Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
The recent discussion concerning the first wife of Isaac II Angelos
reminded me of something I'd been meaning to ask for some time -- the
practice of giving a foreign woman a Greek name upon her marriage to a
member of the Byzantine imperial family.
Piroska of Hungary, wife of John II Comnenus, was renamed "Irene".
Katae of Georgia, married Alexios Comnenus (son of John II), was
renamed "Eudokia".
Bertha of Sulzbach, first wife of Manuel I Comnenus, was renamed
"Irene".
Maria of Antioch, second wife of Manuel I Comnenus, was renamed "Xene".
Agnes of France, wife of Alexios II and Andronikos I, was renamed
"Anna".
Margaret of Hungary, second wife of Isaac II Angelos, was renamed
"Maria".
In some cases the new name is similar to the woman's original name
("Maria" for Margaret, "Anna" for Agnes), in others completely
different, but there may not have existed a Greek name similar to
Bertha or Piroska, for instance. In Maria of Antioch's case, she seems
to have adopted the name "Xene" after her husband's death; it means
"foreigner", which she certainly was, but it seems odd she would call
attention to that fact. Was there any rhyme or reason, or accepted
protocal, for the renaming of foreign women?
reminded me of something I'd been meaning to ask for some time -- the
practice of giving a foreign woman a Greek name upon her marriage to a
member of the Byzantine imperial family.
Piroska of Hungary, wife of John II Comnenus, was renamed "Irene".
Katae of Georgia, married Alexios Comnenus (son of John II), was
renamed "Eudokia".
Bertha of Sulzbach, first wife of Manuel I Comnenus, was renamed
"Irene".
Maria of Antioch, second wife of Manuel I Comnenus, was renamed "Xene".
Agnes of France, wife of Alexios II and Andronikos I, was renamed
"Anna".
Margaret of Hungary, second wife of Isaac II Angelos, was renamed
"Maria".
In some cases the new name is similar to the woman's original name
("Maria" for Margaret, "Anna" for Agnes), in others completely
different, but there may not have existed a Greek name similar to
Bertha or Piroska, for instance. In Maria of Antioch's case, she seems
to have adopted the name "Xene" after her husband's death; it means
"foreigner", which she certainly was, but it seems odd she would call
attention to that fact. Was there any rhyme or reason, or accepted
protocal, for the renaming of foreign women?
-
Paul K Davis
RE: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
Thanks for the usefule catalog.
I believe discussion here has drawn the conclusion that Kata of Georgia
married, not Alexios son of John II, but the sebastokrator Isaac, brother
of John II.
-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]
I believe discussion here has drawn the conclusion that Kata of Georgia
married, not Alexios son of John II, but the sebastokrator Isaac, brother
of John II.
-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]
[Original Message]
From: <Nichol_storm@yahoo.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Date: 8/21/2005 12:44:44 PM
Subject: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
The recent discussion concerning the first wife of Isaac II Angelos
reminded me of something I'd been meaning to ask for some time -- the
practice of giving a foreign woman a Greek name upon her marriage to a
member of the Byzantine imperial family.
Piroska of Hungary, wife of John II Comnenus, was renamed "Irene".
Katae of Georgia, married Alexios Comnenus (son of John II), was
renamed "Eudokia".
Bertha of Sulzbach, first wife of Manuel I Comnenus, was renamed
"Irene".
Maria of Antioch, second wife of Manuel I Comnenus, was renamed "Xene".
Agnes of France, wife of Alexios II and Andronikos I, was renamed
"Anna".
Margaret of Hungary, second wife of Isaac II Angelos, was renamed
"Maria".
In some cases the new name is similar to the woman's original name
("Maria" for Margaret, "Anna" for Agnes), in others completely
different, but there may not have existed a Greek name similar to
Bertha or Piroska, for instance. In Maria of Antioch's case, she seems
to have adopted the name "Xene" after her husband's death; it means
"foreigner", which she certainly was, but it seems odd she would call
attention to that fact. Was there any rhyme or reason, or accepted
protocal, for the renaming of foreign women?
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
<Nichol_storm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124653412.342436.3060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
They were renamed on adopting Eastern Orthodoxy - just as Eirene Angelina
was renamed Maria on adopting Catholicism, whereas Empress Theophanu before
the "great" schism of 1054 had naturally kept her baptismal name.
"Xene" was not a name adopted by Maria of Antioch. She remained Maria as
wife and widow, indeed as regent of the Byzantine empire, but later became a
nun with the name Xenia. Taking a different name in religion was common, if
not universal, practice.
"Xene" was a favourite, not only for foreign-born ladies: Aikatherina of
Bulgaria, wife of the deposed Emperor Isaakios I, took this name when she
withdrew to a convent in 1059, but so did the Byzantine ladies Eirene
Doukaina, widow of Emperor Alexios I, and her sister-in-law Theodora
Komnene, as well as and the Hungarian St Eirene (Piroska), widow of Empoeror
Ioannes II.
Peter Stewart
news:1124653412.342436.3060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The recent discussion concerning the first wife of Isaac II Angelos
reminded me of something I'd been meaning to ask for some time -- the
practice of giving a foreign woman a Greek name upon her marriage to a
member of the Byzantine imperial family.
Piroska of Hungary, wife of John II Comnenus, was renamed "Irene".
Katae of Georgia, married Alexios Comnenus (son of John II), was
renamed "Eudokia".
Bertha of Sulzbach, first wife of Manuel I Comnenus, was renamed
"Irene".
Maria of Antioch, second wife of Manuel I Comnenus, was renamed "Xene".
Agnes of France, wife of Alexios II and Andronikos I, was renamed
"Anna".
Margaret of Hungary, second wife of Isaac II Angelos, was renamed
"Maria".
In some cases the new name is similar to the woman's original name
("Maria" for Margaret, "Anna" for Agnes), in others completely
different, but there may not have existed a Greek name similar to
Bertha or Piroska, for instance. In Maria of Antioch's case, she seems
to have adopted the name "Xene" after her husband's death; it means
"foreigner", which she certainly was, but it seems odd she would call
attention to that fact. Was there any rhyme or reason, or accepted
protocal, for the renaming of foreign women?
They were renamed on adopting Eastern Orthodoxy - just as Eirene Angelina
was renamed Maria on adopting Catholicism, whereas Empress Theophanu before
the "great" schism of 1054 had naturally kept her baptismal name.
"Xene" was not a name adopted by Maria of Antioch. She remained Maria as
wife and widow, indeed as regent of the Byzantine empire, but later became a
nun with the name Xenia. Taking a different name in religion was common, if
not universal, practice.
"Xene" was a favourite, not only for foreign-born ladies: Aikatherina of
Bulgaria, wife of the deposed Emperor Isaakios I, took this name when she
withdrew to a convent in 1059, but so did the Byzantine ladies Eirene
Doukaina, widow of Emperor Alexios I, and her sister-in-law Theodora
Komnene, as well as and the Hungarian St Eirene (Piroska), widow of Empoeror
Ioannes II.
Peter Stewart
-
Akrogiali
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
Firstly, the ladies were not "renamed" but "Baptized" and the new names
represent Greek Orthodox Saints.
Secondly there is no similarities between "Margarita" (Margaret) and
"Maria".
or "Agnes" which does not exist in Greek and "Anna".
Finally, "Xene" which is misspelled "Xenia" does not mean "Foreigner" but
"The Friendly One". "Xenos" is "The Friendly One" in Greek and "Xenodochio"
(Hotel), Is the Place for the "Friends". There is a difference in the
precise meaning of "Xenos" and "Filos" but both mean "Friend".
<Nichol_storm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124653412.342436.3060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
represent Greek Orthodox Saints.
Secondly there is no similarities between "Margarita" (Margaret) and
"Maria".
or "Agnes" which does not exist in Greek and "Anna".
Finally, "Xene" which is misspelled "Xenia" does not mean "Foreigner" but
"The Friendly One". "Xenos" is "The Friendly One" in Greek and "Xenodochio"
(Hotel), Is the Place for the "Friends". There is a difference in the
precise meaning of "Xenos" and "Filos" but both mean "Friend".
<Nichol_storm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124653412.342436.3060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The recent discussion concerning the first wife of Isaac II Angelos
reminded me of something I'd been meaning to ask for some time -- the
practice of giving a foreign woman a Greek name upon her marriage to a
member of the Byzantine imperial family.
Piroska of Hungary, wife of John II Comnenus, was renamed "Irene".
Katae of Georgia, married Alexios Comnenus (son of John II), was
renamed "Eudokia".
Bertha of Sulzbach, first wife of Manuel I Comnenus, was renamed
"Irene".
Maria of Antioch, second wife of Manuel I Comnenus, was renamed "Xene".
Agnes of France, wife of Alexios II and Andronikos I, was renamed
"Anna".
Margaret of Hungary, second wife of Isaac II Angelos, was renamed
"Maria".
In some cases the new name is similar to the woman's original name
("Maria" for Margaret, "Anna" for Agnes), in others completely
different, but there may not have existed a Greek name similar to
Bertha or Piroska, for instance. In Maria of Antioch's case, she seems
to have adopted the name "Xene" after her husband's death; it means
"foreigner", which she certainly was, but it seems odd she would call
attention to that fact. Was there any rhyme or reason, or accepted
protocal, for the renaming of foreign women?
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
"Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:430a86c2$1@quokka.wn.com.au...
I don't think etymological links were being suggested, just vague
similarities. People in the west evidently did think that "Anna"
corresponded in some way with "Agnes", perhaps just in familiarity of sound,
since Agnesa Yaroslavna of Kiev was almost always called Anna in France
after she married King Henri I.
She was not baptised a second time, and I don't think anyone else was
either - this would be uncanonical anyway unless the original sacrament was
not recognised, and that has never been the case between the Orthodox and
Catholic rites as far as I know. It was rather a case of rededication of the
individual on conversion, where new sponsorship into the receiving communion
is still normally required, but without actual baptism.
Peter Stewart
news:430a86c2$1@quokka.wn.com.au...
Firstly, the ladies were not "renamed" but "Baptized" and the new names
represent Greek Orthodox Saints.
Secondly there is no similarities between "Margarita" (Margaret) and
"Maria". or "Agnes" which does not exist in Greek and "Anna".
I don't think etymological links were being suggested, just vague
similarities. People in the west evidently did think that "Anna"
corresponded in some way with "Agnes", perhaps just in familiarity of sound,
since Agnesa Yaroslavna of Kiev was almost always called Anna in France
after she married King Henri I.
She was not baptised a second time, and I don't think anyone else was
either - this would be uncanonical anyway unless the original sacrament was
not recognised, and that has never been the case between the Orthodox and
Catholic rites as far as I know. It was rather a case of rededication of the
individual on conversion, where new sponsorship into the receiving communion
is still normally required, but without actual baptism.
Peter Stewart
-
Akrogiali
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
When A Greek Orthodox Marries a person from another religion (including
Catholics), that person MUST be baptised.
That has not changed over the centuries and it is valued TODAY.
When a Greek Lady marries a Catholic, the Lady does not have to be baptised.
That's probably the case with the Russian Princess. Agnes is NOT a Greek
Orthodox Saint name
So, she may not have been an Orthodox; however, even if she was, there was
no need for her to be baptised because
the Catholic Church does not request such a thing as a precondition to
marriage.
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:sZvOe.7696$FA3.7513@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Catholics), that person MUST be baptised.
That has not changed over the centuries and it is valued TODAY.
When a Greek Lady marries a Catholic, the Lady does not have to be baptised.
That's probably the case with the Russian Princess. Agnes is NOT a Greek
Orthodox Saint name
So, she may not have been an Orthodox; however, even if she was, there was
no need for her to be baptised because
the Catholic Church does not request such a thing as a precondition to
marriage.
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:sZvOe.7696$FA3.7513@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:430a86c2$1@quokka.wn.com.au...
Firstly, the ladies were not "renamed" but "Baptized" and the new names
represent Greek Orthodox Saints.
Secondly there is no similarities between "Margarita" (Margaret) and
"Maria". or "Agnes" which does not exist in Greek and "Anna".
I don't think etymological links were being suggested, just vague
similarities. People in the west evidently did think that "Anna"
corresponded in some way with "Agnes", perhaps just in familiarity of
sound, since Agnesa Yaroslavna of Kiev was almost always called Anna in
France after she married King Henri I.
