The depiction of new and extensive iconographic cycles but also of individual subjects of profound theological content, the secular themes with their explicit references to antiquity, as well as the remodeling of earlier subjects in new types, all compose an emblematic monument which is clearly differentiated from its contemporaries.
Furthermore, the innovations in the manner of organizing the iconographic subjects, either by using large single surfaces for narrative renderings, or smaller surfaces for individual subjects, in combination with the symbolism of the space, enhance the Peribleptos as a revolutionary monument in the thirteenth century. The church in Ochrid represents all those changes in art that justify the transition from the Middle to the Late Byzantine period and which were to progress in the fourteenth century.
Masterworks of Palaiologan monumental painting, creations not only of the Astrapas painters but also of other important artists in Constantinople, Thessaloniki and other cities, are the evolution of the basic pictorial principles observed in the Peribleptos. The remarkable effect of the Peribleptos on artistic developments during the fourteenth century leaves no doubt that the formation of the artistic personality of Michael and of Eutychios, in the period after the recapture of Constantinople , is linked with the imperial capital.
The artistic osmosis of the two painters from Thessaloniki with nearby Constantinople must have been continuous, because only thus can we explain their uninterrupted artistic development, which enabled them to evolve stylistically, but mainly to renew their iconographic repertoire and to create a new status quo through the pioneering way in which they project their painting within the architectural space.
In their art and life, Michael and Eutychios are perhaps the most characteristic examples of professional painters of the Palaiologan age who left behind them a bold and groundbreaking oeuvre, the impact of which on artistic circles of the period was analogous to their surname Thunder and Lightning! The cultural residue of the Greek communities of Cappadocia living under Seljuk rule represents the fullest and most detailed evidence for the multicultural artistic and social landscapes of late Byzantine Asia Minor.
Although art historians have examined many of the thirteenth-century painting programs of the region, there has been little attempt to place them within a broader cultural context. In order to fill this lacuna, paper follows an interdisciplinary investigation of art history, social, political, and geographical history, anthropology, archaeology, and epigraphy. Grounded in a close examination of a large corpus of wall paintings, and containing significant new visual and epigraphic data the my survey aims to demonstrate methodologically how visual culture can be used to understand the environment that produced it.
A great deal happened in panel painting during the 13th century. But asking what happened is not the same as asking what changed. Change requires clarifying for whom? Change implies that what happened left a residue. Yet many of the centurys most famous icons remained unica. Do they constitute change, or perturbation? The torrent of culturally mingled icons at Sinai, too, ceased precipitously with the demise of the Crusader states, leaving little summative residue.
So what did change? The most fundamental change is quantitative: panel painting proliferated. The explosive increment of evidence makes it hard to judge whether habits of use had changed, or simply become more visible. At Sinai, it is not diversity, but convergence that stands out, as painters of all traditions repeated standard clusters of templon images. Sinais many chapels must have assumed a recurrent scheme of adornment, however diverse in style. The templates emerged in the later 12th century; but in the 13th they became a canon. They comprised half-length, single figures, abandoning the narratives of the 12th-century epistyles.
Narrative, by contrast, colonized the Vita icons. Though initiated in the 12th century, these again proliferated in the 13th, their mating of icon and narrative giving a new, multi-vocal density to individual panels. But how did the icons relate to it? The 25 icons of Mary so far outnumber the three of Christ that they must have served more ritual functions than just balancing Christ around the Holy Doors.
They too were colonized by narrative: a third of the 25 have scenes on their reverse. Even more emphatically than in the Vita icons, narrative here adds visual and intellectual weight to the single-figure icon, expanding it dimensionally. Most bilaterals, moreover, had poles, implying a mobility that gives concrete realization to the three- dimensionality of their bilateral iconography.
Спартак Ян В. Г. читать онлайн и в мобильном приложении ЭБС Университетская Библиотека Онлайн.
Like vita icons, bilateral and pole icons go back to the 12th century. But only now do they assume an identifiable repertoire of characteristic themes, a numerical proportion among the icon population, and a physical magnitude that confers upon them a weight and multi-dimensionality akin to that of fresco.
In Kastoria and Mount Athos, too, large icons of scenes from the very beginning of the 13 century give way thereafter to single-figure panels of despotic scale. In Kastoria, both Vita th. Neither appears on Athos, but here one watches a different process of weightiness emerge. The figures themselves assume volume, adding a visual monumentality to the monumentality of message achieved by mating narrative and icon. At the end of the century, as seen at Ohrid, great panels emerge that join the two kinds of monumentality, with grandiose scale, voluminous figure style, and multiple types of imagery.
Rooted in 12th-century developments, they have a monumentality that was both truly new, yet deeply Byzantine. La datation des icnes du Sina de la Vierge allaitant et la question des origines de la Madonna de lUmilit. La rvision de la datation dune icne de la Vierge allaitant du Sina, envisageable aussi pour une seconde autrefois attribues au XIVe sicle et leur attribution au XIIIe, savoir la priode des Croisades et lge dor des changes culturels entre Orient et Occident, est signifiante pour des raisons qui vont faire lobjet de notre communication.
Nous souhaitons, tout dabord, appuyer cette datation par des lments stylistiques et iconographiques. Ce dernier type iconographique qui reprsente souvent Marie allaitant a connu une diffusion remarquable dans le monde latin partir des annes quarante du XIVe sicle et a jou un rle incontestable lapparition au XVe sicle de la Galaktotrophousa dans le rpertoire des icnes orthodoxes. Parmi les nombreuses sources dinspiration ayant contribu la cration de la Madone de lHumilit on pourrait peut-tre compter des icnes orthodoxes de la Mre de Dieu voire mme des icnes de la Galaktotrophousa, dont les petites uvres du Sina constituent les seuls exemples dune haute.
