UNIVERSITATEA ,,OVIDIUS” DIN CONSTANŢA FACULTATEA DE ISTORIE ŞI ŞTIINŢE POLITICE CENTRUL DE STUDII EURASIATICE Aleea Universităţii nr. 1, Corp A, cam. 120, Constanţa, 900697, Romania tel/fax: 0241671448 http://csea.wikispaces.com REVISTA ROMÂNĂ DE STUDII EURASIATICE ANUL XIII, NR. 1-2/2017 OVIDIUS UNIVERSITY PRESS Colegiul de redacţie: Redactor-şef: Daniel Flaut Redactor- şef adjunct: Iolanda Ţighiliu Secretar de redacţie: Enache Tuşa Membri: Marius-George Cojocaru, Cristian Moşnianu Consiliul ştiinţific: Muhammad Aydogdiyew (Asgabat), Ion Bulei (Bucureşti), Constantin Buşe (Bucureşti), Ding Chao (Beijing), Virgil Ciocîltan (Bucureşti), Ioan Chiper (Bucureşti), Sorin Liviu Damean (Craiova), Dinu C. Giurescu (Bucureşti), Yusuf Halacoglu (Ankara), Constantin Hlihor (Bucureşti), Leonida Moise (Bucureşti), Marian Moşneagu (Bucureşti), Maria Pia Pagani (Padova), Ştefan Purici (Suceava), Ioan Scurtu (Bucureşti), Jacques Thobie (Paris), Kanji Tsushima (Tokyo), Wang Weikun (Xi’an), Silvia Irina Zimmermann (Neuwied) Notă: Revista Română de Studii Eurasiatice (R.R.S.E.), publicaţie a Centrului de Studii Eurasiatice, apare o dată pe an (două numere într-un volum anual) la Editura „Ovidius University Press” a Universităţii ,,Ovidius” din Constanţa. R.R.S.E. publică lucrări de înaltă ţinută ştiinţifică, privitoare la civilizaţia, cultura, interferenţele spirituale şi relaţiile internaţionale în spaţiul eurasiatic, în istorie şi în prezent. Deşi R.R.S.E. foloseşte evaluarea de tip peer-review, autorii sunt singurii responsabili de alegerea şi prezentarea datelor conţinute în articole, de autenticitatea şi originalitatea acestora, cât şi de opiniile exprimate. Manuscrisele, cărţile şi revistele pentru schimb, precum şi orice corespondenţă se vor trimite la adresa: ,,Revista Română de Studii Eurasiatice”, Aleea Universităţii nr. 1, camera 112, 900067, Constanţa; tel./fax: 0241671448; e-mail: csea_rrse@yahoo.com Revista Română de Studii Eurasiatice este recunoscută de către CNCS (Consiliul Naţional al Cercetării Ştiinţifice), categoria C (www.cncs-uefiscdi.ro) şi este indexată în bazele de date internaţionale: ERIH PLUS (erihplus.nsd.no), EBSCO (www.ebscohost.com), ProQuest (www.proquest.com), CEEOL (www.ceeol.com) şi Index Copernicus (www.indexcopernicus.com) ISSN 1841-477X e-ISSN 2247-4536 ,,OVIDIUS” UNIVERSITY OF CONSTANŢA FACULTY OF HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCES EURASIAN STUDIES CENTER Aleea Universităţii nr. 1, Corp A, cam. 120, Constanţa, 900697, Romania tel/fax: +400241671448 http://csea.wikispaces.com ROMANIAN REVIEW OF EURASIAN STUDIES YEAR XIII, NO. 1-2/2017 OVIDIUS UNIVERSITY PRESS Editorial Board Editor-in-Chief: Daniel Flaut Deputy Editor-in-Chief: Iolanda Ţighiliu Editorial Secretary: Enache Tuşa Members: Marius-George Cojocaru, Cristian Moşnianu Scientific Committee Muhammad Aydogdiyew (Asgabat), Ion Bulei (Bucureşti), Constantin Buşe (Bucureşti), Ding Chao (Beijing); Virgil Ciocîltan (Bucureşti), Ioan Chiper (Bucureşti), Sorin Liviu Damean (Craiova), Dinu C. Giurescu (Bucureşti), Yusuf Halacoglu (Ankara), Constantin Hlihor (Bucureşti), Leonida Moise (Bucureşti), Marian Moşneagu (Bucureşti), Maria Pia Pagani (Padova), Ştefan Purici (Suceava), Ioan Scurtu (Bucureşti), Jacques Thobie (Paris), Kanji Tsushima (Tokyo), Wang Weikun (Xi’an), Silvia Irina Zimmermann (Neuwied) Note: Romanian Review of Eurasian Studies (R.R.S.E.), publication of the Eurasian Studies Center, appears once a year (two numbers in an annual volume) at the Publishing House “Ovidius University Press” (’’Ovidius” University of Constanţa). R.R.S.E. publishes high scientific papers, about the civilization, culture, spiritual interference, international relations in Eurasian space along history and today. Although R.R.S.E. uses peer-review evaluation, the authors are solely responsible for the choice and presentation of dates contained in the articles, the authenticity and originality and the opinions expressed. The manuscripts, the exchange books and journals, and any correspondence will be sent to ”Revista Română de Studii Eurasiatice”, Aleea Universităţii nr. 1, camera 112, 900067, Constanţa, Romania; tel./fax: +400241671448; e-mail: csea_rrse@yahoo.com Romanian Review of Eurasian Studies is recognized by CNCS (National Research Council), C category (www.cncs-uefiscdi.ro) and is indexed in the following international databases: ERIH PLUS (erihplus.nsd.no), EBSCO (www.ebscohost.com), ProQuest (www.proquest.com), CEEOL (www.ceeol.com) and Index Copernicus (www.indexcopernicus.com) ISSN 1841-477X e-ISSN 2247-4536 CONTENTS Europe Mikhail Berman-Tsikinovsky, Ovid 2017: The Verdict................................ 7 Laura Sînziana Cuciuc Romanescu, Mythical Creatures in Ovid's Metamorphoses.......................................................................................................... 15 Marius-Florin Lascu, The image of the Scythia province in the second half of the sixth century. Historical analysis................................................................................ 