Papers by Maurits de Leeuw
Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis
Gaining and Losing Imperial Favour in Late Antiquity, 2020
The collective volume Gaining and Losing Imperial Favour in Late Antiquity: Representation and Re... more The collective volume Gaining and Losing Imperial Favour in Late Antiquity: Representation and Reality, edited by Kamil Cyprian Choda, Maurits Sterk de Leeuw and Fabian Schulz, offers new insights into the political culture of the Roman Empire in the 4th and 5th centuries A.D., where the emperor’s favour was paramount. The articles examine how people gained, maintained, or lost imperial favour. The contributors approach this theme by studying processes of interpersonal infl uence and competition through the lens of modern sociological models. Taking into account both political reality and literary representation, this volume will have much to offer students of late-antique history and/or literature as well as those interested in the politics of pre-modern monarchical states.
Gaining and Losing Imperial Favour in Late Antiquity, 2019
To gain and hold imperial favour for his theological party in the aftermath of the Council of Eph... more To gain and hold imperial favour for his theological party in the aftermath of the Council of Ephesus in 431, Cyril of Alexandria bestowed blessings on high-ranking courtiers in Constantinople. His theological adversaries aimed to reveal that these blessings were nothing less than ordinary bribes and that, consequently, Cyril’s victory in the Christological controversy was won through corruption. This paper analyses Cyril’s use of a terminology of “blessings” to show that it legitimised and enhanced his gifts as a resource to exercise influence on the imperial court. The late-antique world, where gifts and fees were becoming increasingly important as (institutionalized) instruments to gain access to power, posed a problem to clerics who wanted to partake in these political transactions. Their authority was based on their independence from worldly rulers, which the exchanging of gifts would compromise; nor was the Bible (or the exegetic tradition) particular approving of gifts as a means to further even the good of the church. Yet, the Gospels also provided a solution, which allowed Cyril to redefine his material means to secure imperial favour into “blessings”. The paper concludes by considering a parallel case around the inauguration of Flavian as bishop of Constantinople that shows how the openness of the term “blessing” could also be exploited to disqualify the legitimacy of the opposing party.
De receptie van klassieke cultuur in de Goritz-kapel in Rome en in de gedichten van de Coryciana ... more De receptie van klassieke cultuur in de Goritz-kapel in Rome en in de gedichten van de Coryciana en de receptie van Plinius de Oudere in de Italiaanse Renaissance zijn enkele jaren geleden in twee aparte boeken uitvoerig besproken, maar niet met elkaar in verband gebracht. Zowel in de beeldengroep van de kapel als in de gedichten zijn echter thema’s uit de klassieke kunstgeschiedenis uit de Naturalis Historia van Plinius prominent aanwezig. Dit stuk bespreekt hoe deze thema’s verwerkt zijn in de visuele en tekstuele media en geeft aan hoe de receptie van Plinius geplaatst kan worden binnen de eerder uitgewerkte interpretatie van de samenhang tussen het beeld en de gedichten.
Dit artikel stelt de vraag aan de orde voor welke boodschap de obelisk op het Sint Pietersplein d... more Dit artikel stelt de vraag aan de orde voor welke boodschap de obelisk op het Sint Pietersplein door de eeuwen heen is ingezet. De meeste ontwikkelingen vonden plaats ten tijde van de heerschappij van de Julisch-Claudische keizers en in de zestiende eeuw, met name tijdens het pontificaat van Sixtus V (1585-1590).
Conferences/Workshops (organised) by Maurits de Leeuw
Tübingen, October 4-6th, 2018
Conference Presentations by Maurits de Leeuw
This paper reconsiders a crucial passage in the Wars of Procopius of Caesarea, one of our most im... more This paper reconsiders a crucial passage in the Wars of Procopius of Caesarea, one of our most important sources for the reign of emperor Justinian. According to Procopius’ description of the council the emperor received before undertaking the risky expedition against the Vandal Kingdom in 533 A.D. (3.10), he was advised against it by his minister John the Cappadocian in a lengthy speech, which almost led him to abandon his plans. In the end, however, an unnamed bishop managed to convince the emperor in favour of the expedition by telling him God had spoken to him in a dream, promising to support the Justinian’s plan, as it would relieve (orthodox) Christians in Africa from oppression.