Enfin, nous proposons appuyer, par des exemples antrieures du XVe sicle, la rvision de lhypothse, formule jadis, soutenant que la Vierge allaitant en Occident et celle en Orient auraient pu se dvelopper indpendamment tant donn que lallaitement de Marie est un acte naturel. Les icnes en question sajoutent dautres, postrieures, en tant que tmoignages visuels dun va-et-vient perptuel entre les deux mondes.
Ioanna Rapti cole pratique des hautes tudes, sciences religieuses, Paris, France; ioanna. This paper will address the place of the Armenian miniature painting from Cilicia within the changing world of the 13th century Mediterranean. For Byzantium, the 13th century has been short and divided by the landmark of For Cilicia, instead, it has been not only a long one but, for most of it, a time of increasing prestige and ambition. An important number of lavishly illuminated manuscripts, precisely dated, have been studied by Sirarpie Der Nersessian but still need to be integrated in the discourse on the artistic interactions in the 13th century.
Armenian Cilicia is not a proper part of the fragmented Byzantine Empire but closely related to it, particularly to Cyprus and the empire of Nicea. Although Cilicia is not considered as a key political entity of the fragmented Byzantine territory, it may have played a key role in the elaboration, transmission and dissemination of artistic trends. Because of its proximity to the Latin states of the Levant and Cyprus, Cilicia is in permanent encounter with the West. However, rather than a recipient of influences, it should be better understood as a melting pot of trends and taste that elaborates a strong visual idiom of power and court culture.
Illuminations may reflect monumental painting and material culture as suggested by a closer study of the decorated canon tables and several narrative compositions. A few case studies of such elements will attempt to illuminate the response of Cilicia to the contemporary artistic developments in the Mediterranean and the silk-road. The ornament enables to distinguish traditional patterns and innovative motives that may mirror broader artistic developments in the industries of art or reveal networks of trade. Another point will focus of the breaking of extensive narrative cycles in the mid 13th c.
Both categories raise the question of subjects of motifs common throughout or around the fragmented empire in works distant in space but related by their appropriation of some Byzantine legacy and by their aspirations at the marches of the Byzantine world. Glass working in Middle- and Late Byzantine era remains mostly elusive. No Byzantine glass workshops operating in this period have been excavated until now.
The fact though that glass vessels and objects continued to be used in Byzantium is unquestionable, although apparently in quite reduced numbers in comparison to the volume of the early Byzantine production. The nature and the origin of these objects will be discussed in this paper. Products from the Arab Caliphates were at least from the 11th century sold in Byzantium covering the region of the Aegean and the Ionian See. These imports continued during the Late Byzantine period mostly concerning unguentaria, mainly lentoid and ring-shaped ones, which are excavated in several Byzantine cities.
As regards the influences and imports from the West, It has been proved that quite wide- spread forms of drinking vessels, like the prunted and ribbed beakers, were actually either imports from the West, or local, Byzantine products which were imitating Italian prototypes following the taste and the aesthetics of the new Latin elite of the eastern Mediterranean. What appears to present a true Byzantine ware are the gilded and painted cylindrical bottles and beakers which appear in the 13th century and they are present in both Byzantine and Slavic cities and settlements, mostly in very small quantities, except for Corinth and Paphos where they are unearthed in relatively large numbers.
Decorative techniques like gilding and fired painting, possibly similar to silver staining, were applied and further evolved on these vessels. These techniques had also been used in the decoration of the glass bracelets which were present in the entire Byzantine realm from the 10th century and ceased to exist sometime in the 13th century. Another use of glass present in the 13th c. Finally, window panes present yet another quite widely used glass product.
Mostly plain, intensively colored round pieces of crown glass were used, while at least in Constantinople stained windows were occasionally used too, probably under the influence of the Latin elits wishes. Recent decades have witnessed an increasing interest in the study of middle and late Byzantine pottery. Within this period, the 13th century stands out, as evidenced by primary archaeological data and underlined by a number of researchers who have noted the appearance of new categories of pottery alongside those in use during the 12th and into the early 13th century, both in areas that remained under Byzantine rule and in those which now constituted part of the Latin Dominions established from the 13th century onwards in various areas of the former Byzantine empire.
Taking into consideration representative material published from sites in mainland Greece and the Aegean islands, in the main, re-evaluating old data and incorporating new, we will attempt to trace patterns of pottery distribution over the course of the century. Mapping the evidence afresh in time and space, we will ascertain whether major political changes such as the fragmentation of Byzantium during the first years of the 13th century or its re-establishment in are reflected in the pottery flow of particular areas, thereby influencing international and inter-regional trade.
Furthermore, another aim is to address the recent, on-going problematic as to whether differences discerned in the types of, and preferences for, imported and locally produced pottery, as well as differences in shapes and sizes, can provide us with information on possible cultural interactions. A recent case-study on the material from the island of Crete, for example, can shed considerable light on the above issues. Fine as well as common and coarse wares will be taken into consideration in order to review the evidence and assess our current knowledge on this aspect of 13th-century material culture.
How Can We Be Nothing? In On the Incarnation, Athanasius offers detailed account of nonbeing as the ultimate separation from God. The consequences of sin are that creatures that are preserved by God and granted being by him, fall back into the nothingness from which they were created. Athanasius explains that this is the condemnation of death which thereafter had mastery over creation. This leaves us with a problem however, as, although it explains the way in which human nature is affected by sin, it does not account for the effect of sin within our personal, hypostatic lives.