25 Corneliu-Dragoş Bălan, Doctrinal Considerations Concerning the Christian Icon........................................................................................................................... 39 Jan Hladík, The Sugar Industry and Sugar Beet Cultivation in Pre-Munich Czechoslovakia from the Vantage Point of Social Policy ……………………….. 49 Daniel Flaut, Some statistical data on the urban population of Tulcea County in the 1930s.................................................................................................................. 83 Enache Tuşa, The monography of the village of Ezibei the first research according to the Gustian model in Dobruja............................................................................... 95 Klára Fabianková, The German agricultural reform of 1942 on the territory of the Reichskommissariat Ukraine and its significance …………….......................... 109 Dan Vătăman, The consequences of signing and entering into force of the Paris Peace Treaty between Romania and the Allied and Associated Powers ………….... 131 Maria Bolocan, Integration of the Marshall Plan in Western Europe…………. 145 Alina Lascu, Aspects of the agricultural crop production in Dobruja between 1965-1989............................................................................................................... 161 Alexandru Ionuț Drăgulin, The European Union’s democratic paradigm in the post-communist countries of Eastern Europe ………………………………….. 173 Andreea Lăpădat, The Black Sea, Bridge or Border…………….………… 187 Laurenţiu Dobre, Underwater archaeology in Romania. Anchors discovered in the Black Sea between 1989 and 2017 (Constanța County, Casino area, between The Touristic Harbor of Tomis and The Commercial Harbor of Constanța)……… 199 Ilie Iulian Mitran, Magas, a New Capital City. Nazran an older legacy. Analyzing the functional and symbolic elements of Ingushetia’s mew power hub........... 235 East and Western Asia Mihai Avram, A brief historical overview of Chinese diplomatic ties to Africa........ 245 Ionuț Holubeanu, The Ecclesiastical Organization in Armenia Interior in the 5th Century AD………………………………………………………….. 253 Reviews Cristian Ioan Popa, Henrieta Anișoara Șerban (coord.), Enciclopedia Operelor Fundamentale Politice ale Filosofiei Politice . Contemporanii: 2000-2017 (The Encyclopedia of the Fundamental Writings of Political Philosophy. The Contemporaries: 2000-2017), Editura Institutului de Științe Politice și Relații Internaționale „Ion I. C. Brătianu”, București, 2017, 532 p. (Enache Tuşa).......................................................................................................... 267 Arkady Ostrovsky, The invention of Russia. The journey from Gorbachev’s Freedom to Putin’s War, Editura Atlantic Books, Londra, 2016, 400 p. (Cristina Ispas)…………………………………………………………..... 268 Ioan Stanomir, Rusia, 1917. Soarele însângerat. Autocrație, revoluție și totalitarism, Ed. Humanitas, București, 2017, 224 p. (Alexandru Ionuț Drăgulin).................................................................................................................. 271 Radu Carp, Politograma. Incursiuni în vocabularul democrației, Ed. Institutul European, Iași, 2015, 288 p. (Alexandru Ionuț Drăgulin).................................. 273 Revista Română de Studii Eurasiatice, an XIII, nr. 1-2/2017, p.253-266 THE ECCLESIASTICAL ORGANIZATION IN ARMENIA INTERIOR IN THE 5th CENTURY AD Ionuț Holubeanu Faculty of Theology, “Ovidius” University of Constanţa, Romania; e-mail: onutho@gmail.com Abstract. This article is devoted to the status of the sees of Theodosiopolis and Acilisene/Leontopolis in Inner Armenia (Armenia Interior) in the 5th century AD. The scholarly opinion is that these sees used to be subordinated to Caesarea in Cappadocia Prima. The see of Theodosiopolis is attested as a suffragan of Caesarea in Notitiae episcopatuum, while that of Leontopolis is attested in the attendance lists and the signature list of the second Council of Constantinople (553). However, this is certainly a situation posterior to the middle of the 5th century. In fact, in the letter that the metropolitan Alypius of Caesarea dispatched to the Emperor Leon I in 457/8, the former clearly asserted that he had only two suffragans under his jurisdiction, namely the bishops of Nyssa and Therma. Therefore, the sees of Theodosiopolis and Acilisene, the future Leontopolis, did not use to be subordinated to the metropolitan see of Caesarea at that time. There is not any absolute evidence on the status of these two sees before 553. However, it is possible that they were ecclesiastically subordinated to Sebasteia in Armenia Prima during the 5th century. This hypothesis might draw support from the title that Peter of Theodosiopolis used in his signature on the documents of the process held in Constantinople in 449 (13 April), namely ἐπισκόπου τῆς Θεοδοσιουπολιτῶν πόλεως ἐπαρχίας Ἀρμενίας / episcopus Theodosiupolis ciuitatis prouinciae Armeniae. With respect to the moment when Theodosiopolis and Leontopolis were transferred under the jurisdiction of Caesarea, it is possible that this event occured in the first part of Justinian I᾽s reign – between 527 and 536. This Emperor rebuilt the city of Leontopolis, thereafter called Justinianopolis, and it is not improbable that in that context he also transferred both its see and