The Very Many Questions-Not-Worth-Their-Own-Thread Thread XXXII

[Mouthwash]

Wouldn't that be a bit pointless, considering the Western Empire ended in 476 and Constantinople fell in 1453?

The Roman Empire became more of an idea than a country after late antiquity.

Technically, Franz II dissolved the entirety of the HRE rather than abdicating the throne, so the Pope would have to entirely reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire and there aren't exactly that many Catholic monarchs left. As I recall, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Belgium, Monaco and San Marino are still Catholic, as are of course Andorra and the Vatican City, but they wouldn't qualify anyway.

Why? Charlemagne didn't rule over a legally-defined area, he just conquered a bunch of places. Leo apparently gave him the title because he viewed the Eastern throne as unoccupied, so I don't think it would be necessary for a new emperor to rule over the territory claimed by the last. And even if it was, why couldn't someone be designated Emperor-in-exile (or be given a square foot of land from the Vatican to rule)?

 

[Synobun]

You're more of an idea than a country.

Also: By right, do you mean actual recognition of the title or more of a "he could do it, I guess, if he wants, no real point tho" right?

 

[Arakhor]

Why? Charlemagne didn't rule over a pre-designated area, he just conquered a bunch of places. The Pope just gave him the title, so don't think it would be required for the next emperor to rule over the territory claimed by the last. In fact, why couldn't someone be designated Emperor-in-exile, or even be given a square foot of land from the Vatican to rule over?

Well, presumably this future Pope has more in mind than just recreating the farcical situation surrounding the multiple titular Kingdoms of Jerusalem, so I'd imagine there would have to be some actual power behind it. Franz of Bavaria might be quite content with being the titular Head of the House of Wittelsbach, but can you imagine some random Catholic nobleman being declared Emperor of Rome in modern Europe?

 

[Mouthwash]

Also: By right, do you mean actual recognition of the title or more of a "he could do it, I guess, if he wants, no real point tho" right?

The former. Not any territorial recognition, just the title itself. After all, the Pope himself is also Pontifex.

Well, presumably this future Pope has more in mind than just recreating the farcical situation surrounding the multiple titular Kingdoms of Jerusalem, so I'd imagine there would have to be some actual power behind it. Franz of Bavaria might be quite content with being the titular Head of the House of Wittelsbach, but can you imagine some random Catholic nobleman being declared Emperor of Rome in modern Europe?

Who mentioned a Catholic nobleman? I was imagining the Pope giving me the title. Unfortunately, I doubt it would be a secular process, so I'd have to refuse (but I can dream...)

 

[Arakhor]

Uh, why you of all people? From what I can tell, you're neither European nor even Christian, let alone Catholic. Given that the whole idea in the first place was to assert Papal authority over Western Europe and thumb the nose at Byzantium, I fail to see why said future Pope would not choose a dutiful Catholic of good breeding and friends in high places.

 

[Mouthwash]

Uh, why you of all people? From what I can tell, you're neither European nor even Christian, let alone Catholic. Given that the whole idea in the first place was to assert Papal authority over Western Europe and thumb the nose at Byzantium, I fail to see why said future Pope would not choose a dutiful Catholic of good breeding and friends in high places.

It's just the theoretical possibility that I could, in fact, hold the title. Nothing to do with what the Pope *would* do.

(I mean, doesn't it tickle you silly to imagine being given that promotion?)

 

[Arakhor]

Well, no offence, but if an American Jew can get himself made Holy Roman Emperor, I think that there are far stranger things going on than worrying about whether you'd get any land with the grant or not.

 

[Mouthwash]

...at least I might inspire someone to make it their life's ambition. Butterfly wings, and all that.

 

[sophie]

The former. Not any territorial recognition, just the title itself. After all, the Pope himself is also Pontifex.

After all the Pope himself is also Pope?

 

[Traitorfish]

Technically, Franz II dissolved the entirety of the HRE rather than abdicating the throne, so the Pope would have to entirely reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire and there aren't exactly that many Catholic monarchs left. As I recall, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Belgium, Monaco and San Marino are still Catholic, as are of course Andorra and the Vatican City, but they wouldn't qualify anyway.

He dissolved the formal political structures of the Roman Empire, but Rome itself is the transhistorical principle of universal dominion. There's a reasonable- well, an internally coherent argument that in the absence of any political structure, the office persists, awaiting a head worthy of the crown. It doesn't even need to come from an established royal line; one of the quirks of imperium is that it's strictly an altogether separate thing from nobility or royalty, we just tend to assume that it's associated, or at least that the former bestows the latter.

It's like how a dedicated Confucian could argue that the Chinese Empire never actually ended, it's simply enduring an extended inter-dynastic period- and not even a particularly long one by the standards of Chinese history- because the emperor was never actually defined as the ruler of a particular ethnic or territorial unit, but as a universal ruler who for practical purposes tolerates the self-government of outlying barbarians. Or, perhaps less fantastically, that a pious Muslim would regard the Caliphate as never having been formally dissolved, but simply dormant until a worthy heir to the prophet appears.

These may not be useful or practical outlooks, but they're so bound up with a specific set of fundamental assumptions about the world that it's hard to say that they're straightforwardly untrue, in the everyday sense.

 

[Mouthwash]

After all the Pope himself is also Pope?

Wasn't the Pontifex the original Roman high priest?