She was not baptised a second time, and I don't think anyone else was
either - this would be uncanonical anyway unless the original sacrament
was not recognised, and that has never been the case between the Orthodox
and Catholic rites as far as I know. It was rather a case of rededication
of the individual on conversion, where new sponsorship into the receiving
communion is still normally required, but without actual baptism.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
"Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:430b9ee5@quokka.wn.com.au...
The sacrament of baptism can be performed by any baptised person - for
instance, a midwife can baptise a newborn baby in danger of dying. There are
very few circumstances in which an irregularity can occur, such as if the
midwife happened to be unbaptised herself. Once baptism has been
administered, this can't be repeated canonically. Even a heretic can
baptise, provided he or she is not excommunicated at the time.
Baptism is necessary for any other sacrament to be administered later,
including marriage and ordination, so that of course a person MUST be
baptised before getting married in the Catholic rite.
If a different interpretation of canon law hass been applied in the Eastern
Orthodox tradition, it would be interesting to know the details.
People sometimes changed their name on marriage in the Byzantine world, and
more commonly did so on taking religious vows. There was no question of
re-baptism in the latter case - so why in the former?
Peter Stewart
news:430b9ee5@quokka.wn.com.au...
When A Greek Orthodox Marries a person from another religion (including
Catholics), that person MUST be baptised.
That has not changed over the centuries and it is valued TODAY.
When a Greek Lady marries a Catholic, the Lady does not have to be
baptised.
That's probably the case with the Russian Princess. Agnes is NOT a Greek
Orthodox Saint name
So, she may not have been an Orthodox; however, even if she was, there was
no need for her to be baptised because
the Catholic Church does not request such a thing as a precondition to
marriage.
The sacrament of baptism can be performed by any baptised person - for
instance, a midwife can baptise a newborn baby in danger of dying. There are
very few circumstances in which an irregularity can occur, such as if the
midwife happened to be unbaptised herself. Once baptism has been
administered, this can't be repeated canonically. Even a heretic can
baptise, provided he or she is not excommunicated at the time.
Baptism is necessary for any other sacrament to be administered later,
including marriage and ordination, so that of course a person MUST be
baptised before getting married in the Catholic rite.
If a different interpretation of canon law hass been applied in the Eastern
Orthodox tradition, it would be interesting to know the details.
People sometimes changed their name on marriage in the Byzantine world, and
more commonly did so on taking religious vows. There was no question of
re-baptism in the latter case - so why in the former?
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
I wrote:
The official position of the Greek Orthodox church was not different -
from the time of the Council in Trullo, at the end of the 7th century,
the sacrament of baptism in other Christian communions was considered
valid, even if the rite was illicit in some sense, and re-baptism was
forbidden.
This applied to Nestorians, Roman Catholics, and others who were held
to be schismatics. The reception of individuals from these communions
into the Orthodox church involved a ceremonial reconciliation and often
renaming, but this was done by "chrismation" (i.e. equivalent to
confirmation in the Catholic rite) rather than baptism, by anointing
with oil (the chrism) rather than holy water.
Locally there might be different practices, although these were not
properly endorsed at the highest level. Along the borderlands between
Orthodox and Catholic territories, and especially in troubled times,
re-baptism was sometimes practiced on both sides. Apparently this came
to be the norm in some parts of the Greek world, but it is now
generally recognised to be canonically defective. It has been
proscribed several times by the Roman Catholic church over many
centuries, most recently by Vatican II, so that the practice has
evidently remained a sore point in some quarters.
Peter Stewart
The sacrament of baptism can be performed by any baptised person -
for instance, a midwife can baptise a newborn baby in danger of dying.
There are very few circumstances in which an irregularity can occur,
such as if the midwife happened to be unbaptised herself. Once baptism
has been administered, this can't be repeated canonically. Even a heretic
can baptise, provided he or she is not excommunicated at the time.
Baptism is necessary for any other sacrament to be administered later,
including marriage and ordination, so that of course a person MUST be
baptised before getting married in the Catholic rite.
If a different interpretation of canon law hass been applied in the Eastern
Orthodox tradition, it would be interesting to know the details.
The official position of the Greek Orthodox church was not different -
from the time of the Council in Trullo, at the end of the 7th century,
the sacrament of baptism in other Christian communions was considered
valid, even if the rite was illicit in some sense, and re-baptism was
forbidden.
This applied to Nestorians, Roman Catholics, and others who were held
to be schismatics. The reception of individuals from these communions
into the Orthodox church involved a ceremonial reconciliation and often
renaming, but this was done by "chrismation" (i.e. equivalent to
confirmation in the Catholic rite) rather than baptism, by anointing
with oil (the chrism) rather than holy water.
Locally there might be different practices, although these were not
properly endorsed at the highest level. Along the borderlands between
Orthodox and Catholic territories, and especially in troubled times,
re-baptism was sometimes practiced on both sides. Apparently this came
to be the norm in some parts of the Greek world, but it is now
generally recognised to be canonically defective. It has been
proscribed several times by the Roman Catholic church over many
centuries, most recently by Vatican II, so that the practice has
evidently remained a sore point in some quarters.
Peter Stewart
-
Akrogiali
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
In Greek Orthodox religion, baptism can only be performed by a Priest.
There is NO such a thing as "emergency"
Also a child DOES NOT have a name before being baptised.
It is not like in other countries and religions that you can register a name
after birth.
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:mnNOe.8407$FA3.300@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
There is NO such a thing as "emergency"
Also a child DOES NOT have a name before being baptised.
It is not like in other countries and religions that you can register a name
after birth.
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:mnNOe.8407$FA3.300@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:430b9ee5@quokka.wn.com.au...
When A Greek Orthodox Marries a person from another religion (including
Catholics), that person MUST be baptised.
That has not changed over the centuries and it is valued TODAY.
When a Greek Lady marries a Catholic, the Lady does not have to be
baptised.
That's probably the case with the Russian Princess. Agnes is NOT a Greek
Orthodox Saint name
So, she may not have been an Orthodox; however, even if she was, there
was no need for her to be baptised because
the Catholic Church does not request such a thing as a precondition to
marriage.
The sacrament of baptism can be performed by any baptised person - for
instance, a midwife can baptise a newborn baby in danger of dying. There
are very few circumstances in which an irregularity can occur, such as if
the midwife happened to be unbaptised herself. Once baptism has been
administered, this can't be repeated canonically. Even a heretic can
baptise, provided he or she is not excommunicated at the time.
Baptism is necessary for any other sacrament to be administered later,
including marriage and ordination, so that of course a person MUST be
baptised before getting married in the Catholic rite.
If a different interpretation of canon law hass been applied in the
Eastern Orthodox tradition, it would be interesting to know the details.
People sometimes changed their name on marriage in the Byzantine world,
and more commonly did so on taking religious vows. There was no question
of re-baptism in the latter case - so why in the former?
Peter Stewart
-
Akrogiali
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
The Greek Orthodox religion is very strict.
There are NO local variations or local traditions.
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1124842037.949924.89180@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
There are NO local variations or local traditions.
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1124842037.949924.89180@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I wrote:
The sacrament of baptism can be performed by any baptised person -
for instance, a midwife can baptise a newborn baby in danger of dying.
There are very few circumstances in which an irregularity can occur,
such as if the midwife happened to be unbaptised herself. Once baptism
has been administered, this can't be repeated canonically. Even a heretic
can baptise, provided he or she is not excommunicated at the time.
Baptism is necessary for any other sacrament to be administered later,
including marriage and ordination, so that of course a person MUST be
baptised before getting married in the Catholic rite.
If a different interpretation of canon law hass been applied in the
Eastern
Orthodox tradition, it would be interesting to know the details.
The official position of the Greek Orthodox church was not different -
from the time of the Council in Trullo, at the end of the 7th century,
the sacrament of baptism in other Christian communions was considered
valid, even if the rite was illicit in some sense, and re-baptism was
forbidden.
This applied to Nestorians, Roman Catholics, and others who were held
to be schismatics. The reception of individuals from these communions
into the Orthodox church involved a ceremonial reconciliation and often
renaming, but this was done by "chrismation" (i.e. equivalent to
confirmation in the Catholic rite) rather than baptism, by anointing
with oil (the chrism) rather than holy water.
Locally there might be different practices, although these were not
properly endorsed at the highest level. Along the borderlands between
Orthodox and Catholic territories, and especially in troubled times,
re-baptism was sometimes practiced on both sides. Apparently this came
to be the norm in some parts of the Greek world, but it is now
generally recognised to be canonically defective. It has been
proscribed several times by the Roman Catholic church over many
centuries, most recently by Vatican II, so that the practice has
evidently remained a sore point in some quarters.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
Akrogiali (Dr Tsambourakis?) wrote:
The Orthodox religion is a communion of independent churches, with the
Greek Orthodox headed by the ecumenical patriarch who is only first
among equals and not the supreme authority as "vicar of Christ" like
the pope for Roman Catholics.
After anathema was pronounced against Rome in the 11th century, there
was no overriding, central decision on recognising the sacrament of
baptism as administered by schismatics, that the Coucil in Trullo had
declared to be of universal validity anyway. So local priests and
bishops took it on themselves at various times and in various places to
insist - uncanonically - on the re-baptism of interdenominational
"converts". This happened also in parts of the Roman Catholic church,
depite papal and conciliar authority against the practice.
If there had NOT been variant practices within Greek Orthodoxy,
re-baptism could NEVER have happened anywhere at any time, since this
was flatly against the canon of the Council in Trullo. The Trullos was
in Constantinople, not in Rome.
Peter Stewart
The Greek Orthodox religion is very strict.
There are NO local variations or local traditions.
The Orthodox religion is a communion of independent churches, with the
Greek Orthodox headed by the ecumenical patriarch who is only first
among equals and not the supreme authority as "vicar of Christ" like
the pope for Roman Catholics.
After anathema was pronounced against Rome in the 11th century, there
was no overriding, central decision on recognising the sacrament of
baptism as administered by schismatics, that the Coucil in Trullo had
declared to be of universal validity anyway. So local priests and
bishops took it on themselves at various times and in various places to
insist - uncanonically - on the re-baptism of interdenominational
"converts". This happened also in parts of the Roman Catholic church,
depite papal and conciliar authority against the practice.
If there had NOT been variant practices within Greek Orthodoxy,
re-baptism could NEVER have happened anywhere at any time, since this
was flatly against the canon of the Council in Trullo. The Trullos was
in Constantinople, not in Rome.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
Akrogiali wrote:
I suppose this means that in the common estimation of Greeks who
haven't studied the question, baptism is the preserve of priests.
However, this is NOT true. Baptism is regeneration "by water in the
Word", that is receiving the individual through ablution into the
community of the faithful, and this can be performed by anyone who has
in turn received it. John the Baptist was not a priest when he baptised
Jesus. His own baptism is held to have been from heaven. An unbroken
succession from that is what makes baptism valid, as the operation of
the Holy Spirit and not just of an ordained priest. How this has been
understood historically is not a matter of opinion but of fact.
As to the main question, read the text quoted below my signature, from
the Orthodox Christian Information Center website.
Peter Stewart
The Illuminator, an official publication of the Pittsburgh Diocese of
the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, published a
response, last summer, to a question from a reader about Baptism. The
reader called into question the "new practice" of Baptizing "those
[already] baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity" when seeking entry
into Orthodoxy, rather than receiving them by "profession of faith, or,
if they are not confirmed, by Holy Chrismation." The Illuminator
responded to this inquiry by making the following astonishing
observations:
1) The Orthodox Church receives "all those baptized in the Holy Trinity
and correctly professing faith in the Holy Trinity." Faithful from the
"Oriental Orthodox Churches...are accepted by profession of faith
only."
2) Those coming from confessions which "profess faith in the Holy
Trinity but who do not have a true sacrament of confirmation (or
Chrismation), as they do not have true ('valid') priesthood, are
accepted by Chrismation."
3) "To treat Trinitarian Christians as unbaptized heathens is an
injustice committed against Christian baptism, and eventually a
blasphemy against God's Holy Spirit Who is at work at any Christian
baptism."
4) "When we confess faith in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins,
we do not mean by that Orthodox baptism, but any Christian baptism."
The Holy Spirit is not "limited by human canonical boundaries we have
established for our convenience. We cannot bind the spirit, and not
allow Him to work with all the other Christians, just because some of
us so decided."