the one of Theodosiopolis to the ecclesiastical Ionuţ Holubeanu province of Cappadocia Prima. Rezumat. Studiul de față este dedicat situației scaunelor bisericești de la Theodosiopolis și Acilisene/Leontopolis din Armenia Interior în secolul al V-lea p.Chr. Cercetătorii care s-au ocupat de situația acestor două episcopii consideră că ele au fost sufragane ale mitropoliei de la Caesarea din provincia Cappadocia Prima. În sprijinul acestei opinii sunt invocate informațiile expuse în Notitiae episcopatuum și în documentele Sinodului al V-lea ecumenic (Constantinopol, 553). În cele dintâi documente – Notitiae 1-4 și 7 (după numerotarea lui J. Darrouzès) – episcopul de Theodosiopolis – τὸν [sc. ἐπίσκοπον] Θεοδοσιουπόλεως Ἀρμενίας – este înregistrat în rubrica eparhiei Cappadocia Prima între sufraganii mitropolitului de la Caesarea. De asemenea, în listele de prezență și în cea de semnături de la Sinodul al V-lea ecumenic, episcopul de la Leontopolis este menționat în fruntea ierarhilor sufragani din Cappadocia Prima. La jumătatea secolului al V-lea, situația acestor scaune era, însă, una cu totul diferită. În scrisoarea de răspuns adresată împăratului Leon I cu prilejul anchetei din jurul Encyclia (458/9), mitropolitul Alypius de Caesarea a precizat faptul că sub jurisdicția sa nu se aflau decât doi ierarhi. Aceștia erau episcopul de la Nyssa și cel de la Therma. Identificarea dependenței canonice a scaunelor de Theodosiopolis și Acilisene / Leontopolis la acea vreme nu este, însă, posibilă, din cauza lipsei oricăror informații documentare clare. Singurul indiciu care ar putea fi luat în calcul la momentul de față este semnătura episcopului Petru de Theodosiopolis din lista de semnături a ședinței de la 13 aprilie a anchetei desfășurate la Constantinopol în anul 449. Pe temeiul titulaturii folosite de el atunci – ἐπισκόπου τῆς Θεοδοσιουπολιτῶν πόλεως ἐπαρχίας Ἀρμενίας / episcopus Theodosiupolis ciuitatis prouinciae Armeniae – se poate emite ipoteza că, la acea dată, el era sufragan al mitropolitului de Sebasteia, în cadrul eparhiei bisericești Armenia Prima. În ceea ce privește momentul trecerii scaunelor de la Theodopolis și Leontopolis sub jurisdicția mitropoliei de la Caesarea, este posibil ca acest eveniment să fi avut loc în prima parte a domniei lui Iustinian I (527-565) – între 527 și 536. Nu este exclus ca el să fi fost prilejuit de reconstruirea cetății Leontopolis, redenumită Iustinianopolis, de către acest împărat. Keywords. Theodosiopolis/Anastasiopolis, Acilisene/Leontopolis/Iustinianopolis, Caesarea Cappadociae, Armenia Prima, Sebasteia. 254 The Ecclesiastical Organization in Armenia Interior in the 5th Century AD Between 387 and 536 AD, a region called Inner Armenia (Armenia Interior) was in existence on the northeast frontier of the Roman Empire. Two bishoprics are attested on its territory, namely Theodosiopolis and Acilisene/Leontopolis, and this paper will focus precisely on the status of these sees during the 5th century AD. A Brief History of Armenia Interior In the second half of the 4th century AD, the king Arsaces of Armenia (+384) divided his kingdom between his two sons, Arsaces and Tigranes. He did not assign an equal weight of power to each of them, but left to Tigranes approximately four-fifths of the kingdom. Arsaces, being resentful and angry because he had received a much smaller share than his brother, appealed to Rome, whose neighbor he was. In his turn, fearing the reprisal of the Romans, Tigranes placed himself in the power of the Persians. The war which became a real threat was averted by the two Empires who reached an agreement around 387. The Persians annexed the kingdom of Tigranes and the Roman that of Arsaces1. According to this agreement it seems that the Roman Empire acquired six Armenian satrapies – Sophene, Anzitene, Belabitene, Asthianene, Acilisene and Daranalis. The territory of the last two became Inner Armenia (Armenia Interior)2 and it should be noted that in the historical sources as well as and in the modern publications, this region was sometimes known as Great Armenia (Armenia Maior). Armenia Interior was administered by a comes Armeniae until the reign of Justinian I (527-565). Besides, the Roman also converted the former satrapies in two cities. Actually, at Camacha, in Daranalis, Theodosius the Great (379-395) built the city of Theodosiopolis, while Emperor Leo (457-474) founded Leontopolis, at Bazani, in Acilisene. Subsequently, Anastasius (491-518) refortified Theodosiopolis and the city was known as Anastasiopolis for a short time. As far as Leontopolis is concerned, it was Justinian I who rebuilt it under the name Justinianopolis3. Moreover, Justinian I undertook some administrative reforms in this part of the Empire. He abolished the office of comes Armeniae and appointed a magister militum for Armenia. This magister commanded all the troops in Pontus Procopius Caesariensis, De aedificiis, III.1.6-15, in „Opera omnia”, vol. IV, J. Haury, G. Wirth (Eds.), München, Leipzig, 2001, 83.8-84.18. 2 Codex Iustinianus, I.xxix.5, in „Corpus Iuris Civilis”, vol. 2, P. Krüger (Ed.), Berolini, 1884, p. 82: magnam Armeniam, quae interior dicebatur. 3 Procopius, De aedif., III.5.1-15, 93.18-95.19. 