IMC 2020: Sessions

Session 256: Attaining and Maintaining Power: Four Early Medieval Case Studies

Monday 6 July 2020, 14.15-15.45

Moderator/Chair:Jonas Borsch, Seminar für Alte Geschichte, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen / Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Heidelberg
Paper 256-aVirtutibus Fratres: The Brotherhood of Diocletian and Maximian
(Language: English)
Byron Waldron, Department of Classics & Ancient History University of Sydney
Index terms: Byzantine Studies, Politics and Diplomacy
Paper 256-bHow to Remove a Patriarch: The Downfall of Eutychius of Constantinople in 565
(Language: English)
Silvio Roggo, Faculty of History Trinity College University of Cambridge
Index terms: Byzantine Studies, Ecclesiastical History, Hagiography, Theology
Paper 256-cPope John X and the End of the Formosan Dispute in Rome
(Language: English)
Brian Merlo, Department of History Saint Louis University Missouri
Index terms: Archives and Sources, Politics and Diplomacy
Paper 256-dCharlemagne's International Reformer: Leidrad and his Renovatio in Lyon
(Language: English)
Yin Liu, Department of History, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
Index terms: Ecclesiastical History, Local History
Abstract

Paper -a:
In 285 the Roman emperor Diocletian co-opted the general Maximian as his co-emperor, and their partnership ensured a period of much-needed imperial stability. However, the emperors were not related by blood, and Diocletian did not forge a familial bond through marriage or adoption. Rather, the relationship of Diocletian and Maximian was articulated in fraternal terms. I argue that their brotherhood is representative of political changes in the late 3rd century. By 285 the armies had become politically dominant, and emperors, including Diocletian and Maximian, tended to be military professionals drawn from the officer ranks. The concept of a frater in arms held meaning for Roman soldiers. I argue that the imperial brotherhood was designed to appeal to the soldiery and perhaps reflected the emperors’ backgrounds.

Paper -b:
This paper aims at a close examination of the removal of patriarch Eutychius of Constantinople in 565. This has often been attributed to his resistance against a puzzling case of religious innovation in Justinian’s last year. However, Justinian failed to address the various ecclesiastical critics equally: Whereas Eutychius was removed from his see and sent into exile already in January 565, Anastasius, the patriarch of Antioch, even managed to assemble a council, which found the imperial edict heretical, and was still not deposed when Justinian died in November 565. I shall be arguing that this inconsistency can best be explained by disconnecting Eutychius’ downfall from his – undoubtedly genuine – resistance against Justinian’s latest doctrinal idea. His deposition and exile have to be situated rather within the intense power struggle between competing factions at court, exacerbated by the facts that the imperial succession was not settled.

Paper -c:
Pope John X’s pontificate began 17 years after the Cadaver Synod (897), a notorious manifestation of the so-called Formosan dispute. It is generally accepted that this dispute died out sometime within John’s term as Pope, from 914 to 928, primarily because there is little to gainsay this. But a new look at extant sources suggests that the Formosan dispute was over before John took office, that it was ended by the firm hand of Rome’s military leader, Theophylact, in order to enable the specifically chosen John X to focus on pastoral issues besetting the papacy at the beginning of the 10th century.

Paper -d:
Born in Bavaria c. 750s, Leidrad worked as a deacon and a scribe at the Cathedral of Freising in his youth, and went to Charlemagne’s court before 790. In his service for the great Carolingian ruler, Leidrad built a connection with Septimania and Spain. After being made the archbishop of Lyon by Charlemagne in 798, Leidrad promoted a thorough and effective church reform in his diocese during his episcopate (798-816). His connection with Bavaria, the royal court, and Spain played as crucial resource in the reform movement. A close examination of Leidrad’s life and the achievements of his reform in Lyon reveals how the trans-regional circulation of people and knowledge contributed to the Carolingian renovatio.