T HE SECOND Council of Constantinople in 553 has tended to be downplayed and, in my opinion, underrated by both secular and church historians. J. B. Bury, the well-known historian of the later Roman Empire, for example, described the significance of Constantinople II not in terms of the doctrinal decisions of the Council, which he considered to be trivial, but in terms of what he interpreted as the adoption by the Church of theological tenets formulated by the Emperor Justinian, and thus as "the most characteristic manifestation of Justinianean Caesaropapism." 1 In other words, for Bury the historical sig nificance of this council was to be found in the area of church-state relations. While theologians and church historians have often ascribed a more specifically theological significance to Constantinople II, they have also frequently interpreted it as representing in one way or another a movement away from Chalcedonian orthodoxy. In the nineteenth cen tury, Philip Schaff, for example, interpreted the Council as a "leaning toward Monophysitism," while Adolph Harnack described it as the means whereby the Christian East revenged itself dogmatically on the Christian West for the "blow" given it at the Council of Chalcedon. 2 This less than positive evaluation of Constantinople II has continued to dominate much of twentieth-century church historiography. In his monograph on the Monophysites, W. A. Wigram, for example, asserted that Constantinople II "provides a landmark to show how far the policy 1 J. B. Bury, A History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene (395 A.D. to 800 A.D) (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1966) 2.5. Α. H. M. Jones also described the Council in similar terms, arguing that after the Council of Chalcedon, decisions concerning doctrinal questions increasingly became a matter of imperial edict, and that Justinian called the Council of 553 in order to ratify his own condemnation of the Three Chapters; see The Later Roman Empire 284-602
Eine geeignete Pollenspendersorte muss nicht nur einen kompatiblen Pollen zur Hauptsorte aufweisen, sondern die Blühperiode beider Sorten sollte sich auch ausreichend überschneiden. Der Blühtermin ist entscheidend für die Befruchtung der Apfelblüte und beeinflusst somit den Ertrag und die Fruchtqualität. Es stellt sich unter anderem die Frage, ob neue vielversprechende Sorten wie z.B. Minneiska (SweeTango®) oder WA 38 (Cosmic Crisp®) mit den Südtiroler Hauptsorten wie Gala, Golden Delicious oder Cripps Pink (Pink Lady®) eine ausreichende Überschneidung der Blühperiode aufweisen und somit ohne zusätzlichen Pollenspender angebaut werden können. Am Versuchszentrum Laimburg wurden die Blühtermine von 236 verschiedenen Apfelsorten mit einer standardisierten Methode erhoben. Es handelt sich dabei um alte Lokalsorten, die aktuellen Hauptsorten und neue Sorten. Die in dieser Zusammenfassung berücksichtigten Erhebungen wurden von 2010-2020 sowohl am Standorten Laimburg auf 220 m ü. NN, als auch am Standort Latsch auf 670 m ü. NN durchgeführt. Das Ergebnis ist eine fundierte Kategorisierung von rund 200 Apfelsorten aufgrund ihres relativen Blühtermins. Die klimatischen Bedingungen beeinflussen bekanntlich die Blühdauer stark, was sich auch in den Ergebissen an den unterschiedlichen Standorten und Jahren widerspiegelte.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.