1 255 Ionuţ Holubeanu Polemoniacus, Armenia Prima, Armenia Secunda, Inner Armenia and those in Satrapiae4. Then, in 536, Justinian remodeled the civil administration. He amalgamated Inner Armenia with parts of Armenia Prima and Pontus Polemoniacus to form the new province of Armenia Prima. Justinianopolis, the former Leontopolis, became the civil capital of this new province, while Theodosiopolis turned into one of its cities5. After the administrative reform in 536, Inner Armenia ceased to exist as a region (regio) of the Roman Empire. The Ecclesiastical Organization in Armenia Interior The scholarly opinion6 is that the sees of Theodosiopolis and Leontopolis in Inner Armenia formed part of the ecclesiastical province of Cappadocia Prima in the 5th-7th centuries AD, at least. Indeed, in five Notitiae episcopatuum Constantinopolitanae – i.e. 1-4 and 7 (according to J. Darrouzès) – the bishop of Theodosiopolis in Armenia – τὸν [sc. ἐπίσκοπον] Θεοδοσιουπόλεως Ἀρμενίας – is listed between the suffragans of the metropolitan of Caesarea7. Notitia 1 is the oldest of these documents. According to the most recent dating it was written in the middle of the 7th century AD8. However, it is to be noted that its compiler was able to access an older Notitia that had been couched between ca. 527 and 535, under Patriarch Epiphanius of Cod. Iust., I.xxix.5, p. 82. Novella 31, c. I, in „Corpus Iuris Civilis”, vol. 3, R. Schöll (ed.), Berolini, 1912, 235.31-237.33. On the history of Inner Armenia, see J.B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire from the Death of Theodosius I to the Death of Justinian, New York: Dover, 1958, vol. 1, p. 93-94; vol. 2, p. 5-6, 15, 344-345; A.H.M. Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, 2nd edition, Oxford, 1971, p. 224225, 444-445; N.G. Garsoïan, Armenia, in „The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium”, vol. 1, Al.P. Kazhdan et alii (Eds.), New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991, p. 175; G. Greatrex, S.N.C. Lieu, The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars, part. II (AD 363-630), London, New York: Routledge, 2007, p. 69-218. 6 See E. Gerland, Corpus notitiarum episcopatuum ecclesiae orientalis Graecae. I. Die Genesis der Notitia episcopatuum. 1. Einleitung, Istanbul, 1931, p. 45-46; E. Honigmann, The Original Lists of Members of the Council of Nicaea, of the Robber-Synod and the Council of Chalcedon, in „Byzantion”, 16 (1942-1943), p. 78-79; E. Chrysos, Die Bischofslisten des V. ökumenischen Konzils (553), Bonn, 1966, p. 85-86, 94; A.H.M. Jones, op.cit., p. 446, n. 15; G. Fedalto, Hierarchia Ecclesiastica Orientalis, vol. I, Padova, 1988, p. 421; R. Price, The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553 with related texts on the Three Chapters Controversy, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2009, vol. I, p. 186 (n. 13); vol. II, p. 289 (n. 7). 7 J. Darrouzès, Notitiae episcopatuum ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, Paris, 1981, 1, 76, p. 206; 2, 91, p. 219; 3, 98, p. 233; 4, 85, p. 251; 7, 109, p. 274. 8 M. Jankowiak, Byzance sur la mer Noire sous Constant II (641-668): la date de la première notice du patriarchat de Constantinople, in „Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Sofia, 22–27 August 2011”, vol. III, Sofia, 2011, p. 56–57. 4 5 256 The Ecclesiastical Organization in Armenia Interior in the 5th Century AD Constantinople (520-535)9. Nevertheless it is hard to see for certain that the paragraph of Cappadocia Prima in Notitia 1 displays the situation in this ecclesiastical province at the beginning of Justinian I᾽ reign or at the middle of the 7th century. As far as the submission of the see of Leontopolis to the metropolis of Caesarea is concerned, it was inferred by scholars from the lists of the Second Council of Constantinople (553)10. The name and signature of Bishop George of Justinianopolis, formerly Leontopolis, always appear here together with those of the two other suffragans of Caesarea that attended the council, i.e. John of Nyssa and Basil of Justiniana Nova Camuliana11. Also it is to be noted that in Notitiae the see of Leontopolis is never attested as a bishopric in the ecclesiastical province of Cappadocia Prima. Under the name Keltzene – ὁ [sc. ἐπίσκοπος] Κελτζηνῆς –, it is listed just as a suffragan of Kamachos in Armenia in Notitiae 7, 9-10, 13 and 2012. The name Keltzene derived from that of the satrapy of Acilisene in whose territory this see used to be located. However, this information in Notitiae exposed the status of this see from the first half of the 11th century onwards13. The absence of Leontopolis/Justinianopolis in the paragraph of Cappadocia Prima in Notitiae 1-4 and 7, where Theodosiopolis is attested, could have been the effect of a copyist’s or compiler’s error. In fact, similar mistakes were detected by scholars in the paragraphs of the others provinces, too14. Despite the scholarly consensus on the status of the sees of Theodosiopolis and Leontopolis during the 5th-7th centuries, their subjection to the metropolis of Caesarea cannot be admitted in the middle of 5th century at least. A piece of evidence in this regard is a statement which Metropolitan Alypius of Caesarea made in his letter to the Emperor Leo I (457-474). Actually, in October 457, Leo I initiated an enquiry by means of which he intended to seek the bishops᾽ opinions about three major themes, namely the validity of the Council of Chalcedon (451), the timeliness of a new council, and See I. Holubeanu, Interpreting Notitiae Episcopatuum, in „4th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences and Arts SGEM 2017. Conference Proceedings, Book 2: Ancience Science”, vol. II (Anthropology, Archaeology, History, Philosophy, Medieval & Renaissance Studies), Albena, 2017, p. 279-284. 