5) "The Eighth Ecumenical Council restored the unity between the
Eastern and Western Churches. The representatives of both Churches had
agreed that the Roman primacy has to be exercised in the
'West'...and the primacy of the Church of Constantinople had to
continue to function within its own territory of the East....
6) The Orthodox Church "has never formally rejected the Roman Church as
a Christian Church, as some of our fanatics may believe. True, a
contemporary rejection of the Roman baptism by the Great Church of
Constantinople for pastoral reasons has taken place. But this was
corrected and readdressed, as soon as the cause of this rejection
disappeared.
"Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, the two 'sister churches' of old
continue to recognize one another's baptism, as well as the other
sacraments celebrated in these churches."
7) The rebaptism by Orthodox of baptized heterodox Christians is
inspired by "narrow-mindedness, fanaticism and bigotry."
In Greek Orthodox religion, baptism can only be performed by a
Priest. There is NO such a thing as "emergency"
I suppose this means that in the common estimation of Greeks who
haven't studied the question, baptism is the preserve of priests.
However, this is NOT true. Baptism is regeneration "by water in the
Word", that is receiving the individual through ablution into the
community of the faithful, and this can be performed by anyone who has
in turn received it. John the Baptist was not a priest when he baptised
Jesus. His own baptism is held to have been from heaven. An unbroken
succession from that is what makes baptism valid, as the operation of
the Holy Spirit and not just of an ordained priest. How this has been
understood historically is not a matter of opinion but of fact.
As to the main question, read the text quoted below my signature, from
the Orthodox Christian Information Center website.
Peter Stewart
The Illuminator, an official publication of the Pittsburgh Diocese of
the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, published a
response, last summer, to a question from a reader about Baptism. The
reader called into question the "new practice" of Baptizing "those
[already] baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity" when seeking entry
into Orthodoxy, rather than receiving them by "profession of faith, or,
if they are not confirmed, by Holy Chrismation." The Illuminator
responded to this inquiry by making the following astonishing
observations:
1) The Orthodox Church receives "all those baptized in the Holy Trinity
and correctly professing faith in the Holy Trinity." Faithful from the
"Oriental Orthodox Churches...are accepted by profession of faith
only."
2) Those coming from confessions which "profess faith in the Holy
Trinity but who do not have a true sacrament of confirmation (or
Chrismation), as they do not have true ('valid') priesthood, are
accepted by Chrismation."
3) "To treat Trinitarian Christians as unbaptized heathens is an
injustice committed against Christian baptism, and eventually a
blasphemy against God's Holy Spirit Who is at work at any Christian
baptism."
4) "When we confess faith in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins,
we do not mean by that Orthodox baptism, but any Christian baptism."
The Holy Spirit is not "limited by human canonical boundaries we have
established for our convenience. We cannot bind the spirit, and not
allow Him to work with all the other Christians, just because some of
us so decided."
5) "The Eighth Ecumenical Council restored the unity between the
Eastern and Western Churches. The representatives of both Churches had
agreed that the Roman primacy has to be exercised in the
'West'...and the primacy of the Church of Constantinople had to
continue to function within its own territory of the East....
6) The Orthodox Church "has never formally rejected the Roman Church as
a Christian Church, as some of our fanatics may believe. True, a
contemporary rejection of the Roman baptism by the Great Church of
Constantinople for pastoral reasons has taken place. But this was
corrected and readdressed, as soon as the cause of this rejection
disappeared.
"Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, the two 'sister churches' of old
continue to recognize one another's baptism, as well as the other
sacraments celebrated in these churches."
7) The rebaptism by Orthodox of baptized heterodox Christians is
inspired by "narrow-mindedness, fanaticism and bigotry."
-
Gjest
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
In a message dated 8/23/2005 10:15:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
So not Protestant baptism then. That's interesting.
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
"Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, the two 'sister churches' of old
continue to recognize one another's baptism, as well as the other
sacraments celebrated in these churches."
So not Protestant baptism then. That's interesting.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
I wouldn't attach any broad meaning to this - the Orthodox church
doesn't recognise the universal authority of the papacy, so that
"Protestant" churches are not seen in the same light from that
perspective. In theology and Christology the manistream Protestant
denominations are no further from Orthodoxy than is Rome, only less
noticeable.
Some more recent sectarian movements that might be considered
"Protestant" in the most general sense, such as Seventh Day Adventism
and Mormonism, would be seen differently.
Peter Stewart
p_m_stew...@msn.com writes:
"Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, the two 'sister churches' of old
continue to recognize one another's baptism, as well as the other
sacraments celebrated in these churches."
So not Protestant baptism then. That's interesting.
I wouldn't attach any broad meaning to this - the Orthodox church
doesn't recognise the universal authority of the papacy, so that
"Protestant" churches are not seen in the same light from that
perspective. In theology and Christology the manistream Protestant
denominations are no further from Orthodoxy than is Rome, only less
noticeable.
Some more recent sectarian movements that might be considered
"Protestant" in the most general sense, such as Seventh Day Adventism
and Mormonism, would be seen differently.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
You are quite right, Mr. Stewart; I did not assert any etymological
connection between "Anna" and "Agnes", for example, but the similarity
in sound. It may have been easier for a young woman to accept a new
name that was similar in some way to her birth name. Of course, in
other cases there may not have existed Greek names that resembled the
original names in any way ("Berenike" being the closest I can think to
"Bertha", for instance) so another name, such as "Eudokia", was chosen,
as happened with Bertha of Arles, the young bride of Romanos II.
There is an essay in the education and training required of a Western
bride for a Byzantine Emperor in "The Empress Theophano : Byzantium and
the West at the Turn of the First Millennium", edited by Adelbert
Davids. I will check within and see if any mention is made of naming
practices.
Peter Stewart wrote:
connection between "Anna" and "Agnes", for example, but the similarity
in sound. It may have been easier for a young woman to accept a new
name that was similar in some way to her birth name. Of course, in
other cases there may not have existed Greek names that resembled the
original names in any way ("Berenike" being the closest I can think to
"Bertha", for instance) so another name, such as "Eudokia", was chosen,
as happened with Bertha of Arles, the young bride of Romanos II.
There is an essay in the education and training required of a Western
bride for a Byzantine Emperor in "The Empress Theophano : Byzantium and
the West at the Turn of the First Millennium", edited by Adelbert
Davids. I will check within and see if any mention is made of naming
practices.
Peter Stewart wrote:
"Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:430a86c2$1@quokka.wn.com.au...
Firstly, the ladies were not "renamed" but "Baptized" and the new names
represent Greek Orthodox Saints.
Secondly there is no similarities between "Margarita" (Margaret) and
"Maria". or "Agnes" which does not exist in Greek and "Anna".
I don't think etymological links were being suggested, just vague
similarities. People in the west evidently did think that "Anna"
corresponded in some way with "Agnes", perhaps just in familiarity of sound,
since Agnesa Yaroslavna of Kiev was almost always called Anna in France
after she married King Henri I.
She was not baptised a second time, and I don't think anyone else was
either - this would be uncanonical anyway unless the original sacrament was
not recognised, and that has never been the case between the Orthodox and
Catholic rites as far as I know. It was rather a case of rededication of the
individual on conversion, where new sponsorship into the receiving communion
is still normally required, but without actual baptism.
Peter Stewart
-
Hal Bradley
RE: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
Comment below
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart [mailto:p_m_stewart@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:06 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
Akrogiali wrote:
I suppose this means that in the common estimation of Greeks who
haven't studied the question, baptism is the preserve of priests.
However, this is NOT true. Baptism is regeneration "by water in the
Word", that is receiving the individual through ablution into the
community of the faithful, and this can be performed by anyone who has
in turn received it. John the Baptist was not a priest when he baptised
Jesus.
Actually, it can be argued that John the Baptist was a priest, albeit a
Jewish priest. His father was a priest who served in the temple and the
Levitical priesthood was hereditary. He was over thirty years of age at the
time he baptized Jesus and thus met the qualifications to enter the
priesthood.
Hal Bradley
His own baptism is held to have been from heaven. An unbroken
succession from that is what makes baptism valid, as the operation of
the Holy Spirit and not just of an ordained priest. How this has been
understood historically is not a matter of opinion but of fact.
As to the main question, read the text quoted below my signature, from
the Orthodox Christian Information Center website.
Peter Stewart
snip
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart [mailto:p_m_stewart@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:06 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
Akrogiali wrote:
In Greek Orthodox religion, baptism can only be performed by a
Priest. There is NO such a thing as "emergency"
I suppose this means that in the common estimation of Greeks who
haven't studied the question, baptism is the preserve of priests.
However, this is NOT true. Baptism is regeneration "by water in the
Word", that is receiving the individual through ablution into the
community of the faithful, and this can be performed by anyone who has
in turn received it. John the Baptist was not a priest when he baptised
Jesus.
Actually, it can be argued that John the Baptist was a priest, albeit a
Jewish priest. His father was a priest who served in the temple and the
Levitical priesthood was hereditary. He was over thirty years of age at the
time he baptized Jesus and thus met the qualifications to enter the
priesthood.
Hal Bradley
His own baptism is held to have been from heaven. An unbroken
succession from that is what makes baptism valid, as the operation of
the Holy Spirit and not just of an ordained priest. How this has been
understood historically is not a matter of opinion but of fact.
As to the main question, read the text quoted below my signature, from
the Orthodox Christian Information Center website.
Peter Stewart
snip
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
""Hal Bradley"" <hw.bradley@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:000201c5a8c8$93d6ca60$0300a8c0@scandiamjn924p...
This is a quibble beside the point - John the Baptist lacked the basic
qualification that marks Catholic or Orthodox priesthood, that is ordination
by someone in apostolic succcesion. He would not have been eligible to
perform sacraments as a priest, in either rite under discussion, in the
medieval period or today.
Peter Stewart
news:000201c5a8c8$93d6ca60$0300a8c0@scandiamjn924p...
Comment below
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart [mailto:p_m_stewart@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:06 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
Akrogiali wrote:
In Greek Orthodox religion, baptism can only be performed by a
Priest. There is NO such a thing as "emergency"
I suppose this means that in the common estimation of Greeks who
haven't studied the question, baptism is the preserve of priests.
However, this is NOT true. Baptism is regeneration "by water in the
Word", that is receiving the individual through ablution into the
community of the faithful, and this can be performed by anyone who has
in turn received it. John the Baptist was not a priest when he baptised
Jesus.
Actually, it can be argued that John the Baptist was a priest, albeit a
Jewish priest. His father was a priest who served in the temple and the
Levitical priesthood was hereditary. He was over thirty years of age at
the
time he baptized Jesus and thus met the qualifications to enter the
priesthood.
This is a quibble beside the point - John the Baptist lacked the basic
qualification that marks Catholic or Orthodox priesthood, that is ordination
by someone in apostolic succcesion. He would not have been eligible to
perform sacraments as a priest, in either rite under discussion, in the
medieval period or today.
Peter Stewart
-
Akrogiali
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
You keep arguing about things you know very little about.
The ecumenical Patriarch is the Head of the Orthodox Church.
However, that has nothing to do with baptism.
In fact the precondition for a person to be called "Greek" is that he was
born to Greek parents, and baptised as Orthodox.
Everybody in Europe knows the demand of the Church that Greek Passports and
ID cards must clearly state the religion of the owner. (In order to identify
if he is "Greek" or not).
Baptism is and always has been a Church business.
The only matter that changes from province to province are the way the
Godfather is chosen,
the timing and the celebrations.
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:jf6Pe.9310$FA3.9129@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
The ecumenical Patriarch is the Head of the Orthodox Church.
However, that has nothing to do with baptism.
In fact the precondition for a person to be called "Greek" is that he was
born to Greek parents, and baptised as Orthodox.
Everybody in Europe knows the demand of the Church that Greek Passports and
ID cards must clearly state the religion of the owner. (In order to identify
if he is "Greek" or not).
Baptism is and always has been a Church business.
The only matter that changes from province to province are the way the
Godfather is chosen,
the timing and the celebrations.
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:jf6Pe.9310$FA3.9129@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
""Hal Bradley"" <hw.bradley@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:000201c5a8c8$93d6ca60$0300a8c0@scandiamjn924p...