If sin truly is isolation from God and immediate relapse into non-being, how can we be nothing, when we clearly persist in our fallen lives and have a chance of redemption in Christ? In this paper, I look at the cosmic ideas of Maximus the Confe ssor as a way of expanding and making sense of Athanasius concept of non-being. Maximus breakdown of creaturely subsistence into being wellbeing eternal-wellbeing allows him to emphasise that it is being and eternal-wellbeing that are gifted to humanity, and that our choice to participate in renewed nature in Christ is a choice to move toward well-being.
In his Chapters on Love, Maximus identifies non-being as the privation of true being by participation. Given that Maximus understands the gift of eternal-wellbeing as the final choice of God that is to come, so also does Maximus understand the finality of nonbeing as reserved for the age to come. Instead, in this life when we sin, we seem to occupy a different kind of nonbeing, that is misdirected movement that has no true life because it does not live and move in God. I finish by looking at some Biblical parables that offer some insight into this suspended kind of nonbeing that has not yet lapsed into eternal death because of Christs invitation that awaits the response of the human.
These include the barren fig tree that is given another year to bear fruit Luke , and the woman at the well who does not know that she is not alive because she has not drunk of the water of life John I finish by concluding that by using Maximus, we can offer an explanation that makes sense of the difficulty found in Athanasius. We can both acknowledge nonbeing as mistaken creaturely movement that is given an opportunity for true being by participation in the life, death and resurrection of Christ, and know that if a creature persists to reject life, it can only, at the end of time, fall back into the primordial nothingness that Athanasius describes.
As both Lars Thunberg and Paul Blowers have noted, despite the ancient conflict, the representatives of the Greek Patristic Tradition and especially Maximus have liberally appropriated and deployed elements from both ancient schools of thought. This paper shall seek, on the one hand, to account for the way in which these sometimes incongruous elements are utilized by the Confessor, and on the other, examine the consequences of his approach for moral theory at large. Of critical importance will be the attempt to better understand how Maximus considers the determination of universal moral goods to be epistemically possible in the face of diverse human experience and natural circumstances, as well as the various levels of moral training.
As such, this essay will attempt to derive a Maximian answer to Rousseaus dilemma regarding the common good and the apparent human tendency to disregard it. In this paper I examine the possible meaning of the Maximian concept of natural otherness for a holistic ontology of human person, connecting it with a possible explanation of the notion of consubstantiality as the whole thing can be understood in the perspective of an ecclesial ontology of creation, on the one hand, and the concept of the natural will, on the other.
In the light of the above conceptual tools I venture a theological understanding of the Unconscious as it is articulated in modern Psychoanalysis. Maximus the Confessors Ambiguum 41 contains some rather untypical observations concerning the distinction of sexes in the human person: there is a certain ambiguity as to whether the distinction of the sexes was intended by God and is by nature as would the Old Testaments Genesis and most Church Fathers assert or whether it is a product of the Fall, while Christ is described thrice as shaking out of nature the distinctive characteristics of male and female, PG91, C driving out of nature the difference and division of male and female PG91, A and removing the difference between male and female PG91, D.
Different readings of those passages engender important implications that can be drawn out from the Confessors thought, both eschatological implications and otherwise. The subject has been picked up by Cameron Partridge, Doru Costache and Karolina KochanczykBoninska, among others, but is by no means settled. I will attempt to address this anew, providing a different reading. In our paper we will examine how Maximus the Confessor c. Even though the two words might have a positive meaning, signifying for example the mastery over ones desires, they are inferior to , to which they might be contrasted.
According to Maximus, domination might also be viewed as a form of weakness, since the one who has to dominate someone or something is somehow affected by the dominated. On the contrary, true love is linked only to , which signifies a deeper overcoming of the dominated passion. Maximus thought presents thus some dialectical insights, since it highlights the affection of the dominator by the dominated and a possible shifting of roles in a vicious circle. But in its depth, it is non dialectical since the goal is absolute freedom from the dialectics of domination.
We will examine this topic in the consideration of desire where freedom is achieved through transformation , rather than through domination and power over passions. We will focus particularly on the vicious circle of pleasure and pain - and one significant use of the term in this context. And we will conclude by Maximus Christology, in which Maximus is emphatically rejecting the notion of a Monothelitism in which Christ would have a unique will through the domination of his human will by his divine one. Desire and Practical Part of the Soul According to Maximus the Confessor Maximus transforms the opposition between the practical and theoretical and spheres that Plato and Aristotle introduced.
According to Aristotle, the practical and theoretical minds have different goals: In contemplative reasoning, the good state is truth, whereas in practical reasoning, it is truth in agreement with right desire. This means that desire is decisive for is at the very core ofpractical knowledge. In Aristotles assessment, ct, it differs from theoretical knowledge. Maximus also distinguishes these two realms, and even links practical reasoning to inclination and desiredespite the fact that he unites the souls practical and theoretical activities in a unified process of moving toward knowledge of God.
Practical reasoning provides us with reasons to desire and choose. Therefore, it is significant that practical wisdom presupposes not only the ability to reason correctly, but also the capacity to reason correctly with a view to the right end. Thus, it presupposes the ability to truly envision the end.