10 E. Gerland, op.cit., p. 45-46; E. Chrysos, op.cit., p. 94. 11 Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, IV.1, J. Straub (Ed.), Berolini: de Gruyter, 1971, 5.14-16; 34.11-13; 205.7-9; 226.35-227.2. 12 J. Darrouzès, op.cit., 7, 661, p. 287; 9, 535, p. 305; 10, 641, p. 331; 13, 706, p. 365; 20, 47 (34), p. 418. 13 See G. Fedalto, op.cit., II, p. 845. 14 See R. Janin, La hiérarchie ecclésiastique dans le diocèse de Thrace, in „Revue des études byzantines”, 17 (1959), p. 142, 147; A.H.M. Jones, op.cit., p. 518-519; I. Holubeanu, op.cit., p. 280-282. 9 257 Ionuţ Holubeanu the legitimacy of the occupation of the patriarchal see of Alexandria by Timothy Aelurus. In attaining this goal, the Emperor addressed to the metropolitans a circular in the form of a questionnaire. In their turn, the metropolitans were to get together their suffragans in order to exchange views on the Emperor’s questions and to report the result to Constantinople15. Alypius of Caesarea was one of the recipients of the imperial letter. His name is referred to in the list of addressees in codex Encyclius16. His letter to the Emperor came also down to us. Although it does not bear any date, it is likely that it was dispatched during the winter of 458/9 or the spring of 459, at the latest17. At the end of this letter, there are two signatures, those of Alypius and Musonius, the bishop of Nyssa18. Some explanations that Alypius displayed in his letter are very important for our investigation. In fact, he stated that, in order to give an answer to the Emperor, he had called together his two suffragan bishops. Only one of them, i.e. Musonius of Nyssa, was able to attend the convocation. The other one, whose name was not mentioned, had been ill and had only sent an explanation in writing. Let’s see Alypius᾽ words: quia uero iussistis de his omnibus ignorantem meam uobis sententiam declarare, collegi reuerentissimos episcopos sub me constitutos (sunt enim duo), quorum unus, sicut praecepistis, aduenit et ipse mecum fecit sententiam manifestam, alter uero infirmitate detentus occurrere quidem non ualuit, suam uero uoluntatem ad me datis litteris indicauit, quas etiam meae suggestioni coniungens pariter destinaui.19 On Leo I᾽s investigation, see Ed. Schwartz, Praefatio, in Acta Conc. Oec., II.5, Berolini, Lipsiae: de Gruyter, 1936, p. V-XXII; T. Schnitzler, Im Kampfe um Chalcedon. Geschichte und Inhalt des Codex Encyclius von 458, in col. „Analecta Gregoriana”, 16, Romae, 1938, passim; A. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, II/1, trans. by P. Allen, J. Cawte, 2nd edition, Atlanta, 1987, p. 195-235; G. Siebigs, Kaiser Leo I. Das oströmische Reich in den ersten drei Jahren seiner Regierung (457-460 n.Chr.), Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 2010, p. 345-431, 820-822. 16 Acta Conc. Oec., II.5, 23.19. 17 See Ed. Schwartz, Praefatio, p. XII; T. Schnitzler, op.cit., p. 19-20, 22-23, 34-35; E. Honigmann, Patristic Studies. Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Basil of Seleucia (the time of their death), col. „Studi e Testi”, 173, 1953, p. 184; G. Siebigs, op.cit., p. 357, 359-360 (with n. 330), 392 (with n. 108). 18 Acta Conc. Oec., II.5, 77.17-20: Alypius misericordia dei episcopus metropolis Caesareae primae Cappadociae sanctae dei ecclesiae oboediens his quae pie mihi a uestra potestate praecepta sunt, haec meis scriptis insinuaui. / Musonius episcopus Nyssenus similiter. 19 Act. Conc. Oec., II.5, 76.10-15. 15 258 The Ecclesiastical Organization in Armenia Interior in the 5th Century AD Eventually, Alypius, after carefully having looked into the definition of Chalcedon and recognized its orthodoxy, drafted the letter and dispatched it to the Emperor. As one can see, Alypius clearly said that he had only two suffragans. One of them certainly was the bishop of Nyssa and it was he that signed the letter together with Alypius. The name and the see of the other one are not referred to in the letter. However, one can identify him and his see on the basis of the documents of the Council of 451 and of the Home Synod in 458/9. Thus, in Collectio Dionysiana, in the paragraph dedicated to the bishops of Cappadocia Prima who attended the Council of Chalcedon, three names are listed: Thalassius of Caesarea, Musonius of Nyssa and Firminus of Therma20. Thalassius is also referred to by Alypius as his predecessor on the see of Caesarea and a participant in the Council of Chalcedon21. Musonius, as we have just seen, was still alive in 457/8, signing the latter to the Emperor together with Alypius. As far as the