Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

From the contents:00I. Purpose ; 0II. Problems in the Hellenika ; 0III. Structure, method,and style ; 0IV.The life of Xenophon ;0V. Xenophon and his contemporaries ;0VI.Xenophoþs reputation in antiquity ;0VII. The manuscripts and the text ;0Commentary on Xenophon's Hellenika ; 01. Alkibiades in the Hellespont ; 02.The Ionian Campaign ; 03. Kalkhedon and Byzantion ; 04. Kyro's arrival and Alkibiades' return ; 05. Lysdandros,Notion, and Alkibiades'demise ;06. Kallidratidas and Arginousai ;07.The trial of the Aginsousai Strategoi ; 01.1. Lysandros and Aigospotamoi ; 01.2.The capitulation of Athens.

Greek literature, Hellenistic --- Xenophon. --- Greek literature, Hellenistic. --- History and criticism. --- Hellenica (Xenophon). --- Hellenistic Greek literature --- Xenophon --- a Xenophon --- Xenofon --- Xenofoon --- Xenophoon --- Jenofonte --- Jenófanes --- Ksenofont --- Xenofón --- Senofonte --- Kısenofon --- Pseudo-Senofonte --- Kʻsenopʻonti --- Pseudo-Xenophon --- כסינופון --- زينوفون --- كزنوفون --- گزنفون --- Xenofont --- Ξενοφῶν

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Despite having been a prominent figure during a thoroughly researched period of Western European history, François I has long been the subject of neglect and misunderstanding. This is exhibited by the failure of the historiography to analyse his theological outlook. The notion that François held theological sympathies has been simply disregarded by the factionalist paradigm initiated by Jules Michelet in the late nineteenth century based on the assumption that his licentiousness precluded this possibility and has been explicitly rejected by the Milanese paradigm represented by Robert Knecht who maintains that he was solely concerned by the pursuit of certain territorial ambitions. Through a repudiation of these positions in conjunction with French and English archival sources, we offer an alternative perspective which we apply to an evaluation of the hypothesis that François held genuine theological convictions which motivated his religious policies. Given that François considered it his duty to extirpate heresy, we argue that his consistent protection of evangelicals from the denunciations of the Parlement and the Faculty of Theology of the University of Paris throughout the 1520s is best explained through his affinity for certain reformist theological principles. Following an examination of the diplomatic context surrounding the negotiation of the Concordat of Bologna in 1516 and its later financial exploitation, we interpret the justifications offered by François for its imposition as pointing to his attempt at a holistic reform of the French Church based on what he considered to be his ecclesiastical prerogatives and duties. These same duties were exercised following the Sack of Rome in 1527 when François convened the Conciliabulum of Avignon in order to address how the French and English Churches should be governed during the captivity of Clement VII. Despite having never been considered the steerer of French religious policy, we analyse evidence of François having steered English religious policy through his innovation of the final solution to Henry VIII’s Great Matter. We also propose a semantic revision of François’s correspondence which has the capacity to resolve the paradox between his attempts to ally with the Schmalkaldic League in the early 1530s while concurrently persecuting French Protestants as well as a narrative revision of his response to the Affairs of the Placards in 1535 which unveils his profound appreciation of traditional Eucharistic theology. In the light of this evidence, we conclude that our hypothesis is worthy of acceptance and carries significant repercussions both for our understanding of François and the sixteenth century as a whole.