Desire spurs the souls motion within the context of the telos. Thus, all practical activity exists within the framework of the general principle that is known as the Logos. As Paul Blowers asserts, the rational and conceptual knowledge of God in Maximus feeds desire , which in turn motivates the urge toward a higher, experiential and participative knowledge of God in deification. At this level, in concert with faith and hope, love , as the ultimate theological virtue, prepares the mind to become sublimely immovable in Gods loving affection, affixing the minds entire faculty of longing to the desire for God.
The distinction between merely having knowledge and experiencing knowledge represents the difference between potentiality and actuality, or in other words, between having a capacity and exercising that capability. Thus, Aristotles theory of practical and theoretical knowledge maintains that these modes of knowing are an acquired capability, or habit hexis. Theoretical knowledge is the capacity to disclose truth, while practical knowledge is the capacity to act. Furthermore, for Aristotle, philosophic wisdom is a capacity for contemplation, and practical wisdom involves reasoning and acting according to whether something is good or evil.
Mind and reason are two different motions by which the soul moves toward knowledge, but they are connected insofar as reason is perceived to be the source of the minds energy and activity. Reason is the energy, actuality, and occurrence of the mind. Unlike irrational beings, creatures who are endowed with reason can consciously know and participate in God. Thus, knowledge of God leads rational creatures to experience conscious ekstasis in God, while irrational beings act instinctively.
Moreover, reason is a characteristic by means of which rational creatures are able to assess and define existing things and the reality in which they exist. Reason signifies both the sum of things and the logical order of the relationship between them. This definition demonstrates the influence that the Greek tradition had on Maximus. In the biblical sense of revelation, logos is a way of knowing God.
In Greek thought, the word logos is used to refer to the human capacity to order the things that the senses perceive. However, these two aspects of the Logos constitute a single unity since human beings are connected to the whole of creation through the senses in the Greek understanding, while the Logos is related to the transcendent dimension in the biblical sense. Prudence is reasons potency. Reasons habit, or state , is praxis and action, and its energy is virtue.
The last stage of reasons movement is faith, which Maximus describes as the inward and unchangeable concretization of prudence, action, and virtue i. Its final term is the good, where, ceasing its movement, the reason rests. It is God, precisely, who is the good at which ever potency of every reason is meant to end. Once again, this citation shows that reasons various qualities are successive stages through which human beings arrive at perfect knowledge of true being.
This process should be regarded as a sequential expansion of the spectrum of that which can be known and as evidence of the dynamic progress that may characterize the path of knowledge which leads human beings toward God. Every quality introduces reason to new aspects of the revealed reality. It argues that Maximus transforms the Neoplatonic philosophical concept of conversion into the notion of converting and hand-leading transference in order to describe the process of creaturely deification as the mutual work of both God and creatures. Furthermore, it argues that the term reversion has a broader sense than the term converting transference, because it refers not only to the double process of procession and conversion, but also to the final results of this double process.
It finally provides evidence that the double process understood as hominization of God and deification of human beings is reciprocal. Franz Diekamp, in Analecta Patristica. The Praeparatio, the only work which can be attributed to Theodore with certainty, was particularly influential due to the fact that several of its paragraphs were subsequently incorporated into the anonymous seventh-century florilegium Doctrina Patrum de Incarnatione. Theodores Praeparatio offers an analysis of Christological formulas of the Council of Chalcedon as well as a vade mecum of philosophical terminology useful for arguing against doctrinal positions judged heretical, including definitions of the terms ousia, hypostasis and person.
In particular, Theodore offers a sophisticated elaboration of the notion of substance, which attests to a very good philosophical culture. The goal of this contribution is threefold: 1. To reconstruct Theodores analysis of the concept of substance and the main tenets of his ontology. This will provide us with information about a hitherto neglected chapter in the long history of this crucial concept for both philosophy and theology.
To determine, as far as possible, the sources of Theodores reflections on substance notably with respect to the Neoplatonic Alexandrian exegesis of the Categories in order to have a precise example of the sort of philosophical formation that could be found in a monastic author like Theodore. This will contribute to have a more detailed representation of the philosophical aspect of monastic culture in Sinai, Syria, and Palestine.
To compare Theodores contribution to the better known position on the question of substance formulated by Maximus the Confessor in his Opuscula Theologica et Polemica and in his Letters. This will lead to a clarification of the nature of the relationship between these two important thinkers of the seventh century.
Sherwood has brought to light the importance of the concept of motion in Maximus thought. Yet, together with the triad genesis, kinesis, stasis that defines Maximus rationale Sherwood also identified a corresponding triad: substance, power, operation. And as with first triad, he allocated an Aristotelian and Neoplatonic origin to the latter too.
This evaluation has become a common trend in the secondary literature of Maximus and the goal of this work is to challenge this view. The paper mostly draws on the middle term of the second triad, i. The argument will show that in Ambigua and especially in his anti- monothelite writings, Maximus interprets as an essential and thus identifier trait of being.
This reading gets its support from the analysis of the problem posed by the activities of Christ: since Christ performs in a unified way his divine and human works, two different conclusions could be reached: He either has a mixed or composed nature from which His special activity stems the monothelite view or, Maximus view from contemplating Christs divine works performed as man one infers they originate in a divine power based on the divine nature that Jesus possesses.
Though present in Aristotle in a loose manner, and slightly elaborated in Neoplatonism this line of approach is widely developed in ancient medicine and especially in Galen. It goes down to Gregory of Nyssa and Nemesius of Emesa, two certain sources for Maximus and this, we claim, invites a reconsideration of the origin of one of Maximus central notions, that is. Origen is a Christian thinker, apologist and exegete, whose intellectual oeuvre had a peculiar influence on the philosophical and theological tradition in Byzantium.