My aim in examining this passage is twofold. On the one hand, I will develop interpretational consequences of the relationship between Procopius’ passage and examples from classical historiography, notably Herodotus’ description of Xerxes’ deliberation before his campaign against Greece in 480 B.C (7.10). This will take issue with the proposed interpretation that Procopius here presents John as a Herodotean ‘wise adviser’, although John normally receives a very bad press in Procopius’ work. On the other hand, I will analyze how the discourse of (successful) influence by a bishop relates to contemporary hagiographical representations of contacts between holy men and the emperor, particularly where the former also argue in favour of and blesses a proposed military campaign. In my view, Procopius deliberately opposes this ‘new’, Christian way of exercising influence based on religious arguments with the classicizing, rationalizing method. I will conclude by arguing that Procopius’ narrative holds more information about aspects of religious legitimation of Justinian’s reign than scholars have hitherto believed.
The importance of classical Greek historiography as a model for the historiographical project of ... more The importance of classical Greek historiography as a model for the historiographical project of Procopius of Caesarea, particularly his Wars, has been acknowledged for at least a century. Whereas earlier studies focused on his stylistic and linguistic imitation, many recent studies emphasize that his use of classical examples is not restricted to these formal aspects, but also effects the structure and content of his work. Once acknowledged, Procopius’ creative adaptation of classical models opens new ways of interpretation.
Procopius’ own rather ambiguous stance towards classicism, however, is still often overlooked, although his prologue to the Wars explicitly polemicizes against those who can only describe the world in Homeric terms. This paper argues that Procopius, in line with this critique, employs classicizing discourses to describe failing strategies of exercising interpersonal influence in the Wars. I will illustrate this by examining cases where people try to exercise influence on a ruler, notably emperor Justinian, to make a particular decision. Following classical models, one does this by giving a rhetorically structured speech or writing a letter, which the historiographer then ‘quotes’ in his account. People who do this in Procopius’ Wars, however, tend not to be effective in achieving what they want; discourses based on Christian religion, where an appeal is made to God or divine fortune, seem to have the upper hand. In these cases, then, classicism appears as a foil to highlight what dominates Justinian’s politics: not rational deliberation, but a belief in the execution of a divine plan.
For most of the history of the Roman Empire, religious knowledge and authority was interwoven wit... more For most of the history of the Roman Empire, religious knowledge and authority was interwoven with and incorporated in the political world. Emperors and members of the elite held high-ranking priesthoods as part of their political careers, and, as such, they controlled the religious knowledge that could be used in politics. This system changed in Late Antiquity, when the Christian Church rose as an institution with political power that was rather independent of the traditional ranks of power. From the 5th century onwards, monks became particularly powerful spokespersons of the Christian communities in the Eastern Roman Empire. Their divine authority allowed them free access to the emperor, to whom they were ought to be able to speak their mind: with this access came political power.
Several sources, mostly hagiographical texts, describe how monks over the course of the 5th and 6th centuries played a role at the highest level of imperial politics by appealing to the emperor himself. These interactions have mostly been studied as single case studies; on the basis of these case studies, this paper aims to paint a comprehensive picture of the political role monks played in Constantinople during the 5th and 6th centuries. We will identify trends and breaks during this period by focusing on two aspects in the interactions between monks and emperors. First, we will examine the resources monks used as a basis for their political power: how did they structure and legitimize their attempts to exercise influence? To what extent did their involvement in imperial politics deviate from their day-to-day (cultic) tasks? Related to this, our second point of focus concerns the aims politically involved monks pursued: to what extent was the monk’s influence restricted to matters of religious politics? Did their authority also apply to other (more ‘secular’) fields of imperial politics?
The workshop is generously sponsored by the Classical Association and by the School of Humanities... more The workshop is generously sponsored by the Classical Association and by the School of Humanities of the University of Reading
This poster, of which I presented slightly different versions at conferences in Reading (May 2018... more This poster, of which I presented slightly different versions at conferences in Reading (May 2018; the poster was distinguished as the best poster presented at the colloquium) and Tartu (June 2018), explores cases of monastic opposition to the emperor in Constantinople during the 5th and 6th centuries. The cases it focusses on concern direct interactions between monks and emperors (i.e. the monk confronts the emperor face-to-face). Taking the perspective of both the monks and the emperors, the poster summarizes what happened before, during, and after such interactions on the short term as well as long term tendencies in monastic opposition over the period studied. Some of the observations this poster presents will probably form the basis of a chapter of my dissertation.