see of Therma is concerned, this was certainly the third bishopric in Cappadocia Prima, subject to Caesarea, at that time. Furthermore, the see of Therma is also attested as a bishopric of Cappadocia Prima in several Notitiae22. On the other hand, giving that at the Home Synod under Patriarch Gennadius of Constantinople, in 458/9, Photinus is attested as being the bishop of Therma instead of Firminus23, it is very likely that the latter was the bishop who felt ill in 457/8. Probably, Firminus died shortly after Leo’s investigation and was succeeded by Photinus. Following the above pieces of evidence, one can conclude that in 457/8 there were in existence only three sees in the ecclesiastical province of Cappadocia Prima, namely the metropolis of Caesarea and the ordinary bishoprics of Nyssa and Therma. As far as the sees of Theodosiopolis and Leontopolis are concerned, they certainly did not use to be subordinated to Caesarea at that time. In such a case, which was the status of these two sees before they were transferred to the ecclesiastical province of Cappadocia Prima? At least two answers can be put forward to this question: 1. either they did not use to have been part of any ecclesiastical province; or 2. they had formed part of a neighboring province, as Pontus Polemoniacus, Armenia Acta Conc. Oec., II.2.2, Ed. Schwartz (Ed.), Berolini, Lipsiae, 1936, 71[163].25-28. Act. Conc. Oec., II.5, 76.15-22. 22 J. Darrouzès, op.cit., 1, 74, p. 206; 2, 89, p. 219; 3, 96, p. 233; 4, 83, p. 251; 7, 105, p. 274. See, also, G. Fedalto, op.cit., I, p. 28-29. 23 Ed. Schwartz, Publizistische sammlungen zum acacianischen schisma, in „Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Abteilung”, Neue Folge, Heft 10, München, 1934, p. 176, n. 1: Φωτεινὸς ἐπίσκοπος τῶν Θέρμων ὑπέγραψα. 20 21 259 Ionuţ Holubeanu Prima, or Armenia Secunda. At this point, Mesopotamia should also be considered. Given that Inner Armenia was a Roman territory, the first hypothesis is unlikely to be correct. In this regard it is to be noted that the see of Cherson (modern Sevastopol, in Crimean Peninsula), which was under the Roman control but did not form part of any civil Roman province, is attested as a subject of the metropolis of Tomis (Scythia) as early as AD 38124. Moreover, the bishoprics in Satrapiae were subjects to the metropolitan see of Amida (Mesopotamia)25 even when the Armenian satrapies in this territory had the status of civitates foederate liberae et imunes26. Therefore, on the ground of these pieces of evidence one can infer that the sees in Inner Armenia also formed part of a Roman ecclesiastical province. The question that follows then is, which province was that? To answer this question is very difficult. Actually, any clear information about the submission of these two sees before 553 is simply lacking. Encyclia does not give any evidence in this regard. Although the letters of the bishops in Pontus Polemoniacus27, Armenia Prima28, Armenia Secunda29, and Mesopotamia30 dispatched to the Emperor Leo have come down to us, there is not any information about Theodosiopolis or Acilisene in them. Nevertheless, this cannot be seen as evidence that they did not form part of any of these provinces at that time. It is to be noted that there are at least three letters in Encyclia in which the names of the bishops whose sees were situated far away from the metropolises in their provinces are not mentioned. More accurately, none of the suffragan bishops in Insulae could attend the provincial council at Rhodes31. The bishops of Sebastopolis, Pityus, and even Trapezus in Pontus H. Turner, Canons attributed to the Council of Constantinople A. D. 381, together with the names of the bishops from two Patmos MSS ΡΟΒʹ, ΡΟΓʹ, in „The Journal of Theological Studies”, 15 (1914), p. 177-178; E. Honigmann, Recherches sur les listes des Pères de Nicée et de Constantinople, in „Byzantion”, 11 (1936), p. 446, with n. 1; I. Holubeanu, Noi interpretări privind rangul scaunului bisericesc de la Tomis în secolele al V-lea și al VI-lea d.Hr., in „Pontica”, 48-49 (2015-2016), p. 25-60. 25 See Acta Conc. Oec., II.2.2, 69[161].23-29. 26 N.G. Garsoïan, Satrapies, in „The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium”, vol. 3, Al.P. Kazhdan et alii (Eds.), New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991, p. 1846. 27 Act. Conc. Oec., II.5, 79.20-84.11. 28 Act. Conc. Oec., II.5, 69.13-71.9. 29 Act. Conc. Oec., II.5, 71.10-75.21. 30 Act. Conc. Oec., II.5, 41.10-42.37. The ordinary bishops in Mesopotamia did not mention their sees. However, there are eight signatures of ordinary bishops at the end of this letter and this number is in agreement with that of the suffragan bishops of Amida in Notitia Antiochena (AD 570), see E. Honigmann, Studien zur Notitia Antiochena, in „Byzantinische Zeitschrift”, 25 (1925), 75.11-13. 31 See Act. Conc. Oec., II.5, 63.38-65.40. 