 

[W|M]

The Pontifex Maximus was head of the College of Pontiffs in Rome, but since the Christianisation of Rome, ''Pontifex'' or ''Pontiff'' has usually referred to the Pope.

 

[sophie]

Wasn't the Pontifex the original Roman high priest?

Pontifex simply means priest (or bishop in Late Antique/Early Medieval Latin). Eventually it came to refer specifically to the Pope (The Bishop of the city of Rome), with the Greek-rooted "Episcopus" and "Archiepiscopus" coming to refer to the political offices of Bishop and Archbishop respectively. Beyond sharing the Latin term "Pontifex", it has no relation to the older Roman office of "Pontifex Maximus" (Highest Priest) which was the spiritual leader of the Roman Pagan Religion in the Republican and Early Imperial Periods. Eventually this official bureaucratic title was subsumed under the title "Augustus".

However the term didn't come to be associated with the Roman Pope specifically until the later Middle Ages. For example, Einhard (a mid-9th century writer) refers to Pope Stephen in Vita Karoli Magni as "Stephanus Romanus pontifex" (Stephen, the Roman Bishop). However, he refers to Pope Hadrian twice: once as "Hadrianus Romanae urbis Episcopus" (Hadrian, the Bishop of the Roman City) and once as "Hadrianus Romanae ecclesiae rector" (Hadrian, the leader of the Roman church). Although he refers to Pope Leo (who crowned Charlemagne Emperor) repeatedly as "pontifex", he also mentions commands Charlemagne gave regarding overseeing the restoration of churches and sacred places, which he issued to "pontificibus et patribus" (bishops and priests)

 

[Chukchi Husky]

Does "pontifex" mean something like "bridge builder"?

 

[Arakhor]

Probably, yes.

 

[Mouthwash]

Pontifex simply means priest (or bishop in Late Antique/Early Medieval Latin). Eventually it came to refer specifically to the Pope (The Bishop of the city of Rome), with the Greek-rooted "Episcopus" and "Archiepiscopus" coming to refer to the political offices of Bishop and Archbishop respectively. Beyond sharing the Latin term "Pontifex", it has no relation to the older Roman office of "Pontifex Maximus" (Highest Priest) which was the spiritual leader of the Roman Pagan Religion in the Republican and Early Imperial Periods. Eventually this official bureaucratic title was subsumed under the title "Augustus".

However the term didn't come to be associated with the Roman Pope specifically until the later Middle Ages. For example, Einhard (a mid-9th century writer) refers to Pope Stephen in Vita Karoli Magni as "Stephanus Romanus pontifex" (Stephen, the Roman Bishop). However, he refers to Pope Hadrian twice: once as "Hadrianus Romanae urbis Episcopus" (Hadrian, the Bishop of the Roman City) and once as "Hadrianus Romanae ecclesiae rector" (Hadrian, the leader of the Roman church). Although he refers to Pope Leo (who crowned Charlemagne Emperor) repeatedly as "pontifex", he also mentions commands Charlemagne gave regarding overseeing the restoration of churches and sacred places, which he issued to "pontificibus et patribus" (bishops and priests)

Okay, then I stand corrected.

 

[sophie]

Does "pontifex" mean something like "bridge builder"?

Yes. It's a reference to the fact that a Priest serves as a connection or the maintainer/builder of a connection between man and the gods.

 

[Takhisis]

@Kyriakos or @Takhisis

Einhard's Vita Karoli Magni has a Greek phrase in it (written in Latin script) - any chance either of you could transliterate/translate it for me?

in the original text it is: ton Phragkon philon echis, gitona ouk echis. The English translation has it as "The Frank is a good friend but a bad neighbor", although echis is a conjugation of ἔχω (I have)? So my guess would be something along the lines of "You have/(maybe consider?) (in) the Franks a friend, (but) you do not have a neighbor" so transliterated it would be "Φραγκον φιλὀν ἔχεις, γείτονα οὐκ ἔχεις" or whatever the equivalent transliteration would be in Koine/Byzantine Greek. Am I on the right track?

First of all the word έχεις (IPA in Modern Greek: /'exis/) means ‘(you) have’ (2nd SG - indicative mood, present tense).

With that out of the way, let's get to the sentence… that's Mediæval Greek, which is always awful especially for me.

Literally it means

Frankish Friend (acc - SG) you have, neighbour (acc - SG) you don't have​

Without context or a better grasp of that particular type of Greek I'd have to say that ‘The Frank is a good friend but a bad neighbour’ *is* a good tranlation. I'd wait for Kyriakos to confirm.

It's just the theoretical possibility that I could, in fact, hold the title.

No. You're Jewish. So you'd have to convert.

Incidentally, this is about being Jewish by religion, given that there are still are ethnically Jewish Christians in existence.

 

[Borachio]

Does "pontifex" mean something like "bridge builder"?

That's quite appropriate given the Pope's comments about bridge building instead of building walls.

 

[Takhisis]

First of all the word έχεις (IPA in Modern Greek: /'exis/) means ‘(you) have’ (2nd SG - indicative mood, present tense).

With that out of the way, let's get to the sentence… that's Mediæval Greek, which is always awful especially for me.

Literally it means

Frankish Friend (acc - SG) you have, neighbour (acc - SG) you don't have​

Without context or a better grasp of that particular type of Greek I'd have to say that ‘The Frank is a good friend but a bad neighbour’ *is* a good tranlation. I'd wait for Kyriakos to confirm.

@Kyriakos?