Book Reviews by Maurits de Leeuw
Current Project: Influencing Emperors by Maurits de Leeuw
The collective volume Gaining and Losing Imperial Favour in Late Antiquity: Representation and Re... more The collective volume Gaining and Losing Imperial Favour in Late Antiquity: Representation and Reality, edited by Kamil Cyprian Choda, Maurits Sterk de Leeuw and Fabian Schulz, offers new insights into the political culture of the Roman Empire in the 4th and 5th centuries A.D., where the emperor’s favour was paramount. The articles examine how people gained, maintained, or lost imperial favour. The contributors approach this theme by studying processes of interpersonal infl uence and competition through the lens of modern sociological models. Taking into account both political reality and literary representation, this volume will have much to offer students of late-antique history and/or literature as well as those interested in the politics of pre-modern monarchical states.
Das Team des Emmy Noether-Projekts 'Macht und Einfluss' lädt Sie herzlich zu einem Gesprächskreis... more Das Team des Emmy Noether-Projekts 'Macht und Einfluss' lädt Sie herzlich zu einem Gesprächskreis ein, der den spätantiken Kauf von Einfluss am Hof in Praxis und Diskurs behandelt. Einige von uns haben sich in letzter Zeit in ihrer Forschung mit diesem Thema auseinandergesetzt. Wir glauben aber, dass das Thema auch andere Tübinger Kollegen und nicht nur Althistoriker interessieren könnte. Darum sind Sie alle herzlich willkommen, sich an diesem Treffen zu beteiligen. Geld und Geschenke als Einfluss-Mittel im politischen System des spätantiken römischen Staates spielen in den Quellen eine wichtige Rolle. Traditionell, nach dem Gibbon'schen Diskurs, hat man daraus die Folgerung gezogen, dass die spätantike Welt von Korruptionspraktiken geprägt wäre, die als Katalysator oder sogar als Hauptursache für die Untergang des (west)römischen Reiches zu betrachten seien. Die neuere Forschung stellt diese These in Frage und schlägt andere Modelle vor, um die (scheinbar?) zugenommene Verbreitung von Geld als politischem Instrument zu erklären. Dabei hat sich gezeigt, dass man vorsichtig sein muss, irgendeine spätantike Praxis als Korruption zu bezeichnen, da man dadurch leicht die Maßstäbe der modernen Welt auf die Spätantike projiziert. Die Frage bleibt aber offen, wie Geld und Geschenke als Einfluss-Mittel genau zu bewerten sind. Während dieses Nachmittags werden wir anhand einiger Quellen über die verschiedenen Deutungsmodelle von 'Korruption' in der Spätantike diskutieren. Das Team des Emmy Noether-Projekts 'Macht und Einfluss' wird Ihnen das Thema vorstellen durch eine Zusammenfassung des status quaestionis. Die darauffolgende Diskussion wird sich an einige Quellen anknüpfen, die die Mitglieder der Gruppe in die Diskussion einbringen werden. Ziel des Treffens ist es, die Deutungsmodelle aufgrund der Quellen zu bewerten und, wenn notwendig und möglich, zu Änderungen oder Neuerungen zu kommen. KONTAKT Wer teilnehmen möchte, möge uns das persönlich oder per Email signalisieren, damit wir vorab Material zur Verfügung stellen können. Interessenten, die sich spontan zur Teilnahme entschließen, sind natürlich ebenfalls willkommen. Dr. Fabian Schulz | Keplerstr. 2, Raum 45 Tel. 07071/29 77679 | fabian.schulz@uni-tuebingen.de
Uploads
Papers by Maurits de Leeuw
Conferences/Workshops (organised) by Maurits de Leeuw
Conference Presentations by Maurits de Leeuw
My aim in examining this passage is twofold. On the one hand, I will develop interpretational consequences of the relationship between Procopius’ passage and examples from classical historiography, notably Herodotus’ description of Xerxes’ deliberation before his campaign against Greece in 480 B.C (7.10). This will take issue with the proposed interpretation that Procopius here presents John as a Herodotean ‘wise adviser’, although John normally receives a very bad press in Procopius’ work. On the other hand, I will analyze how the discourse of (successful) influence by a bishop relates to contemporary hagiographical representations of contacts between holy men and the emperor, particularly where the former also argue in favour of and blesses a proposed military campaign. In my view, Procopius deliberately opposes this ‘new’, Christian way of exercising influence based on religious arguments with the classicizing, rationalizing method. I will conclude by arguing that Procopius’ narrative holds more information about aspects of religious legitimation of Justinian’s reign than scholars have hitherto believed.
