The assumption, based on studies of the life and works of the late-sixth to seventh century philosopher, Stephanus, by Herman Usener and Wanda Wolska-Conus, that (1) the seventh century author of the commentary on De Interpretatione was summoned by the Emperor Heraclius from Alexandria to take up teaching post in Constantinople at a newly founded imperial institution of higher education (according to Usener) and (2) the same Stephanus was the Constantinopolitan author of the anonymous Prolegomena Philosophiae and Commentary on Porphyry’s Isagoge published by L.G. Westerink under the name of Ps. Elias (according to Wolska-Conus), is questioned and it is shown that Usener’s hypothesis of an imperial university under Heraclius was based on the anachronistic use of the titles oikoumenikos didaskalos and katholikos didaskalos to describe ‘Stephanus’ in some astrological and alchemical manuscripts. Accordingly, there is no evidence for an imperial institution of higher education under Heraclius. In addition, the evidence for Stephanus’ discussion of the term diairesis (as found in his commentary on De Interpretatione and the Dialogues ofSeverus bar Shakko) differs so completely from that ofPs. Elias that there can be no possibility that the two commentators are the same person. Accordingly, Wolska-Conus’ hypothesis of the identity of the two must be abandoned.

Byzantine churches have been extensively studied in terms of their architectural development and in their role as places to display religious art. However there has been less research into one of the most fundamental aspects of the Byzantine ritual experience, illumination. In practical terms, churches had to be illuminated sufficiently for worship to take place. In experiential terms, lighting can be seen as the medium by which the iconographic programmes and liturgical practices were staged and enhanced. This paper considers the archaeological and textual evidence linking physical illumination of buildings with the experience of their sacred function.

Although translation of foreign literature was rare in Byzantium, in c. 1300 three Greek translations of treatises on using the astrolabe appeared, two from Latin and one from Persian or Arabic; all three are assessed in terms of Greek style and significance for Byzantine culture. The Islamic treatise translated by Shams al-Din al-Bukhari includes a translator’s preface, edited in full and translated into English here for the first time. In the preface, Shams describes a deluxe astrolabe sent to Andronikos II with the treatise in the hope, it is argued, of some personal benefit in return.

The Grottaferrata manuscript of Digenis Akritis may be of more interest to Medieval Greek linguists than previously assumed. This rather ‘archaizing’ version obeys the same medieval distribution rules for object clitic pronouns postulated by Mackridge for the more ‘vernacular’ Escorial version. Moreover, it is shown that the medieval rules – divided into a syntactic and a pragmatic principle – clearly constitute a gradual continuation of older, post-Classical, tendencies. Much attention is paid to the pragmatic principle in relation to verbs, which is invoked as an explanatory principle for apparent exceptions.

The Ottoman policies towards the Orthodox patriarchate and its clergymen have been discussed in a number of articles. For some scholars the relationship is one of purely financial character, with the patriarch being a mere tax collector, whereas for others the patriarch is acting as ethnarch of his millet, as defined by supporters of the millet theory. In this case study, the re-establishment of the Orthodox Church on the island of Crete testifies to the complexity of the relationship between the patriarch and the sultan. The struggle of the metropolitans of Crete to establish their authority from 1651 to 1735 is connected to the history of the Greek Orthodox patriarchate in the Ottoman capital.

The historical factors that have influenced the course of Greek–Armenian political relations from the mid-nineteenth century up to the dissolution of the Soviet Union (and the subsequent official recognition by Greece of the independent Republic of Armenia in 1991) are explored. In addition, those factors that have caused – and may well cause again, at least in the foreseeable future – the Greek and Armenian positions either to converge or to diverge are identified.