BOOK REVIEWS 433 1180, from the collection of the abbey of Schaftlarn (nos. 141 and 142). Although these notices provide important information about Moosburg (the Schaftlarn notices show that Moosburg, in spite of its moral failings, had an important school), these entries further obscure the actual content and arrangement of the Traditionsbuch. It would have been better if they had been published in an appendix. In spite of these criticisms, I am grateful that Höflinger has made the codex more accessible. John B. Freed Illinois State University The Church and Social Reform: The Policies of the Patriarch Athanasios of Constantinople. By John L. Boojamra. (New York: Fordham University Press. 1993- Pp. x, 181. «30.00 cloth; $19.95 paper.) This excellently researched, coherently discussed, highly readable, and beautifully produced monograph should be of interest to theologians and historians of the Middle Ages of both the Greek East and die Latin West. It also deserves a place in every theological library. Ecclesiastical historians can adopt it as supplementary reading in their courses. The theme of the book is the religious, social, and ecclesiastical reforms of Athanasios I, an extraordinary Patriarch of Constantinople (1289—1293; 1303-1311). He served at a time when the state was in constant turmoil, fighting enemies from all sides, and the Church was the only stable institution, even though it, too, faced several internal and external problems. Dr. Boojamra examines Athanasios as the protagonist and the spokesman of those who realized that the Empire was in constant decline and that the Church, as the only enduring institution, could spearhead not only ecclesiastical but also social and even political reforms. One hundred twenty pages of text and nearly forty pages of footnotes are divided into seven chapters including a lengthy introduction and a very well argued conclusion. In his "Athanasios and Political Ecclesiology" Boojamra discusses the Patriarch's attitude and policy toward church-state relationship in the context of the long-standing Byzantine tradition which emphasized the principle of dyarchia and harmonía in the relations between die two arches (church and state). Though Athanasios subscribed to the harmonious relationship between Church and State, his work reflected his convictions that political instability and economic and military catastrophes arose from afailure of ethical, social, and theological purity. For him hierosyne (church) and basileia (state) constituted a Christian commonwealth and could not be divided. But with die decline of the State, Athanasios moved into die political life of the Empire. Boojamra sees this as the beginning of the trend which ultimately after 1453 made die patriarch, as the head ofthe millet, responsible 434 BOOK REVIEWS for the social [not political as Boojamra indicates] and religious life of all Orthodox Christians under Ottoman Turkish rule. Dr. Boojamra credits Athanasios with an effective policy which determined the process followed by other eminent patriarchs such as Isidoros, Kallistos, and Philotheos who guided the Church to pursue a policy independent of the government's. Notwithstanding several problems and hostilities against the strict patriarch, Athanasios' reforms are considered as "fundamentally successful ." Perhaps with an element of hyperbole, the author sees them as "the culmination of the spiritual, moral, and political life of the Orthodox Church of Byzantium and the foundation for the development of a reform movement that prepared apurified Orthodoxy to face the threat ofan Islamic overlordship and for the genuinely new role of leadership in secular matters of the church" (pp. 154-155). In myPoverty, Society andPhilanthropy in theLateMediaevalGreek World (New Rochelle: Caratzas, 1992) I devoted several pages to Athanasios, and I fully agree that he deserves our admiration for his accomplishments in a most critical period of the Empire's history. The hostility toward Athanasios was the result not only of his "monastic" or puritanical mentality but also of a climate that encouraged secularism and distrust of the Church. The designations "Christian" and "secular" people can be traced back to at least the ninth century. Beliefs and traditions, both political and religious, were not questioned for the first time. The Byzantine Empire was never a monolithic and static organism. Some of the problems the Church faced during the last two centuries of the Byzantine era were the result of the Church...
Read full abstract