Comment below
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart [mailto:p_m_stewart@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:06 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
Akrogiali wrote:
In Greek Orthodox religion, baptism can only be performed by a
Priest. There is NO such a thing as "emergency"
I suppose this means that in the common estimation of Greeks who
haven't studied the question, baptism is the preserve of priests.
However, this is NOT true. Baptism is regeneration "by water in the
Word", that is receiving the individual through ablution into the
community of the faithful, and this can be performed by anyone who has
in turn received it. John the Baptist was not a priest when he baptised
Jesus.
Actually, it can be argued that John the Baptist was a priest, albeit a
Jewish priest. His father was a priest who served in the temple and the
Levitical priesthood was hereditary. He was over thirty years of age at
the
time he baptized Jesus and thus met the qualifications to enter the
priesthood.
This is a quibble beside the point - John the Baptist lacked the basic
qualification that marks Catholic or Orthodox priesthood, that is
ordination by someone in apostolic succcesion. He would not have been
eligible to perform sacraments as a priest, in either rite under
discussion, in the medieval period or today.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
In a message dated 8/24/05 4:15:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
akrogiali@westnet.com.au writes:
<< In fact the precondition for a person to be called "Greek" is that he was
born to Greek parents, and baptised as Orthodox. >>
So what is a person called if he is born to Greek parents (in Greece) but not
baptised as Orthodox? Is he suddenly supposed to be called "Albanian" or
something?
akrogiali@westnet.com.au writes:
<< In fact the precondition for a person to be called "Greek" is that he was
born to Greek parents, and baptised as Orthodox. >>
So what is a person called if he is born to Greek parents (in Greece) but not
baptised as Orthodox? Is he suddenly supposed to be called "Albanian" or
something?
-
Akrogiali
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
That is the problem. Since Greece joined the EU, the number of political
marriages increased, the number of non baptised children has increased, and
the number of individuals from other countries (not just refugees) who will
become Greek citizens has also increased.
A person has the right to apply for Citizenship after 10 years continuous
residency in Greece.
On the top of that there are about 2-5% Catholics (from medieval time), no
to mentioned the Moslems who desperately want a Mosque in Athens and who
will apply for citizenship in a few years time.
The Government has the upper hand with considerable help from France and
Germany, regarding the passports and the ID cards.
But to answer your question directly.
The fact that the parents are "Greek" (which means from Greek parents and
baptised Orthodox) makes it very unlikely that their child will not be
baptised. Family pressure will make sure of that.
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:96.2e308f89.303e5b75@aol.com...
marriages increased, the number of non baptised children has increased, and
the number of individuals from other countries (not just refugees) who will
become Greek citizens has also increased.
A person has the right to apply for Citizenship after 10 years continuous
residency in Greece.
On the top of that there are about 2-5% Catholics (from medieval time), no
to mentioned the Moslems who desperately want a Mosque in Athens and who
will apply for citizenship in a few years time.
The Government has the upper hand with considerable help from France and
Germany, regarding the passports and the ID cards.
But to answer your question directly.
So what is a person called if he is born to Greek parents (in Greece) but
not
baptised as Orthodox? Is he suddenly supposed to be called "Albanian" or
something?
The fact that the parents are "Greek" (which means from Greek parents and
baptised Orthodox) makes it very unlikely that their child will not be
baptised. Family pressure will make sure of that.
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:96.2e308f89.303e5b75@aol.com...
In a message dated 8/24/05 4:15:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
akrogiali@westnet.com.au writes:
In fact the precondition for a person to be called "Greek" is that he
was
born to Greek parents, and baptised as Orthodox.
-
Gjest
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
In a message dated 8/24/05 6:15:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
akrogiali@westnet.com.au writes:
<< The fact that the parents are "Greek" (which means from Greek parents and
baptised Orthodox) makes it very unlikely that their child will not be
baptised. Family pressure will make sure of that. >>
Let's say my parents are atheists. You didn't really answer, you redirected.
I'm sure there must be at least ONE example of a non-baptised Greek child
somewhere in Greece.
akrogiali@westnet.com.au writes:
<< The fact that the parents are "Greek" (which means from Greek parents and
baptised Orthodox) makes it very unlikely that their child will not be
baptised. Family pressure will make sure of that. >>
Let's say my parents are atheists. You didn't really answer, you redirected.
I'm sure there must be at least ONE example of a non-baptised Greek child
somewhere in Greece.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
You are the on who keeps arguing about matters you obviously know nothing
about beyond common and ill-founded prejudice: you absurdly claimed that
"The Greek Orthodox religion is very strict. There are NO local variations
or local traditions", and I produced conclusive proof that this cannot be
so, in an extract from a bitter online controversy between Greek Orthodox
authorities over the re-baptism of schismatics.
The publication linked to the archdiocese got the historical position right,
of course, while the chauvinistic website trying to refute this got it
wrong. The Council in Trullo is, and for 13 centuries has been, the relevant
authority on this matter, and it declared just what I have maintained.
In trying to counter this you have offered only unsupported assertions of
your personal misunderstandings, from the start of this thread. If you are
Dr Tsambourakis, that is all you have ever done on SGM anyway.
Peter Stewart
"Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:430cfe2c@quokka.wn.com.au...
about beyond common and ill-founded prejudice: you absurdly claimed that
"The Greek Orthodox religion is very strict. There are NO local variations
or local traditions", and I produced conclusive proof that this cannot be
so, in an extract from a bitter online controversy between Greek Orthodox
authorities over the re-baptism of schismatics.
The publication linked to the archdiocese got the historical position right,
of course, while the chauvinistic website trying to refute this got it
wrong. The Council in Trullo is, and for 13 centuries has been, the relevant
authority on this matter, and it declared just what I have maintained.
In trying to counter this you have offered only unsupported assertions of
your personal misunderstandings, from the start of this thread. If you are
Dr Tsambourakis, that is all you have ever done on SGM anyway.
Peter Stewart
"Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:430cfe2c@quokka.wn.com.au...
You keep arguing about things you know very little about.
The ecumenical Patriarch is the Head of the Orthodox Church.
However, that has nothing to do with baptism.
In fact the precondition for a person to be called "Greek" is that he was
born to Greek parents, and baptised as Orthodox.
Everybody in Europe knows the demand of the Church that Greek Passports
and ID cards must clearly state the religion of the owner. (In order to
identify if he is "Greek" or not).
Baptism is and always has been a Church business.
The only matter that changes from province to province are the way the
Godfather is chosen,
the timing and the celebrations.
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:jf6Pe.9310$FA3.9129@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
""Hal Bradley"" <hw.bradley@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:000201c5a8c8$93d6ca60$0300a8c0@scandiamjn924p...
Comment below
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart [mailto:p_m_stewart@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:06 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
Akrogiali wrote:
In Greek Orthodox religion, baptism can only be performed by a
Priest. There is NO such a thing as "emergency"
I suppose this means that in the common estimation of Greeks who
haven't studied the question, baptism is the preserve of priests.
However, this is NOT true. Baptism is regeneration "by water in the
Word", that is receiving the individual through ablution into the
community of the faithful, and this can be performed by anyone who has
in turn received it. John the Baptist was not a priest when he baptised
Jesus.
Actually, it can be argued that John the Baptist was a priest, albeit a
Jewish priest. His father was a priest who served in the temple and the
Levitical priesthood was hereditary. He was over thirty years of age at
the
time he baptized Jesus and thus met the qualifications to enter the
priesthood.
This is a quibble beside the point - John the Baptist lacked the basic
qualification that marks Catholic or Orthodox priesthood, that is
ordination by someone in apostolic succcesion. He would not have been
eligible to perform sacraments as a priest, in either rite under
discussion, in the medieval period or today.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
First you say "Since Greece joined the EU...the number of non baptised
children has increased" and later you imply that there aren't any to speak
of from "Greek" parents.
Which is it?
I know a number of Greeks whose nationality is not in the slightest doubt
and who do not pay even lip-service to the Orthodox religion. Are they all
somehow deracinated by this?
Peter Stewart
"Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:430d1a3c$1@quokka.wn.com.au...
children has increased" and later you imply that there aren't any to speak
of from "Greek" parents.
Which is it?
I know a number of Greeks whose nationality is not in the slightest doubt
and who do not pay even lip-service to the Orthodox religion. Are they all
somehow deracinated by this?
Peter Stewart
"Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:430d1a3c$1@quokka.wn.com.au...
That is the problem. Since Greece joined the EU, the number of political
marriages increased, the number of non baptised children has increased,
and the number of individuals from other countries (not just refugees) who
will become Greek citizens has also increased.
A person has the right to apply for Citizenship after 10 years continuous
residency in Greece.
On the top of that there are about 2-5% Catholics (from medieval time), no
to mentioned the Moslems who desperately want a Mosque in Athens and who
will apply for citizenship in a few years time.
The Government has the upper hand with considerable help from France and
Germany, regarding the passports and the ID cards.
But to answer your question directly.
So what is a person called if he is born to Greek parents (in Greece) but
not
baptised as Orthodox? Is he suddenly supposed to be called "Albanian" or
something?
The fact that the parents are "Greek" (which means from Greek parents and
baptised Orthodox) makes it very unlikely that their child will not be
baptised. Family pressure will make sure of that.
WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:96.2e308f89.303e5b75@aol.com...
In a message dated 8/24/05 4:15:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
akrogiali@westnet.com.au writes:
In fact the precondition for a person to be called "Greek" is that he
was
born to Greek parents, and baptised as Orthodox.
-
Gjest
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
I have been reading Lynda Garland's 1999 work, "Byzantine Empresses",
and in her article on the empresses of Alexios I she suggests that the
later, foreign empresses may have been renamed "Irene" in honor of
Alexios' wife, Irene Doukaina.
Slight tangent, but worth noting -- the Emperor Manuel I was apparently
influenced by the AIMA prophecy, which predicted that the first letter
of the name of each emperor from Alexios I would spell "aima", blood.
Hence:
A: Alexios I
I: Ioannes II
M: Manuel I
A: Alexios II
This explains why Manuel's only legitimate son was not named
Ioannes/John after his paternal grandfather, as would be expected, but
was instead named Alexios. In addition, Manuel also named his
illegitimate son Alexios, and had Bela of Hungary dubbed "Alexios" as
well, during the time Bela was betrothed to Manuel's daughter Maria and
was heir-apparent. One way or another Manuel was determined to have an
Alexios succeed him -- of course, an Andronikos put an end to that. See
Paul Magdalino's "The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos" for more on the AIMA
prophecy.
I do not know of any example during which a renamed foreign Empress
named a daughter after herself (except for the possible Herina/Irene
Angelina case). Bertha of Sulzbach/Eirene had two daughters with Manuel
I, but they were named Anna and Maria. Maria of Antioch had no
daughters with Manuel I. Agnes of France/Anna had no children with
Alexios II or Andronikos I. I'm not familiar with the children of
Piroska of Hungary/Irene by John II: did they have any daughters, and
if so, what were their names?
and in her article on the empresses of Alexios I she suggests that the
later, foreign empresses may have been renamed "Irene" in honor of
Alexios' wife, Irene Doukaina.
Slight tangent, but worth noting -- the Emperor Manuel I was apparently
influenced by the AIMA prophecy, which predicted that the first letter
of the name of each emperor from Alexios I would spell "aima", blood.
Hence:
A: Alexios I
I: Ioannes II
M: Manuel I
A: Alexios II
This explains why Manuel's only legitimate son was not named
Ioannes/John after his paternal grandfather, as would be expected, but
was instead named Alexios. In addition, Manuel also named his
illegitimate son Alexios, and had Bela of Hungary dubbed "Alexios" as
well, during the time Bela was betrothed to Manuel's daughter Maria and
was heir-apparent. One way or another Manuel was determined to have an
Alexios succeed him -- of course, an Andronikos put an end to that. See
Paul Magdalino's "The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos" for more on the AIMA
prophecy.
I do not know of any example during which a renamed foreign Empress
named a daughter after herself (except for the possible Herina/Irene
Angelina case). Bertha of Sulzbach/Eirene had two daughters with Manuel
I, but they were named Anna and Maria. Maria of Antioch had no
daughters with Manuel I. Agnes of France/Anna had no children with
Alexios II or Andronikos I. I'm not familiar with the children of
Piroska of Hungary/Irene by John II: did they have any daughters, and
if so, what were their names?