He is a mediator of the leading metaphysical, epistemological and ethical trends in the late ancient Hellenic culture. And he is among the first to introduce these philosophical patterns in a coherent Christian speculative discourse. However, the history of reception of Origens philosophical oeuvre in Byzantium is seemingly a series of dissents, of conceptual exclusions. Origens Trinitarian theology and his Christology and creation theory were officially condemned on the 4th and on the 5th Ecumenical councils and Nevertheless, as early as during the 4th century the Great Cappadocians e. Basil the Great and St.
Gregory the Theologian undertook a correction of Origens theology, by transforming his theory of creation and his concept on the causal relations among the persons of the Holy Trinity. Later on his heretical doctrines and conceptual fallacies were intensively criticized by Byzantine theologians. However, St. Maximus Confessor and St.
Подборка популярных товаров №797 на tarzan-movie.ru
Photius of Constantinople the Great did not merely criticize Origen, but transformed and positively developed some of his metaphysical and epistemological positions. In De principiis Origen develops a special metaphysical model, in order to explain the occurrence of created being. According to Origen the pure intellects, although not co-eternal with God, abide in a dynamic repose around him, possessing all his eternal glory, as well as the other attributes of divine being. Willing to acquire a better ontological state, they fell out of the divine goodness and turned to eternal decay.
In order to stop they endless degeneration, God who is both good and just, created the material world as a pad to stop this disastrous fall.
Thus he not only prevented their dropping off into nothingness, but gave them chance to restore their previous state by the so called apocatastasis. According to this scheme the existence of the world is a result of a consequential change of three modes of being: repose-movement-creation. In his Liber Ambiguorum St. Maximus Confessor reverts the metaphysical premises of Origens cosmology developed in the work De principiis by postulating that divine creative act is the principle. For Maximus the creative act of God is the initial cause of created being and of movement.
Maximus implicitly criticizes Origen, but adheres to his method of searching a logical substantiation of the creationist metaphysics. He makes use also of Origens model of apocatastasis; he applies not to the return of every created being to the state before the fall, but to the participation of all created natures in the Christological event. Furthermore, the Logos- model of Maximus is a replica of Origens intellectualism, which implies pre-existence of souls and metempsychosis.
At the time of Patriarch Photius the polemic context of the reception of Origens doctrines had to a great extent faded away Nevertheless, Origens ideas remained a challenge for Christian thinking, especially as his exegesis of the Holy Scripture is concerned. In his work Bibliotheca Photius repeats the most important allegation against Origenism, but at the same time reproduses the mains ideas of Origen that are acknowledged as Orthodox. Photius critique is not simply directed towards Origen, but targets the tradition of Origenists who deem him an irrefutable theological authority.
According to Photius the main exegetical error of Origen is his false understanding of the status of man as an image of God. Origen interprets the biblical motif of the image and likeness of God as a stable state of human nature, whereas Photius supports the idea of a processual manifestation of the image through history. Photius criticizes also Origens strict division between gnosis and faith for the patriarch these are two different discursive manifestations ethical and conceptual of divine knowledge.
Referring to Origens understanding of the epistemological validity of natural and theological contemplation, developed in the biblical commentaries, Photius constructs a pecu. Maximus largely uses the plural form of the Greek energeia, but I shall argue that divine activity is basically unified. However, this unified activity is somehow pluralized in accordance with certain principles that play a role both in the procession of the world from God and in the conversion of beings to Him. Since the Congress in Copenhagen in the scholarly interest in the political aspects of the trade routes from Scandinavia through Russia to Byzantium has been intensified through archaeological research, in particular the Viking ships found at the excavations for the new metro of Istanbul.
But also the written texts attract new interest to the vivid communications between the Baltic and the Black Sea regions from the 9th to the 11th centuries. The Byzantine evidence is scarce but both Russian and Scandinavian literary and poetic sources and new archaeological findings give hope of new insights in one of the main roads of commercial and cultural exchange through medieval Europe. Mari H. Isoaho University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; mari. Byzantine authors proclaimed and cultivated mimesis, the principle of imitation of the classical past. This principle is reflected in the words of Theodore Metochites in his famous statement: Everything has been said and nothing remains for us.
This meant that classical patterns and strong stereotypes influenced the descriptions and interpretations of historical events. The Primary Chronicle of Kiev is a manifest to the birth of a new nation, Rus, and its state. But the people called Rus had a heavy burden on their shoulders, as for centuries in Constantinople was held the idea of the apocalyptic barbaric nation called Rhos. The roots of the imagery of Rus in Byzantium reach all the way back to Herodotos and the classical idea of the Scyths and Tauroscyths.
Until the writing of the Primary Chronicle in the s, the image of northern barbarians had developed in the writings of numerous Byzantine church fathers, sermons and chronicles. This presentation studies the ways in which the Byzantines looked at the northern barbarians and how this was met in Kiev. This paper argues that the Primary Chronicle of Kiev reconstructed its presentation of world history in order to show how the earlier Byzantine notions of Rus were erroneously constructed.
In order to understand the mental imagery with which the Primary Chronicle worked, it is essential to take into account the long Greek tradition of confronting the Northern barbarians, for especially the beginning of the annalistic part of the Chronicle placed Rus in the sphere of written historical records via its confrontation with the Byzantine Empire.