24 260 The Ecclesiastical Organization in Armenia Interior in the 5th Century AD Polemoniacus are not mentioned in the letter from their province32, while the suffragans of Tomis in Crimean Peninsula – i.e. Cherson and, likely, Bosporus (ancient Panticapaeum, modern Kerch, Crimean Peninsula) – are missing in the letter dispatched from Scythia33. The reason of this situation is clearly revealed by the metropolitan Agapitus of Rhodes. In his letter to the Emperor, he asserted that the winter and the rush in which the investigation had been conducted hampered his suffragans to attend the provincial council34. Neither do the documents of the councils before 553 provide any clear evidence on the issue. Actually, two bishops of Theodosiopolis are known in the 5th century, Peter and Manasses. On 13 April 449, the former took part in the hearing concerning the process held in Constantinople. In the attendance list, his name is mentioned in the form below: Πέτρου τοῦ εὐλαβεστάτου ἐπισκόπου τῆς Θεοδοσιουπολιτῶν πόλεως ἐπαρχίας Ἀρμενίας35 and, in Latin, Petrus reuerentissimus Armeniae36. episcopus Theodosiupolis ciuitatis prouinciae His entry in the list – no. 24, between Timothy of Primopolis/Aspendos (Pamphylia Prima) and Secundinus of Novae (Moesia Secunda) – is less relevant for our investigation since from the provinces neighboring Inner Armenia only an ordinary bishop – Acacius of Ariarathia (Armenia Secunda), no. 10 in the list – attended that hearing. On this point, the only certainty is that Peter was just an ordinary bishop. Otherwise, if he had been a great or a titular metropolitan, then he would have been mentioned in the first part of the list together with the hierarchs holding these ranks37. See Act. Conc. Oec., II.5, 79.20-84.11. On Pityus and Sebastopolis as suffragan sees of Neocaesarea (Pontus Polemoniacus) in the middle of the 5th century AD, see I. Holubeanu, Organizarea bisericească în Moesia Secunda și Scythia în secolele IV-VII p.Chr., Brăila, 2017, (in print), the chapter VI.1.1. Episcopiile de la Pityus și Sebastopolis (with English abstract). 33 See Act. Conc. Oec., II.5, 31.12-39. On Cherson and, likely, Bosporus as suffragan sees of Tomis (Scythia) in the middle of the 5th century AD, see, above, n. 24, and I. Holubeanu, Noi interpretări …, p. 25-60. 34 Act. Conc. Oec., II.5, 64.26-34. 35 Acta Conc. Oec., II.1.1, Ed. Schwartz (Ed.), Berolini, Lipsiae: de Gruyter, 1933, 149.2-3. 36 Acta Conc. Oec., II.3.1, Ed. Schwartz (Ed.), Berolini, Lipsiae: de Gruyter, 1935, 132.28. 37 See Acta Conc. Oec., II.1.1, 148.1-149.20; II.3.1, 131.25-133.13. 32 261 Ionuţ Holubeanu More important on the issue is Peter’s title in the list, namely ἐπισκόπου τῆς Θεοδοσιουπολιτῶν πόλεως ἐπαρχίας Ἀρμενίας / episcopus Theodosiupolis ciuitatis prouinciae Armeniae. It would indicate his ecclesiastical province, probably Armenia Prima38. However, one can rightly argue about the value of this indication, given that in 553, when the see of Iustinianopolis, formerly Leontopolis, was certainly under the jurisdiction of Caesarea, its bishop, George, was also mentioned as episcopo Iustinianopolitano Armeniae39. The only difference between Peter’s and George’s cases is that the latter had this title only in the attendance lists, while the former used it in his signature. Instead, when George signed the documents of the Council he used the title episcopus Iustinianopolitanorum ciuitatis magnae Armeniae prouinciae40. The second bishop of Theodosiopolis from the 5th century known to us is Manasses. He took part in the Council of Chalcedon (451). His name is mentioned in three lists of signatures whereas his title appears in two forms, namely ἐπίσκοπος Θεοδοσιουπόλεως41 / episcopus Theodosiupolis42, and ἐπίσκοπος Θεοδοσιουπόλεως τῆς μεγάλης Ἀρμενίας43 / episcopus Theodosiopolis magnae Armeniae44. However, none of them is useful for our investigation. As far as Manasses᾽ entry in the lists is concerned, it is also irrelevant. On 25 October, his signature is placed between those of Movianus of Limenae (Pisidia) and John of Bargyla (Caria)45, on 1 November, it appears between those of Musonius of Zoara (Palaestina Tertia) and Fronto of Phaselis (Lycia)46, while on the documents elaborated after the end of the Council, it can be seen between those of Uranius of Ibora (Helenopontus) and Aurelius of Hadrumetum or Pupput (Byzacena or Africa Proconsularis, respectively)47. Neither does Collectio Dionysiana give any clue to identifying the ecclesiastical province of Theodosiopolis. Although in this collection the names of the metropolitans and ordinary bishops of the same province are grouped together, the compiler of the document simply omitted Manasses’ name. The In 458/9, the bishop John of Nicopolis (Armenia Prima) used in his signatures the title: ἐπίσκοπος Νικοπόλεως Ἀρμενίας, see Ed. Schwartz, Publizistische…, p. 176-177, n. 1. 39 Acta Conc. Oec., IV.1, 5.14; 22.2; 34.11; 41.3; 205.7. 40 Acta Conc. Oec., IV.1, 226.35-36. 41 Acta Conc. Oec., II.1.2, Ed. Schwartz (Ed.), Berolini, Lipsiae: de Gruyter, 1933, 150[346].8. 42 Acta Conc. Oec., II.3.2, Ed. Schwartz (Ed.), Berolini, Lipsiae: de Gruyter, 1936, 168[427].25; II.3.3, Ed. Schwartz (Ed.), Berolini, Lipsiae: de Gruyter, 1937, 108[547].12. See also II.2.2, 42[134].31. 43 Acta Conc. Oec., II.1.3, Ed. Schwartz (Ed.), Berolini, Lipsiae: de Gruyter, 1935, 94[453].21. 44 Acta Conc. Oec., II.3.2, 100 [359].15. 45 Acta Conc. Oec., II.3.2, 168[427].24-26. 46 Acta Conc. Oec., II.1.3, 94[453].20-23; II.3.3, 108[547].11-13. 