families gained significant posts at both courts. During the reign of Justinian I the Byzantine-Persian conflicts quickly spread around Armenia, which was caused by important strategical role of the province. To strengthen the position of the empire in that area Justinian imposed a reform of imperial administration in the province, created the post of magister militum per Armenian and entrusted it to Sittas, his sister-in-law's husband. Introduced was a new territorial organization and attempts were made to limit the autonomy of local lands, which was unwelcomed by the elites of those lands. In the 6th century a number of Persian Armenians found service on Justinian's side. Some of them had fled to the area controlled by Byzantium, others had deserted the Persian army and customarily joined the army of Byzantium. Today we are not able to estimate the number of such deserters, as the sources only write of most outstanding of them, just to mention the royal family of Arsakides, who fled to Persia in 538 A.D. but rejoined the imperial service soon. Among the leaders who made a desertion to serve in the Byzantine army we must mention the three Khamsarakhan brothers, who had previously fought against Byzantium. The above mentioned examples point out an interesting phenomenon of a “family” desertion, when whole families were coming on the other side. Also later, while in service to the emperor those Armenians tried to keep together. The work describes some other examples of Armenian desertions, further lives of those who decided to do so (the majority continued their military career in the army, although some preferred civil service as well). It should be noted that only few of them made a significant career in Byzantine service. Most however ended up in what we may refer to as "middle command". The career of Artaban, son of John Arsaces, who gained top military and civil posts (magister militum praesentalis and a honorary consul) was exceptional. The deserters often took a command over the units composed of their fellow-natives. Thanks to a good knowledge of local relations and language they often took up posts in Armenia. Unfortunately, most often the posts they had exceeded their competences, particularly when they were of a civilian nature. It was probably due to the fact that although brave soldiers, the Armenians were of little discipline. Sometimes their qualifications were simply too small to perform their functions. Though some deserters happened to plot against the emperor, most of them proved loyal towards Justinian. Even if they plotted against the ruler, the reasons were purely personal. In the cited examples it is hard fa find any trace of any patriotism towards Armenia. But it must be also said that in Byzantium the Armenians were not perceived as aliens or barbarians but as representatives of the same cultural circle.
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Paolo Cesaretti, „Teodora”, przeł. B. Bielańska, Warszawa 2003, ss. 336

100%
Wolińska T., Łódzki U.
Przegląd Nauk Historycznych
|
2004
|
vol. 3
|
issue 1
7
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Armeńscy współpracownicy Justyniana Wielkiego. Część 2. Wielka kariera eunucha Narsesa

100%
Wolińska T., Łódzki U.
Przegląd Nauk Historycznych
|
2005
|
vol. 4
|
issue 1
EN
Narses was born ca. 480 in Persian Armen1a but from his early adolescence he was staying at the imperial court. Sources describe him already as a mature man. whom the emperor trusted. He began his career as a civilian official and held various posts (sacellarius, cubicularius, praepositus sacri cubiculq. He was promoted to thc rank of Ulustris in 537 or 538. In 532 hc played a part in saving Justinian's power during the Nike's mutiny. In 535 he intervcned in Alexandria shaken at that time by religious arguments and succeeded in making Theodosius patriarch. Narses' military carcer began very late. when he was 58 and was sent to Italy by the emperor in ordcr to support Belisarius (538). Due to a conflict between the commanderin- chief and Narses. the emperor callcd the latter back to Constantinople soon. Upon the return to Byzantium Narses remained one of Justinian's most trusted collaborators. One of his tasks was the investigation of the plot Belisarius and John of Cappadokia had been acused of. He intervened when unrest burst out at Constantinople. Sent to the Heruls he managed to make them take part in the struggle against the Goths and he participated in the struggle against the Slavs who had invaded Thrace (545). On the turn of 550 and 551, when he was 75, Narses was appointed strategos- -autokrator and ordered to defeatTotila,king ofOstrogoths.With considerablestrength in men and fmancial resouces and with the experienced advisor, John, he managed to annihilate the state of Ostrogoths in Italy. He was honored for his feats with the title of patrician and became administrator of the regained province. His post was confirmed by the pragmatic sanction of 554. Narses then organized administrative reforms of Italy and reconstruction from war destruction. He also helped install Pelagius on the papal throne. He became known as a severe administrator and was accused of getting huge money from his post. At the same time howeverhe spent big sums on church foundations. Removed from his post by Justin II in 567 or 568, he died in Italy, probably in Romebetween 568 and 574. A coincidence of the removal from his post with the Lombard invasion in Italy caused accuseation of his collaboration with the latter. The accusations are not supported by any evidence though. MostByzantinehistorians speaks ofNarseswith greatest esteem. His contemporary tell about his human attitude, lack of cruelty, defending the victims, modesty, piety (he syrnphatized with monophysites) and keeping promises. He was able to operate in extremely difficult conditions, showing both military and organizational talents and did not belong to the individuals convincedof his own infallibility.In his actions he could make use of both conventional and non-conventional warfare and was popular among soldiers. Narses' ethnicity did not have any influence on his career. He was brought up at Constantinople and nothing points out any ties with the country of his origin. He is almost certain not to have taken any actions in favor of Persian Armenia. Even if he had wanted to, he would not have had any chance to do that, as he was sent to other, distant provinces of the empire. It should be noted that he did not differ much from his compatriots, serving in the Byzantine army, although on the other hand, he could count on the loyaltyof otherArmeniansin the imperialservice.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.