Procopius’ own rather ambiguous stance towards classicism, however, is still often overlooked, although his prologue to the Wars explicitly polemicizes against those who can only describe the world in Homeric terms. This paper argues that Procopius, in line with this critique, employs classicizing discourses to describe failing strategies of exercising interpersonal influence in the Wars. I will illustrate this by examining cases where people try to exercise influence on a ruler, notably emperor Justinian, to make a particular decision. Following classical models, one does this by giving a rhetorically structured speech or writing a letter, which the historiographer then ‘quotes’ in his account. People who do this in Procopius’ Wars, however, tend not to be effective in achieving what they want; discourses based on Christian religion, where an appeal is made to God or divine fortune, seem to have the upper hand. In these cases, then, classicism appears as a foil to highlight what dominates Justinian’s politics: not rational deliberation, but a belief in the execution of a divine plan.
Several sources, mostly hagiographical texts, describe how monks over the course of the 5th and 6th centuries played a role at the highest level of imperial politics by appealing to the emperor himself. These interactions have mostly been studied as single case studies; on the basis of these case studies, this paper aims to paint a comprehensive picture of the political role monks played in Constantinople during the 5th and 6th centuries. We will identify trends and breaks during this period by focusing on two aspects in the interactions between monks and emperors. First, we will examine the resources monks used as a basis for their political power: how did they structure and legitimize their attempts to exercise influence? To what extent did their involvement in imperial politics deviate from their day-to-day (cultic) tasks? Related to this, our second point of focus concerns the aims politically involved monks pursued: to what extent was the monk’s influence restricted to matters of religious politics? Did their authority also apply to other (more ‘secular’) fields of imperial politics?
Book Reviews by Maurits de Leeuw
Current Project: Influencing Emperors by Maurits de Leeuw
My aim in examining this passage is twofold. On the one hand, I will develop interpretational consequences of the relationship between Procopius’ passage and examples from classical historiography, notably Herodotus’ description of Xerxes’ deliberation before his campaign against Greece in 480 B.C (7.10). This will take issue with the proposed interpretation that Procopius here presents John as a Herodotean ‘wise adviser’, although John normally receives a very bad press in Procopius’ work. On the other hand, I will analyze how the discourse of (successful) influence by a bishop relates to contemporary hagiographical representations of contacts between holy men and the emperor, particularly where the former also argue in favour of and blesses a proposed military campaign. In my view, Procopius deliberately opposes this ‘new’, Christian way of exercising influence based on religious arguments with the classicizing, rationalizing method. I will conclude by arguing that Procopius’ narrative holds more information about aspects of religious legitimation of Justinian’s reign than scholars have hitherto believed.
Procopius’ own rather ambiguous stance towards classicism, however, is still often overlooked, although his prologue to the Wars explicitly polemicizes against those who can only describe the world in Homeric terms. This paper argues that Procopius, in line with this critique, employs classicizing discourses to describe failing strategies of exercising interpersonal influence in the Wars. I will illustrate this by examining cases where people try to exercise influence on a ruler, notably emperor Justinian, to make a particular decision. Following classical models, one does this by giving a rhetorically structured speech or writing a letter, which the historiographer then ‘quotes’ in his account. People who do this in Procopius’ Wars, however, tend not to be effective in achieving what they want; discourses based on Christian religion, where an appeal is made to God or divine fortune, seem to have the upper hand. In these cases, then, classicism appears as a foil to highlight what dominates Justinian’s politics: not rational deliberation, but a belief in the execution of a divine plan.
Several sources, mostly hagiographical texts, describe how monks over the course of the 5th and 6th centuries played a role at the highest level of imperial politics by appealing to the emperor himself. These interactions have mostly been studied as single case studies; on the basis of these case studies, this paper aims to paint a comprehensive picture of the political role monks played in Constantinople during the 5th and 6th centuries. We will identify trends and breaks during this period by focusing on two aspects in the interactions between monks and emperors. First, we will examine the resources monks used as a basis for their political power: how did they structure and legitimize their attempts to exercise influence? To what extent did their involvement in imperial politics deviate from their day-to-day (cultic) tasks? Related to this, our second point of focus concerns the aims politically involved monks pursued: to what extent was the monk’s influence restricted to matters of religious politics? Did their authority also apply to other (more ‘secular’) fields of imperial politics?