47 Acta Conc. Oec., II.3.2, 100 [359].13-17. 38 262 The Ecclesiastical Organization in Armenia Interior in the 5th Century AD latter is not mentioned either among the bishops of Cappadocia Prima, or among those of Armenia Prima, Armenia Secunda, Pontus Polemoniacus or Mesopotamia. The compiler did not even mention the see of Theodosiopolis under a special heading, as Ἀρμενίας μεγάλης48. With regard to the bishops of Acilisene/Leontopolis, the only one known to us before Peter from 553 is John of Acilisene. He attended the Home Synod under Gennadius of Constantinople in 458/9. His entry in the list of signatures is in the group of the ordinary bishops49 and this fact can be seen as evidence that he was just an ordinary bishop and not a great metropolitan or a titular one. His signature in the list is Ἰωάννης ἐπίσκοπος Ἐκελισινῆς ὑπέγραψα50. As one can see, John did not mention either his region – Inner or Great Armenia – or his ecclesiastical province. His entry in the list is between Eutropius of Aureliopolis (Lydia) and Photinus of Therma (Cappadocia Prima). However, although John’s signature is just behind of a bishop in Cappadocia Prima, it is less probable that his see was transferred to this province immediately after 457/8. In fact, in the ecclesiastical affairs, Emperor Leon was mainly preoccupied with solving the post-Chalcedonian crisis at that time. Besides, as far as is known today, he did not initiate any major ecclesiastical administrative reform in the area51. There are no ordinary bishops from Pontus Polemoniacus, Armenia Secunda or Mesopotamia in this list, but only one from Armenia Prima. Nevertheless, his entry in the list is 67, while John of Acilisene᾽s is 35. As one can see, there is no clear documentary information on the subordination of Theodosiopolis and Acilisene/Leontopolis before their transfer to Cappadocia Prima. The only possible evidence on the matter is the title ἐπισκόπου τῆς Θεοδοσιουπολιτῶν πόλεως ἐπαρχίας Ἀρμενίας / episcopus Theodosiupolis ciuitatis prouinciae Armeniae used by Peter in 449. Following this, one would suppose that Petrus was subjected to the metropolis of Sebasteia in Armenia Prima. However, as already noted, Peter’s title cannot be seen as an absolute evidence on the issue. Relating to the moment when the two sees in Inner Armenia were transferred to the ecclesiastical province of Cappadocia Prima, this event certainly occured between 457/8 and 553. The former years are the date when Alypius dispatched his letter to the Emperor Leo I. The former is the year when 48 See Acta Conc. Oec., II.2.2, 65[157]-77[169]. See, also, E. Honigmann, The Original Lists…, p. 78-79. 49 See Ed. Schwartz, Publizistische…, p. 176-177, n. 1. 50 See ibidem, p. 176, n. 1. 51 See G. Siebigs, op.cit., passim; A. Grillmeier, op.cit., p. 195-235. 263 Ionuţ Holubeanu George of Justinianopolis, attending the second Council of Constantinople, is attested as a bishop of Cappadocia Prima. On the other hand, given that Justinian I was the first Emperor after Chalcedon (451) who undertook major civil and ecclesiastical administrative reforms in the northeastern part of the Empire, it would be him who made this transfer. One has to take into account that Justinian also rebuilt the city of Mocissus, thereafter called Justinianopolis, and awarded it the new organized ecclesiastical province of Cappadocia Tertia carved out of Cappadocia Secunda. On that occasion, both Doara and Nazianzus, together with other cities, were withdrawn from the authority of Tyana (Cappadocia Secunda) and were put under that of Mocissus52. In 536, when Justinian organized the new civil province of Armenia Prima, he already pointed out that the city of Leontopolis had been rebuilt by him under the name Justinianopolis53. It is possible that at the moment when he renewed this city he also transferred both its see and the one of Theodosiopolis to the ecclesiastical province of Cappadocia Prima. In such a case, in 536, when the new Armenia Prima was organized, with Justinianopolis, formerly Leontopolis, as its administrative metropolis, the two sees in Great Armenia already used to be subjects to Caesarea. Then, their transfer might be dated between 527, when Justinian became Emperor, and 536, when the new Justinianopolis is attested for the first time. Conclusions The above investigation allows for the following conclusions: 1. The sees of Theodosiopolis and Acilisene/Leontopolis in Inner Armenia did not use to be subordinated to the metropolitan see of Caesarea (Cappadocia Prima) in the middle of the 5th century AD. 2. There is not any absolute evidence on the status of these sees before 553. However, it is possible that they were ecclesiastically subordinated to Sebasteia in Armenia Prima. 3. Also, there is not any evidence on the moment when they were transferred under the jurisdiction of Caesarea. Nevertheless, it is not improbable that this event occurred in the first part of Justinian I᾽s reign, between 527 and 536. 52 53 Procopius, De aedif., V.4.15-18, 158.14-25; Acta Conc. Oec. IV.1, V.48-49, 99.29-100.31. Novella 31, c. I, 235.32-35. 264 The Ecclesiastical Organization in Armenia Interior in the 5th Century AD 265 Ionuţ Holubeanu 266