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
Nichol_st...@yahoo.com wrote:
<chomp>
In addition to four sons they had as many daughters:
Maria, the twin of their eldest son the co-emperor Alexios - she
married Ioannes Dalassenos Rogerios, caesar, who died in or after 1152.
Anna, married to Stephanos Kontostephanos, panhypersebastos & megas
doux, who was killed in 1149
Theodora, who became a nun in widowhood having married Manouel Anemas,
panhypersebastos (died 1146/7)
Eudokia, who married Theodoros Batatzes, pansebastohypertatos (died
before 6 March 1166, NB not killed in battle at Neocaesarea in 1176 as
some have confused it).
Peter Stewart
<chomp>
I'm not familiar with the children of Piroska of Hungary/Irene by
John II: did they have any daughters, and if so, what were their
names?
In addition to four sons they had as many daughters:
Maria, the twin of their eldest son the co-emperor Alexios - she
married Ioannes Dalassenos Rogerios, caesar, who died in or after 1152.
Anna, married to Stephanos Kontostephanos, panhypersebastos & megas
doux, who was killed in 1149
Theodora, who became a nun in widowhood having married Manouel Anemas,
panhypersebastos (died 1146/7)
Eudokia, who married Theodoros Batatzes, pansebastohypertatos (died
before 6 March 1166, NB not killed in battle at Neocaesarea in 1176 as
some have confused it).
Peter Stewart
-
Akrogiali
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
You confuse two words:
Greek, and Greek Nationality.
Almost anyone can be a Greek Citizen. However, to be a "Greek" you must be
born to Greek Orthodox parents and be Greek Orthodox. It does not matter
where you are, where you live and what you do, If your parents are "Greek",
you are entitled to Greek Citizenship, if you are Orthodox, YOU ARE GREEK.
I can not see what is there you do not understand.
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:mmbPe.9593$FA3.5283@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Greek, and Greek Nationality.
Almost anyone can be a Greek Citizen. However, to be a "Greek" you must be
born to Greek Orthodox parents and be Greek Orthodox. It does not matter
where you are, where you live and what you do, If your parents are "Greek",
you are entitled to Greek Citizenship, if you are Orthodox, YOU ARE GREEK.
I can not see what is there you do not understand.
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:mmbPe.9593$FA3.5283@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
First you say "Since Greece joined the EU...the number of non baptised
children has increased" and later you imply that there aren't any to speak
of from "Greek" parents.
Which is it?
I know a number of Greeks whose nationality is not in the slightest doubt
and who do not pay even lip-service to the Orthodox religion. Are they all
somehow deracinated by this?
Peter Stewart
"Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:430d1a3c$1@quokka.wn.com.au...
That is the problem. Since Greece joined the EU, the number of political
marriages increased, the number of non baptised children has increased,
and the number of individuals from other countries (not just refugees)
who will become Greek citizens has also increased.
A person has the right to apply for Citizenship after 10 years continuous
residency in Greece.
On the top of that there are about 2-5% Catholics (from medieval time),
no to mentioned the Moslems who desperately want a Mosque in Athens and
who will apply for citizenship in a few years time.
The Government has the upper hand with considerable help from France and
Germany, regarding the passports and the ID cards.
But to answer your question directly.
So what is a person called if he is born to Greek parents (in Greece)
but not
baptised as Orthodox? Is he suddenly supposed to be called "Albanian"
or
something?
The fact that the parents are "Greek" (which means from Greek parents and
baptised Orthodox) makes it very unlikely that their child will not be
baptised. Family pressure will make sure of that.
WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:96.2e308f89.303e5b75@aol.com...
In a message dated 8/24/05 4:15:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
akrogiali@westnet.com.au writes:
In fact the precondition for a person to be called "Greek" is that he
was
born to Greek parents, and baptised as Orthodox.
-
Akrogiali
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1124950863.078829.218980@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
How did Giovanni De Rogerio (an Italian Noble) become Dalassenos ????????
news:1124950863.078829.218980@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Nichol_st...@yahoo.com wrote:
chomp
I'm not familiar with the children of Piroska of Hungary/Irene by
John II: did they have any daughters, and if so, what were their
names?
In addition to four sons they had as many daughters:
Maria, the twin of their eldest son the co-emperor Alexios - she
married Ioannes Dalassenos Rogerios, caesar, who died in or after 1152.
How did Giovanni De Rogerio (an Italian Noble) become Dalassenos ????????
Anna, married to Stephanos Kontostephanos, panhypersebastos & megas
doux, who was killed in 1149
Theodora, who became a nun in widowhood having married Manouel Anemas,
panhypersebastos (died 1146/7)
Eudokia, who married Theodoros Batatzes, pansebastohypertatos (died
before 6 March 1166, NB not killed in battle at Neocaesarea in 1176 as
some have confused it).
Peter Stewart
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
I do not grasp the difference. Almost anyone can be Greek. However, to be a
"Greek"..... In other words, being Greek is not the same as being Greek?
What are you saying? What makes a Greek a Greek? Is a person born in Greece
with a Greek passport (but of say German origin) any less Greek than an
Australian born in Australia with an Australian passport but with Greek
parents?
I understand there is also controversy about "being Jewish". I understand
that people can only be "jewish" if they have a Jewish mother (the race not
necessarily the religion).
I have heard how a boy in Australia with only a Jewish father followed the
Jewish religion but he was excluded because he did not have a Jewish mother.
What is it that attaches a nationality to a person? A first generation
Australian most of the time regards him/herself very much an Australian, but
you still get those jibes at the British and sometimes the Dutch Royal
family that they are German. In both cases they have an ancestry that lived
in England and The Netherlands for centuries.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
"Greek"..... In other words, being Greek is not the same as being Greek?
What are you saying? What makes a Greek a Greek? Is a person born in Greece
with a Greek passport (but of say German origin) any less Greek than an
Australian born in Australia with an Australian passport but with Greek
parents?
I understand there is also controversy about "being Jewish". I understand
that people can only be "jewish" if they have a Jewish mother (the race not
necessarily the religion).
I have heard how a boy in Australia with only a Jewish father followed the
Jewish religion but he was excluded because he did not have a Jewish mother.
What is it that attaches a nationality to a person? A first generation
Australian most of the time regards him/herself very much an Australian, but
you still get those jibes at the British and sometimes the Dutch Royal
family that they are German. In both cases they have an ancestry that lived
in England and The Netherlands for centuries.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
You confuse two words:
Greek, and Greek Nationality.
Almost anyone can be a Greek Citizen. However, to be a "Greek" you must be
born to Greek Orthodox parents and be Greek Orthodox. It does not matter
where you are, where you live and what you do, If your parents are
"Greek", you are entitled to Greek Citizenship, if you are Orthodox, YOU
ARE GREEK.
I can not see what is there you do not understand.
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:mmbPe.9593$FA3.5283@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
First you say "Since Greece joined the EU...the number of non baptised
children has increased" and later you imply that there aren't any to
speak of from "Greek" parents.
Which is it?
I know a number of Greeks whose nationality is not in the slightest doubt
and who do not pay even lip-service to the Orthodox religion. Are they
all somehow deracinated by this?
Peter Stewart
"Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:430d1a3c$1@quokka.wn.com.au...
That is the problem. Since Greece joined the EU, the number of
political marriages increased, the number of non baptised children has
increased, and the number of individuals from other countries (not just
refugees) who will become Greek citizens has also increased.
A person has the right to apply for Citizenship after 10 years
continuous residency in Greece.
On the top of that there are about 2-5% Catholics (from medieval time),
no to mentioned the Moslems who desperately want a Mosque in Athens and
who will apply for citizenship in a few years time.
The Government has the upper hand with considerable help from France and
Germany, regarding the passports and the ID cards.
But to answer your question directly.
So what is a person called if he is born to Greek parents (in Greece)
but not
baptised as Orthodox? Is he suddenly supposed to be called "Albanian"
or
something?
The fact that the parents are "Greek" (which means from Greek parents
and baptised Orthodox) makes it very unlikely that their child will not
be baptised. Family pressure will make sure of that.
WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:96.2e308f89.303e5b75@aol.com...
In a message dated 8/24/05 4:15:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
akrogiali@westnet.com.au writes:
In fact the precondition for a person to be called "Greek" is that
he was
born to Greek parents, and baptised as Orthodox.
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
See below
----- Original Message -----
From: "Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
Here is recorded Maria Komnene, born Balabista February 1406, died
1143/144-1151
married Ioannes Dalassenos Rogerios 1136/1138 kaisar, 1143 Pratendent, 1152
dux of Strumitza, he died as a monk, their descendants are the Komnenoi
Rogerioi.
For Tafels 174 to and including 177 is a substantial list of sources, and I
would not dare to make a guess as to which applies to these details.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1124950863.078829.218980@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Nichol_st...@yahoo.com wrote:
chomp
I'm not familiar with the children of Piroska of Hungary/Irene by
John II: did they have any daughters, and if so, what were their
names?
In addition to four sons they had as many daughters:
Maria, the twin of their eldest son the co-emperor Alexios - she
married Ioannes Dalassenos Rogerios, caesar, who died in or after 1152.
How did Giovanni De Rogerio (an Italian Noble) become Dalassenos ????????
ES Volume II Tafel 177
Here is recorded Maria Komnene, born Balabista February 1406, died
1143/144-1151
married Ioannes Dalassenos Rogerios 1136/1138 kaisar, 1143 Pratendent, 1152
dux of Strumitza, he died as a monk, their descendants are the Komnenoi
Rogerioi.
For Tafels 174 to and including 177 is a substantial list of sources, and I
would not dare to make a guess as to which applies to these details.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
-
Gjest
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but who is considered Jewish differs on what branch
of Judaism you refer to (Conservative, Hasidic, Reform, etc.) The
general consensus is that you are Jewish if you A) convert to Judaism;
or B) are born of a Jewish mother. This holds true if your mother was a
convert herself, as long as you were born after her conversion.
I understand there is also controversy about "being Jewish". I understand
that people can only be "jewish" if they have a Jewish mother (the race not
necessarily the religion).
I have heard how a boy in Australia with only a Jewish father followed the
Jewish religion but he was excluded because he did not have a Jewish mother.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Slightly off-topic, but who is considered Jewish differs on what branch
of Judaism you refer to (Conservative, Hasidic, Reform, etc.) The
general consensus is that you are Jewish if you A) convert to Judaism;
or B) are born of a Jewish mother. This holds true if your mother was a
convert herself, as long as you were born after her conversion.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
<Nichol_storm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125019593.526008.35390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Anf if you were a Greek Jew transported to Auschwitz you were both Jewish
and Greek.
Akrogiali/Tsambourakis is just posting chauvinistic and/or outright racist
bilge about cultural-religious identity, and there is nothing in his posts
worth trying to understand.
A person can be a "Greek" atheist, or whatever, without reference to his
cranky and utterly ignorant prejudices.
Peter Stewart
news:1125019593.526008.35390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
I understand there is also controversy about "being Jewish". I understand
that people can only be "jewish" if they have a Jewish mother (the race
not
necessarily the religion).
I have heard how a boy in Australia with only a Jewish father followed
the
Jewish religion but he was excluded because he did not have a Jewish
mother.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Slightly off-topic, but who is considered Jewish differs on what branch
of Judaism you refer to (Conservative, Hasidic, Reform, etc.) The
general consensus is that you are Jewish if you A) convert to Judaism;
or B) are born of a Jewish mother. This holds true if your mother was a
convert herself, as long as you were born after her conversion.
Anf if you were a Greek Jew transported to Auschwitz you were both Jewish
and Greek.
Akrogiali/Tsambourakis is just posting chauvinistic and/or outright racist
bilge about cultural-religious identity, and there is nothing in his posts
worth trying to understand.
A person can be a "Greek" atheist, or whatever, without reference to his
cranky and utterly ignorant prejudices.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:039501c5a9cf$5bdf4350$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
There's nothing to grasp, Leo - as a member state of the European Union,
Greece is a democracy and obliged to remain one. It is not about to become a
theocracy, and there can be no religious test for nationality or
citizenship. There never has been. Akrogiali is on a rant.
Peter Stewart
news:039501c5a9cf$5bdf4350$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
I do not grasp the difference. Almost anyone can be Greek. However, to be a
"Greek"..... In other words, being Greek is not the same as being Greek?
