Serbia and Hungary in Theodore Spandounes’s Work On the Origin of the Ottoman Emperors

Theodore Spandounes was born in the middle of the 15th century to a family of the Greek exiles who had found shelter in Italy after the fall of Constantinople. The Spandounes family had not played any significant role in the history of the Byzantine Empire but his mother Eudotia came from the famous Kantakouzenos family. Members of the Kantakouzenos family played an important political role in Serbia until its annexation by the Ottoman Empire in 1459. Theodore established close relations with popes Clement VII and Paul III, who he advised on the Ottoman affairs. Probably around 1515, Spandounes wrote the first version of the treatise On the Origin of the Ottoman Emperors. In 1538 he dedicated the final version to Henry, Dauphin of France (the future king Henry II).As suggested by the title, the main objective of Spandounes’s treatise was to explain how the Ottomans rose from the humble beginnings to their current mighty status in a relatively short time. In its final version from 1538, the treatise consists of four parts, different in size, composition and content. The most original and creative part, which is also of the greatest importance to the scholars interested in the Ottoman history, is the second part. However, information concerning the history of Serbia and Hungary can only be found in the first part. A detailed analysis of Theodor’s treatise leads to the following conclusions: 1) Spandounes’s remarks concerning Hungary and Serbia are generally infrequent, and the events described were rather accidentally chosen; 2) The author pays more attention to Serbia, with which he was emotionally connected through his ancestors. The information about the genealogy of the ruling family is interesting and reliable; 3) Spandounes is barely credible in his descriptions of events from the 14th and 15th century. His accounts are tendentious and quite often false; 4) Information concerning Hungary becomes more frequent for years 1520–1538, and it is relatively credible.

“Pro Honore et Libertate Ecclesiae Invicta Fortitude Sustinuit”—The Oratory of St Thomas Becket in the Cathedral of Anagni

On the 9th of October, 1170 Pope Alexander III resided in Anagni, which had been the ancient residence of the court of the Popes for at least two centuries. He wrote to two influential local archbishops for help in pacifying King Henry II and Archbishop Thomas Becket, who had been in dispute for six years. Sensing Becket’s looming tragic fate, Alexander III began slowly to encircle the archbishop with rhetoric of the new martyr of Libertas Ecclesiae. When he had to flee from Rome besieged by factions led by Frederick I, the pope found refuge in Segni, where he canonised Thomas Becket on 21 February 1173. However, it was in faithful Anagni that he settled on and off from March 1173 through the following years (November 1176; December 1177–March 1178; September 1179). It was here that he decided to elaborate a powerful speech in images. In an oratory in the crypt of the grandiose cathedral, Alexander III had the last painful moments of the Archbishop’s death painted in a program imitating that of St. Peter’s in the Vatican. Becket thus became the new imitator of Christ, the new Peter, the new martyr on the altar of the Church of Rome.

Dirty Laundry

The study of the events surrounding the murder of Archbishop Thomas Becket at the side altar of Canterbury Cathedral in December 1170 has focused primarily on the significance of the assassination itself as confirmation of his saintliness. As the body was finally being prepared for burial, the surprising discovery was made that underneath his stately vestments, Becket wore (and had long worn) a hairshirt, crawling with lice, maggots, and other vermin. All lingering suspicions that Becket’s ‘conversion’ from worldly courtier to spiritual archbishop had been a pretense, a fabrication designed to bolster his claim to authority against King Henry II, fell away. It was the hairshirt, and not the murder, that made the martyr.

The Influence of English Anticlericalism on the Studies of “Becket’s Controversy” Conducted by British Historians in the 18th Century

In this paper, some historical writings dating back to the 18th century and focused on the life of St. Thomas Becket and his relationship with King Henry II Plantagenet were considered. In a broad historical context, the causes of the growth in the popularity of anticlericalism in the interpretation of the catholic past by the British scholars during the Age of Enlightenment were singled out and covered in detail. Based on the analysis of the works written by P. de Rapin, J. Oldmixon, J. Lockman, J. Littleton, D. Hume, E. Burke, D. Berington, and some others, the methodological approaches to viewing and portraying the figure of T. Becket were revealed. The “controversy” that accompanies the discourse about him was identified. Based on a thorough investigation of the European political conjuncture in the 18 century and on the ideological and religious affiliation of the above-mentioned scholars, as well as their influence and popularity, three main periods were distinguished in the study of “Becket’s controversy” within the English historiography of that time: the period of the Circle of P. de Rapin (with him, J. Oldmixon, J. Lockman, J. Littleton, and E. Burke) was followed by the period of D. Hume and later by the Catholic reactionism of D. Berington. It was concluded that the works of P. de Rapin and his Circle promoted a negative image of T. Becket and undermined his role in English history over almost the entire 18th century.