In order to show that the Byzantines were wrong, the Primary Chronicle had two main objectives. First, it showed how. On the other hand, it had the need to express how the scourge of God, the pagan nation whose wars were to be felt bitterly by the Christians, existed elsewhere, and attempted to show how this role belonged to the nomad people of the Polovtsy. The Embassy attended people Rhos , who arrived to Constantinople for the sake of friendship, but could not return to their land the same way because this way blocked the fierce barbarians.
Theophilus begged Louis to miss friendly divergences over the Empire of the Franks, but Louis was supposed to investigate their origin. These people admitted that they are from the tribe of Sueones Swedes. The Franks tried to oppose the onslaught of Viking and Louis suspected aliens are not friends, but spies: he ordered to arrest them. In the recent historiography, despite the apparent normanist nature of Annales Bertiniani detecting the Scandinavian origin of initial Rus , dominated the antinormanist idea of the first diplomatic initiative and the original Russian State, with the ruler claimed the Khazar title Khagan.
Kiev was supposed to be the capital of this State; in subsequent versions, taking into account the absence of any evidence of Kiev before the second half of the 9th century, the capital of the Russian Rhos Khaganate was placed on Novgorod Hillfort according to C. Zuckerman or in Ladoga, where the Scandinavian antiquities are dated even from the 8th century. Ladoga seems to be preferable in such constructions in attempts to synchronize the archaeological data with Embassy, but borders the Russian Khaganate remains unclear, and its capital Ladoga was the small settlement in the first half of the 9th century.
It is essential that in the same years around the Khazarian khagan and his commander -in-chief bag sent his embassy to Theophilus asking for assistance in building of Sarkel fortress on Don river according to Constantine Porphyrogenitus DAI Don was the main trade route for Khazaria, as well as for the Russians old Rus who had Scandinavian Swedish origin: the oriental coins reached the Northern Europe from the beginning of the 9th century.
One of the early hoards around was found in the so called Right Bank Tsimlyansk fortress: Sarkel situated on the opposite left bank of Don. A Khazarian imitation of dirham and a coin with Scandinavian graffiti characterize the cultural contacts of the owner of the hoard. It is essential that the material Right-bank Tsimlyansk hillfort include shingles, that indicates the Byzantine construction traditions. The impact of the Byzantine construction equipment found not only in Right bank fortress, but in the Khazarian Semikarakory hillfort in the lower Don basin Kalinina, Flyorov, Petrukhin ff.
Strengthening of the domen of the Khazarian Khagan was connected with the complication of Khazar-Hungarian relations: apparently, the Hungarians were threatening international waterways on their way to the Central Europe; the Hungarians could be mentioned as a fierce people by the Rhos ambassadors cf. Golden Shepard reflected the Scandinavian name meant the retinue of rowers: it was not tribal, but the route name: these Russians could not call themselves the Vikings, as they did in the Baltic sea, because they could not use their long ships on the East-European rivers, they need rowing boats.
Jonathan Shepard published in Byzantine finds from Northern Europe which could be connected with embassy of Rhos: coins of Theophilus and the Byzantine seal from the same time found in the most prominent sites of the Viking age Hedeby, Birka and early Novgorod Hillfort. One could add now the numerous finds 11 coins of Theophilus originate from Gnzdovo in Smolensk Upper Dnieper , but the cultural layers from the ies are unknown in these Russian sites, the mentioned objects could not be straightly connected with the people from the time of Theophilus embassy.
However, archaeology demonstrates the diversity and cultural contacts in the Baltic: in the Baltic gate Rus Ladoga and other trading settlements in Eastern Europe the finds from middle Sweden region of Birka are the most numerous, but the imports of the Danish or Danish-Frisian origin are known also.
The Byzantine seal from Haithabu mentioned by Jonathan Shephard has the special interest for our theme: this seal of patrikios Theodosius, dating back to the time from to , testify to the activity of the Byzantine diplomacy in the Baltic Sea at a time when Byzantium fought with the Arabs in the Western Mediterranean Shepard recalls in that connection and on the Russian attack on Seville in it is remarkable that al-Yakuby used the river name ar-Rus for the raiders attacked Seville from the river. The ambassadors of the people of Rhos could be members of this diplomatic mission, and find of this seal could indicate on their route to the Baltic from Ingelheim to Haithabu.
Another seal of Theodosius was recently found in the cultural layer of the town of Ribe the Viking port, located on the border of Denmark and Friesland Feveile This find reinforces the hypothesis of the Byzantine diplomatic activity in the Baltic Sea, but cannot be considered a direct reflection of the Embassy route Anyway, the Normans and the Khazars found themselves in the interests of the Byzantine Empire in years of the 9th century, and facilitator in the pursuit of these transcontinental interests was the initial Rus.
Une source apocryphe, mentionn dans la recherche de V. Vasilijevskij Hozdenije ap. En prchant en nom du Christ ils ont converti beaucoup de barbares en foi veritable et les ont baptiss. Le plus ancient manuscript du Synaxaire russe on date du XII s.
Rus and the Civil War in Byzantium in The Chronology of the Battle of Chrysopolis and the Rus-Byzantine Treaty In the Byzantine society and state passed through a deep political crisis related to the armed struggle for power between the followers and supporters of the Macedonian dynasty and noble families of Skleroi and Phokades.
The decisive role in defeating the forces of the usurper at the key moment was played by Rus troops which arrived to help Basil II as a result of an agreement between the basileus and the prince of Kiev. This study allowed us to refine the chronology of the battle of Chrysopolis the first military clash which was attended by the Russian-Varangian corps, sent by Vladimir Svyatoslavich. The exact date of the Chrysopolis battle that took place according to Stephanos Taronetsi, in year of the Armenian calendar March 24 23 March remains controversial.