What are you saying? What makes a Greek a Greek? Is a person born in
Greece with a Greek passport (but of say German origin) any less Greek than
an Australian born in Australia with an Australian passport but with Greek
parents?
There's nothing to grasp, Leo - as a member state of the European Union,
Greece is a democracy and obliged to remain one. It is not about to become a
theocracy, and there can be no religious test for nationality or
citizenship. There never has been. Akrogiali is on a rant.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:039b01c5a9d0$c80fd660$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
If listed, I suspect this would be taken from Lucien Stiernon's 'Notes de
titulaire et de prosopographie byzantines: à propos de trois membres de la
famille Rogerios (XIIe siècle)', _Revue des études byzantines_ 22 (1964).
The Dalassenos family was originally from Armenia, and presumably the caesar
Rogerios was descended from it, so that Akrogiali can relax - no foreigner
was necessarily masquerading as a holy "Greek" by using this surname.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
news:039b01c5a9d0$c80fd660$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
See below
----- Original Message -----
From: "Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1124950863.078829.218980@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Nichol_st...@yahoo.com wrote:
chomp
I'm not familiar with the children of Piroska of Hungary/Irene by
John II: did they have any daughters, and if so, what were their
names?
In addition to four sons they had as many daughters:
Maria, the twin of their eldest son the co-emperor Alexios - she
married Ioannes Dalassenos Rogerios, caesar, who died in or after 1152.
How did Giovanni De Rogerio (an Italian Noble) become Dalassenos ????????
ES Volume II Tafel 177
Here is recorded Maria Komnene, born Balabista February 1406, died
1143/144-1151
married Ioannes Dalassenos Rogerios 1136/1138 kaisar, 1143 Pratendent,
1152 dux of Strumitza, he died as a monk, their descendants are the
Komnenoi Rogerioi.
For Tafels 174 to and including 177 is a substantial list of sources, and
I would not dare to make a guess as to which applies to these details.
If listed, I suspect this would be taken from Lucien Stiernon's 'Notes de
titulaire et de prosopographie byzantines: à propos de trois membres de la
famille Rogerios (XIIe siècle)', _Revue des études byzantines_ 22 (1964).
The Dalassenos family was originally from Armenia, and presumably the caesar
Rogerios was descended from it, so that Akrogiali can relax - no foreigner
was necessarily masquerading as a holy "Greek" by using this surname.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3ywPe.10776$FA3.7739@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I have now checked this, and find that Stiernon gave proof for the caesar
Ioannes Dalassenos having been the same man as Ioannes Rogerios. This,
without the proof, had been proposed before. Kinnamos called him Rogerios,
otherwise he chose to be known as Dalassenos (the surname of the augusta
Anna, mother of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos) when using the title caesar - in
both cases he was named Ioannes and described as mourning his wife Maria
Komnene, born in the purple. Obviously the daughter of Emperor Ioannes II
cannot have had two widowers.
The parentage of Ioannes Dalassenos Rogerios is not recorded - it has been
conjectured that he was son of the sebastos Konstantinos Rogerios by a
Dalassene wife.
Peter Stewart
news:3ywPe.10776$FA3.7739@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:039b01c5a9d0$c80fd660$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
See below
----- Original Message -----
From: "Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
How did Giovanni De Rogerio (an Italian Noble) become Dalassenos
????????
ES Volume II Tafel 177
Here is recorded Maria Komnene, born Balabista February 1406, died
1143/144-1151
married Ioannes Dalassenos Rogerios 1136/1138 kaisar, 1143 Pratendent,
1152 dux of Strumitza, he died as a monk, their descendants are the
Komnenoi Rogerioi.
For Tafels 174 to and including 177 is a substantial list of sources, and
I would not dare to make a guess as to which applies to these details.
If listed, I suspect this would be taken from Lucien Stiernon's 'Notes de
titulaire et de prosopographie byzantines: à propos de trois membres de la
famille Rogerios (XIIe siècle)', _Revue des études byzantines_ 22 (1964).
I have now checked this, and find that Stiernon gave proof for the caesar
Ioannes Dalassenos having been the same man as Ioannes Rogerios. This,
without the proof, had been proposed before. Kinnamos called him Rogerios,
otherwise he chose to be known as Dalassenos (the surname of the augusta
Anna, mother of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos) when using the title caesar - in
both cases he was named Ioannes and described as mourning his wife Maria
Komnene, born in the purple. Obviously the daughter of Emperor Ioannes II
cannot have had two widowers.
The parentage of Ioannes Dalassenos Rogerios is not recorded - it has been
conjectured that he was son of the sebastos Konstantinos Rogerios by a
Dalassene wife.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
I have checked Davids' "Empress Theophano" (2002), and found some
interesting new details regarding the renaming. In Judith Herin's
essay, she refers to two foreign women selected as brides for Byzantine
emperors: Rotrud, daughter of Charlemagne, for Constantine VI; and
Cicek, a Khazar princess married to Constantine V.
In Rotrud's case the marriage never took place, but she still received
a eunuch tutor to instruct her in Byzantine ettiquete, and a new Greek
name, Erythro, "red", a translation of her own name. Cicek's name
translated as "flower", but she was not named Anthousa ("flower" in
Greek) but rather Irene.
Theophano, the empress of Otto II, was apparently never known by
another name in Germany, but her exotic name never caught on in her
adopted homeland. It was bestowed upon one of her granddaughters
however, Theophano, abbess of Essen. One of the second Theophano's
sisters also bore a Greek name, Sophia.
interesting new details regarding the renaming. In Judith Herin's
essay, she refers to two foreign women selected as brides for Byzantine
emperors: Rotrud, daughter of Charlemagne, for Constantine VI; and
Cicek, a Khazar princess married to Constantine V.
In Rotrud's case the marriage never took place, but she still received
a eunuch tutor to instruct her in Byzantine ettiquete, and a new Greek
name, Erythro, "red", a translation of her own name. Cicek's name
translated as "flower", but she was not named Anthousa ("flower" in
Greek) but rather Irene.
Theophano, the empress of Otto II, was apparently never known by
another name in Germany, but her exotic name never caught on in her
adopted homeland. It was bestowed upon one of her granddaughters
however, Theophano, abbess of Essen. One of the second Theophano's
sisters also bore a Greek name, Sophia.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
Nichol_st...@yahoo.com wrote:
I don't think Erythro was considered a new name at either end of the
contract, but just a Greek version of the Frankish name as stated.
Rotrude was still known by the same name to the end of her days in
Francia. She had been affianced as a small child to the young
Konstantinos VI. Christian Settipani wrongly ascribed this engagement
to Easter 781, but Konstaes and Mamalos, the envoys sent by Empress
Eirene, did not leave Constantinople until some time before 25 May of
that year and concluded their business after 1 September. A eunuch
named Elissaios was sent to Charlemagne's court to teach Rotrude
Greek and familiarise her with Byzantine customs; the contract was
broken off, to the distress of Konstantinos, in November 788, when he
was unwillingly married to Maria from Amnia who had been chosen for him
in a celebrated beauty contest.
Later on Rotrude took up with Count Rorgo, by whom she had offspring
out of wedlock. Not very imperial behaviour, perhaps, but then nor is
jilting in favour of a bimbo.
Peter Stewart
In Judith Herin's essay, she refers to two foreign women selected
as brides for Byzantine emperors: Rotrud, daughter of Charlemagne,
for Constantine VI; and Cicek, a Khazar princess married to
Constantine V.
In Rotrud's case the marriage never took place, but she still received
a eunuch tutor to instruct her in Byzantine ettiquete, and a new Greek
name, Erythro, "red", a translation of her own name.
I don't think Erythro was considered a new name at either end of the
contract, but just a Greek version of the Frankish name as stated.
Rotrude was still known by the same name to the end of her days in
Francia. She had been affianced as a small child to the young
Konstantinos VI. Christian Settipani wrongly ascribed this engagement
to Easter 781, but Konstaes and Mamalos, the envoys sent by Empress
Eirene, did not leave Constantinople until some time before 25 May of
that year and concluded their business after 1 September. A eunuch
named Elissaios was sent to Charlemagne's court to teach Rotrude
Greek and familiarise her with Byzantine customs; the contract was
broken off, to the distress of Konstantinos, in November 788, when he
was unwillingly married to Maria from Amnia who had been chosen for him
in a celebrated beauty contest.
Later on Rotrude took up with Count Rorgo, by whom she had offspring
out of wedlock. Not very imperial behaviour, perhaps, but then nor is
jilting in favour of a bimbo.
Peter Stewart
-
Akrogiali
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
The parentage of Ioannes Dalassenos Rogerios is not recorded - it has been
conjectured that he was son of the sebastos Konstantinos Rogerios by a
Dalassene wife.
The fact is that it is not known who his parents were. And the above does
not look or sound right. If his father was "Rogerio" then he would have
called himself Rogerio-Dalassinos and not the other way around.
The De Rogerio family supposed to be a very old Italian one. Some write it
with two "g" and some as Rogiero.
If there is any truth in the suggestion that his father was "Konstantinos",
then obviously he was baptised Orthodox to marry a Greek Lady and his son
"Ioannis" was born Orthodox.
There is also not very much known about the Dalassinos family and the
suggestion that is not Greek is highly questionable. Phonetically is very
much a "Greek" name.
The first impression is that it is the name "Thalassinos" misspelled not
uncommon those days.
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:XZwPe.10808$FA3.4531@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3ywPe.10776$FA3.7739@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:039b01c5a9d0$c80fd660$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
See below
----- Original Message -----
From: "Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
How did Giovanni De Rogerio (an Italian Noble) become Dalassenos
????????
ES Volume II Tafel 177
Here is recorded Maria Komnene, born Balabista February 1406, died
1143/144-1151
married Ioannes Dalassenos Rogerios 1136/1138 kaisar, 1143 Pratendent,
1152 dux of Strumitza, he died as a monk, their descendants are the
Komnenoi Rogerioi.
For Tafels 174 to and including 177 is a substantial list of sources,
and I would not dare to make a guess as to which applies to these
details.
If listed, I suspect this would be taken from Lucien Stiernon's 'Notes de
titulaire et de prosopographie byzantines: à propos de trois membres de
la famille Rogerios (XIIe siècle)', _Revue des études byzantines_ 22
(1964).
I have now checked this, and find that Stiernon gave proof for the caesar
Ioannes Dalassenos having been the same man as Ioannes Rogerios. This,
without the proof, had been proposed before. Kinnamos called him Rogerios,
otherwise he chose to be known as Dalassenos (the surname of the augusta
Anna, mother of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos) when using the title caesar -
in both cases he was named Ioannes and described as mourning his wife
Maria Komnene, born in the purple. Obviously the daughter of Emperor
Ioannes II cannot have had two widowers.
Peter Stewart
-
Akrogiali
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
For you it may be funny, but for a Greek it is not.
After the fall of Constantinople and the Turkish invasion of Greece, it
become necessary to separate those who were "True Greek" (Romaioi) from
those who were not.
From those days, and it is valid today, a "Greek" is a person baptised
"Orthodox" and born to "Greek" parents. It appears that speaking Greek
(Romai-ika) was not a prerequisite.
Any other persons are simply Greek citizens. Same rights, etc.
If you don't understand that, I can't help you.
Perhaps I should point out that after the fall of Greece (Turkish
occupation), Learning Greek, speaking Greek and practising Religion was not
easy. The "Leaders" those days were Priests. Priests were the "teachers"
in secret schools, were "priests" in secret churches, were organising
revolts, were practically doing everything. The definition of "Greek" is
more a religious one then a political.
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:W3wPe.10753$FA3.6896@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
After the fall of Constantinople and the Turkish invasion of Greece, it
become necessary to separate those who were "True Greek" (Romaioi) from
those who were not.
From those days, and it is valid today, a "Greek" is a person baptised
"Orthodox" and born to "Greek" parents. It appears that speaking Greek
(Romai-ika) was not a prerequisite.
Any other persons are simply Greek citizens. Same rights, etc.
If you don't understand that, I can't help you.
Perhaps I should point out that after the fall of Greece (Turkish
occupation), Learning Greek, speaking Greek and practising Religion was not
easy. The "Leaders" those days were Priests. Priests were the "teachers"
in secret schools, were "priests" in secret churches, were organising
revolts, were practically doing everything. The definition of "Greek" is
more a religious one then a political.
