Das „Epiros“-Dossier im Codex Vindobonensis theologicus graecus 276. Patriarch Germanos II. und die Union mit der griechischen Kirche von Epiros (1232/33). Edition und sprachlich-textpragmatische Untersuchung. Mit neun Textabbildungen samt drei Appendices zur nizänischen Synodos endemusa

Abstract

Codex Vindobonensis theologicus graecus 276 contains a small corpus of three documents dealing with the union of the Western („Epirotic”) and Eastern („Nicaean”) Greek churches. One document, a letter from the Despotes Manuel (Comnenus) Ducas to the Ecumenical Patriarch Germanus II, has recently been published in a critical edition, the two others (the response of Patriarch Germanus II and a synod decision about the mission of a patriarchal exarch executing the union on behalf of the latter) lacked a critical edition or were even partially unpublished. A critical edition (with translation) of these two documents supplements the study which analyzes diplomatic, rhetoric and text pragmatic (historical sociolinguistic) aspects. It is emphasized that these outstanding rhetoric products have to be understood set against a scholastic-rhetorical competition of urbanity (Constantinople or Nicaea, respectively) and provincialism (of the Epirote Empire). After the defeat of the former Epirote Emperor Theodorus Angelus at Klokotnica 1230), his successor Manuel appears to have been forced to change his policy by accepting his degradation – at least for a short time when he had to be content with the title of a despotes. However, his ultimate approval and support of the union of the Greek churches seems to have contributed to an even higher rank than a usual despotes. This can be seen from a letter written by the patriarchal exarch. The synod decision starts with a protocol that lists the participating archpriests. It is one of the rare documents from the Nicaean period which allows reconstruction of the composition of its synodos endemusa. Such initial lists of participants in synod sessions reveal which archpriests took part (were invited, were present, were sent) in Nicaea and supported the patriarch. Three appendices to this study point out the local restriction of participants (with a focus on the period of Patriarch Germanus II) and a quite Asian dominated composition. The archpriests of the Eastern European sees are virtually missing.