The information of the sources proves that the interval between the battles of Chrysopolis and Abydos was not significant. Poppe suggests that the first one occurred in January or early February, as soon as Bardas Phokas ordered his son Leo to banish Agapius, the Patriarch of Antioch off the city, which was fulfilled on March the 8, Noteworthy, however, that the presentation of the events given by Yahya of Antioch does not always correspond to the chronological order. For example, a message on the negotiations with Rus, marriage of their ruler with the sister of the emperor and the subsequent baptism of their country seems to be an obvious insertation without precise chronological indications.
After a brief mention about the victory at Chrysopolis Yahya reminds about the departure of Magister Gregory Taronite to Trebizond, as well as Phokades negotiations with David Curopalates and Bagratids about military assistance. The message on the fate of Patriarch Agapius who was suspected of disloyalty by the both sides also was not directly related to the date of Chrysopolis battle. According to Leo the Deacon, Bardas Phokas came up with the main forces to Abydos as soon as he got to know of the defeat of the troops at Chrysopolis.
In turn, the basileus moved against him, having gathered the fleet armed with Greek fire. However, John Skylitzes notes that Emperor Basil II came back to Constantinople after the first victory, but probably he did not stay long there. It is important to note that Stepanos Taronetsi places the battle of Abydos immediately after the Chrysopolis clash, in the next, year of Armenian chronology, when it was still spring.
Thus, we can conclude that the defeat of the troops of Kalokyros Delphynas took place in early spring March of This date is the terminus ante quem of the new RusByzantine treaty. The transition from the military confrontation to cooperation occurred only after the capture of Cherson by the Russes, due to the Byzantines urgent need of military aid. The conclusion of the treaty between Basil II and Vladimir happened no later than the summer and autumn of most likely in May or June The agreement provided for the sending of the troops six thousand foot soldiers in support of Basil II, the personal baptism of Prince Vladimir and the introduction of Christianity throughout Rus, the dynastic marriage of Rus and Byzantium and the subsequent creation of Rus metropolitanate as part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Raf Praet, Eighteen of Nineteen Books? Torna, Torna, Frater Revisited. Dans la littrature spcialise, il a t question de lducation juridique de Socrate, auteur de lHistoire ecclsiastique. Assez longtemps on cherchait la confirmation de son appartenance des avocats de par son titre de Scholastikos qui lui fut attribu, et lequel dune part, a surgi relativement tard parce que le plus tt il peut tre dat de la moiti du VIIme sicle, et en mme temps il napparat dans son manuscrit quau XIme sicle, dautre part, ne pas avoir signifier un avocat, mais seulement un homme instruit.
Lattention a t galement accorde labsence de familiarit juridique de Socrate ou son opinion critique sur la profession davocat. Socrate de Constantinople est connu, cependant, principalement comme un historiographe chrtien. Alors, quelle tait vraiment sa comprhension de la loi ecclsiastique? Hermias Sozomen, crivant son Histoire ecclsiastique fonde sur la relation de Socrate, apportait-il des modifications aux arguments juridiques de son prdcesseur?
Socrate a mentionn que les participants du concile de Nice ont rdigs aussi le reste de certains textes, qui sont gnralement appels canons I, Sozomen a corrig lgrement cette information indiquant clairement que le concile, en cherchant lever la moralit de ceux qui ont consacrs leur vie au service de lglise, a tabli les lois, appeles canons I, Ainsi, selon Sozomen, ce ne sont pas les dispositions de nature non prcise, comme les dcrit Socrate, mais les rgles de la loi relatives la sphre disciplinaire.
Tous les deux utilisaient le nom canons. Socrate dans son oeuvre a appliqu ce terme 35 fois, tandis que Sozomen la fait seulement 10 fois. Le premier dentre eux utilisait ce mot aussi souvent parce quil lappliquait dans un contexte et une signification plus larges, se rfrant la loi ecclsiastique en tant que telle, mais aussi aux rgles, rglements, rsolutions et mme la pratique de lglise.
Alors que le deuxime, limitait sa signification quaux rgles disciplinaires de lglise, ce qui a considrablement impact sa frquence dapparition. Le manque de prcision dans lutilisation de la terminologie juridique par Socrate en tmoigne le fait que lorsquil informait sur les nouvelles dispositions de la discipline, lesquelles les participants du concile de Nice souhaitaient mettre en application, il na pas utilis le terme canon, mais nomos I, La mme chose tait dans le cas du 3me canon du concile de Constantinople, o pour cela il a employ le mot horos V, 8.
Dans son uvre, Socrate a galement fait valoir que selon lun des canons ecclsiastiques, contre la volont de lvque de Rome, les diverses glises ne pouvaient pas kanonidzesthai nous entendons par l linterdiction de la mise en place de nouveaux canons. Bien sr, Sozomen tait conscient que ce canon nexistait pas, alors il crivait de manire gnrale sur la coutume ou la loi nomos en vigueur pour les prtres, qui interdisaient de prendre des mesures contre le pape. La dsinvolture dans lutilisation de termes juridiques par Socrate peut tre considre comme un comme un argument supplmentaire pour le fait quil na pas t un avocat.
The interpretation of events in the Graeco-Roman historiography of Antiquity has long been an area of scholarly study and debate. Factors such as personal participation and knowledge of protagonists, the use of sources, subjectivity, and bias are examined in order to assess the accuracy and reliability of each work. Supernatural forces also often play a decisive role in the causation and interpretation of the historical narrative. Supernatural agency as a driving force appeared primarily in the form of Tyche-Fortune while God, the supreme and omnipotent authority, was introduced into these works after the advent of Christianity.