Projects of the Gallican Church and the ‘Everyday Piety’ Reform on the Eve of the Wars of Religion

During the so-called ‘Gallican crisis’ between 1551 and 1552, Pope Julius III accused the French king of preparing an ecclesiastical schism, while the possibility of establishing a French patriarchate was discussed in the royal council. Before long, however, the conflict gave way to a close alliance between the Pope and King Henry II. Was the ‘Gallican crisis’ just a tool of political pressure on Julius III? To what extent were the plans of the king and his entourage to reform the Gallican Church serious? The lack of sources can be filled, at least in part, by turning to the work by Raoul Spifame, a lawyer of the Paris Parliament, titled Dicaearchiae Henrici Regis Christianissimi Progymnasmata (1556). In its essence, it is a collection of rhetorical exercises in the field of jurisprudence written in the form of royal decrees designed to reform everything in the kingdom. Surprisingly, some of these fictional measures later would be actually implemented. The reason for the author’s ‘clairvoyance’ lies in his contacts with the secretaries of state who were then preparing large-scale reforms, which would eventually be cancelled due to the unexpected death of the king and the outbreak of the Wars of Religion. A considerable part of the decrees is devoted to plans of the reform of the Gallican Church: from the elevation of the Bishopric of Paris to the rank of an archdiocese to tightening control over the morals of prelates. This article pays special attention to how the Dicaearchiae regulated the elements of ‘everyday piety’ — the rituals of blessing of the bridal chamber, purification after childbirth, and belief in the existence of limb. A limitation of ‘luxury’ was also to be introduced: refusal of precious ecclesiastical ornaments, redundant bells, and a reduction in the number of holidays associated with the veneration of saints. Without abandoning the cult of saints, Spifame undertakes a reform of the ecclesiastical calendar and creates a sort of national martyrology of warriors who died for their homeland and ‘are venerated as saints without a canonisation’.

Upsurges of Timelessness: The Becket Tale between History and Dramaturgy in Tennyson’s Becket, Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral and Anouilh’s Becket, or the Honour of God

The primary concern of this study is to explore the dramatization of the story of Archbishop Thomas a Becket, in three different plays by three prominent playwrights. These plays are Tennyson’s Becket, Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral, and Anouilh’s Becket, or the Honour of God. The study examines the three plays in the light of their manipulation of the details of Thomas Becket’s contest with Henry II. The shifting relationship between the two men raised fascinating questions that were considered useful materials for playwrights. From the narrow confines of historical conflict, each of the three writers presented a unique artwork of a different dramatic vision. Through shedding light on the tale of the murder of Thomas Becket, this study highlights the significance of his fatal conflict with King Henry II to each of the three dramatists. First, it investigates how Tennyson’s primary purpose was to write a work of “documentary” authenticity. Then, this paper clarifies how Eliot’s interpretation of the play is a religious symbolic one. It also explores how Anouilh’s employed the Becket tale to present his perspective of the dilemma of twentieth-century man. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how the different interpretations of the story in the three plays are not only distinctive in themselves but are also, in varying degrees, relating the past to the present.

Upsurges of Timelessness: The Becket Tale between History and Dramaturgy in Tennyson’s Becket, Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral and Anouilh’s Becket, or the Honour of God

The primary concern of this study is to explore the dramatization of the story of Archbishop Thomas a Becket, in three different plays by three prominent playwrights. These plays are Tennyson’s Becket, Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral, and Anouilh’s Becket, or the Honour of God. The study examines the three plays in the light of their manipulation of the details of Thomas Becket’s contest with Henry II. The shifting relationship between the two men raised fascinating questions that were considered useful materials for playwrights. From the narrow confines of historical conflict, each of the three writers presented a unique artwork of a different dramatic vision. Through shedding light on the tale of the murder of Thomas Becket, this study highlights the significance of his fatal conflict with King Henry II to each of the three dramatists. First, it investigates how Tennyson’s primary purpose was to write a work of “documentary” authenticity. Then, this paper clarifies how Eliot’s interpretation of the play is a religious symbolic one. It also explores how Anouilh’s employed the Becket tale to present his perspective of the dilemma of twentieth-century man. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how the different interpretations of the story in the three plays are not only distinctive in themselves but are also, in varying degrees, relating the past to the present.