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:W3wPe.10753$FA3.6896@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:039501c5a9cf$5bdf4350$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
I do not grasp the difference. Almost anyone can be Greek. However, to be
a "Greek"..... In other words, being Greek is not the same as being Greek?
What are you saying? What makes a Greek a Greek? Is a person born in
Greece with a Greek passport (but of say German origin) any less Greek
than an Australian born in Australia with an Australian passport but with
Greek parents?
There's nothing to grasp, Leo - as a member state of the European Union,
Greece is a democracy and obliged to remain one. It is not about to become
a theocracy, and there can be no religious test for nationality or
citizenship. There never has been. Akrogiali is on a rant.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
"Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:43127ced$1@quokka.wn.com.au...
Whoever said he wasn't? You leapt to a conclusion that he was an Italian,
"Giovanni de Rogerio", but that doesn't make it valid or even meaningful -
your statements rarely are, whether signed with the name Tsambourakis or
not. As a description of this individual, your idea that he was a foreigner
is unsupported by any shred of evidence that he was not a native-born
Byzantine, wherever his ancestors came from.
If his father had called himself Rogerios, from an Italian background, and
his mother Dalassene, from an Armenian one, it would have been perfectly
unexceptional for Ioannes to choose Dalassenos for himself. Many Byzantine
aristocrats chose to be known by a mother's or grandmother's surname. He
wasn't trying to disguise his origins, to pass himself off as an ethnic
"Greek", since he was openly called Rogerios too. He was living in a
civilised society that didn't impose any silly standards of purity, cultural
or genetic, for being "Greek": the people of Byzantium in his time called
themselves "Romans" anyway, and "Greeks" to them were just remote, heathen
antecedents. Your provincial revisionism on this point is false, mere
insecurty compounded by ignorance.
Do you ever bother to check before posting, or do you imagine that thinking
aloud & in public on matters that you know nothing about is a useful way to
pass the time, like John Brandon?
If you want to find out about the likely Armenian origin of the Dalassenoi,
read first 'Notes arméno-byzantines V. Les Dalassènes' by Nikoghaios Adontz
in _Byzantion_ 10 (1935). Or not, as you please - but when you try to make
it up as you go along, as above, you only ever succeed in making a fool of
yourself.
Peter Stewart
news:43127ced$1@quokka.wn.com.au...
The parentage of Ioannes Dalassenos Rogerios is not recorded - it has
been conjectured that he was son of the sebastos Konstantinos Rogerios by
a Dalassene wife.
The fact is that it is not known who his parents were. And the above does
not look or sound right. If his father was "Rogerio" then he would have
called himself Rogerio-Dalassinos and not the other way around.
The De Rogerio family supposed to be a very old Italian one. Some write it
with two "g" and some as Rogiero.
If there is any truth in the suggestion that his father was
"Konstantinos", then obviously he was baptised Orthodox to marry a Greek
Lady and his son "Ioannis" was born Orthodox.
Whoever said he wasn't? You leapt to a conclusion that he was an Italian,
"Giovanni de Rogerio", but that doesn't make it valid or even meaningful -
your statements rarely are, whether signed with the name Tsambourakis or
not. As a description of this individual, your idea that he was a foreigner
is unsupported by any shred of evidence that he was not a native-born
Byzantine, wherever his ancestors came from.
If his father had called himself Rogerios, from an Italian background, and
his mother Dalassene, from an Armenian one, it would have been perfectly
unexceptional for Ioannes to choose Dalassenos for himself. Many Byzantine
aristocrats chose to be known by a mother's or grandmother's surname. He
wasn't trying to disguise his origins, to pass himself off as an ethnic
"Greek", since he was openly called Rogerios too. He was living in a
civilised society that didn't impose any silly standards of purity, cultural
or genetic, for being "Greek": the people of Byzantium in his time called
themselves "Romans" anyway, and "Greeks" to them were just remote, heathen
antecedents. Your provincial revisionism on this point is false, mere
insecurty compounded by ignorance.
There is also not very much known about the Dalassinos family and the
suggestion that is not Greek is highly questionable. Phonetically is very
much a "Greek" name.
The first impression is that it is the name "Thalassinos" misspelled not
uncommon those days.
Do you ever bother to check before posting, or do you imagine that thinking
aloud & in public on matters that you know nothing about is a useful way to
pass the time, like John Brandon?
If you want to find out about the likely Armenian origin of the Dalassenoi,
read first 'Notes arméno-byzantines V. Les Dalassènes' by Nikoghaios Adontz
in _Byzantion_ 10 (1935). Or not, as you please - but when you try to make
it up as you go along, as above, you only ever succeed in making a fool of
yourself.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
"Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:431280fb$1@quokka.wn.com.au...
"Greek" is "Hellene", not "Roman", in English as in Greek or any other
language.
I well understand it: chauvinism, from insecurity. That is no excuse.
Spoken like a Greek Cypriot from the 1960s, but pointless, rancorous and
self-serving tripe in the 2000s.
Your sorrowing over the fall of Constantople is self-indulgence - you
weren't there & didn't suffer in the catastrophe. The hardships of Greeks
since then are not unique or even special in the wider world of political &
cultural suppression, that the junta of the colonels practised busily from
Athens in modern times - on many Albanians, Romanians and other "outsiders"
living in Greece, for instance.
You may as well say that pure "Greeks" have a right to their ancient
homeland in Asia Minor, and the Turks should be expelled from there as
interlopers. History as insanity - just as we have witnessed in Gaza and the
West Bank over recent weeks. Here's an equally valid personal version of
this kind of collective jingoism: "God made Adam and Eve in Paradise. I am
their descendant and consequently their moral, cultural and proprietorial
heir. Tahiti looks something like Paradise to my eyes, therefore the
Polynesians and the French had better get out & turn it over to me unless
they can prove a superior line of descent from the first people created. The
fact that God expelled Adam & Eve, and didn't sustain my ancestors in some
allegedly promised land over intervening centuries, matters nothing in
comparison to my getting what I WANT in life, and surrounding myself only
with people just like myself." Pernicious rubbish, not least when it becomes
the policy of nations.
Peter Stewart
news:431280fb$1@quokka.wn.com.au...
For you it may be funny, but for a Greek it is not.
After the fall of Constantinople and the Turkish invasion of Greece, it
become necessary to separate those who were "True Greek" (Romaioi) from
those who were not.
"Greek" is "Hellene", not "Roman", in English as in Greek or any other
language.
From those days, and it is valid today, a "Greek" is a person baptised
"Orthodox" and born to "Greek" parents. It appears that speaking Greek
(Romai-ika) was not a prerequisite.
Any other persons are simply Greek citizens. Same rights, etc.
If you don't understand that, I can't help you.
I well understand it: chauvinism, from insecurity. That is no excuse.
Perhaps I should point out that after the fall of Greece (Turkish
occupation), Learning Greek, speaking Greek and practising Religion was
not easy. The "Leaders" those days were Priests. Priests were the
"teachers" in secret schools, were "priests" in secret churches, were
organising revolts, were practically doing everything. The definition of
"Greek" is more a religious one then a political.
Spoken like a Greek Cypriot from the 1960s, but pointless, rancorous and
self-serving tripe in the 2000s.
Your sorrowing over the fall of Constantople is self-indulgence - you
weren't there & didn't suffer in the catastrophe. The hardships of Greeks
since then are not unique or even special in the wider world of political &
cultural suppression, that the junta of the colonels practised busily from
Athens in modern times - on many Albanians, Romanians and other "outsiders"
living in Greece, for instance.
You may as well say that pure "Greeks" have a right to their ancient
homeland in Asia Minor, and the Turks should be expelled from there as
interlopers. History as insanity - just as we have witnessed in Gaza and the
West Bank over recent weeks. Here's an equally valid personal version of
this kind of collective jingoism: "God made Adam and Eve in Paradise. I am
their descendant and consequently their moral, cultural and proprietorial
heir. Tahiti looks something like Paradise to my eyes, therefore the
Polynesians and the French had better get out & turn it over to me unless
they can prove a superior line of descent from the first people created. The
fact that God expelled Adam & Eve, and didn't sustain my ancestors in some
allegedly promised land over intervening centuries, matters nothing in
comparison to my getting what I WANT in life, and surrounding myself only
with people just like myself." Pernicious rubbish, not least when it becomes
the policy of nations.
Peter Stewart
-
Akrogiali
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
Your problem is that you are so obsessed with your own "views" and
"opinions" that you don't know what's right and what's wrong.
What does mine name has to do with your ideas, views and comments.
Every time you loose control you attack the persons.
Everything you say is based on assumption, allegations, views of others, and
misinterpretations.
You constantly make statements as if these were facts about matters you know
very little.
Reading and quoting books is fine. However, choosing parts of a book that
are based purely on assumptions and wishful thinking to attack others that
is not good.
For example you keep promoting the idea that Dalassinos was an Armenia.
There is nothing to support that (which as a Greek consider stupid).
There is no point arguing with you.
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ArvQe.14042$FA3.3853@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"opinions" that you don't know what's right and what's wrong.
What does mine name has to do with your ideas, views and comments.
Every time you loose control you attack the persons.
Everything you say is based on assumption, allegations, views of others, and
misinterpretations.
You constantly make statements as if these were facts about matters you know
very little.
Reading and quoting books is fine. However, choosing parts of a book that
are based purely on assumptions and wishful thinking to attack others that
is not good.
For example you keep promoting the idea that Dalassinos was an Armenia.
There is nothing to support that (which as a Greek consider stupid).
There is no point arguing with you.
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ArvQe.14042$FA3.3853@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:43127ced$1@quokka.wn.com.au...
The parentage of Ioannes Dalassenos Rogerios is not recorded - it has
been conjectured that he was son of the sebastos Konstantinos Rogerios
by a Dalassene wife.
The fact is that it is not known who his parents were. And the above
does not look or sound right. If his father was "Rogerio" then he would
have called himself Rogerio-Dalassinos and not the other way around.
The De Rogerio family supposed to be a very old Italian one. Some write
it with two "g" and some as Rogiero.
If there is any truth in the suggestion that his father was
"Konstantinos", then obviously he was baptised Orthodox to marry a Greek
Lady and his son "Ioannis" was born Orthodox.
Whoever said he wasn't? You leapt to a conclusion that he was an Italian,
"Giovanni de Rogerio", but that doesn't make it valid or even meaningful -
your statements rarely are, whether signed with the name Tsambourakis or
not. As a description of this individual, your idea that he was a
foreigner is unsupported by any shred of evidence that he was not a
native-born Byzantine, wherever his ancestors came from.
If his father had called himself Rogerios, from an Italian background, and
his mother Dalassene, from an Armenian one, it would have been perfectly
unexceptional for Ioannes to choose Dalassenos for himself. Many Byzantine
aristocrats chose to be known by a mother's or grandmother's surname. He
wasn't trying to disguise his origins, to pass himself off as an ethnic
"Greek", since he was openly called Rogerios too. He was living in a
civilised society that didn't impose any silly standards of purity,
cultural or genetic, for being "Greek": the people of Byzantium in his
time called themselves "Romans" anyway, and "Greeks" to them were just
remote, heathen antecedents. Your provincial revisionism on this point is
false, mere insecurty compounded by ignorance.
There is also not very much known about the Dalassinos family and the
suggestion that is not Greek is highly questionable. Phonetically is very
much a "Greek" name.
The first impression is that it is the name "Thalassinos" misspelled not
uncommon those days.
Do you ever bother to check before posting, or do you imagine that
thinking aloud & in public on matters that you know nothing about is a
useful way to pass the time, like John Brandon?
If you want to find out about the likely Armenian origin of the
Dalassenoi, read first 'Notes arméno-byzantines V. Les Dalassènes' by
Nikoghaios Adontz in _Byzantion_ 10 (1935). Or not, as you please - but
when you try to make it up as you go along, as above, you only ever
succeed in making a fool of yourself.
Peter Stewart
-
Akrogiali
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
That shows again your ignorance.
The Greeks are also called "Romaioi" and the Greek culture after the fall of
Constantinople is called "Romaiosini", and the Greek language is called
"Romaiika"
How can any one expect you to know these things????
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:wPvQe.14051$FA3.5220@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
The Greeks are also called "Romaioi" and the Greek culture after the fall of
Constantinople is called "Romaiosini", and the Greek language is called
"Romaiika"
How can any one expect you to know these things????