The importance accorded to these forces is directly related to the perspective and mentality of each historian. In the case of Late Antique historians, and more specifically, Procopius of Caesarea, the presence of both supernatural powers has led the scholars to attempt to determine his religious beliefs rather than focus on the role of these forces as interpretative factors.
This paper will look at the role of supernatural agency in the historical work of Procopius and argue that they play a significant part in the causation of events and his interpretation of them. According to Procopius of Caesarea, emperor Justinian I granted a royal title to Arethas Al- Harith , the sheik of Ghassanids: For this reason the Emperor Justinian put in command of as many clans as possible Arathas, the son of Gabalas, who ruled over the Saracens of Arabia, and bestowed upon him the dignity of king , a thing which among the Romans had never before been done.
If we take the text of the Byzantine chronicler literally, it means that other Arab tribes in alliance with Byzantium were made subordinate to Arethas and that he was given the royal dignity, expressed not by the Latin rex, but the Greek equivalent basileus. Arethas royal title has long been the subject of a heated debate, in which many scholars V. Christides, A. Grouchevoy, G. Greatrex, I. Shahd, E. Chrysos, Ch. Robin and others have taken part. Some of them maintain that an Arab tribesman could not be bestowed the title which had been reserved exclusively for the emperor himself.
Vassilios Christides translates the term basileus as supreme phylarch. Irfan Shahd is of a different opinion.
- Магазин Фунтик - wiqutylely.tk;
- L’Atelier de Marie-Claire (French Edition).
- Gene N. Landrum's Profiles of Power and Success: Fourteen Geniuses Who Broke PDF!
- Meet Walter Pitts, the Homeless Genius Who Revolutionized Artificial Intelligence?
- Títulos relacionados?
He points to the fact that Procopius text clearly shows that Arab tribes were divided and ruled by different phylarchs. Justinian made an. Irfan Shahd also discusses the evolution of the word basileus. Haven't I made it clear? Want me to spell it out for you? You looking insane Turning up at my door It's two in the morning, the rain is pouring Haven't we been here before?
You looking insane Here we go again [Pre-Chorus: Anne-Marie] Don't go look at me with that look in your eye You really ain't going away without a fight You can't be reasoned with, I'm done being polite I've told you one, two, three, four, five, six thousand times [Chorus: Anne-Marie] Haven't I made it obvious? Haven't I made it? Haven't I? Have I not made it obvious?
- Profiles of Power and Success: Fourteen Geniuses Who Broke the Rules.
- Raising Sis: A true story.
- Thematic Sessions of Free Communications | Acento (Lingüística) | Mitología?
I made it very clear Want me to spell it out for you? I made it very obvious Haven't I made it clear? Marshmello , Anne-Marie. Everyone thinks that we're perfect Please don't let them look through the curtains D-O-L-L-H-O-U-S-E I see things that nobody else sees D-O-L-L-H-O-U-S-E I see things that nobody else sees Hey girl, look at my mom She's got it going on Ha, you're blinded by her jewelry When you turn your back She pulls out a flask And forgets his infidelity Uh oh she's coming to the attic, plastic Go back to being plastic No one ever listens This wallpaper glistens One day they'll see what goes down in the kitchen Places, places Get in your places Throw on your dress and put on your doll faces Everyone thinks that we're perfect Please don't let them look through the curtains Picture, picture, smile for the picture Pose with your brother, won't you be a good sister?
Melanie Martinez. The xx. Heart Skipped a Beat. Charli XCX. Boom Clap. Steve Earle. This for my broke jiggy niggas, knamsayin'? Excuse me, fuck out my face! They say wealth is in the mind, not the pocket, I learned that from a very wise man. I said, excuse me, why the fuck you lookin'?
What's your problem? I swear we gon' have drama if you touch my tailored garments, All you see is niggas here, so that means it's triggers there, What you mean? We got weed, and codeine and bricks for sale. I bet a lot of niggas plottin' so, you know, I got that heater, bruh, Drive my side of Harlem, catch me ridin' with my Nina, bruh, She got an apple bottom that remind you of Bonita, bruh.
Oh, you mean like Q-Tip? Now that girl my new bitch. What's the word around town? Tell me, what's the latest news? And who them niggas? I tell 'em, we them dudes, Ain't got time to make excuses, bruh, we steady makin' moves. And I run the game even when they bend the rules, I pay very close attention, after that I pay my dues, And excuse me, may I be excused?
23 INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF BYZANTINE STUDIES
Fill 'em up with lyrics, bury all my victims, kill 'em, Dig 'em up again, to say I did it, Snitch, excuse me, mind your business, bruh, Swear that you could get it, girl, She a fashion killa, huh? Killa girl, I'm a go-getter, she get it, girl. Flacko, where you been? I've been thuggin' with my niggas, bruh. Flacko, how you been? I'm still thuggin' with my niggas, bruh. I've been thuggin' with my, Buggin' with my niggas, go sluggin', Tell me who fuckin' with my niggas?
Who run it? My niggas. Fuck the fussin', they buckin' and bussin', Now niggas slump over Robitussin in public, Cup full of purple substance or something, My niggas the only thing that move me, Excuse me. Excuse Me. They been waitin' for this shit for a long time, didn't they? I'ma give it everything I got. Ayo, Dougie, park that X6 around the corner! Aye, I'm just feelin' my vibe right now, I'm feelin' myself.
Panda, panda, Panda, panda, panda, panda, panda!