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:wPvQe.14051$FA3.5220@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:431280fb$1@quokka.wn.com.au...
For you it may be funny, but for a Greek it is not.
After the fall of Constantinople and the Turkish invasion of Greece, it
become necessary to separate those who were "True Greek" (Romaioi) from
those who were not.
"Greek" is "Hellene", not "Roman", in English as in Greek or any other
language.
From those days, and it is valid today, a "Greek" is a person baptised
"Orthodox" and born to "Greek" parents. It appears that speaking Greek
(Romai-ika) was not a prerequisite.
Any other persons are simply Greek citizens. Same rights, etc.
If you don't understand that, I can't help you.
I well understand it: chauvinism, from insecurity. That is no excuse.
Perhaps I should point out that after the fall of Greece (Turkish
occupation), Learning Greek, speaking Greek and practising Religion was
not easy. The "Leaders" those days were Priests. Priests were the
"teachers" in secret schools, were "priests" in secret churches, were
organising revolts, were practically doing everything. The definition of
"Greek" is more a religious one then a political.
Spoken like a Greek Cypriot from the 1960s, but pointless, rancorous and
self-serving tripe in the 2000s.
Your sorrowing over the fall of Constantople is self-indulgence - you
weren't there & didn't suffer in the catastrophe. The hardships of Greeks
since then are not unique or even special in the wider world of political
& cultural suppression, that the junta of the colonels practised busily
from Athens in modern times - on many Albanians, Romanians and other
"outsiders" living in Greece, for instance.
You may as well say that pure "Greeks" have a right to their ancient
homeland in Asia Minor, and the Turks should be expelled from there as
interlopers. History as insanity - just as we have witnessed in Gaza and
the West Bank over recent weeks. Here's an equally valid personal version
of this kind of collective jingoism: "God made Adam and Eve in Paradise. I
am their descendant and consequently their moral, cultural and
proprietorial heir. Tahiti looks something like Paradise to my eyes,
therefore the Polynesians and the French had better get out & turn it over
to me unless they can prove a superior line of descent from the first
people created. The fact that God expelled Adam & Eve, and didn't sustain
my ancestors in some allegedly promised land over intervening centuries,
matters nothing in comparison to my getting what I WANT in life, and
surrounding myself only with people just like myself." Pernicious rubbish,
not least when it becomes the policy of nations.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
"Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:43139442@quokka.wn.com.au...
There IS support for it - in the paper by Adontz that I cited.
But since you are opposed to reading and learning from this, there is no
help for it.
The rest is clearly nonsense, trying in the face of the clear evidence to
characterise me as behaving like yourself. As a Greek you seem to think you
must imbibe all knowledge with the mother's milk of Orthodoxy, but that is
obviously not the case or you wouldn't post meaningless junk as above.
Peter Stewart
news:43139442@quokka.wn.com.au...
Your problem is that you are so obsessed with your own "views" and
"opinions" that you don't know what's right and what's wrong.
What does mine name has to do with your ideas, views and comments.
Every time you loose control you attack the persons.
Everything you say is based on assumption, allegations, views of others,
and misinterpretations.
You constantly make statements as if these were facts about matters you
know very little.
Reading and quoting books is fine. However, choosing parts of a book that
are based purely on assumptions and wishful thinking to attack others that
is not good.
For example you keep promoting the idea that Dalassinos was an Armenia.
There is nothing to support that (which as a Greek consider stupid).
There is no point arguing with you.
There IS support for it - in the paper by Adontz that I cited.
But since you are opposed to reading and learning from this, there is no
help for it.
The rest is clearly nonsense, trying in the face of the clear evidence to
characterise me as behaving like yourself. As a Greek you seem to think you
must imbibe all knowledge with the mother's milk of Orthodoxy, but that is
obviously not the case or you wouldn't post meaningless junk as above.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
"Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:431394f2$1@quokka.wn.com.au...
The Byzantines called themselves "Romaioi" because that's how they saw
themselves, as ROMANS not as Greeks - that is, the people they called
Hellenes IN DISTINCTION from themselves.
The colonels tried to promote jingoism about a national Christian (i.e.
Orthodox) identity, with their motto "Greece for the Christian descendants
of the Hellenes". You were evidently brought up in this falsehood and can't
now see past it. That is your problem, not mine.
Peter Stewart
news:431394f2$1@quokka.wn.com.au...
That shows again your ignorance.
The Greeks are also called "Romaioi" and the Greek culture after the fall
of Constantinople is called "Romaiosini", and the Greek language is called
"Romaiika"
How can any one expect you to know these things????
The Byzantines called themselves "Romaioi" because that's how they saw
themselves, as ROMANS not as Greeks - that is, the people they called
Hellenes IN DISTINCTION from themselves.
The colonels tried to promote jingoism about a national Christian (i.e.
Orthodox) identity, with their motto "Greece for the Christian descendants
of the Hellenes". You were evidently brought up in this falsehood and can't
now see past it. That is your problem, not mine.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
"Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:43139442@quokka.wn.com.au...
<snip>
Leaving aside the absurdity of alleging MY loss (or looseness) of "control",
the point of drawing attention to the fact that "Akrogiali" is actually
Tsambourakis was to save other readers the trouble of attending to his now
anonymous posts.
Tsambourakis has shown himself over and again to have NO knowledge of
Byzantine subjects, and to have read NO medieval texts - ignorantly claiming
for instance that women used masculine forms for their surnames. The blatant
ignorance of "Akrogiali" tipped me off that the same personage must be
involved. Other posters seemed inclined, from misplaced goodwill, to take
the anonymous contributor seriously; and I offered information to disabuse
them of this so as not to waste their time.
Peter Stewart
news:43139442@quokka.wn.com.au...
<snip>
What does mine name has to do with your ideas, views and comments.
Every time you loose control you attack the persons.
Leaving aside the absurdity of alleging MY loss (or looseness) of "control",
the point of drawing attention to the fact that "Akrogiali" is actually
Tsambourakis was to save other readers the trouble of attending to his now
anonymous posts.
Tsambourakis has shown himself over and again to have NO knowledge of
Byzantine subjects, and to have read NO medieval texts - ignorantly claiming
for instance that women used masculine forms for their surnames. The blatant
ignorance of "Akrogiali" tipped me off that the same personage must be
involved. Other posters seemed inclined, from misplaced goodwill, to take
the anonymous contributor seriously; and I offered information to disabuse
them of this so as not to waste their time.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
From Alexander Kahzdan's "Latins and Franks in Byzantium: Perception
and Reality from the Eleventh to the Twelfth Century", 2001:
Anna Comnena mentions two Norman mercenaries, brothers named Roger and
Raoul, who deserted to Byzantium around 1080. Kallikles dedicated a
poem to the former, "the sebastos Rogerios" and asserts that the
Emperor Alexios I bestowed upon him great wealth, titles, and a
Dalassene wife. Kahzdan suggests Roger/Rogerios was identical to Roger
son of Dagobert who signed the Treaty of Devol in 1108. This seems to
be supported by Albert of Aachen who mentions Rotger son of Dagobert
and a man named Rudolf (Raoul?) as envoys of Alexios I.
Roger/Rogerios founded the Rogerioi, but Raoul's descendants seem to
have done well for themselves as well. A Humbert son of Graoul signed
the Treaty of Devol, and a sebastos Constantine Raoul-Doukas appears
during Alexios III's reign.
Peter Stewart wrote:
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3ywPe.10776$FA3.7739@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:039b01c5a9d0$c80fd660$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
See below
----- Original Message -----
From: "Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
How did Giovanni De Rogerio (an Italian Noble) become Dalassenos
????????
ES Volume II Tafel 177
Here is recorded Maria Komnene, born Balabista February 1406, died
1143/144-1151
married Ioannes Dalassenos Rogerios 1136/1138 kaisar, 1143 Pratendent,
1152 dux of Strumitza, he died as a monk, their descendants are the
Komnenoi Rogerioi.
For Tafels 174 to and including 177 is a substantial list of sources, and
I would not dare to make a guess as to which applies to these details.
If listed, I suspect this would be taken from Lucien Stiernon's 'Notes de
titulaire et de prosopographie byzantines: à propos de trois membres de la
famille Rogerios (XIIe siècle)', _Revue des études byzantines_ 22 (1964).
I have now checked this, and find that Stiernon gave proof for the caesar
Ioannes Dalassenos having been the same man as Ioannes Rogerios. This,
without the proof, had been proposed before. Kinnamos called him Rogerios,
otherwise he chose to be known as Dalassenos (the surname of the augusta
Anna, mother of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos) when using the title caesar - in
both cases he was named Ioannes and described as mourning his wife Maria
Komnene, born in the purple. Obviously the daughter of Emperor Ioannes II
cannot have had two widowers.
The parentage of Ioannes Dalassenos Rogerios is not recorded - it has been
conjectured that he was son of the sebastos Konstantinos Rogerios by a
Dalassene wife.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
Nichol_st...@yahoo.com wrote:
For anyone wanting to find the paper cited above, by Alexander Kazhdan,
this is in _The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the
Muslim World_, edited by Angeliki E Laiou & Roy Parviz Mottahdeh
(Washington, 2001) pp. 83-100.
Peter Stewart
From Alexander Kahzdan's "Latins and Franks in Byzantium: Perception
and Reality from the Eleventh to the Twelfth Century", 2001:
For anyone wanting to find the paper cited above, by Alexander Kazhdan,
this is in _The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the
Muslim World_, edited by Angeliki E Laiou & Roy Parviz Mottahdeh
(Washington, 2001) pp. 83-100.
Peter Stewart
-
Ford Mommaerts-Browne
Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
----- Original Message -----
From: <Nichol_storm@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 1:32 AM
Subject: Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
| >From Alexander Kahzdan's "Latins and Franks in Byzantium: Perception
| and Reality from the Eleventh to the Twelfth Century", 2001:
|
| Anna Comnena mentions two Norman mercenaries, brothers named Roger and
| Raoul, who deserted to Byzantium around 1080. Kallikles dedicated a
| poem to the former, "the sebastos Rogerios" and asserts that the
| Emperor Alexios I bestowed upon him great wealth, titles, and a
| Dalassene wife. Kahzdan suggests Roger/Rogerios was identical to Roger
| son of Dagobert who signed the Treaty of Devol in 1108. This seems to
| be supported by Albert of Aachen who mentions Rotger son of Dagobert
| and a man named Rudolf (Raoul?) as envoys of Alexios I.
|
| Roger/Rogerios founded the Rogerioi, but Raoul's descendants seem to
| have done well for themselves as well. A Humbert son of Graoul signed
| the Treaty of Devol, and a sebastos Constantine Raoul-Doukas appears
| during Alexios III's reign.
The descendants of Raoul were the Ra(ou)llaina family. I'm not quite sure of the spelling. My question, lo these many months gone by, is: Knows anyone of the background of Dagobert, supposedly a count. His sons were said, by Anna, to hail from the Norman kingdom of Sicily; but could Dagobert have been a Frank?
Ford
From: <Nichol_storm@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 1:32 AM
Subject: Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses
| >From Alexander Kahzdan's "Latins and Franks in Byzantium: Perception
| and Reality from the Eleventh to the Twelfth Century", 2001:
|
| Anna Comnena mentions two Norman mercenaries, brothers named Roger and
| Raoul, who deserted to Byzantium around 1080. Kallikles dedicated a
| poem to the former, "the sebastos Rogerios" and asserts that the
| Emperor Alexios I bestowed upon him great wealth, titles, and a
| Dalassene wife. Kahzdan suggests Roger/Rogerios was identical to Roger
| son of Dagobert who signed the Treaty of Devol in 1108. This seems to
| be supported by Albert of Aachen who mentions Rotger son of Dagobert
| and a man named Rudolf (Raoul?) as envoys of Alexios I.
|
| Roger/Rogerios founded the Rogerioi, but Raoul's descendants seem to
| have done well for themselves as well. A Humbert son of Graoul signed
| the Treaty of Devol, and a sebastos Constantine Raoul-Doukas appears
| during Alexios III's reign.
The descendants of Raoul were the Ra(ou)llaina family. I'm not quite sure of the spelling. My question, lo these many months gone by, is: Knows anyone of the background of Dagobert, supposedly a count. His sons were said, by Anna, to hail from the Norman kingdom of Sicily; but could Dagobert have been a Frank?
Ford